Loading...
2005/05/30 CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA BARBARA MUIR FOURTH MEETING Monday, May 30, 2005 Committee Room 2 - 5:15 p.m. Staff Contact 1. Minutes of the March 7, 2005 Meeting 2. Reports · F-2005-19 - Sewer Consumption Refund Todd Harrison · F-2005-20 - 2005 Reimbursable Kilometrage Rates Ken Burden · F-2005-21 - Niagara Transit - Workplace Safety Ken Burden and Insurance Board (WSIB) Refund · F-2005-22 - Financing Lease Report Ken Burden · F-2005-24 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Todd Harrison Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes · F-2005-25 - 2005 General Purposes Revenue Update Ken Burden · Memorandum re "In Camera" Procedures Dean Iorfida 3. New Business 4. Adjournment MINUTES CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE THIRD MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Ted Salci, Aldermen Wayne Campbell, Chair; Jim Diodati, Carolynn Ioannoni, Vince Kerrio, Joyce Morocco, Victor Pietrangelo, Selina Volpatti and Janice Wing. STAFF: John MacDonald, Tony Ravenda, Ray Kallio, Darrell Smith, Dean Iorfida, Doug Darbyson, Patrick Burke, Adele Kon, Ken Burden, Todd Harrison, Nathan Hyde, Joanna Daniels PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review Alderman Pietrangelo declared a conflict with respect to discussions on the Garner Trail as it will connect with St. Michael High School, his place of employment. Alderman Morocco declared a conflict with respect to discussions on Niagara Falls Tourism as it is her contract place of employment. Alderman Kerrio declared a conflict with respect to discussions on Niagara Falls Tourism as he has a business association. 1. MINUTES: MOVED byAIderman Morocco, seconded byAIderman Kerrio, that the minutes of the February 14, 2005, meeting be adopted as recorded. Motion Carried Unanimously 2. DEPUTATIONS: In response to potential loss of funding through the 2005 Parks, Recreation and Culture Budget, deputations were received from the Park in the City Committee and the Bike and Trailway Committee. Several Representatives of the Park in the City Committee attended the meeting and outlined their many achievements and future goals. As a visual demonstration, Council was presented with plantings representing a "Before and After" theme. -2- Representatives present from the Bike and Trailway Committee expressed their concern re the possibility of funding being lost for the Millennium and Garner Park Trails thereby hindering future development of the trails. 3. REPORTS: Sewer Consumption Credit Updat~ MOVED by Alderman Morocco, seconded by Alderman Diodati, that the verbal update on the Sewer Consumption Credit be received for information. Motion Carried Unanimously Report R-2005-14 - Review of 2005 Parks, Recreation and Culture Budqet MOVED by Mayor Salci, seconded by Alderman Volpatti, that Report R-2005-14 - Review of 2005 Parks, Recreation and Culture Budget, be received and filed Motion Carried Unanimously Report F-2005-11 - Niaqara District Airport Commission MOVED by Alderman Volpatti that Staff prepare a report outlining the position of other municipalities on the matter of funding for the Niagara District Airport Commission. No Seconder to the Motion MOVED by Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Ioannoni, that an increase to the 2005 municipal grant to the Niagara District Airport Commission be approved with the stipulation that the grant is contingent upon Council representation and that the other municipalities contribute the same increase. Motion Carried Unanimously 3. BUDGET DISCUSSION: Ms. Nancy Mclntosh, Chair of the Niagara Falls Tourism Board and Mr. Marshall Murdaugh, Marketing Consultant, addressed the Committee on the review which examined past practices at Niagara Falls Tourism and charts a future course for the organization. Niaqara Falls Tourism MOVED by Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Mayor Salci, to defer a decision on funding for Niagara Falls Tourism until Council had an opportunity to review the study presented by and see how it would be implemented. The end of July was suggested as the time frame. Motion Failed MOVED by Mayor Salci, that if funding to Niagara Falls Tourism is to be reduced by $100,000, that it should be reduced equally to both Niagara Falls Tourism and the Winter Festival of Lights. No Seconder to the Motion MOVED by Alderman Ioannoni, seconded byAIderman Wing, that funding to Niagara Falls Tourism be reduced by $100,000 to $388,500. The Motion Carried with the following requested recorded vote (with the exception of Aldermen Kerrio and Morocco due to previously-noted conflicts.) AYE Alderman Campbell NAYE Alderman Diodati AYE Alderman Ioannoni NAYE Alderman Volpatti AYE Alderman Pietrangelo NAYE Mayor Salci AYE Alderman Wing MOVED byAIderman Volpatti, seconded by Mayor Salci, that $1.5 million be put into the 2005 General Purposes Budget for road overlay, rehabilitation and surface treatment programs. The Motion Carried with the following requested recorded vote. AYE Alderman Campbell NAYE Alderman Kerrio AYE Alderman Ioannoni NAYE Alderman Morocco AYE Mayor Salci NAYE Alderman Pietrangelo AYE Alderman Diodati NAYE Alderman Wing AYE Alderman Volpatti MOVED BY Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Mayor Salci, that the 2005 General Purposes Budget and the 2005 Capital Projects Budget be approved as amended The Motion Carried with the following requested recorded vote: AYE Alderman Campbell NAYE Alderman Kerrio AYE Alderman Ioannoni NAYE Alderman Morocco AYE Alderman Pietrangelo NAYE Alderman Wing AYE Alderman Diodati AYE Alderman Volpatti AYE Mayor Salci -4- MOVED by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Mayor Salci, that ratification of the proceedings of the meeting be directed to the next Council Meeting. Motion Carried Unanimously 4. ADJOURNMENT: MOVED by Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that the meeting be adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Motion Carried Unanimously ' Corporate Services Department F-2005-19 T_ _,/ ~. Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden ne ~.lly of ~r~l~ 4310 Queen Street Director NiogQro FOIJ$ lJkp.o. Box 1023 CQf']QdQ ~'Niagara Falls, ON L2E6X5 ~~r~ web site: w~v.city, niagara fa'Is .on. ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden@city,niagara falls.on ,ca May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of'the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls; Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-19 - Sewer Consumption Refund RE CO MMEN DATtON: That any City of Niagara Falls residential property owner, whose water/sewer account consumed and paid the eewer consumption charge during the June, 2000 For the consideration of' Council. to June 2003 period and, ie not currently receiving a eewer consumption rebate, be eligible to apply to the City for a one-time $65.00 refund, until June 30, 2005 tBACKGROU N D: For the period June 2000 to June 2003, The Region o fNiagara overcharged the City of Niagara Fails tbr sewer treatment due to an incorrect calculation nf sewer treatment flows. The errorwaS reported by RegionalStaffto CityCouncilinMay2004. Theestimatedovercharge wanS5.4 million: RegionalStaff advised that the overcharge would be refunded to the City. Per Council direction, Staffinvestigated and verified the information, and prepared report CPS-2004-02 that detailed the cause of the error, and suggested alternative uses for the refund from the Region. Report CPS-2004-02 advised that the cause nfthe error was the miscalculation in measuring the sewer treatment flows. The flow measuring device was me~uring in US gallons and not imperial gallons. Upon further investigation, it was confirmed that the totals being recorded were in fact in US gallons and then being converted into metric, based on imperial gallons, for billing purposes. Report CPS-2004-02 provided two uses for the refund from the Region. One use would be a refund to ratepayers; three ways of paying the refund were discussed. A second use would be a contribution to the funding of the sewer capital projects. On November 15, 2004, City Council passed a motion "that the sewer retired be given to the users in a credit and in the quickest mannerpossible '. Since that time, Staff has examined the necessary process to fulfill Council's motion. Staffhas worked withNiagara Falls Hydro, the City's billing agent for water and sewer services, to determine the necessary changes in billing systems. During Mamh 2005. Staff implemented the sewer consumption rebate program. As of May 18, 2005, approximately $1.9 million in sewer consumption rebate has been credited on ratepayer bills. As directed by Council, the sewer consumption rebate program will remain in force until all of the Regional sewer refund has been exhausted. }k'orRing Together to Ser~e Our Community Clerks · Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development May 30, 2005 - 2 - F-2005-19 On April 28, 2005 The Region of Niagara approved the final amount of refund to be paid to the City for the overcharged sewer treatment costs. The f'mal amount included: 1) the actual overcharged amount of $5,422,881.77 2) accrued interest on the overcharged amount of $ 366,206.35 3) rebate program costs of $ 57,000.00 for atotal of $5,846,088.12 The total payment was received on May 6, 2005. Staff has invested $5,789,000.00 of the total payment in a short term investment. On May 3, 2005, Council directed staff to prepare a report, including costs inherent, on refunding property owners who no longer qualify for the server consumption rebate. Staff advised that several former ratepayers have contacted the City; Staff has sent letters to these former ratepayers, see sample copy of letter attached. Although Staff had previously advised that the rebate program would not provide refunds to ratepayers who had previously closed their water/sewer account, Council has indicated that these claims should be addressed. Since the May 3, 2005 meeting, Staff has received several more inquiries. A variety ofclaims have been cited. Staffhaspreparedachartofthevarious claims being presented by those interested in receiving a sewer consumption refund. Person Action considerations Owner Moved from a residential home in Qualifies for sewer consumption if account (Residential) City to another residential home is in his/her name at new residence. with a working meter in City Owner Sold and moved from a residential Qualifies for sewer consumption if account (Residential) home in City to rent at another is in his/her name at new residence. residential home with a working However, if the new residence is in meter in City landlord's name, the former owner no longer has water account, thus no sewer consumption rebate Owner Moved fi'om a residential home in As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) City to another community no sewer consumption rebate. Owner Moved from a residential home in Water Account is paid by Condominium (Residential) City to a condominium in the City corporation not the individual, thus former owner no longer has water account, thus no sewer consumption rebate Owner Moved fi:om a residential home in Water Account is paid by Apartment owner (Residential) City to an Apartment in the City not the individual, thus former owner no longer has water account, thus no sewer consumption rebate May 30, 2005 - 3 - F-2005-19 Owner Moved from a residential home in Water Account is paid by Seniors Home (Residential) City to a Senior's residence in the owner not the individual, thus former owner community or elsewhere no longer has water account, thus no sewer consumption rebate Owner Moved from a residential home in Former owner's water account is not based (Residential) City to another residential home in on consumption, thus no sewer consumption the City, however new residence rebate does not have working meter Owner Owner lived in house during i There is not an active water account thus no (Residential) period but a fire destroyed ;ewer consumption rebate. Building and is now vacant land. Owner Owner lived in house during Water account is not active thus no sewer (Residential) period but currently no one lives consumption rebate. in the house. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but currently property is no sewer consumption rebate. being renovated without active ~vater account. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but currently owner is on no sewer consumption rebate. vacation and out of country until 2006. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but currently owner is ill no sewer consumption rebate. and in hospital until 2006. Owner Owner lived in house during As this is water only account, sewers are not (Residential) period but moved to area of city billed and thus no sewer consumption rebate. that does not have sewers. Owner Owner lived in house during Water/Sewer account is not billed on (Residential) ~ period and paid flat rate but do notconsumption, thus no sewer consumption have working meter, rebate. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but has died without no sewer consumption rebate. dependants. House is not sold and thus is vacant. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but has died with one no sewer consumption rebate. dependant. House is not sold and thus is vacant. May 30, 2005 - 4 - F-2005-19 Owner Owner lived in house during As there is not an active water account thus (Residential) period but has died with more than no sewer consumption rebate. one dependant. House is not sold and thus is vacant. Owner Owner lived in house during As there is an active water account, the (Residential) period but has died with more than sewer consumption rebate would be one dependant. The estate has provided to the dependant occupying the been settled and one dependant residence based on sewer consumption receives house and currently during rebate period. resides there. Owner Owner lived in house during The new owner of the house receives the (Residential) period but has died without sewer consumption rebate. dependants. House is sold. Owner Owner lived in house during The new owner of the house receives the (Residential) period but has died with one sewer consumption rebate. Dependant dependant. Estate is settled and receives nothing. house is sold. Owner Owner lived in house during The new owner of the house receives the (Residential) period but has died with more than sewer consumption rebate. Dependants one dependant. Estate is settled receive nothing. House is sold. Owner Owner lived in house during As the water account is not billed BVO (Residential) period and continues to this point, consumption, thus no sewer consumption Due to galvanized piping the rebate. owner is on flat rate. Owner Co-habitation owners lived in The remaining o~vner living in the house (Residential) house during period, but receives the server consumption rebate. habitation split occurs. One spouse Spouse that moved out receives nothing. moves out and lives at a residence that does not qualify for rebate. Owner Co-habitation owners lived in The new owner of the house receives the (Residential) house during period, but sewer consumption rebate. Former spouses habitation split occurs. Both receive nothing. spouses move out, sell house and live at separate residences that do not qualify for rebate. MayPO, ~005 -5 - F-2005-19 Owner Co-habitation owners lived in The new tenant of the house receives the (Residential) house during period, but sewer consumption rebate. Former spouses habitation split occurs. Both receive nothing. spouses move out, settlement not reached and rent house to tenant who has water account in their name. Former spouses live at separate residences that do not qualify for rebate. Owner Owner lived in house during Account holder receives large sewer (Residential) period but meter was not working I consumption credit as billed in period of or sufficiently thus bill estimated rebate. (commercial) during period. Once meter repaired identified that account was under billed during period. Owner Owner rented property to 1 tenant The current water account holder of the (Residential) during period. Tenant paid water house receives the sewer consumption billing directly. Tenant has moved rebate. Old tenant receives nothing. to another property that does not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to 1 tenant The current water account holder of the (Residential) during period. Tenant paid water house receives the sewer consumption billing indirectly through lease, rebate. Old tenant receives nothing. Tenant has moved to another property that does not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to 2 or The current water account holder of the (Residential) more tenants during period, house receives the sewer consumption Tenants paid water billing rebate. Neither tenant receives rebate. indirectly through lease. One of the tenants has moved to another property that does not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to 2 or The current water account holder (ie (Residential) more tenants during period, remaining tenant) receives the sewer Tenants paid water billing directly, consumption rebate. The tenant who moved One of the tenants has moved to out does not receive rebate. another property that does not qualify for rebate May 30, 2005 - 6 - F:2005-19 Owner Owner rented property to various The current water account holder (ie current (Residential) tenants during period. Tenants tenant) receives the sewer consumption paid water billing directly. All of rebate. The tenant who moved out does not thc tenants have moved to other receive rebate. properties that do not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to various The current water account holder (ie current (Residential) tenants during period. ½ the time tenant) receives the sewer consumption the tenants paid water billing rebate. The tenants who moved out does not directly while ½ the owner paid receive rebate. The owner does not qualify water directly. All of the tenants for the periods that he/she paid water. have moved to other properties that do not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to various The current water account holder (ie current (Residential) tenants during period. ½ the time tenant) receives the sewer consumption the tenants paid water billing rebate. The tenants who moved out does not directly while ½ the owner paid receive rebate. The owner does not qualify water directly. During periods all for the periods that he/she paid water, even or some of tenants were evicted those periods where water was transferred. for non payment of water, and as a result owner paid transferred amounts. All of the tenants have moved to other properties that do not qualify for rebate Owner Owner rented property to various The current water account holder (ie current (Residential) tenants during period. ½ the time tenant) receives the sewer consumption the tenants paid water billing rebate. The tenants who moved out does not directly while ½ the time the receive rebate. The owner does not qualify owner paid water directly. During for the periods that he/she paid water, even periods all or some of tenants had those periods where water was transferred. difficulties paying water and were subject to transfer. It is not clear who paid the transferred amounts the tenant or owner. All of the tenants have moved to other properties that do not qualify for rebate Owner Owner ran a business distinct from The current water account holder (ie current (Business) real estate business during period tenant) receives the server consumption but has moved to different rebate. location that the business is not entitled to rebate. Currently property rented to an unrelated tenant with water account. May ~0,'2005 - 7 - F.2005-19 Owner Owner ran a business distinct fi:om The current water account holder (ie current (Business) real estate business during period tenant) receives the sewer consumption : but has moved to different rebate. location that the business is not ontitled to rebate. Currently property used by a new business of property owner. Owner Owner ran a business distinct from The current water account holder (ie current (Business) real estate business during period tenant) receives the sewer consumption but has since ceased operation, rebate. Currently property rented to an unrelated tenant with water account. Owner Owner rented to tenant during The current water account holder (ie current (residential) period with owner paying water tenant) receives the sewer consumption (Business) account. Owner sells to new rebate. owner but tenant remains. Water account currently in tenants name Owner Owner ran a business distinct from The current water account holder receives (Business) real estate business during period the sewer consumption rebate. but went bankrupt. In bankruptcy, creditors received 50 cents on dollar owed. Owner has since restarted new company in same business in same location. Owner Owner had four water accounts at The current water account holder receives (Business) a property, but due to plumbing the sewer consumption rebate without improvements reduced service to 1 consideration for the other three services. account. Staffhas brought forward a broad sampling of possible situations that has either been raised by a former water/sewer ratepayer or considered by our Finance Staff. In consideration of Council's wishes in this matter, Staff is recommending the following: 1. That Council limit the "sewer consumption refund" to the following: A fixed refund amount will be paid to a former residential water/sewer ratepayer who has closed their residential water/sewer account due to one of the following: (a) sold their place of residence and moved away from the City of Niagara Falls. (b) Is a senior citizen who has sold their place of residence and has moved to a seniors' residential facility. May 30, 2005 - 8 - F-200'5-19 2. That Council adopt the following "application process": (a) immediate notice be issued via advertisement in local newspapers (b) applications for the "sewer consumption refund" be accepted up until June 30, 2005 (c) Sta£f verify the applicant's information (d) a fixed refund amount be paid by cheque to the qualifying applicants on/or about July 31, 2005 CONCLUSION The Sewer Consumption Rebate Pro.am has been implemented and all cu~ent water/sewer ratepayers who pay the sewer consumption charge are receiving the rebate Council requested Staft['to investigate refunding property owners ,,-,/ho no longer qcmlif~, for the rebate. Staff'has received approximately 53 fnquiries about qualifying for a Sewer Consumption Refund. Staff recommends that Council limit tine sewer consumption refund to only former residential water/sewer ratepayers (as outlined above in part 1) who qualify through the application process (as per part 2). Recommended bt: R~spe~thfll} submitted, f K. E. Burden /John MacDonald Director of Finance C~ief Administrative Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Corporate Services Department Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden 4310 Queen Street Director The City of P.O Box 1023 Niagara Falls, L2E 6X5 Niagoro Foils lJ~,~, ON Canada ~1,'" web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Te .: ( 0S) 3S -752 Fax: (905) 356-0759 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca March 10, 2005 Dear Thank you for your patience regarding your inquiry on the Regional sewer consumption refund. This matter has taken considerable time to research and study. After tnuch deliberation, Council has only just recently made a final decision. At their meeting of November 15, 2004, Council passed the following resolution: "that the sewer refund be given to the users in a credit and in the quickest manner possible" After the City became aware of the sewer consumption overpayment to the Region, staff looked at all of the possible ways to refund or credit the monies. Also, it was necessary to receive legal opinions on what could or could not be done with the $5.4 million. The options presented to Council, in the attached report, were to provide a refund based on actual consumption during the period in question, a refund based on average consumption, a credit for future consumption or to reinvest the money into infrastructure for future savings. Niagara Falls City Council decided that the sewage treatment overpayment should be handled as a credit, applied to future bills and refunded to residents in the quickest manner possible. This decision of Council may cause some disappointment on your part as you may have expected to receive a share of the Regional sewer treatment refund. Please be assured that through the deliberation process, your concerns were seriously considered by the City Council and their decision was in no way meant to cause harm, injury or prejudice former water/sewer ratepayers; however, as the attached report indicates, doing a detailed review of each individual account during the period of the overpayment would have been a very complicated, time consuming and expensive process. On behalf of Council, I would be pleased to coordinate any further communication on this matter. Yours truly, K. Burden Director of Finance c: Mayor Salci and Members of Council Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance · Human Resources Information Systems Legal · Planning & Development Corporate Services Department CP~-2004-10 , ..~. Human Resoun;e$ The C fy of 43.10 Queen Street TonYExecutiveRavenda Director Ni~3gcm3 FQIISyJ~i~' P.O. Box 1023 CQFIQdCl ~~' Niagara Falls, ON L2E §X5 Tl~r web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-7404 E-mail: travenda@city.niagarafalls.on.ca November 1, 2004 His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of N'iagura Falls, Ontario Members: Re: CPS-2004- 10 - Sewer Consumption Rate Refund R£COMMENDATION: t) That Council apply the sewer consumption rate refund to City-wide infxastmcture projects and that every effort is made by Staff'to secure matching provincial and federal funding. OR 2) That if Council wishes to refund the monies they select Option #3. BACKGROUND: As part ora major capital upgrade to the Region's sewage h-eatment plant on Stanley Avenue thc original Cipoletti effluent weir was replaced with ~ new rectangular weir in Apr/12000. As a result of the change the ultra sonic measuring device used to determine the flow rate, in imperial gallons, had to be calibrated to conform to the new dimension of the rectangular weir. As a result of problems with the recalibration a new ultra sonic meter was ir~talled on May 25, 2000. At the time of the installation the calibration report indicated that the maximum flow was 34.85 million gallons per day (mgd). It was assumed that the measurement was in imperial gallons. In June of 2001 a calibration was done of the flow me~uring device and the report indicated that it was measuring accurately and that the peak flow was 34,$5 mgd. In October 2002 another check of the flow metering device was carried out. The calibration report was not received until J~uary 2003. As part of its ongoing Best Management Practises the Region hired Associated Engineering to perform a Region wide billhag meter audit. It was during this audit, which reviewed the Janua~ 2003 calibration report, that it was discovered that the flow measuring device was measuring in US gallons and not imperial gallons. Upon further investigation it was confirmed that the totals being recorded were in fact in US gallons and t~en being converted into metric, based on imperial gallons, I~orking Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance . Human Resource,~ · fnformatioa Systems Legal · Planning & Development November '1, 2004 - 2 - CPS.-20. 04-10 for billing purposes. As a result on June 12, 2003 the flow meter at tl~e plant was recalibrated to measure in cubic meters in order to be consistent with the billing to the City. In March 2004 both Associated Engineering staffand Regional staffconducted an in-depth review of the calibration work, metering and records dating back to 1993 in order to confirm that pr/or to June 2000 the Cipoletti weir had been calibrated in imperial gallons. Based on this review Regional staff concluded that the problem in the billing quantities for sewer flows is limJted to that period from May 25, 2000 to Jane 12, 2003. City Staff has reviewed the Azsociated Engineering report and has met with Regional staff at the sewage treatment plant to go over the matter. Based on the information provided to date, City staff has no reason to believe at this time that an error in measuring of the flows has occurred outside the periods indicated. City staffhas received additional information fi:om the Region with respect to how the $5.4 million rebate figure was arrived at. Based on the information provided, Staff does not foresee any significant changes to this amount. Options In reviewing this matter, Staff has examined four (4) options for Council's consideration; I. Actual Consumption Refund The actual consumption refund is a return of the actual overpayments received from water/sewer customers for sewer consumption billings during the period June 2000 to June 2003. City staffwould undertake individual account analysis to provide information on the exact amount of overpayment for each water/sewer customer Account analysis would include examination of the billing history in determining how much consumption took place, and also examining the payment history. Most water/sewer rate customers wilt have accounts that are still active today. Several others will have closed their accounts and will need to be contacted. Some accounts will have involved the transfer of water/sewer arrears to tax accounts, and still others will have involved the payment by other parties, such as landlords. Th/s analysis is the most involved and will require considerable stafftime to complete the task. The sewer consumption rate mu.st be recalculated for each year from June 2000 to June 2003 based upon the amount of sewer refund applicable for each year. This analysis will take approximately six (6) weeks and cost approximately $6,000. Customer records must be examined to determine qualifying users of sewage treatment and will involve computer programming, data analysis, and cross referencing. This analysis will take approximately 15 weeks and cost approximately $44,000. Approximately 64,000 accounts mustbe examined for usage quantity and refund entitlement. This analysis will take approximately 52 weeks and cost approximately $360,000. The final task is tl~e payment of approximately 64,000 refunds - either by credit to current customers, or by cheque to other recipients. This task will take approximately eight (8) weeks and cost approximately $40,000. The use of appropriate sotbvare and the hiring of contractual personnel will greatly assist in completing the task in a timely and accurate mariner. Staffestimates a total cost of $450,000 to complete the task. November t, 2004 - 3 - CP$-2004-10 2. Average Consumptiou Refund The average consumption refund ~ s a return of an average overpayment received from water/sewer customers for sewer consumption billings during the period June 2000 to June 2003. City staff'would undertake to prepare average refund mounts for the various sizes of meters in both residential and commercial installations. The average refund would be based upon a random sample analysis o fall the accounts that existed during the period June 2000 to June 2003. The average refund would be credited to, or paid to, water/sewer customers according to a date of record. The date of record, as chosen by City Council, would be a point in time cturing the period June 2000 to June 2003. Most water/sewer customers will have accounts that are still active today. Several others will have closed their accounts and will need to be contacted. The sewer consumption rate must be recalculated for each year fi.om June 2000 to June 2003 based upon the amount of sewer refund applicable for each year. TI:ds analysis will take approximately six (6) weeks and cost approximately $6,000. Customer records must be examined to determine qualifying users of sewage txeatment on the date of record and will involve computer progranuning, data analysis, and cross referencing. This analysis will take approximately seven (7) weeks and cost approximately $20,000. Approximately 6,000 accounts may be examined for average usage quantity and refund entitlement. This analysis will take approximately 22 weeks and cost approximately $34,000. The final task is the payment of approximately 28,000 refunds - either by credit to current customers, or by cheque to other recipients. This task will take approximately eight (8) weeks and cost approximately $20,000. T he u se of appropriate software and tho hiring of contractual persomael will greatly assist in completing the task in a timely and accurate manner. Staff estimates a total cost of $80,000 to complete the task. 3. Credit Consumption Refund The credit consumption refund is an adjustment to the 2004 and future sewer consumption rates. City staffwould undertake to recalculate the existing 2004 sewer consumption rate and future sewer consumption rates, using the Regional refund as a substitute revenue during the time that it will be received, Council will establish a future date to staxt the credit consumption refund. The sewer consumption rate must be recalculated for the balance of tlxe 2004 year per the start date set by Council (e.g., October 1, 2004), and based upon the amount of sewer refund applicable to the ctuxent year. This analysis will take approximately six (6) weeks and cost approximately $6,000. The balance of the sewer refund will be applied to the 2005 sewer consumption rate. The current Customer records must be examined to determine qualifying users of sewage treatment and will involve computer programming, data analysis, and cross referencing. This analysis will take approximately four (4) weeks and cost approximately $10,000. Approximately 28,000 accounts will be examined for actual usage quantity and refund entitlement. This analysis will continue until the sewer refund has been fully paid out - approximately 26 weeks and cost approximately $21,000. The final task is the payment of approximately 28,000 refunds - either by credit to current customers, or by cheque to November 1,2004 - 4 - CP~-20.04-t0 other recipients. This task will take approximately 26 weeks and cost approximately $20,000. The use of appropriate software and the hiring of contractual personnel will greatly assist in completing the task in a timely and accurate manner. Staff estimates a total cost of approximately $57,000 to complete the task. 4. Infrastructure As discussion has taken place with respect to investing the Regional Wastewater Refund in the wastewater collection system, the following information is provided for Council's review. The City owns approximately 378 km of sanitary sewer pipe with aa average of 43 years old with the oldest section constructed in the late 1800's. It is estimated that the replacement value in today's dollars for the wastewater collection system is approximately $255 million. In order to determine an appropriate level of funding for capital replacement purposes, an expected lifespan must be used to trigger replacement of the sewer pipe. Typically in the industry, Iffespaas of 70 to 100 years have been used. The Regional Municipality of Niagara recently used a 70-year lifespan for replacement cost purposes in their Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan. The following chart illustrates the funding required in order to provide the investment capital to satisfy the replacement costs at the end of the assets life and the, "Do Now," category for those pipes that exceed the expected lifespan. EXPECTED LIFE SPAN 70-year 100-year Jnvestment Capital Required $ 76 million $41.8 mi/lion Do Now $39.5 million $23.8 million In addition to the funds required to maintain the existing wastewater collection system the City is in the midst of a Sewer Separation Program. Approximately 26% of the sewer collection system is combined. The cost to separate these systems is approximately $70 million. The cost is based on looking at the system as a whole and does not include a street by street analysis nor does it inetude any associated road improvements that maybe required as a result of the reconstruction. As part of the 2004 Capital Works Program Deliberations, two sewer separation projects were delayed beyond the five-year period due to the impacts on the City's debt. These projects included the Bridge Street separation which included storm sewers on B ridge Street, First, Second and Third Avenues. Another project that was considered was installation of storm sewers on P/all Street wi'rich would pick up a number of storm sewers in the area that is currently draining into the combined sewer on R/all Street. The costs for these projects are $4 million for Bridge Street and $1.7 million for R/all Street. In February 2004 Infrastructure Canada announced a new Municipal Rural Infi-astmcture Fund (MRIF). At least 80% of the funding under the MRlY will be dedicated to Municipalities with a population less than 250,000. IVlRIF will be cost shared, with the Government of Canada contributing on average 1/3 of the total projects eligible costs. The , November 1, 2004 - 5 - CP$-2004-10 remaining funding requirements are to be shared equally between the Municipalities and the Province thus providing a 1/3 Federal, 1/3 Provincial and 1/3 Municipal funding scheme, A minimum of 60*/0 of the funding under the MR.IF with the minimum of 40% per jurisdiction will target those infrastructures that will provide a better quality of life and benefit thxough sustainable development. These projects include water, wastewater, solid waste, municipal eaergy improvements and public tramit. Industry Canada has begun negotiations with the Province of Ontario with respect to the application of the program~ The negotiations were suspended during the recent Federal election and Industry Canada staffcannot provide an indication at this time as to wtten the program will be implemented. As there is no detailed information available asto the program itself City staffcannot provide any inflieation as to the amount of funding that the City of Niagara Falls would be eligible to receive. Recommended & Approved by: Respectfully submitted: Tony Kavenda f[~John MacDonald Executive Director of Corporate Setwices Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services Department F-2005-20 T ..... ~'z, Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden ne LJTy Of ~'~II( 4310 Queen Street Director Niagara Falls Ii~.~l~ P.O. Box 1023 Carlada ~'j~'Niagara Fails, ON L2E 6X5 ~T~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-20 - 2005 Reimbursable Kilometrage Rates RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the following recommendations: 1. The reimbursable kilometrage rate payable to City employees who use their personal automobiles on City business, be established at $0.422 per kilometre, effective July 1, 2005. 2. The reimbursable kilometrage rate continue to be reviewed on an annual basis. BACKGROUND: This report presents the annual review of the reimbursable rate per kilometre for employees who use their personal vehicles on behalf of the City. This annual review is used to account for the changes in costs so as to ensure equity in the reimbursable rate. The Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) methodology, used in their publication "Driving Costs", has been used to arrive at the reimbursable rate. Both fixed costs and variable costs were determined and incorporated in the calculation of the kilometrage rate (attached). Fixed costs refer to annual vehicle costs such as depreciation, financing (interest), insurance premium, license and registration fees and taxes. Depreciation cost is the difference between the cost ora new car and the trade-in value of a similar 4-year-old car. New car costs were obtained by contacting local dealers in the Niagara Region using equivalent options packages. The average of the prices used in determining the mileage rate was calculated at $23,158. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development May 30, 2005 -2 - F~2005-20 The yearly insurance premium is a major cost item. Coverage was obtained assuming a typical married person over the age of 25 with a clean driving record. Financing cost is based on an average automobile loan rate quoted from several financial institutions in Canada. A bank financing rate is used opposed to dealer rates which may be offered only for short periods of time and could vary widely depending on economic conditions. A loan rate average of 6.75% was used for this analysis. Data for the remaining variables used to calculate the kilometrage rate ,,vas obtained from the most recent CAA publication "2005 Driving Costs". Total fixed costs amounted to $7,031 for the year or approximately $0.293 per kilometre. Variable costs relating to fuel and maintenance amounted to $0. 129 per kilometre. The resulting kilometrage reimbursable rate is $0.422 per kilometre (a detailed breakdown is shown in Appendix 2). This represents a 5.50% increase over the approved rate of $0.40 in 2004 and in terms of budgetary impact, the proposed rate increase is more than the normal inflationary increase that would have been incorporated into the 2005 budget for mileage costs. Conclusion: Staff recommends that the reimbursable kilometrage rate payable to the City employees who use their personal atttomobiles on City business be established at $0.422 per kilometre. Recommended by: /P~spectfully subm~ted:,~ / K.E. Burden Director o f Finance ~/~ Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Appendix 1 2005 Chevrolet Cavalier four door sedan Standard and Optional features including: Tires P195/65R15 all season touring blackwall Engine 2.2 litre, DOHC "Ecotec" 4 cylinder Transmission 4-speed automatic Steering power, rack & pinion Brakes power, front disc/rear drum 4 wheel anti-lock brake system Battery rundown protection Tilt steering wheel Cruise Control Remote keyless entry w/content theft system Power door locks Power windows Dealers Contacted Price Wills Chevrolet Olds (2001) $24,972 David Chevrolet Olds $22,463 Brian Cullen Motors $22,040 AVERAGE PRICE $23,158 Prices include freight and taxes Appendix 2 Analysis of Vehicle Costs and Reimbursement Rate for 2005 Annual Costs 1 FIXED COSTS [al Annual vehicle costs- depreciation New car cost $23,158 Trade-in (similar 4 year old car) $6,339 Depreciation over 4 years $16,819 Annual depreciation $4,205 [bi Financing $666 Auto Loan (20% down payment 4 year loan) Interest cost (~ 6.75% lc] Insurance $2,066 - full business use - deductible comprehensive at $300 - deductible collision at $300 - third party liability at $1,000,000 Id] License Sticker and Plate Registration $94 TOTAL FIXED COSTS PER YEAR $7,031 FIXED COST PER KILOMETRE (based on 24,000 kin/year) 29.3 cents 2 VARIABLE COSTS (cents per kilometre) [al Gasoline and oil 8.58 [bi Maintenance 2.48 Ici Tires 1,79 VARIABLE COST PER KILOMETRE 12.9 cents 3 CALCULATED 2005 REIMBURSEMENT RATE PER KILOMETRE 42.2 cents APPROVED 2004 REIMBURSEMENT RATE PER KILOMETRE 40.0 cents PERCENTAGE CHANGE 5.50% Corporate Services Department F-2005-21 Finance Kenneth E. Burden The City of 4310 Queen Street Director of Finance Niagara Falls lJ~l~ P.O. Box 1023 Can~~ Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca ~ ~--- Tel: (905) 356-7521, ext. 4288 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden @city.niagarafalls.on.ca May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-21 - Niagara Transit - Workplace Safety and Insurance Board OVSIB) Refund RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the deposit of $141,025.54 in the reserve fund for Workplace Safety and Insurance Board future obligations. BACKGROUND: On May 11, 2005, the City received $141,025.54 from the Niagara Transit Commission for a refund which the Commission had received from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. During the past year, the Niagara Transit, represented by Compsave, a WSIB consultant, ~vas investigating the overcharge of WSIB premiums as a Schedule 1 employer. The investigation proved that during the period 1993 to 1997, an overpayment of premiums had taken place and that a retired of $235,042.57 was due to the Niagara Transit. Compsave received a portion of this refund in lieu of any fee for their services. Although full payment of the reftmd has been received by Niagara Transit, their lawyer is filing an appeal as, in his opinion, the refund settlement remains inequitable. As per the report prepared by Terry Librock, General Manager of Niagara Transit, and the subsequent authorization by the Commission, a cheque was prepared and paid to the City of Niagara Falls for the amount of $141,025.54. The reason for this payment is that the City of Niagara Falls has provided the funds to the Niagara Transit to run the City's transit service. Included in that funding would be sufficient amounts to have paid WSIB premiums. A refund, in essence, then belongs to the City of Niagara Falls to be used at its discretion. Staff has reviewed uses for this refund and suggests to the Council the following opportunities: l. Deposit the refund amount in the reserve fund for Workplace Safety and Insurance Board future obligations. This reserve fund was set up to accumulate sufficient funds to offset the liability for future payments of WS1B claims. During the 2005 Budget process, the annual contribution to this reserve fund was reduced significantly. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development May 30, 2005 - 2 - F-2005-21 2. Deposit the refund amount in the reserve fund for capital/operating purposes. This reserve fund was originally set up to receive and disburse provincial grants that were related to the provision of transit services. 3. Deposit this refund amount to be used for the 2005 purchase of new transit busses· 4. Deposit the refund amount in the general purposes fund to offset a portion of the 2005 grant to the Niagara Transit· CONCLUSION The refund amount orS 141,025.54 ~vas received from the Niagara Transit. These monies can be used to satisfy different purposes. Staff recommends that Council approve the deposit of the refund amount in the reserve fund for WSIB future obligations. Recommended by: Respectfully submitted by: DKirE; c tBoU;do ~inanc e tive Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Corporate Services Department F-2005-22 ~.. . ~'Za Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden The lty uT II / 4310 Queen Street Director Niagara Falls llkp.o. Box 1023 Canada .,~' Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 '~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (g05) 356-7521 Fax: (g05) 356-2016 E-msih kburden~city.niagarafalls.on.ca May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-22 - Financing Lease Report RECOMMENDATION: For the information of City Council. BACKGROUND: The amendment to Ontario Regulation 46/94 filed September 20, 2002 under Ontario's Municipal Act requires municipalities to analyze and disclose specific standardized information on financing lease agreements. Municipalities shall provide, at least once a year, a report on all finance leasing agreements and transactions entered into by the municipality. The attached Schedule "A" sho~vs all of the City of Niagara Falls' current leases in compliance with the requirements of the amended regulation. In summary, this schedule shows that: the total cost of all leases is less than one-half percent of the annual levy no one lease individually, nor all collectively, represent any material impact to the mtmicipality the City's 2005 debt and lease repayment is $2,107,771, which is well within the limit set by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing which is $22.4 million, (25% of Revenue Fund Revenues $94.8 million). Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal · Planning & Development May 30, 2005 -2 - F-2005=22 CONCLUSION: Presentation of this report ensures that Council is provided full disclosure on the impacts of these leases on the budget and debt capacity. It is the Treasurer's opinion that these leases, individually and collectively, do not represent any material impact to the municipality. The City of Niagara Falls' debt level and capacity, including these leases, is well within the limits set by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: DKir eE~ tBo rU;dfeFninanc e tive Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services City of Niagara Falls Existing Leases As at: March 31, 2005 Lease Item Beinq Leased Vendor / Finance Co. Reference Annual Cost Term of Lease Renewal Date (excl. taxes / ins) Post Office Box Canada Post $410.00 1 Year Annually renewed Safety Deposit Box ScotiaBank $80.25 1 Year Annually renewed Mailing Machine & Scale Doering & Brown $2,052.00 24 months January 2007 Mailing Meter Franco Tya Postalia $708.00 24 months January 2007 Photocopiers: Fire Department CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758110 $6,732.00 60 months June 2007 Fire Department CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3755940 $342.00 50 months June 2007 Parking & Traff~c CIT Financial Ltd. 378964 $1,770.00 60 months December 2005 Cemetery CIT Financial Ltd. 378964 $1,944.00 60 months December 2005 Niagara Fails Arena CIT Financial Ltd. 378964 $2,310.00 60 months December 2005 Finance ClT Financial Ltd. 378964 $5,046.00 60 months December 2005 Legal / Clerk / HR / Planning CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $14,226.12 60 months February 2006 Service Ctr CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $3,926.40 60 months February 2006 Parks CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $2,066.40 60 months February 2006 Business Development CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $1,860.00 60 months February 2006 Fire Department CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $996.00 60 months February 2006 Water CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 3758111 $996.00 60 months February 2006 Print Shop CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd 2642731 $13,860.00 60 months June 2006 Print Shop CitiCorp Vendor Finance Ltd. 3843460 $1,260.00 60 months June 2006 MayodCAO CIT Financial Ltd. 6791 $3,660.00 60 months October 2005 Building / By-Law CIT Financial Ltd. 21537 $4,020.00 60 months December 2007 Library Doering & Brown 2704971 $7,450.32 36 months August 2008 Coronation Centre ClT Financial Ltd. 7035 $1,800.00 51 months January 2006 Multi PDL Pdnt Kit - Clerk CIT Financial Ltd. 7075 $1,320.00 60 months November 2005 Telephone System (N.F. Arena) MCAP Leasing Inc. 64879 $2,719.80 60 months July 2005 Vehicle ReFueling System - Arena CIT Financial Ltd. N755762 $1,133.04 120 months January 2008 Vehicle ReFueling System - Arena CIT Financial Ltd. N892093 $2,434.32 84 months September 2006 Zamboni - Stanford Mem. Arena Bodkin Leasing 57609 $4,698.24 60 months June 2006 Stamford Centre Branch Library T & C Holdings $59,610.36 60 months September 2010 Hydro Land Lease Ontario Realty Corp. MH0057 Pt Lot 56,9,10 $7,150.00 Total Annual Cost $'156~581.25 Debenture Annual 2005 Repayment $1,951,190.00 City of Niagara Falls Total Debt (Including Leasing Costs) $2,107,771.25 Debt Capacity as per MMAH $22~396,282.00 Total Annual Lease Cost $156,581.25 Percent of 2005 Annual Levy ($39.7 Million) 0.40% V:~2005COU NCIL\050530\F-2005-22 Leases Attachment.qpw 18-May-05, cjb Corporate Services Department F-2005-24 T ..... ,~a F nance D v s on Kenneth E. Burden ne L. ITy et ~'~li( 4310 Queen Street Director Niogaro FQIIs____ :ll~- P O. Box 1023 CQnQdQ .~Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 ~Ti~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-maih kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-24 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes RECOMMENDATION: That June 30 and September 21 be approved as the 2005 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. BACKGROUND: Due to the additional calculations required to prepare the 2005 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 30 and September21. Once the additional calculations for the remaining classes have been determined then final tax notice due dates for the Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-residential property classes will be presented for Council's consideration. Prepared by: Approved by: T. Harrison T. Ravenda Manager of Finance Executive Director of Corporate Services Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: K.E. Burden /5/John MacDonald Director of Finance ~ Chief Administrative Officer Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance Human Resources Information Systems · Legal Planning & Development Corporate Services Department F-2005-25 The City of ~1~11¢ Finance Kenneth E. Burden Niagara Falls lJ~,~l~ 4310 Queen Streetp.o. Box 1023 Director Cana?~=~~ Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 ~11~~'r I~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905} 357-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on May 30, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-25 - 2005 General Purposes Revenue Update RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the Corporate Services Committee. BACKGROUND: On March 7, 2005, the General Purposes 2005 Budget was approved by City Council. The budget included a variety of revenues such as property taxation, grants, user fees, contributions from reserves and reserve funds, and other revenues. Since the approval of the budget, the City has received additional revenues for specific purposes and has realized significant collections of anticipated revenues. The following report provides an update on the General Purposes revenues for 2005. Niagara Transit Commission WSIB Refund As per Report No. F-2005-21, on May 11, 2005, the City received $141,025.54 from the Niagara Transit Commission for a refund which the Commission had received from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. During the past year, the Niagara Transit, represented by Compsave, a WSIB consultant, was investigating the ovemharge of WS1B premiums as a Schedule 1 employer. The investigation proved that during the period 1993 to 1997, an overpayment of premiums had taken place and that a refund of $235,042.57 was due to the Niagara Transit. Compsave received a portion of this refund in lieu of any fee for their services. Although full payment of the refund has been received by Niagara Transit, their lawyer is filing an appeal as, in his opinion, the refund settlement remains inequitable. Ontario Fire Services Grant On March 23, 2005, the City received a cheque in the amount orS178,000.00 from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The provincial government has provided this one-time funding to Ontario's fire departments to strengthen the delivery of municipal fire protection services and provide firefighters with the tools they need to protect the community and to minimize Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development May 30, 2005 - 2 - F-2005-25 personal harm. These funds are primarily intended for the training needs of fire departments, although it is recognized that there are many other needs in the areas of fire prevention, fire suppression, fire communications and fire equipment. Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort - Payment-in-Lieu In March of this year, the Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort made satisfactory remittance of their payment-in-lieu of property taxes. Since the opening of the Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had been working on finalizing the property assessment. The assessment was valued at atotal of $564,691,000. This information was provided to City staff late in 2004 with the caution that the property owner was intending to appeal the value of the assessment. Even so, City staff billed and the payment-in-lieu of taxes was received. Staff anticipates that the appeal process may result in a lower assessment due to information being provided by the property owner to MPAC. Interest and Penalty onTax Receivables In early May, staff collected a significant amount of tax arrears which comprised a large portion of the receivable balance. In addition, staffwas also successful in collecting several other outstanding tax accounts. Although these collections were anticipated, the timing was earlier than staffexpected. As a result, the application of interest and penalty on what would have been outstanding tax arrears, will not be realized. The effect of this foregone revenue is offset by the City's ability to use the cash on hand as opposed to borrowing funds. Land Sales The 2005 General Purposes Budget did not include revenues from land sales. Over the past few months, City Council has been considering the sale of lands. As these revenues are a one-time source of funding, Council will need to decide the use of the revenues when they are in fact received. Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: K.E. Burden { Jplm MacDonald Director of Finance ',-Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services The City of ~ll~ ,. Clerk's Department Niagara Falls Inter-Departmental Memorandum Canad?~.~~ To: Mayor Ted Salci Date: May 30, 2005 & Members of Council From: Dean Iorfida City Clerk Ext. 4271 Subject: In Camera Procedures Staff appreciates some of the recent confusion regarding in camera procedures. Hopefully, the discussion at the May 2"a in camera session and a discussion on May 30~ will go a long way toward clarifying matters. Firstly, it may be valuable to, once again, provide Council with a copy of my report CD-2004-14, In Camera Procedures (see attached). The report outlines that, as per the MunicipalAct, meetings are to be open to the public unless the subject matter fits under one of the exceptions outlined under the Act: security of the property of the municipality, personal matters about an identifiable individual, including a municipal employee, purchase or sale of property by the municipality, labour relations or employee negotiations, litigation or pending litigation and solicitor-client privilege. Reporfine Out From Closed Meetings From my report: Planning & Conducting Effective Council Meetings, an A.M.C.T.O publication by noted municipal writer C. Richard Tindal writes on the issue of reporting out or ratifying actions from closed meetings: "The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act provides that a disclosure of financial interest made in a closed meeting must be recorded (i.e., declared by the council member) in the minutes of the next open meeting. Apart from that provision, there is little guidance found in provincial legislation, and municipal practices with respect to reporting out seem to vary considerably." Tindal further goes on to explain that there are three possible outcomes of a closed meeting: an agreement to take action, an agreement not to take action and general discussion. Scenarios related to an agreement to take action are obvious: a decision to proceed with the purchase or sale of land, a decision to ratify a collective agreement or a decision to accept a settlement in a legal proceeding, amongst other examples. These are traditionally matters that council has authority over and require specific action. There is some debate on whether Council's should report when they decide to not take action. It would seem obvious that if Council is not taking an action, there is nothing to report, however, this may not always be the case. For example, if the City is involved in litigation and the other party has Wor~in~J Tooet~er to Serve O~tr Comm~mit~ made an offer of settlement that has been rejected by Council, it is probably appropriate for the matter to be reported in open Council. Tindal summarizes that Council inaction, not oversight, is often as much of a policy position as a course of action. General discussion in closed meetings, according to Tindal, can involve a number of possible scenarios, "information reports, prepared by staff, on topical issues, intended to alert council to particular matters." In our in camera sessions, such items appear on occasion. These general discussion items could be matters in which staff already has the authority to take action. The items are brought forward, however, to keep Council informed and to ensure that staff is "on the same page" as Council. For example, the City Solicitor has a duty to defend the Corporation in legal matters. He does not have to get Council's approval to do this, however, as a courtesy he informs the Council of impending litigation. In most cases, his information report is received and Council does not "rise to report" on the matter. Votin~ During In Camera Meetings Unforttmately, the issue of not being able to vote in in camera meetings has been overstated and not properly clarified to Council. The MunicipalAct states "a meeting shall not be closed to the public during a vote" unless the vote is held during a lawful in camera session (i.e. the subject matter falls under the exceptions outlined in the Municipal Act) and the vote is on a procedural matter or for giving direction to staff. No substantive vote can take place during a closed meeting. Distinguishing between what is a substantive vote and what is a procedural or a directional vote can be gray. For example, Council often deals with sale of land issues in camera. Ultimately, Council is asked to decide whether to accept a purchase price for a piece of property. If Council agrees to the purchase price by way of a vote, it could be argued that it has made a substantive decision; however, there are two important points negating this argument: 1) the matter has to be reported out or voted on in open Council, therefore, the "substantive" vote that authorizes the sale is happening in public. 2) In essence when Council approves the sale of land in camera they are technically not actually approving the sale of land what they are doing is directing staff to follow its procedures for sale of lands which include public notification at least a week prior to the sale (direction to staff vote) and referring the matter to open council for ratification (.procedural vote). If, in the scenario above, Council rejected the purchase price by vote In camera, they could direct staffto go back and negotiate a better price or, if the offer is rejected outright, the matter should be referred to Open Council to be ratified. As pointed out in my report last year, a decision to not do something is as much a policy decision by Council as a decision to do something; therefore, the matter should be reported out to Open Council. In M. Rick O'Counor's book Open Local Government 2, the writer aptly summarizes the issue on voting in camera: "the Municipal Act contains a prohibition against all methods of "secret voting". The r * estnct~on has never been seen to be a ban against voting while nart~ci~atm~, in an in camera meeting." Minutes of Closed Meetinos There is a line o£ thought that there is no need for minutes of closed meetings, since no binding decision of a substantive nature can be made unless ratified in open council. The practice in our municipality has been for the Council secreta~ to have a set of"minutes" for her own internal purposes. Having done some additional research on this matter, I note the comments of C. Richard Tindal in his guide Planning & Conducting Effective Council Meetings: "Minutes for a closed meeting should consist of the following: time and place of the meeting, those in attendance and the presiding officer, disclosures of financial interest and directions given to staff, if any." Tindall's comments are important because they allude to the fact that minutes are not verbatim transcripts. Tindall also notes: "When in camera discussions are held in the midst of a regularly scheduled meeting, any minutes related to those closed discussions could be included within the minutes of the overall meeting." This is currently our practice. If an in camera session occurs, it is noted at the beginning of our regular council minutes. Tindall does feel that it may be beneficial for a municipality to keep a separate set of closed meeting minutes because it "allows council to continue to keep confidential, as long as appropriate, matters discussed in closed session." There seems to be a notion from a couple of the Council members that "confidential minutes" were to be provided to them. With all due respect, no such motions could be found (see attached). If Council were to want "confidential minutes" there would be two important caveats: > The minutes would not be "transcripts" outlining all discussion. They would be a mere recording of who was in attendance, who presided and what the actions were. ~ Section 6(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act refuses disclosure of any record "that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting that is authorized to be held in the absence of the public." Council is reminded that if they release confidential minutes, in any way, they would be breaching the Municipal Freedom of lnformation & Protection of Privacy Act. Possible Solutions The impromptu conversation on this issue at the May 2"d meeting seems to have been helpful. I noted at that time that we seem to get in trouble on matters related to directions to staff that are not required to be ratified in open council. It is these motions that seem to be subject to debate, i.e., what was the motion or proposed direction to staff. You will note at the last in camera session, I explicitly indicated that a matter was a direction to staff and that it would not be ratified in open council. As Clerk, I made sure that the motion was clear and repeated to Council before the lawful (!) vote. I got the impression, and can be corrected if I'm wrong, that Council appreciated this because it removed any ambiguity. As previously noted, the Council secretary would record the motion for her internal minutes. I am open to making this record of directions to staff available for Council's perusal in some form and we can discuss the mechanics of this on May 30th. I am confident that both staff and Council wants to achieve the same goals: removing ambiguity and future debate, following a clearly defined process and minimizing the revisiting of issues. I look forward to having a free flowing discussion with Council on May 30th. Corporate Services Department CD-2004-'14 lhe City of [~ Clerk's Division Dean Iorflda Nic~gorQ Fc~IIs~IJ~i~_ 4310 Queen Street City Clerk Ccln~~l~. P,O. Box 1023 Niagara Fails. ON L2E 6X5 ~-l-"' web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca I The recommendation(s) Tel,: (905) 356-7521 I contained in this report were Fax: (905) 356-7404 I adopted by City Council E-mail: diorfida@city.niagarafalls.on,ca June 14, 2004 His Worsb_ip Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: CD-2004-14 "In Camera" Procedures RECOMMENDATION: For the information of Council. BACKGROUND: The following motion was passed at the May 17, 2004 Council meeting: That staff provide a report ouffining the process for ratifying the actions from Committee of the Whole and of the legal implications, should an action not be ratified in open Council. Carried Unanimously. Firstly, the closed door session of Council has traditionally been called Committee-of-thc-Whole in our municipality. It is probably more appropriate to refer to the closed session as In Camera because all of the City's standing committees (Community and Corporate Services committees) are, technically, committees of the whole i.e., committees that include all Members of Council. Regardless of the nomenclature, closed door meetings can only happen under certain circumstances as per the Municipal Act: Meetings open to public 239. (1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (1). }Forking Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance · Haman Resources . Infon'nation Systems · Legal Planning & Development June 14, 2004 - 2 * CD-2004-14 Exceptions ~ A meeting or part o fa meeting may be closed to the public if the ~ubject matter being considered (a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board; (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; ©) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; (d) labour relations or employee negotiations; (e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; 09 advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (2), Other criteria f3) A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration ora request under the Municipal Freedom of lnformation and Protection of Privacy.4 ct if the council, board, commission or other body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that .4ct, 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (3). Senior Staff is very cognizant of which items should be "in camera", however, every case is not black and white. For example, with a number of reports or items, litigation could occur. Staffhas to make a judgement call as to whether there is a real possibility of litigation and whether the item should go "in camera" so that the Solicitor can outline confidential matters that may be pertinent to the case. Reporting Out From Closed Meetings Planning & Conducting Effective Council Meetings, an A.M.C.T.O publication by noted municipal writer C. Richard Tindal writes on the issue of reporting out or ratifying actions from closed meetings: "The Municipal Conflict of Interest .4ct provides that a disclosure of financial interest made in a closed meeting must be recorded (i.e., declared by the council member) in the minutes of the next open meeting. Apart from that provision, there is little guidance found in provincial legislation, and municipal practices with respect to reporting out seem to vary considerably." Tindal further goes on to explain that there are three possible outcomes of a closed meeting: an agreement to take action, an agreement not to take action and general discussion. Scenarios related to an agreement to take action are obvious: a decision to proceed with the purchase or sale of land, a decision to ratify a collective agreement or a decision to accept a settlemem in a legal proceeding, amongst other examples. These are traditionally matters that council has authority over and require specific action. June 14, 2004 · 3. CD-2004-14 There is some debate on whether Council's should report when they decide to not take action. It would seem obvious that if Council is not taking an action, there is nothing to report, however, this may not always be the case. For example, if the City is involved in litigation and the other party has made an offer of settlement that has been rejected by Council, it is probably appropriate for the matter to be reported in open Council. Tindal summarizes that Council inaction, not oversight, is often as much ora policy position as a course of action. General discussion in closed meetings, according to Tindal, can involve a number of possible scenarios, "information reports, prepared by staff, on topical issues, intended to alert council to particular matters." In our "in camera" sessions, such items appear on occasion. These general discussion items could be matters in which staff already has the authority to take action. The items are brought forward, however, to keep Council informed and to ensure that staff is "on the same page" as Council. For example, the City Solicitor has a duty to defend the Corporation in legal matters. He does not have to get Council's a.,,-,r~--, .... vv ,,v~u to oo tins, however, as a courtesy he informs the Council of impending litigation. In most cases, his information report is received and Council does not "rise to report" on the matter. CONCLUSION: As the publication Planning & Conducting Effective Council Meetings indicates them is little legislation or guidance on what should be reported out from closed meetings. Practices vary fi.om municipality to m,unicipality~, The author, Tindal, notes that "these le~,al issues o challen es counci ' . . o nly arise if someone · g 1 sactmns. Hed°escauu°nthatmumcipalitiesshouldreportsubstantivemotions tn open meetings· Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: Dean Iorfida John MacDo City Clerkistrative Officer Approved by: Executive Director of Corporate Services -il- l,lay 17~ 2004 Council Minute~ Ratification of Committee of thq Whole Acflon~ ORDERED on the motion of Alderman ioannoni, seconded by Alderman Wing, that staff provide a report outlining the process for ratifying the actions from Committee of the Whole and of the legal implications, should an action not be ratified in open Council. (~prfied UnanimousIv. User Fees at the Coronation Centre ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman leennonl, that through secret ballot, at the Annual General Meeting of the Coronation Centre, the following question be placed, 'Are you in favour of the deletion of the existing user fees?". The motion was .Defeated with a 5-2 vote. V~/oodland & Heritaae Tree ConseWaflon Following some discussion, it was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that staff initiate the process of developing a Woodland & Heritage Tree Conservation By-law under the Municipal Act. Cam'ed U n' ou I Traffic Jams & Traffic Connection Alderman Jim Diodati expressed concerns with respect to the high traffic volumes at the Rainbow Bridge and of the very Iow volumes of traffic at the Whirlpool Bridge (lower bridge). ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Diodati, that a letter be forwarded to the Federal Minister with respect to opening our side of the border. ~arried Alderman Joyce Morocco extended congratulations to the participants in the recent Police Tug of War event. Alderman Joyce Morocco extended congratulations to Corey Laroque, rapofferwith the Niagara Fails Review on his recent win of the Jack Bowman Award for Spot News Photography at the Ontario Newspaper Awards on May 15, 2004. His Worship Mayor Salci advised members of Council that he would be sitting on the Lundy's Lane BIA; the Downtown Board BIA and the Chippawa BIA. On the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Ioannoni, that Ms. Jean Grandoni be permitted to address Council with respect to the tree cutting by-law. Carried~ -19- Aunust 16. 2004 Council Minu~'~-- Peoele Mover System/Procedural By-I;;;;' Alderman Ioannoni expressed her concern about the People Mover System, the company that has been short-listed as one of the possible proponents for the People Mover System, the contract negotiated for the Director of the People Mover Project and past In Camera matters, ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Wing, that the City Clerk bring back the report on In-Camera Procedures to an October Council Meeting. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Kerrio, seconded by Alderman Volpatti, that the meeting be adjourned. ~. READ AND ADOPTED, R, T. (TED) SALCI, MAYOR From: Dean Iorfida To: Council Members; vak@vaxxine.com Date: 4/28/2005 11:21:25 AM Subject: In Camera procedures It has been brought to my attention by the CAO, that some Council members are questioning our In Camera Procedures. I am in the process of preparing some information for Council on these matters. Unfortunately, I am away for the May 16th meeting; however, we will schedule some time during either Community Services or Corporate Services on May 30th to discuss these matters and go over the report I will prepare. I believe there is some fine tuning that can be done for the In Camera sessions and I am confident that on the 30th we will be able to clear up some confusion, answer some questions and improve our processes. Thanks in advance for your patience on this matter. Sincerely, Dean CC: Barb Muir; Joanna Daniels; John MacDonald; Marianne Tikky; Tony Ravenda