Loading...
2005/08/08 CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA FIFTH MEETING Monday, August 8, 2005 Committee Room 2 - 5:30 p.m. Staff Contact 1. Minutes of the May 30, 2005 Meeting 2. Reports · F-2005-37 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Accounts with Ken Burden Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Assessments · F-2005-38 - Major Receivables Quarterly Report Ken Burden · F-2005-39 - New Nova House Shelter Ken Burden · Memorandum re "In Camera" Procedures Dean Iorfida 3. New Business 4. Adiournment MINUTES CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE FOURTH MEETING MONDAY, MAY 30, 2005 COMMITTEE ROOM 2 5:15 P.M. PRESENT: Acting Mayor Vince Kerrio, Aldermen Jim Diodati, Joyce Morocco, Victor Pietrangelo, Selina Volpatti and Janice Wing. ABSENT: Mayor Ted Salci, Aldermen Wayne Campbell and Carolynn Ioannoni. STAFF: John MacDonald, Tony Ravenda, Dean Iorfida, Patrick Burke, Adele Kon, Ken Burden, Todd Harrison, Joanna Daniels PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review 1. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR: MOVED by Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo, that Acting Mayor Vince Kerrio be appointed to chair the Corporate Services Committee Meeting in Alderman Campbell's absence. Motion Carried Unanimously 2. MINUTES: MOVED by Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Wing, that the minutes of the March 7, 2005, meeting be adopted as recorded. Motion Carried Unanimously 3. REPORTS: Report F-2005-'19 - Sewer Consumption Refund MOVED by Alderman Diodati, seconded by Alderman Volpatti, that any City of Niagara Falls residential property owner, whose water/sewer account consumed and paid the sewer consumption charge during the June 2000 to June 2003 period and is not currently receiving a sewer consumption rebate, be eligible to apply to the City for a one-time $65.00 refund, until June 30, 2005. Motion Carried Alderman Pietranqelo Opposed -2- Report F-2005-20 - 2005 Reimbursable Kilometrage Rate MOVED by Alderman Volpatti, seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo, That 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; and that the reimbursable kilometrage rate continue to be reviewed on an annual basis. Motion Carried Unanimously Report F-2005-21 - Niagara Transit -WSIB Refund MOVED by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that the deposit of $141,025.54 in the reserve fund for Workplace Safety and Insurance Board future obligations be approved. Motion Carried Unanimously Report F-2005-22 - Financing Lease Report MOVED byAIderman Pietrangelo, seconded byAIderman Volpatti, that the Financing Lease Report be received for information. Motion Carried Unanimously Report F-2005-24 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates MOVED by Alderman Diodati, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that June 30 and September 21 be approved as the 2005 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. Motion Carried Unanimously Report F-2005-25 - 2005 General Purposes Revenue Update MOVED by Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Diodati, that the General Purposes Revenue Update be received for information. Motion Carried Unanimously In Camera Procedures MOVED by Alderman Pietrangelo, seconded by Alderman Diodati, that the City Clerk's memorandum on In Camera Procedures be tabled to the meeting of June 13, 2005. Motion Carried Unanimously -3- 4. NEW BUSINESS MOVED by Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that an update on the Main and Ferry C.I.P. be presented at the June 13th meeting. Motion Carried Unanimously 5. ADJOURNMENT MOVED by Alderman Morocco, seconded by Alderman Diodati, that the meeting be adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Motion Carried Unanimously Corporate Services Department F-2005-37 The Cil' of .~x. Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden Y ~'J~l~ 4310 Queen Street Director Niagara Falls____. ,YJ~i~.. P 0 Box 1023 Canada .,,~'.~'Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 ~m'~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-maih kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca August 8, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-37 - Final Tax Notice Due Dates for Accounts with Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Residential Assessments RECOMMENDATION: That the final property tax bills for the Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Residential Assessment Classes have payment due dates of August 31, 2005 and October 19, 2005. That the changes made by the Province to the Education Rate for the Industrial Class, be approved. BACKGROUND: The capping calculations have now been completed under Bill 140 for the Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Residential Classes. Staff is recommending that tax bills be prepared and provided to property owners in these Classes during August with payment due dates set for August 31, 2005 and October 19, 2005. The Provincial Government is provided the responsibility for establishing the annual education rates charged property owners. In the time since the establishment of the City's 2005 property tax rates, the Province has elected to reduce education rates for properties in the Industrial class. As a result, a new by-law amending By-law 2005-92 is being presented tonight for Council's approval. Reconunended by: ~fully s~ /~~ John Mac~)onald ~ K.E. Burden ~//~O~e fMAadcmDini str ative O ffi c er Director of Finance Approved by: E' Ravenda xecutive Director of Corporate Services Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance · Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development Corporate Services Department F-2005-38 ,v~& Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden The City of 4310 Queen Street Director Niagara Fo,,s P.o. Box 4023 CQF~QdQ ~ Niagara Fails, ON L2E 6X5 ~11~/- l ~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls,on,ca August 8, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-38 - Major Receivables Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the Corporate Services Committee. BACKGROUND: The following is the quarterly report of Tax and Sundry Receivables to June 30th, 2005. 1. Tax Receivables Current Taxes 2005 2004 Percentage Collected 75% 75% Levy to Date $102,348,779. $ 96,268,919. Penalties Charged $ 398,671. 513,819. Collections $ 76,648,994. $ 72,508,597. Balance $ 26,098,456. $ 24,274,141. .Tax Arrears 2005 2004 Percentage Collected 45% 33% Opening Balance $16,815,838. $16,734,068. Penalties Charged $ 999,880. 1,126,717. Collection $ 8,043,134. $ 5,875,191. Balance $ 9,772,584. $11,985,594. Total Unpaid Taxes $ 35,871,040. $ 36,259,735. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerk's Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development August 8, 2005 -2- F-2005-38 Collection of current taxes is consistent with last year's performance. The collection of tax arrears accounts has improved significantly. Staff continues to work diligently to collect all tax accounts. 2. Other Receivables Sundry Receivables 2005 2004 Accounts Receivables $ 2,711,736. $ 2,785,489. Finance staff follows a collection procedure to ensure that accounts are collected in a timely manner. All overdue accounts are charged penalty/interest of 1-1/4% per month. Prepared by: Approved by: Lisa Antonio T. Ravenda Coordinator of Tax & Receivables Executive Director of Corporate Service Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: DKirE;ctBo;rod;~inance Division tive Officer Corporate Services Department F.2005-39 / ..... i,~a Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden ne ~.m/aT ~'J~t' 4310 Queen Street Director Niagara Falls lJk P.o. Box 1023 Canada J,~"Niagara Falls. ON L2E 6X5 .ar~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2016 E-mail: kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca August $, 2005 Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2005-39 - New Nova House Shelter RECOMMENDATION: For the consideration of Council. BACKGROUND: On July 4, 2005, Women's Place of South Niagara Inc. requested City Council to waive the building permit fees for the new Nova House Shelter capital project, as per the attached letter. Women's Place states that the Board had signed a contract with Merit Construction of Niagara to build a new women's shelter in Niagara Falls. The construction requires building permits which have been applied for through our Building Division. The construction of a women's shelter falls under the category of an institutional building and, as such, is assessed a building permit rate of $13.75 per square metre. There are also City development charges of $23.25 per square meter. The Regional development charges are exempt as per their Development Charge By-law exemption for institutional developments. The Regional Development Charge exemption saved Women's Place $32.29 per square metre. Women's Place expressed their concern that the designation was inappropriate as they were constructing a residence for their clients and believe that the designation would more aptly be a residential building. Staff has reviewed this matter within the terms of both building development and development charge classifications and do not agree with this opinion. As a result, the total amount payable of $47,198.16 is made up of the following: Building Permit (1254/m2 x $13.79/m2) ................................................... $17,292.66 City Development Charges (1254/m2 x $23.25/m2) ................................ $29,155.50 Regional Development Charges ............................................................. Exempt Service Deposit (Refundable) ............................................................. $ 750.00 $47,198.16 Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance Human Resources Information Systems Legal Planning & Development August 8, 2005 - 2 - F-2005-39 In addition, there may be sewer and plumbing permit fees which will be calculated and charged at the time of application. Council may wish to provide assistance to Women's Place in recognition of their efforts to minimize the costs to construct the new shelter. Staff advises that the City already provides an operating grant of $25,000 annually and, in 2004, Council also granted a capital contribution of $100,000 over five years. To date, $40,000 of that commitment has been paid to Women's Place. Should Council consider further assistance to Women's Place, Staff suggests that the additional grant for the fees and charges could be based on either (i) the full amount of fees and charges payable or (ii) a value to pay a portion of the fees and charges payable. With regard to the second option, Women's Place suggests that if it is not possible to waive or grant the whole of the building permit fees and charges, then they would request a change in the classification from institutional to residential. Staff recommends that no change be made to the calculation of the fees and charges payable as the construction of the new women's shelter has been properly classified as an institutional building. However, the grant would, in effect, pay the difference between institutional and residential. The building permit difference totals $7,047.48. The difference in City development charges totals $22,306.50. As the Regional development charges are already exempt, there would be no grant required. It should be noted that Regional development charges would become applicable if the designation of the application changed from institutional to residential. Sewer and plumbing fees that may become applicable would not be included in the grant application as they are unknown at this time. The total amount of grant to pay a portion of the fees and charges would be $29,353.98. Council has the authority to provide grants to community service organizations, however, there has not been a provision in the 2005 budget for an additional grant to Women's Place. Council may wish to use reserves to fund this grant. Recommended by: ~ g.~pectfully submitte~d: K. E. Burden )hn MacDonald Director of Finance {j/ Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: ~fo~T. Ravenda Executive Director of Corporate Services Womenl.s Place of South Niagara Inc · Fax: (905) 732-248~; RO. Box 1~, W~liand, ON L3~ ~4 N~ H~e Tel: (8~ 3~39~ F=: ~5 3~-~ZZ ~nl~ Tel: (9~) 732~32 F~: (~5) 73Z-Z~5 July 4, 2005 Mr. Viuce Kmvio Mr. Dean Iorfi~ Acl~g l~yor Cio/CI~ Ci~ ofN~ F~ls 4310 ~n S~ ~ 1023 Nizam F~ls, ~o ~E 6~ Dea~ Sirs: Re: Buildin~ Permit '~1. D~i~na6on- Nvw N~ Ho~ Sh~!~ ~ ~t of ~ Bo~ o~ o[Womc~'s ~ o~ ~ ~ ~., [ ~ pl~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~ of ~cil ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ a ~n~t ~ ~t ~~ of Ni~ to b~ld a ~ ~mm's s~l~ ~ Nis~ Falls. ~e ~ ~ ~hcy ~ ~ ~ ~e c~t ~ ~ ~ls is ~y a~i~ by o~ ~ff ~d cHe~. ~ ord~ m ~ ~on ~ ~e a~H~ f~ ~ ~ b~d~ ~i~ ~ ~e C~. We ~ ~ i~o~ ~ o~ ~oj~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ n Co~em~! V~. ~s ~fi~ ~ ~ in a $47,198.16 ch~ f~ &e ~ ~l~ng ~. It is ~ o~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ng a ~si~ f~ o~ client. ~, ~ n ~-~t ~y ~ s ~ ~le n~- 131135717 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~t ~ a~ a ~i~ ~. We ~ ~ ~ ~t a ~mm~i~ ~i~d~ ~d ~ a nc~ ~pli~on f~ ~ ~y in ~e ~. I ~ ~6n8 ~ ~e~ ~t ~1 ~ om Buil~g P~t f~ ~ o~ ~ P~. It ~t is ~ ~iblc ~ ~ a e~ ~ o~ ~i~si5~Qon ~ ~i~ ~ ~id~g~. ./,2005 10:50 985-732-2465 klOHEN S PLACE PAGE 03 / / Buildi~ Pormlt ~1 I~i~on- New lq'o~ Suly 4, 2005 Pag~ Two If any m~nbcr of Cotmcil has a question, please ~1 o~ Ex~five ~rc~or, Ru~ Bm~ at (~5) 735-7265, e~mion 223 or B~ Mem~r, Tom Sn~s at (~5) 71~ 2735 (~k) ~ (~5) 356~75 (h~e). ~ you in ~ec for ~id~ng at ~ o~cial ~ Ho~ in 2~. Yo~ ~ly, Bob M~r ~esi~nt Tom S~, Di~ The City of Clerk's Department Niagara Falls Inter-Departmental Memorandum Canada 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 2na in camera session and a discussion on May 30th 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. Reporting Out From Closed Meetim,s 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 W or~i~g Together t~ Serve O~tr Commu~it~ 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 staffis "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 th/s, 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. Voting During In Camera Meetinffs Unfortunately, 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 ~vhat 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 staff to 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'Connor'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 restriction has never been seen to be a ban against voting while participating in an in camera meeting." Minutes of Closed Meetings There is a line of 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 m our mumc~pahty has bee~ for the C0uncfl secretary to have a set of nunutes 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 bc included within the minutes of the overall meeting." This is currently our practice. If an in camera session occurs, it is noted at the begirming of our regular council minutes. Tindall docs 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: ~ Thc 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 Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Possible Solutions The impromptu conversation on this issue at the May Zd meeting seems to have been helpful. I noted at that time that we seem to get in trouble on matters related to directions to staffthat 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 intemal 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 3 0th. I am confident that both staffand 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 The City of Clerk's Division Dean Iorfida Niagara FoIIslJ , 4310 Queen Street City Clerk Can~~' P.O. Box t023 Niagara Fa[ts, ON L2E 5X5 ~ 1~--' web site: www. city.nlagarafalls.on.ca I The recommendation(s) I Tel.: (905) 356-7521 contained in this report were Fax: (905) 356-7404 adopted by City Council E-mall: diorfida@city,niagarafalls.on,ca June 14, 2004 His Worship 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 outlining the process for ratifying the actions from Committee of the Whole and of the legal implleations, should an action not be ratified in open Council. Carried Unanimously. Firstly, the closed door session of Council has traditionally been called Committee-of-the-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: Meettngs open to public 239. (1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public. 200I, c. 25, s. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Finance . Human Resources Information Systems Legal · Planning & Development June '14, 2004 · 2 - CD-2004-14 Exceptions ~2) A meeting or part o fa meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is, (a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board; (3) 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 potentlal litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; 60 advice that is subject to solicitor-cltent 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 [3) .d meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom o fin formation and Protection of Privacy.4ct if the council, board, commission or other body is the head ofan institution for the purposes of that Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 ($). 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 repo~s 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 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. 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 tho City is involved [n 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 of a policy position as a course of actian. 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 staffalready has the authority to take action. The items are brought forward, however, to keep Council informed and to ensure that staffis "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. CONCLUSION: As the publication l~lanning & Conducting Effective Council Meeting~ indicates there is little legislation or guidance on what should be reported out from closed meetings. Practices vary from municipality to municipality. The author, Tindal, notes that '~[hese legal issues only arise if someone challenges council' s actions ." He does caution that municipalities should report substantive motions in open meetings. Reenmmunded by: Respectfully submitted: Dean Iorfida ~ John MacDonald City Clerk ~/ Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: Executive Director of Corporate Services -ll- ~av 17, 2004 Council ]~inutes Ratification of Commlttaa of the Whole Actions ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Ioannonl, seconded by Alderman .wing, that staff provide a report outlining the process for rati~ing the actions from Committee of the Whole and of the legal implications, should an action not be ratified In open Council, Carded Unanimously. User Fees at the Coronation Centre ORDERED on the moticn of Alderman 'Wing, seconded by Alderman Ioannoni, 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, Woodland & HeHtaae Tree Conservation Following some discussion, it was ORDERED on the motion of Arderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Morocco, that staff initiate the process of developing a Woodland & Heritage Tree Conservation By-law under the Municipal Act. Carried Unanimously. Traffic Jams & Traffic Conqesflon Alderman Jim Dicdati expressed concerns with respect to the high traffic volumes at the Rainbow Bddge and of the very iow volumes of traffic at the Whirlpcol Bridge (lower bridge). ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Wing, seconded by Alderman Dtedati, that a letter be forwarded to the Federal Minister with respect to opening our side of the border. Carried Unanimously. Conrrrat~latlons Alderman Joyce Morocco extended congratulations to the participants in the recent Police Tug of War event. Alderman Joyce Morocco extended congratu{ations to Corey Laroque, reporterwith the Niagara Falls 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 A}derman Wing, seconded by Alderman Ioannoni, that Ms. Jean Grandoni be permitted to address Council with respect to the tree cutting by-law. ~;;~rrled. -19- Au~st 16. 2004 Council Minutes NEW BUSINESS Peonle Mover SvstemlProcedural By-law Alderman loannonl 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. Carried Unanimously. ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Kerr[o, seconded by Aldermen Volpatti, that the meeting be adjourned. Carried Unanimously, READ AND ADOPTED, DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK R.T. (TED) SALCI, MAYOR