Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/14/2019
City of Niagara Falls Agenda City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 14, 2019 @ 5:00 PM Council Chambers Page 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL - 3:30 PM 1.1. May 14 Resolution to go In-Camera 10 - 11 2. CALL TO ORDER O Canada - Performed by: Samantha Antonio 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of April 30, 2019 City Council - 30 Apr 2019 - Minutes - Pdf 12 - 30 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. YMCA Update (Presentation added) Cathyann White of the YMCA will provide Council with an update on the improvements to the YMCA space, memberships and new programs/services. YMCA Update - Presentation 31 - 49 6.2. R&C-2019-10 Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund 2019 Recipient Dino Fazio, co-chair of the Culture Committee, accompanied by Laurie Moffat, co-chair of the Culture Committee, will present the Allistair 50 - 53 Page 1 of 525 Young Award to Ashlee Standish. R&C-2019-10-Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund 2019 Recipient R&C-2019-10-Ashlee Standish bio 6.3. Recreation Committee Bonnie Brady, Vice Chair of the Recreation Committee, will give a brief update about the events planned for June, which is Recreation & Parks Month. 6.4. Proclamation Request Staff is recommending the Council proclaim the month of June as Recreation & Parks Month. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. JRPM Proclamation 54 6.5. Trillium Gift of Life Network (Presentation added) Carol Morningstar, of Life Donation Awareness Association of Niagara will give a brief presentation to Council regarding organ and tissue donation registration. Trillium Gift of Life Network- Presentation 55 - 73 6.6. Niagara Regional Official Plan Update (Presentations added) Dave Heyworth, Official Plan Policy Consultant will present to Council a presentation including background information regarding the creation of the new Regional Official Plan, an update on the status of the priority background studies, and an overview of the consultation timeline framework. Sean Norman, Senior Planner, will update Council with a presentation providing an overview of the natural environment background study completed for the new Regional Official Plan. Presentation for Local Councils - Spring 2019_FINAL Niagara Falls Natural Environment Presentation, 13May19 Appointment - Request for OP presentations 74 - 108 Page 2 of 525 Appointment - Regional OP Update 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. Public Meeting (Presentation added) PBD-2019-31 AM-2019-003, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6490 Murray Street Applicant: Tam Nguyen AM-003, 6490 Murray Street, Permit Semi-detached PBD-2019-31, AM-2019-003, 6490 Murray Street 109 - 122 7.2. Public Meeting (Presentation added) PBD-2019-32 AM-2019-002, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 4683 Dorchester Road Applicant: Matthew Tokuc Agent: Al Heywood AM-002, 4683 Dorchester Rd, Permit detached and recognize duplex PBD-2019-32, AM-2019-002, 4683 Dorchester Road 123 - 135 8. REPORTS / PRESENTATIONS 8.1. R&C-2019-11 Framework for Recreation in Canada Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation & Culture, will speak to the report. R&C-2019-11 -Attachment #1 CPRA_1-Pager_Framework_ENG_web R&C-2019-11-Framework for Recreation in Canada 136 - 139 8.2. R&C-2019-08 Civic Recognition Policy R&C-2019-08 Civic Recognition Policy R&C-2019-08 - Attachment#1-1000.2 Civic Recognition Policy draft 140 - 144 Page 3 of 525 R&C-2019-08 - Attachment #2 - Civic Recognition Program Nomination Form 8.3. CAO-2019-07 Affordable Housing Development Partnership CAO-2019-07 Affordable Housing Development Partnership Parking Lot Letter 145 - 151 8.4. CD-2019-06 Commercial Parking Lot – Conditional Approval Protocol CD-2019-06_ Commerical Parking Lot_Report 152 - 155 8.5. IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns (Report and Attachments added) IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns - Appendix 1 - Health Canada Radiofrequency Background IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns - Appendix 2 - Safety Code 6 FAQ Sheet IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns - Appendix 3 - Understanding Safety Code 6 IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns - Appendix 4 - American Cancer Society - Cell Phone Towers IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns - Appendix 5 - American Cancer Society - Cell Phones 156 - 208 9. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. 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 4 of 525 considered separately. F-2019-19 2019 Property Tax Rates F-2019-19 - 2019 Property Tax Rates F-2019-19 Attachment 209 - 212 F-2019-20 Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes F-2019-20 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates 213 - 214 PBD-2019-30 GTY-2019-001, Gateway Community Improvement Plan and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application 6124 Don Murie Street Tire Resort Inc. PBD-2019-30, Gateway CIP and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application, 6124 Don Murie St 215 - 220 PBD-2019-34 Memorandum of Understanding for Planning Function and Services between the Niagara Region and Local Area Municipalities PBD-2019-34, Memorandum of Understanding for Planning Function & Services PBD-2019-34, Appendix 1 221 - 226 TS-2019-15 Crosswalk Policy (Report and attachment added) TS-2019-15 Crosswalk Policy TS-2019-15 Attachment 227 - 234 PBD-2019-33 235 - 240 Page 5 of 525 Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for Minor Variance 8974 Willoughby Drive and Lands to the South Legends Phase 1 and 2 Plans of Vacant Land Condominium Owner: Silvergate Homes Limited Agent: Jennifer Vida, Upper Canada Consulting PBD-2019-33, Two- Year Waiting Period Exemption Request, 8974 Willoughby Drive 10. RESOLUTIONS 10.1. PBD-2019-33 Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for Minor Variance 8974 Willoughby Drive and Lands to the South Legends Phase 1 and 2 Plans of Vacant Land Condominium Owner: Silvergate Homes Limited Agent: Jennifer Vida, Upper Canada Consulting THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that subject to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. Council consents to an exemption to the 2-year waiting period for minor variances and thereby allows Silvergate Homes Limited to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the development of the Legends Phase 1 and Phase 2 Plans of Condominium that is regulated by By-law No. 2018-110. Resolution PBD-2019-33 241 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 11.1. Weekly Paper Flyer Delivery - Correspondence from a resident about the littering around his neighbourhood as a result of the weekly paper flyer delivery. RECOMMENDATION: That the matter be referred to staff for a report. Paper Flyer Delivery Email Paper Flyer Delivery 242 - 249 11.2. Mother's Against Drunk Driving - Possible erection of signs at specific intersections. RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Staff for a report for next meeting. Appointment - MADD 250 - 251 11.3. Flag Raising - Pride Niagara is requesting a flag raising cermony on 252 Page 6 of 525 Monday, June 3, 2019 in recognition of Niagara Pride Week 2019 (Saturday, June 1 - Saturday, June 8) to show support and unity in the continued journey of making the Niagara Region a fantastic place to live for the LGBT and community. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. Pride Flag Raising 11.4. Proclamation Request - Apraxia Awareness Day The proclamation request is to recognize May 14th, 2019 as Apraxia Awareness Day to support childhood apraxia of speech, a challenging speech disorder. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. Proclamation - Apraxia Awareness Day 253 11.5. Proclamation Request - National Public Works Week Staff is recommending the week of May 19-25, 2019 as "National Public Works Week." RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. Proclamation - National Public Work Week May 19-25 2019 254 11.6. Proclamation Request - BoxRun Charitable Foundation On behalf of the BoxRun Charitable Foundation, requesting to have September declared as "Childhood Cancer Awareness Month." Niagara Falls Illumination Board has approved the request to illuminate the Falls in gold on September 1, 2019 at 10:00 P.M for 15 minutes to recognize World Childhood Cancer Month. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. 11.7. Niagara Region - Report PDS 17-2019, Niagara Housing Statement: Affordable Housing Data RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the report for information. CLK-C 2019-097 PDS 17-2019 255 - 260 11.8. Regional Niagara - Various Correspondence -Bill 142 - Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 -2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratio and Rates RECOMMENDATION: For the information of Council. CLK-C 2019-099 CSD 29-2019 261 - 495 Page 7 of 525 CSD 29-2019 CLK-C 2019-098 CSD 16-2019 CSD 16-2019 11.9. Fallsview BIA - requesting approval of the 2018 budget. RECOMMENDATION: For the Approval of Council Fallsview BIA 2019 budget to city 496 12. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA 13. BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by-law listed for Council consideration. 2019-54 - A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2019. 2019 Levy Bylaw 5.14.19 497 - 501 2019-55 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit a townhouse dwelling and a 4 storey apartment dwelling on the Lands (AM -2016- 019). (Schedule added) AM-2016-019 By-law-LPAT Directed AM-2016-019 Schedule 502 - 505 2019-56 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the development of 5 townhouse dwelling units and a semi-detached dwelling on part of the Lands, and to protect the 100 year flood plain and a buffer on the balance of the Lands (AM-2018-024). AM-2018-024 By-law AM-2018-024 Schedule 1 506 - 508 2019-57 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to rezone the Lands for prestige industrial type uses and to protect a watercourse and valley 509 - 513 Page 8 of 525 in the rear of the Lands (AM-2018-027). (Schedule added) AM-2018-027 By-law AM-2018-027 Schedule 2019-58 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Stopping Prohibited, Stop Signs At Intersections) May 14 - Cattell Drive, Dell Avenue 514 - 515 2019-59 - A By-law to amend By-law No. 2016-108, a by-law to regulate the supply of water and to provide for the maintenance and management of the waterworks and for the imposition and collection of water rates. Water Rate By-law Schedule A - 2019 Water Rates 516 - 518 2019-60 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. 2019 May 14 By-law Enforcement Officers 519 - 523 2019-61 - A by-law to authorize an application to The Regional Municipality of Niagara for the issuance of debentures for The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls for the purpose of paying for the renovation of 4343 Morrison Street. Debenture (Morrision Building) by-law 5.14.19 (003) 524 2019-62 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 14th day of May, 2019. 05 14 19 Confirming By-law 525 14. NEW BUSINESS 15. ADJOURNMENT Page 9 of 525 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution May 14, 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(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001. WHEREAS s. 239(7) of the Act mandates that the municipality or local board or a committee of either of them shall record without note or comment all resolutions, decisions, and other proceedings at a meeting of the body whether it is closed to the public or not; and WHEREAS s. 239(8) of the Act requires that the record required by subsection 239(7) shall be made by the Clerk of the Corporation in the case of a meeting of council; and WHEREAS on May 14, 2019 Niagara Falls City Council will be holding a Closed Meeting as permitted under s. 239(2)(b) for matters that pertain to personal matters about an identifiable individual, s. 239(2)(c) of the Act for a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board, and s. 239(2)(f) for advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. WHEREAS due to the nature of the discussion of the in the Closed Meeting, it is not appropriate for City staff to be in attendance when the personal matter is discussed, save the Director of Human Resources ("HR"), the Solicitor and/or the CAO, if required; and WHEREAS s.228(4)of the Act permits the Clerk the discretionary authority to delegate in writing to any person, other than a member of council, any of the clerks powers and duties under the Act; and Page 10 of 525 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on May 14, 2019 at 3:30 p.m., Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting, prior to their regularly scheduled meeting at 5:00 p.m., to consider matters that fall under s. 239(2)(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual; s. 239(2)(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land and 239(2)(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT on May 14, 2019 the City Clerk, William Matson, delegates his authority for the purpose of a portion of the Closed Meeting to the Director of HR, Trent Dark; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Director of HR will record without note or comment all recommendations to Council emanating from the Closed Meeting; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk will resume his duties upon conclusion of the Closed Meeting agenda. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 11 of 525 MINUTES City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Council Chambers 5:00 PM COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Jim Diodati, 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: COUNCIL LATE: 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL - 4:00 PM 1.1. In Camera Resolution ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Chris Dabrowski, Seconded by Councillor Vince Kerrio that Council enter into an In Camera session Carried Unanimously 2. CALL TO ORDER 2.1. O Canada - Performed by: Aidan Tye. 2.2. In honour of National Poetry Month, Councillor Wayne Campbell recited a poem on behalf of Deb Nanson and David Smith read a poem. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of April 9, 2019 ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that the minutes of April 9, 2019 be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously Page 1 of 19 Page 12 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 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. a) Councillor Wayne Campbell indicated a pecuniary interest, cheque number 424999, made out to himself. b) Councillor Mike Strange, indicated a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: #425777 and #425308, made out to himself. c) Mayor Jim Diodati indicated a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: #425398, #425193 and #425861 made out to himself. d) Councillor Vince Kerrio indicated a pecuniary interest, cheque number 42564, $100.00 refund, made out to himself. e) Councillor Victor Pietrangelo indicated a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: 00211-0004 (payable to NCDSB, employer), 00207-0003 (payable to NCDSB, employer), 00211-0005 (payable to NCDSB, employer); 425751 (Election Filing Refund, payable to himself). Councillor Pietrangelo also declared a conflict of interest with the following attachments as he is the owner of a rental property: F-2019- 14 (Attachment 1); F-2019-14 (Attachment 2); F-2019-14 (Attachment 3); F-2019-14 (Attachment 8) f) Councillor Lori Lococo indicated a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: #425058, #425714 made out to herself. Also declared a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: #425288 and #425519 made out to Project Share, for which she is a Board member. g) Councillor Wayne Thomson indicated a pecuniary interest, cheque number 425314 (Election Filing fee, made payable to himself). h) Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni indicated a pecuniary interest to the following cheque numbers: 425045 (Nomination Filing Fee refund) and 425702 (refund for airfare for FCM) both made payable to herself. i) Councillor Chris Dabrowski indicated a pecuniary interest, cheque number: 425666 (Election Filing Fee refund) made payable to himself. 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Mayor Diodati extended condolences on the passing of John A. Page 2 of 19 Page 13 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 MacIntyre, father of Rachel Thorne, Transit Operator at Niagara Falls Transit and Jane Rutherford, mother-in-law of Nick Pietrangelo of our Transportation Department. b) Mayor Diodati recognized and congratulated Councillor Mike Strange on his annual charity event, K.O. For Kids Cancer. Another successful fundraiser this year that was sold-out. c) Mayor Diodati recognized Councillor Mike Strange for attending and for being Master of Ceremonies on Arbour Day. Also extended gratitude to the volunteers for planting trees and to the sponsors for the day. d) Mayor Diodati recognized the following events: Community Clean Sweep -Saturday, May 11th - 9:00 AM at Mick and Angelo’s. -Volunteers and groups welcome - sign up at: www.niagarafalls.ca/cleansweep The Soup Kitchen - Niagara Falls Community Outreach -Volunteer Appreciation Event at the Gale Centre -Wednesday, May 22nd - 9:30 to 11 ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Vince Kerrio, Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo that City Staff promote the Soup Kitchen Volunteer Appreciation Event at the Gale Centre (Memorial Room) on Wednesday, May 22, 2019 from 9:30 A.M.- 11:00 A.M. by adding it onto our City's website. Carried Unanimously e) Mayor Diodati recognized Councillor Dabrowski for attending the Grand Opening of Healing Salt Cave and for presenting a certificate to Mary Warren for being a 50 year employee at Falls Pharmacy. f) Mayor Diodati recognized Councillor Mike Strange for providing greetings at the Ontario Municipal Human Resource Association Annual Spring Conference and for bringing greetings at the Volunteer Firefighter Recognition Banquet. g) Mayor Diodati recognized Councillor Victor Pietrangelo for attending the National Day of Mourning. h) The next Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 14th, 2019. 6. APPOINTMENTS/ PRESENTATIONS Page 3 of 19 Page 14 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 6.1. Team Recognition - Niagara Falls Flyers Novice AA OMHA 2019 Champions Brandon Boone (Coach) and the players were recognized by Mayor Diodati and Council for their championship win. 6.3. Niagara Lymphoma Awareness & Assistance Tiffany Aello and Stephen Passero presented an update to Council on activities for the year and requested a Proclamation for September 13, 14 & 15, 2019 as "Lymphoma Awareness Weekend." ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Campbell, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that Council receive the information presented and declare September 13, 14 & 15, 2019 as "Lymphoma Awareness Weekend." Carried Unanimously 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. Public Meeting PBD-2019-28 AM-2018-023, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 5510-5526 & 5536 Ferry Street, 5916 Allendale Avenue & 5943 Stanley Avenue Proposal: 7 Storey Mixed Use Building (50 dwelling units and 893 square metres of commercial floor space), 12 Storey Hotel (150 rooms), 30 Storey Apartment Building (300 dwelling units) Applicant: La Pue International Inc.(Pawel Fugiel) Agent: Michael Allen The report recommends the following: 1. That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to permit the construction of 3 buildings on the subject lands which includes: o Building A - 7 storey mixed use building (50 dwelling units and 893 square metres of commercial floor space); o Building B - 12 storey hotel (150 rooms); and o Building C - 30 storey apartment building (300 dwelling units). 2. That the passage of the amending zoning by-law be conditional on the Page 4 of 19 Page 15 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 execution of a Section 37 Agreement for the three buildings to secure contributions to streetscape improvements; 3. That a Holding (H) provision be included in the zoning by-law prohibiting the development until a Geotechnical Study is completed to the satisfaction of Ontario Power Generation; and 4. That Council approve the request to pass a by-law to deem Lots 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of Plan 273, to not be in a plan of subdivision and that this by-law, to enable the lots to be merged, be placed on Council’s agenda at the same time as the amending zoning by-law. Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building and Development gave an overview of the background report PBD-2019-28. • John Stranges, of 5550 Ferry Street, spoke in opposition of the development citing concerns of parking and proposed height changes. • Christopher Horton, of 5755 Peer Street, spoke in favour of the proposed development. • Greg Chapman, representing 5500 Ferry Street, spoke in favour of the proposed development. Rocky Vacca, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Pawel Fugiel, provided an overview to outline the proposal supporting the development. Michael Allen, Agent representing the applicant, spoke in favour of the development. Felix Pingue, of 7295 Optimist Lane, spoke in favour of the proposed development requesting Council to support the recommendations presented. The Public Meeting was closed. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that Council approve the recommendations in the report but to remove the holding provision that was to be included in the zoning by-law. Carried Unanimously 8. REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS 8.1. Fire Station #7 Deputation - Emergency Management and Training Inc. Lyle Quan and Darryl Culley of Emergency Management & Training Page 5 of 19 Page 16 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 reviewed a presentation for Council's information. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that Council receive the information from the consultant and refer to staff for a report and include how the staffing will be done and when the station is to be built. Carried Unanimously 8.2. 2019 Development Charges Background Study Jackie Hall, of Hemson Consultants, made a presentation to Council. Frank DeLuca, of 4341 Kilman Place, spoke requesting Council to consider exempting infilling commercial and residential projects from development charges and also suggested that Council re-explore the hotel tax by making increases and using surplus funds to pay for free transit. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Chris Dabrowski, Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo that Council receive the presentation made by Jackie Hall of Hemson Consultants, for information. Carried Unanimously 8.3. Councillor Pietrangelo began chairing the meeting. TS-2019-12 Chair-A-Van Update: St. John Ambulance Operating Fee for Service Agreement and establishment of Appeal Committee Carla Stout, Manager of Transit Operations, Transportation Services spoke to the agreement. The report recommends the following: 1. That Council approve a formalized Fee for Service Agreement for one (1) year with an option to renew for an additional year, with St. John Ambulance for the provision of a specialized transportation service (known as “Chair-A-Van”). 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. Page 6 of 19 Page 17 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 3. That an Appeal Committee be established with the Mayor’s Accessibility Advisory Committee to hear denied applications for Chair-A-Van Service. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Lori Lococo, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Mayor Diodati was absent from the vote) ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Lori Lococo, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that all Councillors ride the transit in the month of May when the new schedule is implemented. Carried Unanimously (Mayor Diodati was absent from the vote) 8.4. 2019 Parking Budget - Presentation Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance and Paul Brown, Manager of Parking, reviewed the Parking Budget Presentation. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Campbell, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that Council approve the 2019 Parking Budget as presented. Carried Unanimously 8.5. F-2019-14 Water/Sewer Policies Amber Ferguson, Manager of Revenue, reviewed the 2019 Water Policy Presentation. that Council approve Option 1 and for staff to come back with a report to explore other options including Small Claims Court, greater deposits and /or a percentage of their bi-monthly water bill and to also approve attachments, 1, & 4-10 from the report. Carried Unanimously (With Councillor Pietrangelo declaring a conflict with Attachments 1,2,3 & 8) Page 7 of 19 Page 18 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 8.6. Councillor Kerrio left the meeting and did not return. 2019 Water/Wastewater Budget Presentation Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance, reviewed the Water/Wastewater Budget Presentation. The report recommends the following: 1. That Council approve the 2019 Water and Wastewater Budget and associated rates, as presented, including the $900,000 addition to capital in the Water budget. 2. That Council approve the addition of one – 6 month Casual/Seasonal Labourer, and one 8 month co-op student in the water budget to assist with non license related operations 3. That Council approve the addition of one – 6 month Casual/Seasonal Labourer in the Wastewater budget to assist with non license related operations ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Campbell, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson that Council approve the recommendations in the presentation. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 8.7. F-2019-15 Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Taxes Under Section 357 and 358 of The Municipal Act, 2001 The report recommends that Council approve the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes on the various accounts per the attached summary and granted to the property owners listed. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio absent was absent from the vote) 8.8. MW-2019-14 Page 8 of 19 Page 19 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 Reconstruction of Montrose road from McLeod Road to Charnwood Avenue Cost Sharing with Niagara Region The report recommends the following: 1. That Council confirm its commitment to the proposed cost sharing for the Niagara Region led Montrose Road Reconstruction project for the City’s share of the new municipal servicing constructed. 2. That the total estimated City share in the amount of $2,274,830 be approved and funded from pre-approval of a portion of the 2020 Capital Budget. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 8.9. PBD-2019-27 26CD-11-2018-010, Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Amendment to Draft Plan Approval 8196 McLeod Road Applicant: Bruno Galante The report recommends the following: 1. That subject to subsection 45(47) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O., Council consider passing the resolution on tonight’s agenda to deem the change noted in Recommendation 2 to be minor; and 2. That Council amend Condition No. 18 of the approved Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, to require fire sprinkler systems in only Units 3 to 7 (inclusive), as outlined in Appendix A. Ivana Galante, spoke on behalf of applicant with the request for relief of having to install water sprinklers. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that Council approves not requiring fire Page 9 of 19 Page 20 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 sprinkler systems in units 1-7. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 8.10. TS-2019-11 Cattell Drive Parking Control Review The report recommends that a ‘No Stopping’ zone between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday be established on the south side of Cattell Drive between Furlong Avenue and a point 55 metres east to Furlong Avenue. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the report be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 9. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. Prior to the motion being taken, a councillor may request that one or more of the reports be moved out of the consent agenda to be considered separately. F-2019-16 Monthly Tax Receivables Report – March The report recommends that Council receive the Monthly Tax Receivables report for information purposes. F-2019-17 Municipal Accounts The report recommends that Council approve the municipal accounts totaling Page 10 of 19 Page 21 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 $49,745,743.21 for the period February 28, 2019 to April 10, 2019. FS-2019-01 Fire Station 4 Lease Agreement The report recommends that Council approves the lease with the Chippawa Volunteer Firefighter Association and authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign the lease agreement. FS-2019-02 Mutual Assistance Agreement for Emergency Management The report recommends that Council approves the Mutual Assistance Agreement and authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement. PBD-2019-22 Telecommunication Facility Consultation Extension Request 3516 Marshall Road Fontur International on Behalf of Signum Wireless The report recommends the following: 1. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada be advised that the City of Niagara Falls has no objection to the extension of concurrence for the construction of a 60 metre (196 ft.) self-supporting telecommunication tower with an equipment shelter at its base and perimeter security fencing on the lands known as 3516 Marshall Road; and 2. The City’s Procedure document for the Consultation Process for Radio Telecommunication Facilities (Section 500.20) be updated to address extension requests for concurrence as well as siting and design updates as outlined in this report. PBD-2019-24 26CD-11-2015-003 Revision to a Registered Condominium Description 3710 Main Street (Chippawa) Applicant: 1515435 Ontario Ltd. (Mike Petrus) Lawyer: Brandon Boone The report recommends the following: Page 11 of 19 Page 22 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 1. That Council approve the revised description of the Plan of Condominium (#135) for 3710 Main Street (Chippawa); and 2. That the Mayor or designate be authorized to sign the revised description. PBD-2019-29 PLC-2019-001,002, Request for Removal of Part Lot Control Blocks 291-293 (inclusive), 295, 296 and 298 in Plan 59M-463 Warren Woods Phase 5A Plan of Subdivision Applicant: GP Empire Communities (Niagara) Ltd. The report recommends that Council approve the request and pass the by-law included in tonight’s agenda to designate Blocks 291-293 (inclusive), 295, 296 and 298, Registered Plan 59M-463, as exempt from Part Lot Control for a period of two years. R&C-2019-09 Junior B Renewal Agreement The report recommends the following: 1. That Council approves the Pietrangelo Amateur Hockey Association renewal agreement for its respective use of the Gale Centre facilities and amenities. 2. That the Mayor and Council be authorized to execute the agreement. CD-2019-05 Fee Waiver Applications A.N. Myer High School & Niagara Falls International Marathon The report recommends that Council approve the Fee Waiver Applications for: 1. A.N. Myer High School for their annual Food Truck event in the amount of $150.00 for the waiver of any Specific Location Daily Sales business licence. 2. Niagara Falls International Marathon in the amount of $11,000.00 for the road closure labour and materials costs. Page 12 of 19 Page 23 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 TS-2019-13 Bus Lease with Mississauga Bus Coach & Truck Repairs Inc . The report recommends the following: 1. That the City of Niagara Falls, acting as an operating agent for Niagara Region Transit, facilitate the lease of five (5) articulating conventional transit buses from Mississauga Bus Coach & Truck Repairs Inc. 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreements. TS-2019-14 Dell Avenue – Intersection Control Reviews The report recommends that a stop sign is installed on the minor street approach at each intersection as outlined in this report. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the reports are approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Vince Kerrio was absent from the vote) 10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 10.1. Proclamation Request - World Hepatitis Day That Council proclaim July 28th, 2019 as Hepatitis Awareness Day ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that Council approve the proclamation request. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Strange were absent from the vote) 10.2. Proclamation Request - Niagara Falls Museums Requesting that May be proclaimed as Museum Month. Page 13 of 19 Page 24 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the request. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Lori Lococo, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that Council approve the proclamation request. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Pietrangelo were absent from the vote) 10.3. Noise By-law Exemption - Request from Big Texas on Ferry Street CDC Entertainment is requesting an exemption to the City's Noise By- law for amplified music, crowd noise and a generator for an outdoor concert at Big Texas, 5769 Ferry Street, on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m until midnight. RECOMMENDATION: For Council's Consideration ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson that the request be approved as recommended. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Pietrangelo were absent from the vote) 10.4. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority - Resolution regarding the extension of the current temporary members of the NPCA RECOMMENDATION: ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that Council receive the communication for information. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Pietrangelo were absent from the vote) 10.5. Regional Niagara - MOU for Planning Function and Services -Report PDS 4-2019, Memorandum of Understanding for Planning Page 14 of 19 Page 25 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 Function and Services between Niagara Region and Local Area Municipalities RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the correspondence for information. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Thomson that Council refer to Staff for a report for next meeting. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Pietrangelo were absent from the vote) 10.6. Regional Niagara - Various Correspondence -Report PDS 5-2019, Statutory Public Meeting for Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment 15 - Exemption Policies -Report Pw 22-2019-, Managed Competition and Fair Wage Consideration for Waste Collection Contract -Report PDS 9-2019, New Official Plan Consultation Timeline Framework -Report PW 20-2019, Base and Enhanced Services for Next Collection Contract -Report PDS 6-2019, Niagara Region 2018 Employment Inventory Results Report RECOMMNENDATION: That Council receive the correspondence for information. RECOMMENDATION: For the Information of Council. Carried Unanimously ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo that Council file the correspondence for information. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio and Councillor Pietrangelo were absent from the vote) 10.7. City of Brantford - Resolution of Single-Use Plastic Straws Resolution adopted by Brantford City Council at its meeting held March Page 15 of 19 Page 26 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 26, 2019. A copy is being distributed to other municipalities in the Province of Ontario. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that Council receive and file the correspondence for information. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 10.8. Letter of No Objection - Cowboy Mounted Shooting The Chief Firearms Inspector with the OPP requires a "Letter of No Objection" from the municipality before allowing Mr. James Davidson to operate his indoor riding arena at his farm located at 5812 Bossert Rd for the purpose to train horses and riders for mounted shooting competitions. Only the use of blank ammunition to be discharged. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Wayne Thomson, Seconded by Councillor Mike Strange that Council direct the Clerk to forward the Letter of No Objection to the requestor for them to forward to the OPP. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 11. RESOLUTIONS 11.1. Conditions of Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that subject to subsection 45(47) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O Council deems the modification to the conditions of Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to be minor and exempt from the requirement for a written notice. Carried Unanimously 13. BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- law listed for Council consideration. 2019- 47 - A by-law to authorize the payment of $49,745,743.21 for General Purposes. 2019- 48 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the development of an apartment building on part of the Lands, and to protect the Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) on the balance of the Lands (AM-2018- Page 16 of 19 Page 27 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 009). 2019- 49 - A by-law to authorize the execution of the 2018-2023 Collective Agreement with the Niagara Falls Professional Fire Fighters Association. 2019- 50 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to regulate the development of the Beaver Valley Corridor plan of subdivision on the Lands (AM-2017-020). 2019- 51 - A by-law to designate Lot 42, Part of Lot 43 and Part of Duncan Avenue (Closed), Plan 67 and Part of Lot 21, Plan 246, to be deemed not to be within a registered plan of subdivision (DB-2019-001). 2019- 52 - A by-law to designate Blocks 291-293 (inclusive), 295, 296 and 298, Registered Plan 59M-463, not be subject to part-lot control (PLC-2019- 001 and 002). 2019- 53 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 30th day of April, 2019. ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) 14. NEW BUSINESS a) Project Share ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo that Council support the "Wear Red Campaign" by wearing red shirts at next Council meeting on May 14, 2019. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) b) Sidewalks - Fernwood Subdivision ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that Council directs Staff to investigate the Page 17 of 19 Page 28 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 condition of the sidewalks within the Fernwood Subdivision. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) c) Highway 405 ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that a resolution be sent to the Minister of Transportation and to the Region to endorse the full functionality of the Hwy 405; and to coordinate a meeting at the upcoming AMO Conference with representatives from the City of St. Catharines, City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Region along with the Minister of Transportation; and to extend an invite to the Minister of Transportation and the Region to view the current Highway 405 design. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) d) CN ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni, Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo that a meeting is arranged at the upcoming FCM or AMO Conference with representatives from the City and from CN Rail. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) e) Cannabis - Reconsideration ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Seconded by Councillor Wayne Campbell that Staff come back to Coun cil with a report regarding allowing Cannabis operations only to be located in industrial areas, enact an interim control by-law and compare the zoning requirements with other municipalities. Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote ) 15. ADJOURNMENT a) Adjournment ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Mike Strange, Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski that the meeting be adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Page 18 of 19 Page 29 of 525 City Council April 30, 2019 Carried Unanimously (Councillor Kerrio was absent from the vote) Mayor City Clerk Page 19 of 19 Page 30 of 525 Reinvesting in the MacBain Community Centre Presentation to Council May 13, 2019 Page 31 of 525 Principles for work Phase One Rebuild Relevance •Program Quality and Innovation •Staff Development and Engagement Phase Two: Retention, Stability and Community Profile •Membership Retention •Membership Growth •New sources of Revenue •Improve local visibility •Engage with other agencies and the community at large Phase Three: Growth Through Families •Play for All Rebuilding our Relevance and Sustainability A Three Phased Approach : Page 32 of 525 Principles for work Phase One: Program Quality and Innovation •Refreshed: • Adult wellness centre and equipment •Aquatics and Child Protection standards & audits •Quality of Swim lesson •Program Space during peak times •New: •Functional and Personal Training, Small Group •Group Exercise: Yoga, Strong By Zumba, Barre, •Skill-based sports program for children and youth •Regional program expertise in health and fitness •Marketing strategy to drive and new member incentives Page 33 of 525 Page 34 of 525 Geras Dance Page 35 of 525 •Started Aquatics In-Service trainings for Lifeguards and Swim Instructors •Improved wages and benefits for all staff with a special focus on front line program staff •Launched audits and skill tests quarterly •All departments are now receiving quarterly training •Revised performance management and developmental programs •Launched mid-management training program •Established functional groups across the region to share best practices and learnings Staff Development & Engagement Page 36 of 525 Phase Two: Member Retention and Financial Stability •Re -focused staff on the member experience through service training, clean culture, conflict resolution, member engagement and service leadership •Changed hold system to avoid lapsed members •Revised Membership Assistance Program to improve access and consistency •Transitioned user groups to a Financial Assistance model •Began low use and new member calls •Revised and launched new versions of New Member Orientation and Kick Start to improve first year retention •Held Member Outreach Sessions with members to gather feedback and improve relationships •Highlighted and improved staff visibility throughout the building •Expanded operating hours and program continuity (12 months of programming) Page 37 of 525 Phase Two : Prepare for Growth •Launched a Membership Growth Initiative that presents marketing incentives 12 months of the year •Improved web-based lead generation, tracking and conversion, enhanced virtual tour, Google Ad words, Online registration options •Goaled and tracked phone calls, conversions and follow ups weekly and compare with national results •Improved community visibility through free programs and events around the City; •Yoga in the Park • Functional Classes on run trails •Parades • Open house days • Special events •Job fairs Page 38 of 525 Recent Free Trials Page 39 of 525 May Promo Page 40 of 525 Supporting Participation for All A revised approach to YMCA Financial Assistance 900 Individuals 22% of our MacBain Members receive Financial Assistance Page 41 of 525 YMCA Community Involvement YMCA has been actively involved in the City of Niagara Falls and serving its residents: •Family Day •Healthy Kids Day •Santa Claus Parade •End of year school field trips •Track access • Animated trails & equipment • School Health Fairs Page 42 of 525 Move For Kids : Raised more money and engaged more people Page 43 of 525 Impact Highlights •Open track access ( 40 people /day) •750 volunteer hours provided by more than 42 volunteers •Served a monthly average of 4285 members on roll this year •Supported 950 children, individuals and families through YMCA Financial Assistance •Engaged more than 2000 children and youth continuously in swim lessons, strengthening their skills •Partnered with 22 Community Organizations •Engaged children & youth participants with 7655 camper days •Delivered – 8 Youth Action dances Sept - June Page 44 of 525 Investments YMCA OF NIAGARA NIAGARA FALLS MEMBERSHIP CENTRE INVESTMENTS 1. Fitness Equipment 238,000 2. Program Enhancements 17,000 3. Free Track Access (day pass value) 86,000 (non-member activity) 4. Staff Training & Retention 60,000 5. Regional Program Support Staff 6. Pool Roof Repair 50,000 88,000 539,000 $ Page 45 of 525 Stabilization of Revenue and Members YMCA OF NIAGARA NIAGARA FALLS MEMBERSHIP CENTRE FINANCIAL & MEMBERSHIP DATA YTD YTD 19-Apr Apr-18 Variance % Growth Direct Membership fees (net) $1,128,384 1,095,218 33,166 3.0% Incidential membership fees $132,543 120,208 12,335 10.3% Total Membership fees (net) $1,260,927 1,215,426 45,501 3.7% Other revenue (grant, fund raising, HST) $205,581 188,467 17,114 9.1% Total Revenue $1,466,508 1,403,893 62,615 4.5% Average Members-On-Roll 4,285 4,273 12 0.3% Average Revenue Per member/month 36.78$ 35.56$ 1.23$ 3.5%Page 46 of 525 Phase Three: A Family Access Solution •Broaden definition of Family •Introduce a indoor drop-in playground for all-season physical literacy including accessible and sensory elements •Partner to provide access to Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters - for special days and pre-determined regular visits •Fee-based Birthday parties options •Day Pass Options , Tourist Options and Open House Days •Complimentary schedule for parents and siblings •Assess single parent pricing options Page 47 of 525 Phase 3 : Grow Membership by appealing to families in new and improved ways Page 48 of 525 Thank you and Questions Page 49 of 525 R&C-2019-10 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2019-10 Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund 2019 Recipient RECOMMENDATION That Council acknowledge Ashlee Standish as the 2019 Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund recipient. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund is awarded annually to one Niagara Falls resident in any creative arts field. The Culture Committee received several, very worthy applications for the award. After careful review and consideration , Ashlee Standish is recommended as the 2019 recipient. Ms. Standish is a pianist, multi-instrumental musician and community arts supporter. With the love of music ingrained in her soul, Ashlee’s path through life would evolve into performing, teaching, coordinating, stage managing local music festivals and assisting and supporting other musicians wherever she can in her community. As a musician, she released her first solo album titled “Alchemy” in May 2018. She received 4 Niagara Music Awards nominations and took home best Instrumental of the year for her song “Deadly Nightshade”. Currently, Ashlee is busy again in the recording studio recording her originals with her newly formed band; Whatzername. Ashlee is excited to be releasing the first single this May 2019. BACKGROUND In 1997, Mr. Allister Young donated a 1932 Ford Roadster to the Arts & Culture Commission (now the Culture Committee). The Commission raffled the car off and the money raised was used to establish the Young Family Endowment Fund. Several changes have been made to the endowment fund since it began in 19 98 including changing the name from the Young Family Endowment Fund to the Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund. Page 50 of 525 2 R&C-2019-10 May 14, 2019 The criterion for applications is as follows: 1. All individual applicants must be residents of the City of Niagara Falls; 2. Applicants may submit only one application to each deadline; 3. Members and relatives of the Culture Committee are not eligible to apply; 4. Recipients must be active artists in any creative arts field in the City of Niagara Falls; 5. Recipients must have accumulated substantial volunteer hours in the arts or in an arts organization in Niagara Falls; 6. Recipients must be graduating high school or older to receive this award. Completed applications must include the following: 1. Applicants must submit a resume along with either a digital portfolio, video, examples of written/performance work, or a website address; 2. Applicants must provide a written artist statement and statement of intention; 3. Applicants must submit a letter substantiating their volunteer hours with an arts organization; 4. Applicants must agree to be available for promotion of the Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund award. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund was established to provide an arts awards program. The applicant that was selected meets all of the requirements to be eligible for the award. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The annual expenditures made to the recipients fo r the Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Award are funded in full from a Special Purpose Reserve established for this purpose. The award includes a cheque for $1000.00 for each recipient to continue to pursue their art. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The City of Niagara Falls is committed to building and promoting a vibrant, sustainable city that supports an active, connected, and creative community. Through the Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund, the Culture Committee is able to support a local artist who has contributed to enriching the lives of Niagara Falls residents, our community, and will allow them to continue their growth. Page 51 of 525 3 R&C-2019-10 May 14, 2019 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Allister Young Arts & Culture Endowment Fund 2019 recipient – Ashlee Standish bio. Recommended by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation and Culture Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 52 of 525 Type to enter textA multi-instrumentalist, songwriter and mother, Ashlee Standish is continuing on her path continuing to write and create her own sound with her voice and keys. Currently touring behind her 2018 release Alchemy, she has created a band of strong women who are touring her originals and an interesting mix of covers from classical to metal. 2018 has been has been productive for Ashlee. Nominated for 4 Niagara Music Awards, including Original Song, Adult contemporary, Songwriter of the year and Instrumental of the year, she took home Instrumental of the year for her song "Deadly Night shade". The song features piano and cello performed by Ashlee Standish with notable Canadian tour veteran Phil Bosely on percussion. Along with playing various festivals including Livestock, Carmel Fine Arts & Music Festival Ashlee and Band are now on the hunt for broader horizons, new crowds and listening audiences across Canada. Ashlee began writing and composing her first solo album "Alchemy", following the separation from her husband in 2016. Ashlee’s first solo work is as example of her passion, ingenuity and emotional depth; transforming her pain of loss and heartache into a musical composition. Turning pain into gold. It’s in the moments of contemplation and self reflection that her music is most poignant. Ashlee currently resides in Niagara with her son, and is booking her next full tour. 2019 will no doubt prove she is an artist to watch out for. ALCHEMY (2018) 1.Favourite Secret 2.Catharsis 3.Deadly Night Shade 4.11:11 ASHLEE STANDISH “From her soul to her keys." — Vegas Funeral Records, 2018 “moody and dark, yet soothing and beautiful.” — David DeRocco, GoBe Weekly, 2018 /AshleeStandishMusic AshleeStandishMusic.com /AshleeStandishMusic Spotify Apple Music Page 53 of 525 MUNICIPAL PROCLAMATION June is Recreation and Parks Month WHEREAS, in the City of Niagara Falls, we are fortunate to have a variety of recreation and parks systems providing countless recreational opportunities for residents and visitors from around the world; and WHEREAS, recreation enhances quality of life, balanced living and lifelong learning; helps people live happier and longer; develops skills and positive self image in children and youth; develops creativity; and builds healthy bodies and positive lifestyles; and WHEREAS, recreational participation builds family unity and social capital; strengthens volunteer and community development; enhances social interaction; creates community pride and vitality; and promotes sensitivity and understanding to cultural diversity; and WHEREAS, parks, open space and trails provide active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities, help maintain clean air and water; and promotes stewardship of the natural environment; and WHEREAS, recreation, therapeutic recreation and leisure education are essential to the rehabilitation of individuals who have become ill or disabled, or disadvantaged, or who have demonstrated anti - social behavior; and WHEREAS, the benefits provided by recreation programs, services and parks, and open space, reduce healthcare and social service costs; serve to boost the economy, economic renewal and sustainability; enhance property values; attract new business; increase tourism; and curb employee absenteeism; and WHEREAS, all levels of government, the voluntary sector and private enterprise throughout the Province participate in the planning, development and operation of recreation and parks program, services and facilities; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that Ontario does hereby proclaim that June, which witnesses the greening of Ontario and serves as a significant gateway to family activities, has been designated as Recreation and Parks Month, which will annually recognize and celebrate the benefits derived year round from quality public and private recreation and parks resources at the local, regional and provincial levels. Therefore, Mayor James M. Diodati and members of Municipal Council, in recognition of the benefits and values of Recreation and Parks, do hereby designate the month of June as Recreation and Parks Month. Page 54 of 525 Niagara Life Donation Awareness Association Organ and Tissue Donation & Transplantation Volunteer Presentation By Carol Morningstar Page 55 of 525 Our proof that Organ Donation works! 2 Our beautiful daughter, Andrea Joy, whose heart was severely damaged by a single virus in May 2008, causing Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. Page 56 of 525 Andrea needed a defibrillator-pacemaker implanted in October 2008 as a “body guard” for her heart. It was this body guard who “zapped her” 3 times at her wedding in May 2009 and ended the ceremony at 7:30 p.m. with a 3-day hospital stay. 3 Page 57 of 525 In October 2009, Andrea’s health once again deteriorated. She was in dire need of a new heart, but none was available. Luckily for us, the wonderful doctors and scientists developed a mechanical heart, called the Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD), that when implanted took over 80% of Andrea’s heart functions. This gave Andrea a second chance at life! 4 Andrea’s actual x-ray The Next Step!! Page 58 of 525 Andrea was a poster girl for the Toronto General Hospital. These were shown on their wall daily. Her story is sent out regularly looking for financial support for the hospital. 5 Page 59 of 525 On December 21, 2010, at 3:30 a.m. Andrea got the much awaited call for a new heart! We wish to thank the donor family for their most generous gift at their time of grief! We will be forever grateful!! 6 Page 60 of 525 Andrea’s two hearts! We love them both! 7 The red very sick one, and the pink healthy one! Page 61 of 525 8 “What Women Want and More” Magazine produced in Niagara Falls (photo by Kim Cartmell) Which includes a story about Andrea’s journey to great health with the LVAD awaiting a transplant! Page 62 of 525 9 Toronto General Hospital’s Health News Also many newspapers, magazines and articles have included Andrea’s story and photos. Page 63 of 525 Canada Transplant Games, Calgary Cycling 20 km Race Walk Ontario Team Page 64 of 525 Andrea has now attended Canadian Games in Calgary, Moncton, Toronto and Vancouver. We also travelled to Spain for the World Transplant Games, where over 2500 recipients participated. It was truly amazing! 11 Page 65 of 525 Organ and tissue donation – “The Key Facts” •Everyone is a potential donor •One individual organ donor can save up to 8 lives and enhance the lives of 75 others through tissue donation •Every three days someone in Ontario dies while waiting for a life-saving transplant. •Approximately 1600 people are on the waiting list for a transplant in Ontario. Presently in May 2019 there are 51 waiting in the Niagara Region. •Organ donor cards are no longer in circulation, even if you have signed a card you need to register your consent with the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Page 66 of 525 What is the difference between the consent form & donor card? Even if you’ve signed a donor card, you still need to register your consent to donate. Page 67 of 525 Common concerns •Doctors won’t work hard enough to save me (Separate teams for donor and for transplant) •No one would want my organs – I’m too old/I’m too sick (oldest tissue donor was 102; oldest organ donor 90! 46-year old life-time smoker –her lungs were cleaned and transplanted) •Asking a devastated family is cruel (can be a comfort) •My religion is against organ donation (only one very small region rejects) •I won’t be able to have an open casket at my funeral (yes you can!) •Transplants don’t work (Wrong!!) •The waiting list gives preference to the rich and famous (economic level not a factor at all) Page 68 of 525 Why is Registration Important? • When registered, 90% of the time families honoured their loved one’s donation decision. • When not registered, only 50% of families consent to organ and tissue donation. •Currently, only 32% of Ontarians have registered their donation decision in the donor registry (up from about 21% in 2011). Page 69 of 525 16 What can City Council do to support Organ and Tissue Registration? Talk about it to anyone and everyone Wear a button or ribbon daily so people ask questions Give out buttons or ribbons to others Ask LDAA for speakers, or table set ups or support Tell LDAA when there are events we can attend We at LDAA and the many awaiting life-saving transplants thank you for your support! Page 70 of 525 17 Global TV’s 16x9 informative program asked to be present at Andrea’s surgery and produced two 15 minute segments on her heart story. They both won many awards and were seen throughout Canada. If you wish to see these segments, google “Global 16x9 Andrea Clegg”. Her blog is “Staying True to My Heart” Have some tissues close by! Page 71 of 525 How do I Register My Donation Decision in Ontario? In-person at Service Ontario centre OR On- OR Complete and return the Gift of Life Consent Form which must be mailed to Service Ontario. (we have here for you!) Page 72 of 525 19 Thank you for watching and listening to this presentation! You never know when illness can strike! The wonderful support from family ,friends , and even many strangers certainly guided us and helped us through Andrea’s journey! A Proud and Thankful Mom, Carol Page 73 of 525 Page 74 of 525 Creating a New Regional Official Plan Update for Local Councils – Spring 2019 2 Page 75 of 525 Creating a new Regional Official Plan The new Official Plan will be a cohesive, concise, user-friendly document that: •Implements new provincial policy and plans, as amended •Reflects current goals and priorities of the community and Regional Council •Provides clear direction for local planning, with flexibility where appropriate 3 Page 76 of 525 Initiating the New Official Plan Q4 2016 Resource Allocation Q2 2017 Planning Advisory Committee Q4 2017 OP Process Framework Q1 2018 Area Planners Q2 2018 Local Council Presentations Q3 2018 Special Meeting of Council Q1 2019 Consultation Timeline 4 Page 77 of 525 Priority Background Studies 5 Page 78 of 525 Process to Create the New Official Plan 6 Page 79 of 525 Growth Management – Land Budget What is it? •Amount of land needed for residential and employment growth to 2041 •Establish process to address urban expansions requests (TBC) Current status •Land budget cannot be finalized until other growth management studies are substantially complete •Will be impacted by amendments to Growth Plan 7 Page 80 of 525 Growth Management – Urban Structure What is it? •Strategic areas to direct growth and intensification •Implemented through local Secondary Plans Current status •Draft Regional Urban Structure to be discussed with Area Planners prior to public consultations 8 Page 81 of 525 Growth Management – Draft Urban Structure Components 9 Page 82 of 525 Growth Management – Employment Lands Strategy What is it? •Identify and protect a sufficient and marketable supply of land for employment uses Current Status •A consulting firm has been retained to undertake the study •Target completion date is end of 2019 10 Page 83 of 525 Growth Management – Housing Strategy What is it? •Plan for an appropriate range and mix of housing forms to provide choice, affordable options and aging in place •Will align with the Region’s Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (to be updated in 2019) Current Status •Housing data has been prepared by a consulting firm and shared with municipal staff •Target completion date for a housing database is Spring 2019 •Data will be analyzed to inform a Housing Strategy for the Official Plan and targets for the Region’s Housing and Homelessness Action Plan 11 Page 84 of 525 Rural and Natural Systems - Agriculture What is it? •Inform the identification and protection of our agricultural land, and support the agricultural industry as the primary driver of Niagara’s economy Current status •Agriculture study to be initiated in Spring 2019 12 Page 85 of 525 Rural and Natural Systems – Natural Environment What is it? •Inform the identification of a natural system or systems in Niagara, and protect important natural features Current status •A consulting team has been retained to complete a Watershed Planning Discussion Paper, Mapping Discussion Paper, and Natural Environment Background Study •Target completion date for the background studies is Spring 2019 13 Page 86 of 525 Rural and Natural Systems – Aggregate Resources What is it? •Help to ensure that aggregate resources are available close to market, while addressing land use compatibility and environmental considerations Current Status •A consulting firm completed a “State of Aggregates in Niagara Region: Background Report”, which was brought to Committee and Council in 2016 •A Technical Addendum was completed in Spring 2018 to supplement the Background Report as a result of changes to provincial legislation and policies •Draft policies are currently under development 14 Page 87 of 525 Rural and Natural Systems – Climate Change What is it? •Will explore opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our communities and better adapt to the effects of climate change in Niagara, such as flooding Current status •Target completion date for climate change discussion paper is Fall 2019 Climate Change Natural Hazards Natural Environment and Agriculture Optional GHG Inventory, Targets and Strategies Waste Complete Communities Infrastructure Transportation Water Energy 15 Page 88 of 525 Consultation Overview •Consultation framework endorsed by Regional Council in March 2019 •Build on “Imagine Niagara” consultations •Consult on background studies, draft policies and draft consolidated official plan •Stakeholder sessions, public information centres (open houses), public meetings, online comments •Educational videos and social media 16 Page 89 of 525 Public Consultation Timeline Background Studies and Options Fall 2020 Draft Consolidated Official Plan Input through Official Plan Website Fall 2019 2021 Draft Policies and Mapping 17 Page 90 of 525 Next Steps and Considerations Next Steps •Complete majority of background work in 2019 •Hold first round of public consultations in Fall 2019 •Third ‘Local Council Checkpoint’ estimated for Spring 2020 Considerations •The provincial land use planning framework is currently under review 18 Page 91 of 525 Preliminary Framework for New Official Plan 19 Page 92 of 525 Page 93 of 525 Natural Environment Work Program New Niagara Official Plan May 14 – Presentation to City of Niagara Falls Council Page 94 of 525 Natural Environment Planning An important component of the new Niagara Official Plan to: •Support the identification of areas for growth and development •Meet Provincial requirements for the protection of features, areas, and system •Support a range of industries that benefit from a healthy natural environment •Support public health, recreation, and overall well-being of residents •Plan for climate change Page 95 of 525 Scope for Natural Environment Work Program *Official Plan policy development for out-of-scope items to be addressed separately In-Scope Out-of-Scope* •Natural Heritage Features •Woodlands, wetlands, habitat, habitat of endangered and threatened species, fish habitat, etc. •Hydrologic Features •Streams, seepage areas, wetlands, etc. •Region’s watercourse identification and mapping project •Water Resource Systems •Groundwater systems •Surface water systems •Natural Hazards •Flooding hazards, erosion hazards, and dynamic beach hazards, etc. •Wildland fires as per Section 3.1.8 of the PPS •Provincial Natural Heritage Systems •Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and Urban River Valley designation •Growth Plan Natural Heritage System •Niagara Escarpment Plan as it relates to the municipal planning process •Watershed Planning & Stormwater Management •Aggregates & Petroleum Resources •Source Water Protection Page 96 of 525 Project Overview – Natural Environment Project Phase Activities 1 Project Initiation and Procurement 2 Background Study and Discussion Papers for Mapping and Watershed Planning Priority Areas 3 1st Point of Engagement: Inform on Background Study 4 Develop and Evaluate Options for Natural System(s) 5 2nd Point of Engagement: Consultation on Options for the Natural System(s) 6 Develop Regional Natural System(s) 7 Develop OP Policies & Finalize Mapping 8 3rd Point of Engagement: Draft OP Policies and Schedules 9 Other Implementation Tools Page 97 of 525 Natural Environment Background Study Key Topics Page 98 of 525 Provincial Direction •Provincial direction starts with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) •Greenbelt and Growth Plan Natural Heritage Systems to be implemented by Municipalities •Province provides a number of guidelines and other tools to assist Municipalities Page 99 of 525 Interaction with Agriculture •Clear direction that natural environment polices are not intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue •Greenbelt and Growth Plan NHS policies both provide a wide range of exemptions for new agricultural and agricultural -related buildings and structures •The requirement for a natural buffer is exempt where lands will continue to be used for agricultural purposes Page 100 of 525 Woodlands •Process for identifying significant woodlands as a ‘key feature’ : 1.Identify and map ‘Woodlands’ in the Region based on defined criteria 2.Develop and apply criteria to determine ‘Significance’. Local context and conditions are a factor in determining significance. •Local and Regional Tree By-Laws are a related tool for the management and protection of trees and woodlands Page 101 of 525 Climate Change & Invasive Species •Two of the most significant threats to the natural environment •Natural environment systems are an important tool to reduce risk and mitigate the impacts of climate change •Many invasive species in Niagara including Emerald Ash Borer. Additional tools beyond the scope of the Official Plan Policies will be required. Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Page 102 of 525 Watershed Planning •Planning at a watershed scale that considers the relationship between the human and natural environments - with a focus on protecting water resources •Watershed planning in the Province has been evolving for decades - •The 2014 PPS and 2017 Provincial Plans place a much greater emphasis on integration - planning and land use activities must be “informed by” watershed planning •The new Niagara Official Plan will need to provide a framework and policies for watershed planning •Additional consultation and engagement during any Watershed Planning process Page 103 of 525 Ongoing Consultation and Engagement 1st major point of engagement focusing on education and sharing information: •Local Councils •Public •Local Planning Staff •Agricultural and Environmental Stakeholder Groups •Development Community •Indigenous Groups •Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) •Agricultural Policy and Action Committee (APAC) •Region’s Planning and Economic Development Committee Page 104 of 525 Next Steps 1.Complete 1st Point of Engagement and finalize Background Study and Discussion Papers 2.Identify and evaluate options 3.Present preliminary preferred option to Regional Council and initiate 2nd Pont of Engagement Page 105 of 525 1 Bill Matson From:Savage, Lindsey <Lindsey.Savage@niagararegion.ca> Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:07 AM To:Bill Matson Cc:Heyworth, David; Giles, Doug; Norman, Sean; Alex Herlovitch Subject:Request to Address City Council Good morning: On behalf of Planning and Development Services at Niagara Region, I would like to request the opportunity for staff to deliver two consecutive presentations to your City Council at the May 14, 2019 Council meeting. Details of the presentations are as follows: 1. Creating a new Regional Official Plan – Spring 2019 Update The presentation would include background information regarding the creation of the new Regional Official Plan, an update on the status of the priority background studies, and an overview of the consultation timeline framework. Presenter(s): David Heyworth, MCIP, RPP, Official Plan Policy Consultant and/or Doug Giles, Director of Community and Long Range Planning Niagara Region Planning and Development Services 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, P.O. Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Phone: 905-980-6000 (David Heyworth ext. 3476, Doug Giles ext. 3384) 2. Natural Environment Background Study for the Regional Official Plan The presentation would provide an overview of the natural environment background study completed for the new Regional Official Plan. Presenter: Sean Norman, PMP, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Niagara Region Planning and Development Services 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, P.O. Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Phone: 905-980-6000 ext. 3179 Both presentations would include a power point slide deck. Please advise how far in advance of the meeting you require a copy of the presentation. Do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Regards, Lindsey Page 106 of 525 2 Lindsey Savage, MES(Pl.), MCIP, RPP Senior Planner – Regional Official Plan Planning and Development Services Niagara Region 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, P.O. Box 1042 Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Phone: 905-980-6000 ext. 3630 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 107 of 525 Official Plan Consultation Framework Timeline March 2019 Q4 PEDC/Council:OP Process Framework 2017 2 Q.'2 Q1 I-I E 2013 5 E I-E 3 Q2 LocalCounci|s:Checkpoint1 8 2018 I: '3' Q3 Statutory Special Council Meeting 2018 Natural &Growth Q4 Rural Systems Management 2018 I I I I I I I Natural Climate .Urban Housing Employment I L d B d t Q1 Environment Change I Agnw tum Aggregates Structure Strategy Strategy an U ge %2019 APAC __ E I Stkhldr Consult PEDC/Council:Consultation Plan.o I N + Q2 :NatE""'B°kg'”d' I Local Councils:Checkpoint 2 u.I Q -----------——-- 3 §2019 PICSX2:Na?invl PEDC/Council:Endorsement of Background Reports Prior to Consultation °'2 Bckgrnd,Endorsed Reports Posted on Website for Input L9 5 I '''‘''‘‘'''''''''''''''''''"I I ''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''-I I}:Q3 I Stakeholder Consultations:Natural +I I Stakeholder Consultations:Growth I 2019 I Rural Systems Background +Options I I Management Background +Options I I ________..___________________L __________________._________l Q4 P|Cs x4 Natural +Rural Systems and Growth Management 2019 Background +Options 3 1 I Stakeholder Consultations:Natural +I I Stakeholder Consultations:Growth Il.E 2320 I Rural Systems Options +I I Management OptIons+I IIIE I Recommendations (As Needed)I I Recommendations (As Needed)I a Z L _..__________________..__.__I I ————————————--——-——-—--—————I <LIJ EE2 Q2 PEDC/Council:Summary of Consultation Feedback +Recommended Direction for OP 0 §2020 Local Councils:Checkpoint 3 If Draft Policy Sets and Schedules Posted on Website for Input 5 B Q3 Opportunity for Local Planning Departments to Present Commen s on Draft Policies and Schedules to Local Committees/Councils 20205 VI.-----------------------------------------------I -----------—----——-—--—----------------—------.:2 L Stakeholder Consultations:Natural +Rural Systems Draft Policies I L Stakeholder Consultations:Growth Management Draft Policies I V)‘‘‘'''''''''‘‘‘''‘‘''‘'‘'‘‘'''''’‘‘'''‘'‘‘‘'‘''‘'‘‘'-‘‘‘‘‘‘‘'''''''‘''‘-‘—-——'—'''---—--—--" <In E g PIC x1:Natural +Rural Systems Draft Policies PIC x1:Growth Management Draft Policies 2 D ‘E Q4 PM x1:NatEnv.+PM xl:Ag.Draft PM x1:Agg.Draft PM x1:Hous.+Emp.PM x1:Struc.+ :2020 C.C.Draft Policies Policies Policies Draft Policies Budg.Draft Policies I:o PEDC/Council:Endorsement of Draft Consolidated OP in Principle Q1 Draft Consolidated OP Posted on Website for Input 2 2021 _. S Opportunity for Local Planning Departments to Present Comments on Draft OP to Local Committees/Councils.3 In S 3 2 Q2 E E 2021 Statutory Public Open House:Draft OP Statutory PM:Draft OP I 2 LLE ‘3 Q3 2021 I Z In 9 3 I;04 PEDC/Counci|:AdoptIon of Final OP E o 2021 «I 2 5 Q1 ';I;2022 -u '2V’LI:3:‘2 n.E Q2 E 2022 Page 108 of 525 Address: 6490 Murray Street Applicant: Tam Nguyen Proposal: To permit a Semi-detached dwelling Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-2019-003 Page 109 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location Residential Subject Lands From R1E zone to R2 zone to permit semi-detached dwelling. Page 110 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Site Plan Front Yard Depth 6.0 m. 0.8 m Interior Side Yard (8550 Oakwood) Page 111 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Applicant has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 6490 Murray Street. •Lands are requested to be rezoned from Residential 1E Density (R1E) which only permits a detached dwelling, to Residential Two (R2) to permit a semi-detached dwelling with a site specific front yard depth regulation. Page 112 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Summary Amendment is recommended for the following reasons: •Land is designated Residential in Official Plan providing for all types of dwelling units to cater to wide range of households. •Plan supports development of vacant land and a more efficient use of underutilized parcels; •Dwelling is within density range established for local roads and in keeping with the character of the area. •Will aid in the City meeting its 40% intensification target for the built-up area; •Requested zoning will ensure that the dwelling is compatible with established neighbourhood; •Existing and planned infrastructure can support the proposed development. Page 113 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land to a site specific Residential Two (R2) zone to permit the construction of a semi- detached dwelling. Page 114 of 525 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-31 AM-2019-003, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 6490 Murray Street Applicant: Tam Nguyen RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land to a site specific Residential Two (R2) zone to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tam Nguyen has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 6490 Murray Street. The applicant requests the land be rezoned to a site specific Residential Two (R2) zone to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: the land is designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The predominant use of land in areas designated Residential is to be for dwelling units of all types catering to a wide range of households; the Plan supports the development of vacant land, and a more efficient use of under- utilized parcels; the dwelling is within the density range established for local roads and is in keeping with the character of the area; the proposal will aid the City in meeting its 40% intensification target for the Built-Up Area; the requested zoning will ensure that the dwelling is compatible with the established neighbourhood; and the existing and planned infrastructure can support the proposed development. BACKGROUND Proposal Tam Nguyen has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 6490 Murray Street. The amendment is to rezone the land to a site specific Residential Two (R2) zone to permit the construction of a semi-detached dwelling. Schedule 2 shows the proposed dwelling. Page 115 of 525 2 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 The land is currently zoned Residential 1E Density (R1E), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200, which only permits a detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting the land to be rezoned Residential Two (R2) to permit a semi-detached dwelling with a site specific front yard depth regulation. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The land is currently vacant. The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised predominately of detached dwellings. Circulation Comments Regional Municipality of Niagara (the Region) The land is located within the Settlement Area under the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and within the Built-Up Area under 2006 Places to Grow, for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan). The PPS directs growth to settlement areas and encourages an efficient use of land resources, infrastructure and public service facilities that are planned or available. The proposal meets the intent of the Provincial policy through the introduction of an additional dwelling type in the neighbourhood. Transportation Services, Municipal Works, Fire Services No objections. Neighbourhood Open House A neighbourhood open house was held on April 10, 2019. No neighbours attended to hear about the proposal or to provide comments ANALYSIS/RATIONALE 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to comply with Provincial policies. The Provincial Growth Plan requires a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually to be in Built-up Areas. The subject land is located within the City’s Built-up Area. Also, an appropriate range and mix of housing types are to be provided to meet the requirements of residents. The proposal complies with Provincial policies. 2. Official Plan The subject land is designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan. Residential land that is located on local or collector roads is permitted to be developed with a variety of housing types, including detached and semi-detached dwellings, street townhouses, block townhouses and other compatible housing forms up to a maximum density of 40 units per hectare. Murray Street is a local road. The density of the project is 33.3 units per hectare. Further, the proposed semi-detached dwelling will be similar to other housing forms in the neighbourhood in terms of setbacks and appearance. Lastly, the Page 116 of 525 3 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 proposed semi-detached dwelling will ensure full utilization of a vacant parcel. As such, the development is considered to be in compliance with the Official Plan. 3. Zoning By-law Amendment The subject land is currently zoned Residential 1E Density (R1E), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The zoning of the land is requested to be changed to a new site specific Residential Two (R2) zone. The proposal complies with all the regulations of the standard R2 zone with exception of the front yard depth. Typically a front yard depth of 6 metres is required. However, the by-law contains a special building setback regulation for residential zones, where a building is to be erected on an interior lot between two buildings that existed prior to 1979. In these situations, the by-law requires that no part of the proposed building be constructed closer to the front lot line than the average setbacks of the two adjoining dwellings. The front yard depth provision of the by-law is intended to ensure dwellings provide a unified streetscape. According to a survey provided by the applicant (Schedule 3), the abutting dwelling to the east has a front yard depth of 7 metres, measured from the main wall of the dwelling and the front yard depth of the abutting dwelling to the west is 8.2 metres. Thus, the front yard depth required for the new dwelling is 7.6 metres. The applicant is proposing a front yard depth of 6 metres. The reduction in the front yard depth can be supported as the setback of the proposed dwelling will be almost in line with the covered porch of the abutting westerly dwelling. As the by-law would allow a porch to extend 2.5 metres into the lesser front yard as of right, this opportunity should be removed site specifically to better maintain the desired streetscape. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed development will generate development charge contributions and property tax revenue for the City. There are no other financial implications. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The proposal does not impact any of the City’s strategic commitments. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 – Location Map Schedule 2 – Site Plan Schedule 3 – Survey 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-2019-31, AM-2019-003, 6490 Murray Street.docx Page 117 of 525 4 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 1 Page 118 of 525 5 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 2 Page 119 of 525 6 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 Page 120 of 525 7 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 3 Page 121 of 525 8 PBD-2019-31 May 14, 2019 Page 122 of 525 Address: 4683 Dorchester Road Applicant: Matthew Tokuc Proposal: To permit a detached dwelling & recognize existing duplex Zoning By-law Amendment Application AM-2019-002 Page 123 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Location Detached Subject Lands From R1C zone to R1E, in part & R2 zone, in part, to permit detached dwelling and recognize existing duplex. Semi-detached Commercial Page 124 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Site Plan Front Yard Depth 3.0 m. Lot area for duplex 578 m2. Lot frontage 16.5 m. Rear Yard parking area 70 m2. Page 125 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Background •Applicant has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 4683 Dorchester Road. •Lands are requested to be rezoned from Residential 1C Density (R1C) which permits detached dwellings on lots with minimum 15 m frontage, to site specific Residential 1E Density (R1E) zone, in part, and Residential Two (R2), in part, to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on a portion of the lands with 12 m frontage and recognize the existing duplex on the balance of the lands with 16.5 m of frontage. Page 126 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Summary Amendment is recommended for the following reasons: •Land is designated Residential in Official Plan providing for all types of dwelling units to cater to wide range of households. •Plan supports a more efficient use of underutilized parcels; •Proposal is within density limits established in the Official Plan; •Will assist the City meeting its 40% intensification target for the Built-up Area; •Requested zoning will provide appropriate regulations for the development and will ensure it is compatible with established neighbourhood; and, •Existing and planned infrastructure can support the proposed development. Page 127 of 525 A GREAT CITY…FOR GENERATIONS TO COME Recommendation •That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the land to a site specific Residential R1E Density (R1E), in part and Residential Two (R2) zone, in part, to permit a detached dwelling on a portion of the lands and recognize the existing duplex located on the balance of the lands, subject to the regulations outlined in Report PBD-2019-32. Page 128 of 525 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-32 AM-2019-002, Zoning By-law Amendment Application 4683 Dorchester Road Applicant: Matthew Tokuc Agent: Al Heywood RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Zoning By-law amendment application to rezone the lands to a site specific Residential R1E Density (R1E) zone, in part, and Residential Two (R2) zone, in part, to permit a detached dwelling on a portion of the lands and recognize the existing duplex located on the balance of the lands, subject to the regulation outlined in this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Matthew Tokuc has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 4683 Dorchester Road. The applicant requests the lands be rezoned to a site specific Residential R1E Density (R1E) zone, in part, and Residential Two (R2) zone, in part, to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on a portion of the lands and recognize the existing duplex on the balance of the lands. The amendment is recommended for the following reasons: the lands are designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The predominant use of land in areas designated Residential shall be for dwelling units of all types cater ing to a wide range of households; the Plan supports an efficient use of under-utilized parcels; the proposal is within the density limits established in the Official Plan; the proposal will assist the City in meeting its 40% intensification target for the Built-Up Area; the requested zoning will provide appropriate regulations for the development and will ensure its compatibility with the established neighbourhood; and the existing and planned infrastructure can support the proposed development. BACKGROUND Proposal Matthew Tokuc has requested a Zoning By-law amendment for a parcel of land known as 4683 Dorchester Road. The land is currently zoned Residential 1C Density (R1C), in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 79-200, which permits detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot Page 129 of 525 2 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 frontage of 15 metres. The applicant is requesting the land to be rezoned to a site specific Residential R1E Density (R1E) zone, in part, and Residential Two (R2) zone, in part, to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on a portion of the land with 12 metres of frontage and recognize the existing duplex on the balance of the land with 16.5 metres of frontage. Schedule 2 shows the site details and proposed parcels. Site Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject land currently contains a detached garage that is proposed to be removed and a duplex dwelling that is proposed to be maintained. The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised predominately of detached dwellings. Two semi-detached dwellings are located in close proximity of the subject land. One semi-detached dwelling is located on the opposite side of Dorchester Road and the other is located north of the subject property. A commercial shopping area is located to the south and east of the subject land. Circulation Comments Regional Municipality of Niagara (the Region) The land is located within the Settlement Area under the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and within the Built-Up Area under 2006 Places to Grow, for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan). The PPS directs growth to settlement areas and encourages an efficient use of land resources, infrastructure and public service facilities that are planned or available. The proposal meets the intent of the Provincial policy through the introduction of an additional dwelling type in the neighbourhood. Transportation Services, Municipal Works, Fire Services No objections. Neighbourhood Open House A neighbourhood open house was held on April 4, 2019. No area residents attended to hear about the proposal or to provide comments. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE 1. Provincial Policies The Planning Act requires City planning decisions to comply with Provincial policies. The Provincial Growth Plan requires a minimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually be in Built-up Areas. The subject land is located within the City’s Built-up Area. Also, an appropriate range and mix of housing types are to be provided to meet the requirements of residents. The proposal complies with the Provincial policies. 2. Official Plan Page 130 of 525 3 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 The subject land is designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan. Residential lands that are located on local or collector roads are permitted to be developed with a variety of housing types, including detached and semi-detached dwellings, street townhouses, block townhouses and other compatible housing forms up to a maximum density of 40 units per hectare. Dorchester Road is an arterial road. The density of the project is 30 units per hectare. The proposal to recognize the existing duplex and construct a new detached dwelling will ensure full utilization of an under-utilized parcel. As such, the development is considered to be in compliance with the Official Plan. 3. Zoning By-law Amendment The subject land is currently zoned Residential 1C Density (R1C), in accordance with the Zoning By-law No. 79-200. The applicant is requesting the land to be rezoned to a site specific Residential 1E Density (R1E) zone, in part, and Residential Two (R2) zone, in part, to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on a portion of the land and to recognize the existing duplex on the balance of the land. The lot proposed for the detached dwelling complies with all the regulations of a R1E zone. One exception to the Zoning By-law is the proposed driveway width in the front yard. The Zoning By-law does not allow a driveway in the front yard to not exceed 9 metres or 60% of the lot frontage. The applicant is proposing a driveway width of 10.8 metres which will be 90% of the 12 metre lot frontage. The increase in the maximum driveway width can be supported, in part, as the applicant is proposing to provide a wider driveway with a “turnaround”. This would enable exiting vehicles to face Dorchester Road which is safer than backing onto Dorchester Road. Since the wider driveway is only intended to accommodate vehicles turning around, of vehicles it should be reduced in width so that it does not provide an additional parking space and eliminate the landscaping entirely. The changes to the standard R2 regulations are summarized in the following table: ZONE REGULATIONS EXISTING REGULATIONS REQUESTED REGULATIONS Minimum lot area for a duplex dwelling 600 square metres 578 square metres Minimum lot frontage for a duplex on an interior lot 18 metres 16.5 metres Minimum front yard depth 6 metres 3 metres Maximum area of a rear yard which can be used as a parking area 40 square metres 70 square metres The requested regulations can be supported for the following reasons: The intent of the lot area provision is to ensure that enough land is available to construct a dwelling comfortably on the property and ensure adequate outdoor amenity space and parking. A reduction of 22 square metres will have no noticeable impact on the enjoyment of the property and neighbouring properties. Page 131 of 525 4 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 Typically semi-detached and duplex dwellings require a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres to accommodate the dwelling and parking. The requested frontage reduction of 2 metres is minimal. Further, the existing dwelling complies with the interior side yard width provision of the by-law. Lastly, the reduced frontage would have no perceivable impact on the streetscape along Dorchester Road. The applicant is requesting to recognize the existing front yard depth of 3 metres. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1910 and has achieved a level of compatibility with surrounding land uses. An increase in the maximum parking area in the rear yard is acceptable to accommodate the required parking on-site. The area should be reduced to the extent required for the” turnaround” only. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed development will generate development charge contributions and property tax revenue for the City. There are no other financial implications. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The proposal does not impact 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-2019-32, AM-2019-002, 4683 Dorchester Road.docx Page 132 of 525 5 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 1 Page 133 of 525 6 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 2 Page 134 of 525 7 PBD-2019-32 May 14, 2019 Page 135 of 525 Participation throughout the lifecourse Physical literacy Play Reduce sedentary behaviours Equitable participation for all, regardless of socioeconomic status, age, culture, race, Aboriginal status, gender, ability, sexual orientation or geographic location Natural spaces and places Comprehensive system of parks Public awareness and education Minimize negative impacts Provide essential spaces and places Use existing structures and spaces for multiple purposes Renew infrastructure Active transportation Partnerships in social environment Recreation education Assessment tools Align community initiatives Collaborative system Career development Advanced education Capacity development Community leadership Volunteers Knowledge development www.cpra.caTHE FRAMEWORK FOR RECREATION IN CANADA CPRA – Canadian Parks and Recreation AssociationPRIORITIES VISION Everyone engaged in meaningful, accessible recreation experiences that foster: Individual Wellbeing | Wellbeing of Natural & Built Environments | Community Wellbeing VALUES Public Good | Inclusion & Equity | Sustainability | Lifelong Participation PRINCIPLES Outcome-Driven | Quality & Relevance | Evidence-Based | Partnerships | Innovation GOALS ACTIVE LIVING INCLUSION & ACCESS CONNECTING PEOPLE & NATURE SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS RECREATION CAPACITY Page 136 of 525 R&C-2019-11 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2019-11 Framework for Recreation in Canada RECOMMENDATION That City Council endorse the Framework for Recreation in Canada and that the Framework guides the future strategic direction for the Recreation & Culture Department. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Framework for Recreation outlines a common view of the role of recreation in Canadian life. The renewed definition of recreation, vision and goals supports the goals of the City of Niagara Falls Recreation & Culture Department. The national vision and goals will assist in providing the future strategic direction for the Department. BACKGROUND Framework for Recreation in Canada provides a new vision for recreation based on clear goals, values and principles. The Framework is endorsed by the Government of Canada, Provincial and Territorial Ministers, the Canada Parks and Recreation Association (CPRA), Provincial and Territorial Parks and Recreation Associations and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Towns and Cities across Canada have endorsed the Framework and are in the pro cess of implementing the Framework. A recent CPRA survey stated 50% of respondents across Canada had either formally endorsed or planned to formally endorse the Framework. Between 2016 and 2018 there was an increase in the percentage of organizations that had undertaken a formal endorsement. The City of Niagara Falls will be the first municipality in the Niagara Region to endorse the Framework for Recreation. Other local municipalities plan to endorse the Framework and/or are in the process of implementing the Framework The Framework was developed to address the curre nt challenges and opportunities within the recreation sector. Based on the Framework a national renewed definition and vision for Recreation has been developed. Page 137 of 525 2 R&C-2019-11 May 14, 2019 The renewed definition “Recreation is the experience that results from freely chosen participation in physical, social, intellectual, creative and spiritual pursuits that enhance individual and community wellbeing”. The framework vision’s is as follows: “Everyone is engaged in meaningful, accessible recreation experiences that foster: Individual Wellbeing, Wellbeing of Natural & Built Environments and Community Wellbeing”. To implement the Framework, five goals and priorities have been developed. The goals are as follows: 1. Active Living: Be active throughout your life, participate in unstructured activity, and reduce sedentary behaviours. 2. Inclusion and Access: Ensure all ages can participate regardless of socioeconomic status, culture, race, status, gender, ability, sexual orientation and geographic location. Identity and reduce participation barriers. 3. Connecting People and Nature: Provide natural spaces and places, comprehensive system of parks; provide public awareness to understand nature and the importance of sustainability. 4. Supportive Environments: Provide essential spaces and places, active transportation, renew infrastructure, partnerships, align community initiatives 5. Recreation Capacity: High quality training, national research and information sharing, programs and services to meet evolving and expanding needs, volunteer development. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE A Community Audit tool is available for municipalities and organization to access their current situation with respect to the Framework’s goals and priorities. The first step is to educate staff and the community. Second step is to work towards aligning with the Framework and to develop an action plan. During this stage staff reviews existing policies, events, programs and other services to determine how to better align with the framework. This process is recommended to be completed every 1-2 years to support continuous improvement and evaluation. The evaluation process can be used to measure success and to re-establish priorities. As the Department becomes more comfortable with the Recreation Framework the Framework will be shared with local recreation sector partners. Programming partners such as the YMCA and Fee for Service providers, Niagara Falls Boys & Girls Club will be requested to endorse the Framework to provide a holistic community experience. Page 138 of 525 3 R&C-2019-11 May 14, 2019 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS No financial implications. Recreation & Culture staff and committee members will be informed of the new Framework of Recreation in Canada. Once training is completed staff will develop an action plan. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The City’s Strategic Priorities include committing to building and promoting a vibrant, sustainable city that supports an active, connected, and creative community. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 Summary Recommended by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation and Culture Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 139 of 525 R&C-2019-08 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R&C-2019-08 Civic Recognition Policy RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the revised Civic Recognition Policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Individuals and teams who have achieved top academic or athletic provincial, national or international achievement are recognized by City Council. The Scholastic and Athletic Award Policy (revised in 1984) reflects the current council recognition practice. A new policy is recommended to implement a more comprehensive Civic Recognition Policy to include the arts and other applicable areas. The new policy will assist staff in coordinating the required information and recognition at City Council meetings. BACKGROUND The Scholastic and Athletic Award Policy was approved by City Council on August 30, 1974, revised November 19, 1984. The original policy stated athletic achievement at the provincial, national and international level shall receive a self-standing plaque with the City crest, recipient’s name and achievement at the respective sport organization’s annual banquet. Recognition of Academic achievement, specifically Ontario Scholars takes place at the respective graduation ceremonies with the Mayor presenting an award. Other achievement awards where there is no organization involved, the presentation would take place at a City Council meeting. The above practice has been revised to recognize athletic and other including cultural achievements at City Council meetings. In 2018, Council recognized five individuals and one team, 2017 three individuals and four teams. Depending upon the number of team members and guests, the presentations may take 15 – 30 minutes. The Recreation & Culture Department, Clerks and the Mayor’s Office are responsible for coordinating the Council presentations. With recent changes to Council procedures, Recreation & Culture staff discussed the current Recognition Policy with the Recreation and Culture Committees. Both Committees recommended keeping the recognition at Council meetings rather than developing a new event and/or adding to an existing Page 140 of 525 2 R&C-2019-08 May 14, 2019 event. Committee members agreed the formal policy should be updated to include Achievement in Arts. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE To ensure City Council meetings are effectively organized and remain on schedule, requested presentations and deputations should be kept within a limited duration. The recommended revisions to the Recognition Policy will assist in a more efficient use of time. The recognition presentations will be scheduled throughout the year. The revised policy states, Council recognition is for the highest achievement/gold level at the provincial and national level. The individual/team must have been educated or trained with an organization/team based in the City of Niagara Falls. A form has also been developed to capture the necessary information required to determine if the individual/team meets the criteria. Forms will be available on line and at Recreation & Culture facilities. The revised policy was discussed at the October 2018 Recreation and Culture Committee meetings. At the April 16, 2019 Recreation Committee meeting the Committee approved the draft Civic Recognition Policy. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Civic Recognition awards and gifts are funded through the Mayor’s Office. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The City’s Strategic Priorities include committing to building and promoting a vibrant, sustainable city that supports an active, connected, and creative community. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Revised Civic Recognition Policy and Nomination Form 2. Draft Civic Recognition Program Nomination Form Recommended by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director of Recreation and Culture Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 141 of 525 DRAFT POLICY Recreation & Culture Policy #: 1000.2 Issue Date: August 30, 1976 Revision Date: November 19, 1984 May 14, 2019 CIVIC RECOGNITION POLICY - DRAFT The City of Niagara Falls Civic Recognition Program provides an opportunity to recognize individuals, teams and groups that have brought honour to the community based on their achievements. Awards are presented for accomplishment in education, arts, culture, sport, recreational pursuits and other special achievements. General Criteria for all Nominations as follows: 1. Reside in the City of Niagara Falls at the time of the achievement. 2. Have been educated or trained with an organization/team based in the City of Niagara Falls. 3. Individuals or groups will be recognized for achieving the highest level of Provincial and National competition or award. 4. Competition must be recognized by the sport’s governing body, tournaments do not qualify. 5. Persons and/or teams achieving accomplishments at a unique level, i.e. International awards may also receive special recognition. To be considered for a Civic Recognition Award a nomination form is to be completed and submitted to the Selection Committee for consideration. Once approved by the Selection Committee the recipient(s) will be invited to an Awards presentation at a designated City Council meeting. Award presentations will be scheduled throughout the year. To recognize Individuals and teams who have received second place/silver level or third place /bronze level accomplishment individuals/teams may request a certificate of achievement from the Mayor’s office. Ontario Scholars, including awards for deserving students who graduate from technical and business programs, shall receive a self-standing plaque with the official City Crest and engraved with the recipient’s name and achievement. The Awards for Ontario Scholars shall be presented by the Mayor or his representative at the respective graduation ceremonies. Submitted By: Kathy Moldenhauer, Director Recommended By: Ken Todd, CAO Approved By Council On: November 19, 1984 Report #: 612 Page 142 of 525 1 Civic Recognition Program Nomination Form *Please print clearly NOMINEE Name _______________________________________________________________________ If applicable, also include the name of the group that the nominee volunteers with. For groups, please attach a list with the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of all members. Organization (if applicable) ________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________ City/Province _____________________________ Postal Code __________________________ Home Phone _______________ Cell Phone _______________ Email ______________________ NOMINATOR Name _______________________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________ City/Province _____________________________ Postal Code __________________________ Home Phone _______________ Cell Phone _______________ Email ______________________ What is your relationship to the nominee? __________________________________________________ AWARD INFORMATION What is the reason for the recognition? □ Educational □ Achievement in Sports □ Achievement in Arts □ Other Achievement Level of Accomplishments: □ Provincial Level □ National Level □ International Level □ Gold / First Place □ Silver / Second Place □ Bronze / Third Place Information provided will help determine the eligibility of the candidate for recognition. Please refer to the Civic Recognition Policy, to review the criteria and process. Civic Recognition Policy states first place/gold level accomplishments will be recognized at a City Council meeting. Second and third place individuals/teams that meet the criteria may request a certificate of accomplishment from the Mayor’s office. To be eligible for recognition individuals/teams must be based in the City of Niagara Falls. Please return the completed form to: City of Niagara Falls Recreation & Culture Department 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3N3 For more information regarding the program, call: 905-356-7521 x 3330 or email rc@niagarafalls.ca. Page 143 of 525 2 DESCRIPTION OF ACHIEVEMENT, ACTIVITIES, OR MILESTONE Please provide relevant details and attach any additional information. Please return the completed form to: City of Niagara Falls, Recreation & Culture Department, 7150 Montrose Road, Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3N3, or email rc@niagarafalls.ca. For more information regarding the program call 905-356-7521 x 3330. Helpful Hints ● Include number of years nominee has been involved in the activity. ● Provide specific dates nominee worked on project(s) or held title(s). ● Correctly spell the names of organizations, achievements, titles. ● Include dates & title of accomplishments. Page 144 of 525 CAO-2019-07 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: CAO-2019-07 Affordable Housing Development Partnership RECOMMENDATION 1. That staff be authorized to partner with the Regional Municipality of Niagara to solicit competitive bids from not-for-profit partners for the construction of an affordable housing development at 4500 Park Street. 2. That staff authorized to complete the record of site condition on the subject property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of Council to allow for the issuance of a joint RFP with the Regional Municipality of Niagara to facilitate the construction of an affordable housing project in the City of Niagara Falls at 4500 Park Street. Council authorized staff to proceed with discussions and preparation of an RFP related to the construction of an affordable housing project at the Park Street location . Since that time staff have been meeting with the Regional Municipality of Niagara, Niagara Housing and CMHC to put together the details of the RFP. The Region of Niagara will be presenting a similar report to the Regional Council in May, 2019. BACKGROUND One of the key priorities that have been identified for this term of Council is the provision of a strong and diverse housing market that includes affordable and accessible housing opportunities for all of our residents. This will include there preparation of a comprehensive housing strategy that will establish an integrated and strategic approach to enhance Niagara Falls’ capacity to ensure all residents have a safe and secure home. As part of this strategy, it’s important that the City work with the private sector, not -for-profit sector and senior levels of government to facilitate the delivery of new affordable housing units on both City owned and third party land. Page 145 of 525 2 CAO-2019-07 May 14, 2019 In order to “jump start” the ability of the City to meet its objective of providing a diverse/affordable housing market, staff is recommending that the City enter into a partnership with the Region of Niagara and Niagara Housing to put forth an RFP to solicit competitive bids from the not-for-profit sector to provide 200-300 affordable housing units in the City. The following are the highlights of the project: Location of the project is 4500 Park Street (currently a City owned parking lot and former market). The lands are located within the Downtown Node and Transit Station Secondary Plan area within the Niagara Falls Official Plan. Schedule A-2(a) identifies the maximum height of development as 10 stories. Policies would allow buildings to be designed marginally taller through a site specific zoning application without amendment to the Official Plan where supporting documents are provided which demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm. The lands are within the Mixed Use 1 designation of the Transit Station Plan which allows a minimum net density of 50 units per hectare. New development would be subject to the urban design policies of the Plan. The lands are currently zoned Central Business (CB) Commercial by Zoning By-law 79-200. The CB zone allows a maximum building height of 12.0 metres. Accordingly, a site specific zone would be needed to implement the Official Plan/Secondary Plan policies and to reflect the nature of the affordable housing project designed for the site. Council would consider a site specific zoning application which would address the various regulations such as setbacks, lot coverage, parking ratios and landscaping. In essence, custom designed zoning provisions would be prepared to reflect the successful project. Such an application would follow the Planning Act requirements, thus the timeframe for any proposal should allow between 16 to 24 weeks for processing. The City of Niagara Falls will donate the property for the project in order to assist in the affordability of the project. Safeguards will be built into the agreement to ensure the units remain as affordable units for an extended period (40 plus years). The City and Region would enter into agreements whereby the property would be designated as a “Municipal Capital Facility” in accordance with Section 110 of the Municipal Act which allows for the exemption from all or part of the taxes and for development charges, provided the property/units remain affordable units. Development Charges, Building Permit Fees, Planning Fees and studies would be waived by both the City and the Region. Page 146 of 525 3 CAO-2019-07 May 14, 2019 Planning staff have estimated that the site could accommodate a 10 storey building with between 200-300 affordable units. Official Plan designation is currently in place, site specific zoning will be required. The apartment units will be geared to market demand. Currently there is a very low vacancy rate for bachelor and one bedroom units. The City has already undertaken Phase 1 and 2 environmental assessments and will proceed to finalize a record of site condition for the site which will allow for the construction of residential units on the site. Monies have been allocated in the 2019 Capital Budget of demolition of the current structures on site (former market). The structure of the agreement between the City and the Region may also deem it eligible for CMHC incentives, including low interest loans and financing which are currently available for affordance housing projects. This project will not be owned or operated by the City or Region, but alternatively will be owned and managed by the not-for-profit/private sector group who is the successful applicant through the RFP process. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Staff are seeking approval to proceed with the issuance of a competitive, negotiated RFP process in partnership with the Region of Niagara. The City will be responsible for the following items which will have financial implications: ● Designation of the project as a municipal capital facility, therefore foregoing local regional taxes on the site provided the property remains an affordable rental building. ● Donation of the property to the project (estimated property value: $300,000 - $400,000) ● Completion of site works, including environmental assessments, demolitions, record or site conditions (estimate: $150,000) ● Waving of permit fees, planning fees (estimate: $100,000) ● Development Charges in a C.I.P. area, such as the Park Street site, are already exempt from development charges. Page 147 of 525 4 CAO-2019-07 May 14, 2019 CITY’S STRAGTEGIC COMMITMENT The City is committed to addressing the need for quality and affordable housing as a necessary component of a city that people want to live and invest in. This project helps deliver affordable housing units to the housing market in Niagara Falls. Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 148 of 525 Tammy Lacas 4521 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E2L4 Niagara Falls City Council Niagara Falls City Hall 4310 Queen St Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 May 13, 2019 For the attention of Councillors Campbell, Dabrowski, Ioannoni, Kerrio, Lococo, Pietrangelo, Strange, Thomson and Mayor Diodati Dear Niagara Falls City Council Members, CAO-2019-07-AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP Proposed facilitation of construction for an affordable 200-300 unit housing development project in the City of Niagara Falls at 4500 Park St. As a lifelong resident of Niagara Falls and Business Owner on Queen Street, I am writing to express my concern for the proposed development of an affordable housing complex on the only existing pay-per-use Green P parking lot in the downtown core. I wish to strongly OBJECT this development as it will destroy my business and potentially gravely affect surrounding Queen Street businesses. Queen Street Business Owners often struggle and this will create an additional obstacle to their success. While I agree there is a substantial need for affordable housing in our city, there are other more viable sites that would be more suitable to the needs of those requiring housing. Downtown does not have a full grocery store to accommodate current residents and residents residing in affordable housing likely do not have access to a car or personal transportation. Therefore, they rely on Public Transit. The nearest full service grocery store to the proposed location would be Sobey’s or even further, No Frills. It is charitable that the City is willing to donate property for this proposed development, however, it seems that the current location was hastily decided upon. If the development MUST be downtown, why didn’t the City consider the former lot that housed Niagara Transit on Bridge St? There are vacant lots on the former YMCA, next to Lococo’s, next to Tim Horton’s on Victoria Ave…the list could go on and on. Is it financially sound to allot money to demolish an existing structure in order to build something else when there are vacant lots all over the city? Can we not look into refurbishing existing buildings and stop building shopping centers? Can we convert inhabited buildings and plazas into affordable housing instead of building more??? Page 149 of 525 Why would the City consider plopping a 10 storey building on an existing parking lot that is used by the Community? Both the Santa Claus and Canada Day Parade happen downtown and the parking lots are always filled on those days. For every festival occurring in the summer, again the Park St. parking lot is ALWAYS full. The other parking lots are deemed Permit lots, so to add insult to existing Business Owners on Queen Street, you plan to demolish the only lot that residents can park in to shop on Queen Street? How well was this plan thought out? How lovely is the view for the families living in this proposed complex? The land is currently zoned as Central Business. Again, I appreciate the fact that City Council is finally addressing the inherent NEED for affordable housing, however, the location of this proposed development seems like a quick solution to a BIG problem. As a Business Owner on Queen Street for the past 10 years, I was not consulted regarding how this development may affect my business. The article posted in the Review on May 13th was sent to me by several people who were also concerned about the impact on my Dance Studio and surrounding businesses. They were shocked about the chosen site for this development. Everyone asked…what do we do about the parking lot? Where are our Dance Families going to park? Why the heck would they put it THERE? Given the opportunity to voice my opinion, I would say that it WILL destroy a business that is dear to my heart and took many years of financial commitment, love and hard work to grow. I am a Single Mother who had a dream. A dream I had since I was a child, to open my own studio. I have achieved that dream and I am showing my own Daughter and students that “if you believe and work hard, you WILL achieve!” I’m living my dream of opening and operating my very own Dance Studio in my very own hometown where Arts and Culture takes a back seat and this development will shatter everything I have worked so hard for. I am finally enjoying the success of a well-established business and MY OWN CITY is trying to take that away from me. My Dance Studio is not just a Dance Studio. It is a small community of families who travel to Queen Street every week to attend classes. My studio brings supportive families to Queen Street who often patron neighbouring businesses while their children are in class. We are a Community-Oriented studio; dedicated to giving back to our City. This is a value I try to instill in each and every Dancer who enters the studio. Every year we hold a Food Drive for Project Share in conjunction with our Recital Ticket sales, the kids perform in the street during festivals held on Queen St, we promote and support Queen Street as a “place to be”. We have been part of the ongoing, often fledgling “revitalization” of Queen Street and have managed to stand the test of time. I have seen many businesses come and go in my time on Queen St. It’s our 10th Anniversary this year and what a kick in the face to have this crop up without even being consulted. Should you, as a Council, decide to proceed with this development, I PROMISE YOU that we will protest and do everything we can to ensure Council considers another feasible site. My daughter actually suggested that we pitch a tent in the parking lot if groundbreaking occurs. Page 150 of 525 I have no doubt in my mind that SEVERAL of my Dance Families will be onboard to save that Parking Lot. If not, I ask that each and every member of Niagara Falls City Council is present to tell EACH AND EVERY ONE OF MY DANCERS PERSONALLY, while looking into their eyes, that they have approved this development and the Studio must close because of it. Regards, Tammy Lacas, PROUD OWNER of Happy Feet Dance-4521 Queen Street Page 151 of 525 CD-2019-06 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: City Clerk SUBJECT: CD-2019-06 Commercial Parking Lot – Conditional Approval Protocol RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve Staff issuing conditional commercial parking lot licences for lots which have been paved prior to an application for a licence , and where the applicants are activity working towards meeting the intentions of the bylaw requirements. 2. That staff monitor the situation and report back to Council prior to the next licensing period, on any additional by-law amendments or changes to parking lot standards. 3. That the licensing fee for a Commercial Parking Lot be increased from $100 to $250 in 2020. BACKGROUND Niagara Falls City Council previously approved report L-2017-27, Commercial Parking Lots – Improvement Project, in November of 2017. The recommendation in that report was that Council pass an amending by-law to Schedule 11 dealing with Commercial Parking Lots, of the City’s Licensing By-law No. 2011-31, to require commercial parking lots to be paved, to clarify the required setbacks and to be drained by drainage works satisfactory to the Director of Municipal Works. In July of 2018 City Council passed a motion stating that any commercial parking lot licence application for 2018, new or existing, be required to sub mit proper drawings and comply with the City’s existing requirements to obtain a licence before operating, but that all lots comply fully with the City’s by-law regulating Commercial Parking Lots by May 1, 2019. Page 152 of 525 2 CD-2019-06 May 14, 2019 In April of 2019 the Victoria Centre BIA presented Council with their concerns regarding the condition of the existing commercial parking lots . The purpose of this presentation was to garner Council support for the enforcement and compliance of existing standards with the goal of improved aesthetics which complemented previous streetscaping projects. Council unanimously supported this request and directed Staff to enforce the applicable Commercial Parking Lot licensing by-laws for 2019. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The existing commercial parking lot licencing bylaw came into effect in 2001, with the goal of obtaining a consistent standard for which all parking lots would adhere to. Since that time, a number of commercial parking lots have come in- and out- of operation within the tourist core. Through redevelopment or other changes in land use, commercial parking lots are in various stages completion and meeting the intentions of the bylaw requirements. For example, the surface condition amongst the lots varies from asphalt, crushed stone, to grassed surface. Because of this, the application of the bylaw must allow for discretion in the enforcement of the required standards on a case-by-case basis, rather than universally applied. With the goal to achieving improved aesthetics while not negatively affecting the business operations of the commercial parking lots, Staff may be required to provide conditional approvals if the applicants are working towards meeting the intentions of the bylaw and that their lots had been paved prior making application for 2019 licence. Typical conditions for which Staff are requesting Council approve conditional licences are: Deficiency Staff Recommendation Parking lot does not have the required drainage, and the asphalt surface is installed. Drainage will be required upon future rehabilitation of the commercial parking lot or when a municipal capital project is undertaken in the vicinity of the subject commercial parking lot. A Servicing & Grading Plan Plan will be required to support and approve the construction of the drainage features. Stormwater Management Report Report will be required to support and approve the construction of the drainage features. Page 153 of 525 3 CD-2019-06 May 14, 2019 Deficiency Staff Recommendation Parking lot does not have the required buffers. Buffers will be required upon future rehabilitation of the commercial parking lot or from a 1-year period from the issuance of the conditional licence. This is subject to there being no identified safety or operational concerns (i.e. visibility impediment or encumbrance on a public thoroughfare) Parking lot buffer is provided by way of City boulevard. Buffers will not be required, if there are no identified safety concerns (i.e. visibility impediment or encumbrance on a public thoroughfare). Parking stalls do not meet the required dimensions; however, they do not deviate significantly from the applicable standards. Repainting of the parking stall will be required within one year from the issuance of the conditional licence. Access widths do not meet the required dimensions; however, they do not deviate significantly from the applicable standards Access widths will need to be improved when future rehabilitation of the commercial parking lot occurs, or within one year from the issuance of the conditional licence. Furthermore, it is recommended that prior to next years issuing of any commercial parking lot licences that staff review the by-law and make recommendations to match Council’s intentions. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The licensing fee for commercial parking lots has remained unchanged since 2001. The staff time that is needed to inspect and enforce these lots is substantial. Staff are recommending that the fee increase next season from $100.00 to $250.00 to try and recoup a portion of the staff time needed for inspections of the lots. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Encourage multi-modal travel and active transportation initiatives, and enhance motorist, cyclist and pedestrian safety. Page 154 of 525 4 CD-2019-06 May 14, 2019 Recommended by: Bill Matson, City Clerk Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 155 of 525 IS-2019-01 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Information Systems SUBJECT: IS-2019-01 5G Health Concerns RECOMMENDATION For the information of Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The fifth generation of cellular technology, referred to as “5G”, is currently being tested in Canada and refers to the next generation of mobile networks beyond 4G LTE. 5G promises faster speeds and lower latency required for devices that are being developed, such as autonomous vehicles, Smart City products and Internet of Things (IoT) devices like sensors and monitoring equipment. Health Canada limits the amount of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) under Safety Code 6. This code requires a 50-fold safety margin between acceptable limits and the threshold for adverse health effects. Health Canada indicates that their limits are consistent with science-based standards used in other parts of the world. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) requires that wireless device manufacturers and antenna systems comply with Safety Code 6. This ensures that all wireless devices are within the safe guidelines established by Health Canada. The existing safety limits already cover the frequency ranges that will be used by 5G devices and systems. Many of the frequencies that are used in 5G networks are already being used for things like communication satellites and automotive assistance systems (braking, lane change sensors, etc.) Page 156 of 525 2 IS-2019-01 May 14, 2019 BACKGROUND A new generation of cellular technology is being developed and will be an integral part of future technologies such as high-speed data access, autonomous vehicles, mobile services and future innovations that require high-speed and low-latency connections. This new generation of cellular technology is going to require “small cell” access points because the signal doesn’t travel as far as previous technologies. “Small cells” operate like Wi-Fi access points and must comply with Safety Code 6 requirements. This will involve cellular carriers mounting additional access points to provide coverage in more areas to ensure adequate signal. With existing systems, cellular providers can acquire real estate or space on buildings to mount their towers and access points. Cellular providers will now be looking to mount these smaller access points on additional structures and even inside buildings. Equipment manufacturers and providers must comply with the established safety guidelines and continue to monitor for changes to the code. This requirement hasn’t changed from previous generations of cellular technology. The 5G networks use a different frequency to achieve these faster speeds and lower latency connections. On the lower end, the frequency (3.5 Ghz) will be similar to many home Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 and 5 Ghz). On the higher end, also called millimeter wave (mmWave), it will be similar to Satellite frequencies used in communications and internet satellites (Ka-band). From Health Canada: Health Canada continuously monitors the research on this issue and revises its recommendations as needed to continue to provide protection for all Canadians. Health Canada also ensures that RF exposure limits are consistent with science-based limits used in other parts of the world (e.g. the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand). In the United States, 5G rollouts have already started in cities like Nashville, Las Vegas, Orlando, San Francisco, San Diego and more. Many other countries are also in the process of rolling out installations and turning customers on to the new 5G service. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 – Health Canada Radiofrequency Background Appendix 2 – Safety Code 6 FAQ Sheet Appendix 3 – Understanding Safety Code 6 Appendix 4 – American Cancer Society – Cell Phone Towers Appendix 5 – American Cancer Society – Cell Phones Page 157 of 525 3 IS-2019-01 May 14, 2019 Recommended by: Steve Norris, Director of Information Systems Approved by: Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 158 of 525 Home Business and industry Permits, licences and regulations Federally regulated industry sectors Broadcasting and telecommunications regulation Spectrum management and telecommunications Radiocommunications Radiofrequency Energy and Safety What you need to know about radiofrequency energy and safety What is radiofrequency (RF) energy? Why is RF energy important? Can RF energy affect your health? How does the Government of Canada protect you? Page 159 of 525 What is radiofrequency (RF) energy? RF energy, also referred to as “RF emission,” “RF wave” or “RF field,” is one form of electromagnetic energy that is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are both natural and human-made sources of electromagnetic energy. What amount of RF exposure is considered safe? Are the Canadian limits the same for all wireless devices and antenna installations? Examples of natural sources of electromagnetic energy: Earth’s natural field (which makes a compass point to North) Visible light Page 160 of 525 Lightning Examples of human-made sources of electromagnetic energy: Electric appliances such as microwaves Wireless devices (cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) Commercial broadcasting (AM/FM radio and television) Description of figure Two types of energy are shown on the electromagnetic spectrum: non-ionizing and ionizing. What is non-ionizing energy? Non-ionizing and ionizing energy Page 161 of 525 Electromagnetic spectrum Electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies produced by all sources of electromagnetic energy. The diagram illustrates where common equipment operates in a specific frequency range starting from a powerline, moving through radiofrequency spectrum to phones and ending with X- rays and gamma rays. Why is RF energy important? Almost every area of your day-to-day life uses RF energy. It delivers your morning news through wireless services such as broadcasting (AM and FM radio, TV); lets you place your coffee order through your cell phone; protects you by providing communication for emergency services (police, fire, ambulance); and keeps you connected through the operation of wireless consumer devices such as Wi-Fi, baby monitors and cordless phones. Non-ionizing energy is electromagnetic energy that does not break down the bonds between atoms and molecules, which means it does not break down chemical bonds within cells and tissues. Examples of non-ionizing energy include visible light and RF energy used in wireless communication. What is ionizing energy? Ionizing energy is electromagnetic energy that may have enough energy to break down the bonds between atoms and molecules. Examples of ionizing energy include X-rays and gamma rays, which are both used in some medical treatments under medical supervision. Page 162 of 525 Can RF energy affect your health? Although we most often think of RF energy as coming from modern-day technologies, exposure to electromagnetic fields in everyday life is not new. Human-made sources of electromagnetic fields have increased in the past century with the development of technology and radio communications, but natural electromagnetic energy has always been around. Scientists have been studying the health effects of RF energy for decades. Many international studies on this issue have concluded that effects associated with exposure to RF energy depend on the frequency range. For example, higher frequency ranges may result in tissue heating, while short-term exposure from lower frequency ranges may produce nerve stimulation like a tingling sensation. The Government of Canada has established RF exposure limits to prevent these effects from occurring. How does the Government of Canada protect you? The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians from environmental risks, including those posed by overexposure to RF energy. Canada’s approach to RF exposure safety is among the most stringent in the world. The Government of Canada continuously monitors the research and scientific literature on the health effects of RF exposure to ensure that Canadian limits are consistent with the current scientific consensus to prevent potential adverse health effects. Health Canada’s role Health Canada's guidelines on safe human exposure to RF energy, also referred to as Safety Code 6, present recommended exposure limits. These limits are set well below the levels of all known potential adverse health effects and provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous basis (24 hours a day, seven days a week). This means that if Page 163 of 525 anyone, including a small child, was exposed to RF energy from multiple sources within the Safety Code 6 limits for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, there would be no adverse health effects. Health Canada continuously monitors the research on this issue and revises its recommendations as needed to continue to provide protection for all Canadians. Health Canada also ensures that RF exposure limits are consistent with science-based limits used in other parts of the world (e.g. the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand). Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s role What amount of RF exposure is considered safe? Exposure to RF energy below the Canadian limits is safe. The limits are set far below the threshold (at least 50-fold safety margin) for all known established adverse health effects. Health Canada has incorporated several tiers of precaution into the limits to ensure safety, including a conservative threshold for the occurrence of adverse health effects, the use of worst-case exposure scenarios and an additional safety margin beyond the threshold. Are the Canadian limits the same for all wireless devices and antenna installations? The limits for wireless devices (e.g. cell phones, Wi-Fi enabled devices and other consumer portable devices) and antenna installations on towers are different. The limits established for wireless devices are known as localized limits. Since these devices are used within a few millimetres from the body or on the body, only a localized portion of the body (head, torso, limbs) is exposed to the RF energy. Description of figure Page 164 of 525 The limits established for antenna installations are known as whole body limits. Antenna installations on towers are generally found at a distance from a person’s body, which results in the entire body being exposed to RF energy. Therefore, the applicable limits are different. Wireless devices There are two main categories of wireless devices: Wireless devices used close to the body (cell phones, tablets and wearables) Page 165 of 525 Wireless devices used close to the body Wireless devices used away from the body (Wi-Fi routers, home monitoring systems and smart meters) Nerve stimulation is a tingling sensation resulting from exposure to RF energy levels well above the Canadian limits. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is the rate of RF energy absorbed in the body (in a volume of tissue) when a wireless device is in close proximity. SAR is expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). ISED requires that all wireless devices sold in Canada comply with established SAR limits. Power density is the amount of electromagnetic energy in a given area, typically expressed in units of watts per square metre (W/m ). What is nerve stimulation? What is Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)? What is power density? 2 Page 166 of 525 Wireless devices used close to the body are referred to as portables or wearables. These devices are tested against different limits depending on their operating frequency, which may include more than one type of evaluation. Below 10 MHz: devices are tested against electric and magnetic field strength limits to avoid nerve stimulation. Examples of devices that fall under this category are wireless charging devices, metal detectors, electronic cards, tag readers and anti-shoplifting detector panels installed at doors of stores. Between 100 kHz and 6 GHz: devices are tested against Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits to avoid tissue heating. Most portables and wearables currently available in Canada, such as cell phones, tablets and smart watches, fall under this category. Above 6 GHz: devices are tested against power density limits to avoid tissue heating. Very few portable and wearable devices fall under this category, but these types of devices will increase as 5G technology is deployed in Canada. For more information about the Canadian limits, refer to RSS-102, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Compliance of Radiocommunication Apparatus (All Frequency Bands) or Safety Code 6. Want to learn more about SAR? What are the SAR limits? Canada’s SAR limits are measured against absorption levels to the head, torso and limbs. For more information about the SAR limits, refer to RSS-102, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Compliance of Radiocommunication Apparatus (All Frequency Bands) or Safety Code 6. This figure shows Canada’s SAR limits for different parts of the human body. The head and torso have a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg in 1g of tissue and the limbs have a SAR limit of 4 W/kg in 10 g of tissue. Expand/collapse Page 167 of 525 Are SAR limits the same around the world? Canada and the United States have the same SAR limits. However, other countries, such as Australia and those in the European Union, have adopted limits recommended by the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection's (ICNIRP) guidelines, which are less strict. How are SAR measurements determined? A specialized laboratory measurement system is required to perform SAR measurements. The measurement system includes a precision robot, device positioner, probe, sensor, specialized computer software and phantoms. Phantoms are specially designed containers, which are filled with a liquid that simulates the properties of the human body. Different phantoms are used to test the impact on each type of body part: head, torso and limbs for which SAR limits are defined. Two main configurations, head and torso, are generally tested during SAR measurements. The measurement procedures are described in ISED’s technical standards, which are based on recognized international testing procedures that have been adopted by most countries around the world. The simplified measurement steps are as follows: The wireless device is positioned directly against a simulated human head or at a separation distance (compliance distance) of a simulated human body (torso). The wireless device is switched on to transmit continuously at full power. The precision robot moves a probe inside the simulated head or torso to find the spot with the highest RF energy produced by the wireless device. The data is collected and converted into a SAR (W/kg) value. The test is repeated for different orientations, configurations, operating frequencies and technologies featured by the wireless device. The maximum level measured is recorded as the SAR value for the head, torso or limb. Page 168 of 525 The required SAR tests for modern wireless devices such as smartphones can take between several weeks and several months. Are wireless devices with lower SAR values considered safer? No. As long as the device’s SAR value is below the Canadian limits, a lower SAR value does not indicate an increase in safety for the user. Different portable/wearable devices will have different SAR values based on their design; however, all must meet Canada’s SAR limits, which are well below any level that could cause adverse health effects. Does the SAR level of a cell phone change when in use? Yes. When cell phones or similar wireless devices are tested, they are switched on to transmit at full power for the duration of the test. In reality, cell phones operate at much lower power levels, to preserve battery life, maximize call time and optimize network performance. In normal day-to-day use, a cell phone produces much lower SAR levels than those measured during laboratory testing. Description of figure A trained professional is shown using a specialized laboratory SAR measurement system. It includes a robot, a probe, phantoms and a computer. Page 169 of 525 How should I be using my cell phone or other wireless devices? What does compliance distance mean? ISED requires cell phone manufacturers and other wireless devices to provide information to users on the minimum compliance distance to maintain between the cell phone or wireless product and the body (torso). This distance is usually between 0 mm and 15 mm. This compliance distance often represents the distance created by a phone holder or clothing. This compliance distance allows for better signal reception because the cell phone is used away from the body and meets the SAR requirements. If the specified compliance distance is not respected by the user, it is possible that the cell phone is being used in a non-compliant way. However, this does not compromise safety as the Canadian limits have safety margins of at least 50-fold. Furthermore, during SAR testing, cell phones are switched on to transmit at full power, which represents a worst-case scenario in terms of exposure to RF energy. Cell phones can always be used directly against the ear without any compliance distance. This is because the cell phone is designed to keep the antenna far enough away from the head to meet SAR limits and to operate most efficiently. How can I maintain the recommended minimum compliance distance? You can choose an accessory such as a case, belt clip, or holster approved by the manufacturer of the wireless device. Am I at risk if I place my cell phone directly in my pocket and forget about the recommended compliance distance? Clothing, cell phone covers, belt clips or holsters provide a separation for wireless devices. However, it is important to check the user manual for the minimum compliance distance. ISED’s technical standards for wireless device safety testing are among the most stringent in the world. For example, cell phones are tested at full power for the duration of the test, whereas during normal day-to-day use cell phones operate at much lower power levels. As well, the Canadian limits incorporate a safety margin of at least 50-fold from the threshold for possible adverse health effects. Therefore, cell phones are still considered safe when carried in your pocket. Where can I find SAR values and compliance distance for my wireless devices? Information regarding SAR values and compliance distance for your wireless device can be found in the following locations: the user manual device settings on the manufacturer’s website (or by directly contacting the manufacturer) on ISED’s website using the Radio Equipment List search tool Radio Equipment List search for SAR value or compliance distance You can find the SAR value or the compliance distance of your cell phone or other portable/wearable wireless product by entering the IC Certification Number in the Government of Canada Radio Equipment List search tool. The IC certification number is an alphanumeric code assigned to wireless products certified for use in Canada and is typically: Page 170 of 525 printed on a label or embossed somewhere on the case or behind the battery compartment of the device printed on the packaging box of the product identified in the wireless device’s settings option When you select the model number of your product in the Radio Equipment List search tool, the applicable SAR value or compliance distance for your certified wireless product will be displayed in the appropriate section under RF Exposure Results. Wireless devices used away from the body Devices such as Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, smart meters, etc. are not evaluated for SAR, since they are intended to be used away from the body (more than 20 cm). The RF energy levels generated by these devices are determined and compared to the Canadian limits. ISED conducted an extensive study to measure RF exposure levels from multiple Wi-Fi routers and Wi-Fi-enabled laptops in a simulated classroom setting. The study confirmed that in environments such as schools, workplaces, and public and private spaces, the RF exposure levels from these wireless devices was significantly below the Canadian limits. Want to learn more about Canada’s limits? Canada’s limits for devices meant to be used far from the body are specified in to RSS-102, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Compliance of Radiocommunication Apparatus (All Frequency Bands) or Safety Code 6. Are the limits the same around the world? Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based limits used in other parts of the world (e.g. the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and provide protection against all known adverse health effects resulting from RF exposure. What do I need to know when using a device that is used far from the body? What is compliance distance? ISED requires manufacturers of wireless devices to provide information to users on the minimum compliance distance to maintain between the wireless product and individuals. Information regarding the compliance distance can be found: in the user manual device settings on the manufacturer’s website (or by directly contacting the manufacturer) on ISED’s website using the Radio Equipment List search tool What if I forget about the minimum separation listed in the user guide? Am I at risk? Expand/collapse Page 171 of 525 The compliance distance provided for typical wireless devices is usually very low compared to real-life installations. For instance, a compliance distance of a few hundred millimetres may be reported for a wireless (Wi-Fi) router; however, for home installation a person is typically located further away from the router. The compliance distance for wireless devices far from the body is determined by having the device turned on at maximum power for continuous transmission. During normal day-to-day use, they operate at much lower power levels. This compliance distance represents the worst-case scenario. As well, the Canadian limits provide a safety margin of at least 50-fold against the occurrence of all established adverse health effects associated with exposure to RF energy. Therefore, wireless devices used far from the body would still be safe when a person is closer than the minimum compliance distance found in the user manual. Towers and antenna installations Description of figure A person is sitting at a desk with a computer and a router placed on a shelf at a compliance of at least 20 cm. Page 172 of 525 Canadians want faster and more accessible service so they can reliably use their wireless devices to keep in touch with loved ones and stay informed. Businesses, emergency services and air navigation systems also depend on radiocommunication and wireless services 24 hours a day. Newer technological advancements, such as 5G, are being designed to meet current and future demands including the very large growth in data and connectivity of today’s modern society, the Internet of things (IoT) with its ubiquity of connected devices, and tomorrow’s innovations. All these services require towers and antenna installations located in the right places. For more information about towers, visit Facts about towers. How we keep you safe ISED requires that all antenna systems meet Canadian limits on the amount of RF energy that can be present in areas to which the public has access. This means complying with the regulatory requirements and process established in the antenna siting procedures, CPC-2-0-03, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems before an installation is approved. Once antenna installations are built, operators need to ensure their installations comply with the Canadian limits at all times as a condition of their licence. To monitor ongoing compliance, ISED conducts various antenna installations audit programs. What are Canada’s limits for antenna installations? Canada’s limits for antenna installations come from Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. This figure shows the Canadian limits that incorporate a safety margin of at least 50-fold from the threshold for possible adverse health effects. Expand/collapse Page 173 of 525 Are the limits the same around the world? Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based limits used in other parts of the world (e.g. the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and provide protection against all known adverse health effects resulting from RF exposure. How is the safety of antenna installations evaluated? To ensure ongoing regulatory compliance with the Canadian limits, ISED has developed many tools to help operators evaluate their sites: A tool to assess compliance of simple antenna installation is provided in TN-261, Safety Code 6 (SC6) Radio Frequency Exposure Compliance Evaluation Template (Uncontrolled Environment Exposure Limits) Measurements procedures are provided in GL-01, Guidelines for the Measurement of Radio Frequency Fields at Frequencies From 3 kHz to 300 GHz Requirements for proper signage and access controls around antenna installations are provided in CPC-2-0-20, Radio Frequency (RF) Fields — Signs and Access Control Specialized software can also perform analyses (theoretical predictions) of the RF energy at antenna installations. These analyses performed by the antenna installations operators are provided to ISED to demonstrate compliance with the Canadian limits. Which factors influence exposure levels? Page 174 of 525 Many factors determine the total RF levels a person may be exposed to near an antenna installation. The most important factors are: power distance from the antenna The signal power plays a significant role on the RF exposure levels generated by the antenna installation. The lower the operating power of an antenna installation, the lower the RF exposure levels will be. Furthermore, as the distance increases from the antenna installation, the RF energy diminishes very quickly. In other words, RF exposure levels will be lower farther away from an antenna installation. What do I need to know to ensure RF exposure safety near antenna installations? Certain high-power antenna installations, typically found away from populated areas or in areas difficult to access, require signage and physical barriers such as fences. The presence of these access control mechanisms is to restrict access and inform the public. What are small cells? Small cells are physically smaller radio installations that can complement larger radio installations to improve coverage, add capacity, and support new services and user experiences. There are various types of small cell with varying power ranges. The smallest are for indoor use (sometimes referred to as femtocells) operating on power levels similar to Wi-Fi routers. The largest are for outdoor use and typically consist of a small equipment cabinet and small antennas. The largest are often located on existing facilities like street lights, power utility poles and buildings. Small cells must comply with the same limits that apply to other antenna installations. Page 175 of 525 What is 5G? 5G is the 5th generation of wireless technology, a significant evolution of today’s 4G LTE wireless networks. 5G will provide the infrastructure to allow for more data and connectivity, the Internet of things with billions of connected devices, and tomorrow’s innovations in various fields such as healthcare, public safety, transportation, agriculture, and smart cities. 5G will operate in both the lower frequency spectrum (below 6 GHz) as well as at higher frequencies called millimetre wave spectrum (above 6 GHz). 5G should not be confused with Wi-Fi operated in the 5 GHz frequency band as they are different wireless technologies. RF safety requirements for 5G The current Canadian limits already cover the frequency ranges that will be used by 5G devices and antenna installations. Similar to current wireless devices and installations, 5G devices will need to meet RF exposure requirements before they can be sold in Canada. Antenna systems operators using 5G technology will continue to have the same RF exposure compliance obligations. Furthermore, compliance with RF exposure requirements will continue to be an ongoing obligation. Page 176 of 525 Description of figure Date modified: 2019-02-14 Page 177 of 525 Home Departments and agencies Health Canada Environmental and Workplace Health Reports and Publications – Environmental and Workplace Health Radiation - Technical Reports and Publications >> > > > Fact Sheet - What is Safety Code 6? The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians from environmental risks, including those posed by exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy - the kind of energy given off by various electronic devices such as cell phones and Wi- Fi, as well as broadcasting and cell phone towers. Health Canada has a guideline, known as Safety Code 6, which recommends limits for safe human exposure to RF electromagnetic energy. The limits established in Safety Code 6 incorporate large safety margins to provide a significant level of protection for all Canadians, including those working near RF sources. Health Canada scientists monitor the scientific literature on this issue on an ongoing basis. Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis to verify that the guideline provides protection against all known potentially harmful health effects. While Health Canada recommends limits for safe human exposure, Health Canada does not regulate the general public's exposure to electromagnetic RF energy. However, many provinces and territories apply the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 for general public exposure. Wireless devices and their associated infrastructure (such as cell towers) are regulated by Industry Canada, and are required to comply with Safety Code 6. Page 178 of 525 Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world (e.g., the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and provide protection against all known adverse health effects from RF energy. Busting Myths on Safety Code 6 Myth: Safety Code 6 limits only provide protection based on limited exposure for healthy adults. The guideline does not account for vulnerable populations such as children or people with electro hypersensitivity disorder. Fact: Even a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected. The Safety Code 6 limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. This means that if someone, including a small child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, there would be no adverse health effects. A number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. Myth: Frequent users of cell phones, such as children and teenagers, are at an increased risk of adverse health effects caused by exposure to RF energy. Page 179 of 525 Fact: There is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk when Safety Code 6 exposure limits are respected. The limits set out in Health Canada's Safety Code 6 are designed to protect people, of all ages and sizes, from all forms of exposure to RF energy, including continuous exposure (24 hours a day, seven days a week). Given that cell phones are used frequently and in close proximity to the body, Health Canada provides additional guidance to concerned cell phone users so that they may take practical measures to reduce their exposure to RF energy. These measures include limiting the length of cell phone calls, using hands-free devices, and replacing cell-phone calls with texting. While there is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk, Health Canada encourages parents to limit their children's use of cell phones, as children are often at increased risk from a variety of environmental factors. Myth: Many countries have limits 100 times lower than Safety Code 6. This must mean Safety Code 6 doesn't protect my health. Fact: Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The limits in Safety Code 6 are science-based exposure limits that are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Large safety margins have been incorporated into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources. Page 180 of 525 When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada considers all peer-reviewed scientific studies. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are set well below the lowest exposure level (threshold) at which any scientifically-established, adverse health effects occur and take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy. Health Canada scientists have concluded, on the basis of current scientific data, that no adverse health effects will occur from exposure to RF energy at the levels permitted by Safety Code 6. Internationally, a few jurisdictions (cities, provinces or countries) have applied more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from cell towers, although there isn't scientific evidence to support the need for such restrictive limits. Additionally, in many instances these more restrictive limits are not applied to other wireless devices in these same jurisdictions. Myth: Health Canada ignores certain studies, especially those that show adverse health effects resulting from exposure to RF energy. Fact: When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach. The weight-of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies on a particular endpoint (whether adverse or no effect), and, more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g. inadequate exposure evaluation, lack of appropriate control samples or inadequate statistical analysis), receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g. all controls included, appropriate statistics, complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight. Page 181 of 525 Myth: Safety Code 6 is based only on preventing thermal (heating) effects and doesn't consider other harmful non-thermal/biological effects. Fact: Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and consider many different potential health effects including thermal, non-thermal and biological effects. When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies (which includes thermal, non-thermal and biological effects) and employ a weight-of- evidence approach. At frequencies below 10 megahertz (MHz), the first effect to be experienced is non-thermal nerve stimulation (a tingling sensation). Therefore, the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are set below the level at which such effects occur. At frequencies above 10 MHz, the first scientifically-established effect to occur is heating. Numerous international expert panel reviews on this issue have reached the same conclusion. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 for frequencies above 10 MHz are therefore set below the level at which heating (thermal effects) could occur. Harmful non-thermal/biological effects at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6 have not been scientifically established. Myth: I live and work in a major city, so I am constantly exposed to RF energy, all the time. Safety Code 6 does not account for the cumulative effects of this exposure to RF energy. Fact: Canadians are protected from the cumulative effects of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected. Page 182 of 525 Safety Code 6 exposure limits are not device-specific, but the limits do take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy. Health Canada scientists have concluded, on the basis of current scientific data, that no adverse health effects will occur from exposure to RF energy at the levels permitted by Safety Code 6. Myth: Safety Code 6 does not protect my health, as it's based on an exposure time of only six minutes. Given our constant exposure to RF energy, especially in urban environments, this is not enough. Fact: Canadians are protected from continuous exposure to multiple sources of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected. The limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. This means that if someone, including a child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, that person would experience no adverse health effects. The six minute time-averaging period specified in Safety Code 6 is used as a reference period against which to make a comparison between the measured RF energy levels and the limits in Safety Code 6. This reference period is not a maximum exposure time. It means that the levels of RF energy from all sources combined shall not exceed the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 in any six-minute time period throughout the day. Myth: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency energy as potentially carcinogenic. This means that I will get cancer due to my exposure to RF energy. Fact: The IARC did not find a direct link between RF energy exposure and cancer. Page 183 of 525 In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans. Health Canada is in agreement with the World Health Organization that additional research in this area is warranted. On October 4, 2011, Health Canada updated its advice to cell phone users on practical ways of reducing exposure to RF energy from these devices. This advice pertains only to cell phone use, and not to RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi devices, since the intensity and distribution of the RF energy absorbed within the body from these devices are very different. Health Canada's advice to cell phone users. Myth: Because Health Canada regularly reviews Safety Code 6, it must mean the current Code doesn't offer me enough protection. Fact: The exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 protect the health of Canadians. To ensure that it continues to provide protection against all known adverse human health effects of RF fields, Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis. Health Canada reminds all Canadians that their health is protected from RF fields by the human exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6. Health Canada has established and maintains a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. The Department continues to Page 184 of 525 monitor and analyze ongoing scientific research on this issue and should new scientific evidence arise demonstrating that exposure to RF fields poses a health risk to Canadians, Health Canada will take the appropriate action to safeguard the health of Canadians. Date modified: 2015-09-25 Page 185 of 525 Home Departments and agencies Health Canada Environmental and Workplace Health Reports and Publications – Environmental and Workplace Health Radiation - Technical Reports and Publications >> > > > Understanding Safety Code 6 The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians from environmental risks, including those posed by exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields - the kind of energy given off by various electronic devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, as well as broadcasting antennae and cell phone towers. The purpose of Safety Code 6 is to establish safety limits for human exposure to RF fields in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The safety limits in this code apply to all individuals working at, or visiting, federally regulated sites. The limits established in Safety Code 6 incorporate large safety margins to provide a significant level of protection for all Canadians, including those working near RF sources. The Code is divided into two sections. The first section is an introduction that provides an overview of the purpose and rationale of the Code, specifically outlining what electromagnetic radiation is and where RF fields fall within the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. The introduction also provides a high level synopsis of what the literature indicates with respect to the health impacts from human exposure to RF fields and how these health effects have been used in the establishment of the exposure limits within Safety Code 6. Page 186 of 525 The second and most significant section of the Code provides details on what the exposure limits are. The exposure limits are specified as "basic restrictions" (exposure limits within the body) and "reference levels" (exposure limits outside the body). The Code concludes with definitions of key terms used throughout the Code and a list of the key literature or reference materials used in the revisions to the Code. While Health Canada recommends limits for safe human exposure, Health Canada does not regulate the general public's exposure to electromagnetic RF fields. However, many provinces and territories apply the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 for general public exposure. Wireless devices and their associated infrastructure (such as cell towers) are regulated by Industry Canada, and are required to comply with Safety Code 6. Health Canada scientists monitor the scientific literature on this issue on an ongoing basis. Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis to verify that the guideline provides protection against all known potentially harmful health effects. When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada considers all peer-reviewed scientific studies. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are set well below the lowest exposure level (threshold) at which any scientifically-established, adverse health effect occurs and take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy. Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world (e.g., the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and provide protection against all known adverse health effects from RF energy. Page 187 of 525 Reviewing Scientific Evidence on Safety Code 6 Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis to verify that the guideline provides protection against all known potentially harmful health effects. Health Canada employs a weight-of-evidence approach when reviewing scientific evidence that may have an impact on Safety Code 6. The weight- of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies and, more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g. inadequate exposure evaluation, lack of appropriate control samples or inadequate statistical analysis), receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g. all controls included, appropriate statistics, complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight. International Standards The limits in Safety Code 6 are science-based exposure limits that are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Large safety margins have been incorporated into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources. Internationally, a few jurisdictions (cities, provinces or countries) have applied more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from cell towers, although there is no scientific basis to support the need for such restrictive limits. Additionally, in many instances these more restrictive limits are not applied to other wireless devices in these same jurisdictions. Page 188 of 525 Safety Code 6 protects all Canadians The Safety Code 6 limits for human exposure to RF fields are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. This means that if someone, including a small child, were to be exposed to RF fields from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, there would be no adverse health effects. Safety Code 6 exposure limits are not device specific, but the limits do take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF fields. Health Canada scientists have concluded (and the Royal Society of Canada has agreed) on the basis of current scientific data, that no adverse health effects will occur from exposure to RF fields at the levels permitted by Safety Code 6. Health Canada reminds all Canadians that their health is protected from RF fields by the human exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6. The current Safety Code establishes and maintains a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. The limits in Safety Code 6 provide protection against all known adverse health effects for all individuals. Date modified: 2015-03-13 Page 189 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 1/8 Cellular Phone Towers Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but since then their use has increased dramatically. The widespread use of cell phones has led to cell phone towers being placed in many communities. These towers, also called base stations, have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals. How do cellular phone towers work? Cell phone base stations may be free-standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be high enough to adequately cover the area. Base stations are usually from 50-200 feet high. Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through radiofrequency (RF) waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non-ionizing radiation. This means they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer. At ver y high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower. When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone’s antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available radiofrequency channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call. Page 190 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 2/8 How are people exposed to the energy from cellular phone towers? As people use cell phones to make calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The RF waves produced at the base station are given o into the environment, where people can be exposed to them. The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna. Public exposure to radio waves from cell phone tower antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly. At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower. When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited. The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits. Page 191 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 3/8 Do cellular phone towers cause cancer? Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is ver y little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer. First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given o by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer. A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to a ect individual cells in the body. Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to a ect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly di erent from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. Studies in people Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk. In one large study, British researchers compared a group of more than 1,000 families of young children with cancer against a similar group of families of children without cancer. They found no link between a mother’s exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest tower and on the amount of energy given o by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer. In another study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. They found that those who lived in a town that could have exposed them to higher than average RF radiation from cellular phone towers in the previous 5 years had a slightly higher risk of cancer, although not of any certain type of cancer (like leukemia or brain tumors). This study estimated the children’s possible exposure based on the number of towers in their town and how Page 192 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 4/8 strong the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how far their home or school was from a tower. This limitation reduces confidence in the results of the study. One study looked for signs of DNA and cell damage in blood cells as a possible indicator of cancer-causing potential. They found that the damage was no worse in people who lived near a cell phone tower as compared with those didn’t. The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see Cellular Phones (/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation- exposure/cellular-phones.html). Studies done in the lab Laboratory studies have looked at whether the types of RF waves used in cell phone communication can cause DNA damage. Most of these studies have supported the idea that the RF waves given o by cell phones and towers don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones and towers might be able to cause cancer, but research in this area continues. Some scientists have reported that RF waves may produce other e ects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, these studies have not been verified, and these e ects weren’t seen in a study that looked at the blood cells from people living near a cellular phone tower. Several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion, but this is still an area of research. A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how these results might apply to RF exposure from cell phone towers in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those people are exposed to when using cell phones (much less being near a cell phone tower). The male rats in the Page 193 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 5/8 study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Still, the results add evidence to the idea that the signals used in cell phone communication might potentially impact human health. What expert agencies say About cell phone towers The 3 expert agencies that usually classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens) – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – have not classified cell phone towers specifically as to their cancer-causing potential. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said this about cell phone towers near homes or schools: “Radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS [personal communications service] transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.” About RF radiation Some of the agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures have, however, made statements about radiofrequency radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens (/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and- probable-human-carcinogens.html).) IARC also noted that exposure to the brain from RF fields from cell phone base stations (mounted on roofs or towers) is less than 1/100 the exposure to the brain from mobile devices such as cell phones. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states: “At ver y high levels, RF energy is dangerous. It can heat the body's tissues rapidly. However, such high levels are found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters. Cellphones and wireless networks produce RF, but not at th Page 194 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 6/8 levels that cause significant heating. In addition, RF energy decreases quickly over distance. At ground level, exposure to RF from sources like cellphone towers is usually very low. Some people are concerned about potential health e ects, especially on the developing brains and bodies of children. Some studies suggest that heavy long-term use of cellphones could have health e ects. Other studies don't find any health e ects from cellphone use. Long-term studies on animals exposed to the RF found in wireless networks (Wi-Fi) have, so far, found no health e ects. Scientists continue to study the e ects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF.” Can I limit my exposure? Cell phone towers are not known to cause any health e ects. But if you are concerned about possible exposure from a cell phone tower near your home or o ice, you can ask a government agency or private firm to measure the RF field strength near the tower (where a person could be exposed) to ensure that it is within the acceptable range. What should I do if I’ve been exposed to cellular phone towers? There is no test to measure whether you have been exposed to RF radiation from cellular phone towers. But as noted above, most researchers and regulatory authorities do not believe that cell phone towers pose health risks under ordinary conditions. If you have additional health concerns, you might want to talk with your doctor. The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team (/cancer/acs-medical-content-and-news-sta .html) Our team is made up of doctors and oncology certified nurses with deep knowledge of cancer care as well as journalists, editors, and translators with extensive experience in medical writing. Last Medical Review: December 2, 2014 Last Revised: November 5, 2018 W r i t t e n b y A d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r ce s R e s o u r c e s Page 195 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 7/8 American Cancer Society medical information is copyrighted material. For reprint requests, please see our Content Usage Policy (/about-us/policies/content-usage.html). MORE IN CANCER A-Z Page 196 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phone Towers https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html 8/8 C a n c e r B a s i c s C a n c e r C a u s e s B r e a s t C a n c e r C o l o n a n d R e c t a l C a n c e r S k i n C a n c e r L u n g C a n c e r P r o s t a t e C a n c e r V i e w A l l C a n c e r T y p e s Page 197 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 1/11 Cellular Phones Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but their use has increased dramatically since then. Along with the large and still growing number of cell phone users (both adults and children), the amount of time people spend on their phones has also risen sharply in recent decades. Cell phones (including smartphones) give o a form of energy known as radiofrequency (RF) waves (/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html), so some concerns have been raised about the safety of cell phone use. With respect to cancer, concern focuses on whether cell phones might increase the risk of brain tumors or other tumors in the head and neck area. How do cell phones work? Cell phones work by sending signals to (and receiving them from) nearby cell towers (/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html) (base stations) using RF waves. This is a form of electromagnetic energy that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA inside cells. RF waves are di erent from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light, (/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/x-rays-gamma-rays.html) which can break the chemical bonds in DNA. At ver y high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy given o by cell phones are much lower, and are not enough to raise temperatures in the body. How are people exposed? The RF waves from cell phones come from the antenna, which is part of the body of a hand-held phone. The waves are strongest at the antenna and lose energy quickly as they travel away from the phone. The phone is typically held against the side of the head when in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure to RF energy. The body tissues closest to the phone absorb more energy than tissues farther away. Page 198 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 2/11 Many factors can a ect the amount of RF energy to which a person is exposed, including: What is the specific absorption rate (SAR) of a cell phone? The amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user’s body is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR). Di erent cell phones have di erent SAR levels. Cell phone makers are required to report the maximum SAR level of their product to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This information can o en be found on the manufacturer’s website or in the user manual for the phone. The upper limit of SAR allowed in the United States is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight. But according to the FCC, comparing SAR values between phones can be misleading. The listed SAR value is based only on the phone operating at its highest power, not on what users would typically be exposed to with normal phone use. The actual SAR value during use varies based on a number of factors, so it’s possible that a phone with a lower listed SAR value might actually expose a person to more RF energy than one with a higher listed SAR value in some cases. Do cell phones cause tumors? Because cell phones usually are held near the head when being used, the main concern has been whether they might cause or contribute to tumors in this area, including: The amount of time the person is on the phone. Whether or not the person is using the speaker mode on the phone or a hands- free device. Using one of these allows the phone to be held away from the head. The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower. Cell phones adjust their power to use the minimum amount for a good signal. Being farther away from the tower requires more energy to get a good signal, as does being inside a building. The amount of cell phone tra ic in the area at the time. Higher tra ic may require more energy to get a good signal. The model of phone being used. Di erent phones give o di erent amounts of energy. Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors (/cancer/brain-spinal-cord-tumors-adults.html) such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (vestibular schwannomas, also known as acoustic neuromas) Page 199 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 3/11 A few studies have also looked at possible links to other types of cancer, such as skin cancer (/cancer/skin-cancer.html) and testicular cancer (/cancer/testicular-cancer.html). Researchers use 2 main types of studies to try to determine if something might cause cancer. Lab studies: Lab studies usually expose animals to something like RF energy to see if it causes tumors or other health problems. Researchers might also expose normal cells in a lab dish to RF energy to see if it causes the types of changes that are seen in cancer cells. It’s not always clear if the results from these types of studies will apply to humans, but lab studies allow researchers to carefully control for other factors that might a ect the results and to answer some basic science questions. Studies in people: Another type of study looks at cancer rates in di erent groups of people. Such a study might compare the cancer rate in a group exposed to something like cell phone use to the rate in a group not exposed to it, or compare it to what the expected cancer rate would be in the general population. But sometimes it can be hard to know what the results of these studies mean, because many other factors that might a ect the results are hard to account for. In most cases neither type of study provides enough evidence on its own to show if something causes cancer in people, so researchers usually look at both lab-based and human studies. What do lab studies suggest? As noted above, the RF waves given o by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported the idea that RF waves do not cause DNA damage. Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce e ects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion. A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands Page 200 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 4/11 adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how well these results might be applied to cell phone use in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those used in cell phones (ranging from 1.5 W/kg to 6 W/kg in rats, and 2.5 W/kg to 10 W/kg in mice), the animals’ entire bodies were exposed, and the amount of time they were exposed was longer than most people typically spend on the phone each day. The male rats in the study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Because of this, the NTP has noted that the study results cannot be directly applied to humans. Still, the results add to the evidence that cell phone signals might potentially impact human health. A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other e ects on the brain, although it’s not clear if they’re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain’s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health e ect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown. What do studies in humans suggest? Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case- control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people free of brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use. These studies have had mixed results: In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered. Most studies do not show a “dose-response relationship,” which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors. Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more o en on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors. Some studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because most studies Page 201 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 5/11 Three large studies deserve special mention: The INTERPHONE study The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed. Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use, as well as other issues. The Danish cohort study A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain. This type of study (following a large group of people going forward in time and not relying on people’s memories about cell phone use) is generally thought to be stronger than a case-control study. But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how o en these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports. Page 202 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 6/11 phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to require more power than modern cell phones, people also probably used the phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today. The Million Women Study A large prospective (forward-looking) study of nearly 800,000 women in the UK examined the risk of developing brain tumors over a 7-year period in relation to self- reported cell phone use at the start of the study. This study found no link between cell phone use and brain tumors overall or several common brain tumor subtypes, but it did find a possible link between long-term cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. All studies done so far have limitations In summary, most studies of people published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use a ects cancer risk. First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. When tumors form a er a known cancer-causing exposure, it o en takes decades for them to develop. Because cell phones have been in widespread use for only about 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out future health e ects that have not yet appeared. Second, cell phone usage is constantly changing. People are using their cell phones much more than they were even 10 years ago, and the phones themselves are very di erent from what was used in the past. This makes it hard to know if the results of studies looking at cell phone use in years past would still apply today. Third, most of the studies published so far have focused on adults, rather than children. (One case-control study looking at children and teens did not find a significant link to brain tumors, but the small size of the study limited its power to detect modest risks.) Cell phone use is now widespread even among younger children. It is possible that if there are health e ects, they might be more pronounced in children because their bodies might be more sensitive to RF energy. Another concern is that children’s lifetime exposure to the energy from cell phones will be greater than adults’, who started using them at a later age. Finally, the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude. Most have been case-control studies, which have relied on people’s memories about their past cell phone use. In these types of studies, it can be hard to interpret any possible link between cancer and an exposure. People with cancer are o en looking for a possible reason for it, so they may sometimes (even subconsciously) recall their phone usage di erently than people without cancer. Page 203 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 7/11 With these limitations in mind, it is important that the possible risk of cell phone exposure continue to be researched using strong study methods, especially with regard to use by children and longer-term use. What do expert agencies say? Several national and international agencies study di erent exposures and substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (Something that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory and human research studies. Based on the available evidence, some of these expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing potential of cell phones and RF waves. In general, they agree that the evidence of a possible link is limited, and more research is needed to look at possible long-term e ects. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens. (/cancer/cancer-causes/general- info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html)) The other main agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens), including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), have not formally classified cell phones as to their cancer-causing potential. However, several other agencies have commented on the possible risks. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the safety of radiation-emitting devices such as cell phones in the United States: “Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health e ects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): “There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss. However, organizations in the United States and overseas are sponsoring research and investigating claims of possible health e ects related to the use of wireless telephones.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Page 204 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 8/11 “At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health e ects.” According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is conducting studies of the possible health e ects of cell phones: “Current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.” According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI): “Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly.” Do cell phones cause any other health problems? A few other health concerns have been raised about cell phone use. One has been whether the RF waves from cell phones might interfere with medical devices such as heart pacemakers. According to the FDA, cell phones should not pose a major risk for the vast majority of pacemaker wearers. Still, people with pacemakers may want to take some simple precautions to help ensure that their cell phones don’t cause a problem, such as not putting the phone in a shirt pocket close to the pacemaker. Several studies have found that people who use cell phones while driving are more likely to be in car accidents. It is not clear if hands-free phones are safer than hand-held phones when it comes to driving. Can I lower my exposure to RF waves from cell phones? It is not clear at this time that RF waves from cell phones cause harmful health e ects in people, but studies now being done should give a clearer picture of the possible health e ects in the future. Until then, there are several things that people who are concerned about RF waves can do to limit their exposure. Page 205 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 9/11 Use the speaker mode on the phone or a hands-free device such as a corded or cordless earpiece. This moves the antenna away from your head, which decreases the amount of RF waves that reach the head. Corded earpieces emit virtually no RF waves (although the phone itself still emits small amounts of RF waves that can reach parts of the body if close enough, such as on the waist or in a pocket). Bluetooth earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC). Texting instead of talking on the phone may be another option to reduce your exposure. But it may not be a good option in some situations, especially if you are driving. For safety reasons, it is especially important to limit or avoid the use of cell phones while driving. Limit your (and your children’s) cell phone use. This is one of the most obvious ways to limit your exposure to RF waves from cell phones. You may want to use your cell phone only for shorter conversations, or use it only when a conventional phone is not available. Parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure can limit how much time they spend on the phone. Some people might consider choosing a phone with a low SAR value. Di erent models of phones can give o di erent levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value is not always a good indicator of a person’s exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker’s website. The FCC has links to some of these sites here: www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar- cellular-telephones (http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar- cellular-telephones). If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for a phone model (which can o en be found somewhere on the phone or in the user manual), you can also go to the following web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. (https://www.fcc.gov/) On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number. What about cordless phones? Cordless phones, commonly used in homes, have base units that are plugged into telephone jacks and wired to a local telephone service. They are not considered “cell” phones. Cordless phones operate at about 1/600 the power of cell phones, so they are much less likely to be a concern in terms of health e ects. ® W r i t t e n b y A d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r ce s R e f e r e n c e s Page 206 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 10/11 The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team (/cancer/acs-medical-content-and-news-sta .html) Our team is made up of doctors and oncology certified nurses with deep knowledge of cancer care as well as journalists, editors, and translators with extensive experience in medical writing. Last Medical Review: December 4, 2014 Last Revised: November 5, 2018 American Cancer Society medical information is copyrighted material. For reprint requests, please see our Content Usage Policy (/about-us/policies/content-usage.html). MORE IN CANCER A-Z Page 207 of 525 5/2/2019 Cellular Phones https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html 11/11 C a n c e r B a s i c s C a n c e r C a u s e s B r e a s t C a n c e r C o l o n a n d R e c t a l C a n c e r S k i n C a n c e r L u n g C a n c e r P r o s t a t e C a n c e r V i e w A l l C a n c e r T y p e s Page 208 of 525 F-2019-19 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Finance SUBJECT: F-2019-19 2019 Property Tax Rates RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the 2019 Property Tax Rates. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The municipality must have the annual tax rates approved prior to providing rate payers with final tax bills. The 2019 General Purposes Budget was approved on March 19, 2019. The annual general levy of $68,465,664 was approved at this time. The City’s tax rates included in this report reflect the approved general levy. The regional, school and waste management rates have been provided by the responsible level of government and are also included in the schedule. BACKGROUND The Regional Municipality of Niagara has approved the 2019 tax ratios and tax rates. In addition, the Province of Ontario has established educational rates for 2019. The City is now in the position to establish its tax rates and to proceed with the Final 2019 Billing for the non-capped property classes. This report provides Council the City’s 2019 property tax rates. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The 2019 tax levy is $68,465,664. The General taxation portion of this total levy is $59,439,134; the Urban Service Area taxation portion is $9,026,530. Corresponding tax rates based on these levies are provided in Table 1. The Region of Niagara provides waste management services for the residents of Niagara Falls. The Region has provided the costs of this service for 2019 to the City. The annual cost used to determine the rates for 2019 is $6,930,339. To fund this expense, the City collects the taxes from the residents using a separate tax rate. Table 2 provides a comparison of the waste management tax rates used in 2018 to the recommended rates for 2019. Page 209 of 525 2 F-2019-19 May 14, 2019 The Appropriations and Levying By-law is prepared for Council’s adoption, should Council approve the recommendation. This By-Law authorizes the preparation and sending of Final Tax Notices. Appendix A of the By-law shows the summary of tax rates for each classification and for all levies. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Table 1 Taxes Rates – City of Niagara Falls Table 2 Taxes Waste Management Rates – City of Niagara Falls Recommended by: Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A. Ferguson Page 210 of 525 Table 1 Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls 2018 2019 Urban Urban Tax Rates Service Service City of Niagara Falls General Area Combined General Area Combined Residential 0.454208%0.072925%0.527133%0.436154%0.070025%0.506179% Multi-Residential 0.894790%0.143662%1.038452%0.859223%0.137949%0.997172% New Multi-Residential 0.454208%0.072925%0.527133%0.436154%0.070025%0.506179% Commercial - Occupied 0.788005%0.126517%0.914522%0.756684%0.121486%0.878170% - Excess Land 0.551604%0.088562%0.640166%0.529679%0.085041%0.614720% - Vacant Land 0.551604%0.088562%0.640166%0.529679%0.085041%0.614720% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.788005%0.126517%0.914522%0.756684%0.121486%0.878170% - Excess Land 0.551604%0.088562%0.640166%0.529679%0.085041%0.614720% Landfill 1.335490%1.282407% Industrial 1.194567%0.191792%1.386359%1.147085%0.184166%1.331251% Industrial - Excess Land 0.836197%0.134255%0.970452%0.802960%0.128916%0.931876% Industrial - Vacant Land 0.836197%0.134255%0.970452%0.802960%0.128916%0.931876% Industrial - New Construction 1.194567%0.191792%1.386359%1.147085%0.184166%1.331251% Indust - New Constr - Excess Land 0.836197%0.134255%0.970452%0.802960%0.128916%0.931876% Pipelines 0.773107%0.124125%0.897232%0.742378%0.119190%0.861568% Farmlands 0.113552%0.018231%0.131783%0.109039%0.017506%0.126545% Managed Forests 0.113552%0.018231%0.131783%0.109039%0.017506%0.126545% Farmlands Awaiting Development I 0.340656%0.054694%0.395350%0.327116%0.052519%0.379635% Farmlands Awaiting Development II 0.454208%0.072925%0.527133%0.436154%0.070025%0.506179% Page 211 of 525 Table 2 Waste Management Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls 2018 2019 Waste Waste Property Class Management Management Tax Rate Tax Rate Residential 0.052503%0.050854% Multi-Residential 0.103431%0.100182% New Multi-Residential 0.052503%0.050854% Commercial - Occupied 0.091087%0.088227% - Excess Land 0.063761%0.061759% - Vacant Land 0.063761%0.061759% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.091087%0.088227% - Excess Land 0.063761%0.061759% Landfill 0.154373%0.149524% Industrial 0.138083%0.133746% Industrial - Excess Land 0.096658%0.093622% Industrial - Vacant Land 0.096658%0.093622% Industrial - New Construction 0.138083%0.133746% Industrial - New Construction - Excess Land 0.096658%0.093622% Pipelines 0.089365%0.086559% Farmlands 0.013126%0.012714% Managed Forests 0.013126%0.012714% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.039377%0.038141% Farmland Awaiting Development II 0.052503%0.050854% Page 212 of 525 F-2019-20 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO:Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Finance SUBJECT: F-2019-20 Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes RECOMMENDATION That June 28 and September 30 be approved as the 2019 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The due dates for final tax billing must be approved by Council pursuant to the Municipal Act. The City has established that due dates for the non-capped property classes be June 28 and September 30. The due dates for the capped classes are August 30 and October 31 due to the additional calculations required for these billings. BACKGROUND The City of Niagara Falls is responsible for billing and collecting property taxes on all assessable properties within the municipality. These annual billings include the annual taxes for the City, for the Region of Niagara and the appropriate local school boards. Due dates for property taxes are set to coincide with the quarterly levy payments made to the Region and the school boards. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Due to the additional calculations required to prepare the 2019 Final Tax Notices for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential property classes, all assessment classes cannot be billed at the same time. Staff is therefore recommending that the Final Tax Notice Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes be set as June 28 and September 30. And that the Final Tax Notice Due Dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential Assessment Classes be set as August 30 and October 31 to accommodate the additional calculations required for these property classes. Page 213 of 525 2 F-2019-20 May 14, 2019 Recommended by: Tiffany Clark, Acting Director of Finance Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A. Ferguson Page 214 of 525 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-30 GTY-2019-001, Gateway Community Improvement Plan and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application 6124 Don Murie Street Tire Resort Inc. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the Niagara Gateway CIP Tax Increment Based Grant program and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application for 6124 Don Murie Street subject to the Owner satisfying the program requirements. 2. That Council approve the use of the Capital/Operating reserve to offset the approximate planning and building permit fees of $21,763. 3. That the Niagara Region be advised of the decision of City Council. 4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign and execute the Tri-party grant agreement and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Economic Gateway CIP and Municipal Employment Incentive Plan applications can be supported as: - the lands are designated as Industrial in the City’s Official Plan and are located within the Stanley Avenue Business Park; - it meets the minimum point eligibility requirements for both programs; and - the development will bring a combination of investment and new employment to the City and Region. BACKGROUND Tire Resort Inc. is a full service tire storage company servicing tire retailers, car dealerships and automotive repair shops within and beyond Niagara. The company stores tires in the off season and offers custom powder coating services and rim repairs. The business has outgrown its existing space and is looking to expand. A new 2 ,413.14 m2 (25,974.86 ft2) warehouse building will be built on a vacant parcel of land at 6124 Don Murie Street. A total of 8 new full time jobs is expected with the construction. Page 215 of 525 2 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 An application for the tax increment based incentive under the Niagara Gateway Community Improvement Plan has been submitted by Tire Resort Inc. An application has also been submitted under the City’s Municipal Employment Incentive Program for a rebate of site plan control application fees and building permit fees which is available for those applications that have met the eligibility requirements under the Gateway CIP. In addition, under the MEIP a further 5 year tax increment grant is available for the City’s portion of the increased tax assessment. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The Niagara Gateway Economic Zone Community Improvement Plan (Gateway CIP) was initiated by the Niagara Region to achieve the goals of the Province’s Growth Plan to: revitalize, diversify and strengthen the economy in Niagara by promoting development of employment lands in the Gateway Economic Zone. The Region ’s Gateway CIP was adopted in 2013 and the City approved a corresponding CIP soon after. Development, construction, or rehabilitation projects that result in an increase in assess value and property taxes for employment uses are eligible for the tax incre ment based grant (TIBG) under the Gateway CIP. Eligibility The subject lands are located within an area designated for employment uses in the City’s Official Plan and meets the locational requirements of the CIP incentives. The new warehouse proposed by Tire Resort Inc. complies with planning documents. A site plan control agreement was entered into with the City earlier this year. Gateway Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG) Eligibility under the Gateway Grant program is based on a point formula attributed to construction value, full time employment created or retained and smart growth design criteria. The total of these points correspond to the level of the tax increment base d grant offered. Based on a review of the application applicant submitted the development could attain: 1 point for a construction value of $1,400,000; 5 points for a total of 8 full time jobs created or retained; and 3 points for design criteria including parking layout, architectural design of the building façade, bicycle parking, reduced water consumption efforts; for a total of 9 points or a rebate of 45% of the increased tax assessment. The final number cannot be determined until final confirmation of the actual jobs created, design criteria met, and any other relevant program requirements. The subject lands are located within the Gateway CIP Project Area but are outside of the Strategic Locations for Investment and are therefore eligible for a TIBG term of 5 years Page 216 of 525 3 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 for both the Regional and City portion of the tax increment. It is noted that the education tax is not included within the grant. Municipal Employment Incentive program (MEIP) The City’s Municipal Employment Incentive Program (MEIP) offers further incentives to those applicants who have been deemed eligible under the Gateway TIBG. These include: a further 5 years tax increment rebate on the City’s portion of the increased assessment; a waiver to the Site Plan Control Application Fee; and a Building/Occupancy Permit Rebate (a rebate of 100% of the building permit fee to a maximum of $50,000, subject to the availability of funding). The applicant has entered in a site plan control agreement with the City. Construction of the new warehouse was initiated through a conditional building permit subsequent to the original submission of the original Gateway CIP Incentive Grant applications. The estimated building permit fee is $17,762.92. As construction of the warehouse continued under the conditional permit an additional building permit fee of $21,927.92 for a total Building permit fee of $39,690.84. Through the MEIP program fees for building permits are rebated only after final inspection and clearance by the Building Division. The following is a breakdown of all of the financial incentives estimated for this project which totals $ 109,119.54. TIBG $43,460.50 A 45% rebate of the estimated Regional and Municipal tax increment of $19,315.76 per year over a 5 year term. MEIP $21,968.20 A 45% rebate of the estimated Municipal tax increment for a further 5 years. $4,000 Site Plan Control Application Fee waiver $39,690.84 Building Permit Fee Rebate. Process As a joint program between the City and the Niagara Region, the approval of City Council is required prior to Regional review for the Gateway TIBG. If approved; the applicant must enter into a Tri–Party Agreement with the City and Region outlining the term s and conditions of the funding. This agreement would be authorized and signed by the Mayor and Clerk and forwarded to the Region for signature. An agreement will also be entered into between the City and the applicant for the terms and conditions of the MEIP. Page 217 of 525 4 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 The payment of grants commence upon verification of the program requirements and reassessment of the property MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation). Applicants are given 365 days from the issuance of an occupancy permit within which to contact the City regarding the achievement of the eligibility points outlined in their submission. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG) is provided when the construction is completed and The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation has added the additional taxable assessment to the roll. This will impact a future taxation year and will be accounted for at that time. Based on the preliminary review of the development, along with an estimated post-project assessment, it is estimated that the applicant may receive a total grant of both Municipal and Regional taxes of approximately $8,692.10 per year over 5 years ($43,460.50) plus a further $4,393.64 per year for 5 years ($21,968.19) of Municipal taxes. The property owner has a series of incentives available on this project. It is anticipated that there will be approximately $43,690.84 of applicable planning and building permit fees that will be offset with a transfer of capital/operating reserves possibly from the Economic Development component of the OLG contribution agreement. The transfer of building permit fee is a requirement of the building legislation. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The City's Community Improvement Plans contribute to the Economic Growth and Prosperity Priority of the City by providing incentives for private sector reinvestment and employment for the City. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 – Location Map Appendix 2 – Proposed Site Plan Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer F.Berardi:gd Attach. PBD-2019-30, Gateway Community Improvement Plan and Municipal Employment Incentive Program Application, 6124 Don Murie St Page 218 of 525 5 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 APPENDIX 1 Page 219 of 525 6 PBD-2019-30 May 14, 2019 APPENDIX 2 Page 220 of 525 PBD-2019-34 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-34 Memorandum of Understanding for Planning Function and Services between the Niagara Region and Local Area Municipalities RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the CAO to sign on behalf of the Corporation. BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Region and local municipalities was first developed in 2007 as a mechanism to streamline planning functions and operations. This corresponds with delegation of subdivision approval authority to City Council to speed up processes and reduce duplication. The MOU was last updated in 2014. The MOU requires a review every 5 years. A committee comprised of representatives from area Planning Departments and Regional Staff met over the last year to prepare a new MOU. The MOU was presented to the development industry last October. The MOU was reviewed by a committee of area Chief Administrative Officers. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The MOU has been re-written and re-formatted to be more readable and to address the role of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) regarding its planning review functions and that it is no longer a signatory of the MOU. The objectives of the MOU are largely to: clarify roles and responsibilities; provide responsive delivery times; establish transparent and efficient processes; improve communications between government agencies; respond to the needs of public and development industry; and ensure consistency of policy interpretation. The Roles and Responsibilities of each government agency and the NPCA are established in the MOU together with the various steps involved in the development review process. Part 7, Tables 1 and 2 of the MOU (attached as Appendix 1) provide an “at a glance” overview of the application type, who is responsible and the legislative authority. The MOU has been very beneficial in ensuring planning in Niagara is efficient, collaborative, proactive and consistent. The 2019 update is part of the overall continuum to streamline planning services. Page 221 of 525 2 PBD-2019-34 May 14, 2019 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 – 2019 MOU Part 7, Tables 1 and 2 Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer A.Herlovitch:gd Attach. S:\PDR\2019\PBD-2019-34, Memorandum of Understanding for Planning Function & Services.docx Page 222 of 525 Page 223 of 525 Page 224 of 525 Page 225 of 525 Page 226 of 525 TS-2019-15 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS-2019-15 Crosswalk Policy RECOMMENDATION That the attached Crosswalk Policy be approved. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The policy establishes criteria for the type and placement of warranted crosswalks at controlled locations in the City. BACKGROUND In Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act defines crosswalks without distinction between controlled and uncontrolled crossing locations, while also identifying the requirement for a driver to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at crossings with the entire range of traffic control measures. Controlled pedestrian crossings are only at locations where drivers are controlled by a traffic control signal, intersection pedestrian signal, mid-block pedestrian signal, a pedestrian crossover, stop sign, yield sign, or school crossings when a school crossing guard is supervising the crossing. Painted crosswalks define and delineate the path for pedestrians to cross the roadway and to reduce the potential for conflicts with motor vehicles. An uncontrolled crossing is a crossing that does not have any traffic control measure to provide a dedicated pedestrian right-of-way. Pedestrians must wait for a safe gap in traffic, sufficient for them to cross the roadway, prior to attempting to enter the roadway. Use of painted crosswalk markings on their own is not recommended at an uncontrolled crossing. The presence of a marked pedestrian crossing may create a false sense of confidence on the part of pedestrians, particularly children, who may enter the crosswalk expecting that approaching drivers will see them and stop. A discrepancy may exist between pedestrians’ expectations and the expectations of approaching drivers who may not expect to find a pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled location. Page 227 of 525 2 TS-2019-15 May 14, 2019 ANALYSIS/RATIONALE The single white line crosswalk is the basic type of marking used to denote a crosswalk. Ontario guidelines were recently amended to allow for a ladder type crosswalk which is required at pedestrian crossovers but can also be applied at other crossing locations. Staff’s policy addresses where these enhanced crosswalks can be used. Crosswalks at school crossing guard locations in urban areas that are not at a traffic signal, pedestrian crossover or stop controlled location are limited to the double lined markings. A number of factors are considered when evaluating if a crosswalk is recommended by Staff, such as, but not limited to: Pedestrian volume, including number of children and seniors; Traffic volumes, speed and classification of traffic; Posted speed limit; Nearby pedestrian generators (schools, etc.); Existing or proposed traffic control; Distance to existing crosswalks; Pedestrian desire lines; Connection to sidewalks and trails, or lack to thereof; Accessibility (curb depressions, tactile warning plates, and ramps); Driveway conflicts (at tee and offset intersections); Road geometry and cross-section; Sight lines, for both pedestrians and drivers; Parking activity at and near the crossing location ; Transit routes; Overhead illumination; Motor vehicle collision history; Need to construct physical measures, such as curb extensions, road narrowings, refuge medians for wide cross-sections, raised crosswalks and barriers (hand rails); and, Crossing prohibitions through municipal by-law. W hen requests for painted crosswalks at an uncontrolled location are received, a technical study can be undertaken to evaluate if a protected pedestrian crossing is warranted. Staff will also assess if an alternate crossing location is more suitable than the requested location. Crosswalk lines that may imply it is a crossing location that pedestrians are afforded the right of-way will not be applied at any uncontrolled location. Lastly, any crosswalk that does not confirm with the subject policy and industry standards will be retrofitted and/or removed from the roadway through annual programs and/or inspections. Page 228 of 525 3 TS-2019-15 May 14, 2019 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial, staffing or legal implications with establishing a policy for marking crosswalks. The costs associated the installation, maintenance and removal of painted crosswalks is accounted for in the General Purposes Budget. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Encourage multi-modal travel and active transportation initiatives, and enhance motorist, cyclist and pedestrian safety. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Crosswalk Policy Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Page 229 of 525 Page 1 of 5 Policy Crosswalk Applications May 2019 Traffic Engineering Rev. 0 This policy applies to roads and intersections under the City’s jurisdiction. It does not apply to privately owned City lands (parking lots, etc.). The number of locations is noted for each traffic control type, as of the above date. 1. Traffic Control Signals approximately 45 intersections When pedestrian signals and/or pedestrian platforms at quadrants are present, single crosswalk lines are to be marked connecting intersection approaches. Ladder crosswalk markings may be considered when the conditions in the Section 11 are met. Coloured and/or textured crosswalks can be used as a street scape feature in tourist/business districts in concert with the standard traverse white lines. 2. Intersection Pedestrian Signals (IPS) 1 intersection The minimum requirement is the application of single line crosswalk markings. Ladder crosswalk markings may be considered when the conditions in the Section 11 are met. 3. Mid-block Pedestrian Signals (MPS) 3 locations The minimum requirement is the application of single line crosswalk markings. Ladder crosswalk markings may be considered when the conditions in the Section 11 are met. 4. Level 2 Pedestrian Crossovers (PXO) 1 locations Crosswalk markings are to be marked in accordance with OTM Book 15 (Pedestrian Crossing Treatments). Page 230 of 525 Page 2 of 5 5. All-Way Stops approximately 100 intersections Crosswalks will be provided on approaches where sidewalk connections exist. Ladder crosswalk markings may be considered when the conditions in the Section 11 are met. Coloured and/or textured crosswalks can be used as a street scape feature in tourist/business districts in conjunction with the standard traverse white lines. 6. Minor Street Stop Control more than 500 intersections Crosswalk lines are not required for each minor street stop controlled intersection. Crosswalk lines can be considered when; crossing volumes for any approach exceeds 100 pedestrians in an 8 hour period, or 65 pedestrians in a 4 hour period; and/or, provides a linkage to/from a nearby major pedestrian attractors; and/or, is setback a considerable distance from the intersection which may be unexpected by a driver making a turn from a major road onto the side road. Ladder crosswalk lines are not to be applied on stop-controlled minor street approaches. Coloured and/or textured crosswalks can be used as a street scape feature in tourist/business districts in conjunction with the standard traverse white lines. 7. Yield Signs approximately 125 intersections Crosswalk markings are not required for intersections or movements controlled by a yield sign, unless the sign is located at; a traffic control signal within a channelized right turn island; a roundabout (where ladder crosswalks will be applied); a traffic circle; or, where unusual geometric conditions exist where the crossing location may not be easily identifiable to motorists and/or pedestrians. Page 231 of 525 Page 3 of 5 8. Raised Crosswalks and Raised Intersections 6 raised crosswalk locations Raised crosswalks and crosswalks at raised intersections shall be regulated as Level 2 Pedestrian Crossovers (PXO) and marked accordingly. 9. School Crossing Guards 44 total crossings (all in the urban area), 26 at non-signalized locations In urban areas, double line crosswalks are to be used for non-signalized crossing locations. In rural areas, defined as outside of the City’s urban boundary as opposed to the road containing a predominately rural road cross-section, block crosswalks are to be used. If a school crossing is located at a traffic signal or stop-controlled location, the crosswalk lines for those traffic controls will prevail over the school crosswalk markings. 10. Uncontrolled Locations Unknown The Highway Traffic Act of the Province of Ontario provides no right of way to pedestrians crossing without the protection of a traffic signal, pedestrian crossover (PXO), stop sign or (in the case of children) an adult school crossing guard. Painting lines on the road at an unprotected location may lead a pedestrian to believe they have some priority when in fact none exists. To that end, crosswalk lines that may imply pedestrians are afforded the right of-way will not be applied at any uncontrolled location. Page 232 of 525 Page 4 of 5 When requests for painted crosswalks at an uncontrolled location are received, a technical study should be undertaken to evaluate if a protected pedestrian crossing is warranted. 11. Ladder Crosswalk Markings Ladder crosswalk markings may be considered when the following conditions are met; Crossing volumes for any approach exceeds 100 pedestrians in an 8 hour period, or 65 pedestrians in a 4 hour period; and/or, There is a high potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflict, or a collision history which may reflect a high incidence of pedestrian collisions. When used, ladder crossing markings are to be applied on all approaches, including the channelized traffic movement where present. 12. General Notes Crosswalk specifications (line width, colour, spacing, etc.) shall comply with applicable Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) standards. City Staff reserves the right to recommend ladder crosswalk markings where it does not meet the guidelines, but in its opinion, would provide a safety benefit to the area under study. Crosswalks are not to be marked where the crossing of pedestrians is prohibited by municipal by-law. Painted crosswalks are not recommended where a pedestrian platform is not present on one or both intersection quadrants, or there is no continuation of a sidewalk. Accessible curb depressions and tactile warning plates are to be provided at each end of a newly constructed crosswalk. Ramps and sidewalk extensions are to be constructed within the boulevard where necessary. Painted crosswalks are not to extend into a driveway, which can occur at tee intersections or offset intersections, where pedestrian traffic would conflict with vehicle traffic. Crosswalks should only be provided where there is overhead illumination. Page 233 of 525 Page 5 of 5 13. Costs A typical two line crosswalk is $50.00. A double lined school crosswalk is $100.00. A ladder crosswalk is $187.50. All costs are per approach (ie. one side of an intersection) for a 2-lane, 8 metre wide road. The price is from the 2018 contract and may be subject to change for future years/contracts. 14. Summary The following matrix identifies the various traffic control methods and suitable crosswalk applications. Refer to policy for situations where enhanced crosswalk can be used in place of standard lines. Crosswalk Location Standard Enhanced Single Line Double Lines Block Ladder Textured Coloured Traffic Signal Yes Yes In Tourist & Business Areas In Tourist & Business Areas IPS Yes Yes In Tourist & Business Areas In Tourist & Business Areas MPS Yes Yes In Tourist & Business Areas In Tourist & Business Areas Level 2 PXO Yes All-Way Stop Yes Yes In Tourist & Business Areas In Tourist & Business Areas Stop Sign Yes In Tourist & Business Areas In Tourist & Business Areas Yield Sign Yes At Roundabouts Raised Crosswalk or Intersection Yes Yes School Crossing Yes Yes Uncontrolled Not Applicable S:\TPS\TPS 8.00 Policies & Procedures\TPS 8.09 Traffic Engineering Policies\Crosswalk Policy\Crosswalk Policy.docx Page 234 of 525 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 REPORT TO: Mayor James M. Diodati and Members of Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PBD-2019-33 Exemption Request to 2-Year Waiting Period for Minor Variance 8974 Willoughby Drive and Lands to the South Legends Phase 1 and 2 Plans of Vacant Land Condominium Owner: Silvergate Homes Limited Agent: Jennifer Vida, Upper Canada Consulting RECOMMENDATION That subject to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O., Council consider passing the resolution on tonight’s agenda to grant an exemption to the 2-year waiting period for minor variances and thereby allow Silvergate Homes Limited to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the Legends Phases 1 and 2 Plans of Vacant Land Condominium. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 was passed in the Ontario legislature and received Royal Assent on December 3, 2015. The Act amended the Planning Act by establishing a 2-year waiting period between an applicant-initiated site-specific rezoning of a property and a minor variance application. The intent of the new 2-year waiting period is to provide greater control to Council which will determine whether it is appropriate to alter recent zoning by-laws through the minor variance process. The Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. provides Council with the ability to permit privately- initiated applications to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances by passing a resolution. A resolution can relate to site-specific applications, a class of applications, or applications generally. If Council allows an application to the Committee of Adjustment, it would still be subject to all the normal Planning Act requirements for a public hearing, notice and appeal rights. Council’s decision to permit a privately-initiated application would simply mean that they are satisfied that the zoning regulations can be reviewed and varied by the Committee of Adjustment. Silvergate Homes Limited is requesting Council to consider passing a resolution that would allow them to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the Legends Phase 1 and 2 Plans of Vacant Land Condominium to obtain relief from the zoning by-law that would allow the planned townhouse dwellings to be constructed with roofed-over porches. Council approved the zoning for the condominiums in 2018 and the Phase 1 condominium was registered in January 2019. Page 235 of 525 2 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 BACKGROUND Proposal On March 27, 2018, Council passed a zoning by-law to rezone lands shown on Schedule 1 to a site specific Residential Low Density, Grouped Multiple Dwellings (R4-1060) zone. This zoning permits townhouse dwellings on the subject land. Later in 2018, Council approved a Plan of Vacant Land Condominium application to divide a portion of the land into 58 units for townhouse dwelling units (Legends Phase 1). This condominium plan was registered on March 4, 2019. The applicant has subsequently finalized the Building Permit plans, which are shown on Schedule 2. The applicant is proposing covered porches rather than open patios. The applicant (Silvergate Homes Limited) intends to submit a Plan of Vacant Land Condominium for Legends Phase 2, on a portion of the land south of Phase 1 which is also zoned R4-1060 (See Schedule 3). This development also includes covered porches which were not anticipated when the zoning was approved. The applicant intends to pursue a minor variance application for this phase of development as well. In order to request the City’s Committee of Adjustment to consider the desired variance s, the applicant requires Council to pass a resolution granting an exemption to the 2 -year waiting period. Planning Changes The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 was passed in the Ontario legislature and received Royal Assent on December 3, 2015. The Act amended the Planning Act by establishing a 2-year waiting period for minor variance applications. This means minor variance applications are not permitted for two years following a privately-initiated site- specific rezoning of a property. The intent of the new 2-year waiting period is to provide greater control to Council to prevent zoning provisions that Council determined to be appropriate from being reversed or altered through the minor variance process for 2 years. Notwithstanding the 2-year waiting period for minor variances, subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. provides Council with the ability to allow applications for minor variances by passing a resolution. If Council allows a variance application to proceed, it would still be subject to all the normal Planning Act requirements for a public hearing, notice and appeal rights. Council’s decision to permit applications would simply mean that they are satisfied that the zoning regulations it implemented can be reviewed and varied by the Committee of Adjustment. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting Council to consider passing a resolution that would permit them to request the City’s Committee of Adjustment to vary zoning regulations that were approved for the proposed developments. The variance application that applicant wishes to pursue would alter the regulations for porch encroachments into required yards and maximum lot coverage. Page 236 of 525 3 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 Staff note that one year has already passed since the site specific zoning was approved . There would be no benefit to maintain the balance of the 2 year waiting period before the filing of a minor variance application in this case. The developer has finalized their building designs and wishes to construct dwellings with roofed-over one storey porches in the privacy yards instead of patios. These changes exceed the maximum pe rmitted encroachment for porches into yards and results in an increase in lot coverage that exceeds the maximum 38% permitted on the land. A resolution is included in tonight’s Council agenda. Should Council adopt the resolution, the owner will be able to make their request to the Committee of Adjustment for the desired variance. The standard Planning Act procedures for notification, public hearing and satisfying the four tests would apply to the minor variance application. Earlier this year, Council granted a similar request from Kenmore Homes which permitted them to pursue a minor variance for the Terravita Subdivision. CITY’S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Removal of the 2-year waiting period will allow the developer to file an application with the City’s Committee of Adjustment and expedite the request in an efficient time period. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Schedule 1 – Location Map Schedule 2 – Legends Phase 1 Plan of Condominium Schedule 3 – Legends Phase 2 Plan of Condominium Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer ABryce:gd Attach. S:\PDR\2019\PBD-2019-33, Two- Year Waiting Period Exemption Request, 8974 Willoughby Drive.docx Page 237 of 525 4 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 1 Page 238 of 525 5 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 2 Page 239 of 525 6 PBD-2019-33 May 14, 2019 SCHEDULE 3 Page 240 of 525 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution May 14, 2019 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. establishes a 2-year waiting period for minor variance applications which means minor variance applications are not permitted for two years following an applicant-initiated site specific rezoning of a property; and WHEREAS the intent of the 2-year waiting period is to provide greater control to municipalities, prevent zoning provisions that Council determines to be appropriate from being reversed or altered through the minor variance process for 2 years, and to increase stability by affording municipalities the ability to implement site specific zoning by-laws; and WHEREAS notwithstanding the 2-year waiting period for minor variances, subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. provides municipalities the ability to permit privately-initiated applications for minor variances by passing a resolution; and WHEREAS Silvergate Homes Limited requested Council to consider passing a resolution that would permit them to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment in regards to applicant-initiated site specific By-law No. 2018-110 that was passed by Council in 2018; and WHEREAS Council determined that a minor variance that would permit Silvergate Homes Limited to vary the lot coverage regulation to accommodate dwellings with roofed-over one storey porches in the Legends Phase 1 and Phase 2 Plans of Condominium, does not undermine Council’s original intention when it passed By-law No. 2018-110. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that subject to subsection 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990 R.S.O. Council consents to an exemption to the 2 -year waiting period for minor variances and thereby allows Silvergate Homes Limited to file an application to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for the development of the Legends Phase 1 and Phase 2 Plans of Condominium that is regulated by By-law No. 2018-110. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 241 of 525 1 Bill Matson From:Carey Campbell Sent:Thursday, May 2, 2019 1:06 PM To:Bill Matson Cc:Wayne Thomson Subject:Mr. Clark Dorchester Road concerns about flyer delivery Attachments:20190502113013240.pdf Hello Bill: I had a long conversation with Mr. Clark, see letter attached. I suggested that I could call the newspaper distribution company, as he has a number of times himself, to ask them to clean up the litter on his behalf. He said that is not what he is seeking, instead, he is looking for Council to enact a bylaw to prohibit the delivery of unsolicited paper, as is similar to what some other municipalities have done to help address this issue. I indicated that he should write to Mayor and Members of Council directly and ask them for their consideration of such a bylaw. However, he proceeded to tell me that he is 85 years old and it took him much energy and effort to write the letter that he sent to me and to compile all of the photos attached, etc. After confirming his intention that this come before Council for their consideration, I said that I would share his letter with you and as the City Clerk, you could bring it forward for Council to look at. Over the years and especially recently our office has had many complaints about litter from unsolicited newspaper delivery so I know Mr. Clark's concerns are certainly not just his own. If you could kindly ensure that this comes before Council per his request, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. carey Page 242 of 525 ,322y é..3_wB.._..»Ii.«5;. n.§\.R.cMR >3N mi.” ..,./L‘vw\.mn\xw \‘F 1, ”_.i%.mo._m;/ \$$&.\w%\n\“\mAm\. x: m. lE1 1 &xuE\§m\\m.\\\x\.xm s {E,mH\.. « ‘11!!« %\.uvmx?w?\~.\\mx+.xnrwxmmxuxxmkvuR\_.%&mmvmme ..!.l:I1<-l: :? mxx..\l.\mwo\\\HQxQmm.\§<m\\SmV.\vn\m.\.\.mmm»\\«k»\m\Iw\u}\Mu1\.N\MN\,. nvxuu1\\\Mxnxamt.Exwmku.xxm..3¥\w\\.Wm~,.RH\\mmKNBs\\kI®\\Q\QNm\h.nJl\: lk\\\NmN%§\\§EkmE\\\{,.R\.3WE\Q%\§ubeSn.\\\&wxtxxm - uwxxxm\u§t§\u§.«L&.xmm\§,\xn.\EnNHens.NRN1«\\\\«Qxn\\\xmm\$mh.?LMMmxb .N.|kMh.B\¥§ExmMEmVwam.h.e\\\.uuVNM.\.\\m.\~)xx»,\x\\,...AmmmkHe«»nw\«n%\\hmE. \¥§§m\%\\., i:-. Nng.hR%mM\&%fb\\\\\tN\\\.NKMwwnxuA\\3m\nkw\\\u®.\.S.\\\,.m.\m&.\w.\Kb.:$’ ENWeNhxhmmtttmuwxuxwmQeVmmnh.§\w\\nn\0.\V\vx®.&\\\\\.«_\:Q I % mu?wuxxu§.»\..hr%&\:nNWN\\\\k..\.wn®mRxmM\m.K.«\\m\\N:\u\\§u il e.«\g.\.N1\\V\§\§mRNu:\\.\nm\n.n|N\.\\\n\m.«.PNEWIWQxwrué609.3%.- ».I§W\\\\V»\\\..«o.I\£1}1x I w1\.\\“ um;mu\s\%m\xx\\\\Mxmm..%MV»%mnm\NR\~\V.»1\\\\m\.%htu§HeroN\xNm\, ii h§\N&w%mR\.\%\».\$sEwNR ER»mbw¢-whw», %\\.R\}.S\\\Nxlxxmwmmnkxm\»Nh\Rhn?mkxxmhRh\s§«W%R§%|l,. 'b\mh\\N:\\\\VN\\\\\\\.\n.MBx:\$\\\mxkgV\\.%NRMAHQ\.n\\Vn. mwltaVim\%mux\m«\\\£x\\\\kxmhw»uhm%.\:roxvNmmwm%m\\s.\Qc&Ak\??.\Nh..\w.m.!‘ RN\\~\\.\v\mW%\\.§LMmhu\&\§.w.\\\N\\\B\..>\»\N\\.V\\\W.\\nx_mu\\.\:\mBNALQMI3):“; IEmx\-x&nNm .1»ii, %u.\\Mm&NN¢A&.NN\K§§VN.¥V.§N.<A?mmnwkx.xvxnxxAn.\?.,\\W\.n._R“\ixx\“ lzm\m%..1kR\\!\\Nhm_\mumEm.kM\M\W»\\.x3\m\ma\;ma.N\?3xk...NN\k.mxwmrmmwvwv I1,mNx&N.N1nu..&m\?4l.NM.~¢?‘\§\V\.W\NH.u\|\cMNHXNh‘L\\C§1V iIn 5 :r1M«|\I\m.~nK,us\.&NRm.LmwRh?m&R%k3m\§.hk\§u\QKmimvkunHh\.«§muunt?nltuh. 3 wkE§\xw.\NsMhnL\sV\«\..\Jwush?«MREYnkumm, .2 \.,&RN\§..\uk.1\».R\m\NwNmw?xWuxx.\\\R\._»ua.m\.w\m§\M\{n.~%oF\mI.Q:m} -\\QxM§\\§amkmmMMm\.QM\h\.Rmwmu§m%. FNWRhm[K1A\AytN Page 243 of 525 Nxkwxnum?mmxnsN.».m».36}\\\h._‘NN.-h$.&r&R.\.,rJ‘ \N»\fsA\NxmR.wM\&\r\~n.\\m.MWQx?M»Nn.mN!.m&Nx.?\.m:MNaxwl\Rm..%..«R§_:1i!.;, « R$x7nNl&m.mzxdWxxmmh]hW-NRxn\\§nMwFNmRmWtm&&uPMm.\KW.m-z... 1, \\.mn\w~.m\QNQNm\n!\l%.HN\»\WD\?..\IW!k:.‘\Q’%.Hn\lv\‘x®A.\R\hmJ.J ti»- \\kom\.n.\\\«\««»,\.4.N\b.\\\\\«§\K‘nxrn3%»nw\u~HN.:\RmN:luhk.M®\.lxNwR\\k‘.l «xx: ‘ a\\\,N\\PB%y..N§>\.\.\mK1>bn\...n\,\\WNv.\.NMkkuaxxkmVGbrmnhwr x!x I mM,|.mmh\.maK..xK.M!N.&>%a1\.mM}\\\\§N»Kxmb§r.b,nR?R.~m,-\\ENmNAJIR 1: i.xw§NDmA:3.V -! \.\\\»m\\.\m.uwxh.\\\MxMxxkmkxxxmmmtnw§\%%RNW\\>N\uW\.\mH:.mW«%\m\:\n.1V3‘:‘ iN.N5x..\.m«\§.»\\(,mmxxmhk?hn\mJn\Nm\_\xv,\nNw.nN®%§.A\iNNV\u.Wnm-m_§kmx.§mWm1 in! 1N\.mEmF.,~NxI\k.1®FrnH.‘%g:“1\1H<4ah&.M,KN..x,mDvy.‘r.. 11:![\V!»x1}. ‘ kxwaaxmk,:\..c1v.H\_uW;mnrKmM-mwuU..xm.1\h.kP\lKW.\:n-.~m.PmKx,.$.&.b‘Na%\al\\£m%Ml »«~\N.nw.\\%\W)|n.\\W\m.N.q1§l.NWt.%_Rm.t..MR§\\N\‘mo.m.Mmw..wM.\\\WMM\‘\¥M‘..H‘xm?hllié. N1 ‘I ‘mVNysNmm\..\.\i1w\RX\E\NWamM.MN\w|nm.mw\Nm\»\sz: n+\uA.\\m.m.M‘..m@x?khk..\i:NN\M»»\$.&N\:%\a.\i&n.M.N....\\~.§.K\xxxmnu a! ‘QR. ‘. &\§.mNhKwW\k\\m«m.\(w\«,nEH,,.:‘... kmxmsimw&qkM2“\.\m.m\.,.)b.kaW.hu1.ANH\N.!um_W:\“.\.n1:,\q‘A&Nh\m\Nl«N..‘@Rmmk.N\m\m»rm-; ‘Kw§mN$.VK\mn%-kaxIN,RwnI,m.mN.xé\§P\m\mN»xMo.\Ww\wL\M4Nr\\\..wY[rNQ\£\h\Duxwut. .L“ ;N\~Nnl\ml\\1\»R,kmmmk»\3m.R\!RmV\w\m\\m_m.mVP\N.!mQL,mxmh‘‘NFnh\..»Vhm.\?\1\x_\._‘$1‘l»‘.i] 1 .f(peK.m\.\kRuN\.RHmx“&RN:mN,®mNx.\wp.m\.nMm\mN\m.m,. ‘‘3 ‘“NN\AvKm.L®.N1\.MBx\Ix.\n&\\\..m\t\\m\\H\ E1» \N\\»m|\N\x.\ 2-:.Iz , ,1»- i i A- .;rr,u‘|!!..lMVN§§§nWn§:MRN.1\WMl ;li»Iy :1. Nz1‘?.l!..§lizltll? ..ux5.!|\‘IM!.Wm..® 5:}Ni‘!!i‘Jan:‘‘ .-!§l-,.rl’k’ x.m.bm.\.M.m.nP,.Mmn.v.MPi--..! 1;IJ.«[51?;Page 244 of 525 Page 245 of 525 Page 246 of 525 \\\\«xx \ «xxkm‘.2% \Page 247 of 525 Page 248 of 525 Page 249 of 525 1 Bill Matson From:Victor Pietrangelo Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:10 PM To:Edwards, Robin Cc:Bill Matson Subject:Re: requesting assistance and advice Hi Robin. Thanks very much for your email. I remember both of these incidents and my sincere condolences to your family and the Pieroway family as well. I’ve keyed in our City Clerk, Bill Matson on this email. I would like Bill to place this item on our next City Council agenda. If you like, you are welcome to come the meeting and speak. Bill...please let us know if this is possible. Thanks. Vic Sent from my iPad On Apr 29, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Edwards, Robin <Robin.Edwards@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca> wrote: H Hello my name is Robin Edwards and last weekend my wife and I were in Toronto for a conference with MADD, Mother’s Against Drunk Driving. On February 24 th 2017 our young beautiful daughter “Jessica” was hit by a drunk driver at the corner of Mountain and Taylor road and was pronounced deceased on the February 25th 2017. Her and her friends were in an Uber cab going out for the evening. In Toronto we were with another couple Robert and Cheryl Pieroway who’s daughter “Julia” was killed by a drunk driver on November 12th 2017 at the corner of Montrose and Biggar road. She was also a beautiful young girl. Both had so much to look forward to in their lives but unfortunately it was cut short. In both cases the person who caused these terrible losses have been convicted of Impaired Driving causing Death and each received 5 years in a Federal Penitentiary. Over 1000 people are killed and over 60,000 people are injured by an impaired driver every year in Canada. After all these years and the promotions to stop drinking and driving, this carnage persists. We met many people who have similar stories as ours. Some lost multiple family members and many severely injured where they are now living a shadow of their former lives. During the conference we learned many things about MADD and the work that they do. It came to our attention that they were given permission by the Ontario government to erect signs on provincial highways where people have died from an impaired driver. MADD will also put signs if a city or municipality gives them permission. It is believed that these signs help in discouraging people from committing this violent crime. People see the sign and it reminds them of the terrible tragedy. It makes people think and realize that impaired driving is real and that it is preventable. These signs are similar size as any other signs and will not obstruct views. Page 250 of 525 2 The Pieroway family and our family is asking for your assistance in getting the permission that MADD requires to erect a sign at the location of these tragedies. It has been a long two years and if the sign makes one person not to drink and drive it will be worth it. The life saved can be anyone, someone in your family, a friend’s family or again in our family. It would be nice to see the City of Niagara Falls take the initiative and show other cities and municipalities the importance of stopping drinking and driving. Thanking you in advance for looking into this matter and looking forward to hearing from you, Robin Edwards 7146 Maywood Street Niagara Falls, Canada 905-374-7193 Robin.Edwards@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca or gonzoye@aol.com Page 251 of 525 1 Bill Matson From:Pride Niagara Vicechair <vicechair@prideniagara.com> Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2019 1:08 PM To:Cathy Crabbe Cc:Sarah Conidi; Bill Matson Subject:2019 Niagara Pride Week Flag Raising! Importance:High Hello Cathy, It’s that time of year again, Niagara Pride Week 2019 is quickly approaching (Saturday June 1st to Saturday June 8th) I’m contacting you to schedule this year’s Rainbow Flag Raising with the City of Niagara Falls, on Monday June 3rd at 10:45 am. This is a fantastic opportunity for the City of Niagara Falls Council to show their support and unity in the continued journey of making the Niagara Region a fantastic place to live for our LGBT+ community Please contact us at your earliest convince so we can confirm your involvement in this annual celebration of unity. Happy Pride! Kevin Manninen Vice-Chairperson 2018/2019 Pride Niagara Board of Directors chair@prideniagara.com SAVE THE DATE 2019 Niagara Pride Week June 1st - June 8th http://twitter.com/prideniagara http://www.facebook.com/pride.niagara https://www.instagram.com/prideniagara/?hl=en Page 252 of 525 SAMPLE PROCLAMATION FOR APRAXIA AWARENESS DAY Whereas, May 14, 2019 marks the 6th annual Childhood Apraxia of Speech Day during which awareness will be raised throughout Canada about Childhood Apraxia of Speech, an extremely challenging speech disorder in children. Whereas, Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) causes children to have significant difficulty learning to speak and is among the most severe speech deficits in children. Whereas, the act of learning to speak comes effortlessly to most children, those with apraxia endure an incredible and lengthy struggle. Whereas, without appropriate speech therapy intervention, children with apraxia are placed at high risk for secondary impacts in reading, writing, spelling, and other school-related skills. Whereas, that such primary and secondary impacts diminish future independence and employment opportunities if not resolved or improved. Whereas, most children with apraxia of speech will learn to communicate with their very own voices only if they receive early intervention, appropriate, intensive, and frequent speech therapy. Whereas, it is imperative there be greater public awareness about childhood apraxia of speech in Niagara Falls among community members, physicians, education professionals, policy makers, and elected officials. Whereas, policy makers, intervention program administrators, schools and insurance providers are encouraged to recognize the critical need to provide adequate speech therapy and other services so that the impact of this disorder is minimized and so that thousands of affected children can grow into productive, contributing adult citizens. Whereas, our highest respect goes to these children, as well as their families, for their effort, determination and resilience in the face of such obstacles. Let it be resolved, that May 14, 2019 is “Apraxia Awareness Day” and citizens of Niagara Falls are encouraged to work within their communities to increase awareness and understanding of Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Page 253 of 525 City of Niagara Falls – Municipal Proclamation National Public Works Week, May 19 – 25, 2019 “It Starts Here” WHEREAS, public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life and well-being of the people of Ontario; and, WHEREAS, these infrastructure, facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are engineers, managers and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving and protecting our nation’s transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens; and, WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders and children in Canada to gain knowledge of and to maintain a progressive interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities; and, WHEREAS, the year 2019 marks the 59th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association/Canadian Public Works Association be it now, RESOLVED, We, the Mayor and Council of Niagara Falls do hereby designate the week May 19 – 25, 2019 as National Public Works Week; I urge all citizens to join with representatives of the Canadian Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, mana gers and employees and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and quality of life. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Municipality of the City of Niagara Falls to be affixed, DONE at the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario this 14th day of May 2019. ____________________ Mayor James M. Diodati Page 254 of 525 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 29, 2019 CL 9-2019, April 25, 2019 PEDC 4-2019, April 17, 2019 PDS 17-2019, April 17, 2019 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY Niagara Housing Statement: Affordable Housing Data PDS 17-2019 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 25, 2019, passed the following recommendation of its Planning and Economic Development Committee: That Report PDS 17-2019, dated April 17, 2019, respecting Niagara Housing Statement: Affordable Housing Data, BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. A copy of PDS 17-2019 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :jg CLK-C 2019-097 cc: A. Tikky Planner, Planning and Development Services N. Oakes Executive Assistant to the Commissioner, Planning and Development Services R. Mostacci Commissioner, Planning and Development Services Page 255 of 525 PDS 17-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 1 Subject: Niagara Housing Statement: Affordable Housing Data Report to: Planning and Economic Development Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 Recommendations 1. That Report PDS 17-2019 BE RECEIVED for information; and 2. That a copy of Report PDS 17-2019 BE CIRCULATED to the Local Area Municipalities. Key Facts The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the development of a Niagara Housing Statement database to inform the concurrent studies being undertaken by the Planning and Development Services Department and the Community Services Department. Specifically, the comprehensive review of the Niagara Region’s Housing and Homelessness Action Plan and the preparation of a regional housing strategy to inform the policies of the Regional Official Plan. An inter-departmental Steering Committee was formed in 2018 to align the concurrent efforts across the Corporation to address issues of housing supply and affordability. The Steering Committee determined that there is a need for a single source of housing-related data that clearly delineates housing need within Niagara Region. The Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis (CANCEA) was awarded the project and has prepared a comprehensive database that includes key housing metrics, and detailed demographic and housing trends for Niagara by region and municipality. A series of one-on-one consultation meetings was held in March 2019 between local municipal planning staff, Regional staff, and the CANCEA Project Team to discuss the database and emerging trends. Feedback received during these sessions was overwhelmingly supportive of the project deliverables, and indicated an urgent need for this data to be shared in order to inform municipal-level housing studies and related initiatives. Following this Committee meeting, Regional staff will distribute the database to local municipal staff, and organise a one-day working session to review the data, identify local and regional trends and identify scenarios that will inform the preparation and implementation of local and regional housing policy. Page 256 of 525 PDS 17-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Financial Considerations The Niagara Housing Statement project was funded through the 2018 Council Approved Operating Budget with contributions from the Planning and Development Services Department, and the Community Services Department. There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. Analysis Background New Regional Official Plan and Housing and Homelessness Action Plan Section 26 of the Planning Act requires municipalities to undertake regular reviews of their Official Plans in order to align and conform to Provincial planning policy and legislation, including the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), the Greenbelt Plan (2017), and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017). Through approval of Report PDS 40-2016, Regional Council endorsed the preparation of a new Regional Official Plan in accordance with the Planning Act. Subsequently, Report PDS 41-2017 outlined eight (8) background studies necessary for the development of the new Regional Official Plan. In conformity with Section 2.2.6 of the Provincial Growth Plan (2017), this list of studies includes the preparation of a regional housing strategy, that must, among other things: identify a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents; establish targets for affordable ownership and rental housing; identify land use planning and financial planning tools to support these measures; and align with the Niagara Region 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Action Plan (HHAP) as required under the Housing Services Act. The Niagara Region 10-Year HHAP was developed in consultation with local community members, service providers, local area municipalities, and other stakeholders as per the requirements of the Housing Services Act. Action plans play a critical function in setting out how Service Managers, such as the Regional Municipality of Niagara, are to address housing and homelessness locally, including: housing affordability, the co - ordination of homelessness and related support services, and the prevention of homelessness and chronic homelessness. The Plan was approved by Niagara Regional Council in 2013, and came into effect on January 1, 2014. The Housing Services Act stipulates that Service Managers must review their plans at least once every five (5) years to ref lect changes in policy and/or shifts in local priorities, as well as to ensure consistency with the Policy Statement: Service Manager Housing Page 257 of 525 PDS 17-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ and Homelessness Plans (2016). The review process is an opportunity to consider if any substantial changes have taken place in the local context since its initial creation, particularly in relation to local demographic and economic changes. This is formally reflected in the Policy Statement: Service Manager Housing and Homelessness Plans (2016), which requires Service Managers to complete an assessment of current and future housing needs. The assessment must be used to inform objectives, targets, and achievements within the updated HHAP, including goals related to the provision of a mix and range of housing by non-profit housing corporations, non-profit cooperatives, and the private sector in order to meet the needs of the local community. The action plan must also reflect a coordinated approach with Ontario’s land use planning framework, including the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) and the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017). Preparation of the Niagara Housing Statement Database In 2018, staff members from Niagara Regional Housing, Planning and Development Services, Community Services, and ERMS Departments formed an inter-departmental Steering Committee to coordinate concurrent housing studies, as well as to align efforts being undertaken across the Corporation to address housing supply and affordability within the Niagara Region. The Steering Committee identified that there was no existing source of data either within or outside the organization that could provide an accurate assessment of the current and future demand for ownership, rental, and affordable housing within the Niagara Region. As such, in recognition of the mutual need for this information, the Planning and Development Services Department and the Community Services Departments prepared a joint Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of a comprehensive database that would inform the policies of the Niagara Region Housing and Homelessness Action Plan and the Regional Official Plan. In December 2018 the project was awarded to the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis (CANCEA), an analytics and data organization with over 15 years experience in the provision of demographic, household, employment, land-use and economic analyses for various municipal and provincial government bodies. The database prepared by CANCEA includes detailed demographic and housing trends, both b ased on historical data, as well as data projections in conformity with those developed for Niagara 2041 Growth Strategy. The database also includes geographical mapping of income levels, demographic and housing characteristics at the sub-municipal levels, key housing need metrics at the municipal level, and analyses of key sub-groups, including older adults, low-income earners, immigrant and homeless populations, and aboriginal identity. Page 258 of 525 PDS 17-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ Local Municipal Consultation Following a presentation by CANCEA to the inter-departmental Steering Committee on March 25, 2019, a series of one-on-one consultation meetings were held on March 26, 2019 and March 27, 2019 between local planning staff from all twelve (12) area municipalities, staff from Planning and Development Services, Community Services, and Niagara Regional Housing, and the CANCEA Project Team As part of these consultation sessions, each municipality was provided with data specific to their community, as well as a high-level overview of the housing data collected. The contents and capabilities of the prepared database were presented by the Project Team, followed by a facilitated discussion regarding the results of the preliminary data analysis and its potential implications on municipal housing initiatives . Feedback from local municipal staff was positive, with few corrections or gaps in the data identified. Several local municipalities indicated that they were in the process of undertaking similar types of housing analyses to address the specific needs of their communities, and that receipt of the prepared database would be critical to determining their scope and direction. Process and Next Steps Given the overall response to the database and the urgent nature of select municipal studies, Regional staff have determined that it is imperative that the results of the data analysis be presented to the Committee at this time, so that the Niagara Housing Statement database can be shared with local municipalities to work with. Following the circulation of the dataset, Regional staff will be working with CANCEA’s Project Team to arrange and host a training session for local municipal staff. Regional staff also intend to use this session as a means to facilitate further discussion regarding the specific housing needs of local area municipalities, and to develop specific scenarios for a risk and opportunities analysis that can inform the policies and regional targets within the Niagara Region HHAP and the new Regional Official Plan. Alternatives Reviewed The inter-departmental Steering Committee discussed various means of utilizing existing data sources to form the basis of the Region’s housing policies and objectives. However, due to the incomplete and disjointed nature of the information available, it would compromise the effectiveness of any recommended tools or metrics. The comprehensive database prepared by CANCEA is necessary for staff to develop evidence-based policies that more accurately reflects the Region’s housing needs, as well as to provide consistency between Regional and local municipal housing studies and strategies. Page 259 of 525 PDS 17-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities The new Regional Official Plan will assist in implementing Council’s Strategic Priority of Labour-Ready Workforce. Other Pertinent Reports N/A ________________________________ Prepared by: Alexandria Tikky Planner Planning and Development Services ________________________________ Recommended by: Rino Mostacci Commissioner Planning and Development Services ___________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was reviewed by Doug Giles, MCIP, RPP, Director, Community and Long-Range Planning. Page 260 of 525 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 29, 2019 CL 9-2019, April 25, 2019 CSC 4-2019, April 17, 2019 CSD 29-2019, April 17, 2019 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY Bill 142 – Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 CSD 29-2019 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 25, 2019, passed the following recommendation of its Corporate Services Committee: 1. That Regional Council ENDORSE the recommendations made by the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) to the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider the following additional changes to the recently amended Construction Act: Owners should be provided more than 14 days to publish a notice of non- payment to ensure that due diligence is completed before payment of a proper invoice is required (e.g. 21 business days); The time period between December 24th to January 2nd of each calendar year should be excluded from the calculation of time with respect to Prompt Payment and Adjudication; The date for implementing the Prompt Payment and Adjudication regimes should be postponed from October 1, 2019 to one year following the establishment of the Authorized Nominating Authority (ANA); and That the Ministry create and communicate practice guides, interpretation bulletins, and webinars in alignment with Recommendations 97 & 98 of the Expert Panel’s Report to educate owners, contractors, and subcontractors of the new regimes; 2. That the Regional Chair BE DIRECTED to send a letter to the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider the recommendations made by AMO respecting the changes to the Construction Act; and Page 261 of 525 Bill 142 – Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 April 29, 2019 Page 2 3. That Report CSD 29-2019 BE CIRCULATED to the local area municipalities. A copy of CSD 29-2019 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :mt CLK-C 2019-099 cc: K. Simpson Project Manager, Enterprise Resource Management Services M Montague Executive Assistant, Enterprise Resource Management Services T. Harrison Commissioner/Treasurer, Enterprise Resource Management Services Page 262 of 525 CSD 29-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 1 Subject: Bill 142 – Construction Lien Amendment Act, 2017 Report to: Corporate Services Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 Recommendations 1. That Regional Council ENDORSE the recommendations made by the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) to the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider the following additional changes to the recently amended Construction Act: Owners should be provided more than 14 days to publish a notice of non - payment to ensure that due diligence is completed before payment of a proper invoice is required (e.g. 21 business days); The time period between December 24th to January 2nd of each calendar year should be excluded from the calculation of time with respect to Prompt Payment and Adjudication; The date for implementing the Prompt Payment and Adjudication regimes should be postponed from October 1, 2019 to one year following the establishment of the Authorized Nominating Authority (ANA); and That the Ministry create and communicate practice guides, interpretation bulletins, and webinars in alignment with Recommendations 97 & 98 of the Expert Panel’s Report to educate owners, contractors, and subcontractors of the new regimes; 2. That the Regional Chair BE DIRECTED to send a letter to the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider the recommendations made by AMO respecting the changes to the Construction Act; and 3. That Report CSD 29-2019 BE CIRCULATED to the local area municipalities. Key Facts The purpose of this report is to inform Council regarding municipal governments’ concerns with recent amendments to the Construction Act as a result of Bill 142, and recommend that Niagara Region join municipal organizations in support of the four changes outlined by the AMO. Of significant concern is that the necessary processes are not in place with the province, preventing municipal governments from planning appropriately for the October 2019 implementation. Page 263 of 525 CSD 29-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), Municipal Finance Officers of Ontario (MFOA), and other municipal organizations are supportive of the changes outlined by the AMO. Financial Considerations There will be a financial impact for the Region to implement and comply with Bill 142; however, the magnitude of the impact cannot be fully understood until the legislation has been in place for some time. As a result of Bill 142 amendments to the Act, there will be cost implications associated with updating contract language, adapting existing processes, and resources required to address prompt payment, mandatory adjudication, risk mitigation, and general compliance with the amended statute. Budgetary and accounting pressures are a factor as mandated payments related to adjudicated disputes will become due mid -project with short timelines for payment. Staff will be required to develop processes and procedures to respond to new payment and claims pressures under compressed timelines. Additional ongoing legal and contract administration support will also be required to address an expected increase in contract disputes arising from the mandatory adjudication process. Additionally, depending on the yet to be determined regulations, mandatory surety bonds on public projects may also increase project costs, and potentially reduce the competitive pool of available bidders for certain types of work. Overall, these potential factors introduce significant corporate financial risk to the organization. Analysis Bill 142 made numerous amendments to the Construction Lien Act (now titled the Construction Act), which affect the Region, its professional consultants, general contractors, subcontractors, and contract administrators. These include: Modernization of the construction lien and holdback rules and timelines Modernization of claims procedures Introduction of a prompt payment regime for all construction projects Implementation of adjudication as a new process to speed up dispute resolution The purpose of the amendments was to ensure promptness and security of payment for suppliers of construction materials and services, and to ensure disputes are resolved efficiently to facilitate cash flows between contractors and subcontractors. The amendments are being implemented in three phases and can be categorized as follows: Page 264 of 525 CSD 29-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ (1) Minor housekeeping changes which went into effect December 12, 2017; (2) changes with respect to lien modernization, holdback payment, and surety bonding effective July 1, 2018; and (3) changes with respect to prompt payment and adjudication effective October 1, 2019. Prompt Payment Effective October 1, 2019, new legislation with respect to a "Prompt Payment'' scheme will be implemented which will have an impact on the Region and the construction industry as a whole. The Act will require that an owner (i.e. the Region) pay according to a "proper invoice" no later than 28 days after receiving said invoice from the contractor. Should an owner dispute the invoice, or a portion thereof, notice of non-payment must be given no later than 14 days after the invoice receipt date. If only a portion of the invoice is disputed, the owner is still required to pay any undisputed portions of the invoice within the 28 day time frame. Staff are currently working to rewrite contracts and to define what constitutes a "proper invoice" in its contract language. System and process changes related to document management are also required to accommodate these changes. Considerations are also being made in the event the Region loses adjudications of disputes, as interest will accrue on any amounts that are not paid within the legislated time. In addition, while the Legislative changes related to prompt payment outlined herein come into effect post contract award, the Region’s Procurement department recognizes the need for a proactive and upfront commitment of resources to ensure that all associated templates (RFT, RFP, etc.) and contract documentation are updated to reflect the changes related to prompt payment, mandatory adjudication, risk mitigation, and general compliance with the amended statute. To ensure ongoing adherence to the overarching objectives of fairness and transparency, these changes will be incorporated and effectively communicated to the bidding community from the onset of each procurement process that is undertaken. Adjudication Also effective October 1, 2019, the Bill 142 amendments will come into force with respect to interim adjudication for construction disputes. The Minister of the Attorney General is responsible for designating an entity to act as Authorized Nominating Authority (ANA) for the purposes of developing and overseeing programs for training adjudicators; qualifying adjudicators; establishing and maintaining a registry of adjudicators; and appointing adjudicators. Page 265 of 525 CSD 29-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ The party to a contract will have the right to refer disputes to adjudication, although adjudications are mandatory if payment is withheld. These disputes could relate to valuation of services or materials; payments under the contract, including change orders; disputes subject to Notices of Non-Payment; amounts retained as set-off; payments of holdback; non-payments of holdback; or any other matter to which the parties to the adjudication agree. The adjudication procedures are set out in the Act, and will include a written notice of adjudication; selecting an approved adjudicator; exchange of documents to be relied upon at the adjudication; powers of the adjudicator; on-site inspection of work projects; and retaining of experts to assist the adjudicator. Strict timelines have been put in place (once adjudication is initiated, parties will have four days to agree to an adjudicator or the Authorized Nominating Authority must appoint one within five days; the initiating party then has five days to provide materials in support of its position; and a decision must be rendered by the adjudicator within 30 days of adjudication). Liens Liens are no longer attached to municipal property effective October 1, 2019. Under the current legislation, liens are not attached to crown property or municipal highways; however, if someone wishes to lien other properties such as a community centre, they can register the lien on title. With Bill 142, municipal properties are treated the same as crown lands. All liens are to be served by giving it to the Clerk; they are not to be placed on title. Staff will be required to develop processes and procedures to respond to new liens procedures under compressed timelines. Staff at the Region have initiated a readiness assessment to identify the gaps and to develop a subsequent work plan to be compliant with Bill 142. Council’s endorsement for these recommendations made by AMO and the associated risks as articulated in their letter will help ensure the Region’s success in complying with the Bill while staff continue the work to be ready for October 1 or any other date the province may establish as a result of AMO recommendations and their endorsement by the Council. Alternatives Reviewed N/A Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities N/A Page 266 of 525 CSD 29-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ Other Pertinent Reports N/A ________________________________ Prepared by: Kirbi Simpson Project Manager Enterprise Resource Management Services ________________________________ Recommended by: Todd Harrison, CPA, CMA Commissioner/Treasurer Enterprise Resource Management Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Acting Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation and reviewed by Helen Chamberlain, Director Financial Management & Planning, Erin Amirault, Associate Director Finance Operations & Systems, Bart Menage, Director Procurement & Strategic Acquisitions, and Donna Gibbs, Director Legal & Court Services Appendices Appendix 1 AMO Submission to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly Appendix 2 AMO Letter to Attorney General Page 267 of 525 Bill 142, An Act to Amend the Construction Lien Act, 2017 Submission to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly November 1, 2017 Page 268 of 525 2 AMO, on behalf of our municipal members, advocates for well-considered provincial legislation that enables municipal governments to function for the benefit of our communities and the public interest. Conversely, we work to mitigate unintended consequences of proposed legislation and regulations, identify gaps that need to be addressed, and provide advice to the Province to determine the best implementation. Bill 142, An Act to Amend the Construction Lien Act (2017), is a piece of legislation that exemplifies the positive outcomes of what happens when a proper and thorough consultation takes place. As you know, the construction industry, owners (including municipal governments), contractors, and subcontractors have long argued for reforms to the Construction Lien Act, and AMO is encouraged that Bill 142 includes significant improvements to modernize an Act that is over 30 years old. The Process AMO appreciates the government for conducting the Expert Panel review of the Construction Lien Act, and the commitment and leadership shown by Attorney General Naqvi to get Bill 142 to this stage. Our written comments will not come as a surprise to the Ministry of the Attorney General or others, as AMO has been actively consulted and involved throughout the four-year process. Last week, the Attorney General circulated a list of some proposed government motions that have allowed us to narrow the focus on our remarks on Bill 142. We appreciate the Ministry’s attempt to strike a balance between all stakeholders, and recognize that some of our concerns may be addressed in these motions. However, it is still important for AMO to highlight issues raised by our members that should be considered by the Committee. Please note that our general remarks support other municipal governments’ individual technical submissions which combined reflect countless hours working through how Bill 142 would affect the operations in their municipalities, and in some cases, have prepared draft alternative language that we hope the Committee will consider. Areas of Support for Bill 142 AMO has been working closely with the Attorney General’s office to identify gaps and unintended consequences of Bill 142. The Ministry is proposing several government motions that would, if passed, address some of AMO’s concerns: • including a transition provision to provide for consistency until the new law comes into effect; • exempting architects, engineers, and consulting professionals from requiring surety bonds for public projects; Page 269 of 525 3 • clarifying that interest for late payments is from the date the invoice was due and payable; and, • that adjudication may not revive expired liens. We recommend that the Committee adopt these changes during clause-by-clause consideration. In addition to these amendments, AMO submits that consideration also be given to our outstanding issues. Recommended Areas for Refinement 1. Payment should not be made without first receiving a municipal owner’s express approval or certification that work was properly completed. AMO believes in prompt payment and is supportive of a regime that requires payments be made promptly for work that is completed to a standard that an owner has deemed to have been met. We believe that modernizing prompt payment rules is important and that people who have completed work properly should be paid on time. AMO agrees completely with the Toronto Transit Commission’s comments regarding certification, that “requiring payment to be made from the date of a proper invoice instead of certification or owner’s approval means there may not be enough time to properly scrutinize an invoice and risks payment for improper or incomplete work. In the US, 20 states allow the trigger event to be either set out in the contract or is expressly certification/approval.”1 We note in the proposed government amendments, Alternative Financing and Procurement (AFP) projects would be allowed “certification of payment prior to the submission of an invoice for AFP projects.”2 AMO wonders why these same exceptions cannot apply also to municipal projects, given that it provides significant protection to one type of project over another. Although the government is proposing a motion that provides an owner with the ability to conduct “testing and commissioning” of a project, it does not account for every scenario and this motion, if applied, would only add an additional cost. Without including a certification trigger, the link of prompt payment with a mandatory adjudication regime, means that an owner is not only required to make a payment in 28 days, but adjudication is automatically invoked if not. This does not give nearly enough time for a municipal government, large or small, to verify that the work has been completed to specifications and to enter into discussions with contractors for any discrepancies that may be identified, which is industry practice. 1 Toronto Transit Commission. Written Submission on Bill 142: Construction Lien Act Amendment Act, 2017, October 25, 2017, pg. 3. 2 Email from the Attorney General’s Office. “Update on Bill 142: Construction Lien Amendment Act.” Received Monday, October 23, 2017. Page 270 of 525 4 All municipal governments have a duty to the taxpayer to be diligent in how projects are managed, and to ensure that taxpayer money is only paid for work that is properly performed and meets all of the specifications under the contract. To have the trigger for payment be the receipt of the proper invoice and not certification or other forms of owner’s approval lacks the checks and balances necessary to process those payments. It will undoubtedly result in paying for contracts that are not properly completed and increase costs of litigation to resolve those disputes through adjudication. Therefore, AMO is requesting that the trigger for payment for public projects be testing, commissioning and certification, or alternatively extend the timelines in the prompt payment regime to ensure that public funds are managed properly, and the safety of our projects are maintained for our residents. 2. Before proceeding to combine the lien rights and mandatory adjudication regimes – making Ontario the first jurisdiction in the world to do so – AMO would like the problematic time lags and other practical considerations addressed. AMO is very concerned about implementing both regimes at the same time. Even if a matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of a contractor or subcontractor, they may bring a lien action during construction. By contrast, an owner does not have any ability to bring an action until the end of the project. Bill 142 would make Ontario the first jurisdiction in the world to have both regimes (UK has adjudication but no lien rights). Under the prompt payment regime, owners and contractors would not have the same ability to settle a dispute because the timelines are so strict. To make matters more challenging, the government is proposing a motion that the subcontractor would be required to invoke adjudication if the contractor does not pay. These scenarios only drive up project costs and risk delaying construction projects. We continue to be told that this legislation intends to catch problematic actors, not large owners like municipal governments. As responsible owners, we should be given flexibility to resolve disputes with contractors at far less cost, before being pulled into adjudication. AMO also submits that the time lags between the “payment date” and the “non-payment notice” for progress payments ought to be extended to 28 days (s. 6.3 (2)), and the “payment date” and the “non-payment notice” for holdback payments should be extended to 60 days (s.27.1). This would better align the payment deadlines, and decrease the risk that contractors would be paid for work that was not properly completed. Another example is that the extremely short timelines, proposed for adjudication, could result in the owner being taken by surprise in a trial if the contractor has spent time preparing a detailed claim without the owner’s knowledge, and then initiates adjudication, with the owner having very little time to prepare a proper response. Page 271 of 525 5 These are just some examples that the Committee should address around the prompt payment and adjudication regimes. AMO recommends that the Province explore the implications of enacting both sections, and that stakeholders have the ability to comment on regulations before they are enacted. We have come too far in this process, and with significant alignment amongst stakeholder groups, why not work together to get it right the first time? 3. It is important that municipal governments receive training support and resources to ensure the legislation is properly implemented at the local level, and that they, as owners, are operating in compliance with the law. AMO encourages the Ministry to find ways to help train municipal staff across Ontario on what has changed should this legislation pass. The size and capacity of municipal governments is equally broad as the value of projects they deliver. For example, about 43% of municipalities have less than six full-time administrative staff to cover statutory duties including a clerk, treasurer, general reception, and perhaps a chief administrator.3 It is highly unlikely that there will be a lawyer on staff. Conversely, of the 34 Ontario municipalities that have a population over 100,000, their project management and legal staffing budgets will also have to significantly increase because of this legislation, as they, as an example, are the ones doing transit expansion projects. Regardless of size, Bill 142 will require every municipality to redraft all of their construction contracts, develop new project management procedures, and change processes to ensure faster payment. This will require hiring more legal and project management resources (especially if the timelines do not change), and adding more administrative burden on every municipal clerk who will need to ensure compliance with this legislation, as well as the over 200 other provincial statutes that municipal governments are required to follow. Given this context, AMO requests that the legislation be delayed in coming into force by one or two years, and echoes the recommendation by the City of Toronto that “there be a Ministry website for construction in Ontario for the publication of all notices under the Act and to provide additional information on individual projects”. This would be helpful to all parties in the construction pyramid and erase the administrative and cost burden of publications required under the Act. If each project in the Province was assigned a ‘Project Identifier’ number, this would further assist the parties in locating all of the information about a project in one place, on one website.”4 3 Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 2016 Financial Information Return, Schedule 80. https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/fir/ 4 City of Toronto, Oral Remarks on Bill 142: Construction Lien Act Amendment Act, 2017, October 25, 2017 Page 272 of 525 6 Conclusion AMO believes that Bill 142 has in some ways truly struck a balance between the competing asks of all stakeholders, and should be considered an achievement for industry and owner groups. That said, we hope that the Committee will carefully consider our remarks and those of our member municipalities. These remarks are intended to ensure the modernization of the Construction Lien Act will be as successful as possible by avoiding unintended consequences and mitigating against the potentially costly and burdensome impacts of this legislation. Page 273 of 525 200 University Ave. Suite 801 www.amo.on.ca Tel 416. 971.9856 Toll Free in Ontario Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6 amo@amo.on.ca Fax 416. 971.6191 877.426.6527 Sent via email: caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org March 7, 2019 The Honourable Caroline Mulroney Attorney General McMurtry-Scott Building, 11th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Dear Attorney General Mulroney: I would like to outline the ongoing concerns that municipal governments have with the Construction Act, 2017, and to reiterate my request to meet with you on this item. Without legislative amendments and support from the Ministry for implementation, we do not believe that the prompt payment and mandatory adjudication regimes will work effectively by the time the legislation is to come into force. AMO, and our members, have always supported the principle of prompt payment, as evidenced by various municipal governments that already have policies in place that protect workers and suppliers. That is why we have played an active role in modernizing the Construction Lien Act since the work on prompt payment began. While the Construction Act has been modernized in many respects, we recognize that the most significant pieces of legislation come into force on October 1, 2019. With that date fast approaching, AMO is asking the Ministry to consider four amendments: 1. Owners should be provided more than 14 days to publish a notice of non-payment to ensure that due diligence is done before payment of a proper invoice is required (e.g. 21 business days); 2. The time period between December 24th to January 2nd of each calendar year should be excluded from the calculation of time with respect to Prompt Payment and Adjudication, similar to the recently proposed federal legislation; 3. The date for implementing the Prompt Payment and Adjudication regimes should be postponed from October 1, 2019, to 1-year post-establishment of the Authorized Nominating Authority (ANA); and 4. That the Ministry create and communicate practice guides, interpretation bulletins, and webinars in alignment with Recommendations 97 & 98 of the Expert Panel’s Report to educate owners, contractors, and subcontractors on the new regimes. Page 274 of 525 2 200 University Ave. Suite 801 www.amo.on.ca Tel 416. 971.9856 Toll Free in Ontario Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6 amo@amo.on.ca Fax 416. 971.6191 877.426.6527 The proposed 28-day timeline for owners to pay contractors on the receipt of a “proper invoice” does not provide enough time for municipal staff to inspect and certify whether the work has been completed properly. Municipal governments require the ability to certify work before payment is remitted to protect our property taxpayer dollars. This Act essentially prohibits certification before payment, which is problematic and should be reconsidered. Otherwise, the Act leaves municipal taxpayers vulnerable to increasing construction project costs as well as legal fees. Further, most municipal governments are closed for the holidays or maintain a much reduced staffing level during December 24th to January 2nd. It is important that municipalities are not forced into impossible timelines when those imposed by the legislation are already so tight. Many details about the Authorized Naming Authority (ANA) are still to be determined. We recognize that the proposed regulations have provided some clarity, and that Expressions of Interest for ANA members were released in January 2019. In order to have the ANA working by October 1st, the Province must develop a certification regime for the adjudicators, ensure that there are sufficient adjudicators to meet demand, and ensure they have all been certified. Only once these details are in place can owners, contractors and subcontractors be educated on how this mechanism will work in practice. This Act, in its current form, makes Ontario the first jurisdiction in the world to have prompt payment and adjudication regimes run simultaneously. We all need to get it right, and owners are willing to do their part to get ready. To achieve this we strongly encourage the Ministry to create practice guides, interpretative bulletins, and webinars to communicate how to prepare for these regimes prior to coming into force. One consideration the Ministry should explore is creating a centralized web database hosted for all construction in the province for notices and additional project information. A website commissioned by the Province could have cost-recovery fees and be more affordable than the current proposed vehicle. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these issues, and look forward to meeting to discuss how we can make the Construction Act a success for all of Ontario. The Ministry can reach out to AMO staff to clarify any details needed. Sincerely, Jamie McGarvey AMO President Mayor, Town of Parry Sound cc: The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Page 275 of 525 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-685-4225 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca April 29, 2019 CL 9-2019, April 25, 2019 CSC 4-2019, April 17, 2019 CSD 16-2019, April 17, 2019 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY 2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates CSD 16-2019 Regional Council, at its meeting held on April 25, 2019, passed the following recommendation of its Corporate Services Committee: That Report CSD 16-2019, dated April 17, 2019, respecting 2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates, BE RECEIVED and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1. That Regional Council APPROVE the following tax ratios and sub-class reductions for the 2019 taxation year: Property Classification Tax Ratio Sub-Class Reduction Residential 1.000000 New Multi-Residential 1.000000 Multi-Residential 1.970000 Commercial 1.734900 Commercial – Excess Land 1.734900 30% Commercial – Vacant Land 1.734900 30% Industrial 2.630000 Industrial – Excess Land 2.630000 30% Industrial – Vacant Land 2.630000 30% Pipeline 1.702100 Farmland 0.250000 Managed Forest 0.250000 Farmland Awaiting Development 1 1.000000 25% Farmland Awaiting Development 2 Class Ratio Landfill Sites 2.940261 Page 276 of 525 2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates April 29, 2019 Page 2 2. That by having no properties eligible for capping in the industrial class, Regional Council OPT OUT of the capping program for the industrial tax class for the 2019 and subsequent taxation years; 3. That the 2019 tax capping program for the commercial class reflecting the following criteria BE APPROVED: a) An annual cap BE SET at the greater of: i. An amount representing an increase of 10% of the previous year’s annualized tax, or ii. An amount representing an increase of 10% of the previous year’s Current Value Assessment (CVA) tax; b) That, following the application of the capping program, all increasing properties within $500 threshold and decreasing properties within $50 threshold of the CVA taxes BE MOVED directly to CVA taxation; c) Properties at CVA tax in 2018 BE EXCLUDED from the capping program; and d) Properties that would cross over CVA tax in 2019 BE EXCLUDED from the capping program; 4. That the phase-out of the capping program over four years for the Commercial property class with 2019 being year three of the four years BE ADOPTED; 5. That the 2019 capping program BE FUNDED by claw back from within respective classes pursuant to section 330 of the Municipal Act; 6. That the Region BE DIRECTED to act as a banker, under section 330(6) of the Municipal Act for the 2019 municipal tax adjustments; 7. That the necessary by-laws BE PREPARED and PRESENTED to Council for consideration and CIRCULATED to the Councils of the local area municipalities for information; and 8. That this report BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the local area municipalities for information. A copy of CSD 16-2019 is enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :mt Page 277 of 525 2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates April 29, 2019 Page 3 CLK-C 2019-098 cc: R. Fleming Senior Tax & Revenue Analyst, Enterprise Resource Management Services M Montague Executive Assistant, Enterprise Resource Management Services T. Harrison Commissioner/Treasurer, Enterprise Resource Management Services Page 278 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 1 Subject: 2019 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates Report to: Corporate Services Committee Report date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 Recommendations 1. That Regional Council APPROVE the following tax ratios and sub-class reductions for the 2019 taxation year: Property Classification Tax Ratio Sub-Class Reduction Residential 1.000000 New Multi-Residential 1.000000 Multi-Residential 1.970000 Commercial 1.734900 Commercial – Excess Land 1.734900 30% Commercial – Vacant Land 1.734900 30% Industrial 2.630000 Industrial – Excess Land 2.630000 30% Industrial – Vacant Land 2.630000 30% Pipeline 1.702100 Farmland 0.250000 Managed Forest 0.250000 Farmland Awaiting Development 1 1.000000 25% Farmland Awaiting Development 2 Class Ratio Landfill Sites 2.940261 2. That by having no properties eligible for capping in the industrial class, Regional Council OPT OUT of the capping program for the industrial tax class for the 2019 and subsequent taxation years. 3. That the 2019 tax capping program for the commercial class reflecting the following criteria BE APPROVED: a. An annual cap BE SET at the greater of: i. An amount representing an increase of 10% of the previous year’s annualized tax, or ii. An amount representing an increase of 10% of the previous year’s Current Value Assessment (CVA) tax. b. That, following the application of the capping program, all increasing properties within $500 threshold and decreasing properties within $50 threshold of the CVA taxes BE MOVED directly to CVA taxation. c. Properties at CVA tax in 2018 BE EXCLUDED from the capping program. d. Properties that would cross over CVA tax in 2019 BE EXCLUDED from the capping program. Page 279 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________ 4. That the phase-out of the capping program over four years for the Commercial property class with 2019 being year three of the four years BE ADOPTED. 5. That the option to limit capping protection only to reassessment-related changes prior to 2019 BE ADOPTED. 6. That the 2019 capping program BE FUNDED by claw back from within respective classes pursuant to section 330 of the Municipal Act. 7. That the Region BE DIRECTED to act as a banker, under section 330(6) of the Municipal Act for the 2019 municipal tax adjustments. 8. That the necessary by-laws BE PREPARED and PRESENTED to Council for consideration and CIRCULATED to the Councils of the local area municipalities for information. 9. That this report BE APPROVED and CIRCULATED to the Councils of the local area municipalities for information. Key Facts The purpose of this report is to set the 2019 tax policy which sets the tax ratio and tax capping program details. Tax policy accounts for property assessment changes and impacts the actual taxes paid by property owners. These tax policy changes may shift the distribution of taxes between property classes. The recommended tax policy for 2019 is status quo based on the tax policy decision adopted for the 2018 taxation year and is being recommended by Regional staff and Area Treasurers. 2019 is the third year of the four year reassessment phase-in period ending 2020. In order for the local area municipalities to complete final tax billings in June, Regional bylaws should be established no later than April. The Region approved a levy increase of 3.83%. Local area municipal increases are projected to range from 0% to 9.28%. Under the status quo tax policy the residential class in aggregate will see an increase of 3.55% over 2018 as a result of a negative reassessment shift of 0.28% (see table 1). The reassessment impacts, proposed tax policy and approved Regional tax levy will result in an increase of approximately $51 (3.5%) to the typical residential property with a CVA of $267,711 in 2019 for an annual Regional property tax of $1,516. As of the date of this report, the Province has not released the 2019 education tax rates. Page 280 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________ The Region continues strategies to exit the capping program. The commercial class is projected to have 0 capped properties and 0 clawed back properties for 2019 (eligible to exit 2020). The multi-residential tax class was exited fully in 2017 and the industrial class will be exited fully in 2019. Financial Considerations There are no direct costs to the Region as a result of setting 2019 tax policy. There are taxpayer impacts as a result of tax shifts between property classes due to re- assessment phase-in, assessment growth and tax ratio decisions. Detailed analysis of assessment growth, reassessment and phase-in changes and tax ratios is included in the Tax Policy Study attached as Appendix 1. The recommendations related to capping protection for the commercial property class are funded through a clawing back of tax reductions within the same class. The recommendations will have implications to those existing property owners whose properties are capped and those who properties are subject to claw back. However, for 2019 it is projected that there will not be any capped properties. As will be discussed under the Other Policy Consideration section of this report, Council approved the phase-out of the commercial/industrial vacant unit rebate program starting in 2019 through CSD 3-2019. Included as part of the 2019 levy supported operating budget, was a budgeted reduction of approximately $300,000 for the vacant unit program. Also as part of Report CSD 3-2019, Council approved the phase-out of the vacant/excess land subclass discount which does not have an impact on tax policy until 2022. Analysis The Municipal Act provides the Region with the responsibility to establish tax policy to raise levy requirements. These tax policy decisions are reviewed and discussed with local Area Treasurers. Regional staff met with the local Area Treasures and discussed options for the 2019 tax policy and all Area Treasurers strongly support the recommendation in this report. Due to the 2016 reassessment, assessment growth and provincial legislation, tax shifts will occur across all property classes. These factors are outside the control of Niagara Regional Council and the budget process. The only opportunity to affect these is through the thorough analysis of options available for ratios and resulting impacts. Staff with the use of a third party consultant undertook analysis of a number of options to arrive at the recommendations presented in this report. The Region has several tax related performance metrics that are being measured and are reported in Appendix 2. These metrics as well as BMA relative tax burden metrics Page 281 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________ were considered in the evaluation of tax policy options identified in this report. Policy decisions proposed have been made with the following considerations in mind: Residential taxpayer - The residential class is responsible for 73% of the overall tax levy. Under the status quo tax policy the residential class in aggregate will see an increase of 3.55% over 2018 as a result of a negative reassessment shift of 0.28% (see table 1). This decrease in the residential class’ proportionate share of taxes will continue for the balance of the reassessment cycle (2020). In previous years, the Region utilized the negative shift away from the residential class to provide relief to multi-residential and commercial tax classes through reduced tax ratios. As identified in the most recent BMA study, the weighted average residential property taxes payable as a percentage of household income is above the BMA study average (i.e., Niagara 4.9% [5.2% weighted average] verses BMA average 4.8%). The negative shift from the reassessment will assist with narrowing the gap between Niagara and the BMA average. As can also be seen in Appendix 2 to this report, all three categories of residential developments have average property taxes per unit above the BMA survey average for 2018. The residential categories included in the BMA study are detached bungalow, two-storey homes and senior executive homes. Job creation/growth – per Table 2, Industrial properties pay 3.24% of Regional taxes. Due to significant reassessment and appeal reduction s in the property class in the recent past, the Industrial class represents 3.24% in taxation which is down from 3.61% in 2016 and remains below or at the BMA relative tax burden averages provided in Appendix 2. Commercial properties pay the second largest share (after residential) of Regional taxes at 18.38%. Appendix 2 illustrates that Niagara taxation of shopping centres and hotels are moderately above the BMA average while office buildings and motels are below. It should be noted that significant hotel appeals outstanding may reduce the overall tax burden for this property type if the appeals are successful ($907 million in CVA). The current assessment practice for hotels is the net rental income approach. A higher potential income per night from a higher concentration of hotels in Niagara Falls tourist areas (51 out of 80 hotels) helps explain the higher Niagara hotel taxes relative to neighbouring municipalities. For the 2018 taxation year Council approved a reduction in the commercial tax ratio from 1.7586 to 1.7349. Under the status quo tax policy for 2019, this reduction in the tax ratio will be retained. Page 282 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________ Basis for Policy Recommendations 1. Assessment Growth The overall real assessment growth that occurred in 2019 was 1.65% (as included in the approved 2019 operating budget), equivalent to $5,705,152 in tax dollars. Table 1 summarizes the overall assessment growth that occurred in 2018 as well as the impacts affecting each of the tax classes based on maintaining the status quo tax ratios for 2019. Table 1 – 2019 Tax Levy Impacts by Property Class (Status Quo Policy) 2. Re-Assessment Phase-In and Tax Shifts Reassessments of all properties is mandated by the Province every four years across Ontario to ensure that current value assessments (CVA) relied upon for property tax purposes are reflective of current market conditions. The 2017 taxation year represented the first phase-in year of the current four year reassessment cycle based on the January 1, 2016 valuation date. This reassessment cycle applies to the taxation years 2017 to 2020. Any assessment related decreases are implemented in the first year of the four year cycle with any increases being phased-in equally over the four years. As a result of decreases coming into effect in the 2017 tax year, the tax shifts across property classes are most signif icant in year one of the phase-in period which is what occurred with the Industrial property class reduction in 2017. These factors are as a result of MPAC assessment and outside of the control of Niagara Regional Council and the budget process As mentioned above, this decrease in the residential class’ proportionate share of taxes will continue for the balance of the reassessment cycle (2020) as seen in Table 2. This redistribution will shift taxes to commercial and farm properties. The 2019 amounts in Table 2 are based on the proposed status quo rates from 2018. The table represents a starting point for the ratio analysis. This will assist with the residential tax payer affordability. Growth Phase-In Levy Residential 250,722,218$ 5,647,400$ (726,422)$ 9,626,725$ 265,269,921$ 3.55% New Multi-Residential 766,871 13,926 5,500 29,609 815,906$ 4.58% Multi-Residential 14,913,471 (366,364) (66,918) 545,286 15,025,475$ 3.21% Farm 2,832,219 (30,642) 198,501 112,985 3,113,063$ 11.00% Management Forest 16,253 1,952 770 715 19,690$ 9.14% Commercial 63,691,226 439,228 666,478 2,440,106 67,237,038$ 4.88% Industrial 11,497,293 (14,706) (48,010) 430,586 11,865,163$ 3.33% Pipelines 2,250,941 14,358 (28,998) 84,212 2,320,513$ 2.45% Landfill 57,780 - (1,034) 2,137 58,883$ 1.91% Total 346,748,272$ 5,705,152$ (133)$ 13,272,361$ 365,725,652$ 3.83% % Increase 1.65%0%3.83%5.47% 2019 Levy Avg % IncreaseProperty Class 2018 Levy Impacts Growth Phase-In Levy Residential 250,722,218$ 5,647,400$ (726,422)$ 9,626,725$ 265,269,921$ 3.55% New Multi-Residential 766,871 13,926 5,500 29,609 815,906$ 4.58% Multi-Residential 14,913,471 (366,364) (66,918) 545,286 15,025,475$ 3.21% Farm 2,832,219 (30,642) 198,501 112,985 3,113,063$ 11.00% Management Forest 16,253 1,952 770 715 19,690$ 9.14% Commercial 63,691,226 439,228 666,478 2,440,106 67,237,038$ 4.88% Industrial 11,497,293 (14,706) (48,010) 430,586 11,865,163$ 3.33% Pipelines 2,250,941 14,358 (28,998) 84,212 2,320,513$ 2.45% Landfill 57,780 - (1,034) 2,137 58,883$ 1.91% Total 346,748,272$ 5,705,152$ (133)$ 13,272,361$ 365,725,652$ 3.83% % Increase 1.65%0%3.83%5.47% 2019 Levy Avg % IncreaseProperty Class 2018 Levy Impacts Page 283 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 2 – Multi-Year Tax Distribution by Tax Class Realty Tax Class 2018 Year End (As Revised) Share 2019 Levy (As Returned) Share Taxable Residential $ 256,369,618 72.74% $ 265,269,922 72.53% Farm 2,801,577 0.79% 3,113,064 0.85% Managed Forest 18,205 0.01% 19,689 0.01% New Multi-Residential 780,797 0.22% 815,906 0.22% Multi-Residential 14,547,107 4.13% 15,025,476 4.11% Commercial 64,130,454 18.20% 67,237,038 18.38% Industrial 11,482,587 3.26% 11,865,164 3.24% Landfill 57,780 0.02% 58,884 0.02% Pipeline 2,265,299 0.64% 2,320,512 0.63% Total Taxable $ 352,453,424 100% $ 365,725,655 100% 3. Education Rates At this time, the Province has not released the 2019 education tax rates. It is anticipated that the rates will be established with the Provincial budget in April. In previous years, the Province has maintained a revenue neutral approach for the residential property class meaning that the residential class typically will see a reduction in the education tax rate from year to year. We expect the same for 2019. The education tax “room” that is created as a result of the revenue neutral education approach assists in offsetting municipal tax increases. Table 3 summarizes the historical education tax rates for all property classes. Table 3 – Historic Education Tax Rates Realty Tax Class Education Rates 2015 2016 2017 2018 Residential 0.00195000 0.00188000 0.00179000 0.0017000 Farm 0.00048750 0.00047000 0.00044750 0.0004250 Managed Forest 0.00048750 0.00047000 0.00044750 0.0004250 Multi-Residential 0.00195000 0.00188000 0.00179000 0.0017000 New Multi-Residential 0.00195000 0.00188000 0.00179000 0.0017000 Commercial 0.01190000 0.01180000 0.01140000 0.0109000 Landfill N/A N/A 0.01822671 0.0178518 Industrial 0.01530000 0.01500000 0.01390000 0.0134000 New Industrial 0.01190000 0.01180000 0.01140000 0.0109000 Pipeline 0.01190000 0.01180000 0.01140000 0.0109000 Page 284 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Waste Management Rates Waste management tax rates are also set based on the Regional tax ratios. The waste management requisition by municipality was already approved through report CSD 7- 2019; however the by-law setting for the waste management rates for the 2019 requisitions will be brought forward with the general tax levy by-law as the rates are based on each municipality’s assessment and are dependent on the tax ratios (with the exception of Niagara-on-the-Lake). Overall, the waste management levy requirements increased by $725,976 from $34,602,337 in 2018 to $35,328,313 in 2019, an increase of 2.1% before assessment growth. As discussed as part of CSD 7-2019 2019 Budget- Waste Management Services Operating Budget and Requisition, assessment growth in aggregate for the Region is 1.65% for 2018, resulting in the net requisition changes by local area municipality ranging from a decrease of 1.24% to an increase of 1.94% (total net requisition after growth of 0.45%). Therefore the combined waste management levy and general levy increase will result in a residential tax class increase of less than the Regional levy impact noted above. Tax Policy Considerations A number of scenarios were reviewed for the 2019 tax policy. All scenarios considered utilizing the negative tax shift away from the residential class to benefit other tax classes (i.e., commercial, multi-residential). Despite the additional scenarios considered, staff are recommending a status quo scenario for 2019 for the reasons outlined in the Residential Taxpayer Affordability section. Specifically, keeping the negative shift with the residential class will mitigate the residential Regional tax levy increase to 3.55% from 3.83%. Further to this, the BMA study has shown that all residential categories are above the BMA study average. This position has been supported by the Treasurers of the local area municipalities as they are also projecting levy increase ranging from 0 to 9.28%. Further to this, in previous years, the Region has utilized the negative tax shift away from the residential class to benefit commercial and multi-residential property owners. In addition, the Region also created a New Multi-Residential tax class in 2003 which carries the same ratio as residential properties which provides greater relief t o newly constructed multi-residential buildings. See appendix 4 for historical Regional tax ratios. Consideration was given to reduce the commercial tax burden as the hotel category is above BMA average (as discussed above). However as there are also a number of incentive programs that are available to this segment (including Tax Increment Grants, Development Charge exemptions/grants) this was not recommended. No consideration was given to adjusting the industrial ratio as the industrial tax class allocation is decreasing as noted in Table 2 as well as the fact that the Region is at or below the BMA average for this segment. Page 285 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 8 ______________________________________________________________________ 2019 Property Tax Levy Impacts Table 4 shows the Regional tax increases for status quo tax policy. As per Appendix 1, reassessment impacts increased the overall Region taxable assessment by an average of 4.05% for all tax classes. Properties that are reassessed with increases greater than the average will see tax increases greater than the Region’s budget increase of 3.83% and conversely properties reassessed less than the 4.05% average will see increases (or decreases) of less than 3.83%. Table 4 – Regional Tax Increases for Status Quo Tax Policy Taxation Class 2018 Final 2019 2019 - Status Quo Avg CVA* Regional Taxes Avg CVA Regional Taxes $ Increase % Increase Residential 258,361 1,465 267,711 1,516 51 3.5% Multi-Res. 2,449,215 27,361 2,533,468 28,262 901 3.3% Commercial 735,600 7,237 772,380 7,588 351 4.8% Industrial 708,763 10,571 735,909 10,960 389 3.7% Farmland 326,484 463 363,311 514 51 11.1% Municipal Impacts As part of the 2019 tax policy review, the background documentation and scenario analysis was distributed to and discussed with the local Area Treasurers. Appendix 1 shows the municipal tax levy impacts of status quo tax policy recommendations in addition to an alternative scenario to be discussed further in the alternatives section . Under this option the relative tax impact on the residential class will be lower than the 2019 general levy increase as a result of the shift away from the residential class due to reassessment impacts. While the tax shift away from the residential class for the Region as a who le is -0.28% it ranges from -1.55% to 1.73% for each area municipality based on localized assessment trends and is summarized below in Table 5 (Region portion only). Page 286 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 9 ______________________________________________________________________ Table 5 – Regional Tax Levy Shifts (2018 Revised to 2019 Notional) Area Municipality Assessment Impacts by Tax Class Residential Total (Includes All Tax Classes) Fort Erie -1.55% -1.58% Grimsby 1.73% 2.05% Lincoln 0.75% 0.72% Niagara Falls 0.07% 0.22% Niagara-on-the-Lake 0.13% 0.77% Pelham -0.86% -0.73% Port Colborne -1.24% -0.98% St. Catharines -0.79% -0.26% Thorold -1.03% -0.88% Wainfleet 0.04% 0.53% Welland -1.06% -0.94% West Lincoln 0.98% 1.13% Region Average -0.28% 0.00% Six Municipalities (Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Welland, Lincoln, Pelham and St. Catharines) see a tax shift away from the residential class above the Region average of 0.28% under the status quo scenario due to the residential reassessment increase being below the average increase for other municipalities. The remaining six municipalities will still see a positive tax shift on the residential class under a status quo scenario ranging from 0.04% to 1.73%. Overall (when considering all tax classes) Fort Erie tax payers will incur a reduced share of the Region levy for 2019 in comparison to 2018 under the status quo scenario (-1.58%) with Grimsby tax payers incurring an increased share (2.05%). Any municipality, class or other group of properties subject to a rate of phase-in change around 4.05% would likely carry a similar share of the Regional levy in 2019 as in 2018. Representative property groupings (class, municipality, ward, etc.) experiencing higher rates of change will attract a greater share of the overall levy; and vice-versa for those increasing at rates below the aggregate. Other Policy Consideration Optional Sub-class to Facilitate Reduced Tax Rates for Small-Scale Value-Added Industrial & Commercial Activities on Farms. The Province announced a new optional subclass for commercial and industrial improvements on farm properties. If a municipality adopts this new optional tax Page 287 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 10 ______________________________________________________________________ class, the first $50,000 of commercial and industrial assessment attached to a farm property will be taxed at 25% of the rate that otherwise would have applied for that specific property. The purpose of this new policy is to support small-scale agri-food enterprises with not more than $1,000,000 in CVA. MPAC has recently processed and identified all properties eligible for this reduction across Ontario. In total, 250 eligible properties have been identified across the Province with 45 being within the Region. The Province has legislated that eligible properties must receive the benefit on the education portion of property taxes. Upper-tier municipalities have the option of adopting the subclasses which would provide the same reduction of 75% for both area municipal and Regional taxes. Of the 45 properties identified, the majority are located in NOTL and Lincoln and have been identified by MPAC as wineries. The maximum benefit that these properties could experience is approximately $500 on education taxes and approximately $675 to $1,000 on Region/LAM taxes combined (if adopted). Staff is not recommending the subclass be adopted which is supported by the Area Treasurers. Existing Provincial legislation has already set the maximum farm property tax ratio at 0.25, meaning that farm properties already benefit from a reduced tax rate when compared to the residential rate. Also, with over 6,000 farm properties located in Niagara, only a select portion have been identified as eligible for the new subclass, meaning if the policy was adopted by the Region, only a small fraction of properties would receive any benefit. Further to this and as outlined on pages 47 and 48 of Appendix 1, additional farm property analysis shows that the combined impact for a typical farm property (when including house/secondary assessments) results in only a 2.78% tax related shift which is less than the 7.40% when only considering the actual farm portion of the typical property. Meaning that the reassessment related impacts on Farm properties may be less overall. Changes in discounts to commercial and industrial classes for excess a nd vacant land. In 2017, the Province enacted legislation to allow municipalities increased flexibility to create a vacant and excess land reduction program that would better meet the needs of individual municipalities. During early 2019, Regional Council reviewed and approved report CSD 3-2019 which recommended the elimination of this discount over a 4 year phase-out starting 2021. As per the Council approved phase-out schedule, there are no impacts for 2019 for the commercial/industrial subclass property discounts. As part of report CSD 3-2019, Council also approved the phase- out of the vacant unit tax rebate for commercial and industrial properties. This revision to the vacant unit program does not have an impact on the annual tax policy process. Page 288 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________ The revisions for both programs have been submitted to Ontario’s Minister of Finance in early 2019. Regional staff have been advised by the Province that the program revisions will be presented to the Minster in April 2019 and become legislation in June 2019. Tax Capping Program Business tax capping was introduced by the Province in 1998 to ensure the impact of CVA reform was manageable for taxpayers in the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial property classes. The system was originally intended to last just 3 years, with increases on these classes limited to 10% in 1998, 15% in 1999 and 20% in 2000 (referred to as 10-5-5). In 2005 there were over 4,000 properties impacted by capping (1,111 capped, 3,212 subject to claw back) in the amount of $9,398,54 1. Appendix 3 shows the number of capped properties by class since 2005. For 2019, there are no capped properties projected. The Region opted out of the capping program for multi- residential properties in 2017 and is eligible for opting out the industrial tax class in 2019. It is being recommended that the necessary steps be completed to fully opt out the industrial tax class from the capping program. While there are no commercial properties projected to be effected by capping in 2019, this class cannot be opted out of until the 2020 taxation year. Despite there being no projected properties to capped in 2019, staff are recommending that the CVA tax threshold for clawed back properties be maintained at $50 for 2019 for the commercial property class in the event that a property does become eligible. The claw back threshold was reduced in 2018 from the 2017 level of $500. The reduced claw back threshold eliminated the potential for a higher contribution being borne by very few properties. Alternatives Reviewed As identified above, staff explored numerous options. Given the strong emphasis on affordable housing an alternative analyzed was utilizing half of the negative residential tax shift (0.14% of 0.28%) to reduce the tax ratio of the Multi-Residential tax class from 1.97 (status-quo) to 1.902. As per section 131 of the Residential Tenancy Act, tenants are entitled to an automatic rent reduction when landlord’s property taxes have been reduced by more than 2.49% from one year to the next. This alternative is NOT RECOMMENDED. Based on current levy requirements for the Region and the anticipated levy requirements for the area municipalities, it is not anticipated that a significant number of properties (if any) would be eligible for the mandatory rent reduction as outlined in the Act, meaning that there would be no legislated requirement for the landlords to pass any of the property tax savings as a result of a ratio reduction to the tenant. Page 289 of 525 CSD 16-2019 April 17, 2019 Page 12 ______________________________________________________________________ Further to this, Regional Council approved a multi-residential tax class ratio reduction for 2018 which also utilized the negative residential shift from 2018. Important to note as well, is that the New-multi-residential tax class has a legislated tax ratio of 1 (same as residential tax class). The intent behind the new class as legislated in 2017 (adopted by Region in 2003) is to assist in rental affordability of newly constructed multi-residential properties. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This tax policy was developed with Residential affordability in mind. Other Pertinent Reports CSD 7-2019 - 2019 Budget-Waste Management Services Operating Budget and Requisition CSD 3-2019 - Vacancy Program Revisions Submission to Ministry of Finance ________________________________ Prepared by: Rob Fleming, MBA Senior Tax & Revenue Analyst Enterprise Resource Management Services ________________________________ Recommended by: Todd Harrison, CPA, CMA Commissioner/Treasurer Enterprise Resource Management 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 reviewed by Helen Chamberlain, Director, Financial Management & Planning /Deputy Treasurer. Appendices Appendix 1 2019 Tax Policy Study Appendix 2 Performance Measures Appendix 3 Number of Properties Impacted by Capping Appendix 4 History of Regional Tax Ratios Page 290 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC. 2019 TAX POLICY AND REASSESSMENT IMPACT STUDY Prepared For: THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA Prepared By: MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC. GEORGETOWN,ONTARIO WWW.MTE.CA Published On: WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 16, 2019 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 1 Page 291 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC. DISCLAIMER AND CAUTION The information, views, data and discussions in this document and related material are provided for general reference purposes only. Regulatory and statutory references are, in many instances, not directly quoted excerpts and the reader should refer to the relevant provisions of the legislation and regulations for complete information. The discussion and commentary contained in this report do not constitute legal advice or the provision of legal services as defined by the Law Society Act,any other Act, or Regulation. If legal advice is required or if legal rights are, or may be an issue, the reader must obtain an independent legal opinion. Decisions should not be made in the sole consideration of or reliance on the information and discussions contained in this report. It is the responsibility of each individual in either of a decision- making or advisory capacity to acquire all relevant and pertinent information required to make an informed and appropriate decision with regards to any matter under consideration concerning municipal finance issues. No attempt has been made by MTE to establish the completeness or accuracy of the data prepared by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). MTE, therefore, makes no warrantees or guarantees that the source data is free of error or misstatement. MTE is not responsible to the municipality, nor to any other party for damages arising based on incorrect data or due to the misuse of the information contained in this study, including without limitation, any related, indirect, special or consequential damages. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 2 Page 292 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..........................................................................................................................5 PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ....................................................8 REAL ASSESSMENT GROWTH ..................................................................................................................8 PHASE ADJUSTED CVA.......................................................................................................................12 REVENUE GROWTH ............................................................................................................................15 PART TWO: MARKET VALUE UPDATE AND ASSESSMENT PHASE-IN...........................18 REASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................18 ASSESSMENT PHASE-IN PROGRAM .........................................................................................................21 CYCLE PROGRESSION TO DATE .............................................................................................................25 PART THREE: REASSESSMENT AND PHASE-IN RELATED TAXATION IMPACTS............26 REVENUE NEUTRAL TAX RATES (NTR) ...................................................................................................26 TAX SHIFTS USING REVENUE NEUTRAL RATES ..........................................................................................26 PERCENT SHARE /BALANCE OF TAXATION ...............................................................................................26 LOCAL GENERAL LEVIES ......................................................................................................................30 FUTURE YEAR TAX TREND PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................31 TAXATION IMPACTS/IMPLICATIONS OF ASSESSMENT PHASE-IN .....................................................................33 MEASURING OTHER ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION SHIFTS ............................................................................35 PART FOUR: FARM CLASS AND WHOLE FARM PROPERTY TAX TREATMENT...............43 FARM CLASS VS.WHOLE FARM PROPERTY TAX .........................................................................................44 TYPICAL FARM PROPERTY CHANGES .......................................................................................................45 NEW AGRI-FOOD BUSINESS SUBCLASSES FOR FARM PROPERTIES ..................................................................50 FARM CLASS AND NEW SUB-CLASS OVERVIEW..........................................................................................50 ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................51 PART FIVE: TAX POLICY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .....................................................53 MOVING TAX RATIOS .........................................................................................................................53 WHERE OPTIONAL CLASSES APPLY ........................................................................................................54 TAX RATIOS AND BALANCE OF TAXATION ................................................................................................55 TAX POLICY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................56 EFFECTS OF LEVY RESTRICTION ............................................................................................................69 PART SIX: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES.................................................................70 PROVINCIAL EDUCATION TAXES ............................................................................................................70 2019 EDUCATION TAX RATES NOT AVAILABLE AS OF PUBLICATION ...............................................................71 LINEAR PROPERTIES ..........................................................................................................................72 PART SEVEN: BUSINESS TAX CAPPING ....................................................................78 EXPANDED LOCAL CAPPING OPTIONS .....................................................................................................78 UNDERSTANDING THE MUNICIPALITY’S CAPPING DYNAMICS .........................................................................82 PRELIMINARY PRO FORMA RESULTS .......................................................................................................83 PART EIGHT: GENERAL SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS................................................85 ENCLOSURES LOCAL ADDENDA CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 3 Page 293 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE4 INTRODUCTION For the 2017 taxation year all properties in Ontario were reassessed based on their Current Value Assessment (CVA) as of January 1 st, 2016. These updated CVA values, as adjusted under the Province’s assessment phase-in program, will be the basis of taxation through the 2020 taxation year. Those properties that experienced a CVA increase as of 2017 will be taxed in accordance with a phase-adjusted CVA value through 2019, while all properties in the province will be subject to taxation based on their full, unmitigated CVA for 2020. As we proceed through this cycle the influence of phase-in, growth and a host of other factors will keep the assessment roll in a state of constant flux. As such, it is essential for municipalities to gain a thorough and accurate understanding of assessment and consequential taxation impacts resulting from the newly returned assessment roll every year. Without making every effort to quantify and understand the impacts of the new assessment landscape, it will not be possible for municipalities to make informed and effective decisions in respect of those tax policies that affect the apportionment of the tax burden within and between tax classes. In order to ensure that informed and locally sensitive tax policy choices can be made in a timely manner, a careful examination of the following relationships and circumstances must be undertaken: 1. Revenue growth and/or loss that has occurred over the past year, which will inform the municipality’s starting point, or revenue limit, for budgetary and rate setting purposes; 2. The inevitable tax impacts related to reassessment, the assessment phase-in program and other changes to the assessment roll; 3. The redistribution of the property tax burden, which will occur within and between classes due to the reassessment, phase-in, and growth trends; 4. The effect of status quo and optional tax policy schemes on the distribution of the tax burden among classes, including “levy restriction” provisions, where applicable; and 5. The local implications and impacts related to 2019 provincial education tax rates. Municipalities may also choose to further evaluate: 1. The impact of the “tax capping” protection program on both the capped and uncapped classes, including the effects of any optional capping tools that may be adopted by the municipality; 2. Making changes to existing tax policies affecting taxation on vacant property or land and farmland awaiting development; 3. The implications of the use or discontinuation of other optional tax policy tools, such as optional tax classes and graduated taxation; and/or 4. Reviewing or revising programs that provide tax relief for charitable and similar organizations, and low income seniors and persons with disabilities. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 4 Page 294 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE5 In satisfying their local tax policy responsibilities, municipalities must be cognisant of the following key considerations: 1. Changes in current value assessment (CVA) do not occur consistently for all property within a municipality in any given year. Because of this, shifts in the tax burden are inevitable, within ratepayer groups, and between classes. 2. Measuring municipal tax increases and decreases becomes a matter of comparing the current year’s adopted tax rate against a revenue neutral tax rate to raise last year’s levy. As a result of the changing values on the assessment roll, the current year’s tax rate cannot be compared to last year’s actual rate. 3. Similarly, changes in a property owner’s taxes may be due to the combined effect of: Reassessment (equity) change; Changes to a property’s physical state, condition or use; Assessment phase-in adjustments; Tax policy decisions made by Council; Budgetary (levy) change for the municipality; and/or Provincial education tax rates. 4. Outcomes of Provincial programs to restrict the effect of tax increases to the business classes (e.g. levy restriction, limitations on tax ratio movement and capping) will also be affected by overall changes in assessment from year-to-year. Scope of the Study This study has been prepared for the consideration of staff and Council to assist with the municipality’s tax policy responsibilities. The core material is intended to provide a thorough analysis of the local tax policy scheme, as well as the impact of reassessment, phase-in, growth and other changes to the municipality’s assessment base. The analysis contained in this report is based on the 2018 tax policy parameters adopted by the municipality, the general purpose municipal levies imposed for 2018, and on the assessment roll as revised for 2018 and returned for 2019 taxation. These various inputs and parameters have been relied upon to build a thorough quantitative model of the municipality’s 2019 property assessment and taxation landscape as it would exist in the absence of any budgetary or tax policy changes. We will also model the impacts of various tax policy options and choices to demonstrate how they might influence final tax outcomes. The key elements of this report can be categorized into the following sections. Part One: Assessment and Revenue Growth ¾Real assessment growth; ¾Real revenue growth; and ¾The distribution of growth patterns. Part Two: Market Value Update and Assessment Phase-In ¾Market Value Update; ¾Assessment Phase-In Program; ¾Measuring and Understanding Changes in Full and Phased CVA; and ¾Distribution of Phase-In and Value Change Patterns. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 5 Page 295 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE6 Part Three: Reassessment and Phase-In Related Taxation Impacts ¾2019 Start Ratios and Revenue Neutral (notional) Tax Rates; ¾2019 Notional Taxable Levies and PIL Revenue; ¾Quantification of Inter-Class Tax Shifts; ¾Taxation Impacts/Implications of Assessment Phase-In; and ¾Changing Tax Patterns for Typical Properties and other Taxpayer Groupings. Part Four: Expanded Farm Class and Whole-Farm Impact Analysis In light of the increased attention to changing farm values throughout the province, MTE has added a new section to this study for 2019. In this section we discuss and consider a host of factors relevant to considering the rate of assessment and tax change being seen for the farm property class and actual farms. Specifically, this section addresses ¾Farm class and farm class portions vs. whole farm assessment and tax; ¾Tax impacts being experienced at the portion and whole-farm level; and ¾The new on-farm business sub-classes. Part Five: Municipal Tax Policy Sensitivity Analysis Municipalities need to address a variety of tax policy choices and options that will ultimately impact the distribution of taxes within and between the various classes of property. To this end, MTE has undertaken analysis of: ¾Starting tax ratios and relationships to Provincial limits; and ¾Tax impacts for 2019 associated with various tax policy and levy change scenarios. Part Six: Other Revenue and Levies In this section, MTE considers the following: ¾Potential changes in the education tax levy from 2018 to 2019 based on the municipality’s changing assessment base and the 2019 Provincial education tax rates; ¾Assessment for qualifying Payment in Lieu (PIL) properties in respect of which education levy amounts may be retained by the local municipality; and ¾Levies associated with linear properties including hydro rights-of-way, railroads and the new category of shortline railroads. Part Seven: Business Tax Capping Capping for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential tax classes is analyzed based on the application of the various options and tools that have been made available to municipalities including: ¾An estimate of the costs of capping protection for 2018; ¾Quantifying the pressures on decrease retention and claw-back rates and identification of shortfall risks; and ¾The options open to the municipality in respect of capping exit strategies for each of the three capped classes. Part Eight: Consultants’ Report and Suggested Next Steps/Additional Study Part seven of this report contains a summary of the observations and thoughts that arose throughout the preparation and review of this report, including any suggestions for next steps or additional analysis that these base-line results may give rise to. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 6 Page 296 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE7 The qualitative content in this final section does not represent a comprehensive commentary on any issue and it is not intended to be provided as policy advice, but only as general observations, which may or may not be of interest to the reader. Where the report identifies areas of concern to Council or staff, additional work should be undertaken to explore alternate policy options. As well, the effects of further municipal policy change or budgetary decisions should also be modelled. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions In reviewing the results set out in this report, the following assumptions and limiting conditions should be considered. The possibility that further adjustments to tax policy could be introduced by the Province does exist. Results presented in this report may be affected by Provincial regulatory and/or statutory changes or decisions about municipal tax policy that could occur subsequent to the publication of this document. MTE will update the analysis, upon request, in such an event. Analysis contained in the report is based on the use of tax rates for general municipal purposes only. Special area rates have been applied where appropriate and necessary in order to undertake the pro forma capping analysis. All municipal tax rate calculations and tax levies have been calculated based on the following protocol: ¾2018 tax calculations are based on actual 2018 tax rates as supplied by the municipality to MTE; ¾Revenue neutral rates have been calculated for the purposes of 2019; ¾The municipality’s current tax ratio schedule has been applied for 2019, except where levy restriction (hard capping) and/or optional property classes apply. In these circumstances, new starting ratios have been calculated; ¾Tax amounts represent CVA taxes; no capping adjustments have been applied except where explicitly noted; ¾Tax rate calculations have been based on taxable assessment only and exclude grantable (payment in lieu) assessment as requested by the municipality; ¾Revenue from payments in lieu of taxes has been included at the full value of assessment times the appropriate tax rate. Recognizing that municipalities may be unable to recover the full amount of those revenues from the Federal or Provincial governments, appropriate allowances should be made in interpreting the results; and ¾All 2019 education values are based on speculative / estimated tax rates. These amounts are provided for general illustrative purposes and must be taken as completely hypothetical. Important Note Regarding Provincial Policy and Legislation The possibility that changes in tax policy may be introduced by the Province does exist, and the results presented in this report may be affected by Provincial regulatory and/or statutory changes that could occur subsequent to the publication of this document. In the absence of specific direction to the contrary, however, existing property tax rules have been applied. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 7 Page 297 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE8 PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH The Assessment Roll is a living data set, which is continually evolving in response to real-world market and property changes. The assessed value of a property can change for a number of reasons; for the purposes of the property tax system in Ontario, all valuation changes must be considered in one of only two categories: 1) Growth (positive or negative), which reflects the value increase or decrease associated with a change to a property’s state, use or condition; or 2) Valuation change, which is driven by changes in the real estate market over time and reflected via Reassessment and Phase-In updates. Real Assessment Growth Property assessments change in one of two fundamental ways; to reflect a property’s value as of a more current or recent point in time (reassessment change), or to reflect actual changes in a property’s state, condition or use. Changes categorized as the latter represent real assessment growth and it is critical to measure and understand growth separately from the impacts of market change due to the reassessment and the four-year phase-in program. While assessment growth and loss impacts the municipal revenue stream, reassessment changes should not. To effectively measure growth independently it is necessary to separately quantify any changes made to assessment values set for taxation in 2018, from the changes occurring between 2018 and 2019. This growth component will be made up of both positive and negative growth. Positive growth will be reflective of such things as new construction, additions, improvements, etc. The drivers of negative growth may include demolitions, Minutes of Settlement, and/or decisions of the Assessment Review Board. Table 1 provides a comparison between the Full CVA values contained on the roll as returned for 2018 and the roll as revised for 2018. Theoretically, Table 1 summarizes the net in-year changes to property within the municipality, as reflected for assessment and taxation purposes. Table 2 examines how this growth is distributed among the constituent lower tiers. Table 3 has been prepared as a means of comparing the Full CVA growth realized during 2018 with the municipality’s 2017 growth. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 8 Page 298 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE9 Table 1 2018 Assessment Growth Resulting from Changes in the State and/or Use of Property 2018 Full CVA Full Growth Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised $% Taxable Residential 47,454,073,405 48,515,013,074 1,060,939,669 2.24% Farm 2,447,113,831 2,421,864,835 -25,248,996 -1.03% Managed Forest 13,412,500 14,974,700 1,562,200 11.65% New Multi-Residential 148,124,700 150,482,442 2,357,742 1.59% Multi-Residential 1,426,261,900 1,391,666,340 -34,595,560 -2.43% Commercial 7,232,884,723 7,285,824,308 52,939,585 0.73% Industrial 877,677,621 870,844,399 -6,833,222 -0.78% Landfill 3,607,900 3,607,900 0 0.00% Pipeline 245,153,000 246,821,000 1,668,000 0.68% Sub-Total Taxable 59,848,309,580 60,901,098,998 1,052,789,418 1.76% Payment in Lieu Residential 34,583,804 34,577,004 -6,800 -0.02% Farm 491,000 491,000 0 0.00% Commercial 642,886,199 641,128,299 -1,757,900 -0.27% Industrial 13,688,200 13,814,800 126,600 0.92% Landfill 1,706,000 1,706,000 0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL 693,355,203 691,717,103 -1,638,100 -0.24% Total (Taxable + PIL) 60,541,664,783 61,592,816,101 1,051,151,318 1.74% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 9 Page 299 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE10 Table 2 2018 Assessment Growth Resulting from Changes in the State and/or Use of Property 2018 Full CVA Full Growth Local Municipality As Returned As Revised $% Fort Erie 3,792,643,272 3,880,588,772 87,945,500 2.32% Grimsby 4,718,119,017 4,860,105,126 141,986,109 3.01% Lincoln 3,971,382,456 4,010,652,865 39,270,409 0.99% Niagara Falls 12,048,160,621 12,296,998,024 248,837,403 2.07% Niagara-on-the-Lake 5,484,557,483 5,591,385,701 106,828,218 1.95% Pelham 2,735,384,300 2,790,353,100 54,968,800 2.01% Port Colborne 1,934,391,236 1,949,497,036 15,105,800 0.78% St. Catharines 15,354,034,953 15,458,482,062 104,447,109 0.68% Thorold 2,307,411,400 2,415,195,000 107,783,600 4.67% Wainfleet 1,129,343,718 1,144,824,018 15,480,300 1.37% Welland 4,789,751,627 4,868,049,127 78,297,500 1.63% West Lincoln 2,276,484,700 2,326,685,270 50,200,570 2.21% Niagara Region 60,541,664,783 61,592,816,101 1,051,151,318 1.74% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 10 Page 300 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE11 Table 3 Year-To-Year Assessment Growth Comparison (2017 vs 2018 Full CVA) 2017 Full CVA Growth 2018 Full CVA Growth Realty Tax Class $%$% Taxable Residential 830,024,099 1.78% 1,060,939,669 2.24% Farm -31,385,969 -1.27% -25,248,996 -1.03% Managed Forest -157,900 -1.16% 1,562,200 11.65% New Multi-Residential 30,574,200 26.01% 2,357,742 1.59% Multi-Residential -352,500 -0.02% -34,595,560 -2.43% Commercial 39,904,573 0.55% 52,939,585 0.73% Industrial -2,157,979 -0.25% -6,833,222 -0.78% Landfill -4,668,600 -56.41%0 0.00% Pipeline 1,860,000 0.76% 1,668,000 0.68% Sub-Total Taxable 863,639,924 1.46% 1,052,789,418 1.76% Payment in Lieu Residential -555,000 -1.58%-6,800 -0.02% Farm 0 0.00%0 0.00% Commercial -217,700 -0.03% -1,757,900 -0.27% Industrial 1,700 0.01% 126,600 0.92% Landfill 0 0.00%0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL -771,000 -0.11% -1,638,100 -0.24% Total (Taxable + PIL) 862,868,924 1.45% 1,051,151,318 1.74% Growth vs. Loss As noted above, a municipality’s net growth is the product of both positive and negative growth, or gains and loss in CVA. While it is ultimately this net figure that will inform taxation and revenue models as we move into the new taxation year, considering the differential patterns and impacts of growth and loss can be a valuable exercise. When these change patterns are broken out as in Table 4, it is possible to see trends and movement within the assessment base that may otherwise be obscured or skewed when only the net impact is being considered. For example, a trend of robust growth within a subset of a class may not be as evident if it is being offset by losses in another subset. Considering loss patterns independently can assist in identifying potential areas of concern with respect to property valuations within a class,tax erosion stemming from appeals, or even economic pressures being felt within certain sectors, industries and/or geographic areas. Conversely, considering positive growth on its own can provide a better understanding of how new development, improvements and expansions are impacting the assessment base. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 11 Page 301 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE12 Table 4 2018 Assessment Growth and Loss Patterns (Full CVA) Positive CVA Growth Negative CVA Growth Net CVA Growth Realty Tax Class $%$%$% Taxable Residential 1,247,527,596 2.63% -186,587,927 -0.39% 1,060,939,669 2.24% Farm 68,723,394 2.81% -93,972,390 -3.84% -25,248,996 -1.03% Managed Forest 1,686,200 12.57% -124,000 -0.92% 1,562,200 11.65% New Multi-Residential 2,683,800 1.81% -326,058 -0.22% 2,357,742 1.59% Multi-Residential 10,762,200 0.75% -45,357,760 -3.18% -34,595,560 -2.43% Commercial 223,113,064 3.08% -170,173,479 -2.35% 52,939,585 0.73% Industrial 34,008,927 3.87% -40,842,149 -4.65% -6,833,222 -0.78% Landfill 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00% Pipeline 4,242,000 1.73% -2,574,000 -1.05% 1,668,000 0.68% Sub-Total Taxable 1,592,747,181 2.66%-539,957,763 -0.90% 1,052,789,418 1.76% Payment in Lieu Residential 349,000 1.01% -355,800 -1.03%-6,800 -0.02% Farm 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00% Commercial 12,337,100 1.92% -14,095,000 -2.19% -1,757,900 -0.27% Industrial 134,000 0.98%-7,400 -0.05% 126,600 0.92% Landfill 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL 12,820,100 1.85% -14,458,200 -2.09% -1,638,100 -0.24% Total (Tax + PIL) 1,605,567,281 2.65% -554,415,963 -0.92% 1,051,151,318 1.74% The results in these tables are not intended to provide a complete understanding of the assessment and economic dynamics of the municipality, however, considering growth in these ways can be an important first step to the identification of potentially important trends. Phase Adjusted CVA As phased CVA values were actually employed for taxation in 2018, it is the difference between the phased assessment contained on the 2018 returned and revised rolls that represents the municipality’s real assessment growth (or loss) for 2019 budget purposes. These details are summarized by class and local municipality in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 12 Page 302 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE13 Table 5 2018 Phase Adjusted Assessment Growth 2018 Phase Adjusted CVA Growth Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised $% Taxable Residential 44,244,870,351 45,240,747,203 995,876,852 2.25% Farm 1,997,755,669 1,976,142,587 -21,613,082 -1.08% Managed Forest 11,464,213 12,840,739 1,376,526 12.01% New Multi-Residential 135,231,800 137,687,680 2,455,880 1.82% Multi-Residential 1,334,961,674 1,302,167,148 -32,794,526 -2.46% Commercial 6,577,283,039 6,623,548,330 46,265,291 0.70% Industrial 810,434,494 808,952,273 -1,482,221 -0.18% Landfill 3,465,350 3,465,350 0 0.00% Pipeline 233,203,729 234,691,343 1,487,614 0.64% Sub-Total Taxable 55,348,670,319 56,340,242,653 991,572,334 1.79% Payment in Lieu Residential 29,535,632 29,502,283 -33,349 -0.11% Farm 431,500 431,500 0 0.00% Commercial 609,817,827 608,666,087 -1,151,740 -0.19% Industrial 11,253,544 11,375,076 121,532 1.08% Landfill 1,257,850 1,257,850 0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL 652,296,353 651,232,796 -1,063,557 -0.16% Total (Taxable + PIL) 56,000,966,672 56,991,475,449 990,508,777 1.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 13 Page 303 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE14 Table 6 2018 Phase Adjusted Assessment Growth 2018 Phase Adjusted CVA Growth Local Municipality As Returned As Revised $% Fort Erie 3,621,652,318 3,708,186,880 86,534,562 2.39% Grimsby 4,209,897,538 4,337,412,240 127,514,702 3.03% Lincoln 3,586,928,780 3,625,822,739 38,893,959 1.08% Niagara Falls 11,144,090,244 11,375,340,598 231,250,354 2.08% Niagara-on-the-Lake 4,981,937,725 5,081,683,194 99,745,469 2.00% Pelham 2,560,231,201 2,611,943,917 51,712,716 2.02% Port Colborne 1,827,629,817 1,843,266,987 15,637,170 0.86% St. Catharines 14,343,966,393 14,443,423,751 99,457,358 0.69% Thorold 2,173,843,110 2,276,958,216 103,115,106 4.74% Wainfleet 1,015,744,945 1,030,375,581 14,630,636 1.44% Welland 4,522,722,637 4,598,364,737 75,642,100 1.67% West Lincoln 2,012,321,964 2,058,696,609 46,374,645 2.30% Niagara Region 56,000,966,672 56,991,475,449 990,508,777 1.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 14 Page 304 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE15 Revenue Growth On an annualized basis, the net growth related gain or loss in taxation is the difference between the total tax amount as determined against the returned roll and the total tax as determined against the roll as revised. Not all of this value will, however, have been realized in the form of additional revenue during the 2018 year. Many changes to the roll for 2018 taxation would not have been effective for the full tax year, or in the case of year-end changes, for any portion of the year. In contrast, some changes will have reached back to prior years. The full impact of this growth will only be realized on a go-forward basis, as it serves to inform the municipality’s “revenue limit” for 2019, which represents the tax dollars that can be raised for the current year under a zero percent levy change scenario. Table 7 provides a summary of the net effect of all annualized in-year and year-end changes in CVA for 2018 expressed in general levy tax dollars. This is accomplished by applying the 2018 general tax rate against the values as returned for 2018 and comparing this to the taxation that would be raised against the revised assessment for the year. Table 8 provides a summary of the current year’s Regional growth by local municipality. Table 9 compares the municipality’s current year revenue growth against the final growth figures calculated as of roll return for 2018. Table 7 2018 Annualized Revenue Growth by Property Class (Regional General Levy) 2018 Regional General Levy Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised $% Taxable Residential $250,722,218 $256,369,618 $5,647,400 2.25% Farm $2,832,219 $2,801,577 -$30,642 -1.08% Managed Forest $16,253 $18,205 $1,952 12.01% New Multi-Residential $766,871 $780,797 $13,926 1.82% Multi-Residential $14,913,471 $14,547,107 -$366,364 -2.46% Commercial $63,691,226 $64,130,454 $439,228 0.69% Industrial $11,497,293 $11,482,587 -$14,706 -0.13% Landfill $57,780 $57,780 $0 0.00% Pipeline $2,250,941 $2,265,299 $14,358 0.64% Sub-Total Taxable $346,748,272 $352,453,424 $5,705,152 1.65% Payment in Lieu Residential $167,490 $167,300 -$190 -0.11% Farm $612 $612 $0 0.00% Commercial $5,958,393 $5,947,061 -$11,332 -0.19% Industrial $155,087 $156,900 $1,813 1.17% Landfill $20,973 $20,973 $0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL $6,302,555 $6,292,846 -$9,709 -0.15% Total (Taxable + PIL) $353,050,827 $358,746,270 $5,695,443 1.61% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 15 Page 305 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE16 Table 8 2018 Annualized Revenue Growth by Area Municipality (Regional General Levy) 2018 Regional General Levy Revenue Growth Local Municipality As Returned As Revised $% Fort Erie $22,057,615 $22,551,062 $493,449 2.24% Grimsby $25,379,956 $26,167,838 $787,883 3.10% Lincoln $20,380,055 $20,650,523 $270,468 1.33% Niagara Falls $76,834,567 $78,173,195 $1,338,627 1.74% Niagara-on-the-Lake $29,831,818 $30,453,118 $621,300 2.08% Pelham $14,442,506 $14,746,837 $304,333 2.11% Port Colborne $11,617,162 $11,717,771 $100,610 0.87% St. Catharines $94,348,045 $94,654,250 $306,207 0.32% Thorold $13,716,586 $14,304,660 $588,073 4.29% Wainfleet $5,217,626 $5,295,274 $77,648 1.49% Welland $28,647,307 $29,165,410 $518,102 1.81% West Lincoln $10,577,586 $10,866,333 $288,747 2.73% Niagara Region $353,050,829 $358,746,271 $5,695,447 1.61% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 16 Page 306 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE17 Table 9 Year-To-Year Revenue Growth Comparison (2017 vs 2018 General Levy) 2017 Revenue Growth 2018 Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $%$% Taxable Residential $4,444,246 1.84% $5,647,400 2.25% Farm -$17,053 -0.66% -$30,642 -1.08% Managed Forest -$287 -1.86% $1,952 12.01% New Multi-Residential $140,041 23.21% $13,926 1.82% Multi-Residential $25,893 0.17% -$366,364 -2.46% Commercial $479,032 0.77% $439,228 0.69% Industrial $42,823 0.38% -$14,706 -0.13% Landfill $245 0.43%$0 0.00% Pipeline $16,488 0.74% $14,358 0.64% Sub-Total Taxable $5,131,428 1.53% $5,705,152 1.65% Payment in Lieu Residential -$2,970 -1.87% -$190 -0.11% Farm $0 0.00%$0 0.00% Commercial $259,510 4.53% -$11,332 -0.19% Industrial -$1,243 -0.88% $1,813 1.17% Landfill $0 0.00%$0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL $255,297 4.22% -$9,709 -0.15% Total (Taxable + PIL) $5,386,725 1.58% $5,695,443 1.61% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 17 Page 307 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE18 PART TWO: MARKET VALUE UPDATE AND ASSESSMENT PHASE-IN Reassessment As of the return of the roll for 2017 taxation, all property values in Ontario were updated to reflect their current value as of January 1 st, 2016 versus the values used for the 2013 through 2016 taxation years, which were based on a valuation date of January 1 st, 2012. By all accounts this may represent the most dramatic and volatile market value update in well over a decade. Some change patterns are driven by real world volatility and change in the real estate market, business environment and general economic climate that we have witnessed since early 2012. Other patterns are more directly related to regional and/or industry specific factors, and also by changes to assessment practices and methodologies that have been refined, challenged, and/or updated since the last reassessment. In consideration of all these pressures and change factors, it is imperative that municipalities thoroughly understand the scope and magnitude of the market value update, and the corresponding tax implications for various classes and groupings of ratepayers. To help illustrate the impacts of both market value change and the application of the phase-in program, various elements of this report incorporate quantitative results based on both full and phase-in mitigated CVA values. Market Value Update: Changes in Full CVA A comparison of full CVA as at January 1, 2012 (Phase-In Base) and January 1, 2016 (Full / Phase-In Destination) as contained on the roll as returned for 2019 is provided in Table 10. This table relies on the full CVA value of all properties, exclusive of any assessment phase-in adjustments. While not all of these values will be used for taxation until the 2020 tax year, it is important to review the magnitude and pattern of pure value changes related directly to the market update. Market Value Increases and Decreases Every property in the municipality is changing to reflect its own circumstances and while the net class level results do provide a general indication as to how the real estate markets have changed across different sectors, complex change trends also exist within classes. Table 11 has been prepared to summarize the change patterns for properties that are subject to market value increases and those with market value decreases. This table also gives the reader an understanding as to the frequency and relative magnitude of increasing and decreasing assessment pools. This additional layer of detail clearly shows that there is more change occurring than might be evident if only class level results are considered. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 18 Page 308 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE19 Table 10 Summary of Latest Market Value Update (As of Roll Return for 2019) Full CVA (Destination) Values Market Value Update Realty Tax Class Jan. 1, 2012 (2013-2016 Taxation) Jan. 1, 2016 (2017-2020 Taxation) $% Taxable Residential 42,252,426,190 48,515,013,074 6,262,586,884 14.82% Farm 1,591,797,789 2,421,864,835 830,067,046 52.15% Managed Forest 10,938,262 14,974,700 4,036,438 36.90% New Multi-Residential 126,684,138 150,482,442 23,798,304 18.79% Multi-Residential 1,251,666,894 1,391,666,340 139,999,446 11.19% Commercial 6,130,123,061 7,285,824,308 1,155,701,247 18.85% Industrial 806,194,157 870,844,399 64,650,242 8.02% Landfill 6,353,700 3,607,900 -2,745,800 -43.22% Pipeline 222,561,681 246,821,000 24,259,319 10.90% Sub-Total Taxable 52,398,745,872 60,901,098,998 8,502,353,126 16.23% Payment in Lieu Residential 25,703,160 34,577,004 8,873,844 34.52% Farm 372,000 491,000 119,000 31.99% Commercial 585,385,002 641,128,299 55,743,297 9.52% Industrial 9,005,948 13,814,800 4,808,852 53.40% Landfill 816,000 1,706,000 890,000 109.07% Sub-Total PIL 621,282,110 691,717,103 70,434,993 11.34% Total (Taxable + PIL) 53,020,027,982 61,592,816,101 8,572,788,119 16.17% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 19 Page 309 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE20Table 11Distribution, Frequency and Magnitude of Market Value Increases and DecreasesIncreasing PropertiesDecreasing PropertiesCount%ofClass CVAMarket Value UpdateCount%ofClass CVAMarket Value UpdateRealty Tax Class$%$%TaxableResidential165,202 94.68% 6,548,537,487 16.63% 9,465 5.32% -285,950,603 -9.98%Farm5,889 93.74% 891,444,909 64.66% 192 6.26% -61,377,863 -28.81%Managed Forest144 90.38% 4,267,942 46.06% 19 9.62%-231,504 -13.84%New Multi-Residential27 94.19% 25,589,526 22.03% 12 5.81% -1,791,222 -17.00%Multi-Residential379 75.58% 178,998,395 20.51% 207 24.42% -38,998,949 -10.30%Commercial6,124 86.79% 1,324,552,264 26.50% 1,580 13.21% -168,851,017 -14.92%Industrial968 70.61% 123,784,338 25.20% 309 29.39% -59,134,096 -18.77%Landfill1 12.62%285,100 167.41% 1 87.38% -3,030,900 -49.02%Pipeline27 100.00% 24,259,319 10.90% 1 0.00%0 0.00%Sub-Total Taxable 178,761 92.94% 9,121,719,280 19.21% 11,786 7.06% -619,366,154 -12.58%Payment in LieuResidential130 84.81% 10,149,444 52.93% 62 15.19% -1,275,600 -19.54%Farm1 100.00%119,000 31.99% 0 0.00%0 0.00%Commercial228 90.45% 64,924,432 12.61% 88 9.55% -9,181,135 -13.04%Industrial62 95.78% 4,879,452 58.42% 27 4.22%-70,600 -10.81%Landfill1 78.21%896,300 204.63% 1 21.79%-6,300 -1.67%Sub-Total PIL422 90.25% 80,968,628 14.90% 178 9.75% -10,533,635 -13.51%Total (Taxable + PIL) 179,183 92.91% 9,202,687,908 19.16% 11,964 7.09% -629,899,789 -12.60%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 20 Page 310 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE21 Assessment Phase-In Program Where an increase in market value has materialized, the increase is added to the property’s “Phased” CVA in twenty-five percent (25%) increments each year over the four-year period. As such, effected taxpayers will not be taxed on their new full market value until 2020, which is the last year of the new assessment cycle. Assessment decreases are not phased-in. Where a property’s CVA has been reduced as a result of reassessment, the new, lower CVA has been set as the property’s phased or effective CVA for the duration of the four-year assessment cycle. The phase-in is calculated and administered at the property portion, or RTC/RTQ level, which means that a property with multiple portions could have some portions that are increasing and some that are decreasing. The following has been prepared to illustrate how this works at the property and portion level. Market Value Update Eligible Phase-In Amount Phase-Adjusted Assessment 1/1/2012 1/1/2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Property A RT 100,000 Ï 140,000 40,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 Property A CT 100,000 Ð 80,000 0 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Property B RT 100,000 Î 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 While MPAC is chiefly responsible for the administration of the assessment phase-in program, it is critical that all municipal finance staff and Council members have an understanding of both the mechanics of this program, and the impacts it will have on the municipality and taxpayers. The following tables have been prepared to consider the separate and combined impacts of these two critical factors that shape and influence the assessment values that are utilized for taxation purposes. The cumulative effect of each property specific change, and the application of the phase-in adjustments at the portion (RTC/RTQ) level produce a unique pattern of progression that the assessment base will go through over the cycle. This is set out by year and class in Table 12. Table 13 looks more specifically at the change in phased CVA from 2018 to 2019 as the third installment of increased CVA is added to those properties with market values that were higher in 2016 than they were in 2012. Table 14 displays the taxable only assessment phase-in change by local municipality. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 21 Page 311 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE22Table 12Progression of Phased Adjusted CVA: 2017 to 2020Progression of CVA for Taxation PurposesRealty Tax Class2016 Full CVAJan. 1, 2012 Value2017 PhasedCVA2018 PhasedCVA2019 PhasedCVA2020 Full CVAJan. 1, 2016 ValueTaxableResidential42,252,426,190 43,603,611,524 45,240,747,203 46,877,880,220 48,515,013,074Farm1,591,797,789 1,753,281,260 1,976,142,587 2,199,003,701 2,421,864,835Managed Forest10,938,262 11,773,747 12,840,739 13,907,719 14,974,700New Multi-Residential126,684,138 131,290,298 137,687,680 144,085,061 150,482,442Multi-Residential1,251,666,894 1,257,417,550 1,302,167,148 1,346,916,747 1,391,666,340Commercial6,130,123,061 6,292,410,243 6,623,548,330 6,954,686,379 7,285,824,308Industrial806,194,157 778,006,166 808,952,273 839,898,339 870,844,399Landfill6,353,700 3,394,075 3,465,350 3,536,6253,607,900Pipeline222,561,681 228,626,513 234,691,343 240,756,173 246,821,000Sub-Total Taxable 52,398,745,872 54,059,811,376 56,340,242,653 58,620,670,964 60,901,098,998Payment in LieuResidential25,703,160 26,964,921 29,502,283 32,039,644 34,577,004Farm372,000401,750431,500461,250491,000Commercial585,385,002 592,434,978 608,666,087 624,897,194 641,128,299Industrial9,005,948 10,155,211 11,375,076 12,594,937 13,814,800Landfill816,000 1,033,775 1,257,850 1,481,9251,706,000Sub-Total PIL621,282,110 630,990,635 651,232,796 671,474,950 691,717,103Total (Taxable + PIL) 53,020,027,982 54,690,802,011 56,991,475,449 59,292,145,914 61,592,816,101CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 22 Page 312 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE23 Table 13 Summary of 2018 to 2019 Phase-In Change Phase Adjusted CVA Change in Phased CVA Realty Tax Class 2018 Revised 2019 Returned $% Taxable Residential 45,240,747,203 46,877,880,220 1,637,133,017 3.62% Farm 1,976,142,587 2,199,003,701 222,861,114 11.28% Managed Forest 12,840,739 13,907,719 1,066,980 8.31% New Multi-Residential 137,687,680 144,085,061 6,397,381 4.65% Multi-Residential 1,302,167,148 1,346,916,747 44,749,599 3.44% Commercial 6,623,548,330 6,954,686,379 331,138,049 5.00% Industrial 808,952,273 839,898,339 30,946,066 3.83% Landfill 3,465,350 3,536,625 71,275 2.06% Pipeline 234,691,343 240,756,173 6,064,830 2.58% Sub-Total Taxable 56,340,242,653 58,620,670,964 2,280,428,311 4.05% Payment in Lieu Residential 29,502,283 32,039,644 2,537,361 8.60% Farm 431,500 461,250 29,750 6.89% Commercial 608,666,087 624,897,194 16,231,107 2.67% Industrial 11,375,076 12,594,937 1,219,861 10.72% Landfill 1,257,850 1,481,925 224,075 17.81% Sub-Total PIL 651,232,796 671,474,950 20,242,154 3.11% Total (Taxable + PIL) 56,991,475,449 59,292,145,914 2,300,670,465 4.04% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 23 Page 313 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE24 Table 14 Summary of 2018 to 2019 Phase-In Change Phase Adjusted CVA Change in Phased CVA Realty Tax Class 2018 Revised 2019 Returned $% Fort Erie 3,695,244,080 3,781,255,244 86,011,164 2.33% Grimsby 4,304,891,690 4,562,453,495 257,561,805 5.98% Lincoln 3,603,468,239 3,794,236,761 190,768,522 5.29% Niagara Falls 10,970,556,208 11,423,994,476 453,438,268 4.13% Niagara-on-the-Lake 5,041,890,222 5,294,306,150 252,415,928 5.01% Pelham 2,609,030,217 2,698,198,822 89,168,605 3.42% Port Colborne 1,830,776,114 1,883,392,977 52,616,863 2.87% St. Catharines 14,356,077,009 14,860,665,217 504,588,208 3.51% Thorold 2,259,087,290 2,327,497,177 68,409,887 3.03% Wainfleet 1,028,851,431 1,086,036,827 57,185,396 5.56% Welland 4,585,317,044 4,719,658,916 134,341,872 2.93% West Lincoln 2,055,053,109 2,188,974,902 133,921,793 6.52% Niagara Region (Tax Only) 56,340,242,653 58,620,670,964 2,280,428,311 4.05% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 24 Page 314 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE25 Cycle Progression to Date Table 15 has been included to give the reader a more detailed picture as to the market value changes that have been applied as of return of the roll for 2019 and the remaining assessment increases yet to be phased in. As can be seen, the total number of assessment dollars increase each year and while this will have an impact on the municipality’s tax rate, it is not assessment growth. Growth and loss materialize independent of these anticipated changes. Table 15 Phase-In Cycle Progression Phase-In Base (Jan.1,2012) Decreases Flowed Through Increases to Date (2017 - 2019) Outstanding Mitigation Destination CVA (Jan.1,2016)Realty Tax Class Taxable Residential 42,252,426,190 -285,950,603 4,911,404,633 1,637,132,854 48,515,013,074 Farm 1,591,797,789 -61,377,863 668,583,775 222,861,134 2,421,864,835 Managed Forest 10,938,262 -231,504 3,200,961 1,066,981 14,974,700 New Multi-Residential 126,684,138 -1,791,222 19,192,145 6,397,381 150,482,442 Multi-Residential 1,251,666,894 -38,998,949 134,248,802 44,749,593 1,391,666,340 Commercial 6,130,123,061 -168,851,017 993,414,335 331,137,929 7,285,824,308 Industrial 806,194,157 -59,134,096 92,838,278 30,946,060 870,844,399 Landfill 6,353,700 -3,030,900 213,825 71,275 3,607,900 Pipeline 222,561,681 0 18,194,492 6,064,827 246,821,000 Sub-Total Taxable 52,398,745,872 -619,366,154 6,841,291,246 2,280,428,034 60,901,098,998 Payment in Lieu Residential 25,703,160 -1,275,600 7,612,084 2,537,360 34,577,004 Farm 372,000 0 89,250 29,750 491,000 Commercial 585,385,002 -9,181,135 48,693,327 16,231,105 641,128,299 Industrial 9,005,948 -70,600 3,659,589 1,219,863 13,814,800 Landfill 816,000 -6,300 672,225 224,075 1,706,000 Sub-Total PIL 621,282,110 -10,533,635 60,726,475 20,242,153 691,717,103 Total (Tax + PIL) 53,020,027,982 -629,899,789 6,902,017,721 2,300,670,187 61,592,816,101 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 25 Page 315 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE26 PART THREE: REASSESSMENT AND PHASE-IN RELATED TAXATION IMPACTS Revenue Neutral Tax Rates (NTR) An increase in a property’s assessment does not necessarily result in increased taxes, nor does a reduction in assessment automatically translate into lower taxes. In order to measure the true tax impact associated with changes in market value (reassessment), revenue neutral tax rates, or notional tax rates (NTR) as they are also commonly known, must be calculated. Simply put, revenue neutral tax rates are the rates that would be set to raise the 2018 final annualized tax from the newly updated assessment roll as returned for 2019 taxation. They are employed to isolate the effects of reassessment from impacts that could result from other budgetary or tax policy changes. Table 16 demonstrates the relationship between the municipality’s actual 2018 tax rates and revenue neutral rates. Also included in this table are the revenue sub-totals and totals associated with the application of each rate set against their respective assessment data. These are critical figures as they highlight the importance of restating tax rates in order to compensate for changes in assessment that are purely related to reassessment and/or phase-in. This is even more important in cases where the notional tax rates increase. 2019 Start Ratios For the purposes of this report, MTE has calculated start ratios based on the municipality’s tax rate relationships for 2018. In most cases the current year’s start ratios will match the prior year’s by-lawed ratios, however, adjustments can be required where optional classes and or levy restriction applies. While levy restriction does apply to the Region’s multi-Residential class, MTE confirmed that no adjustment was required to the start ratio for that, or any other class for 2019. PIL Assessment and Revenue For municipalities that do not include the assessment and revenues associated with Payment in Lieu of Tax (PIL) properties in the calculation of tax rates, the amount of PIL revenue is dictated by, or dependant on the rates calculated using the municipality’s taxable assessment base. As such, municipalities that have directed MTE to calculate their rates exclusive of PIL revenue and assessment will see that their revenue neutral levy amounts balance with the Taxable Sub-Total for 2018. In contrast, where a municipality includes both taxable and PIL revenue and assessment in their tax rate calculations, the total levy (Taxable + PIL) will balance on a year-over-year basis. Where the former approach has been applied, and a loss of PIL revenue is anticipated, the municipality may wish to consider an alternate calculation protocol. Tax Shifts Using Revenue Neutral Rates Although the rates calculated and shown in Table 16 are revenue neutral, changes in assessment will inevitably result in shifts between individual properties and groups of properties. The inter- class shifts of the Regional general levy are documented in Table 17. Percent Share / Balance of Taxation As taxes shift among properties, classes and other groupings, the balance of taxation changes. Table 18 shows how the share of the Regional levy each class carries based on the 2018 roll as finally revised and the 2019 roll as returned. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 26 Page 316 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE27 Table 16 Starting Ratios and Revenue Neutral (Notional) Tax Rates Tax Ratios General Levy Rates Realty Tax Class 2018 Actual 2019 Start % Change 2018 Actual 2019 Notional % Change Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00567079 0.00545717 -3.77% Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00141770 0.00136429 -3.77% Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00141770 0.00136429 -3.77% New Multi-Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00567079 0.00545717 -3.77% Multi-Residential 1.970000 1.970000 0.00% 0.01117146 0.01075062 -3.77% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.00983825 0.00946764 -3.77% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.01491418 0.01435236 -3.77% Landfill 2.940261 2.940261 0.00% 0.01667360 0.01604550 -3.77% Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 0.00% 0.00965225 0.00928865 -3.77% Table 17 Reassessment Related Inter-Class Tax Shifts (Regional General Levy) Regional General Levy Inter-Class Shifts Realty Tax Class 2018 as Revised 2019 Notional $% Taxable Residential $256,369,618 $255,643,196 -$726,422 -0.28% Farm $2,801,577 $3,000,078 $198,501 7.09% Managed Forest $18,205 $18,975 $770 4.23% New Multi-Residential $780,797 $786,297 $5,500 0.70% Multi-Residential $14,547,107 $14,480,189 -$66,918 -0.46% Commercial $64,130,454 $64,796,932 $666,478 1.04% Industrial $11,482,587 $11,434,577 -$48,010 -0.42% Landfill $57,780 $56,746 -$1,034 -1.79% Pipeline $2,265,299 $2,236,301 -$28,998 -1.28% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,424 $352,453,291 -$133 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $167,300 $174,847 $7,547 4.51% Farm $612 $629 $17 2.78% Commercial $5,947,061 $5,873,532 -$73,529 -1.24% Industrial $156,900 $167,080 $10,180 6.49% Landfill $20,973 $23,778 $2,805 13.37% Sub-Total PIL $6,292,846 $6,239,866 -$52,980 -0.84% Total (Taxable + PIL) $358,746,270 $358,693,157 -$53,113 -0.01% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 27 Page 317 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE28 Table 18 Reassessment Related Change in Proportional Share of Tax (Regional General Levy) Share of Regional General Levy Realty Tax Class 2018 2019 % Taxable Residential 71.46% 71.27% -0.27% Farm 0.78% 0.84% 7.10% Managed Forest 0.01% 0.01% 4.25% New Multi-Residential 0.22% 0.22% 0.72% Multi-Residential 4.05% 4.04% -0.45% Commercial 17.88% 18.06% 1.05% Industrial 3.20% 3.19% -0.40% Landfill 0.02% 0.02% -1.78% Pipeline 0.63% 0.62% -1.27% Sub-Total Taxable 98.25% 98.26% 0.01% Payment in Lieu Residential 0.05% 0.05% 4.53% Farm 0.00% 0.00% 2.79% Commercial 1.66% 1.64% -1.22% Industrial 0.04% 0.05% 6.50% Landfill 0.01% 0.01% 13.39% Sub-Total PIL 1.75% 1.74% -0.83% Total (Taxable + PIL) 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% In addition to shifting among property classes, the regional levy will also shift among and within local municipalities based on the differential rates of change being experienced Region-wide. Table 19 documents these shifts of the regional notional levy at the local level. Table 20 plots the rate of phase-in change for each local municipality in ascending order and also includes the rate of inter-municipal levy shift. As can be seen, those municipalities with overall phase-in change rates that fall below the Region-wide level may expect negative tax shifts. Those experiencing higher rates of change can expect their proportional share of the regional levy to increase on a year-over-year basis. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 28 Page 318 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE29 Table 19 Reassessment Related Regional Inter-Municipal Tax Shifts Regional General Levy Inter-Municipal Shifts Local Municipality 2018 As Revised 2019 Notional $ % Fort Erie $22,428,328 $22,072,979 -$355,349 -1.58% Grimsby $25,883,857 $26,414,076 $530,219 2.05% Lincoln $20,443,857 $20,591,427 $147,570 0.72% Niagara Falls $74,209,801 $74,370,381 $160,580 0.22% Niagara-on-the-Lake $30,082,399 $30,313,217 $230,818 0.77% Pelham $14,718,064 $14,611,236 -$106,828 -0.73% Port Colborne $11,599,092 $11,484,857 -$114,235 -0.98% St. Catharines $93,802,595 $93,556,655 -$245,940 -0.26% Thorold $14,142,691 $14,018,740 -$123,951 -0.88% Wainfleet $5,281,328 $5,309,361 $28,033 0.53% Welland $29,032,299 $28,758,816 -$273,483 -0.94% West Lincoln $10,829,113 $10,951,546 $122,433 1.13% Niagara Region $352,453,424 $352,453,291 -$133 0.00% Table 20 Inter-Municipal Tax Shifts and Rate of Phase-In Change Rate of Phase-In Change Inter-Municipal Shifts Local Municipality $% Fort Erie 2.33% -$355,349 -1.58% Port Colborne 2.87% -$114,235 -0.98% Welland 2.93% -$273,483 -0.94% Thorold 3.03% -$123,951 -0.88% Pelham 3.42% -$106,828 -0.73% St. Catharines 3.51% -$245,940 -0.26% Niagara Region 4.05% -$133 0.00% Niagara Falls 4.13% $160,580 0.22% Niagara-on-the-Lake 5.01% $230,818 0.77% Lincoln 5.29% $147,570 0.72% Wainfleet 5.56% $28,033 0.53% Grimsby 5.98% $530,219 2.05% West Lincoln 6.52% $122,433 1.13% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 29 Page 319 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE30 The rate of tax shift will generally follow the rate of phase-in change a property, or group of properties is experiencing relative to the overall rate of change for the pool of assessment against which the taxes are levied. This is true at the inter-municipal level as shown in Table 19, but it is also true at the class and property level. Simply put, any municipality, classorothergroupofpropertiessubjecttoarate of phase-in change around 4.05% would likely carry a similar share of the Regional levy in 2019 in 2018. Representative property groupings (class,municipality, ward, etc.) experiencing higher rates of change will attract a greater share of the overall levy; and vice-versa for those increasing at rates below the aggregate. Local General Levies As with the regional levy, local levies will shift amongst classes and taxpayers. Table 21 displays the inter-class shifts of the local general on a Region-wide basis. Table 21 Reassessment Related Inter-Class Tax Shifts (All Local General Levies) Local General Levies Inter-Class Shifts Realty Tax Class 2018 as Revised 2019 Notional $% Taxable Residential $225,755,794 $225,170,702 -$585,092 -0.26% Farm $1,999,035 $2,127,559 $128,524 6.43% Managed Forest $16,112 $16,706 $594 3.69% New Multi-Residential $787,488 $796,596 $9,108 1.16% Multi-Residential $14,118,786 $14,073,822 -$44,964 -0.32% Commercial $54,192,228 $54,745,931 $553,703 1.02% Industrial $10,794,723 $10,754,106 -$40,617 -0.38% Landfill $49,225 $48,926 -$299 -0.61% Pipeline $2,007,012 $1,986,014 -$20,998 -1.05% Sub-Total Taxable $309,720,403 $309,720,362 -$41 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $134,378 $140,381 $6,003 4.47% Farm $632 $656 $24 3.80% Commercial $4,844,650 $4,768,925 -$75,725 -1.56% Industrial $131,921 $139,634 $7,713 5.85% Landfill $23,950 $28,149 $4,199 17.53% Sub-Total PIL $5,135,531 $5,077,745 -$57,786 -1.13% Total (Taxable + PIL) $314,855,934 $314,798,107 -$57,827 -0.02% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 30 Page 320 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE31 Table 22 considers how the combined (Regional +local) general levies are shifting among the property classes. The local levy amounts used in this section, as well as the underlying municipal specific notional tax rates are further documented in the Local Results Addenda attached to this study. Table 22 Reassessment Related Inter-Class Tax Shifts (Combined Local and Regional General Levies) Combined (UT + LT) General Levies Inter-Class Shift Realty Tax Class 2018 as Revised 2019 Notional $% Taxable Residential $482,125,412 $480,813,898 -$1,311,514 -0.27% Farm $4,800,612 $5,127,637 $327,025 6.81% Managed Forest $34,317 $35,681 $1,364 3.97% New Multi-Residential $1,568,285 $1,582,893 $14,608 0.93% Multi-Residential $28,665,893 $28,554,011 -$111,882 -0.39% Commercial $118,322,682 $119,542,863 $1,220,181 1.03% Industrial $22,277,310 $22,188,683 -$88,627 -0.40% Landfill $107,005 $105,672 -$1,333 -1.25% Pipeline $4,272,311 $4,222,315 -$49,996 -1.17% Sub-Total Taxable $662,173,827 $662,173,653 -$174 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $301,678 $315,228 $13,550 4.49% Farm $1,244 $1,285 $41 3.30% Commercial $10,791,711 $10,642,457 -$149,254 -1.38% Industrial $288,821 $306,714 $17,893 6.20% Landfill $44,923 $51,927 $7,004 15.59% Sub-Total PIL $11,428,377 $11,317,611 -$110,766 -0.97% Total (Taxable + PIL) $673,602,204 $673,491,264 -$110,940 -0.02% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 31 Page 321 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE32 Future Year Tax Trend Projections As soon as the assessment roll is returned for a taxation year it begins to change in response to growth, value adjustments, corrections, etc. In light of this constant change as well as not knowing what the revenue needs of the municipality will be any given point in the future, it is not possible to predict actual future year tax outcomes with any degree of reliability. What we can do however, is gain an understanding as to how we can expect taxes to change and shift over the coming years as the current assessment and phase-in cycle progresses. Tables 23 and 24 utilize a constant revenue target and the current assessment roll to demonstrate how taxes may shift amongst the property classes between now and 2020. This approach controls for future growth and revenue (budgetary) increases to consider the pure impacts of reassessment and phase-in. Table 23 Multi-Year Tax Trend (General Levy / Revenue Neutral / Status Quo Policy) Realty Tax Class 2018 Revised Share 2019 Notional Share 2020 Projected Share Taxable Residential $256,369,618 71.46% $255,643,196 71.27% $254,969,514 71.09% Farm $2,801,577 0.78% $3,000,078 0.84% $3,184,196 0.89% Managed Forest $18,205 0.01% $18,975 0.01% $19,688 0.01% New Multi-Residential $780,797 0.22% $786,297 0.22% $791,396 0.22% Multi-Residential $14,547,107 4.05% $14,480,189 4.04% $14,418,151 4.02% Commercial $64,130,454 17.88% $64,796,932 18.06% $65,415,030 18.24% Industrial $11,482,587 3.20% $11,434,577 3.19% $11,390,056 3.18% Landfill $57,780 0.02% $56,746 0.02% $55,789 0.02% Pipeline $2,265,299 0.63% $2,236,301 0.62% $2,209,408 0.62% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,424 98.25% $352,453,291 98.26% $352,453,228 98.27% Payment in Lieu Residential $167,300 0.05% $174,847 0.05% $181,838 0.05% Farm $612 0.00%$629 0.00%$646 0.00% Commercial $5,947,061 1.66% $5,873,532 1.64% $5,805,348 1.62% Industrial $156,900 0.04% $167,080 0.05% $176,522 0.05% Landfill $20,973 0.01% $23,778 0.01% $26,380 0.01% Sub-Total PIL $6,292,846 1.75%$6,239,866 1.74%$6,190,734 1.73% Total (Tax + PIL) $358,746,270 100.00% $358,693,157 100.00% $358,643,962 100.00% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 32 Page 322 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE33 Table 24 Multi-Year Reassessment / Phase-In Related Tax Shifts (General Levy / Revenue Neutral / Status Quo Policy) Realty Tax Class 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 Taxable Residential -$726,422 -0.28% -$673,682 -0.26% Farm $198,501 7.09% $184,118 6.14% Managed Forest $770 4.23%$713 3.76% New Multi-Residential $5,500 0.70% $5,099 0.65% Multi-Residential -$66,918 -0.46% -$62,038 -0.43% Commercial $666,478 1.04% $618,098 0.95% Industrial -$48,010 -0.42% -$44,521 -0.39% Landfill -$1,034 -1.79% -$957 -1.69% Pipeline -$28,998 -1.28% -$26,893 -1.20% Sub-Total Taxable -$133 0.00% -$63 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $7,547 4.51% $6,991 4.00% Farm $17 2.78%$17 2.70% Commercial -$73,529 -1.24% -$68,184 -1.16% Industrial $10,180 6.49% $9,442 5.65% Landfill $2,805 13.37% $2,602 10.94% Sub-Total PIL -$52,980 -0.84% -$49,132 -0.79% Total (Taxable + PIL) -$53,113 -0.01% -$49,195 -0.01% Taxation Impacts/Implications of Assessment Phase-In Although the assessment phase-in program does not place any specific limitations on year-over- year tax change for individual properties, it does necessarily have consequences for final tax outcomes. The most obvious tax impact of the phase-in program is the benefit to increasing properties, which will not be taxed on their full CVA values until 2020. The tax implications for decreasing properties are not quite as direct, but they are material and measurable. While there is no delay or phase-in of assessment decreases, the reduced availability of CVA against which to levy taxes in the first three years of a cycle results in the tax rates for those years being higher than would otherwise be the case if the phase-in did not exist. That is, if the full CVA for all properties were made available for 2019 taxation, and revenue requirements were held constant, the tax rates set would be lower. Under such a scenario, all decreasing properties would pay less, while most increasing properties would pay more. Table 25 considers the difference in tax levy distribution among classes with and without an assessment phase-in program. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 33 Page 323 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE34 Table 25 Tax Mitigation Effects of Assessment Phase-In Program by Class (Regional General Levy) 2019 Regional General Levy Tax Impacts of Assessment Phase-In Realty Tax Class (Full CVA) (Phased CVA) $% Taxable Residential $254,969,514 $255,643,196 $673,682 0.26% Farm $3,184,196 $3,000,078 -$184,118 -5.78% Managed Forest $19,688 $18,975 -$713 -3.62% New Multi-Residential $791,396 $786,297 -$5,099 -0.64% Multi-Residential $14,418,151 $14,480,189 $62,038 0.43% Commercial $65,415,030 $64,796,932 -$618,098 -0.94% Industrial $11,390,056 $11,434,577 $44,521 0.39% Landfill $55,789 $56,746 $957 1.72% Pipeline $2,209,408 $2,236,301 $26,893 1.22% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,228 $352,453,291 $63 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $181,838 $174,847 -$6,991 -3.84% Farm $646 $629 -$17 -2.63% Commercial $5,805,348 $5,873,532 $68,184 1.17% Industrial $176,522 $167,080 -$9,442 -5.35% Landfill $26,380 $23,778 -$2,602 -9.86% Sub-Total PIL $6,190,734 $6,239,866 $49,132 0.79% Total (Taxable + PIL) $358,643,962 $358,693,157 $49,195 0.01% Increasers and Decreasers While the phase-in program should not have an overall impact on the municipality’s taxable levy in any year, that revenue neutrality will not extend to individual taxpayers. As the assessment phase-in program ultimately “delays” increases in CVA, it also delays the movement of tax outcomes. Those with assessment decreases will pay more than they otherwise would if everyone’s full unmitigated CVA’s were available to be taxed in 2019, and those with assessment increases being phased-in benefit from paying taxes on an assessed value that is less than their full market value. As these two groups are being treated differently under the system, the relationship between them, and the relationship between the taxes they would be liable for with or without the assessment phase-in program is an important dynamic to be understood. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 34 Page 324 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE35 Measuring Other Assessment and Taxation Shifts In addition to considering the broad, class and municipal level impacts that can be expected for 2019 taxation, it is also important to understand how reassessment and the assessment phase- in program is going to affect more specific groups of taxpayers. Business, Non-Business and Public Sector Revenue Although some groups or categories of taxpayers are not specifically defined by the Municipal or Assessment Acts, it is possible to make distinctions between various types of taxpayers to support informative, interesting and useful analysis. For many, the distinction between revenue that comes from non-business, business and public sector property owners is of significant interest. Figures 1 through 3 have been prepared to show how the relative burden of assessment and CVA tax may change, and/or be influenced by reassessment and the assessment phase-in program. For the purposes of this report, these categories incorporate the following assessment elements: Residential Taxable Residential Multi-Residential Taxable Multi-Residential Business Taxable Commercial, Industrial, and Pipeline Classes PIL Properties from any class, whicharesubjecttoaPaymentinLieu, or Payment on Account of taxes Typical Properties It is also important to consider the impacts of reassessment at the property level. While the specific changes experienced by each ratepayer can vary widely, considering how the assessment and tax changes will materialize for a typical or average property can be very helpful in placing the broader change trends in an understandable perspective. To this end, we have prepared Tables 26-A through F to illustrate the potential impact on various “typical” taxable properties within the jurisdiction, including: ¾Single Detached Residential; ¾All Residential; ¾Multi-Residential; ¾Commercial Occupied (CT/XT); and ¾Industrial Occupied (IT/JT). CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 35 Page 325 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE36 Figures 1 through 3 Distribution of Assessment and General Levy Among Broad Taxpayer Groups Business 13.65%Farm & Forest 3.96% Multi-Residential 2.50% PIL 1.12% Residential 78.77% 2018 Full CVA Business 13.65% Farm & Forest 3.96% Multi-Residential 2.50% PIL 1.12% Residential 78.77% 2019 Full CVA Business 13.35%Farm & Forest 3.23% Multi-Residential 2.54% PIL 1.15% Residential 79.73% 2018 Phased CVA Business 13.46% Farm & Forest 3.49% Multi-Residential 2.53% PIL 1.14% Residential 79.38% 2019 Phased CVA Business 21.72% Farm & Forest 0.79% Multi-Residential 4.27% PIL 1.75% Residential 71.46% 2018 General Levy Business 21.89%Farm & Forest 0.84% Multi-Residential 4.26% PIL 1.74% Residential 71.27% 2019 General Start Levy CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 36 Page 326 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE37Table 26-AReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: Single Detached Typical Residential PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie211,537 216,653 2.42% $1,200 $1,448 $2,648 $1,182 $1,450 $2,632 -$16 -0.60%Grimsby397,390 419,933 5.67% $2,254 $989 $3,243 $2,292 $986 $3,278 $35 1.08%Lincoln362,709 377,697 4.13% $2,057 $1,546 $3,603 $2,061 $1,539 $3,600 -$3 -0.08%Niagara Falls254,741 265,133 4.08% $1,445 $1,157 $2,602 $1,447 $1,156 $2,603 $1 0.04%Niagara-on-the-Lake 486,509 506,367 4.08% $2,759 $1,012 $3,771 $2,763 $1,006 $3,769 -$2 -0.05%Pelham370,931 381,082 2.74% $2,103 $1,829 $3,932 $2,080 $1,821 $3,901 -$31 -0.79%Port Colborne186,162 190,504 2.33% $1,056 $1,570 $2,626 $1,040 $1,561 $2,601 -$25 -0.95%St. Catharines255,711 263,847 3.18% $1,450 $1,378 $2,828 $1,440 $1,372 $2,812 -$16 -0.57%Thorold243,077 249,292 2.56% $1,378 $1,424 $2,802 $1,360 $1,418 $2,778 -$24 -0.86%Wainfleet278,243 290,453 4.39% $1,578 $1,616 $3,194 $1,585 $1,615 $3,200 $6 0.19%Welland210,473 216,112 2.68% $1,194 $1,630 $2,824 $1,179 $1,626 $2,805 -$19 -0.67%West Lincoln345,520 361,900 4.74% $1,959 $1,192 $3,151 $1,975 $1,188 $3,163 $12 0.38%Region Average 271,856 281,548 3.57% $1,542 $1,401 $2,943 $1,536 $1,400 $2,936 -$7 -0.24%Region Median 242,500 251,0003.51% $1,375 $1,250 $2,625 $1,370 $1,249 $2,619 -$6 -0.23%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 37 Page 327 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE38Table 26-BReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: Other Typical Residential PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie197,139 201,230 2.08% $1,118 $1,350 $2,468 $1,098 $1,347 $2,445 -$23 -0.93%Grimsby296,595 313,758 5.79% $1,682 $738 $2,420 $1,712 $737 $2,449 $29 1.20%Lincoln307,378 324,702 5.64% $1,743 $1,311 $3,054 $1,772 $1,323 $3,095 $41 1.34%Niagara Falls207,735 215,305 3.64% $1,178 $944 $2,122 $1,175 $939 $2,114 -$8 -0.38%Niagara-on-the-Lake 398,655 414,545 3.99% $2,261 $829 $3,090 $2,262 $823 $3,085 -$5 -0.16%Pelham254,314 264,888 4.16% $1,442 $1,254 $2,696 $1,446 $1,266 $2,712 $16 0.59%Port Colborne220,320 227,490 3.25% $1,249 $1,858 $3,107 $1,241 $1,864 $3,105 -$2 -0.06%St. Catharines216,114 222,224 2.83% $1,226 $1,165 $2,391 $1,213 $1,155 $2,368 -$23 -0.96%Thorold169,763 175,851 3.59% $963 $995 $1,958 $960 $1,000 $1,960 $2 0.10%Wainfleet229,091 237,228 3.55% $1,299 $1,331 $2,630 $1,295 $1,319 $2,614 -$16 -0.61%Welland178,504 184,404 3.31% $1,012 $1,383 $2,395 $1,006 $1,387 $2,393 -$2 -0.08%West Lincoln215,177 226,676 5.34% $1,220 $742 $1,962 $1,237 $744 $1,981 $19 0.97%Region Average 231,577 240,288 3.76% $1,313 $1,193 $2,506 $1,311 $1,195 $2,506 $0 0.00%Region Median191,000 197,750 3.53% $1,083 $984 $2,067 $1,079 $984 $2,063 -$4 -0.19%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 38 Page 328 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE39Table 26-CReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: All Typical Residential PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie206,438 211,190 2.30% $1,171 $1,413 $2,584 $1,153 $1,414 $2,567 -$17 -0.66%Grimsby359,364 379,877 5.71% $2,038 $895 $2,933 $2,073 $892 $2,965 $32 1.09%Lincoln339,761 355,718 4.70% $1,927 $1,449 $3,376 $1,941 $1,449 $3,390 $14 0.41%Niagara Falls242,743 252,415 3.98% $1,377 $1,103 $2,480 $1,377 $1,101 $2,478 -$2 -0.08%Niagara-on-the-Lake 451,899 470,194 4.05% $2,563 $940 $3,503 $2,566 $934 $3,500 -$3 -0.09%Pelham340,072 350,335 3.02% $1,928 $1,677 $3,605 $1,912 $1,674 $3,586 -$19 -0.53%Port Colborne195,705 200,837 2.62% $1,110 $1,650 $2,760 $1,096 $1,646 $2,742 -$18 -0.65%St. Catharines244,050 251,589 3.09% $1,384 $1,315 $2,699 $1,373 $1,308 $2,681 -$18 -0.67%Thorold216,895 223,065 2.84% $1,230 $1,271 $2,501 $1,217 $1,269 $2,486 -$15 -0.60%Wainfleet250,430 260,335 3.96% $1,420 $1,455 $2,875 $1,421 $1,447 $2,868 -$7 -0.24%Welland202,531 208,235 2.82% $1,149 $1,569 $2,718 $1,136 $1,567 $2,703 -$15 -0.55%West Lincoln288,455 302,699 4.94% $1,636 $995 $2,631 $1,652 $994 $2,646 $15 0.57%Region Average 259,215 268,598 3.62% $1,470 $1,336 $2,806 $1,466 $1,336 $2,802 -$4 -0.14%Region Median226,500 234,500 3.53% $1,284 $1,167 $2,451 $1,280 $1,166 $2,446 -$5 -0.20%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 39 Page 329 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE40Table 26-DReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: Typical Occupied Multi-Residential PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie1,353,474 1,364,071 0.78% $15,120 $18,254 $33,374 $14,665 $17,989 $32,654 -$720 -2.16%Grimsby2,078,250 2,138,583 2.90% $23,217 $10,194 $33,411 $22,991 $9,892 $32,883 -$528 -1.58%Lincoln1,530,158 1,588,225 3.79% $17,094 $12,852 $29,946 $17,074 $12,746 $29,820 -$126 -0.42%Niagara Falls2,427,686 2,543,287 4.76% $27,121 $21,723 $48,844 $27,342 $21,853 $49,195 $351 0.72%Niagara-on-the-Lake 7,053,775 7,235,412 2.58% $78,801 $28,903 $107,704 $77,785 $28,313 $106,098 -$1,606 -1.49%Pelham1,589,273 1,598,864 0.60% $17,754 $15,435 $33,189 $17,189 $15,052 $32,241 -$948 -2.86%Port Colborne1,168,530 1,172,780 0.36% $13,054 $19,408 $32,462 $12,608 $18,932 $31,540 -$922 -2.84%St. Catharines3,118,202 3,239,842 3.90% $34,835 $33,101 $67,936 $34,830 $33,184 $68,014 $78 0.11%Thorold1,117,886 1,139,586 1.94% $12,488 $12,902 $25,390 $12,251 $12,769 $25,020 -$370 -1.46%Wainfleet456,500 456,750 0.05% $5,100 $5,223 $10,323 $4,910 $5,003 $9,913 -$410 -3.97%Welland2,164,489 2,190,994 1.22% $24,181 $33,025 $57,206 $23,555 $32,476 $56,031 -$1,175 -2.05%West Lincoln1,414,125 1,441,312 1.92% $15,798 $9,613 $25,411 $15,495 $9,323 $24,818 -$593 -2.33%Region Average 2,390,928 2,472,484 3.41% $26,710 $24,270 $50,980 $26,581 $24,229 $50,810 -$170 -0.33%Region Median976,000 1,008,000 3.28% $10,903 $9,907 $20,810 $10,837 $9,878 $20,715 -$95 -0.46%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 40 Page 330 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE41Table 26-EReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: Typical Commercial PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie339,270 347,778 2.51% $3,338 $4,030 $7,368 $3,293 $4,039 $7,332 -$36 -0.49%Grimsby898,814 974,014 8.37% $8,843 $3,883 $12,726 $9,222 $3,968 $13,190 $464 3.65%Lincoln532,601 553,157 3.86% $5,240 $3,940 $9,180 $5,237 $3,909 $9,146 -$34 -0.37%Niagara Falls1,332,387 1,391,071 4.40% $13,108 $10,499 $23,607 $13,170 $10,526 $23,696 $89 0.38%Niagara-on-the-Lake 1,292,235 1,360,831 5.31% $12,713 $4,663 $17,376 $12,884 $4,690 $17,574 $198 1.14%Pelham419,447 434,160 3.51% $4,127 $3,587 $7,714 $4,110 $3,600 $7,710 -$4 -0.05%Port Colborne279,893 291,555 4.17% $2,754 $4,094 $6,848 $2,760 $4,145 $6,905 $57 0.83%St. Catharines678,800 711,485 4.82% $6,678 $6,346 $13,024 $6,736 $6,418 $13,154 $130 1.00%Thorold434,972 453,065 4.16% $4,279 $4,421 $8,700 $4,289 $4,471 $8,760 $60 0.69%Wainfleet174,727 186,274 6.61% $1,719 $1,761 $3,480 $1,764 $1,797 $3,561 $81 2.33%Welland436,801 454,005 3.94% $4,297 $5,869 $10,166 $4,298 $5,926 $10,224 $58 0.57%West Lincoln342,576 351,416 2.58% $3,370 $2,051 $5,421 $3,327 $2,002 $5,329 -$92 -1.70%Region Average 744,604 779,103 4.63% $7,326 $6,656 $13,982 $7,376 $6,724 $14,100 $118 0.84%Region Median263,600 273,750 3.85% $2,593 $2,356 $4,949 $2,592 $2,362 $4,954 $5 0.10%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 41 Page 331 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE42Table 26-FReassessment Related CVA and CVA Tax Change: Typical Industrial PropertiesAverage CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie744,268 747,878 0.49% $11,100 $13,401 $24,501 $10,734 $13,167 $23,901 -$600 -2.45%Grimsby1,557,132 1,664,868 6.92% $23,223 $10,197 $33,420 $23,895 $10,281 $34,176 $756 2.26%Lincoln817,578 838,193 2.52% $12,194 $9,168 $21,362 $12,030 $8,980 $21,010 -$352 -1.65%Niagara Falls823,446 851,884 3.45% $12,281 $9,837 $22,118 $12,227 $9,772 $21,999 -$119 -0.54%Niagara-on-the-Lake 584,770 610,600 4.42% $8,721 $3,199 $11,920 $8,764 $3,190 $11,954 $34 0.29%Pelham174,331 185,559 6.44% $2,600 $2,260 $4,860 $2,663 $2,332 $4,995 $135 2.78%Port Colborne756,609 773,746 2.27% $11,284 $16,777 $28,061 $11,105 $16,675 $27,780 -$281 -1.00%St. Catharines728,746 748,640 2.73% $10,869 $10,328 $21,197 $10,745 $10,237 $20,982 -$215 -1.01%Thorold658,452 668,169 1.48% $9,820 $10,146 $19,966 $9,590 $9,995 $19,585 -$381 -1.91%Wainfleet242,133 250,103 3.29% $3,611 $3,699 $7,310 $3,590 $3,657 $7,247 -$63 -0.86%Welland825,962 845,782 2.40% $12,319 $16,824 $29,143 $12,139 $16,737 $28,876 -$267 -0.92%West Lincoln423,030 430,625 1.80% $6,309 $3,839 $10,148 $6,180 $3,719 $9,899 -$249 -2.45%Region Average 725,196 746,101 2.88% $10,816 $9,828 $20,644 $10,708 $9,761 $20,469 -$175 -0.85%Region Median335,000 345,750 3.21% $4,996 $4,540 $9,536 $4,962 $4,523 $9,485 -$51 -0.53%CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 42 Page 332 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE43 PART FOUR: FARM CLASS AND WHOLE FARM PROPERTY TAX TREATMENT The farm property class in the Region of Niagara are marked by fairly strong market value updates and corresponding rates of phase-in change for 2019. On a Regional basis, the overall increase in Full CVA is approximately 52.15% for the current assessment cycle, which has translated into a 2019 phase-in change of 11.28%. These changes have a high rate of occurrence with 93.74% of farm properties increasing. These rates of change seem high in isolation but they are actually relatively modest when compared to other areas in southern Ontario. There are a host of forces behind these value changes including: ¾Methodology changes and challenges at MPAC; ¾Domestic (GTA) land crush issues; and even ¾International weather and currency trends. Although new notional / revenue neutral tax rates are calculated annually to compensate for the additional assessment being phased-in, these rates are calculated in response to municipal-wide assessment change and are not sensitive to any specific class of property. As such, varying rates of assessment change will inevitably result in shifts between individual properties and groups of properties. The inter-class shifts of the regional levy are previously documented in Table 17. The rate of tax shift generally follows the rate of phase-in change a property, or group of properties is experiencing relative to the overall rate of change for the pool of assessment against which the taxes are levied. Table 27 plots the rate of phase-in change for each class in ascending order and also includes the rate of inter-class levy shift. As can be seen, those classes with overall phase-in change rates that fall below the Region-wide level may expect negative tax shifts. Table 27 Phase-In Change and Resulting Inter-Class Tax Shifts Rate of Phase-In Change Inter-Class Shift Realty Tax Class $% Landfill 2.06% -$1,034 -1.79% Pipeline 2.58% -$28,998 -1.28% Multi-Residential 3.44% -$66,918 -0.46% Residential 3.62% -$726,422 -0.28% Industrial 3.83% -$48,010 -0.42% Total (Taxable Only) 4.05%-$133 0.00% New Multi-Residential 4.65%$5,500 0.70% Commercial 5.00% $666,478 1.04% Managed Forest 8.31%$770 4.23% Farm 11.28% $198,501 7.09% The rate of phase-in change, relative to the overall rate of change will generally determine if a tax shift will be positive or negative. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 43 Page 333 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE44 Those experiencing higher rates of change can expect their proportional share of the regional levy to increase on a year-over-year basis. This is also true at the inter-municipal and property level. Simply put, any municipality, class or other group of properties subject to a rate of phase-in change around 4.05% would likely carry a similar share of the regional levy in 2019 in 2018. Representative property groupings (class, municipality, ward, etc.) experiencing higher rates of change will attract a greater share of the overall levy; and vice-versa for those increasing at rates below the aggregate. Farm Class vs. Whole Farm Property Tax Although it is clear that farmland, captured by the farm property class is currently experiencing a relatively high rate of reassessment/phase-in change, this information is not sufficient to fully consider how bottom line taxes are changing for farms and farmers within the municipality. The farm property class is considered to be a special tax incentive class and inclusion is based on a host of ownership, use and occupancy criteria. A large proportion of farms as understood outside the realm of property tax are made up of a farm class portion and portions that fall into other classes. It is important to consider these other elements in order to fully and accurately understand how farm taxes are changing. The most common combination is a farm portion mixed with a residential portion associated with a farm house or other non-farm related improvements. Some farms also have elements classified as commercial or industrial based on use; this will be discussed later in the report. This figure provides a simple illustration of a typical farm with a farmhouse. This property would fall under a single roll number, but would be comprised of two separate portions; a farm class portion and a residential portion. For assessment purposes the underlying land is valued as farmland and the home and barn are valued on a replacement cost model derived from comparable farms. One acre of land along with the farmhouse is classified and taxed as residential; the remainder of the land and all farm related out buildings are classified and taxed in the farm property class and subject to tax rates that are ¼ of those applicable to residential property. As of roll return for 2019 taxation, there are 6,081 roll numbers (properties) in the Region that fall entirely or partially in the farm property class. The following tables have been prepared to give the reader a sense of these properties. Table 28 shows that approximately 64% of all properties that make up the farm class have at least one other portion on the same roll number that is captured by another property class. Further, approximately 79% of farm property portions within the Region are part of multi-portion farms. RT FT CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 44 Page 334 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE45 Table 28 Farm Class Rolls and Whole-Farm Property Portions Farm Class Rolls Farm Property Portions Farm Class Only Multi-Portion Farms Local Municipality Count Share of Farm Rolls Share of Farm Potions Count Share of Farm Rolls Share of Farm Potions Fort Erie 285 467 108 37.89% 23.13% 177 62.11% 76.87% Grimsby 220 390 56 25.45% 14.36% 164 74.55% 85.64% Lincoln 975 1,726 294 30.15% 17.03% 681 69.85% 82.97% Niagara Falls 301 489 125 41.53% 25.56% 176 58.47% 74.44% Niagara-on-the-Lake 895 1,483 360 40.22% 24.28% 535 59.78% 75.72% Pelham 524 921 134 25.57% 14.55% 390 74.43% 85.45% Port Colborne 291 473 115 39.52% 24.31% 176 60.48% 75.69% St. Catharines 245 402 97 39.59% 24.13% 148 60.41% 75.87% Thorold 202 306 100 49.50% 32.68% 102 50.50% 67.32% Wainfleet 706 1,083 342 48.44% 31.58% 364 51.56% 68.42% Welland 101 168 35 34.65% 20.83% 66 65.35% 79.17% West Lincoln 1,336 2,300 422 31.59% 18.35% 914 68.41% 81.65% Niagara Region 6,081 10,208 2,188 35.98% 21.43% 3,893 64.02% 78.57% Typical Farm Property Changes In light of the fact that the Region’s Farms are not fully, or well represented by changes to farm class assessment and tax change alone, MTE has expanded on the typical farm property analysis. ¾Table 29-A includes farm class property portions only, regardless of whether they represent the entire farm or only a component of the property; ¾Table 29-B is based on single portion farms classified solely in the farm property class; ¾Table 29-C looks at only those farm properties with additional non-farm portions; and ¾Table 29-D includes all portions of all properties including both single and multi-portion farms. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 45 Page 335 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE46Table 29-ATypical Farm Class (FT) Property Portions Only: Single and Multi-Portion Farms(2018 actual to 2019 Notional General Municipal Levy Amounts – Farm Class Tax Only)Average CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie180,070 189,079 5.00% $255 $308 $563 $258 $316 $574 $11 1.95%Grimsby344,093 377,873 9.82% $488 $214 $702 $516 $222 $738 $36 5.13%Lincoln445,875 492,092 10.37% $632 $475 $1,107 $671 $501 $1,172 $65 5.87%Niagara Falls236,918 264,488 11.64% $336 $269 $605 $361 $288 $649 $44 7.27%Niagara-on-the-Lake 496,492 552,532 11.29% $704 $258 $962 $754 $274 $1,028 $66 6.86%Pelham273,263 299,637 9.65% $387 $337 $724 $409 $358 $767 $43 5.94%Port Colborne174,557 184,769 5.85% $247 $368 $615 $252 $379 $631 $16 2.60%St. Catharines470,259 521,208 10.83% $667 $634 $1,301 $711 $677 $1,388 $87 6.69%Thorold232,298 245,058 5.49% $329 $340 $669 $334 $348 $682 $13 1.94%Wainfleet225,642 257,103 13.94% $320 $328 $648 $351 $357 $708 $60 9.26%Welland177,207 197,696 11.56% $251 $343 $594 $270 $372 $642 $48 8.08%West Lincoln273,501 313,331 14.56% $388 $236 $624 $427 $257 $684 $60 9.62%Region Average 324,970 361,619 11.28% $461 $419 $880 $493 $450 $943 $63 7.16%Region Median229,450 259,000 12.88% $325 $296 $621 $353 $322 $675 $54 8.70%Interpretation Note:Based on all property in the farm property class but does not consider any portions of those propertiesthat may be classified in other classes.FTFTCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 46 Page 336 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE47Table 29-BTypical Single Portion / Stand-Alone Farm Class (FT) Properties(2018 actual to 2019 Notional General Municipal Levy Amounts – Farm Class Tax Only)Average CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie168,265 176,167 4.70% $239 $288 $527 $240 $295 $535 $8 1.52%Grimsby361,181 399,388 10.58% $512 $225 $737 $545 $234 $779 $42 5.70%Lincoln436,891 483,580 10.69% $619 $466 $1,085 $660 $492 $1,152 $67 6.18%Niagara Falls243,201 271,929 11.81% $345 $276 $621 $371 $297 $668 $47 7.57%Niagara-on-the-Lake 512,624 576,892 12.54% $727 $267 $994 $787 $286 $1,073 $79 7.95%Pelham299,414 330,051 10.23% $424 $369 $793 $450 $394 $844 $51 6.43%Port Colborne177,977 190,367 6.96% $252 $375 $627 $260 $390 $650 $23 3.67%St. Catharines574,638 634,721 10.46% $815 $774 $1,589 $866 $825 $1,691 $102 6.42%Thorold206,898 218,302 5.51% $293 $303 $596 $298 $310 $608 $12 2.01%Wainfleet206,996 237,785 14.87% $293 $301 $594 $324 $331 $655 $61 10.27%Welland186,597 209,257 12.14% $265 $361 $626 $285 $394 $679 $53 8.47%West Lincoln253,710 293,242 15.58% $360 $219 $579 $400 $241 $641 $62 10.71%Niagara Region 321,388 359,757 11.94% $456 $328 $784 $491 $351 $842 $58 7.40%Interpretation Note:This table only includes properties that are solely assessed in the farm property class. Farm propertiesattached to non-farm portions have been excluded.FTCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 47 Page 337 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE48Table 29-CMulti-Portion Farm Properties: Farm (FT) + Mixed Portion(s)(2018 actual to 2019 Notional General Municipal Levy Amounts for all Applicable Classes)Average CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie361,410 380,319 5.23% $1,299 $1,569 $2,868 $1,315 $1,613 $2,928 $60 2.09%Grimsby558,910 602,836 7.86% $1,751 $769 $2,520 $1,794 $772 $2,566 $46 1.83%Lincoln704,146 765,723 8.74% $2,340 $1,759 $4,099 $2,413 $1,802 $4,215 $116 2.83%Niagara Falls488,772 533,536 9.16% $2,113 $1,693 $3,806 $2,202 $1,760 $3,962 $156 4.10%Niagara-on-the-Lake 764,561 833,522 9.02% $2,626 $963 $3,589 $2,716 $989 $3,705 $116 3.23%Pelham490,752 525,931 7.17% $1,692 $1,471 $3,163 $1,720 $1,506 $3,226 $63 1.99%Port Colborne356,793 374,711 5.02% $1,427 $2,122 $3,549 $1,443 $2,167 $3,610 $61 1.72%St. Catharines662,391 723,685 9.25% $2,270 $2,157 $4,427 $2,348 $2,237 $4,585 $158 3.57%Thorold465,959 490,963 5.37% $1,565 $1,617 $3,182 $1,586 $1,653 $3,239 $57 1.79%Wainfleet407,394 449,662 10.38% $1,325 $1,357 $2,682 $1,377 $1,402 $2,779 $97 3.62%Welland378,214 406,210 7.40% $1,442 $1,969 $3,411 $1,461 $2,015 $3,476 $65 1.91%West Lincoln477,428 527,852 10.56% $1,628 $991 $2,619 $1,680 $1,011 $2,691 $72 2.75%Niagara Region 549,600 598,167 8.84% $1,891 $1,381 $3,272 $1,947 $1,416 $3,363 $91 2.78%Interpretation Note:These results consider all multi-portion farms, which arethose rolls with a farm classification and at least one otherportion (residential, commercial, etc…). Properties solely assessed in the farm property class have been excluded.FTCTITFTRTRTCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 48 Page 338 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL©2018MUNICIPALTAXEQUITY(MTE) CONSULTANTSINC.PAGE49Table 29-DAll Farm Rolls: Single and Multi-Portion Farms(2018 actual to 2019 Notional General Municipal Levy Amounts for all Applicable Classes)Average CVA2018 Municipal General Levy 2019 Municipal General LevyPhase-In RelatedTax ShiftMunicipality2018 2019 Change Region Local Combined Region Local CombinedFort Erie288,218 302,956 5.11% $897 $1,083 $1,980 $907 $1,113 $2,020 $40 2.02%Grimsby508,579 551,049 8.35% $1,435 $630 $2,065 $1,476 $635 $2,111 $46 2.23%Lincoln623,558 680,646 9.16% $1,821 $1,369 $3,190 $1,885 $1,407 $3,292 $102 3.20%Niagara Falls386,790 424,895 9.85% $1,379 $1,105 $2,484 $1,441 $1,152 $2,593 $109 4.39%Niagara-on-the-Lake 663,223 730,296 10.11% $1,862 $683 $2,545 $1,940 $706 $2,646 $101 3.97%Pelham441,822 475,840 7.70% $1,368 $1,189 $2,557 $1,395 $1,222 $2,617 $60 2.35%Port Colborne286,127 301,860 5.50% $963 $1,432 $2,395 $975 $1,464 $2,439 $44 1.84%St. Catharines627,648 688,462 9.69% $1,694 $1,609 $3,303 $1,762 $1,678 $3,440 $137 4.15%Thorold337,711 355,982 5.41% $936 $967 $1,903 $948 $989 $1,937 $34 1.79%Wainfleet310,317 347,025 11.83% $825 $845 $1,670 $867 $883 $1,750 $80 4.79%Welland311,812 337,959 8.39% $1,034 $1,412 $2,446 $1,054 $1,453 $2,507 $61 2.49%West Lincoln406,763 453,746 11.55% $1,228 $747 $1,975 $1,276 $768 $2,044 $69 3.49%Niagara Region 467,487 512,385 9.60% $1,374 $1,002 $2,376 $1,423 $1,033 $2,456 $80 3.37%Interpretation Note:This table shows the average assessment and corresponding taxes for all properties with a farm classification. Itconsiders single portion farms and all elements of multi-portion farm properties.FTFTRTFTCTITRTCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 49 Page 339 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE50 New Agri-Food Business Subclasses for Farm Properties As part of the previous Government’s 2017 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review (Fall Budget),The Minister of Finance announced that new property sub-classes would be introduced to facilitate special treatment of commercial and industrial improvements on farm properties. These new sub-classes are optional for municipal purposes and are intended to give municipalities a means of incenting / supporting small scale Agri-Food enterprises. It was announced that these sub-classes would apply for education purposes, regardless of whether a municipality chooses to participate. This means that local municipalities will be required to administer these new sub-classes even if they do not use them for municipal tax purposes. The following has been prepared to provide staff and decision makers with a measure of general insight regarding the purpose, nature and potential financial implications of these new sub- classes. As MPAC did not include these property portions on the roll as returned for 2019 it is not possible to incorporate these new sub-classes into a fully realized tax policy model. Instead, we have prepared a general qualitative overview to consider the purpose, structure and function of the new sub-classes. Farm Class and New Sub-Class Overview Currently Ontario’s property assessment and taxation system includes two mandated sub-classes within each of the commercial and industrial property classes: vacant land and excess land. In simple terms, the vacant land sub-classes include complete parcels (rolls) that are classified as commercial or industrial due to zoning or historic use but which are completely absent of assessable improvements. The excess land sub-class is assigned to unused portions of improved property that exceed local zoning requirements 1. The new farm sub-classes will also be constituent of the commercial and industrial classes but distinct from those described above in three critical ways: 1) They will be optional and will not apply for municipal purposes unless adopted 2; 2) They will only apply to commercial or industrial portions of rolls that also include a portion included in the farm property class; and 3) Rather than applying to a physically delineated or identifiable property or portion of property, they apply to a portion of the property’s value and as such will really only exist for taxation purposes alone. Also, with uniform class specific reductions of 75% these sub-classes will attract much larger discounts than the current sub-classes, which default at 30% and 35% for commercial and industrial respectively. 1 For example: If zoning required two acres for a gas station and the property was 10 acres, the buildings and two acres may be assessed as full commercial and the remaining eight acres assessed as commercial excess. 2 The existing sub-classes apply by default and municipalities must seek special regulatory authority to opt out. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 50 Page 340 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE51 Eligible Properties A large proportion of farms as understood outside the realm of property tax are made up of a farm class portion and portions that fall into other classes. The most common combination is a farm (FT) portion mixed with a residential (RT) portion associated with a farm house or other non-farm related improvements. Some farms do have elements classified as commercial or industrial based on use. For example, if a farmer were to operate a produce market or butcher shop as part of their overall business model, the property could be made up of three separate portions: farmland, residential and commercial. In this example the property is captured by a single roll number but made up of three separately classified and valued portions, each of which attracts distinct tax rates for both municipal and education purposes. It is understood that these new sub-classes will be exclusive to properties such as this that have a commercial or industrial portion, but which are mainly, or at least partially, assessed in the farm property class. If adopted, the subclass would apply to the first 50,000 of the commercial CVA, thereby splitting the property into four portions rather than three. The following table illustrates the impact on our hypothetical example. Element Classification CVA Ratio Discount Rate Tax Farm Land & Buildings Farm (FT)300,000 0.25 1.00 0.25% $750 Home Residential (RT) 100,000 1.00 1.00 1.00% $1,000 Retail Store Commercial Agri-Food Sub-Class 50,000 1.50 0.25 0.38% $188 Fully Occupied 75,000 1.50 1.00 1.50% $1,125 Property Total 525,000 $3,063 Without Sub-Class 525,000 $3,625 Tax Savings 0 -$563 As noted above, the application of this new treatment should not impact the overall assessment of the commercial (industrial) element or any other portion of the property. Also, unlike portions classified into one of the vacant or excess land sub-classes, the eligible element cannot be physically delineated or identified separately from the greater commercial (industrial portion). What will really happen is that the value of the commercial portion will be split and a lower rate of taxation will be applied to the first 50,000. If the business class portion as a whole was assessed at less than 50,000 it would be captured solely by the sub-class. Element Classification CVA Ratio Rate Tax Farm Land & Buildings Farm (FT) 300,000 0.25 0.25% $750 Home Residential (RT) 100,000 1.00 1.00% $1,000 Retail Store Commercial (CT) 125,000 1.50 1.50% $1,875 Property Total 525,000 $3,625 FT CT RT CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 51 Page 341 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE52 As the program was conceived to be an incentive/benefit for small-scale commercial and industrial operations that are ostensibly ancillary to farming operations, they will place a ceiling of 1,000,000 of CVA on the overall value of eligible portions. As such, if our example property included a large scale industrial processing operation with over 1,000,000 in CVA, the sub-class would not apply. This limitation is intended to ensure a level playing field among larger on-farm and off-farm commercial and industrial enterprises. Nature of Enterprise These sub-classes will not capture all on-farm business activities. The Regulation restricts the application to commercial and industrial activities that are derivative of the broader farm operation. Specifically, commercial and industrial activities must meet the following eligibility criteria. Commercial: Land used primarily to sell farm products, or a product derived from a farm product or products, that are produced on the land or on land used to carry on the same farming business. Industrial: Land used primarily to process,or manufacture something from, a farm product or products that are produced on the land or on land used to carry on the same farming business. Although this seems to be consistent with the spirit and intent of introducing these new sub- classes we suspect that these criteria will prove exceptionally problematic. Of primary concern is the time and resources that it will take to identify and confirm the nature of each enterprise. If the Province had simply left it at on-farm commercial and industrial improvements, the new sub- classes could have been implemented easily without the need to identify what was actually going on at each site. We anticipate this will result in implementation problems and delays and is also ripe for endless disputes and appeals over what is, and what is not, a derivative activity. Unfortunately such disputes will consume already scarce assessment resources and create additional and unnecessary points of potential frustration and conflict. Further, when we consider the quantum of tax involved here (+/- less than $700 per property), the effort and complications involved may far outweigh any benefit for taxpayers or to the overall taxation system. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 52 Page 342 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE53 PART FIVE: TAX POLICY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS For 2019, the Municipal Act continues to provide upper and single-tier municipalities with a range of tax policy tools that may be used to alter the distribution of the tax burden both within and between tax classes. The following tools may be used to change or achieve local tax policy objectives, target the benefits of growth, or redistribute the impacts of assessment change. 3 1. Tax ratios may be adjusted to affect the level of taxation on different tax classes; 2. Optional business property classes may be employed or collapsed to alter taxation within broad commercial or industrial tax classes; 3. Sub-class discounts for vacant and excess land may be adjusted; 4. Graduated taxation schemes for the business classes can be used to impose higher rates of taxation on properties with higher current value assessment in order to provide tax relief on properties with lower assessed values. A comprehensive examination of tax ratios and a relevant sensitivity analysis should be undertaken each year. Specific examination of the use of optional tax classes and graduated taxation are generally only required if these options are being actively considered. After considering the contents of this report Council may wish to further explore the utility and application of these alternate apportionment and mitigation strategies. Moving Tax Ratios Single-tier municipalities are required to establish tax ratios for the multi-residential, commercial, industrial, landfill and pipeline classes prior to finalizing tax rates for the current year’s tax cycle. Established ratios will ultimately govern the relationship between the rate of taxation for each affected class and the tax rate for the residential property class. The tax ratio for the residential class is legislated at 1.0, while the farm and managed forest classes have a prescribed tax ratio of 0.25. Municipalities do have the flexibility to set a tax ratio for the farm class that is below 0.25, however, this reduction would only apply to the municipal portion of the property tax bill. In setting tax ratios for all other property classes,municipalities must do so within the guidelines prescribed by the Province. Council may choose to adopt: (1) either the current tax ratio for any class (2018 adopted or 2019 starting ratio where levy restriction and/or optional classes applied in 2018), (2) establish a new tax ratio for the year that is closer to or within the Range of Fairness, as shown in Table 30; or (3) utilize restated revenue neutral transition ratios to mitigate reassessment related tax shifts between classes in accordance with the regulated calculations. 3 The by-law deadlines for many tax policy decisions is December 31 st of the subject taxation year. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 53 Page 343 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE54 Table 30 Tax Ratio Summary Realty Tax Class 2018 Ratios 2019 Start Ratios Ranges of Fairness Threshold Ratios Lower Limit Upper Limit Threshold Subject to Levy Restriction Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.00 -N/A Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00 0.25 -N/A Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.25 0.25 -N/A New Multi-Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.10 -N/A Multi-Residential 1.970000 1.970000 1.00 1.10 2.00 No Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.60 1.10 1.98 No Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.60 1.10 2.63 No Landfill 2.940261 2.940261 0.60 1.10 25.00 No Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 0.60 0.70 -N/A Where Optional Classes Apply Where a municipality has elected to use optional tax classes, changes to tax ratios are regulated based on the relationship of the municipality’s broad class ratios (the weighted average of commercial, shopping centre, office, and parking lot is equivalent to the broad commercial class, and industrial and large industrial are deemed to be the broad industrial class). Council must ensure that the weighted average broad class ratio for the current year does not exceed the broad class ratio for the prior year. To strictly comply with the provisions of Section 308 of the Municipal Act, adjustments to tax ratios may be required for the commercial and industrial tax classes. The legislated deadline that previously applied to the creation of new, or the collapsing of existing optional classes, has now been eliminated, however, municipalities that intend to make a change to the class structure need to make this decision before any tax rate or ratio by-laws can be passed. It is also critical to provide the Province with as much advanced notice of any such change, as it could impact the manner in which education tax rates are calculated and/or regulated for the taxation year. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 54 Page 344 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE55 Tax Ratios and Balance of Taxation Tax ratios govern the tax rate of each property class in relation to the tax rate for the residential property class. Ontario’s tax ratio system is not simply about expressing the relationship among tax rates, the real function of tax ratios is to manipulate the balance of taxation among property classes. Tax ratios effectively alter the weighting, or distribution of the tax burden compared to how the total levy would be shared if each dollar of CVA was treated equally. Table 31 shows how the share of tax differs from the share of assessment for each class in accordance with the municipality’s starting ratios for the year. The more dramatic the ratio, the larger the difference between the share of assessment and share of tax each class carries. By changing tax ratios, the municipality can influence and alter this balance. Table 31 Balance of Taxation Assessment General Levy Realty Tax Class 2019 CVA % 2019 Tax % Taxable Residential 46,877,880,220 79.06% $255,643,196 71.27% Farm 2,199,003,701 3.71% $3,000,078 0.84% Managed Forest 13,907,719 0.02%$18,975 0.01% New Multi-Residential 144,085,061 0.24% $786,297 0.22% Multi-Residential 1,346,916,747 2.27% $14,480,189 4.04% Commercial 6,954,686,379 11.73% $64,796,932 18.06% Industrial 839,898,339 1.42% $11,434,577 3.19% Landfill 3,536,625 0.01%$56,746 0.02% Pipeline 240,756,173 0.41% $2,236,301 0.62% Sub-Total Taxable 58,620,670,964 98.87% $352,453,291 98.26% Payment in Lieu Residential 32,039,644 0.05% $174,847 0.05% Farm 461,250 0.00%$629 0.00% Commercial 624,897,194 1.05% $5,873,532 1.64% Industrial 12,594,937 0.02% $167,080 0.05% Landfill 1,481,925 0.00%$23,778 0.01% Sub-Total PIL 671,474,950 1.13% $6,239,866 1.74% Total (Taxable + PIL) 59,292,145,914 100.00% $358,693,157 100.00% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 55 Page 345 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Discussion and Explanation The assistance of Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. has been sought by the Region of Niagara to generate tax rates and corresponding levy amounts which may be under consideration for 2019. In preparing these results, MTE has relied on the following general parameters: 1. The 2019 start ratios as documented in Table 16 of the municipality’s 2019 Tax Policy Study dated January 16, 2019; 2. A 2019 revenue neutral general levy of $352,453,424; 3. A 2019 target levy of $365,725,637; 4. Tax amounts represent CVA taxes, no capping adjustments have been applied; and 5. Tax rate calculations performed are based on taxable only and exclude grantable (payment in lieu) assessment, as requested by the municipality. Scenario 1 has been prepared to set out the impact of the levy increase using status quo ratios. The results of this model have been documented in the following tables. Table 1-A summarizes the full class municipal purpose tax rates and the 2019 tax rate increase required to raise the levy requirement using status quo tax ratios. Table 1-A 2019 Tax Ratios and General Tax Rates (Start Ratios) Start Ratios General Levy Tax Rates Realty Tax Class Status Quo Model Change Residential 1.000000 0.00545717 0.00566267 3.77% Farm 0.250000 0.00136429 0.00141567 3.77% Managed Forest 0.250000 0.00136429 0.00141567 3.77% New Multi-Residential 1.000000 0.00545717 0.00566267 3.77% Multi-Residential 1.970000 0.01075062 0.01115546 3.77% Commercial 1.734900 0.00946764 0.00982417 3.77% Industrial 2.630000 0.01435236 0.01489282 3.77% Landfill 2.940261 0.01604550 0.01664973 3.77% Pipeline 1.702100 0.00928865 0.00963843 3.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 56 Page 346 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 1-B has been prepared to summarize the Region’s revenue neutral (base) levy and full levy using status quo tax ratios and the tax rates set out in Table 1-A. Table 1-B 2019 Regional General Levy Increase (Start Ratios) 2019 General Levy Levy Increase Realty Tax Class Revenue Neutral Target Levy $% Taxable Residential $255,643,196 $265,269,922 $9,626,726 3.77% Farm $3,000,078 $3,113,064 $112,986 3.77% Managed Forest $18,975 $19,689 $714 3.76% New Multi-Residential $786,297 $815,906 $29,609 3.77% Multi-Residential $14,480,189 $15,025,476 $545,287 3.77% Commercial $64,796,932 $67,237,038 $2,440,106 3.77% Industrial $11,434,577 $11,865,165 $430,588 3.77% Landfill $56,746 $58,884 $2,138 3.77% Pipeline $2,236,301 $2,320,512 $84,211 3.77% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,291 $365,725,656 $13,272,365 3.77% Payment in Lieu Residential $174,847 $181,430 $6,583 3.77% Farm $629 $653 $24 3.82% Commercial $5,873,532 $6,094,719 $221,187 3.77% Industrial $167,080 $173,372 $6,292 3.77% Landfill $23,778 $24,674 $896 3.77% Sub-Total PIL $6,239,866 $6,474,848 $234,982 3.77% Total (Taxable + PIL)$358,693,157 $372,200,504 $13,507,347 3.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 57 Page 347 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 1-C documents the net year-over-year tax change by class before and after the levy increase is applied. Status quo starting ratios are applied in both instances. Table 1-C 2019 Regional General Levy and Year-Over-Year Tax Change 2018 As Revised Revenue Neutral Target Levy Realty Tax Class $%$% Taxable Residential $256,369,618 -$726,422 -0.28%$8,900,304 3.47% Farm $2,801,577 $198,501 7.09%$311,487 11.12% Managed Forest $18,205 $770 4.23%$1,484 8.15% New Multi-Residential $780,797 $5,500 0.70%$35,109 4.50% Multi-Residential $14,547,107 -$66,918 -0.46%$478,369 3.29% Commercial $64,130,454 $666,478 1.04%$3,106,584 4.84% Industrial $11,482,587 -$48,010 -0.42%$382,578 3.33% Landfill $57,780 -$1,034 -1.79%$1,104 1.91% Pipeline $2,265,299 -$28,998 -1.28%$55,213 2.44% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,424 -$133 0.00%$13,272,232 3.77% Payment in Lieu Residential $167,300 $7,547 4.51%$14,130 8.45% Farm $612 $17 2.78%$41 6.70% Commercial $5,947,061 -$73,529 -1.24%$147,658 2.48% Industrial $156,900 $10,180 6.49%$16,472 10.50% Landfill $20,973 $2,805 13.37%$3,701 17.65% Sub-Total PIL $6,292,846 -$52,980 -0.84%$182,002 2.89% Total (Taxable + PIL) $358,746,270 -$53,113 -0.01%$13,454,234 3.75% Pure Impact of Phase-In Change. No additional revenue is raised and no ratios have been changed Combined impact of Assessment Phase-In Change and Levy Increase CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 58 Page 348 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 1-D has been prepared to summarize the Region’s revenue neutral (base) levy and full levy using status quo tax ratios by local municipality. Table 1-E documents the net year-over-year tax change by municipality before and after the levy increase is applied. Status quo starting ratios are applied in both instances. Table 1-D Regional General Levy Sensitivity (In comparison to 2019 Base-Line Levy) Regional Levy Difference Local Municipality Revenue Neutral Target Levy $% Fort Erie $22,072,979 $22,904,183 $831,204 3.77% Grimsby $26,414,076 $27,408,753 $994,677 3.77% Lincoln $20,591,427 $21,366,842 $775,415 3.77% Niagara Falls $74,370,381 $77,170,956 $2,800,575 3.77% Niagara-on-the-Lake $30,313,217 $31,454,724 $1,141,507 3.77% Pelham $14,611,236 $15,161,450 $550,214 3.77% Port Colborne $11,484,857 $11,917,344 $432,487 3.77% St. Catharines $93,556,655 $97,079,729 $3,523,074 3.77% Thorold $14,018,740 $14,546,646 $527,906 3.77% Wainfleet $5,309,361 $5,509,296 $199,935 3.77% Welland $28,758,816 $29,841,789 $1,082,973 3.77% West Lincoln $10,951,546 $11,363,949 $412,403 3.77% Niagara Region $352,453,291 $365,725,661 $13,272,370 3.77% Table 1-E Regional General Levy Sensitivity / Year-Over-Year Tax Change (In comparison to 2018 Year-End Levy) 2018 As Revised Revenue Neutral Target Levy Local Municipality $%$% Fort Erie $22,428,328 -$355,349 -1.58% $475,855 2.12% Grimsby $25,883,857 $530,219 2.05% $1,524,896 5.89% Lincoln $20,443,857 $147,570 0.72% $922,985 4.51% Niagara Falls $74,209,801 $160,580 0.22% $2,961,155 3.99% Niagara-on-the-Lake $30,082,399 $230,818 0.77% $1,372,325 4.56% Pelham $14,718,064 -$106,828 -0.73% $443,386 3.01% Port Colborne $11,599,092 -$114,235 -0.98% $318,252 2.74% St. Catharines $93,802,595 -$245,940 -0.26% $3,277,134 3.49% Thorold $14,142,691 -$123,951 -0.88% $403,955 2.86% Wainfleet $5,281,328 $28,033 0.53% $227,968 4.32% Welland $29,032,299 -$273,483 -0.94% $809,490 2.79% West Lincoln $10,829,113 $122,433 1.13% $534,836 4.94% Niagara Region $352,453,424 -$133 0.00% $13,272,237 3.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 59 Page 349 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Scenario 3 has been prepared to document the impact of utilizing 50% of the negative residential shift at revenue neutral to reduce the multi-residential ratio. All classes share equally in the levy increase. Table 3-A summarizes both the status quo starting ratios and the alternate ratios applied in this model; only the multi-residential ratio has been adjusted. This table also contains the full class municipal purpose tax rates required to raise the levy target using both the start and modified ratios. Table 3-A 2019 Tax Ratios and Municipal Purpose Tax Rates (To Raise Target Levy) Tax Ratios General Levy Tax Rates Realty Tax Class Start Model Change Start Model Change Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00566267 0.00567071 0.14% Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00141567 0.00141768 0.14% Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00141567 0.00141768 0.14% New Multi-Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00566267 0.00567071 0.14% Multi-Residential 1.970000 1.902000 -3.45% 0.01115546 0.01078569 -3.31% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.00982417 0.00983811 0.14% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.01489282 0.01491397 0.14% Landfill 2.940261 2.940261 0.00% 0.01664973 0.01667337 0.14% Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 0.00% 0.00963843 0.00965212 0.14% Both sets of tax rates have been calculated using a revenue target of $365,725,637 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 60 Page 350 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 3-B summarizes the 2019 municipal levy model prepared using the reduced multi-residential ratio. Table 3-C compares that base-line, status-quo levy model with this revised model. Table 3-B 2019 Regional General Levy Increase (Reduced Multi-Residential Ratio) 2019 General Levy Levy Increase Realty Tax Class Revenue Neutral Levy Target $ % Taxable Residential $256,006,250 $265,646,559 $9,640,311 3.77% Farm $3,004,345 $3,117,484 $113,139 3.77% Managed Forest $19,001 $19,717 $716 3.77% New Multi-Residential $787,414 $817,065 $29,651 3.77% Multi-Residential $14,000,230 $14,527,426 $527,197 3.77% Commercial $64,888,976 $67,332,445 $2,443,462 3.77% Industrial $11,450,813 $11,882,014 $431,200 3.77% Landfill $56,827 $58,967 $2,140 3.77% Pipeline $2,239,477 $2,323,807 $84,332 3.77% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,333 $365,725,484 $13,272,148 3.77% Payment in Lieu Residential $175,091 $181,687 $6,593 3.77% Farm $630 $654 $24 3.81% Commercial $5,881,881 $6,103,367 $221,488 3.77% Industrial $167,317 $173,618 $6,301 3.77% Landfill $23,812 $24,709 $897 3.77% Sub-Total PIL $6,248,731 $6,484,035 $235,303 3.77% Total (Taxable + PIL) $358,702,064 $372,209,519 $13,507,451 3.77% Both the revenue neutral and target levy have been calculated using the adjusted multi-residential ratio CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 61 Page 351 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 3-C 2019 Regional General Levy Interclass Shifts 2019 General Levy Interclass Shifts Realty Tax Class Start Ratio Alternate Model $% Taxable Residential $265,269,922 $265,646,559 $376,637 0.14% Farm $3,113,064 $3,117,484 $4,420 0.14% Managed Forest $19,689 $19,717 $28 0.14% New Multi-Residential $815,906 $817,065 $1,159 0.14% Multi-Residential $15,025,476 $14,527,426 -$498,050 -3.31% Commercial $67,237,038 $67,332,445 $95,407 0.14% Industrial $11,865,165 $11,882,014 $16,849 0.14% Landfill $58,884 $58,967 $83 0.14% Pipeline $2,320,512 $2,323,807 $3,295 0.14% Sub-Total Taxable $365,725,656 $365,725,484 -$172 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $181,430 $181,687 $257 0.14% Farm $653 $654 $1 0.15% Commercial $6,094,719 $6,103,367 $8,648 0.14% Industrial $173,372 $173,618 $246 0.14% Landfill $24,674 $24,709 $35 0.14% Sub-Total PIL $6,474,848 $6,484,035 $9,187 0.14% Total (Taxable + PIL) $372,200,504 $372,209,519 $9,015 0.00% Both models include levy increase Isolated impact of pipeline tax ratio change CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 62 Page 352 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 3-D compares the net year-over-year tax change between the two models set out above. Both document the combined impacts of phase-in related tax change and municipal levy change; the alternate shift summary also reflects the multi-residential ratio change. Table 3-D 2019 Regional General Levy Year-Over-Year Tax Change 2018 As Revised Start Ratio Alternate Model Realty Tax Class $%$% Taxable Residential $256,369,618 $8,900,304 3.47% $9,276,941 3.62% Farm $2,801,577 $311,487 11.12% $315,907 11.28% Managed Forest $18,205 $1,484 8.15% $1,512 8.31% New Multi-Residential $780,797 $35,109 4.50% $36,268 4.64% Multi-Residential $14,547,107 $478,369 3.29% -$19,681 -0.14% Commercial $64,130,454 $3,106,584 4.84% $3,201,991 4.99% Industrial $11,482,587 $382,578 3.33% $399,427 3.48% Landfill $57,780 $1,104 1.91% $1,187 2.05% Pipeline $2,265,299 $55,213 2.44% $58,508 2.58% Sub-Total Taxable $352,453,424 $13,272,232 3.77% $13,272,060 3.77% Payment in Lieu Residential $167,300 $14,130 8.45% $14,387 8.60% Farm $612 $41 6.70%$42 6.86% Commercial $5,947,061 $147,658 2.48% $156,306 2.63% Industrial $156,900 $16,472 10.50% $16,718 10.66% Landfill $20,973 $3,701 17.65% $3,736 17.81% Sub-Total PIL $6,292,846 $182,002 2.89% $191,189 3.04% Total (Taxable + PIL) $358,746,270 $13,454,234 3.75% $13,463,249 3.75% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 63 Page 353 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL © 2019 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. Table 3-E compares the base-line, status-quo levy model with the alternate model. Table 3-F compares the net year-over-year tax change between the two models. Both document the combined impacts of phase-in related tax change and regional levy change; the alternate shift summary also reflects the multi-residential ratio change. Table 3-E Regional General Levy Sensitivity (In comparison to 2019 Base-Line Levy) Regional Levy Difference Local Municipality Start Ratio Model $ % Fort Erie $22,904,183 $22,921,389 $17,206 0.08% Grimsby $27,408,753 $27,436,488 $27,735 0.10% Lincoln $21,366,842 $21,389,118 $22,276 0.10% Niagara Falls $77,170,956 $77,162,857 -$8,099 -0.01% Niagara-on-the-Lake $31,454,724 $31,493,800 $39,076 0.12% Pelham $15,161,450 $15,176,195 $14,745 0.10% Port Colborne $11,917,344 $11,919,324 $1,980 0.02% St. Catharines $97,079,729 $96,958,487 -$121,242 -0.12% Thorold $14,546,646 $14,551,360 $4,714 0.03% Wainfleet $5,509,296 $5,516,941 $7,645 0.14% Welland $29,841,789 $29,822,088 -$19,701 -0.07% West Lincoln $11,363,949 $11,377,440 $13,491 0.12% Niagara Region $365,725,661 $365,725,487 -$174 0.00% Table 3-F Regional General Levy Sensitivity / Year-Over-Year Tax Change (In comparison to 2018 Year-End Levy) 2018 As Revised Status Quo Alternate Model Local Municipality $%$% Fort Erie $22,428,328 $475,855 2.12% $493,061 2.20% Grimsby $25,883,857 $1,524,896 5.89% $1,552,631 6.00% Lincoln $20,443,857 $922,985 4.51% $945,261 4.62% Niagara Falls $74,209,801 $2,961,155 3.99% $2,953,056 3.98% Niagara-on-the-Lake $30,082,399 $1,372,325 4.56% $1,411,401 4.69% Pelham $14,718,064 $443,386 3.01% $458,131 3.11% Port Colborne $11,599,092 $318,252 2.74% $320,232 2.76% St. Catharines $93,802,595 $3,277,134 3.49% $3,155,892 3.36% Thorold $14,142,691 $403,955 2.86% $408,669 2.89% Wainfleet $5,281,328 $227,968 4.32% $235,613 4.46% Welland $29,032,299 $809,490 2.79% $789,789 2.72% West Lincoln $10,829,113 $534,836 4.94% $548,327 5.06% Niagara Region $352,453,424 $13,272,237 3.77% $13,272,063 3.77% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 64 Page 354 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE69 Effects of Levy Restriction Section 311 of the Municipal Act mandates that where a municipality’s tax ratio for any of the multi-residential, or broad commercial and industrial classes is above the Provincial “threshold”, the class is deemed to be levy restricted and is protected from the full effect of any municipal budgetary increase. When this circumstance prevails a larger share of levy change is absorbed by the unrestricted classes. Table 30 includes a comparison of the municipality’s 2018 starting tax ratios at the broad class level to the current Provincial Threshold Ratios. Where a levy restriction applies, the limitations on municipal increases must be considered relative to a specific budgetary decision. The municipality’s revenue neutral tax rate, which raises the revenue limit on taxation, can be used as the benchmark. Under certain budget increase scenarios, Council may wish to consider exercising its option to reduce the tax ratio for any restricted class(es) to or below the Provincial Threshold. By doing so, the class previously receiving the benefit of the restriction would absorb its full share of the municipality’s budgetary increase. This should, however, be carefully weighed against the cost of reducing the tax ratio, which will result in tax shifts to all other classes. The Region of Niagara is not subject to levy restriction in any class. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 65 Page 355 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE70 PART SIX: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Provincial Education Taxes While municipalities levy and collect the education portion of the property tax bill, they have no authority over the tax rates employed for this purpose. Since 1998, education tax rates have been regulated by the Minister of Finance on an annual basis. Uniform education tax rates have been prescribed for properties in residential, multi-residential, farm and managed forest property classes, which apply across the entire province. Traditionally, annual adjustments to the uniform residential education rate have been made to maintain approximate revenue neutrality on a Province-wide basis; it will inevitably impact overall tax levels within each municipal jurisdiction, depending on how values in each area have behaved relative to Province-wide phase-in change averages. The Province also prescribes business education (BET) rates, however, these are set at a unique level for each upper and single-tier jurisdiction. From 1998 through 2007, the Province attempted to maintain revenue neutrality at the single and upper-tier municipal level when setting education tax rates for the business classes, which meant municipal specific adjustments in reassessment years and rate freezes for non-reassessment years. This changed, however, in 2008 at which time the Minister of Finance began a migration towards uniform commercial and industrial education tax rates. This migration was slowed as of 2011, however, some progress has been made since and the schedule of rates for each year is shown below. BET Annual Target and Ceiling Rates Year Uniform Residential Education Rate Uniform Farm / Forest Education Rates Target BET Rates (C&I) Maximum BET Rates Commercial Industrial 2008 0.00264000 0.00066000 1.60% 2.50% 3.00% 2009 0.00252000 0.00063000 1.52% 2.30% 2.70% 2010 0.00241000 0.00060250 1.43% 2.15% 2.45% 2011 0.00231000 0.00057750 1.33% 1.73% 1.93% 2012 0.00221000 0.00055250 1.26% 1.49% 1.59% 2013 0.00212000 0.00053000 1.26% 1.49% 1.59% 2014 0.00203000 0.00050750 1.22% 1.46% 1.56% 2015 0.00195000 0.00048750 1.19% 1.43% 1.53% 2016 0.00188000 0.00047000 1.18% 1.40% 1.50% 2017 0.00179000 0.00044750 1.14% 1.39% 1.39% 2018 0.00170000 0.00042500 1.09% 1.34% 1.34% 2019 NOT YET ANNOUNCED OR REGULATED Treatment of “New Construction” Properties Certain business properties may also receive special tax treatment for education purposes if they are eligible for inclusion in one of the “new construction” classes. ¾Commercial New Construction: commercial residual, shopping centre or office building. ¾Industrial New Construction: industrial residual or large industrial. The five new construction property classes are based on the same criteria as their traditional counterpart classes, and are subject to differential treatment for education tax purposes only. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 66 Page 356 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE71 2019 Education Tax Rates Not Available as of Publication As of the date of publication the Province has not announced or published any details regarding 2019 education tax rates. While rates have yet to be spoken about, the Province did publish its education property tax revenue projections as part of its Fall Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, published on November 15 th. The revenue estimates used are consistent with projections from the previous Government’s spring budget and suggest a status quo approach to rate setting. Based on this information, MTE has calculated hypothetical 2019 education tax rates using historic protocols traditionally employed by the Ministry of Finance in setting these rates. The purpose of this exercise is simply to illustrate how the local education levy may change on a year-over-year basis if a status-quo approach is utilized in the setting of these rates for 2019. Table 37 2018 vs. 2019 Hypothetical Education Levy Education Levy Difference Realty Tax Class 2018 as Revised 2019 as Returned $% Taxable Residential $76,924,700 $75,959,200 -$965,500 -1.26% Farm $840,000 $890,800 $50,800 6.05% Managed Forest $5,500 $5,600 $100 1.82% New Multi-Residential $234,100 $233,400 -$700 -0.30% Multi-Residential $2,213,700 $2,182,000 -$31,700 -1.43% Commercial $64,305,400 $65,013,500 $708,100 1.10% Commercial New Construction $7,868,700 $8,009,900 $141,200 1.79% Industrial $9,008,600 $9,067,500 $58,900 0.65% Industrial New Construction $1,175,300 $1,160,300 -$15,000 -1.28% Landfill $84,300 $84,300 $0 0.00% Pipeline $2,558,100 $2,527,900 -$30,200 -1.18% Total (Taxable+ PIL) $165,218,400 $165,134,400 -$84,000 -0.05% Results based on Speculative / Estimated Tax Rates and are provided for illustrative purposes only. The results contained in Table 37 could be impacted by a host of factors once final education tax rates are levied for 2019 including, but not limited to: ¾Differences in data/methodology employed by the Ministry in setting tax rates; ¾A decision to freeze or even increase education tax rates for 2019; ¾A change in the treatment of sub-classes for education purposes; or ¾A wholesale change of some description to the manner in which these rates are set or education taxes levied. One of the reasons we chose to prepare estimated tax rates based on historic protocol was to facilitate the quantification of local impacts should a change in methodology be adopted. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 67 Page 357 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE72 Linear Properties Unlike the types of properties discussed in preceding elements of this report, railway and power utility lands (commonly known as linear properties) are taxed on the basis of area rather than market value. To facilitate this from an assessment perspective linear properties are returned on the roll with an acreage area rather than a CVA. The tax liability of each property is calculated by applying Provincially regulated rates per acre by the reported area. The rates per acre prescribed for municipal and education purposes are set out by geographic region in Ontario Regulations 387/98 and 392/98 respectively. A summary of the current rates for each property type and levy is contained in Table 38. As only a single municipal rate is prescribed, municipalities within two-tier jurisdictions must calculate the upper-tier and local shares of the revenue within the context of their broader “banking” function. In its simplest form, the sharing formula relies on the proportional share each tier collects from the commercial property class. Thetreatmentofthesepropertiesforeducation purposes, and the manner in which the education portion raised is shared, varies depending on the ownership and tax status of each specific property. The education portion is remitted to the school boards unless local retention is explicitly provided for. Properties coded with an RTQ of “G” do not attract an education rate. Table 39 provides a summary of the linear properties in each local municipality. Particular attention should be paid to the addition of the new Shortline Railway classification. These applied for 2018, but were not reflected on the original roll as returned. The reader will note that these Shortline Railways are exempt from the municipal rate increases imposed in 2017 and again in 2018 and are therefore subject to a lower rate per acre. Table 38 Rate per Acre Summary 2018 Rates Per Acre Linear Property Type Municipal Education Utility Corridors 396.09 436.50 Railway Right-of-Way 277.83 291.60 Shortline Railway Right-of-Way 264.83 291.60 Linear Rate Critical Notes The rates utilized herein are those most recently regulated by the Ministry of Finance. It is unknown if rates will be updated for 2019. Municipalities must confirm final application of rates prior to billing. Table 40 has been prepared to assist the municipality in quantifying the revenue that may be collected from these properties. These results are summarized by local municipality and RTC-Q. The retention of education levy amounts is discussed further in this report. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 68 Page 358 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE73 Table 39 Linear Property Summary Local Municipality RTC/ RTQ 2018 Roll Return 2018 Revised / 2019 Roll Return Category Count Acreage Count Acreage Fort Erie WT Railway 2 263.67 2 263.67 UT Utility 3 74.57 3 76.07 Grimsby WT Railway 2 105.24 2 105.24 UH Utility 1 91.70 1 91.70 Lincoln WT Railway 1 150.69 1 150.69 UH Utility 1 246.76 1 246.76 Niagara Falls WT Railway 2 339.72 2 339.72 UT Utility 1 19.89 1 19.89 UH Utility 1 739.63 1 729.21 NOTL UH Utility 1 0.44 1 0.44 Pelham WT Railway 1 62.01 1 62.01 UH Utility 1 398.34 1 398.34 Port Colborne WT Railway 2 149.14 2 149.14 WF Railway 4 145.83 1 96.13 BT Shortline Rail 0 0.00 3 49.70 St. Catharines WT Railway 2 176.77 1 107.07 BT Shortline Rail 0 0.00 2 69.70 UH Utility 1 102.15 1 102.15 Thorold WT Railway 2 244.97 1 124.47 BT Shortline Rail 0 0.00 2 120.50 UH Utility 1 547.76 1 547.76 Wainfleet WT Railway 5 221.02 3 160.02 BT Shortline Rail 0 0.00 2 61.00 Welland WT Railway 5 223.80 2 51.35 BT Shortline Rail 0 0.00 3 172.45 UH Utility 1 143.66 1 143.66 West Lincoln WT Railway 1 146.00 1 146.00 UH Utility 1 1,123.09 1 1,123.09 Total 42 5,716.85 44 5,707.93 Municipalities that have had shortline railways added should check to ensure all appropriate adjustments have been made. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 69 Page 359 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE74 Table 40 Linear Property Levy Summary Local Municipality / Category 2018 Roll Return 2018 Roll Revised Change Municipal Education Municipal Education Municipal Education Fort Erie WT $73,255 $76,886 $73,255 $76,886 $0 $0 UT $29,536 $32,550 $30,131 $33,205 $595 $655 Grimsby WT $29,239 $30,688 $29,239 $30,688 $0 $0 UH $36,321 $40,027 $36,321 $40,027 $0 $0 Lincoln WT $41,866 $43,941 $41,866 $43,941 $0 $0 UH $97,739 $107,711 $97,739 $107,711 $0 $0 Niagara Falls WT $94,384 $99,062 $94,384 $99,062 $0 $0 UT $7,878 $8,682 $7,878 $8,682 $0 $0 UH $292,960 $322,848 $288,833 $318,300 -$4,127 -$4,548 NOTL UH $174 $192 $174 $192 $0 $0 Pelham WT $17,228 $18,082 $17,228 $18,082 $0 $0 UH $157,778 $173,875 $157,778 $173,875 $0 $0 Port Colborne WT $41,436 $43,489 $41,436 $43,489 $0 $0 WF $40,516 $42,524 $26,708 $28,032 -$13,808 -$14,492 BT $0 $0 $13,162 $14,493 $13,162 $14,493 St. Catharines WT $49,112 $51,546 $29,747 $31,222 -$19,365 -$20,324 BT $0 $0 $18,459 $20,325 $18,459 $20,325 UH $40,461 $44,588 $40,461 $44,588 $0 $0 Thorold WT $68,060 $71,433 $34,582 $36,295 -$33,478 -$35,138 BT $0 $0 $31,912 $35,138 $31,912 $35,138 UH $216,962 $239,097 $216,962 $239,097 $0 $0 Wainfleet WT $61,406 $64,449 $44,458 $46,662 -$16,948 -$17,787 BT $0 $0 $16,155 $17,788 $16,155 $17,788 Welland WT $62,178 $65,260 $14,267 $14,974 -$47,911 -$50,286 BT $0 $0 $45,670 $50,286 $45,670 $50,286 UH $56,902 $62,708 $56,902 $62,708 $0 $0 West Lincoln WT $40,563 $42,574 $40,563 $42,574 $0 $0 UH $444,845 $490,229 $444,845 $490,229 $0 $0 Total $2,000,799 $2,172,441 $1,991,115 $2,168,551 -$9,684 -$3,890 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 70 Page 360 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE75 It is critical for the reader to note that Table 40 is based on the linear rates regulated for the 2018 taxation year. It is unknown if or how these rates may be adjusted for 2019. If they remain unchanged, the municipality can expect its 2019 linear property levies to match the 2018 levies as revised. Retained Education Levies for Certain Payment in Lieu Properties Federal and Provincially owned and occupied properties are exempt from both municipal and Provincial (education) property taxes. Both levels of government do, however, maintain programs whereby payments are made to local governments in lieu of the taxes that would otherwise be applicable to property that they own and occupy. PIL payments are made and administered under a variety of Federal and Provincial statutes and regulations, including the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act,and Ontario’s Municipal Tax Assistance Act, Municipal Act, 2001, Assessment Act,and various supporting regulations. This collection of statutes and regulations prescribe not only the circumstances and amounts of PILs that are made, but also the manner in which the payments are shared and distributed. Of particular interest regarding the sharing of revenues raised against PIL properties is the fact that in certain circumstances the local municipality retains the education portion of the levy as local revenue. This is provided for under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 392/98, which state that in the case of payments made under a number of specific authorities, the “education” portion is ultimately retained by the local municipality. The eligible payments captured by these rules, are those made in accordance with: ¾Subsection 27 (3) of the Assessment Act; ¾The Municipal Grants Act (Canada), which may be referenced as the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act; and ¾Subsections 84(2), (3) or (5) of the Electricity Act. Table 41 provides a speculative summary of the education levy amounts that may be raised under these authorities and which may be retained by the local municipality. As discussed above, all 2019 calculations are based on speculative / estimated tax rates and are provided for general illustrative purposes only. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 71 Page 361 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE76 Table 41 Retained Education Levy Amounts (Based on Hypothetical 2019 Rates – For Illustrative Purposes only) Education Levy Change RTC/RTQ 2018 2019 $ % Fort Erie CF $107,217 $104,674 -$2,543 -2.37% Total Fort Erie $107,217 $104,674 -$2,543 -2.37% Grimsby CF $184,317 $194,825 $10,508 5.70% CH $12,535 $13,550 $1,015 8.10% IH $743 $886 $143 19.25% UH $40,027 $40,027 $0 0.00% Total Grimsby $237,622 $249,288 $11,666 4.91% Lincoln CF $54,477 $54,966 $489 0.90% CH $9,785 $10,291 $506 5.17% IH $6,977 $7,853 $876 12.56% IK $1,004 $1,301 $297 29.58% UH $107,711 $107,711 $0 0.00% Total Lincoln $179,954 $182,122 $2,168 1.20% Niagara Falls CF $237,493 $242,440 $4,947 2.08% CH $73,452 $77,563 $4,111 5.60% CJ $7,007 $7,030 $23 0.33% CK $6,904 $6,650 -$254 -3.68% IH $41,817 $46,117 $4,300 10.28% IJ $175 $170 -$5 -2.86% IK $2,359 $2,708 $349 14.79% UH $322,848 $318,300 -$4,548 -1.41% Total Niagara Falls $692,055 $700,978 $8,923 1.29% Niagara-on-the-Lake CF $268,392 $269,955 $1,563 0.58% CH $11,044 $11,411 $367 3.32% CJ $1,399 $1,390 -$9 -0.64% CK $384 $397 $13 3.39% CV $16,783 $17,459 $676 4.03% IH $1,702 $1,859 $157 9.22% IJ $13,864 $15,151 $1,287 9.28% UH $192 $192 $0 0.00% Total NOTL $313,760 $317,814 $4,054 1.29% Pelham CF $9,310 $9,238 -$72 -0.77% IH $310 $333 $23 7.42% UH $173,875 $173,875 $0 0.00% Total Pelham $183,495 $183,446 -$49 -0.03% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 72 Page 362 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE77 Table 41 Continued Retained Education Levy Amounts (Based on Hypothetical 2019 Rates – For Illustrative Purposes only) Education Levy Change RTC/RTQ 2018 2019 $ % Port Colborne CF $117,861 $116,711 -$1,150 -0.98% IH $1,014 $999 -$15 -1.48% WF $42,524 $28,032 -$14,492 -34.08% Total Port Colborne $161,399 $145,742 -$15,657 -9.70% St. Catharines CF $382,032 $376,663 -$5,369 -1.41% CH $59,943 $59,339 -$604 -1.01% CK $4,184 $4,116 -$68 -1.63% IH $23,421 $25,155 $1,734 7.40% IK $5,057 $5,084 $27 0.53% UH $44,588 $44,588 $0 0.00% Total St. Catharines $519,225 $514,945 -$4,280 -0.82% Thorold CF $68,330 $69,422 $1,092 1.60% CH $6,938 $7,043 $105 1.51% IF $1,695 $1,680 -$15 -0.88% IH $20,360 $20,271 -$89 -0.44% UH $239,097 $239,097 $0 0.00% Total Thorold $336,420 $337,513 $1,093 0.32% Wainfleet IH $137 $136 -$1 -0.73% Total Wainfleet $137 $136 -$1 -0.73% Welland CF $103,764 $102,189 -$1,575 -1.52% CH $13,999 $13,485 -$514 -3.67% CK $250 $240 -$10 -4.00% IH $6,230 $6,401 $171 2.74% IJ $15 $15 $0 0.00% HF $15,819 $18,653 $2,834 17.92% UH $62,708 $62,708 $0 0.00% Total Welland $202,785 $203,691 $906 0.45% West Lincoln CF $21,689 $21,205 -$484 -2.23% IH $1,306 $1,317 $11 0.84% HF $6,636 $6,245 -$391 -5.89% UH $490,229 $490,229 $0 0.00% Total West Lincoln $519,860 $518,996 -$864 -0.17% Total Niagara Region $3,453,929 $3,459,345 $5,416 0.16% CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 73 Page 363 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE78 PART SEVEN: BUSINESS TAX CAPPING Since 1998, property in the multi-residential, commercial and industrial tax classes have been subject to mandatory tax impact mitigation measures that are intended to protect them from year-over-year increases in taxation above maximum thresholds, exclusive of any municipal budgetary change. Over time, a variety of modified tax capping protection regimes have been implemented, replacing earlier incarnations with more permanent forms of relief. This tradition has created a long legacy of inequity within the multi-residential, commercial and industrial tax classes, which has effectively undermined the original goals of a stable, fair, transparent, and easily administered assessment and property tax system in the Province of Ontario. The following has been prepared as an overview of the newly expanded slate of capping tools and exit options, and to provide the municipality with an understanding of what its locally specific policy options and program outcomes may be for 2018. The first step is to discuss the options and local eligibility for immediate and/or phased opt-out. The municipality must then consider the newly expanded capping calculation options and the local implications of various strategic combinations. Expanded Local Capping Options The Minister of Finance passed legislation that granted municipalities more local autonomy in respect of the business tax capping program as of 2016. The increased options included the ability for municipalities to opt-out of capping altogether if no properties remained eligible for protection. Where properties remained eligible for protection, progress towards full CVA tax (assessment X applicable tax rates) could be further accelerated using the expanded and newly added calculation parameter options. These options were further enhanced and expanded as of the 2017 taxation year. Similar to the traditional capping calculation/parameter options, the options to opt-out of the business tax capping program have been provided on a class-by-class basis, as are the constraints and limitations being imposed for their use. As such, municipalities must consider both the availability and desirability of these opt-out provisions for each of the multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes. These options are summarized below. Immediate Opt-Out: A municipality may exclude a class from the capping program in its entirety if no property within that class was subject to a capping adjustment as of final 2018 tax billing. Phased Opt-Out: If properties continue to be eligible for capping adjustments, but no property classified as occupied (CT vs. CX, IT vs. IX, etc.) received a capping credit greater than 50% of its total un-capped tax liability for the previous taxation year, the municipality may initiate a staged, four-year exit plan for that class. In addition to the opt-out and phase-out options, municipalities may also choose to limit protection levels to any outstanding capping protection related to prior reassessment cycles, while flowing through any tax increases resulting from the current reassessment. In effect, this means that taxpayers will not have historic protection removed, but new increases will not be capped. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 74 Page 364 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE79 Capping Decisions Where a property class is eligible for immediate opt-out, and the municipality chooses this option, the implications are simple; capping will not apply to that class for the tax year in respect of which the policy option is taken, or any subsequent taxation year. For all other property classes, including those eligible to enter a four-year phase-out, the municipality must establish a complete set of capping parameters for the year, and undertake all of the elements of the capping exercise as in the past. The phase-out will be applied by means of reducing any calculated capping protection by staged percentages. The mechanics of this program are detailed later in this section. It is important to note that as with any change to a municipality’s tax policy, opting out of capping does not apply to prior taxation years, or any adjustment made in respect of a prior taxation year. That is, if a municipality were to exclude the commercial property class for 2018, it would continue to be responsible for considering, and applying any capping protection (or claw-back) that might apply should a recalculation of taxes be required for a prior year. For any class not eligible for immediate opt-out,or where that option is not exercised, it remains mandatory for the municipality to establish the local capping parameters via by-law before final billing can occur. The range of optional capping tools available fall into three distinct categories and any may be used on their own, or in combination, and be applied differently to each capped class. These categories are: 1) Calculation Parameters; 2) Property Specific Exclusions; and 3) Phase-Out and Flow-Through of Current Cycle Increases. Calculation Parameters The first category includes options for adjusting the parameters/thresholds applied in the capping calculation itself. Under these options, municipalities now have the flexibility to: ¾Increase the annual cap from 5% of the previous year’s final (annualized) capped taxes up to 10%; ¾Set a second limit for annual increases of up to 10% of the previous year’s annualized CVA (uncapped) taxes; ¾Institute a threshold of up to $500 for increasing properties, decreasing properties, or both. Where a threshold is set, and the difference between a property’s capped tax and CVA tax is less than the threshold amount, that property is moved directly to its CVA tax destination; and/or ¾For any class with no occupied properties eligible for protection in excess of 50% of CVA tax, initiate the first year of a four-year phase-out. What is important to take note of in respect of these first two options is the fact that the 10% of Prior Year’s CVA Tax limit will always exceed the maximum tax calculated against the Prior Year’s Annualized Capped Tax. When the CVA tax limit was restricted to 5%, these two tests were mutually exclusive with one always being greater than the other; this is no longer the case. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 75 Page 365 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE80 Property Specific Exclusions The second category consists of elements that can be employed to exclude properties from the cap based on the relationship between a property’s “Capped tax” and “CVA tax” liability. These options, which may be adopted on their own or in combination with one another, are as follows: ¾Exclude properties that reach their CVA tax destination; under this option a property is excluded from the current year’s capping program if its final (capped) taxes for the previous year were equal to its CVA taxes for that year; ¾Exclude properties that are subject to a cap in one year, and if it were not for the exclusion, would be subject to a claw-back in the next; and/or ¾Exclude properties that are subject to claw-back in one year, and if it were not for the exclusion, would be subject to capping in the next. Although the availability of these various tools has not eliminated all issues related to capping, their use, particularly in light of the enhancements, can be used to effectively move towards a full capping opt-out. Phase-Out and Current Cycle Flow-Through For properties in a class that has entered a phase-out plan, a final adjustment will be made to any amount of capping protection calculated for the year, allowing only a portion of the capping credit to flow through. For example, a property that would otherwise be entitled to a $1,000 capping credit would only receive a $750 credit in Year 1 of a phase-out plan; the other 25% of this credit would be phased-out. The proportion of the calculated billing adjustment to be added back in, or phased-out, will be based on an annual phase-out factor that will increase from 25% to 100% over four years. Phase-Out Year Phase-Out Factor Pre-Qualifying Year Once no adjustment exceeds 50% Year 1 25% Year 2 33% Year 3 50% Year 4 100% As a class must meet an eligibility requirement before entering Year 1 of the phase-out, the percentages change based on the program year, not the calendar year and different classes may be subject to different phase-out factors. In our example below, the hypothetical multi-residential and commercial classes are in Year 1, while the industrial class has not yet qualified for the phase- out program. If the 2019 capping campaign resulted in all occupied industrial properties being billed at greater than 50% of their CVA tax liability, the industrial class would be eligible for Year 1 treatment in 2019. The following example has been prepared to illustrate how the phase-out will work in its simplest form. We have used the property with the lowest tax level in each class in order to illustrate how both eligibility for the phase-out and the phase-out itself function. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 76 Page 366 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE81 Illustrative Eligibility and Phase-Out Model The option to allow current reassessment cycle increases to flow-through functions in a manner quite similar to the phase-out tool in that it layers on an additional tax increase for eligible properties after the core capping calculation has been completed. With the traditional capping calculation, we adjust based on the relationship between the previous year’s actual capped (base) tax and the current year’s CVA (destination) tax. To effectively allow current cycle increases to flow-through, while continuing to provide mitigation for prior cycle increases, this new tool considers the tax change that would have occurred if the property had not been capped. The basic mechanics of this tool can be best explained by using the multi- residential property above as an illustrative example. In this simplified model, we have considered the difference between how two identical properties would experience the current cycle reassessment change if one was capped in 2018 and the other was already at its CVA tax destination. Illustrative Example: Current Cycle Increase Flow-Through Capping Calculation Elements Capped / Increasing Properties Multi-Residential Commercial Industrial 2018 CVA Tax $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 2018 Capped Tax $5,000 $8,065 $4,000 2018 Tax Level 55%90% 44% 2019 CVA Tax $9,500 $9,500 $9,500 Maximum Increase (10% Limit)$500 $807 $400 Pre Phase-Out Maximum Tax $5,500 $8,872 $4,400 Pre Phase-Out Billing Adjustment -$4,000 -$628 -$5,100 Threshold Test - $500 No No No Eligible for Capping Phase-Out*Yes Yes No Phase-Out Factor 25%25%- Capping Phase-Out Adjustment $1,000 $157 - Final Billing Adjustment -$3,000 -$471 -$5,100 Final Capped Tax $6,500 $9,029 $4,400 *Eligibility determination made at the class, not the property level No 2018 Capping Capped in 2018 No Flow- Through Flow- Through 2018 CVA Tax $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 2018 Capped Tax $9,000 $5,000 $5,000 2019 CVA Tax $9,500 $9,500 $9,500 CVA Tax Change $500 $500 $500 Amount Subject to Capping $0 $4,500 $4,500 Pre Flow-Through Billing Adjustment $0 -$3,000 -$3,000 Pre Flow-Through Adjusted Tax $9,500 $6,500 $6,500 Current Cycle Flow-Through -- $500 Final Billing Adjustment $0 -$3,000 -$2,500 Final Capped Tax $9,500 $6,500 $7,000 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 77 Page 367 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE82 As with all capping calculations there are a number of complications and nuances that the Provincial regulations impose, however, the general phase-out and flow-through mechanisms will see the final billing adjustments for increasing properties reduced after the traditional capping calculations have been completed. Where a property is deemed eligible for a phase-out, that adjustment will be the last step in the calculation and the threshold test will not be re-applied. No Final Threshold Test for Increasing/Capped Properties The manner in which the threshold will be applied for increasing properties is illustrated in our commercial class example above where the Pre Phase-Out billing adjustment does not meet the threshold test but the final billing adjustment does. Even though the final billing adjustment is less than $500, we do not move the property to CVA tax after the phase-out has been applied. The logic behind this is that a taxpayer should not be moved too many steps in one year. The logic/reasoning does not give consideration to the movement of decreasing/clawed back properties, which might otherwise benefit from the increasing threshold being applied as a final test. Understanding the Municipality’s Capping Dynamics In light of the significant number of capping options, an even broader range of possible combinations, and the potential for revenue shortfalls to materialize, undertaking a comprehensive pro forma capping analysis is an educational exercise that remains a critical element of Council’s annual tax policy decision making process. To document the implications of the options available to the municipality, MTE has modelled the effects of different combinations of these tools in an effort to ensure that these capping options are given comprehensive treatment and consideration as part of the 2018 tax policy development process. The pro forma capping models that have been produced and presented in this section of the report are intended to give the reader an understanding as to how the overall capping dynamic will be manifested in each eligible property class this year. The models have been prepared on the following basis: 1. 2018 (final) capped tax figures are employed as the “previous year’s base taxes”; 2. 2019 CVA taxes are determined by applying revenue neutral tax rates for municipal purposes and 2018 actual education tax rates against the 2019 phased CVA for each property; and 3. Overall levy change is set at zero, as revenue neutral tax rates are employed. While these results remain speculative in light of the outstanding details regarding how each specific test will be operationalized, they will provide the municipality with some valuable preliminary indications as to the potential capping outcomes for 2019, including: 1. Which, if any, classes the municipality may be able to opt-out of capping completely; 2. Which classes may be eligible for the initiation of a four-year phase-out; 3. The progress of the local capping program, where protection remains mandatory; 4. How the enhanced parameters may be applied to further accelerate properties to their full CVA tax; and 5. Where preliminary results indicate undesirable, or less than ideal outcomes could materialize as part of the actual 2018 capping campaign, this “early warning” allows for the exploration and modelling of alternative options and/or cost recovery strategies. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 78 Page 368 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE83 Preliminary Pro forma Results As the availability of some policy options depends on the current or anticipated state of the local capping program, Table 42 has been prepared to summarize what the municipality’s range of options may be for 2019. Table 42 2019 Capping Options Multi- Residential Commercial Industrial Full Opt-Out Number of Properties Protected for 2018 0 2 0 Anticipated Protected Property Count for 2019 0 0 0 Eligible for Full / Immediate Opt-Out 99 2 9 Program Phase-Out Minimum Tax Level in 2018 -92%- Eligible for Four-Year Phase-Out -Y3 - Flow-Through Current Cycle Increase -9 - Calculation Parameters and Limits 0% - 10% of Prior Year’s CVA Tax Limit -9 - 5% - 10% of Prior Year’s Capped Tax Limit -9 - $0 - $500 Threshold: Increasing Properties -9 - $0 - $500 Threshold: Decreasing Properties -9 - Property Specific Exclusions At CVA Tax Exclusion Option -9 - Cross CVA Tax Exclusion – Claw-back to Cap -9 - Cross CVA Tax Exclusion – Cap to Claw-back -9 - Cost Recovery Claw-back -9 - Forgone Revenue -9 - CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 79 Page 369 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE84 The Region has already opted out of capping for multi-residential class and will be able to opt out of the industrial class in 2019. Pro forma results for the commercial class are contained in Table 43. The first column summarizes the 2018 actual capping results at the time that the cap was run for final billing. The second column represents a 2019 pro forma model based on the recommended mix of capping tools for 2019. Table 43 2019 Pro Forma Capping Commercial 2018 Actual 2019 Pro Forma Class Level Opt-Out Not Eligible Not Eligible Capping Phase-Out Y2 Y3 Flow-Through Current Cycle Increase Yes Yes Annualized Tax Limit 10%10% Prior Year CVA Tax Limit 10%10% CVA Tax Threshold – Increasers $500 $500 CVA Tax Threshold – Decreasers $50 $50 At CVA Tax Exclusion Option Yes Yes Cross CVA Tax Exclusion: CB to Cap Yes Yes Cross CVA Tax Exclusion: Cap to CB Yes Yes Cost of Capping Protection $5,570 $0 Decrease Retained 97.4%100% Decrease Clawed Back 2.5%0% Net Class Impact $0 $0 Number of Properties Capped 2 0 Number of Properties Clawed Back 19 0 Pro Forma Commentary It is anticipated that all properties in the commercial class will reach full CVA tax in 2019, allowing the Region to opt out of capping entirely for 2020. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 80 Page 370 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE85 PART EIGHT: GENERAL SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The following notes, commentary and suggestions represent a compilation of the observations and thoughts that arose throughout the preparation and review of this report. This qualitative content does not represent a comprehensive commentary on any issue and it is not intended to be provided as policy advice. No financial, taxation or municipal policy decisions should be made on the basis of these comments; they are intended only as general observations, which may or may not be of interest to the reader. ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH The Region’s assessment and revenue growth remained steady in 2018 with the regional general levy revenue growth standing at 1.61% which is similar to last year’s growth of 1.58%. This is in part driven by positive growth trends and efforts to update/correct the assessment roll throughout the year. This may also be impacted by the new ARB rules and scheduling protocols, which are putting appeal matters off further into the assessment cycle than in the past. The municipality is advised to monitor assessment and taxes at risk closely. BUSINESS TAX CAPPING The Region’s’ commercial class will remain subject to business tax capping rules for 2019, however, there is the potential that the commercial class will see no actual adjustments. If this materializes, the commercial class will be eligible for full exclusion in 2020. POTENTIAL FOR PROVINCIAL TAX POLICY CHANGES As of publication the new Provincial Government has been virtually silent on municipal finance matters which could mean that no significant changes are being contemplated for 2019, however, in the absence of any information we must be prepared for any matter of change or adjustment. Should any changes be announced, the contents of this study will provide a solid baseline against which local impacts can be measured. Decision makers should also be well informed of the potential for Provincial tax policy changes. Additional care should be taken in announcing any tax outcomes for the coming year. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS 1) It is recommended that specific tax policy options be modelled and considered with care before any annual decisions are made. For 2019 we also recommend that no final decisions be put before Council prior to receiving word from the Province with regards to their 2019 tax policy intentions. 2) Staff will want to keep a keen eye on any Provincial policy changes or suggestions in respect of multi-residential treatment or tax policy rules in general for 2019. MTE will keep the Region informed as we become aware of any information in this regard. 3) The municipality may wish to update the education levy results contained herein once final decisions have been announced in regards to those levies for 2019. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 81 Page 371 of 525 CONFIDENTIAL ©2018MUNICIPAL TAX EQUITY (MTE) CONSULTANTS INC.PAGE86 4) Where specific tax policy challenges or pressures are anticipated, early attention should be devoted in order to effectively address and understand any potential challenges, opportunities and/or tax implications. 5) Staff are also encouraged to take steps necessary to ensure that both Council and the public are well informed regarding base line tax impacts and any implications related to potential policy change. MTE would be pleased to provide any level or type of support that may be deemed appropriate and/or necessary in this regard. CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 82 Page 372 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 83 Page 373 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO 1,395,309 0.52 ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 8,395,782 30 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 50,843,482 36 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 84 Page 374 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 85 Page 375 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 86 Page 376 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 87 Page 377 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 88 Page 378 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 89 Page 379 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 90 Page 380 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 91 Page 381 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV )RUW(ULH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 92 Page 382 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\)XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 93 Page 383 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\ )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 94 Page 384 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 95 Page 385 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 96 Page 386 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\ /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 97 Page 387 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 98 Page 388 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO/RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH6WDUWLQJ5DWLRVDQG5HYHQXH1HXWUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[5DWHV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ *ULPVE\5HDOW\7D[&ODVV7D[5DWLRV&KDQJH&KDQJH7D[5DWHV$FWXDO 6WDUW5DWLR$FWXDO 5HYHQXH1HWXUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP0DQDJHG)RUHVW0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDORI7D[DEOH/HY\ 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDORI3D\PHQW,Q/LHX/HY\ 7RWDO7D[DEOH3,//HYLHV%DVHGRQ5DWH6HW 127( 7KHVHUHVXOWVDUHEDVHGRQSUHOLPLQDU\VWDUWUDWLRVDQGQRWLRQDOOHY\DPRXQWVDQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGRQPXQLFLSDOSROLF\GHFLVLRQVVSHQGLQJGHFLVLRQVDQGRU3URYLQFLDOWD[SROLF\XSGDWHV1RUDWHVRUUDWLRVVKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGILQDORUXVHGIRUDFWXDOWD[DWLRQSXUSRVHVXQWLOILQDOE\ODZVDUHSDVVHG 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QFCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 99 Page 389 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 100 Page 390 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 101 Page 391 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV *ULPVE\ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 102 Page 392 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 103 Page 393 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 104 Page 394 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 105 Page 395 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 106 Page 396 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 107 Page 397 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 108 Page 398 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 109 Page 399 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 110 Page 400 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 111 Page 401 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV /LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 112 Page 402 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 113 Page 403 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO 38,309,500 2 )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO 4,581,900 34 ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO -4,728,500 -60.00 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 1,501,500 30 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 59,532,500 0 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 114 Page 404 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 115 Page 405 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 116 Page 406 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO 1,510 5 )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO 6,735 52 ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 117 Page 407 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 118 Page 408 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 119 Page 409 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 120 Page 410 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 121 Page 411 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUD)DOOV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 122 Page 412 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 123 Page 413 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 124 Page 414 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 125 Page 415 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 126 Page 416 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 127 Page 417 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 128 Page 418 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO/RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH6WDUWLQJ5DWLRVDQG5HYHQXH1HXWUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[5DWHV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH5HDOW\7D[&ODVV7D[5DWLRV&KDQJH&KDQJH7D[5DWHV$FWXDO 6WDUW5DWLR$FWXDO 5HYHQXH1HWXUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH6XE7RWDORI7D[DEOH/HY\ 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDORI3D\PHQW,Q/LHX/HY\ 7RWDO7D[DEOH3,//HYLHV%DVHGRQ5DWH6HW 127( 7KHVHUHVXOWVDUHEDVHGRQSUHOLPLQDU\VWDUWUDWLRVDQGQRWLRQDOOHY\DPRXQWVDQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGRQPXQLFLSDOSROLF\GHFLVLRQVVSHQGLQJGHFLVLRQVDQGRU3URYLQFLDOWD[SROLF\XSGDWHV1RUDWHVRUUDWLRVVKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGILQDORUXVHGIRUDFWXDOWD[DWLRQSXUSRVHVXQWLOILQDOE\ODZVDUHSDVVHG 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QFCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 129 Page 419 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 130 Page 420 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 131 Page 421 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 1LDJDUDRQWKH/DNH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 132 Page 422 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 133 Page 423 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 134 Page 424 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 135 Page 425 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 136 Page 426 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 137 Page 427 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 138 Page 428 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 139 Page 429 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 140 Page 430 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 141 Page 431 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3HOKDP DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 142 Page 432 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 143 Page 433 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 144 Page 434 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 145 Page 435 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 146 Page 436 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 100.00% 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 147 Page 437 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 148 Page 438 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 149 Page 439 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 150 Page 440 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 151 Page 441 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 3RUW&ROERUQH DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 152 Page 442 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 153 Page 443 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 154 Page 444 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 155 Page 445 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 156 Page 446 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 157 Page 447 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 158 Page 448 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 159 Page 449 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 160 Page 450 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 161 Page 451 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 6W&DWKDULQHV DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 162 Page 452 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 163 Page 453 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 164 Page 454 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 165 Page 455 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 166 Page 456 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 167 Page 457 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 168 Page 458 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 169 Page 459 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 170 Page 460 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 171 Page 461 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV 7KRUROG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 172 Page 462 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 173 Page 463 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 174 Page 464 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 175 Page 465 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 176 Page 466 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 177 Page 467 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 178 Page 468 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 179 Page 469 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 180 Page 470 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 181 Page 471 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :DLQIOHHW DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 182 Page 472 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 183 Page 473 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 184 Page 474 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 185 Page 475 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 186 Page 476 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 187 Page 477 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 188 Page 478 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO/RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH6WDUWLQJ5DWLRVDQG5HYHQXH1HXWUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[5DWHV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ :HOODQG5HDOW\7D[&ODVV7D[5DWLRV&KDQJH&KDQJH7D[5DWHV$FWXDO 6WDUW5DWLR$FWXDO 5HYHQXH1HWXUDO 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH6XE7RWDORI7D[DEOH/HY\ 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDORI3D\PHQW,Q/LHX/HY\ 7RWDO7D[DEOH3,//HYLHV%DVHGRQ5DWH6HW 127( 7KHVHUHVXOWVDUHEDVHGRQSUHOLPLQDU\VWDUWUDWLRVDQGQRWLRQDOOHY\DPRXQWVDQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGRQPXQLFLSDOSROLF\GHFLVLRQVVSHQGLQJGHFLVLRQVDQGRU3URYLQFLDOWD[SROLF\XSGDWHV1RUDWHVRUUDWLRVVKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGILQDORUXVHGIRUDFWXDOWD[DWLRQSXUSRVHVXQWLOILQDOE\ODZVDUHSDVVHG 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QFCSD 16-2019 Appendix 1April 17, 2019Page 189 Page 479 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 190 Page 480 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 191 Page 481 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HOODQG DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 1HZ0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 192 Page 482 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG )XOO&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ )XOO&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 193 Page 483 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ )XOO1RQ3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ )XOO&9$ *URZWK )XOO&9$ *URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 194 Page 484 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ /RFDO$VVHVVPHQW*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG 3KDVHG&9$*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ 3KDVHG&9$ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 195 Page 485 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH $QQXDOL]HG /RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK $V5HWXUQHG $V5HYLVHG $QQXDOL]HG*URZWK 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 196 Page 486 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH% <HDU7R<HDU$QQXDOL]HG/RFDO5HYHQXH*URZWK&RPSDULVRQ /RFDO*HQHUDO3XUSRVH/HY\ 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK /RFDO$QQXDOL]HG 5HYHQXH*URZWK 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 197 Page 487 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU3KDVH,Q&KDQJH WR 3KDVHG&9$ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ 3KDVH$GMXVWHG&9$ 5HWXUQHG5HYLVHG 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 198 Page 488 of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ppendix 1April 17, 2019Page 199 Page 489 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU,QWHUFODVV7D[6KLIWV /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ /RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 200 Page 490 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU8SSHU7LHU/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ 8SSHU7LHU*HQHUDO/HY\ &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 201 Page 491 of 525 &RQILGHQWLDO /RFDO5HVXOWV7DEOH <HDU2YHU<HDU0XQLFLSDO/HY\6KLIWV 8SSHU7LHUDQG/RFDO*HQHUDO/HY\$PRXQWV 0XQLFLSDO*HQHUDO/HYLHV 87/RFDO &KDQJH 5HDOW\7D[&ODVV :HVW/LQFROQ DV5HYLVHG 1RWLRQDO 7D[DEOH 5HVLGHQWLDO )DUP 0DQDJHG)RUHVW 0XOWL5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO 3LSHOLQH 6XE7RWDO 7D[DEOH 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 5HVLGHQWLDO &RPPHUFLDO ,QGXVWULDO /DQGILOO 6XE7RWDO 3D\PHQW,Q/LHX 7RWDO 7D[DEOH3,/ 0XQLFLSDO7D[(TXLW\ 07( &RQVXOWDQWV,QF CSD 16-2019 Appendix 1 April 17, 2019Page 202 Page 492 of 525 CSD 16-2019 Appendix 2 April 17, 2019 Performance Measures The table below provides the 2018 measures for total property taxes for Niagara verses the 2018 BMA study average. Note that the study results are based on 2018 rates, and therefore are not impacted by 2019 tax policy decisions and approved budgets. Table 1 – 2018 BMA Study – Total Property Taxes and Municipal Burden Niagara Average* Study Average Variance Comparison to Study $ % Total Property Taxes ($) Per Median Dwelling Value $3,832 $3,836 (4) (0.10) Below Total Property Taxes as % of Hhld. Income 4.0% 3.8% Above Total Municipal Burden: Taxes and W/WW ($) $4,768 $4,910 (142) (2.89) Below Total Municipal Burden: Taxes and W/WW as % of Hhld. Income 4.9% 4.8% Above *Calculated using a simple average of all LAMs (weighted average is 5.2%). The combined Niagara Region, Local Area Municipalities, and education tax levy compares competitively to the BMA study average for 108 Ontario Municipalities surveyed. Total taxes as classified by BMA are in the mid-range tax burden for all but the Large Industrial and Office buildings which is in the low-range and Hotels which are in the high-range. The Region is above the study average in seven categories per Table 2 below. Table 2 – 2018 BMA Study Tax Metrics by Property Class Property Class Property Type Comparison Metric Niagara Average* ($) Study Average ($) Variance Comparison to Study $ % Residential Bungalow Tax/Unit 3,466 3,397 69 2.03% Above 2 Storey Tax/Unit 4,656 4,524 132 2.92% Above Executive Tax/Unit 6,296 6,286 10 0.16% Above Multi-Res Walk-Up Tax/Unit 1,577 1,382 195 14.11% Above Mid/High- Rise Tax/Unit 1,716 1,715 1 0.06% Par Commercial Office Buildings*** Tax/ Sq. Ft. 2.77 3.04 (0.27) -8.88% Below Shopping Tax/ Sq. Ft. 3.75 2.63 1.12 42.59% Above Hotels** Tax/Unit 1,844 1,602 242 15.11% Above Motels Tax/Unit 1,084 1,240 (156) -12.58% Below Industrial Industrial Vacant Land Tax/Acre 3,118 3,673 (555) -15.11% Below Standard Industrial Tax/ Sq. Ft. 1.82 1.67 0.15 8.98% Above Large Industrial*** Tax/ Sq. Ft. 0.87 1.11 (0.24) -21.62% Below *Calculated using a simple average of all LAMs. **Classified to be in the high range. ***Classified to be in the low range. Page 493 of 525 CSD 16‐2019Appendix 3April 17, 2019Number of Properties Impacted by Capping2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Multi‐Residential (Opted Out 2017)65 224 167 96 46 29 13 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 0Commercial (Eligible for Opt Out 2020)3923 3637 2967 2383 1214 805 623 511 200 185 152 89 29 21 0Industrial (Eligible for Opt Out 2019)335 389 313 251 106 87 75 69 23 17 17 12 2 0 0050010001500200025003000350040004500Page 494 of 525 CSD 16‐2019 Appendix 4 April 17, 2019 Lower Limit Upper Limit Threshold Subject to Levy Restriction Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.00 ‐ N/A Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 ‐ 0.25 ‐ N/A Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.25 0.25 ‐ N/A New Mult‐Res 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.10 ‐ N/A Multi‐Residential 2.044000 2.044000 2.044000 2.000000 1.970000 1.970000 1.00 1.10 2.00 No Commercial 1.758600 1.758600 1.758600 1.758600 1.734900 1.734900 0.60 1.10 1.98 No Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 0.60 1.10 2.63 No Landfill N/A N/A N/A 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 0.60 1.10 25.00 No Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 0.60 0.70 ‐ N/A History of Regional Tax Ratios Realty Tax Class 2018 Ratios 2019 Start Ratios Ranges of Fairness Threshold Ratios 2014 Ratios 2016 Ratios 2017 Ratios 2015 Ratios Page 495 of 525 Levy Allocations 2018 actual 2019 Category Item Administration Audit Expense 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Bank Charges 125.00$ 125.00$ 125.00$ Business Luncheons 350.00$ 308.00$ 350.00$ Confer.& meeting Attendance 3,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 3,000.00$ Hydro 900.00$ 800.00$ 900.00$ Insurance Premiums 3,240.00$ 3,270.00$ 3,305.00$ Office and Miscellaneous 5,000.00$ $3,115.00 5,000.00$ Payroll deductions 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Professional Fees 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Salary 74,750.00$ $74,750.00 76,995.00$ Skylon Reimbursement Streetscaping - Flower baskets 29,500.00$ $27,454.00 29,500.00$ Telephone/Internet 2,000.00$ $2,097.00 2,000.00$ WSIB 500.00$ $553.00 600.00$ sub-Total 127,365.00$ $119,972.00 129,775.00$ Marketing &Association Membership 650.00$ $568.00 650.00$ Sponsorship Cascades of fire 75,000.00$ $75,000.00 Contingency 4,700.00$ 5,000.00$ Illumination Project 96,000.00$ $95,593.00 93,000.00$ Marketing 23,000.00$ Online Presence 35,000.00$ $33,223.11 12,000.00$ New Years Eve 95,000.00$ $95,000.00 95,000.00$ Web Hosting 750.00$ $477.00 500.00$ Winter Festival of Lights 155,000.00$ $155,000.00 155,000.00$ sub-Total 462,100.00$ $454,861.11 384,150.00$ Convention Centre 1,000,000.00$ $1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00$ HST 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ sub-Total 1,009,000.00$ $1,000,000.00 1,009,000.00$ Budget total 1,598,465.00$ $1,574,833.11 $1,522,925.00 TOTAL LEVY 1,500,000.00$ $1,500,000.00 Page 496 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2019. WHEREAS Section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. c.25 provides that the Council of a local municipality shall pass a by-law to levy a separate tax rate on the assessment in each property class; AND WHEREAS the assessment of classes of rateable property described as residential/farm, multi residential, commercial, industrial, pipeline, farmland, managed forest and large industrial, as defined in the Assessment Act, and regulations thereto, have been determined on the basis of the aforementioned property assessment rolls; AND WHEREAS the tax ratios and the tax rate reductions for prescribed property classes for the 2019 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2019-42 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 25th day of April 2019; AND WHEREAS the tax rates and tax levies for purposes of the Regional Municipality of Niagara for the 2019 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2019-43 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 25th day of April 2019; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has adopted estimates of all sums required to be raised by it during the year 2019; AND WHEREAS the tax rates on the aforementioned property classes and property subclasses have been calculated pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and applicable regulations in the manner set out herein; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The assessments for the City of Niagara Falls on which the sums required for the year 2019 are to be levied for the various purposes hereinafter set forth are as follows: Page 497 of 525 Assessment Category Assessment Amount General Assessment Amount Urban Service Area RESIDENTIAL/FARM 8,321,858,319 7,815,176,824 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 305,099,748 303,416,005 NEW MULTI-RESIDENTIAL 10,326,160 10,326,160 COMMERCIAL Taxable General 11,915,000 11,915,000 Taxable Full 1,864,974,206 1,808,429,869 Excess Land 41,384,954 39,461,929 Vacant Land 134,408,251 131,499,033 New Construction 121,474,643 116,874,822 New Construction – Excess Land 6,552,703 5,636,853 Office Building 10,263,690 10,263,690 Shopping Centre 229,664,373 229,664,373 Excess Land 9,388,718 9,385,718 Parking Lot 82,700,747 81,953,247 LANDFILL Taxable Full 3,152,500 0 INDUSTRIAL Taxable Full 80,787,854 76,471,387 Excess Land 4,215,187 3,950,887 Vacant Land 32,549,384 29,236,067 New Construction 18,657,188 4,783,050 New Construction – Excess Land 1,333,775 105,375 PIPELINES Taxable Full 43,530,046 27,372,046 FARMLANDS 79,611,005 1,760,817 MANAGED FORESTS 1,196,000 0 FARMLANDS AWAITING DEVELOPMENT 1 0 0 Page 498 of 525 2. There shall be levied and collected by taxation in the City of Niagara Falls for the year 2019 for the several purposes and in the manner hereinafter provided, the several sums and amounts following and for such purposes the several rates hereinafter mentioned are hereby imposed, namely: (a) in the whole of the City of Niagara Falls: (i) for the general purposes, including items of civic expenditure, except those hereinafter specifically mentioned, the sum of $66,369,533 which includes the amount of $6,930,399 for waste management services; (ii) for public and separate school board purposes the sum of $41,553,901; (iii) for the purpose of The Regional Municipality of Niagara the sum of $77,170,957; and (b) in Urban Service Areas 1 and 2: (i) for urban service purposes the sum of $9,026,530. 3. The tax rate schedule set out in Schedule “A” is hereby adopted to be applied against the whole of the assessment for rateable property. 4. Every owner shall be taxed according to the tax rates in this by-law and such tax shall become due and payable for 2019 only, for, (a) Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessments on June 28, 2019 and September 30, 2019, and (b) Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Assessments on August 30, 2019 and October 31, 2019. 5. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and required to make, prepare and certify a Tax Roll in accordance with the requirements of this By-law and other applicable law. 6. It shall be the duty of the Tax Collector to pay into the hands of the Treasurer of the City of Niagara Falls all sums of money that may be collected by him under the authority of this by-law and to make a return of his or her Roll on or before the 31st day of December 2019. 7. This by-law shall come into force and effect immediately upon passing thereof. 8. Schedule “A” attached to this By-law shall form part of this By-law. Page 499 of 525 Passed this 14th day of May, 2019 ......................................................................... .................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: May 14, 2019 Second Reading: May 14, 2019 Third Reading: May 14, 2019 Page 500 of 525 Schedule “A” CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 2019 Tax Rates Assessment General Rates Urban Service Area Urban Service Area Total Property Class Code City Waste Mgmt. Region Schools Total Residential/Farm RT 0.436154% 0.050854% 0.566267% 0.161000% 1.214275% 0.070025% 1.284300% New Multi-Residential Multi-residential NT MT 0.436154% 0.859223% 0.050854% 0.100182% 0.566267% 1.115546% 0.161000% 0.161000% 1.214275% 2.235951% 0.070025% 0.137949% 1.284300% 2.373900% Commercial -Occupied -Excess Land -Vacant Land CT/CM CU CX 0.756684% 0.529679% 0.529679% 0.088227% 0.061759% 0.061759% 0.982417% 0.687692% 0.687692% 1.030000% 0.875500% 0.875500% 2.857328% 2.154630% 2.154630% 0.121486% 0.085041% 0.085041% 2.978814% 2.239671% 2.239671% Commercial Other -Occupied -Excess Land DT/GT/ST DU/SU 0.756684% 0.529679% 0.088227% 0.061759% 0.982417% 0.687692% 1.030000% 0.875500% 2.857328% 2.154630% 0.121486% 0.085041% 2.978814% 2.239671% Commercial –New Construction -Occupied -Excess Land XT/ZT XU/ZU 0.756684% 0.529679% 0.088227% 0.061759% 0.982417% 0.687692% 1.030000% 0.721000% 2.857328% 2.000130% 0.121486% 0.085041% 2.978814% 2.085171% Landfill HT 1.282407% 0.149524% 1.664973% 1.749205% 4.846109% Industrial -Occupied -Excess Land -Vacant Land IT/LT IU/LU IX 1.147085% 0.802960% 0.802960% 0.133746% 0.093622% 0.093622% 1.489282% 1.042498% 1.042498% 1.290000% 1.096500% 1.096500% 4.060113% 3.035580% 3.035580% 0.184166% 0.128916% 0.128916% 4.244279% 3.164496% 3.164496% Industrial – New Construction -Occupied -Excess Land JT/KT JU/KU 1.147085% 0.802960% 0.133746% 0.093622% 1.489282% 1.042498% 1.030000% 0.721000% 3.800113% 2.660080% 0.184166% 0.128916% 3.984279% 2.788996% Pipelines PT 0.742378% 0.086559% 0.963843% 1.030000% 2.822780% 0.119190% 2.941970% Farmland FT 0.109039% 0.012714% 0.141567% 0.040250% 0.303570% 0.017506% 0.321076% Managed Forests TT 0.109039% 0.012714% 0.141567% 0.040250% 0.303570% 0.017506% 0.321076% Farmland Awaiting Development I Farmland Awaiting Development II C1 N/A 0.327116% 0.038141% 0.424700% 0.120750% 0.910707% 0.052519% 0.963226% Page 501 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019- A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit a townhouse dwelling and a 4 storey apartment dwelling on the Lands (AM-2016-019). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by the provisions of this by-law are described in Schedule 1 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by-law as the “Lands”. Schedule 1 is a part of this by-law. 2. The purpose of this by-law is to amend the provisions of By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by-law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by-law and any existing provision of By-law No. 79-200, the provisions of this by-law are to prevail. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of By-law No. 79-200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 4. The permitted uses shall be the uses permitted in a R4 zone. 5. The regulations governing the permitted uses shall be: (a) Deemed lot the whole of the Lands shall be considered one lot (b) Deemed front lot line the lot line abutting Mewburn Road shall be considered the front lot line (c) Minimum lot area 175 square metres for each dwelling unit (d) Minimum rear yard depth (i) for a townhouse dwelling (ii) for an apartment dwelling 6 metres 87 metres (e) Minimum interior side yard width Page 502 of 525 2 (i) for a townhouse dwelling from the south side lot line (ii) for an apartment dwelling from the south lot line (iii) for a porte cochere of an apartment dwelling from the south lot line (iv) for a townhouse dwelling or apartment dwelling from all other side lot lines 28 metres 18 metres 11 metres 9 metres (f) Minimum exterior side yard width (i) for a townhouse dwelling (ii) for an apartment dwelling 6 metres 7.5 metres (g) Maximum height of building or structure (i) for a townhouse dwelling (ii) for an apartment dwelling 10 metres, subject to section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200 16 metres, subject to section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200 (h) Minimum landscaped open space 50% of the lot area (i) Minimum privacy yard for each townhouse dwelling unit, as measured from the exterior rear wall of every dwelling unit 6 metres (j) The balance of regulations specified for a R4 use 6. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200 shall continue to apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 7. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 8. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. Page 503 of 525 3 9. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheet B2 of Schedule “A” of By- law No. 79-200 by redesignating the Lands from DH to R4 and numbered 1058. 10. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto: 19.1.1058 Refer to By-law No. 2019-___. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 14th day of May, 2019. .................................................................... ..................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: Second Reading: Third Reading: S:\ZONING\AMS\2016\By-laws\Byam019-LPAT Directed.docx Page 504 of 525 mn_._muc_.mH._.Ow<-_.><<Zo.Noam- m§.m9_.%9 Mewburn Rd >:.m=a=:mNosmsuw<-_m<<zo.ue-~ao Ummn:E_o:__#.365mmm$33R:E._.<<u5mm@8333mm5xodmm? mxnmvncm:AonwmmmqmznmEm:$m-$-m:mxnmunEmmmmmamsm§mqm_2 25%;_um__H2.36E.mmmsaaav_#._.s€5mmmaaaa 3%wwA$x-8m:z_mm_mE_um__mn2?zu5Na333:: E._.<<u5mmmasaamm.3xoémwwwQ?om2.33_um__m >E.=nm:nm_<mR$mnnoSo:m&o:Han >mmmmm3m33:BmmoéoaommoeNummoéoaommoevmluomN?moé?mo?oo _£o.m1x...__._mmEB§mn_§_=.m?3_=n:9a%_u_=m_.a%>_<_-NoHm?oHo.2.B3 Page 505 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019- A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the development of 5 townhouse dwelling units and a semi-detached dwelling on part of the Lands, and to protect the 100 year flood plain and a buffer on the balance of the Lands (AM-2018-024). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by the provisions of this by-law are described in Schedule 1 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by-law as the “Lands”. Schedule 1 is a part of this by-law. 2. The Lands shall be identified as two parcels, known as Parcels R4-1090 and EPA-1091. 3. The purpose of this by-law is to amend the provisions of By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by-law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by-law and any existing provision of By-law No. 79-200, the provisions of this by-law are to prevail. 4. Notwithstanding any provision of By-law No. 79-200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 5. The permitted uses shall be: (a) For Parcel R4-1090: (i) Semi-detached dwelling (ii) Townhouse dwelling containing not more than 5 dwelling units (iii) Accessory buildings and accessory structures, subject to the provisions of sections 4.13 and 4.14 of By-law No. 79-200. (b) For Parcel EPA-1091: (i) The uses permitted in an EPA zone (ii) Parking area (iii) Decks 6. The regulations governing the permitted uses on Parcel R4-1090 shall be: (a) Minimum lot area for a townhouse dwelling and a semi-detached dwelling 170 square metres for each dwelling unit (b) Minimum front yard depth 4.5 metres (c) Minimum interior side yard (i) from the westerly interior lot line (ii) from the easterly interior lot line 1.2 metres 6 metres (d) Minimum setback of buildings and structures from the boundary of an EPA zone none Page 506 of 525 2 (e) Maximum projection of a deck into a required interior side yard 3 metres (f) Minimum privacy yard 6 metres (g) The balance of regulations specified for a R4 use 7. The regulations governing the permitted uses on parcel EPA-1091 shall be: (a) Maximum area that can be used as a parking area 52 square metres (b) The balance of regulations specified for an EPA use 8. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200 shall continue to apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 9. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 10. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. 11. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheets B5 and B6 of Schedule “A” of By- law No. 79-200 by redesignating the Lands from LI to R4 and numbered 1090, in part, and EPA, and numbered 1091, in part. 12. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto: 19.1.1090 Refer to By-law No. 2019-___. 19.1.1091 Refer to By-law No. 2019-___. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 14th day of May, 2019. ........................................................................... ................................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\ZONING\AMS\2018\By-laws\Byam024.docx Page 507 of 525 R4 EPA 1091 1090 126.13m 41.19m 1.94m 193.97m 71.27m 5.21m 6.16m 17.04m 10.04m 7.07m5.86m5.04m 6.05m MC L E O D R D KALAR RDSchedule 1 to By-law No. 2019- Subject Lands: Amending Zoning By-law No. 79-200 Applicant: Assessment #: K:\GIS_Requests\2018\Schedule\Zoning\24\bylaw_AM2018_24.mxd Bruno Galante 272511000206900 AM-2018-24 ¹ 4/24/2019 Description:PT TWP LT 179 STAMFORD, PT 1, 59R6337; CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS NTS 100 Year Flood Plain Elevation(TOP OF BANK) ELEV 181.53 Page 508 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019- A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to rezone the Lands for prestige industrial type uses and to protect a watercourse and valley in the rear of the Lands (AM-2018-027). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by the provisions of this by-law are described in Schedule 1 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by-law as the “Lands”. Schedule 1 is a part of this by-law. 2. The Lands shall be identified as three parcels, known as Parcels PI-1096, PI-1097 and EPA. 3. The purpose of this by-law is to amend the provisions of By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by-law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by-law and any existing provision of By-law No. 79-200, the provisions of this by-law are to prevail. 4. Notwithstanding any provision of By-law No. 79-200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 5. The permitted uses shall be: (a) For Parcel PI-1096: (i) The uses permitted in a PI zone (ii) Carpenter shop and supply yard (iii) Plumbing and heating shop (iv) Machine shop (v) Establishment for building material sales (vi) Shop for the repair and servicing of goods, machinery and equipment (vii) Landscape supply establishment and garden centre (b) For Parcel PI-1097: (i) The uses permitted in a PI zone (ii) Carpenter shop and supply yard (iii) Plumbing and heating shop (iv) Machine shop Page 509 of 525 2 (v) Establishment for building material sales (vi) Shop for the repair and servicing of goods, machinery and equipment (vii) Landscape supply establishment and garden centre (c) For Parcel EPA, the uses permitted in an EPA zone 6. The regulations governing the permitted uses on Parcel PI-1096 shall be: (a) Minimum lot frontage 28.5 metres (b) Minimum front yard depth 8.5 metres plus any applicable distance specificed in section 4.27.1 of By-law No. 79-200 (c) Minimum southerly interior side yard width (i) for a landscape supply establishment and garden centre (ii) for any other permitted use 1.2 metres 3.5 metres (d) Maximum lot coverage 70% (e) Minimum landscaped open space 35% of the required front yard (f) Maximum height of building or structure 14 metres subject to section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200 (g) Outside storage Except in the case of a landscape supply establishment and garden centre, and uses described in clauses b, i, j and l of section 11.1.1 of By-law No. 79-200, no person shall use any part of the front yard of any lot for the purpose of outside storage (h) The balance of regulations specified for a PI use 7. The regulations governing the permitted uses on Parcel PI-1097 shall be: Page 510 of 525 3 (a) Minimum front yard depth 8.5 metres plus any applicable distance specified in section 4.27.1 of By-law No. 79-200 (b) Minimum northerly interior side yard width (i) for a landscape supply establishment and garden centre (ii) for any other permitted use 0.8 metres 3.5 metres (c) Maximum lot coverage 70% (d) Minimum landscaped open space 35% of the required front yard (e) Maximum height of building or structure 14 metres subject to section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200 (f) Outside storage Except in the case of a landscape supply establishment and garden centre, and uses described in clauses b, i, j and l of section 11.1.1 of By-law No. 79-200, no person shall use any part of the front yard of any lot for the purpose of outside storage (g) The balance of regulations specified for a PI use 8. The regulations governing the permitted uses on Parcel EPA shall be the regulations for an EPA use. 9. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200 shall continue to apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 10. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 11. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. 12. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheets B6 and B7 of Schedule “A” of By-law No. 79-200 by redesignating the Lands from OS, in part, and HL, in part, and PI, in part, to PI and numbered 1096, in part, PI and numbered 1097, in part, and EPA, in part. 13. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto: Page 511 of 525 4 19.1.1096 Refer to By-law No. 2019-___. 19.1.1097 Refer to By-law No. 2019-___. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 14th day of May, 2019. ......................................................................... ....................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR S:\ZONING\AMS\2018\By-laws\Byam027.docx Page 512 of 525 mn:m_u:_.mH._.Ow<-_.><<Z0.NOHDI mcamn?_.m:um_% ««’o’§' I-5 \l \l N 3 II‘ 9“ I-5 3 o£¢°¢’« ,,3:¢2¢2o2fo’o’o’o’o’< /@ xyv MA maavznaNE-EIOD AM HJ.E8VZl'|3 NaanoL L L L L L L.LL L L Mmmha L LEH3L ,M as.Q an C|OON\>‘lV0 >3m:&:uNo:_:uw<-_m<<20.Shoe Ummn_._u:o_.:3.S]Hm_u_.T3m._.>_<__uOm_u>mH2WONGGNNM_,:>m>_~>m>Fm _u._.C2.T3m._.>_<=nOmUmxnm_u._._u._.wname_,:>m>m>_n>_._.m >uu_.nm:n€32mm:_<_o:6o3m2magH._..m.I._<_o:6o3m«< nosmqcnzosAz_mmm:£C338 zam >mmmmm3m3n3:Ndm?ooo?cmeeNdm?ooo?omoo>_<_-~oHm-Nu _A_/amxwsEmw/EHBm32._._mE=__._%>..<_%.>z~aE1235§&S$Page 513 of 525 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS BY-LAW Number 2019 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 89-2000, being a by-law to regulate parking and traffic on City Roads. (Stopping Prohibited, Stop Signs At Intersections) --------------------------------------------------------------- The Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls hereby ENACTS as follows: 1. By-law No. 89-2000, as amended, is hereby further amended a) by adding to the specified columns of Schedule A thereto the following item: STOPPING PROHIBITED COLUMN 1 HIGHWAY COLUMN 2 SIDE COLUMN 3 BETWEEN COLUMN 4 TIMES/DAYS Cattell Drive South Furlong Avenue and a point 55 metres east of Furlong Avenue 8:00AM to 4:30PM Monday to Friday Page 514 of 525 b) by adding to the specified columns of Schedule P thereto the following items: STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTIONS COLUMN 1 INTERSECTION COLUMN 2 FACING TRAFFIC Hawkins Street at Dell Avenue Eastbound on Hawkins Street Hawkins Street at Dell Avenue Westbound on Hawkins Street Arad Street at Dell Avenue Westbound on Arad Street Skinner Street at Dell Avenue Westbound on Skinner Street Atlee Street at Dell Avenue Westbound on Atlee Street This By-law shall come into force when the appropriate signs are installed. Passed this fourteenth day of May, 2019. .......................................................................... ..................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: May 14, 2019 Second Reading: May 14, 2019 Third Reading: May 14, 2019 Page 515 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019- A By-law to amend By-law No. 2016-108, a by-law to regulate the supply of water and to provide for the maintenance and management of the waterworks and for the imposition and collection of water rates. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Schedule “A” to By-law 2018-25 is hereby deleted and replaced with Schedule “A” attached hereto, which is hereby approved and authorized. Passed this fourteenth day of May, 2019. WILLIAM MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: May 14, 2019 Second Reading: May 14, 2019 Third Reading: May 14, 2019 Page 516 of 525 Schedule “A” Schedule of rates, fees and charges 1. Service Charges Monthly: Meter Size Water Rate Sewer Rate 15mm (5/8”) $20.21 $21.22 18mm (3/4”) $20.21 $21.22 25mm (1”) $21.22 $22.28 37mm (11/2”) $61.65 $64.72 50mm (2”) $123.30 $129.43 75mm (3”) $247.61 $259.93 100mm (4”) $454.80 $477.42 150mm (6”) $869.17 $912.39 200mm (8”) $1,556.43 $1,633.82 250mm (10”) $2,162.83 $2,270.38 2. Water and Sewer Volumetric Rates: Water Sewer Rate Type $1.069 $1.249 Per cubic meter 3. Monthly Flat rates for a Private Water/Sewer Service not Metered by choice or other determination of the City: Water Sewer $49.85 $53.84 Page 517 of 525 2 4. Flat rates for a Private Water Service not Metered because of refusal of Owner: Residential Premises After the Due Date Before Due Date 3x the current flat rate as per Section 3 3x the current flat rate as per Section 3 Other than Residential Premises After Due Date Before Due Date 3x the current service charge per Section 1 plus 3x single month average of previous 12 months consumption history, OR 4% less than the After Due Date amount as calculated for ICI, Section 4 3x the current service charge per Section 1, After Due Date plus, if no previous consumption history, 3x single month average of similarly sized account/type at the Engineer’s discretion 4% less than the After Due Date amount as Before Due Date calculated for ICI, Section 4 Page 518 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . By-law No. 2002-081 is amended by deleting Schedules AA”, “B”, “C” and “D4” and that Schedules “A”, “B”, “C” and “D4” attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 2. That by-law 2019-45 by hereby repealed. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council this 14th day of May, 2019. ............................................................... ........................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 519 of 525 SCHEDULE “A” 1. Chief Building Official: Salvatore Valeo 2. Inspectors: Tammy Agnoletto Louie Baldinelli Rick Bayley Jim Boutilier Luciano Chieca Tom Detenbeck Frank Devereaux Effat Effat Tyler Esau Kellie Kubik Christel Meyer Roger Pigeon Bryan Plata Cesar Ramires Phil Ross Ellen Roupas Fred Sacco Ben Trendle Brian Sparks Jo Zambito 3. Municipal Enforcement Officers: Robert Davis Sandro Elia Doug Evans Brian Sparks Gerald F. Spencer Heather Stones Page 520 of 525 SCHEDULE “B” 1. Municipal By-law Enforcement Officers: Paul Brown Tim Burshtein Tom Craig Ed Czban Robert Davis John Grubich Dave Rogers Philip Rudachuk Bart Skiba Brian Sparks Heather Stones Salvatore Valeo Dan Wilson Page 521 of 525 SCHEDULE “C” 1. Parking By-law Enforcement Officers: Paul Brown Marianne Catherwood Julio Cavaliere Joe Corradi Adam Cousins Bill Crowder Mario Digianni Brandon Erb John Garvie Ryan Giles Cathy-Lynn Hanson John MacLeod Andrea Malgie Robert Mascia Krista McGowan Philip Rudachuk Chris Russell April Smith Thomas Tavender Kim Watson Page 522 of 525 SCHEDULE “D4” HOCO LIMITED 1. Parking By-law Enforcement Officers on private property: Justin Baird James Hole Keith Bennett Abby Kapur James D’Annunzio Aiden Loughlin Cole Eckmier Dean Murray Justin Facci Nathan Poole Brittany Forcucci Emily Romano Page 523 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - A by-law to authorize an application to The Regional Municipality of Niagara for the issuance of debentures for The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls for the purpose of paying for the renovation of 4343 Morrison Street. WHEREAS Subsection 401(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a lower tier municipality in a regional municipality does not have the power to issue debentures. AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls is a lower tier municipality in the Regional Municipality of Niagara. AND WHEREAS By-law No. 2017-25 is a by-law to authorize the 2017 Capital Budget which includes the borrowing of up to $4,100,000 to fund the work. AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems is expedient to make application to the Regional Municipality of Niagara for the issuance of debentures for the work. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An application to The Regional Municipality of Niagara for the issuance of debentures of $4,100,000 for The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, is hereby authorized. 2. The Mayor, Clerk, and Treasurer, as the case may be, are hereby authorized to execute all documents necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of section 1. Passed this 14th day of May, 2019 ................................................ ........................................................ WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: May 14, 2019 Second Reading: May 14, 2019 Third Reading: May 14, 2019 Page 524 of 525 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of City Council at its meeting held on the 14th day of May, 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 14th day of May, 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, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council this 14th day of May, 2019. .............................................................. ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 525 of 525