Additions to Council, January 31, 2011 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011
Committee of the Whole
1. F- 2011 -06
Waste Management Services
a) Email from George Slaney
Council
1. Council Strategic Priorities
a) Email from Karen Fraser, re: Arts & Culture Committee
2. 2011 Budget Presentation
a) Copy of 2011 General Purposes Budget presentation.
Clerks Department
Inter - Department Memorandum
TO: Mayor James M. Diodati DATE: Januar 17. 2011
& Members of Council
FROM: Dean lortida
City Clerk
kxt. 4271
RE: Chair of Committee of the Whole
The issue of Chair(s) of the Committee of the Whole has not been finalized by Council. Staff has
not presumed who the Chair for the meeting on the 17` will be. Council should finalize this
decision.
I /
Working Together to Serve Our Community
F- 2011 -06
Niagaraaalls January 31, 2011
REPORT TO: Members of the Committee of the Whole
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Finance Department
SUBJECT: F- 2011 -06
Waste Management Services
RECOMMENDATION
1) - .. • -.. ::: - -. a e.
That enhanced service to multi - residential properties be reinstated; and
2) That Council provide a resolution to Regional Council that requests that the base level of
service and the cost attribution to municipalities be reviewed for 2012.
3) That staff be directed to review the methodology of funding the waste management contract
provided by the Region; and
4) The Region be urged to continue to educate the public on the benefits of recycling.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waste management is a Regional service provided to the lower tier municipalities through
an annual contract. The cost of the contract is based on a base level of service
determined by Regional Council. Originally, the base level contract for 2011 was
$6,340,130. The base level of service in this contract does not include containerized waste
pick up for larger multi residential and commercial properties. At the latest meeting of
Regional Council held January 20, 2011 the base level of service was increased for multi
residential properties to include curbside pick up to a maximum of 12 bags per property
from 6 bags for any multi residential property. This modification to the bag limit effectively
puts smaller multi residential properties ( with units of 12 or less) in the same position as
residential properties. The Regional modification to the bag limit affects approximately
25% of the properties previously receiving enhanced level of service.
The cost of providing an enhanced containerized service to multi residential properties was
originally estimated at $477,792 and is not included in the base levy. Staff feel that based
on the Regional modification, the enhanced service cost could be reduced. This however
would require that all multi residential properties with 12 units or less, be required to utilize
the curbside pick up option. The corresponding impact for these properties would be the
elimination of containerized pickup as part of the enhanced service.
The City of Niagara Falls funds its Waste Management contract with the Region annually
through a separate waste management taxation levy. This method is similar to many
municipalities in the province. Prior to the establishment of an assessment based funding
model for the annual waste management contract with the Region, the City of Niagara Falls
did use both a fee for service model and a flat fee per property system. All three systems
have inequities and have benefits. This was addressed in a report F- 2002 -64 to Council
at the time staff recommended moving to an assessment model. Staff believe that, should
Council wish to alter its funding model for waste management, that a more thorough review
of alternative funding models be conducted and that the earliest a model could be
implemented, would be for the 2012 budget year.
January 31, 2011 - 2 - F- 2011 -06
Staff believe that Council should reaffirm its position in the MW- 2011 -02 report. Staff
believe that inequities in the base level of service should be addressed at the Region.
However, should Council wish to enhance the level of service based on the revised
estimate from the Region the method of funding the enhanced service should be in a
similar manner for 2011.
BACKGROUND
At the January 17, 2011 Council meeting, Council requested that staff provide additional
information on the City's waste management contract with the Region of Niagara. In
addition, staff was requested to review the methods of funding waste management used
by other municipalities in the Region and across Ontario.
As previously reported, waste management is a service provided by the Region of Niagara.
The base level of service provided is determined by the elected officials at the Region. In
previous years' contracts the City has provided an enhanced level of service to multi
residential properties including multi resident condominium properties. The Region has a
new contract commencing with their waste management supplier commencing Feb 28,
2011. The cost of the waste management contract for 2011 for the City of Niagara Falls
is $6,375,000. This contract does not provide waste collection to multi residential
properties.
Council's responsibility in this respect to waste management is twofold.
• Firstly, Council determines the level of service that it chooses, whether the base
level or an enhanced service above the base level of service.
• Secondly, Council determines the methodology by which the waste management
contract with the Region is funded by the residents.
Options for funding include a fee for service, a fixed charge per property and a taxation
levy based on assessment. Each of these methods has been utilized since the Region has
uploaded this responsibility in 2001.
ANALYSIS /RATIONALE
In respect to the first request of Council, specifically the issue of expanding the base level
of service. At the January 20, 2011 Regional Council meeting, service to Multi Residential
Buildings (see attached PWA 09- 2011). In effect, the Region increased curbside pickup
to include one bag per unit up to a maximum of 12 containers per property. The impact of
this service change puts multi residential properties of less than 12 units in the same
position as residential property owners. The City currently has 79 apartment complexes
with 28 having 12 units or less. Similarly, there are approximately 75 condominium units
with 14 of these having less than 12 units. Based on the existing complement of building
in the City, the decision by Regional council results in a 23% reduction in affected
properties. Specifically, for multi residential and condominium properties of 12 units or
less, the Region will pick up at the curb similar to all other residential properties. However,
this will require individual unit occupants to bring the waste to the curb. As a result, the
City should receive a revised quotation for any enhanced service to residents.
Council also requested that the City provide additional information on the method of
funding the annual waste management contract. Similarly, it was requested of staff to
identify what other municipalities do in respect to waste management funding. The results
of the survey of other municipalities are included in Appendix A. In summary, most
municipalities fund its waste management expense through a tax levy based on
January 31, 2011 - 3 - F- 2011 -06
assessment. Unlike Niagara Falls which has a separate tax rate specific to waste
management, the other municipalities include as part of the general levy or Regional levy.
By its nature an assessment -based levy includes all taxable assessment thus all classes
are impacted. Thus, similar to most municipal services, there is not a direct link between
the services provided with the taxes paid. Technically, there is not way to exclude a
property with taxable assessment from a waste management levy. In 2010, the waste
management levy was budgeted for $6.7 million and collected from the tax classes as
outlined in appendix B.
As stated, during staff's survey, it was identified that some municipalities do not use a
taxation levy to find their waste management levy, instead a user fee system is provided.
Niagara -on- the -Lake is one such municipality in the Region. A standard user fee is
charged for every property that has a building located on it. In addition, an enhanced
service is provided to the businesses on Queen Street for cardboard pick up. In this
example, the cost of the enhanced services is an additional standard fee charged all of the
recipient businesses. The City of Toronto changed to a user fee model in 2008.
It should be noted that the City of Niagara Falls collected this funding in this manner in
2002. Attached is report F- 2002 -64 which Council approved for converting to assessment -
based waste management levy. This report summarizes the difficulties experienced in
2001 and 2002 under the previous funding models. The conversion to a user fee model
would need further review before any changes would be possible and staff do not believe
such a review could be done in time for 2011 taxation.
FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
As stated earlier, Council is faced with an immediate decision as to whether to restore an
enhanced level of service similar to the previous contract or restore a modified enhanced
level of service based on the Regional decision to increase bag quantities. Regional
Council's decision to increase the container /bag curbside collection to a maximum of 12
containers /bags per multi residential property should reduce the cost of the enhanced
service. At the time of writing this report the reduction of enhanced services for the
exclusion of approximately 23% of properties is not known. The City is faced with a
decision to expand the service and fund directly through the levy.
At present, the estimated contract for 2011 is $6,340,130 which is a reduction from 2010.
Based on the budget costs it is projected that all properties will have a lower waste levy,
once the tax rates are established for 2011. Also based on the previous estimated costs
of $477,792 of the enhanced service, if the service is included, all property owners will see
approximately the same level of taxation.
Staff has reaffirmed that approximately 50% of impacted properties have signed
agreements with local waste carriers in anticipation of contract change on February 28,
2011. It is not known what legal impacts will arise if Council changes its previous direction.
The City of St. Catharines provides enhanced service to residential condominium owners
only.
Similarly, if Council chooses to restore the enhanced service as previously provided or to
restore enhanced services with modifications, these additional costs will flow to the
contract cost with the Region and will be collected from the levy. Since the 2011 cost with
the enhanced service is approximately the same, the impact on property owners will result
in a similar taxation as 2010.
January 31, 2011 - 4 - F- 2011 -06
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - Summary of Other Municipalities
Appendix B - Funding Percentage of Waste Management by Property Class
Reports - PWA -09 -2011 Regional Waste Services; F- 2002 -64 Waste Management
Recommended by:
�� /� �
Todd Harr'son, Dirictor of Finance
Respectfully submitted:
Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer
TH
Waste Collection 2011
Niagara on the Lake
City of St. Catharines
Town of Grimsby
Assessment Based
FUNDING MODEL
City of Hamilton
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
Assessment Based
City of Welland
City of Windsor
WASTE REBATE
City of Guelph
Town of Fort Erie
City of London
Fee for Service
CITY /REGION
Appendix B
20 10
2010 Waste Levy Praporationate
Share
Residential $3,779,188 56.07%
Multi Residential $322,866 4.79%
Commercial $2,424,807 35.98%
Industrial $168,969 2.51%
Other $43,750 0.65%
$6,739,580 100.00%
MW- 2011 -02
Niagaraaalls
January 17, 2011
REPORT TO: Members of the Committee of the Whole
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works Department
SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -02
Regional Niagara Waste Collection Contract
Proposed Containerized Waste Collection
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council reaffirm its position that it will no longer subsidize enhanced waste
collection services to multi - residential properties.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The collection of solid waste is the responsibility of the Region of Niagara however, in the
past, the City has chosen to financially support specific enhanced services which exceed
the base levels provided across the Region. The waste collection contract expires at the
end of February 2011 and while preparing the tender for the new seven year contract the
Region requested input from the area municipalities specifying the enhanced levels of
service it wished to have provided in the new contract.
On October 19, 2009, City Council approved revisions to the base level and enhanced
level of service and notified the Region of its decision. In February of 2010, City staff
mailed a courtesy letter to affected stakeholders (including the approximately 160 owners
of high rise multi - residential properties with container collection) stating that they would
have to make arrangements for private waste collection services that were previously
provided by the Region's contractor at the City's expense. It should be noted that the new
base level of service includes recycling cart collection that was not previously provided
under the old collection contract.
City staff received correspondence from property owners and condominium management
companies identifying their displeasure with the fact that these costs would now have to
be absorbed by their tenants without any corresponding decrease in their property tax
assessment or rate. City staff directed complainants to the Region of Niagara to make their
specific case that multi - residential collection services should be incorporated into the base
level of service.
In April of 2010, Regional Council awarded the new contract which comes into effect on
March 1, 2011. The new contract does not include provisions for waste collection at multi -
residential properties. The Region's rationale for excluding this service from the base level
is founded on Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 103/94 which requires any owner of a
building that contains six or more units to implement a source separator program for waste
January 17, 2011 - MW- 2011 -02
generated at the building.
At its meeting August 30, 2010, Council requested that a letter be drafted requesting an
estimated cost from the Region's new waste collection company Emterra Environmental
for 160 multi - residential properties within the City of Niagara Falls. Staff submitted a letter
on September 20, 2010 and on October 18, 2010, the Region's Director of Waste
Management Services replied with the following;
It is estimated that the City will be charged an additional $295, 292 annually for the
disposal of this material, based on the current uniform disposal rate of $92.25 per
tonne. Breakdown as follows;
Total yearly cost $182,500 pick up of containers only.
Disposal cost $295, 292
Total Collection Costs $477, 792
Any additional lifts outside of the scheduled weekly service will be charged at
$13.00 per lift. This price is for the lift service only.
It should be noted that local waste removal companies have signed agreements with over
50% of the 160 multi - residential properties in Niagara Falls. Should Council wish to
proceed with the collection of containerized service a stand alone Request for Proposals
(RFP) would be required.
Staff is recommending that Council reaffirm its position taken in October 2009 and
eliminate the enhanced container collection service previously offered by the City to high
rise multi - residential property owners. Staff will continue to direct such inquiries to the
Region should the matter be opened for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
The justification for the revisions to the base and Enhanced Levels of Service are set out
in report MW- 2009 -55 (see attachment #1). Correspondence from SHABRI Properties
Limited (see attachment #2), Mr. George Slaney (see attachment #3), Cannon Greco (see
attachment #4) and Klein Developments (see attachment #5) point out some of the inequity
in distinguishing between individual and multi - residential properties.
ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
In this case, the local municipality is being asked to help remedy an issue that has arisen
out of the policy of the two senior tiers of government. By having the general tax base
contribute to a service that benefits only a small group can be regarded as bonussing and
should be discouraged.
Owners of multi - residential properties have received notice of this service level change and
to date over 50% have already made their own arrangements with private contractors. Any
change in this City's position at this stage could result in additional costs for those who
have already taken appropriate action. It is worth noting that hoteliers have never received
containerized waste collection for their waste tax dollars.
January 17, 2011 - MW- 2011 -02
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Waste Management is a Regional Service provided to the property owners of the city. The
contract cost of the service to the City is provided annually by the Region and this
expenditure is included in the General Purposes Budget. The base service level is
determined by the Region in consultation with the City. In previous years the City paid a
premium to the Region for an increase in the base service. This premium was included
in the annual contract price.
The funding source for this annual service contract is derived by a waste management
levy. The waste management levy is determined using the municipal taxable assessment
and the regional tax rate for waste management. The rate used for the determination of
the levy is the Regional rate adjusted for an allowance for assessment losses.
Similar to property taxes for schools, the individual tax levied for a property is not directly
related to the costs of service provided to that property. Rather, the amount paid annually
is related to the relative taxable assessment of the property compared to the all other
taxable property in the city roll.
In this circumstances if waste pickup for a property is included in the regional base level
of service the waste for that property will be provided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. MW- 2009 -55, October 19, 2009
2. Letter from Shabri Properties Limited, March 11, 2010.
3. Letter from George Slaney, May 12, 2010.
4. Letter from Cannon Greco Management Limited, July 21, 2010.
5. Letter from Klein Developments Limited, December 13, 2010
6. Other correspondence:
a) Courtesy letter to Multi- residential property owners, February 25, 2010.
b) Letter to Region (Holman - Habermebl), September 20, 2010.
c) Letter from Region (Pollock - Holman), October 18, 2010.
Recommended by:
Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works
Respectfully submitted:
Ken To VW(14A1
,Chief Administrative Officer
G. Holman
PWA 09, 2011
January 20, 2011
Nia aral Region
Re
g f g
REPORT TO: Chair and Members of Regional Council
SUBJECT: Changes to Garbage Container Limits for Multi- Residential
Buildings
RECOMMENDATION(S)
That Council approve the following recommendations:
That the weekly garbage container (bags /cans) limit for multi - residential buildings with
seven units and greater be increased to one container (bag /can) per unit up to a maximum
of twelve containers per building, for buildings that do not have front end bin garbage
collection service; and
That multi - residential buildings with seven units and greater not be permitted to place
additional garbage containers (bags /cans) out for collection during Amnesty Week; and
That the contract with Halton Recycling Ltd., d,b.a. Emterra Environmental be amended to
reflect these changes and the additional annual costs of $315 plus net HST (1.76 %) per
building for multi - residential buildings up to 20 units, and $158 plus net HST (1,76 %) per
stop per multi - residential buildings with 21 units and greater, at an estimated annual cost
of $50,000; and
That the Waste Management By -law be amended to reflect these changes
1
PWA 09, 2011
January 20, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff have received calls from building owners regarding the change in weekly garbage
container limit from 12 to 6 bags /cans for multi - residential buildings with 7 units and
greater complaining about the cost of shifting to private front end bin service.
As a result, staff are recommending that Council consider increasing the weekly 6 garbage
container limit to one per unit up to a maximum of 12 containers per building for multi -
residential buildings with 7 units and greater, at an estimated additional cost of $50,000 in
2011, for the following reasons:
• Mirrors the collection limit for single family homes (1 container per unit per week);
• Continues to provide a strong incentive to recycle;
• Less disruption in service for buildings currently using curbside service;
• Provides a curbside collection option for smaller buildings in Niagara Falls, where
enhanced containerized garbage collection is being discontinued;
• Emterra's proposed fee for the additional service is reasonable and affordable,
and can be accommodated in the 2011 operational budget target.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff have estimated that 137 multi - residential buildings with 7 to 20 units and 40 multi -
residential buildings with 21 units and greater will utilize curbside garbage collection
services. At an annual per building fee of $315 (buildings with 7 to 20 units) and $158 per
building (buildings with 21 units and greater), it is estimated that the additional annual
collection costs will be approximately $50,000, plus net HST. Additional landfill disposal
costs are estimated to be $12,000, based on the above estimated number of buildings.
Therefore, total upset costs are $62,000 (+ net HST). These costs can be accommodated
within the overall 1 4% budget target, which we project would generate a $387,000
contribution to the capital reserve. This additional service would result in an approximate
$325,000 contribution to the capital reserve.
2
PWA 09, 2011
January 20, 2011
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to increase the weekly garbage container
limit for multi - residential buildings with 7 units and greater to 12 containers. This service
change would be effective as of February 28, 2011
BACKGROUND
Currently the Region allows multi - residential buildings (7+ units) to set out up to 12
containers per week of garbage, with no tags permitted for additional containers.
Approximately 115 buildings out of a total of 577 multi - residential buildings in the Region
use the curbside service. Multi - residential buildings can also set out Blue and Grey Box
material on alternating weeks in boxes or bags
On July 30, 2009 Council approved provision of weekly Blue and Grey Cart collection
service to all multi - residential buildings as a base service, effective February 28, 2011.
On November 12, 2009, Council approved changing the garbage container limit for multi -
residential buildings with 7+ units to 6 containers per week, with no tags permitted for
additional containers, and only for buildings that do not have front end bin (i.e. bulk lift)
garbage collection service. This is effective as of February 28, 2011.
On April 22, 2010, Council decided not to implement a cart-based organics program for
multi - residential buildings with 7+ units until a full analysis of available composting capacity
was undertaken
The Region does not provide front end bin garbage collection service as a base service;
therefore, buildings that cannot meet the weekly 6 container limit must contract with private
sector vendors. The Region is mandated by the Province to provide garbage collection
services to residential buildings with up to 5 units. Ontario Regulation 103/94 states that
owners of multi- residential buildings and condominium corporations with six units and
greater are responsible for providing garbage and recycling collection services.
It should be noted that as of February 28, 2011, the Region is providing multi- residential
buildings with cart based recycling collection service as a new base service region- wide
In addition, three local municipalities pay for front end bin garbage collection to some
multi- residential buildings as an enhanced Regional service.
3
PWA 09, 2011
January 20, 2011
REPORT
The original rationale for reducing the garbage container limit from 12 to 6 containers per
week was to provide a strong incentive for multi - residential buildings to maximize the use
of recycling services, Some building owners have complained to the Region and to the
media that reducing the limit to 6 containers is unfair because:
• Rental apartments pay higher tax rates than single family and condominium
buildings and therefore should not have the current service reduced;
• Multi- residential buildings do not have the option of buying tags for extra garbage
containers;
• Multi- residential buildings do not have access to full Green Bin service which
would allow them to reduce their garbage volumes;
• Some multi - residential buildings are doing an excellent job of recycling, and feel
they are being penalized by having to contract out for garbage collection..
Options:
Staff have identified four options to address this issue:
1.. Continue with the planned 6 bag /can limit per week for eligible multi - residential
buildings with 7+ units, no tags.
2. Allow multi - residential buildings with 7+ units to set out up to 12 containers per
week, no tags (the current practice)..
3. Allow multi - residential buildings to set out 6 containers per week with no tags,
and up to 6 additional containers per week with $1 tags.
4, Allow one bag /can per unit per week up to a maximum of 12 containers per
building per week, no tags (e.g. an 8 unit building can put out 8 containers per --
week)
Staff requested Emterra to provide a supplemental price to collect up to 12 containers per
week from all eligible multi - residential buildings (Emterra's bid price was based on
collecting up to 6 containers per week)..
Emterra has proposed an additional annual fee of $315 per building (up to a maximum of
$48,500 annually) to collect one container per unit up to a maximum of 12 containers per
week from all multi - residential buildings between 7 and 20 units in size, and from 2 seniors
buildings in the Region that are greater than 20 units in size and currently meet the 12
bag /can per week limit. Emterra has proposed an additional fee of $158 per building per
year for any other buildings over 20 units that can meet the 12 container per week limit.
4
PWA 09, 2011
January 20, 2011
Staff recommend option 4 for the following reasons:
• Option 4 mirrors the collection limit for single family homes (1 bag /can per unit
per week);
• Continues to provide a strong incentive to recycle;
• Less disruption in service for buildings currently using curbside service;
• Provides a curbside collection option for smaller buildings in Niagara Falls, where
enhanced containerized garbage collection is being discontinued;
• Emterra's proposed fee for the additional service is reasonable and affordable,
and can be accommodated in the 2011 operational budget target.
Based on an approximately 137 multi - residential units between 7 and 20 units and
approximately 40 of multi - residential buildings with 21 units and greater using curbside
collection services, staff are estimating that the total annual cost of this service will be
$62,000.
Conclusion
Based on the rationale provided in this report, staff is recommending that Council consider
increasing the weekly 6 garbage container limit to one container per unit per week up to a
maximum of 12 containers per building for multi- residential buildings with 7 units and
greater.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Kennet J. Brothers, P. ng.. Mike Trojan
Commissioner of Public Works Chief Administrativ Off' er
This report was prepared by Andrew Pollock, Director, Waste Management Services in
collaboration with Catherine Habermebl, Associate Director, Collection & Diversion
Operations, and reviewed by Michael Roach, Public Works Manager of Financial
Services.
M:IMSWORD\PWCOMMITTEEISOLID WASTE\Report to Council Jan 20 2011 docx
5
Corporate Services Department F- 2002 -64
Finance Division Kenneth E. Burden
The City of 4310 Queen Street Director
Niagara Falls P.O. Box 1023
Canad� Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356 -7521 The recommendation(s) contained
Fax: (905) 356 -2016 in this report were adopted as
amended by City Council
E -mail: kburden a(�city.niagarafalls.on.ca
November 4, 2002
Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair
and Members of the Corporate Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: F- 2002 -64 - Waste Management
RECOMMENDATION:
For the direction of the Corporate Services Committee. TJ/!tT /9n/ AsSSSSMENT-
e s'Eb 7 x 'i9Tg /o Gr)ASTE
BACKGROUND: Ng rn e , f T co iM NEA1 •TE_b
F F f E ! T / ✓ E L e l T N T/ • .) 9i2 3.
For 2002, Staff is investigating a change in the method of collecting sufficient revenues for the
payment of regional waste management costs. Since the closing of the landfill in the year 2000,
the City has used both a user rate and a flat tax to collect waste management revenues.
Prior to the user fee method of 2001, waste management costs were partially funded by general
taxation and landfill fees. Also, at that time, the City was engaged in providing a waste
management credit to promote environmental accountability through re -use, recycling and
reduction of overall waste. The waste credit system was possible through the City's ownership of
the Mountain Road Landfill. All of the landfills are now owned by the Region who has
responsibility for all waste management services. These services are provided at a contracted cost.
For 2001, the user fee method attempted to only charge the City's residents and businesses who
used waste management services. The method resulted in several withdrawals of users who found
that they could receive the same level of service at a lesser charge from a private contractor. The
withdrawals caused a reduction in the City's revenues which resulted in a deficit for waste
management funding.
When Staff reported on this, City Council agreed to institute a flat tax in 2002 that would be
charged to all properties whether or not the owner of the property was using the waste management
service. The City's residents and businesses expressed their reaction to this charge, mostly through
verbal complaints to City staff. Some complaints focused on the valuation of the flat tax and its
relevance to the service received; some complaints cited clerical error in applying the appropriate
flat tax to a property; and, finally, some complaints again focused on whether or not the flat tax
could be charged for a service that was not received. Along with the response from the City's
residents and businesses, Staff also experienced a significant increase in administration to handle
the implementation of both these methods. Staff has relied heavily upon information provided by
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks • Finance • Human Resources • Information Systems • Legal • Planning & Development
November 4, 2002 - 2 - F- 2002 -64
the Region and by the assessment office. Sometimes this information has been incomplete or out
of date. This caused considerable effort to both verify the error and make corrections. Staff has
created new processes and requested software upgrades in order to facilitate the revenue methods.
Staffs experience has highlighted the need to allocate more labour, materials and contractual costs
for either system to be maintained.
As there is no opportunity for the City to promote savings through the waste credit system, and both
the public reaction and administration efforts have been significantly objectionable, Staff has
investigated a return to the assessment -based tax rate for waste management costs. The comparison
of flat tax to assessment -based tax for the year 2002 would show the following:
2002 Weighted Assessment Total: $5,953,520,951
Waste Management Cost $5,353,600
Residential Tax Rate .00089923 (.09 %)
Residential Flat Tax $161.46
Tax Rate Flat Tax
Uncapped $2,938,262 $4,078,658
Capped $2,415,338 $1,274,942
Total $5,353,600 $5,353,600
From this chart, Staff can indicate that the average residential home that has an assessment value of
$135,000 would have paid approximately $121 versus $161 flat tax. The rate per $100,000 of
commercial assessment would have been $143 versus $327 flat tax. Farmlands, whose assessments
are already reduced, would pay one - quarter of the tax rate for residential properties versus the $161
flat tax.
The assessment -based tax system does not match the taxpayer or the user to his amount of service
received. Consequently, like the flat tax, all properties, including vacant, would be responsible for
paying a tax rate for waste management services. However, the tax rate would be applied to the
amount assessed on the property which may be more or less than the flat tax or the user fee. The
administration of the assessment -based tax would be significantly less onerous on staff to maintain
complete and up -to -date property records for the specific use of a user fee or flat tax method.
Recommended by: espectfully submitted:
fy� /
K. E. Burden John MacDonald
Director of Finance Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
4 t 001
T. Ravenda Executive
Director of Corporate Services
(1/31/2011) Dean lorfida - Re: Waste Management Services Report Page 1
From: George or Dixie Slaney < ganddslaney @sympatico.ca>
To: "Dean lorfida" <diorfida @niagarafalls.ca>
CC: "Niagara Falls City Council" <council @niagarafalls.ca>
Date: 1/29/2011 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Waste Management Services Report
Dean,
It is obvious that City staff do not live in condos. No one there
understands the feeling of condo owners who are part of the residential tax
base and pay directly for waste disposal from their residence (we hope) .
We are not in the business of making a profit as are rental properties whose
occupants do not pay the tax bill directly. St. Catharines apparently
recognizes this and does have waste pick up at multi residential condos
accordingly. I do not believe that a very thorough job of review was done
and a fresh approach needs to be taken by a new set of people. I will see
you on Monday at 4:OOpm
GeorgeSlaney
Original Message
From: Dean lorfida
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:51 PM
To: peter @cannongreco.ca ; stamfordrealty @cogeco.ca ;
kleindevelopments @cogeco.net ; andrew.pollock @niagararegion.ca ;
BrianM @shabriproperties.com ; ganddslaney @sympatico.ca
Subject: Waste Management Services Report
Please find attached. Due to the size, I had to send it without some of the
attachments (last meeting's report etc.) Sorry for the delay.
Once again, the matter will be dealt with on Monday at 4:00 p.m. Feel free
to pass on to other interested stakeholders.
Dean
Dean lorfida, City Clerk
Niagara Falls
905 - 356 -7521, Ext. 4271
905 - 356 -9083 (Fax)
(1/31/2011) Dean lorfida - Re: Fwd: Term Priorities Page 1
From: Dean Iorfida
To: Carey Campbell
Date: 1/31/2011 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Term Priorities
Attachments: Council Strategic Priorities 2011- 2014.pdf
Yes, well include the correspondence but what she's asking for is already referenced in the document.
Page 21:
Promote awareness and opportunities for active living by:
* Continuing to implement the recommendations from the 2007
Strategic Plan for the Provision of Parks, Recreation, Arts, and
Culture
Page 15:
Promoting new Heritage tourism products such as the new
Niagara Falls Historical Museum and War of 1812 Bicentennial
Celebrations
Page 13:
Promoting the Niagara Falls Historical Museum and Sylvia Place
Market as catalysts for new development in the Main & Ferry area
»> Carey Campbell 1/31/2011 10:23 AM »>
Dean:
Jim asked that I request that the email below be included in tonight's council packages, as it is pertinent
to the discussion. Thank you for including it.
carey
»> <kfraser16@cogeco.ca> 1/26/2011 9:20 PM »>
Dear Member of Council,
As Chair of the Niagara Falls Arts & Culture Comm. I get to see the Arts & Culture community as a whole.
From where I
stand, I can tell that this upcoming term will be pivotal in the city of Niagara Falls. The Arts & Culture
Comm. has a
number of very strong projects planned as does many of the groups under our umbrella. The most
noteable being the
upcoming 1812 Bicentennial Celebration. I am sending you my plea to include Arts & Culture on your list
of priorities
for this next term. It would be wonderful if you could list Arts & Culture and the Bicentennial as two
separate items on
your list but since the museum and all the historical groups are under the Arts & Culture banner just
listing Arts &
Culture would be most effective.
As you know the Arts & Culture community has been building momentum but we look to city council for
the support we need
(1/31/2011) Dean lorfida - Re: Fwd: Term Priorities Page 2
to continue to make Niagara Falls a great place to live, work & grow.
Thank you for your past, present and future support.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me via email or phone at 905 357 2932.
Thank you,
Karen Fraser
Niagara Falls
City of Niagara Falls
2011 General Purposes
Budget
January 31, 2011
Budget Theme Niagara
Budget Tied to Strategic Initiatives:
a) Fiscal Sustainability
b) Affordability
c) Efficiency and Effectiveness
Fiscal Sustainability Niagara
a) Identify Core Services
b) Identify Operating Costs
c) Identify Fiscal Capital Needs
i) Existing services
ii) New services
1
Affordability Niagara palls
a) Sources of Revenue
i) Non tax
ii) Tax
Efficiency and Effectiveness Niagarafalls
- Incremental Budgets
—> Zero Based Budgets
—> Inflationary Costs Differ from CPI
—> Performance Measures Is
Niagarapa /ls
Three Budgets To Approve
• Operating or General Purposes Budget
• Utility Budget
• Capital Budget
2
Is
Niagarafvrlls
2010 General Purposes Budget Recap
• Reduced Expenditures by 1.94%
• Distinguished between Fees for Service
vs. Grants
• Attrition Program
• Capital Program Reduction
• Levy Increase
2010 Expenses by Department
Total Expense for 2010 $90.8 million
2011 Budget Process
NiagaraFens
• Election
• Strategic Initiatives for term of Council
• CAO direction to Department Heads
• Directors to identify
—> Immediate Operations needs
10 year Capital needs
• Operating expenditure budget developed
• Received submissions from Agencies,
Boards & Commissions
3
NiagaraJa /ls
2011 Budget Process cont'd
• Format change for 2011
• Reports by Expenditure and Revenue
category
• Expenditures first, then non -tax
revenues to tax levy
• Providing starting point February 14'h
Budget Summary Review �ls
9 ry Niagarafwl►s
Exp enses Non -Tax Revenues
Salaries & Wages Payment in Lieu of Taxation
Employee Benefits Grants
long Term Debt Interest Charges Licences
Long Term Debt Principal Payments Permits
Materials & Services Rents
Contract Services Service Charges
Rents & Financials User Fees
Transfers to Boards, Agencies & Concessions
Commissions Fines
Transfers to Capital Penalties & Interest
Transfers to Reserves, Reserve Investment Income
Funds Donations
Internal Transfers Sales
Other Revenue
Intemal Transfers
Transfers from Reserves, Reserve
Funds
Impact of Process Niagarapalls
• Better opportunity for review and
understanding by Council
• Focused discussions of Main Items
• Set stage for 2012 -2015 Budget Strategies
4
Strategies for 2012 -2015 Budgets NiagiafY,lh
• 2012 Budget using zero based approach
• Governance reviews of Council's Boards & Commissions
• Attrition Policy
• Rationalization of Assets (Lands & Buildings)
• User Fee Review
• Reserves Strategy
• Debt Management Plan
NiagaraJalls
In Summary
• Budget reports to commence February 14th
• Follow new format
• Ties into Council Strategic Initiatives of
financial sustainability
affordability
efficiency & effectiveness
5