city council agenda - city of guelph - city of guelph · that report 15-22 regarding an application...

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Revised

of 4 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall, 1 Carden Street

DATE Monday April 27, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.

Please turn off or place on non-audible all cell phones, PDAs, Blackberrys and pagers during the meeting.

O Canada Silent Prayer

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

PRESENTATION

a) Mayor’s Poetry Challenge: - Colleen Clack, General Manager Culture, Tourism & Community Initiatives introduction of The Honourable William C. Winegard, who will read the poem “In Flanders Fields”.

b) Dr. Rob Taylor, CEO and Mr. Bob Glass, Southwestern Ontario Regional

Group of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada presentation of award.

c) Presentation of the Duke of Edinburgh Bronze level award to Courtney Ivany.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES (Councillor Piper)

“THAT the minutes of the Council Meetings held March 9, 11, 23 and 25, 2015 and the minutes of the Closed Meeting of Council held March 25, 2015 be confirmed as

recorded and without being read.”

CONSENT REPORTS/AGENDA – ITEMS TO BE EXTRACTED The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate Council’s consideration of

the various matters and are suggested for consideration. If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation of the Consent Reports/Agenda, please identify

the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with separately. The balance of the Consent Reports/Agenda will be approved in one resolution.

Consent Reports/Agenda from: Audit Committee

Item City Presentation Delegations To be Extracted

AUD-2015.8

Internal Audit 2015 Work Plan


Adoption of balance of Audit Committee Second Consent Report - Councillor, Chair Wettstein

Closed Meeting of Council Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

C-2015.13 Citizen Appointments to the Economic Development

Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory

Committee, Heritage Guelph and River Systems Advisory Committee

C-2015.14 Citizen Appointments to the

Guelph Sports Hall of Fame Board of Directors, Guelph

Museums Advisory Committee and Wellbeing Grant Allocation Panel

Adoption of balance of the Closed Meeting of Council First Consent Report –

Corporate Services Committee

Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

CS-2105.12 2015 Property Tax Policy

Adoption of balance of Corporate Services Committee Second Consent Report -

Councillor Hofland, Chair

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee


Extracted

ID-2015.6 Community CarShare Co-

operative Parking at City-Owned Facilities

IDE-2105.8 Sign By-law Variance – 435 Stone Road West

Adoption of balance of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Third

Consent Report – Councillor Bell, Chair


Public Services Committee


Extracted

PS-2105.9

Cenotaph Policy

Adoption of balance of Public Services Committee Second Consent Report – Councillor Downer, Chair Council Consent Agenda

Item City Presentation Delegations To be Extracted

CON-2015.16

Annual Asphalt, Contract 2-1501

CON-2015.17 Proposed Demolition of 1211,

1221 and 1231 Gordon Street – Ward 6

Adoption of balance of the Council Consent Agenda – Councillor

ITEMS EXTRACTED FROM COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL REPORTS

AND COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA (Chairs to present the extracted items) Once extracted items are identified, they will be dealt with in the following order:

1) delegations (may include presentations)

2) staff presentations only 3) all others.

Reports from:

• Audit Committee – Councillor Wettstein

• Closed Meeting of Council - • Corporate Services Committee– Councillor Hofland

• Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee – Councillor Bell • Public Services Committee– Councillor Council Downer • Consent – Mayor Guthrie

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS Councillor Bell’s motion for which notice was given April 13, 2015.

1. That the matter of the gift of a little foot bridge to connect Crane Park

to Ptarmigan Trail be referred to the Public Services Committee.


2. That the Public Services Committee report back to Council in July with a

decision whether the community can proceed in August with the construction of the bridge.

BY-LAWS Resolution – Adoption of By-laws (Councillor Salisbury)

MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Please provide any announcements, to the Mayor in writing, by 12 noon on the day of the Council meeting.

NOTICE OF MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

Minutes of Guelph City Council

Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Monday March 9, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.

Attendance Council: Mayor Guthrie Councillor Hofland

Councillor B. Bell Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper

Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson Councillor A. Van Hellemond (arrived at 7:03 p.m.)

Councillor K. Wettstein (arrived at 7:03 p.m.)

Absent: Councillor P. Allt

Councillor J. Gordon

Staff: Mr. A. Horsman, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. T. Salter, General Manager, Planning Services

Mr. M. Witmer, Development and Urban Design Planner

Ms. L. Sulatycki, Senior Development Planner Mr. C. DeVriendt, Senior Development Planner

Ms. T. Agnello, Deputy City Clerk Ms. D. Black, Council Committee Coordinator

Call to Order (7:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.


There were no disclosures.

Council Consent Agenda

1. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Bell

That the March 9, 2015 Consent Agenda as identified below, be adopted:

CON-2015.9 5 Arthur Street South – Request to Lift the Holding Symbol on Zoning

for Phase 1 Lands (File: ZC1503) – Ward 1

1. That Report 15-22 regarding an application to lift the Holding symbol submitted by 5

Arthur Street Developments, 2278560 Ontario Inc., on the R.4B-15 (H) zoning of the lands municipally known as 5 Arthur Street South, and legally described as Part of Grist

Mill Lands, East side of Speed River, Plan 113 and Part Lot 76, and Lots 77, 78, 79, 80,

March 9, 2015 Guelph City Council Meeting

Page 2

81 and 82, Plan 113, (as amended), designated as Parts 11, 12 and 13, Reference Plan

61R11955, together with an easement over Part 17, 61R11955 as in Instrument No. WC212993; Guelph and Part of Grist Mill Lands, Plan 113, East of River Speed, designated as Parts 14, 15 and 16, Reference Plan 61R11955; subject to an Easement as

in Instrument No. RO682767; together with an Easement over Part 17, 61R11955 as in Instrument No. WC212993; City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and

Enterprise, dated March 9, 2015, be received. 2. That City Council authorize the CAO to execute a development agreement between the

City of Guelph and 2278560 Ontario Inc., on the terms and conditions described in Staff Report 15-22, with a form and content satisfactory to the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

3. That City Council direct that the City Solicitor register, or confirm registration of, the

executed development agreement referred to in recommendation 2, above, on title to the property municipally known as 5 Arthur Street South.

4. That City Council approve the By-law to lift the Holding symbol imposed by Bylaw

(2014)-19793, which shall take effect upon confirmation of the registration on title to the property of the development agreement referred to in recommendations 2 and 3, above,

by the City Solicitor. CON-2015.10 18 Kathleen Street – Notice of Intention to Designate Pursuant to

Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – Ward 3

1. That the Council Planning Report 15-02, dated March 9, 2015 regarding the notice of intention to designate 18 Kathleen Street pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act be received.

2. That the City Clerk be authorized to publish and serve notice of intention to designate 18

Kathleen Street pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act and as recommended by Heritage Guelph.

3. That the designation by-law be brought before City Council for approval if no objections are received within the thirty (30) day objection period.

CON-2015.11 251 Arthur Street North – Heritage Review Application (Proposed

Removal from Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties) and

Demolition Permit Application – Ward 2

1. That the Council Planning Report 15-04, regarding the recommendation to remove 251 Arthur Street North from the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties dated

March 9, 2015 be received.

2. That staff be authorized to remove all references to 251 Arthur Street North from the

Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties.

3. That the proposed demolition of one (1) detached dwelling at 251 Arthur Street North be approved.


Page 3

4. That the applicant be requested to erect protective fencing at one (1) metre from the

dripline of any existing trees on the property or on adjacent properties which can be preserved prior to commencement of demolition and maintain fencing during demolition.

5. That the applicant be requested to contact the General Manager of Solid Waste Resources, within Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise regarding options for the

salvage or recycling of all demolition materials.

CON-2015.12 41, 43 and 45 Wyndham Street South and 53 Surrey Street East –

Heritage Review Application (Proposed Removal from Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties) – Ward 1

1. That the Council Planning Report 15-05, regarding the recommendation to remove 41,

43 and 45 Wyndham Street South and 53 Surrey Street East from the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties dated March 9, 2015 be received.

2. That staff be authorized to remove all references to 41, 43 and 45 Wyndham Street South and 53 Surrey Street East from the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage

Properties. CON-2015.13 Proposed Demolition of 27 Clarke Street West – Ward 3

1. That Report 15-16 regarding the proposed demolition of one (1) single detached dwelling

at 27 Clarke Street West, legally described as Plan 205 Part Lot 39 Part Lot 40; City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated March 9, 2015, be received.

2. That the proposed demolition of one (1) detached dwelling at 27 Clarke Street West be

approved.


dripline of any existing trees on the property or on adjacent properties which may be impacted by demolition and construction activities.

4. That the applicant be requested to contact the General Manager of Solid Waste

Resources, within Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise regarding options for the


CON-2015.14 30 Norwich Street East – Heritage Review Application (Proposed Removal of Residential Coach House from Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties) and and Demolition Permit Application

– Ward 2

1. That the Council Planning Report 15-18, regarding the recommendation to remove the residential coach house (a former barn/stable) at 30 Norwich Street East from the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties dated March 9, 2015 be received.

2. That staff be authorized to remove all references to the residential coach house (a

former barn/stable) at 30 Norwich Street East from the Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties.


Page 4

3. That the proposed demolition of one (1) detached building (the residential coach house -

a former barn/stable) at the rear of 30 Norwich Street East be approved.


dripline of any existing trees on the property or on adjacent properties which can be preserved prior to commencement of demolition and maintain fencing during demolition.


Resources, within Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise regarding options for the


VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11)

VOTING AGAINST: (0) CARRIED

Planning Public Meeting

Mayor Guthrie announced that in accordance with The Planning Act, Council is now in a public meeting for the purpose of informing the public of various planning matters. The Mayor asked if there were any delegations in attendance with respect to the planning matters listed on the

agenda.

223 Suffolk Street West – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File: ZC1414) – Ward 3

Mr. Michael Witmer, Development and Urban Design Planner, advised the applicant wishes to rezone the property from its current Residential Single Detached Zone to a Residential Semi-

Detached Zone to permit semi-detached dwellings on the north side of Suffolk Street West. He noted that a consent application to sever the subject lands will be brought forward to the Committee of Adjustment and each part lot will be equal in size with frontages of 7.693 metres

with front yard setbacks consistent with the neighbourhood.

Mr. Subhash Chugh, applicant, advised they plan to demolish the building on the property and create a semi-detached dwelling and that it is an appropriate infill project. He advised a neighbour who had concernst is now supportive of the plan. He stated the garage is large

enough to accommodate a vehicle and the waste collection carts.

2. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Billings

That Report 15-21 regarding a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application (File: ZC1414) by 785412 Ontario Limited and 1773438 Ontario Inc. to permit the development of a semi-

detached dwelling on the property municipally known as 223 Suffolk Street West, and legally described as Plan 29, Part Lot 7. City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated March 9, 2015, be received.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland,

MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0)

CARRIED


Page 5

0 Lee Street – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File: ZC1501) – Ward 1

Mr. Chris DeVriendt, Senior Development Planner advised the City is initiating the Zoning By-law Amendment to comply with a 2013 Ontario Municipal Board Settlement Agreement

regarding the subdivision application at 11 Starwood Drive. The existing dwelling will be demolished and a consent application to sever the subject lands will be brought forward to the

Committee of Adjustment. The application will consolidate the subject lands with adjacent future development blocks and used to create three single detached lots with frontage on Lee Street.

Discussion ensued regarding traffic speed control measures, road maintenance and clarifying

the parkland dedication issues.

3. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That Report 15-20 regarding a City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone a portion of the former Grange Road alignment to facilitate the creation of three (3) single detached lots for

the property municipally referred to as 0 Lee Street, and legally described as Part of Grange Road and Cityview Drive, Registered Plan 53, City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated March 9, 2015 be received.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland,

MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0)

CARRIED

129 Elmira Road South and 963 to 1045 Paisley Road – Proposed Zoning By-law

Amendment (File: ZC1502) – Ward 4 Ms. Lindsay Sulatycki, Development Planner advised the purpose of the application is to permit

a home improvement retail warehouse establishment. The amount of retail space permitted is being reduced to comply with the gross floor area requirements for the West End Node so the

“Holding” provision can be removed. The applicant has received consent from the Committee of Adjustment to sever and been granted easements and a right-of-way for municipal services and mutual vehicular access and circulation.

Discussion ensued regarding loading dock access, grading, the cumulative effect of the

proposed commercial uses in the node, the internal road network and the potential effect of decreased parking on future uses. Documentation regarding parking needs at the other Lowes stores will be requested to support their parking needs assessment.

Ms. Wendy Nott, Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Ltd., Planning Consultants for Armel,

stated that the warehouse meets the function of the identified node and is permitted within the Official Plan. She addressed the gross floor area limitation and explained the application is to accommodate the warehouse size and configuration. She explained they used historical data

from their other stores to determine their reduced parking request and it applies only to the lowest portion of the site. She noted an engineering analysis revealed access from the

warehouse to Whitelaw Road is not possible and they intend to have connectivity with Costco. She advised the site plan process will address the traffic flow issues raised.


Page 6

Mr. Jeff Boyd, Lowes representative stated they have a measured growth program and believe

this site is one of a very few possible in the City. They plan to build to Leed standard but will not get certified due to the expense, and they have been Energy Star certified for seven years straight.

Council requested information be provided regarding the urban design policy at it pertains to

pedestrians, plans for realignment of Whitelaw Road by both the Township and the City, methods to address stormwater management, the internal traffic flow network, clarity of employment numbers and the correlation of the square footage and parking requirements.

Traffic was also a concern and staff were asked to address the feasibility of synchronizing the traffic lights, a possible roundabout and options for limited directional access and egress.

4. Moved by Councillor Salisbury

Seconded by Councillor Downer That Report 15-19 regarding a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application (File: ZC1502)

by Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited on behalf of Armel Corporation to permit the development of a home improvement retail warehouse establishment on the property

municipally known as 129 Elmira Road South, and legally described as Part of Lot 6, Concession 1, Division “B”, and Part of the Original Allowance Between part of Lot 4, Concession 2, Division “E” (Geographic Township of Guelph), City of Guelph, more specifically

described as Part 23, Part 24 and Part 26 of Plan 61R-20091 and to reduce the maximum permitted commercial gross floor area (GFA) on the property municipally known as 963 to 1045

Paisley, and legally described as Block 1, Plan 61M-53, excluding Part 6 of Reference Plan 61R-10459, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated March 9, 2015, be received.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11)


By-laws

5. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor MacKinnon

That By-laws Numbered (2015)-19869 to (2015)-19876, inclusive, are hereby passed.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0)

CARRIED

Adjournment (8:02 p.m.)

6. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon

Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED


Page 7

Minutes to be confirmed on April 27, 2015.

__________________________ Mayor Guthrie

__________________________

Tina Agnello, Deputy City Clerk


Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor J. Hofland

Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor B. Bell Councillor C. Billings Councillor M. Salisbury

Councillor C. Downer Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor D. Gibson Councillor J. Gordon

Councillor K. Wettstein Councillor L. Piper Regrets: Councillor P. Allt Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, Chief Administrative Officer

Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy-CAO, Corporate Services Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy-CAO, Public Services Mr. A. Horsman, Deputy-CAO, Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Ms. K. Dedman, General Manager, Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services Mr. R. Reynen, Manager, Inspection Services Ms. T. Agnello, Deputy City Clerk Mr. D. McMahon, Council Committee Coordinator

Open Meeting (6:02 p.m.) Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.


There were no disclosures. 2015 Operating Budget Delegations

Ms. Randalin Ellery spoke in favour of developing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund policy that would guarantee annual contributions of $500,000. Ms. Barb McPhee recommended that Council allocate funding for the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund in the proposed 2015 budget. Ms. Sarah Haanstra, co-chair of the Poverty Elimination Task Force, recommended that Council maintain current Guelph Transit service levels and user fees while adding funding for the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Ms. Jane Londerville, speaking on behalf of the Wellington-Guelph Housing Committee, spoke in support of including $500,000 in the budget annually for the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Mr. Vince Hanson, a member of the Heritage Speed River Working Group, presented information regarding the use of Niska Road and recommended that $250,000 in funding for the Niska Bridge project be removed from the 2015 budget.


Page 2

Ms. Susan Ratcliffe wan not in favour of the reconstruction of the Niska Bridge. She suggested that the Niska Bridge should be designated as a heritage site. Ms. Nicole Abouhalka spoke in favour of maintaining the current Niska Bridge. Mr. Bhaju Talmot read a statement, on behalf of Ms. Sandy Nichols, in favour of removing the Niska Bridge project from the proposed 2015 budget while adding additional traffic control officers, red light cameras, stop signs and other traffic calming measures as a means of slowing down traffic on Niska Road. Mr. John Hart suggested the existing Niska Bridge be repaired. Mr. Hart presented information on the cost of repairing versus replacing the current bridge. Mr. John Gruzleski, President of the Old University Neighbourhood Residents Association (OUNRA), spoke in favour of adding an additional Zoning Inspector and implementing a communication and education plan related to shared rental housing. Mr. Allan Dyer concurred with John Gruzleski. Ms. Kathryn Hofer, Manager of Off-Campus Living at the University of Guelph and Co-Chair of Guelph’s Town and Gown committee, echoed Mr. Dyer and Mr. Gruzleski’s suggestion that the shared rental housing inspector and communication plan be approved. Mr. Lars Sterne, President of the Waterloo Regional Apartment Management Association, spoke in support of adding the inspector staff and maintaining the communication plan related to shared rental housing. Mr. Sterne also suggested that property taxes for rental apartment buildings be lowered to align with basic residential rates. Ms. Elizabeth Smith gave a presentation in support of funding a communication and education plan for shared rental housing. Ms. Yvette Tendick, President of the Guelph Coalition for Active Transportation, gave a spoke in support of returning $300,000 for active transportation, and adding an additional $300,000, to the 2015 budget. Mr. Kithio Mwanzia, President and CEO of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce, discussed the businesses environment in Guelph and the need to develop a strong and responsive transit system and all day two-way GO Transit service. Mr. Mwanzia also suggested that City of Guelph budget actuals should be released publicly and that the cost of doing business in Guelph be examined. Mr. Bill Gardner presented in favour of keeping sidewalk snow plowing in the proposed 2015 budget. Ms. Oxanna Adams spoke in favour of a budget that addresses the total level of taxation as well as the services provided to citizens. Ms. Adams suggested added funding for a new downtown library and south end recreation centre in the 2015 budget.


Page 3

Mr. Allan Boynton recommended that variances which increase the size of driveways be permitted to reduce on street parking and that a parking strategy to reduce the amount of on-street parking be considered. Council recessed at 8:00 pm and reconvened at 8:10 pm. Mr. Ted Pritchard argued that condo owners should not pay taxes to fund a solid waste system that does not provide services to them. Mr. Pritchard encouraged Council to hire private contractors to collect garbage at condominiums or internally implement the recommendations of the Solid Waste Master Plan and limit tax increases to inflation. Ms. Carolyn Lentz, on behalf of Fair Tax Campaign Guelph, spoke in favour of providing solid waste services to condo owners as a matter of fairness. In addition, Ms. Lentz pointed out that the current policy increases the amount of recycling and organic waste that goes to land fill. Mr. Ken Jeffrey, President of Condo Corporation 42 – Riverridge Condominiums, spoke in support of providing solid waste collection at condominiums across Guelph. In addition, Mr. Jeffrey spoke about the need to ensure that condo owners receive the same level of service as other residential home owners. Ms. Maggie Laidlaw suggested that many residents are not opposed to tax increases to fund services that provide value and do not support lower taxes if they affect services. Mr. Keith Poore spoke in favour of maintaining Guelph Transit service at current levels to ensure those going to religious services arrive on time and those without access to cars can move around the City on Sundays. Mr. Jason Dodge was not present. Ms. Susan Watson suggested that it was unethical to cut services that affect low-income or vulnerable residents. Ms. Watson suggested low gas prices, low unemployment and the cost of household food thrown out annually indicate that now is a good time to raise taxes and deliver stronger services. She also suggested that tax deferral program be reviewed and updated. Mr. Reid Gilmore presented to Council regarding the need to control taxes and suggested that reducing capital costs to fund operating budgets was risky. Ms. Laura Murr spoke regarding the monitoring and clean-up for contaminated or potentially contaminated sites. In addition, Ms. Murr suggested the plan for the Niska Bridge was completed too quickly and its funding should be reallocated to the Hanlon Creek Conservation Area. Mr. Alexandre Cote was in favour of maintaining Guelph Transit service levels so those who work on Sundays and holidays have an affordable means of travelling to and from work. Mr. Cote encouraged Council to reallocate funding for FTEs to maintaining or increasing Sunday and holiday bus service. Mr. Steven Petric spoke against the reduction of Guelph Transit service levels, suggesting this service is especially important for children, low income people and those without cars. In addition Mr. Petric suggested that a five year Transit Master Plan should be developed to improve service levels across the City.


Page 4

Staff indicated they would forward the following to Council:

• Detailed information on the proposed Niska Bridge project and funding.

• Background information on the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.

Council identified the following motion intentions for the 2015 budget moving forward:

• to adjust the proposed user fee increases.

• consideration of solid waste services to condominiums.

• an efficiency target.


3. Moved by Councillor Hofland

Seconded by Councillor Gibson



__________________________ Mayor Guthrie

__________________________ Tina Agnello – Deputy City Clerk


Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Monday March 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.

Attendance Council: Mayor Guthrie Councillor Gordon

Councillor P. Allt Councillor Hofland Councillor B. Bell Councillor MacKinnon

Councillor C. Billings Councillor Piper Councillor C. Downer Councillor Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson Councillor K. Wettstein

Absent: Councillor Van Hellemond

Staff: Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO, Corporate Services

Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO, Public Services

Mr. A. Horsman, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Ms. J. Sweeney, Council Committee Coordinator


Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.


There were no disclosures.

Presentation

Mr. Blair Labelle, General Manager, Technology & Innovation provided a brief history of Open Guelph Online Hackathon. He outlined the 3 winning entries and presented certificates to the

following: • 1st Place – “Adopt-a-Bus Stop” – Team Midnight Illusions Ltd.: Jason Bavington, James

Buckley and Victor Janjic • 2nd Place – “Green Guelph” – Team AlphaDelta: Abdulrahman Abdulghafar and Andrew

Warkentin

• 3rd Place – “Waste Sorter” – Team Waste Nots: Adam Doan, Craig Hyatt and Randy Oldham

Confirmation of Minutes

1. Moved by Councillor Gordon Seconded by Councillor Hofland

1. That the minutes of the Council Meetings held February 9, 10, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26 and

March 5, 2015 and the minutes of the Closed Meetings of Council held February 9,

23, 25 and March 2, and 5, 2015 be confirmed as recorded and without being read.


Page 2

2. That the minutes of Council meeting as the Shareholder of Guelph Junction Railway held February 18, 2015 be confirmed as recorded and without being read.”

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (12)


Consent Reports

Corporate Services Committee First Consent Report

Councillor Hofland presented the Corporate Services Committee First Consent Report.

2. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

That the March 23, 2015 Corporate Services Committee First Consent Report as

identified below, be adopted:

CS-2015.6 Delegation of “Head” under the Municipal Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act

1. That in accordance with section 3 and subsection 49(1) of the Municipal Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Act R.S.O., 1990, M.56, as amended under (“MFIPPA), Council delegates all of its powers and duties as “head” under MFIPPA to

the City Clerk. 2. That the Delegation of Authority By-law (2013)-19596 be amended by adding

Schedule “CC” to designate the City Clerk as the “Head” for the purposes of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as attached as

Schedule 1 to the “Delegation of “Head” Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act report dated March 2, 2015.



Governance Committee First Consent Report

Mayor Guthrie presented the Governance Committee First Consent Report. 3. Moved by Councillor Downer

Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

That the March 23, 2015 Governance Committee First Consent Report as identified below, be adopted:


Page 3

GOV-2015.1 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner

1. That the report of the Integrity Commissioner dated March 3, 2015 be received.

2. That the Code be amended by the addition of the following clause after the section entitled Improper Use of Influence:

“Members should not advocate on behalf of any person at a hearing of an adjudicative board (as listed on the City’s web site) and should not contact any

member of such a board regarding any application before it.”

GOV-2015.2 Internal Audit Reporting Structure

1. That internal audits will be reported through to the Audit Committee. 2. That management continue to refine the processes and terms for functional and

administrative reporting by the internal audit function and report back on any recommended amendments to the Internal Audit Charter, in 2015, to the

Governance Committee. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,

Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (12) VOTING AGAINST: (0)

CARRIED

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Second Consent Report

Councillor Bell presented the Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Second Consent Report.

4. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That the March 23, 2015 Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Second Consent Report as identified below, be adopted:

IDE-2015.4 2014 Annual and Summary Water Services Report (Compliance)

1. That Guelph City Council receives and endorses the 2014 Annual and Summary

Water Services Report (compliance).

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,


CARRIED

Public Services Committee Second Consent Report

Councillor Downer presented the Public Services Committee Second Consent Report.


Page 4

5. Moved by Councillor Downer

Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the March 23, 2015 Public Services Committee Second Consent Report as identified

below, be adopted:

PS-2015.4 Highways within the City of Guelph’s Jurisdiction Located Outside City Limits

1. That the Public Services Committee Report PS-15-11 “Highways within the City of Guelph’s Jurisdiction outside City Limits”, dated March 2, 2015, be received.

2. That staff be directed to create a Bylaw for Council’s approval to authorize

enforcement of City Bylaws on Highways within the City of Guelph’s jurisdiction located outside of City Limits pursuant to Public Services Committee Report PS-15-11 dated March 2, 2015.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,


CARRIED

Special Resolutions Councillor Bell’s motion for which notice was given January 21, 2015.

Delegation

Mr. Joshua Persi, on behalf of Our Horizon, spoke in support of West Vancouver’s resolution regarding signage on gas pumps being referred to the Infrastructure, Development &

Enterprise Committee. He advised that the idea has received over 100 endorsements and would help to bridge the gap between cause and effect. He suggested that responsibility for

climate change is shared by everyone and would place responsibility in the users hands. 6. Moved by Councillor Bell

Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That support from the City of Guelph of West Vancouver's recently passed resolution regarding "Gas Pump Labeling" be referred to the IDE committee for consideration.

West Vancouver Resolution: THAT Council support the following resolution be advanced for consideration at the

September 21/25, 2015 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) conference and the 2016 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) convention;

WHEREAS there is evidence that combustion of petroleum products such as gas and diesel in vehicle engines contributes to greenhouse gas emissions that affect natural

systems in ways that are injurious to human health and the environment;


Page 5

AND WHEREAS point-of-sale warning labels have been required for other

consumables, such as tobacco products, which has effectively curbed use of harmful products;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all vendors of retail petroleum products in Canada be legislated to provide warning labels on all pump handles (pump talkers) and/or

pump panels, and that those companies who do not have this feature on their pump handle be obligated to fit them with the plastic sleeves which will allow warning labels to be displayed.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland,

MacKinnon, Piper and Salisbury (10) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Downer and Wettstein (2)

CARRIED Councillor Piper’s notice for which notice was given February 23, 2015.

7. Moved by Councillor Piper

Seconded by Councillor Downer

That the matter of suspending On-Street Parking Policy (#03-003) in order to implement

an on-street parking review on Essex Street, between Waterloo and Dublin Streets, be referred to the Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise committee.



By-laws

8. Moved by Councillor Hofland

Seconded by Councillor Gordon

That By-laws Numbered (2015)-19877 to (2014)-19880, inclusive, and By-law Number

(2015)-19883 are hereby passed.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (12) VOTING AGAINST: (0)

CARRIED


9. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED


Page 6


__________________________ Mayor Guthrie

__________________________ City Clerk

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on

Wednesday March 25, 2015 at 5:05 p.m.

Attendance Council: Mayor Guthrie Councillor Hofland

Councillor P. Allt Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor B. Bell Councillor L. Piper (arrived 5:10) Councillor C. Billings Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor C. Downer Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor D. Gibson Councillor K. Wettstein Councillor J. Gordon

Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, Chief Administrative Officer

Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO, Corporate Services Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO, Public Services Mr. A. Horsman, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk Ms. J. Sweeney, Council Committee Coordinator


Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order. Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council 1. Moved by Councillor Allt

Seconded by Councillor Bell That the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to Section 239 (2) (d) of the Municipal Act with respect to labour relations or employee negotiations.

CARRIED

Closed Meeting (5:06 p.m.) Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no disclosures. The following matters were considered: C.2015.12 Labour Relations or Employee Negotiations Rise from Closed Meeting (5:45 p.m.)


Page 2

Council recessed.

Open Meeting (6 :00 p.m.) 2015 Tax Supported Operating and Capital Budgets Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no disclosures. Capital Budget

1. Moved by Councillor Wettstein

Seconded by Councillor Downer

1. That the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget in the gross amount of $50,867,900 be approved.

2. That the 2016 – 2017 Tax Supported Capital Forecast in the gross amount of

$90,566,000 be received for information.

Amendments

2. Moved by Councillor Billilngs Seconded by Councillor Bell

That $150,000 for the design phase of the Niska Bridge, be removed from the 2015 Capital Budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, Salisbury, Van Hellemond (5)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper and Wettstein (8)

DEFEATED

3. Moved by Councillor Salisbury Seconded by Councillor Bell

That $600,000 be allocated in the 2015 Capital Budget for active transportation funding for Woodlawn Road multi-use transportation corridor (RD0321).

Amendment to the Amendment

4. Moved by Councillor Gibson

Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

That the active transportation funding for Woodlawn Road multi-use transportation corridor (RD0321) be funded in the amount of $300,000.


Page 3

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon, and Wettstein (5) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury and Van Hellemond (8)

DEFEATED

Main Amendment

5. Moved by Councillor Salisbury Seconded by Councillor Bell

That $600,000 be allocated in the 2015 Capital Budget for active transportation funding for Woodlawn Road multi-use transportation corridor (RD0321).

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,

Hofland, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Billings and MacKinnon (2)

CARRIED

6. Moved by Councillor Gordon Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That $250,000 be added to the library reserves, in the 2015 Capital Budget, to demonstrate Council’s commitment to a new downtown main library.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Gordon, Hofland, Piper and Salisbury (5) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, MacKinnon,

Van Hellemond and Wettstein (8) DEFEATED

7. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That IT0016, Desktop Replacement be funded in the amount of $381,300 for 2105.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon and

Van Hellemond (6) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (7)

DEFEATED 8. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That the City Hall Ice Resurfacer (GG0241) in the amount of $90,000 be deleted from the 2015 Capital Budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Gibson, Piper and Salisbury (5)


Page 4

VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Billings, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Van

Hellemond and Wettstein (8) DEFEATED

9. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Bell

That $200,000 be allocated to the 2015 Capital Budget for the York Road Environmental Assessment.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson,

Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors (0)

CARRIED 10. Moved by Councillor Salisbury Seconded by Councillor Billings

That $25,000 be removed from the 2015 Capital Budget for signage at the West End Recreation Centre (RF0070 and RF0071).

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13)

VOTING AGAINST: Councillors (0) CARRIED

11. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That school speed zone reductions be funded in the amount of $43,000 in 2015. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillor Bell (1) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,

Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12) DEFEATED

12. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Billings

That an allocation of $85,000 be included for traffic management initiatives in 2015.



CARRIED 13. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Gibson


Page 5

That $1 million be allocated to the storm water budget for Elizabeth and Stevenson Streets.


14. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Bell

That reference to Elizabeth and Stevenson Streets be deleted. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Downer, Gibson, MacKinnon,

Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (9) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Billings, Gordon and Hofland (4)

CARRIED

Amendment as Amended 15. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That $1 million be allocated to the storm water budget. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillor Bell (1)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12)

DEFEATED Capital Budget Main Motion as Amended 16. Moved by Councillor Wettstein Seconded by Councillor Downer

1. That the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget in the gross amount of $51,727,900 be approved.

2. That the 2016 – 2017 Tax Supported Capital Forecast in the gross amount of

$90,566,000 be received for information. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Billings (1)

CARRIED Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and resumed at 8:46 p.m. User Fees, Downtown Guelph Business Association and Reserves Main Motion 17. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond


Page 6

1. That all Committee of Adjustment fees be included in the 2015 City of Guelph User

Fees By-law and that By-law (2004)-17330 being a by-law to amend By-law (2003)-17045 to update fees for the processing of Development Applications pursuant to the Planning Act, be amended by deleting all reference to Committee of Adjustment Fees.

2. That the proposed increases to user fees as amended (Tab 30) incorporated in the

2015 budget be approved. 3. That the 2015 Downtown Guelph Business Association budget with gross

expenditures of $491,075 be approved. 4. That the proposed transfers to/from reserves and reserve funds (Appendix 1)

incorporated in the 2015 budget be approved.

Amendments

18. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Gordon

That $250,000 be allocated to the Affordable Housing Reserve in the 2105 Operating Budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, Piper and Salisbury (8)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, MacKinnon, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (5)

CARRIED 19. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Gordon

That an additional $250,000 be allocated to the Affordable Housing Reserve for 2015.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Bell and Gordon (3) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland,

MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (10) DEFEATED

20. Moved by Councillor Wettstein Seconded by Councillor MacKinnon

That $150,000 be transferred from the Gapping Reserve to the 2015 Operating Budget to contribute to the re-organization costs in 2015.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gordon,

Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Gibson (1)

CARRIED


Page 7

21. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor MacKinnon

That $1 million be allocated to the Rate Stabilization Reserve. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Bell, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper and Salisbury (7)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Downer, Gibson, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (6)

CARRIED 22. Moved by Councillor Wettstein Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the contribution to the Capital Tax Reserve in relation to the Urbacon repayment be reduced to $500,000.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Downer, Gibson, MacKinnon, Piper, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (8)

VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Bell, Gordon, Hofland and Salisbury (5) CARRIED

Main Motion as Amended - User Fees, Downtown Guelph Business Association and Reserves 23. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

1. That all Committee of Adjustment fees be included in the 2015 City of Guelph User Fees By-law and that By-law (2004)-17330 being a by-law to amend By-law (2003)-17045 to update fees for the processing of Development Applications pursuant to the Planning Act, be amended by deleting all reference to Committee of Adjustment Fees.

2. That the proposed increases to user fees as amended (Tab 30) incorporated in the

2015 budget be approved. 3. That the 2015 Downtown Guelph Business Association budget with gross

expenditures of $491,075 be approved. 4. That the proposed transfers to/from reserves and reserve funds (Appendix 1)

incorporated in the 2015 budget be approved, as amended. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon,

Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors (0)

CARRIED Operating Budget


Page 8

Main Motion 24. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

That the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget with a net levy and payment in lieu of taxes requirement of $206,303,226 or 3.05% above the 2014 tax levy and payment in lieu of taxes be approved.

Amendments

25. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the Fire Prevention Officer be funded in the amount of $68,850, being a 50% reduction for 2015.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson and Van Hellemond (5) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper,

Salisbury and Wettstein (8) DEFEATED

26. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That the 3 Paramedics in the amount of $271,200 and the Supervisory Backfill – EMS in the amount of $56,700, be deleted from the 2015 operating budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson and Van Hellemond (4)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (9)

DEFEATED 27. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Bell

That the following positions be deleted from the operating budget: Manager – Corporate Asset Management in the amount of $139,500 Asset Management Analyst in the amount of $106,700.



CARRIED 28. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Wettstein


Page 9

That the Downtown Guelph Façade Improvement Grants in the amount of $130,000,be removed from the 2015 budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie and Councillor MacKinnon (2)

VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11)

DEFEATED 29. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Gordon 1. That the Council referral from July 28, 2014 to reduce the duration of the winter

overnight on-street parking restrictions from six months to four months (December 1st through March 31st), be approved to start March 31, 2015.

2. That $160,000 be allocated to the 2015 operating budget to offset the anticipated

lost parking fine revenues associated with this policy change.


30. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

That $160,000 be amended to $100,000. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gordon,

Hofland, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (9) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon and Van Hellemond (4)

CARRIED

Amendment as Amended

31. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Gordon 1. That the Council referral from July 28, 2014 to reduce the duration of the winter

overnight on-street parking restrictions from six months to four months (December 1st through March 31st), be approved to start March 31, 2015.

2. That $100,000 be allocated to the 2015 operating budget to offset the anticipated

lost parking fine revenues associated with this policy change.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gordon, Hofland,

MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury and Wettstein (10) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Billings, Gibson and Van Hellemond (3)

CARRIED

32. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That as per the Procedural By-law Council continue beyond 11 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.


Page 10

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors (0)

CARRIED 33. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

That $327,500 be allocated to the Transit budget in the 2015 Operating Budget for Sunday and statutory holiday bus service.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper,

Salisbury and Van Hellemond (8) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson and Wettstein (5)

CARRIED 34. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That the Guelph Public Library be funded in 2015 at the 2014 approved budget of $8,209,620 and that the requested increase of $164,215 be deleted from the 2015 operating budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, MacKinnon (4) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury,


35. Moved by Councillor Salisbury Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That $50,000 be allocated in the 2015 Operating Budget to fund the Dragon’s Den staff initiative.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Gordon, Hofland and Salisbury (4)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, MacKinnon, Piper and Wettstein (8) Councillor Van Hellemond was not in the Council Chambers when the vote was taken.

DEFEATED 36. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Gordon

That the paramedic bicycle patrol in the amount of $17,300 be funded in the 2015 operating budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Gordon, Hofland and Salisbury (4)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, MacKinnon, Piper and Wettstein (8) Councillor Van Hellemond was not in the Council Chambers when the vote was taken.


Page 11

DEFEATED 37. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That $50,000 be allocated in the 2015 operating budget to fund the Guelph Innovation District – Strategic Business Development Framework.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury and

Wettstein (7) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon and Van

Hellemond (6) CARRIED

38. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Downer

That $125,900 be allocated in the 2015 operating budget to fund the Urban Forestry Technologist.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury, (6)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (7)

DEFEATED 39. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Allt

That $47,800 be allocated in the 2015 operating budget to fund the Records and Information Specialist.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Hofland, Piper and Salisbury (5) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, Gordon, MacKinnon,


40. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Wettstein That the Communication and Education Plan – shared rental housing be funded in the 2015 operating budget in the amount of $15,000. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury, Van

Hellemond and Wettstein (8) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson and MacKinnon (5)

CARRIED 41. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Piper

That the Zoning Inspector I be funded in the amount of $124,400.


Page 12

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper and Salisbury (6) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (7)

DEFEATED 42. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Gibson That the Procedural By-law be suspended to allow Council to continue. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13)


Council recessed at 11:54 p.m. and resumed at 12 midnight. 43. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Salsibury

That the Arborist position be funded in the amount of $139,600. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury and Van Hellemond (7) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Gibson, MacKinnon and

Wettstein (6) CARRIED

44. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Allt

That the Assistant to the Committee of Adjustment Secretary-Treasurer be funded in the amount of $23,100.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Billings, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury,

Van Hellemond and Wettstein (9) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Gibson and MacKinnon (4)

CARRIED 45. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

That staff be directed to arrange, through the Corporate Services Committee, a post budget debrief session for Council.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13)



Page 13

46. Moved by Councillor Wettstein Seconded by Councillor Piper

That $350,000 be moved from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the 2015 Operating Budget.


47. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

That $350,000 be replaced with $500,000. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Downer, Gibson, Hofland, Piper, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (8) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Allt, Bell, Gordon, MacKinnon, and Salisbury (5)

CARRIED

Amendment as Amended

48. Moved by Councillor Wettstein Seconded by Councillor Piper

That $500,000 be moved from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the 2015 Operating Budget.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12)

VOTING AGAINST: Councillors MacKinnon (1) CARRIED

Special Resolution 49. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That Non-Union compensation adjustments in the amount of $533,000 be approved for 2015 to maintain the non-union salaries within the Council approved Non-Union Compensation policy.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (12)

VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie (1) CARRIED

Main Motion as Amended – Operating Budget 50. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt


Page 14

That the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget with a net levy and payment in lieu of taxes requirement of $207,297,226 or 3.55% above the 2014 tax levy and payment in lieu of taxes be approved.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt, Bell, Downer, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper,

Salisbury and Wettstein (9) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Billings, Gibson and Van Hellemond (4)

CARRIED By-laws 51. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Piper

THAT By-law Numbers (2015)-19881 to (2015)-19882, inclusive, are hereby passed.. VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (13) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors (0)

CARRIED Adjournment (12:46 a.m.)

52. Moved by Councillor Allt

Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond



__________________________ Mayor Guthrie

__________________________ City Clerk

CONSENT REPORT OF THE

AUDIT COMMITTEE

April 27, 2015

His Worship the Mayor and

Councillors of the City of Guelph.

Your Audit Committee beg leave to present their SECOND CONSENT

REPORT as recommended at its meeting of April 8, 2015.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please

identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with

immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Audit

Committee will be approved in one resolution.

AUD-2015.8 Internal Audit 2015 Work Plan

1. That the recommendations in report “CAO-A-1504, Internal Audit – 2015 Work Plan”, be approved.

2. That staff explore the feasibility of amending the 2015 Internal Audit Work Plan to include the Corporate Energy Program audit and report back to the Audit Committee on the ability to carry out this audit.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Councillor Karl Wettstein, Chair Audit Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the April 8, 2015 Corporate Services Committee meeting.

STAFF REPORT

PAGE 1

TO Audit Committee SERVICE AREA CAO - Administration DATE April 8, 2015 SUBJECT Internal Audit – 2015 Work Plan REPORT NUMBER CAO-A-1504

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To recommend the 2015 Internal Audit Work Plan for the Committee’s approval, as required by the Internal Audit Charter. KEY FINDINGS The number of audits will be increased this year with additional staff support from the Business Performance Specialist. We are proposing 86 weeks of audit work including five (5) follow-up audits, three (3) operational and value-for-money audits. The audit schedule has been developed giving consideration to the complexity of the audits, historical requirements for consulting and risk management support to the organization. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A ACTION REQUIRED Audit Committee to approve the Internal Audit Work Plan presented in report CAO-A-1402.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the recommendations in report “CAO-A-1504, Internal Audit – 2015 Work Plan be approved.

BACKGROUND The Internal Auditor is required annually to submit a proposed work plan to the Audit Committee for approval.

STAFF REPORT

PAGE 2

REPORT The work plan being recommended has been developed using a combination of criteria including:

The approved “Auditable Entities” and risk-based rating criteria Required “Due Diligence” Requests from management Internal Auditor’s recommendations

The audit schedule has been developed giving consideration to the complexity of the audits, historical requirements for consulting and risk management support to the organization.

The Executive Team has been consulted for input and fully supports the proposed plan. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 1.3 Organizational Excellence – Build robust systems, structures and frameworks aligned to strategy.

2.3 Innovation in Local Government – Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION The Executive Team was consulted in the development of these recommendations.

COMMUNICATIONS N/A ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Internal Audit Work Plan 2015 Report Author: Katherine Gray, Business Performance Specialist __________________________ Report Recommended and Approved by Loretta Alonzo Internal Auditor 519-822-1260, ext. 2243 [email protected]

PROPOSED INTERNAL AUDIT WORK PLAN

AUDIT TYPE SCHEDULE COMMENTS

CARRY OVER FROM 2014Purchase Cards Compliance Q1 - 4 wks. Started Nov 2014, completed Jan 2015

FOLLOW-UP AUDITSOvertime Q4 - 8 wks. Required by I.I.A. standards. Service Guelph Q3 - 2 wks. External Consulting Q3 - 4 wks. Learning & Development Q4 - 4 wks. Print Shop Q4 - 1 wk.

PROPOSED NEW AUDITSSolid Waste Operational,

Comprehensive Q1 - Q2 18 wks.

Fleet – Operations (Mechanics, Scheduling, Life-Cycle Management)

Operational Q2 - Q3 13 wks.

Library Operational, Comprehensive

Q3 - Q4 16 wks.

Capacity dependant

Cash Handling – Corporate wide Controls, Compliance

Q3 - 4 wks.

Approximate # of weeks (Audit) 74

E.R.M. RISK MANAGEMENT 4

ALLOWANCE FOR ADHOC 8 Based on 2 year averages

TOTAL FOR ALL PROPOSED APPROX. 86

Appendix A: CAO-A-1504 2015 Internal Audit Work Plan

CONSENT REPORT OF

CLOSED MEETING OF COUNCIL

April 27, 2015

His Worship the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Guelph.

Your Council as Committee of the Whole beg leave to present their FIRST

CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of April 27, 2015.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify

the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Council in Closed Meeting will be

approved in one resolution.

C-2015.13 Citizen Appointment to the Economic Development Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Committee, Heritage Guelph and River Systems Advisory Committee

Economic Development Advisory Committee

1. That __________ be appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for a term ending November 30, 2016 or until such time as

successors are appointed. Environmental Advisory Committee

2. That __________ and __________ be appointed to the Environmental Advisory Committee for a term ending November 30, 2016 or until such

time as successors are appointed. Heritage Guelph

3. That ___________ be appointed to Heritage Guelph for a term ending November 30, 2016 or until such time as successors are appointed.

River Systems Advisory Committee 4. That __________ and _________ be appointed to the River Systems

Advisory Committee for a term ending November 30, 2016 or until such time as a successor is appointed.

C-2015.14 Citizen Appointment to the Guelph Sports Hall of Fame Board of Directors, Guelph Museums Advisory Committee and Wellbeing Grant Allocation Panel

Guelph Sports Hall of Fame Board of Directors

1. That ___________ and ___________ be appointed to the Guelph Sports Hall of Fame Board of Directors for a term ending November 30, 2018 or

until such time as successors are appointed. Guelph Museums Advisory Committee

2. That ___________ and __________ be appointed to the Guelph Museums Advisory Committee for a term ending November 30, 2016 or until such a

time as successors are appointed.

April 27, 2015

First Consent Report of Closed Meeting of Council

Wellbeing Grant Allocation Panel 3. That ________, _________, __________ and ___________ be appointed to

the Wellbeing Grant Allocation Panel for a term ending November 30, 2015 or until such time as successors are appointed.



CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE April 27, 2015


Your Corporate Services Committee beg leave to present their SECOND CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of April 7, 2015.



immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Corporate

Services Committee will be approved in one resolution.

C-2015.12 2015 Property Tax Policy

1. That the 2015 City of Guelph Property Tax Policies as set out in Schedule 1 be approved.

2. That the following tax policies be incorporated into the tax ratio, tax rate, and capping by-laws and submitted to Council on April 27, 2015:

a) That the multi-residential ratio be reduced from 2.0819 to 2.0399;

b) That the industrial tax ratio be reduced from 2.4174 to 2.3111; c) That all other class ratios and vacancy discounts remain the same as

2014;

d) That the capping parameters used for 2014 be adopted for 2105; and e) That all other tax policies, including optional property classes, graduated

tax rates, relief to charities, low income and disabled persons, as detailed in Schedule 1, remain the same as 2014.


Councillor June Hofland, Chair Corporate Services Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the April 7, 2015 Corporate Services Committee meeting.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 1

2015 Property Tax Policy – CS-2015-23

TO Corporate Services Committee SERVICE AREA Corporate Services, Finance DATE April 7, 2015 SUBJECT 2015 Property Tax Policy

REPORT NUMBER CS-2015-23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To recommend the 2015 tax policy be adopted, and incorporated into by-laws and tax rates for the April 27, 2015 Council meeting which provides sufficient time to prepare the final tax bills for the June 30, 2015 instalment. KEY FINDINGS

Municipal Councils are required to make a number of tax policy decisions and pass the related by-laws annually. Guelph’s multi-residential, industrial and commercial tax ratios are all higher than the average of its comparator municipalities as identified in the 2014 BMA Study and the Tax Ratio Survey and Sensitivity Analysis completed by MTE in 2014 and attached to Report FIN-14-10. There has been downward movement by the City of Guelph in the past two years on the multi-residential and industrial ratios, continued movement on these two ratios during the current 2013-2016 assessment phase-in cycle is recommended. Maintaining the existing ratios, and using the 2015 approved budget levy, the average residential property valued at $301,770, would see an overall increase in taxes of $111.32. Using the same factors as above but continuing with the lowering of both the multi-residential and industrial tax ratios, the same average residential property valued at $301,770 for 2015, will see an overall increase in taxes of $127.92 which is equal to 3.52%.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 2


This breaks down as follows:

Table Two: Impact on Average Residential Property

of $301,770 - 2015 Recommended Changes

$ Change

City of Guelph Portion

Reassessment, Phase-in Tax Shift $6.07

Budget Increase $108.11

Ratio Change due to Multi-Res & Ind $16.61

Total Change In City Portion $130.79

Education Portion -$2.87

Overall Impact on Average Residential Taxpayer $127.92

The impact related to ratio changes on the average residential property will be $16.61 for 2015. Under either scenario, the total tax revenue is unchanged. The changes in ratios simply shift tax burden from one class to another. Council must also adopt the capping parameters to be used for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes as mandated by the province. As in previous years, the overall principle for tax policy is to promote and adopt positions that shorten the time frame to achieve full Current Value Assessment (CVA) taxation and thus simplify the tax system. The continuation of all of the capping options to their maximum would provide the City with the necessary tools to move those capped classes closer to CVA taxation. As such properties in the same class with the same CVA will pay the same tax. Fair tax policies and a balanced tax ratio form an integral part of the City’s Strategic goals. Staff is therefore recommending that Council continue to reduce both the multi- residential and industrial tax ratios to be more competitive with Guelph’s comparators and to implement all of the capping options to their maximum. The movement to reduce the multi-residential and industrial ratio demonstrates the City’s commitment in moving towards a balanced tax assessment ratio and a community-focused, responsible and accountable government. Making the multi-residential tax ratios more competitive is also consistent with the local growth strategy, which supports higher density in the residential sector; while lowering the industrial tax ratio will assist in providing the opportunity to be more competitive when attracting industry.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 3


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be no financial implication to changing the tax ratios as no additional revenue would be realized. Changing the tax ratios merely shifts the tax burden from one property tax class to another. There would be no financial implication relating to capping options as the capping impact would be revenue neutral within the broad tax class itself. ACTION REQUIRED

That the Corporate Services Committee approves the staff recommended ratios and capping parameters as outlined in Report CS-2015-23 “2015 Property Tax Policy”.

RECOMMENDATION

That the 2015 City of Guelph Property Tax Policies as set out in Schedule 1 be approved; and That the following tax policies be incorporated into the tax ratio, tax rate, and capping by-laws and submitted to Council on April 27, 2015:

1. That the multi-residential ratio be reduced from 2.0819 to 2.0399; 2. That the industrial tax ratio be reduced from 2.4174 to 2.3111; 3. That all other class ratios and vacancy discounts remain the same as 2014; 4. That the capping parameters used for 2014 be adopted for 2015 and 5. That all other tax policies, including optional property classes, graduated tax

rates, relief to charities, low income and disabled persons, as detailed in Schedule 1, remain the same as 2014.

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2015 Council approved a 2015 budget in which $207,297,226 is to be raised from Taxation and Payment in Lieu. This was a 3.55% increase over the 2014 budget. Based on 2014 Tax Policy an average residential property with a value of $301,770 would see an increase of $114 in their City portion of the tax bill. This report seeks recommendation to approve 2015 Tax Policy which would change the impact to the taxpayer. Municipal Councils are required to make a number of tax policy decisions annually. Even if there are no changes, tax ratios must be set through a by-law before the rating by-laws can be adopted. The Municipal Act sets out the parameters to be followed by municipalities when setting property tax policies. These parameters include establishing tax ratios and discounts; use of graduated taxation and optional classes; capping options on multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties; and various tax mitigation measures. Annual tax policy decisions determine how the property tax levy approved in the annual budget will be distributed across the various classes of properties.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 4


This report provides an overview of the options available to City Council for the 2015 taxation year. The following summarizes the tax policy decisions to be approved in this report:

• Establishing 2015 tax ratios, discounts and tax rates • No changes to the optional new multi-residential property class • Continuing the low-income seniors and low-income disabled tax relief

program under existing parameters (Note: Staff will be reviewing this program in 2015 and will recommend changes where appropriate)

• Continuing the current charitable tax rebate program • Setting the 2015 capping parameters with the same optional choices as in

2014 • No recommendations for graduated commercial/industrial tax rates or

additional optional property classes or municipal tax reduction The by-laws for approval of 2015 tax policies and tax rates are set for the April 27, 2015 Council meeting to allow sufficient time to prepare the final tax bills for the June 30, 2015 instalment. REPORT

The attached 2015 Property Tax Policy (Schedule 1) provides an overview of the tax policy decisions to be made by City Council with the appropriate background and is broken down into the following sections:

• Staff recommendation by policy area • Overview/description of the policy • Policy considerations: factors such as economic impact, equity/fairness and

administrative impact

Tax Ratios

Tax Ratios govern the relationship between the rate of taxation for each class verses the rate of tax for the residential property class. The tax ratio for the residential class is legislated at 1.0, while the farm and managed forest classes have a prescribed maximum tax ratio of 0.25. For all other classes, Council may choose to adopt either the current tax ratios which were approved by Council in 2014, revenue natural tax ratios or establish new tax ratios for the year that are closer to or within the Range of Fairness as set out in Table One. Tax ratio reductions are typically approved to relieve a tax burden that is perceived to be creating a competitive disadvantage or inequity for properties in one or more classes. A reduction in tax burden for one tax class will result in an increased tax burden for properties in all other classes as illustrated in Appendix A – Table A.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 5


Table One: City of Guelph Tax Ratio Summary

2014

Actual

2014

Revenue

Neutral

Range of Fairness 2015

Recommended

Class Lower Limit Upper Limit

Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

Multi-residential 2.081900 2.015109 1.000000 1.100000 2.039900

New Multi-res 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.100000 1.000000

Commercial 1.840000 1.858810 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000

Industrial 2.417400 2.485359 0.600000 1.100000 2.311100

Pipeline 1.917500 1.955814 0.600000 0.700000 1.917500

Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 0.250000

Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000

Although there has been movement in recent years to decrease the industrial and multi-res ratio, they still remain higher than the average comparatively as identified in the 2014 BMA Study and the Tax Ratio Survey and Sensitivity Analysis completed by MTE in 2014, outlined in Report FIN-14-10. The industrial and multi-residential ratios were reduced in 2013 and 2014, and it is recommended they be reduced at the same rate per year during the current assessment phase-in cycle through to 2016. To assist Council in evaluating the impact of reducing the multi-residential and industrial tax ratios, staff has examined the status quo ratios and the continuation of the phased in reduction of the multi-residential and the industrial property class ratio. Scenario 1: Maintaining the same Multi-residential and Industrial Tax Ratio as 2014 (Status Quo)

Scenario One has been generated using 2015 phased-in assessment as returned by MPAC and keeping all ratios constant at their 2014 level. The results of this analysis are set out in Appendix A - Table A. Scenario 2: Incremental Reduction of Multi-Residential and Industrial Tax

Ratio: 2013-2016 – Phase III: In this scenario, staff has modeled the impact of reducing both these ratios by a further one-quarter of the difference between the current ratio and the target ratios of 1.9979 and 2.2048 set in 2013 for 2016. The model ratios have been reduced by 0.04200 for the multi-residential class and by 0.10630 for the industrial class. The multi-residential property class would see a reduction of $226,360 or 1.50% and the industrial property class would see a reduction of $689,055 or 3.89%. The remaining property classes will have to absorb this shift through a rate increase of 0.53% as set out in Appendix A - Table A. Tax Impact Appendix A - Table B of also outlines the tax impacts to the average residential taxpayer for both scenarios.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 6


Under scenario one, the combined effect of maintaining the existing ratios, the 2015 education tax rate, the 2015 approved budget levy including funds for the Public Health, factoring in the reassessment phased in impact and using the average residential property valued at $301,770, the average residential taxpayer would see an overall increase in taxes of $111.32 over 2014. Using the same factors but lowering the multi-residential and industrial tax ratios, the average taxpayer would realize an overall increase of $127.92 or 3.52% for 2015 as outlined in Table Two. The changes in ratios simply shift tax levels from one class to another and ultimately to the residential tax class.

Table Two: Impact on Average Residential Property

of $301,770 - 2015 Recommended Changes

$ Change

City of Guelph Portion

Reassessment, Phase-in Tax Shift $6.07

Budget Increase $108.11

Ratio Change due to Multi-Res & Ind $16.61

Total Change In City Portion $130.79

Education Portion -$2.87

Overall Impact on Average Residential Taxpayer $127.92

The impact related to ratio changes on the average residential property will be $16.61 for 2015 as shown on Appendix A - Table B. Mandatory Capping Parameters Province wide there is a mandatory capping program introduced in 1998 to mitigate assessment related property tax changes on multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties. This program required that Council limit the assessment related tax increases by a mandatory cap of up to 5% of the previous year’s Current Value Assessment (CVA) taxes. Since 1998, the legislation has changed numerous times providing municipalities with additional, optional capping parameters to assist them to move towards Current Value Assessment much quicker. CVA tax is transparent, equitable and easier to explain to business owners. The implementation of all of the recommended capping options to their maximum continues to provide the City with the necessary tools to move these capped properties closer to CVA taxation, which is the objective of reform. It would provide for greater stability and predictability, and is perceived to be more fair and equitable to taxpayers. Properties in the same class with the same CVA will pay the same tax. This allows municipalities the flexibility to eventually end the tax capping

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 7


program and rely on the assessment phase-in as the sole means of providing tax protection. Council must pass a by-law indicating the parameters they wish to implement for each taxation year. As in previous years, the overall principle for tax policy is to promote and adopt positions that shorten the time frame to achieve full CVA taxation and that simplify the complexities of the tax system. Fair tax policies form an integral part of the City’s Strategic goals. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 2.2 Deliver public services better 2.3 Ensure accountability, transparency & engagement 3.2 Be economically viable, resilient, diverse and attractive for business DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION Communications FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be no financial implication to changing the tax ratios as no additional revenue would be realized. Changing the tax ratios merely shifts the tax burden from one property tax class to another. There would be no financial implication as a result of selecting the capping options, as the capping impact would be revenue neutral within the broad tax class itself. COMMUNICATIONS N/A ATTACHMENTS

ATT-1 Schedule 1: - 2015 Property Tax Policy ATT-2 Appendix A: - Table A, Comparison of Ratio Scenarios and Table B, Impact on Average Residential Property Report Author James Krauter Manager of Taxation and Revenue

_________________________ __________________________

Recommended By Approved By Janice Sheehy Mark Amorosi GM Finance and City Treasurer Deputy CAO, Corporate Services Corporate Services 519-822-1260 Ext. 2281 519-822-1260 Ext. 2289 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 8


[email protected]

Schedule 1 to Report CS-2015-23 dated April 7, 2015

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH

2015 PROPERTY TAX POLICY

Prepared by Corporate Services /Finance

Taxation and Revenue

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 4 POLICY TOOLS TAX RATIOS, CLASS DISCOUNTS AND TAX RATES ....................................................... 5 GRADUATED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAX RATES .................................................... 7 OPTIONAL PROPERTY CLASSES / NEW MULTI-RESIDENTIAL CLASS ............................... 9 MITIGATION TOOLS MANDATORY CAPPING/OPTIONS ............................................................................. 11 MUNICIPAL TAX REDUCTION ................................................................................... 13 TAX RELIEF FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND LOW-INCOME DISABLED PERSONS ......... 14 TAX REBATES FOR CHARITIES ................................................................................ 16 APPENDIX 1. 2015 TAX RATIOS, CLASS DISCOUNTS AND TAX RATES ........................................ 18 2. BY-LAW (2002) - 16852 – “NEW MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLASS” ................ 19 3. PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND LOW-INCOME DISABLED

PERSONS REPORT TO FACS OF MARCH 7TH, 2007 ........................................................... 20 BY-LAW (2005) – 17727 – “LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND LOW-INCOME PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” ...................................................................... 22 FACS RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 30TH, 2007 .................................................... 24

4. BY-LAW (2002) – 16851– “CHARITIES TAX RELIEF” ............................................. 25

3

INTRODUCTION The Municipal Act sets out the parameters to be followed by municipalities when setting property tax policies. These parameters include: Establishing tax ratios and discounts; Graduated taxation and optional classes; Capping options on multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties; Levy restrictions which prevents municipalities from passing on levy increases to capped classes which have tax ratios in excess of provincial averages. Annual tax policy decisions establish the level of taxation for the various property classes. This policy provides an overview of the tax policy decisions by Guelph City Council for the 2015 taxation year. Each policy area is broken down into the following sections:

• Staff recommendation • Overview / description of the policy • Analysis and/or additional background information • Policy considerations: in order to provide a basis for evaluating each policy

decision, staff has considered factors such as economic impact, equity/fairness, and administrative impact.

In accordance with Section 308(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 tax ratios must be established each year. A by-law must be passed in the year to establish the municipality’s tax ratios for that year.

4

2015 CITY OF GUELPH PROPERTY TAX POLICIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Tax Ratios, Class Discounts and Tax Rates

THAT the 2015 City tax ratios, class discounts and tax rates be approved as set out in Appendix 1; and THAT staff be directed to prepare the necessary tax ratio and tax rating by-laws.

Optional New Multi-Residential Property Class

THAT the New Multi-residential property class continue as per By-law (2002)-16852 Refer to Appendix 2.

Mandatory Capping THAT the following parameters be established for the purposes of calculating the 2015 capping and clawback rates in accordance with section 329.1 of the Municipal Act: 1. Cap limit of 10% of 2014 annualized taxes or limit tax increase to 5% of 2014 CVA taxes, whichever is greater 2. Move capped/clawbacked properties to CVA tax if the capped taxes/clawback taxes are within a maximum of $250 of CVA taxes without creating a shortfall 3. Exclude properties previously at CVA tax 4. Exclude properties that cross CVA tax in 5. Set a tax level of 100% of CVA tax for new construction & new to class business properties (multi-res, commercial & industrial ) THAT staff be directed to prepare the necessary by-law.

Tax relief for low- income seniors and persons with disabilities

THAT the tax relief program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities be continued as adopted by By-law (2005)-17727. Refer to Appendix 3.

Tax relief for charities and other similar organizations

THAT the current tax relief program for charities be continued for the 2015 taxation year in accordance with By-law (2002)- 16851. Refer to Appendix 4.

5

TAX RATIOS, CLASS DISCOUNTS and TAX RATES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT the 2015 City tax ratios, class discounts and tax rates be approved as set out in Appendix 1; and THAT staff be directed to prepare the necessary tax ratio and tax rating by-laws.

OVERVIEW / DESCRIPTION

� Legislative reference : Municipal Act 2001 Section 308 � Most significant tax policy decision is that of tax ratios � Tax ratios show how the tax rate for a property class compares with the residential

rate. If a property class has a ratio of 2, then it is taxed at twice the rate of the residential class

� Municipalities can set different tax ratios for different classes of property � Transition ratios were calculated initially in 1998 by the Province and reflected the

level of taxation by class at that time � Tax ratios must be approved annually by City Council. The issue is whether the tax

ratios for each class should be changed � Changing ratios shifts the relative burden of property taxes between property classes � The City’s ability to adjust tax ratios and redistribute the tax burden between

property classes is limited by the “ranges of fairness” established by the Province (see Appendix 1 attached) which help protect property classes that are taxed at higher rates

� If the ratio for a property class is outside the “range of fairness” a municipality can either maintain the existing ratio or move towards the “range of fairness” but may not move further from the fairness range unless revenue neutral ratios are adopted

� If a tax ratio is above the provincial threshold average a levy increase cannot be passed on to that class. However, since 2004 the province has allowed municipalities to pass along up to 50% of a levy increase to those restricted classes ( classes which have ratios in excess of the threshold)

� The City of Guelph ratios are currently below the provincial threshold and therefore are not levy restricted

� The Municipal Act also sets out the provisions for taxing farmland pending development which are as follows:

1. On registration of the plan of subdivision, property assessment changes from being based on farm use to zoned use and a tax rate of between 25% and 75% of the relevant rate will apply. Guelph is currently at the maximum of 75%

2. When a building permit is issued the tax rate may change from 25% to 100% of the rate that would apply to the property’s zoned use. Guelph currently charges the maximum of 100%.

6

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Economic impact: � Any adjustment to the tax ratios involves shifting the tax burden to the other

property classes. A tax ratio change would result in a shift of taxation onto the residential class and increase the municipal taxes paid by the residential taxpayer.

� The range of fairness and levy restriction rules are a clear indication that the province wishes to see taxes on commercial, industrial and multi-residential properties reduced and that portion shifted onto residential properties. The fact that the low end of the fairness ranges for commercial/industrial classes is below the residential tax ratio indicates the former government felt the property taxes for businesses should be less than property taxes for residential properties.

� The farmland awaiting development properties are taxed at the maximum allowable rate with discounts of 25% for subclass 1 and 0% for subclass 2

Equity/fairness:

� Higher tax ratios could be perceived as discriminatory by multi-residential, commercial and industrial property owners who may feel that they are overtaxed relative to residential properties

� The disparity between the commercial and industrial tax ratios is difficult to justify � Non residential and multi-residential properties have historically been taxed at higher

rates in most municipalities across the province � Multi-residential properties are assessed on a different basis than residential

properties and most often will attract a lesser amount of assessment per unit � Non residential properties pay property taxes using pre-tax income which is not the

case for residential property owners and therefore supports the concept of differential tax rates

Administrative impact:

None

7

GRADUATED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAX RATES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not recommended for 2015

OVERVIEW / DESCRIPTION � Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Section 314 � Municipality establishes bands of assessment and then taxes the portion of each

commercial/industrial property’s assessed value within each band at a different rate – the rate applied to the lower band(s) will be the lower rate

� Banding must apply to all commercial/industrial properties � Either two or three bands of assessment are allowed for this purpose � Must be self-financing within the class – i.e. no tax impact on other property

classes � The intention of this policy would be to benefit small businesses in lower-valued

commercial/industrial properties

SAMPLE GRADUATED COMMERCIAL TAX SCENARIO

Class

Band 1

$0 to $1,000,000 of CVA

Band 2

$1,000,001 to $2,500,000 of CVA

Band 3

Greater than $2,500,000 of CVA

Commercial occupied

50% of full

commercial rate

75% of full

commercial rate

Full commercial rates

SAMPLE TAX BILL CALCULATION

Commercial occupied CVA of $5,000,000, full tax rate = 3%

Assessment

Tax rate

Taxes

Band 1

$1,000,000

1.5%

$15,000

Band 2

$1,500,000

2.25%

$33,750

Band 3

$2,500,000

3%

$75,000

8


Economic impact: • Tax reduction for lower valued properties • Tax increase for higher valued properties

Equity/fairness:

• Could be perceived as moving away from “fairness”, as each commercial/industrial property would have a different effective tax rate

• Higher valued commercial/industrial property owners would subsidize lower valued properties by paying a higher effective tax rate • Graduated tax rates would in some cases adversely affect smaller tenants, since graduation applies to the entire property

• Difficult to target assistance for specific types of properties or geographic areas • Results in competitive advantages/disadvantages • Designed for the commercial/industrial property classes. These classes already receive preferential treatment relative to tax ratios and the continued capping of tax increases.

• Another level of complexity that has no real benefit. Administrative impact:

• Minor impact on layout of tax bill for commercial/industrial properties • Can become very confusing when layered with the capping parameter options

9

OPTIONAL PROPERTY CLASSES / NEW MULTI RESIDENTAIL CLASS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT the City of Guelph only adopt the optional New Multi-residential property class and continue as per By-law (2002)-16852 Refer to Appendix 2.


� Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Section 308 and O.Reg 282/98 � Council may by by-law establish new property classes for shopping centres, office

buildings, parking lots, large industrial properties and new multi residential properties

DETAILS

1. Shopping centres: rentable area of a shopping centre (at least three units) that exceeds 25,000 square feet – the first 25,000 square feet remains in the commercial class

2. Office buildings: rental area of an office building that exceeds 25,000 square feet – the first 25,000 square feet remains in the commercial class

3. Parking Lots: entire assessment of such properties is included in this class 4. Large industrial properties: buildings in excess of 125,000 square feet –

entire assessment is included in this class 5. New multi-residential : applies to new multi-residential construction (7 or

more rental units) or the conversion from a non-residential use pursuant to a building permit issued after the date on which the by-law adopting the new class of property was approved. This allows for new multi residential properties to be taxed at a lower rate for a thirty five year period

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Economic impact:

• Establishing separate classes of commercial and industrial property will result in some properties subsidizing others, as the tax rates for these classes would be different from the main class. For example, establishing a separate class for shopping centres would result in different tax rate for shopping centres than for all other commercial properties

• The New Multi Residential tax class may assist in promoting an adequate supply of affordable rental housing units by attracting new developments.

• The New Multi Residential tax class may assist with infill and higher density requirements within the City

10

Equity/fairness: • Use of separate classes could be seen as discriminatory and moving away from

fairness, and contrary to the basic premise of reassessment • Lends support to often raised arguments that the tax ratio for multi-residential

class should not be significantly different than that of the residential class on the basis that tenants do not consume more services than homeowners nor are they better able to pay the taxes.


• Adopting an optional class requires a by-law to be prepared and notification to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

• Minimal staff time and costs

11

MANDATORY CAPPING/OPTIONS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT the following parameters be established for the purposes of calculating the 2015 capping and clawback rates in accordance with section 329.1 of the Municipal Act:

1. Cap limit of 10% of 2014 annualized taxes or limit tax increase to 5% of 2014 CVA taxes, whichever is greater 2. Move capped/clawbacked properties to CVA tax if the capped taxes/clawback taxes are within a maximum of $250 of CVA taxes without creating a shortfall

3. Exclude properties previously at CVA tax 4. Exclude properties that cross CVA tax in

5. Set a tax level of 100% of CVA tax for new construction & new to class business properties (multi-res, commercial & industrial ) THAT staff be directed to prepare the necessary by-law.


� Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Part IX � Council must limit the assessment related tax increases on multi residential,

commercial and industrial properties � Council must decide how to finance the cap, which can be done by capping

decreases as well as, by using general revenues or reserves, or a combination of the two.

� Shortfalls cannot be shared with the school boards � The Province has provided increased flexibility for municipalities commencing in

2005, with the following options available: - Maintaining the mandatory cap of up to 5% - Increasing the cap between 5% and 10%, or selecting 5% of CVA tax whichever is higher - If an increasing/decreasing property is within $250 of CVA taxation, then it may be billed the full amount - Exclude properties previously at CVA tax or exclude properties that cross CVA tax. If significant reassessment increases occur on a property this option will eliminate the capping protection amount which would otherwise be subsidized by all properties within that class experiencing a reassessment decrease (clawback) - New construction is taxed at 100% of CVA tax

12


2015 CAPPING PARAMETERS MULTI-

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

ANNUALIZED TAX LIMIT 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%

PRIOR YEAR CVA TAX LIMIT 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

CVA TAX THRESHOLD – INCREASERS 250 250 250

CVA TAX THRESHOLD – DECREASERS 250 250 250

EXCLUDE PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY AT CVA TAX

Yes Yes Yes

EXCLUDE PROPERTIES THAT GO FROM CAPPED TO CLAWED BACK

Yes Yes Yes

EXCLUDE PROPERTIES THAT GO FROM CLAWED BACK TO CAPPED

Yes Yes Yes

Economic impact: • The mandatory capping (without any minimum $ amount) means that some

properties will not reach their full taxation levels for many, many years, if ever • Shortfalls cannot be shared with school boards; therefore 100% responsibility of

the Municipality • Mandatory capping enables the City to move capped classes closer to CVA

taxation more quickly resulting in greater stability and predictability in property taxation

• Having properties at or close to their CVA taxes can reduce the tax capping impacts resulting from reassessment

• The best method to avoid capping shortfalls requires the use of the highest allowable percentage for capped tax increases

Equity/fairness:

• Funding the cap through means other than capping decreases results in either a long term drain on reserve balances (as the cap is now indefinite) or subsidization of tax increases by other classes

• Adopting these capping options is perceived to be fair and equitable to taxpayers because properties in the same class with the same CVA should pay the same tax.

Administrative Impact:

� Considerable staff time, software provided Provincially through OPTA

13

MUNICIPAL TAX REDUCTION

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not recommended for 2015


• Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Section 362 • Permits the City to reduce the taxes of a property which is subject to capping

limitations by the amount that would otherwise have been a capping adjustment

• This reduction would be applied as a tax rate reduction and not an after the fact rebate

• Has limited usefulness – essentially a means of removing a property requiring a large capping adjustment from the capping calculation in order to make the capping work

• Cost of the program is not shared with the school boards


Economic impact:

• This can be a very costly tool to the City’s operating budget to fund the total cost of the tax reduction since the province has excluded school boards from participating in this policy

Equity/fairness:

• Provides specific preferential treatment to an individual property or properties, and therefore goes against the overriding principle of fairness

• If used as a tool to eliminate properties from paying more than CVA tax, it does allow municipalities to fund all remaining capped properties from the general levy

Administrative impact: • Additional staff time to administer

14


• Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Section 319 • Upper tier and single tier municipalities MUST provide a program of tax relief for

the purposes of “relieving financial hardship” caused by tax increases related to reassessment

• Relief can be in the form of a deferral or cancellation of tax increases • The tax increase to be deferred or cancelled is calculated as the difference

between the current year’s taxes levied and the previous year’s taxes levied on a property (subject to provincial regulation)

• The by-law also applies to tax increases for education purposes • The amount deferred or cancelled is withheld from amounts levied for school

board purposes • A tax certificate must show any deferrals and the priority lien status of real

property taxes in accordance with Section 349 of the Municipal Act • The intent of this policy is to provide a mechanism to assist those least able to pay

a significant increase in taxes


Economic impact: • Taxes are deferred and recovered when the property is sold or the eligible

applicant ceases to be eligible • Interest may not be charged on deferred taxes • Each year the potential deferral must be paid for by other taxpayers. This results

in a levy increase to fund the shortfall Equity/fairness:

• Cancellation of taxes does result in some minor taxpayer subsidization, and effectively reduces the province’s obligation under the Property Tax Credit program


• Additional staff time to administer the rebates

TAX RELIEF FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS

AND LOW-INCOME DISABLED PERSONS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION : THAT the tax relief program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities be continued as adopted by By-law (2005)-17727. Refer to Appendix 3.

15

CURRENT TAX RELIEF FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND LOW-INCOME DISABLED PERSONS

GENERAL PARAMETERS • Tax relief is in the form of a deferral of taxes • The amount eligible for deferral is the total increase given that the increase is

greater than or equal to $300 annually. No tax relief applies if the amount of the tax increase is less than $300.

• Eligibility is as set out below ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA (for receipt of property tax relief):

A) LOW-INCOME SENIORS � Means a person who on December 31st of the year of application has attained the age of 65 years and is in receipt of benefits under Guaranteed Income supplement (GIS)

program or has attained the age of 65 years and is in receipt of benefits under the Guaranteed Annual Income system (GAINS) program for Ontario Senior Citizens.

B) LOW-INCOME DISABLED PERSONS � Means a person who is in receipt of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or in receipt of disability amounts under the current Family Benefits

Act (FBA) or in receipt of benefits under the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS) for the Disabled and be eligible to claim a disability amount as defined under the Income Tax Act.

OTHER PROVISIONS � To qualify for tax assistance, applicants must have been owners of real property within the City for a period of one (or more) year(s) preceding the application.

� Tax assistance is only allowed on one principal residence of the qualified individual or the qualifying spouse.

� Application for tax deferral must be made annually to the City to establish eligibility or continued eligibility. Applications must include documentation in support thereof to establish that the applicant is an eligible person and that the property with respect which the application is made is eligible property. Applications must be submitted to the City on or before the last day of December in the year for which the application applies on a form prescribed by the City for this purpose.

� Tax relief applies to current taxes only and is only deferred after payment in full is received for any current or past year amounts payable.

� Applicant is responsible to refund any overpayment of a tax rebate granted if property assessment is reduced by the Assessment Review Board or Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

� For properties that are jointly held or co-owned by persons other than spouses, both or all co- owners must qualify under applicable eligibility criteria in order to receive tax relief.

� Tax relief begins in the month in which the low income senior attains the age of 65 or in which the low income disabled person becomes disabled

16


� Legislative reference: Municipal Act 2001 Section 361 � The original intent of the program was to address certain tax impacts relating to the

elimination of the Business Occupancy Tax (BOT) – registered charities that previously did not pay the BOT on leased commercial/industrial properties were put in a position of paying a higher (blended) rate on such properties

� All municipalities must have a rebate program in place � An eligible charity is a registered charity as defined in subsection 248(1) of the

Income Tax Act (Canada) that has a registration number issued by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

� A property is eligible if it is in one of the commercial or industrial property classes within the meaning of subsection 308(1) of the Municipal Act

Program requirements include: � The amount of rebate must be at least 40% of tax paid � One half of the rebate must be paid within 60 days of receipt of the application and

the balance paid within 120 days of receipt of the application � Applications for a rebate must be made between January 1 of the taxation year and

the last day of February of the following taxation year � The program must permit the eligible charity to make application based on an

estimate of the taxes payable � The program must provide for final adjustments to be made after the taxes have

been set Program options include: � Other similar organizations may also be provided with rebates � Rebates may be provided to properties in classes other than the commercial and

industrial classes � The rebate % can vary for different charities or other similar organizations and can

be up to 100% of taxes paid � Cost of the rebate is shared between City and school boards � The organization receiving the rebate shall also be provided with a written statement

showing the proportion of costs shared by the school boards � Any overpayment of rebated amount to be refunded by Charity if property

assessment is reduced by the Assessment Review Board (ARB) or Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)

TAX REBATES FOR CHARITIES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION : THAT the current tax relief program for charities be continued for the 2015 taxation year in accordance with By-law (2002)- 16851. Refer to Appendix 4.

17


Economic impact:

• This by-law provides relief for organizations which were previously exempt from paying the Business Occupancy Tax - results in similar tax treatment before and after reform

Equity/fairness:

• The cost of rebates is built in to the City budget Administrative impact:

• Results in some additional staff time to administer the rebates

CURRENT TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS FOR REGISTERED CHARITIES

The City’s by-law includes all mandated provisions as well as the following optional provisions:

� Rebates set at 40% of taxes paid for Registered Charitable organizations, such as but not limited to, Family & Children Service, Canadian Mental Health, Second Chance, St. John’s Ambulance, Salvation Army, etc.

� Rebate set at 100% for those properties that are used and occupied as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by those organizations whose persons served in the armed forces of Her Majesty or Her Majesty’s allies in any war (i.e.- Legion, Army & Navy)

� In 2014 the City processed approximately 44 applications for a total dollar amount of $314,090 of which the City‘s share was $180,021.

18

APPEN

DIX

1

Appendix 1

2015 CITY OF GUELPH - TAX RATIOS, DISCOUNTS AND RATES

PROPERTY CLASS GUELPH PROVINCIAL GUELPH'S RECOMMENDED TAX RATE TAX HEALTH TOTAL

INITIAL THRESHOLD 2014 TAX GUELPH REDUCTIONS RATES UNIT TAX RATES

1998 Low Limit High Limit 2015 TAX

RATIOS RATIOS RATIOS RATIOS RATIOS RATIOS 2015 2015 2015 2015

Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.030380% 0.020132% 1.050512%

Residential - Farmland 1 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 25% 0.772785% 0.015099% 0.787884%

Residential - Farmland 4 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.030380% 0.020132% 1.050512%

New Multi-residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.100000 1.000000 1.000000 1.030380% 0.020132% 1.050512%

Multi-residential 3.089700 2.740000 1.000000 1.100000 2.081900 2.039900 2.101872% 0.041067% 2.142939%

Multi-residential - Farmland 1 3.089700 2.740000 1.000000 1.100000 1.000000 1.000000 25% 0.772785% 0.015099% 0.787884%

Multi-residential - Farmland 4 3.089700 2.740000 1.000000 1.100000 2.081900 2.039900 2.101872% 0.041067% 2.142939%

Commercial 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 1.895899% 0.037043% 1.932942%

Commercial - Farmland 1 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.000000 1.000000 25% 0.772785% 0.015099% 0.787884%

Commercial - Farmland 4 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 1.895899% 0.037043% 1.932942%

Commercial - Excess Land 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 30% 1.327129% 0.025930% 1.353059%

Commercial - Vacant Land 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 30% 1.327129% 0.025930% 1.353059%

Commercial- New Constr-Full 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 1.895899% 0.037043% 1.932942%

Commercial-New Constr-excess 1.840000 1.980000 0.600000 1.100000 1.840000 1.840000 30% 1.327129% 0.025930% 1.353059%

Industrial 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 2.381311% 0.046527% 2.427838%

Industrial - Farmland 1 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 1.000000 1.000000 25% 0.772785% 0.015099% 0.787884%

Industrial - Farmland 4 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 2.381311% 0.046527% 2.427838%

Industrial - Excess Land 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 35% 1.547852% 0.030243% 1.578095%

Industrial - Vacant land 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 35% 1.547852% 0.030243% 1.578095%

Industrial - New Constr-Full 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 2.381311% 0.046527% 2.427838%

Industrial- New Constr-Excess 3.271100 2.630000 0.600000 1.100000 2.417400 2.311100 35% 1.547852% 0.030243% 1.578095%

Pipelines 1.917500 1.917500 0.600000 0.700000 1.917500 1.917500 1.975754% 0.038603% 2.014357%

Farmlands 0.250000 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.257595% 0.005033% 0.262628%

Managed Forests 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.257595% 0.005033% 0.262628%

PROVINCIL

RANGE of FAIRNESS

19

APPENDIX 3

25

APPENDIX 4

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH

By-Jnw Number (2002}- 16851

A By-law to provide for relief from taxes for ch11ritable organizations and to repeal by-law number (1998)-15834.

WHEREAS Section 442:1 of the Municipal Act as amended provides that every municipality shall have a tax rebate progrnm for eligible charities for the purpose of giving them relief from taxes on eligible property they occupy;

THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH ENACTS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. In this by-Jaw, eligible charity means n registered charity ns defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that has a registered number issued by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

2. A property is eligible if it is in one of the commercial classes or industrial classes, within the meaning ofsubsection-:163(10) nfthe Municipal Act as amended.

3. A property is eligible if it is aciltaily used nnd occupied as n memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by those organizations whose persons served in the armed forces of Her Majesty or Her Majesty's allies in any war.

4. The rebate shall be 40% of the taxes payable by the eligible charity on the eligible property it occupies for those properties in one of the commercial or industrial classes.

5. The rebate shall be 100% of the taxes payable by those organizations whose persons served in the armed forces on the eligible property it occupies .

6. An eligible charity shaH make application to the municipality each year for which n rebate of taxes is requested, such application to be made on the prescribed form after January 1 of the year and no later thnn the lnst day of February of the following year.

7. This By-law shall come into force and tnke effect immediately.

8. By-law Number (199&) -15834 is hereby repealed.

PASSED this 61h day of May, 2002.

Apoendix A to Report CS-2015-23- April 7, 2015 Table A - Comparison of Ratio Scenarios

2015 Preliminary Levy Inter-Class Tax Shifts Effective Tax Rates Scenario 1 - Existing 2014 Scenario 2 - Recomm~nded Using Using

Existing Ratios Ofo of Total Change in Ind and Ofo of Total Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Tax Rate Property Class Tax Levy Tax Levy Multi-Res Ratios Tax Levy ! 0/o Ratios Ratios Change Ofo

Taxable Residential $133,603,008 64.45% $134,306,616 64.79% $703,608 0.53% 1.045008% 1.050512% 0.53% Farm $11,378 0.01% $11,438 0.01% $60 0.53% 0.261252% 0.262628% 0.53% Managed Forest $2,146 0.00% $2,157 0.00% $11 0.51% 0.261252% 0.262628% 0.53% New Multi-Residential $503,082 0.24% $505,7:31 0.24% $2,649 0.53% 1.045008% 1.050512% 0.53% Multi-residential $15,102,880 7.29% $14,876,520 7.18% -$226,360 -1.50% 2.175603% 2.142939% -1.50% Commercial $36,296,348 17.51% $36,487,499 17.60% $191,151 0.53% 1.922815% 1.932942% 0.53% Industrial $17,696,187 8.54% $17,007,132 8.20% -$689,055 -3.89% 2.526203% 2.427838% -3.89% Pipeline $555,051 0.27% $557,974 0.27% $2,923 0.53% 2.003803% 2.014356% 0.53%

Subtotal Taxable $203,770,080 98.30% $203,755,067 98.29% -$15,013 -0.01%

Payments in Lieu Residential $26,280 0.01% $26,419 0.01% $139 0.53% 1.045008% 1.050512% 0.53%

Commercial $3,420,273 1.65% $3,438,285 1.66% $18,012 0.53% 1.922815% 1.932942% 0.53%

Industrial $80,593 0.04% $77,455 0.04% -$3,138 -3.89% 2.526203% 2.427838% -3.89%

Subtotal PIL $3,527,146 1.70% $3,542,159 1.71% $15,013 0.43%

TOTAL $207,297,226 100.00% 207,297,226 100.00% $0 $0

Table B: Impact on Average Residential Property

Property Tax using currgnt City Ratios

Average Ta~a!;;ion Year Assessment Tax Rate Residential

2014 291,291 1.246402% $3,630.66 2015 301,770 1.240008% $3,741.9'7

Increase/(Decrease) in Taxes 2013 to 2014 $111.32 Impact on average residential property 3.07% (budget, public health, reassessment & education) PrQperty Tax.using RecQmmended Ratios

2014 291,291 1.246402% $3,630.66 2015 301,770 1.245512% $3,758.58

Increase/(Decrease) in Taxes 2013 to 2014 $127.92 Impact on average residential property 3.52% (budget, public health , reassessment & education) .TOtal impact on property related to ratio changes $16.61

CONSENT REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE

April 27, 2015


Your Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee beg leave to

present their THIRD CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of April 8, 2015.



immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Infrastructure,

Development & Enterprise Committee will be approved in one

resolution.

IDE-2015.6 Community CarShare Co-operative Parking at City-

Owned Facilities

WHEREAS non-commercial carshare services are part of a suite of options that support the City of Guelph in meeting its transportation demand management

(TDM) policy objectives to support sustainable transportation alternatives, AND WHEREAS the use of off-street municipal parking space, where appropriate

and available, may be reserved for carshare services for the purposes of supporting TDM;

1. The Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services is

authorized to enter into and execute a Parking Agreement between The

People’s Car Co-operative Inc. o/a Community CarShare and the City, in a form substantially as described in the report dated April 8, 2015, with the

final form and content to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 2. The Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services is

authorized to approve and execute amendments to the Parking Agreement, provided that such amendments are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor,

to add or change parking locations, upon requests by carshare services, to reserve a non-revenue generating parking space at a city-owned facility, and to make other amendments to the agreement provided it is in

accordance with the general terms therein.

April 27, 2015

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Third Consent Report

IDE-2015.8 Sign By-law Variance – 435 Stone Road West

1. That the report from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 8, 2015 regarding a sign by-law variance for 435 Stone Road West, be received.

2. That the request for a variance from the Sign By-law for 435 Stone Road West

to permit one (1) sign with an area of 5.7m2 to be located on the second storey of a building face fronting a public road allowance, be approved with a condition that restricts illumination to be within the hours of

operation of Stone Road Mall.


Councillor Bell, Chair

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee

PLEASE BRING THE MATERIAL THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED WITH THE

AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 8, 2015 INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT &

ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE MEETING.

STAFF REPORT TO

SERVICE AREA

Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee

Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE April 8, 2015

SUBJECT

REPORT NUMBER

Community CarShare Co-operative Parking at City-Owned facilities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT

Making a Differen<e

The purpose of this report is to recognize carsharing as an element of a successful transportation demand management program and to support the expansion of carsharing services throughout Guelph. A Parking Agreement with a schedule for separate properties is proposed to administer requests for reserved carshare parking spaces at city-owned facilities.

KEY FINDINGS • Community CarShare Co-operative launched service in Guelph in May

2013; between the launch and December 2014, membership grew from 30 to 125 members.

• City of Guelph staff present a Parking Agreement and propose potential future parking spaces for carshare service expansion at municipally owned non-revenue generating lots.

• Delegation of authority to sign the Parking Agreement is proposed to the Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to providing carshare parking spaces in nonrevenue generating spaces. Costs of promotion, signage, and communications are covered by the carshare service provider.

ACTION REQUIRED Approve the report entitled "Community CarShare Co-operative Parking at City Owned Facilities" and the staff recommendations made therein.

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Making a Difference

WHEREAS non-commercial carshare services are part of a suite of options that support the City of Guelph in meeting its transportation demand management (TDM) policy objectives to support sustainable transportation alternatives,

AND WHEREAS the use of off-street municipal parking space, where appropriate and available, may be reserved for carshare services for the purposes of supporting TDM;

1. The Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services is authorized to enter into and execute a Parking Agreement between The People's Car Co-operative Inc. oja Community CarShare and the City, in a form substantially as described in the report dated April 8, 2015, with the final form and content to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

2. The Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services is authorized to approve and execute amendments to the Parking Agreement, provided that such amendments are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, to add or change parking locations, upon requests by carshare services, to reserve a non-revenue generating parking space at a city-owned facility, and to make other amendments to the agreement provided it is in accordance with the general terms therein.

BACKGROUND This report is a follow-up to a Staff Report to Council approved on April 22, 2013 entitled "Supporting the Expansion of Community CarShare Co-operative to Guelph".

Community CarShare Co-operative (hereafter referred to as "CarShare") is a nonprofit co-operative based out of the Region of Waterloo. Its mission is to promote carsharing as part of a sustainable transportation system and reduce private vehicle ownership. Community CarShare expanded its service to Guelph in May, 2013. Members have access to a fleet of 57 vehicles in Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo, London, Hamilton, Elmira, St-Catharines, Brampton and Burlington on a self-serve, pay-per-use basis.

There are presently five vehicles and reserved carshare parking spaces within Guelph. The City of Guelph provides three parking spaces downtown on city-owned sites: the Guelph Central Station (formerly VIA station) and the 5 Gordon Street (Market Commons) locations are non-revenue generating spaces. The Baker Street parking lot is a paid lot and is subject to its own agreement. A fourth vehicle is located at Dublin Street United Church as a result of arrangements between the property manager and the carshare service provider. The fifth vehicle is at the University of Guelph.

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT Making a Difference

Expanding carshare service memberships can be accomplished in part by reserving strategic parking spaces throughout the city in advance of the service provider delivering a vehicle. The reserved parking spaces informs the community that a vehicle will be provided in future and helps to generate demand. When the demand reaches the minimum of 25 potential members required to support a vehicle, the space is already reserved and a vehicle can be provided immediately. The April 2013 staff report indicates that staff will work with city facility managers outside of downtown including recreation centres and libraries, to identify potential future parking spaces at municipally owned non-revenue generating lots.

REPORT

How carsharing supports Transportation Demand Management Carsharing services have measurably contributed to lowered parking requirements, decreasing household vehicle ownership and increasing rates for non-auto modes for more trips. Fifteen to thirty-two percent of members sell a private vehicle when they join carsharing. Carshare service can also contribute toward meeting emission reduction targets of the Community Energy Initiative. It is estimated that one carshare vehicle can remove between nine and thirteen private vehicles from the road and parking lots. Surveys of North American carsharing members show that carshare vehicles tend to replace less fuel-efficient personal vehicles. One study estimates that each household that holds a carshare membership reduces its annual emissions by more than half a tonne. Staff therefore recognize that supporting carshare services in Guelph can contribute positively to meeting the transportation demand management objectives in our official policies and plans.

City-Wide Carshare Parking Agreement This report proposes a city-wide parking agreement for carshare vehicles and proposes which facilities would be best suited to supporting expansion of this transportation service. In May 2014, a meeting was held with representatives from Legal Services, Sleeman Centre, River Run Centre, Traffic and Parking Services, Guelph Police Services, West End and Victoria Road Recreation Centres, Evergreen Senior's Centre and the Guelph Public Library. Staff reviewed a draft parking agreement template from Community CarShare and discussed opportunities at their facilities to accommodate a reserved parking space for a carshare vehicle. Later versions were also reviewed by Public Works and Bylaw Compliance.

To be effective, carshare vehicles should be located within a five to ten minute walk from its members. City facilities such as recreation centres, parks, libraries and cultural centres are already well connected to the neighbouring community through public transit and active transportation (walking and cycling). These are therefore attractive locations to provide carshare vehicles.

The CarShare Parking Agreement has been prepared by staff and Community CarShare Co-operative. The Agreement is generalized to apply to all city-owned

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT facilities with non-revenue generating parking. Site-specific details would be included in the schedules.

The following sections summarize key clauses of the agreement:

Making a Difference

Use of the space: The City, as the location provider, agrees to provide the parking space(s) to CarShare at no cost or expense. The Parking Agreement is applicable to off-street non-revenue-generating parking only. The parking is 24 hours/day and in the event that the parking space is occupied, upon notice to the City, the car may be parked in another space in the facility or as directed by the City. To permit use of the reserved space, CarShare must submit a list of the license plates of all vehicles that will be using the reserved space(s) in Guelph to By-Law Enforcement. If a reserved CarShare parking space is occupied by another vehicle, CarShare may notify By-Law and park elsewhere as directed by the City. The parking is subject to applicable parking regulations for the facility, except as specifically mentioned in the Agreement. By-Law reserves the right to enforce or not enforce the reserved parking space. The City may, but is not required to, provide additional spaces upon request.

Signage and maintenance of the space: Community CarShare Co-operative provides signage for reserving parking spaces, to be installed by City staff at the expense of CarShare. Any repair or replacement of the signage shall be at the expense of CarShare. The City is responsible for the maintenance of the parking space.

Temporary Interruption to Access: The City reserves the ability to temporarily interrupt access to the parking space(s) for emergencies, snow removal and unforeseen repairs. This may involve requesting CarShare to relocate or remove their vehicle, or if sufficient notice is not possible, the City reserves the right to move the vehicle at no expense to CarShare. If the City makes a request to relocate the vehicle and it is not relocated within the time required, the City may relocate at CarShare's expense. Any other type of change (i.e. not emergency, snow, etc.) require 30 days' notice.

Liability and indemnification: Both the City and CarShare are required to be covered under a general liability insurance not less than $2 million each. CarShare is also required to maintain car insurance for each vehicle parked at a City facility.

CarShare indemnifies the City and those for whom the City is responsible from all liabilities, expenses, fines, damages, suits, claims, demands, actions and costs that the City may become liable for as a result of an act or omission by CarShare or its members in regard to this agreement or the use of a Parking Space. This includes any damages to persons or property as a result of the use of the parking space by CarShare or its members.

PAGE 4

STAFF REPORT Making a Differen<e

CarShare waives claims arising from this Agreement except to the extent that such claims arise from a negligent act or omission by the City.

Termination: Either party may cancel the agreement on 90 days' written notice. The City may interrupt access to the parking space or change the allocated reserved parking space with at least 30 days' written notice. CarShare can terminate the agreement on 15 days' written notice to the City. For certain situations listed below, the City can immediately terminate the contract:

• A default on any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement • CarShare assigns the Agreement without City's consent • CarShare fails to provide proof of insurance prior to the renewal date • CarShare becomes insolvent, or • CarShare ceases to be a non-profit co-operative.

General Matters: Includes matters such as contact information for each party, determination of date of receipt of documentation including in case of strike, and a general clause that the Agreement is governed according to the laws of Ontario.

This Agreement supersedes previous agreements and understandings between the City and CarShare for all non-revenue generating spaces that have been assigned to CarShare prior to this Agreement.

The Agreement acknowledges that both parties are independent of each other and the Agreement does not give the right to assume or incur obligation on behalf of the other. Terms affecting the waiving of rights are also included.

Schedules: Schedule A provides a space for listing the parking facility and location of the parking space. Schedule B lists any applicable municipal regulations that also affect that facility's parking spaces. Schedule C outlines the signage and installation standards. Schedule D lists any special features agreed upon between all parties, such as special pavement markings or a brochure box.

How it works The agreement is to be signed by the Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services and Community CarShare Co-operative. Thereafter, the TDM Coordinator will coordinate between the carshare service provider and Facility Managers for specific requests.

Upon request from a carshare provider to reserve a space at a city-owned facility, the TDM Coordinator and Facility Manager determine the appropriateness of the request. If deemed reasonable, the schedules to the agreement would be updated to reflect the addition of the parking space and any related regulation.

At present, Community CarShare Co-operative is the sole non-profit carshare service provider operates in southwestern Ontario. Should a future second cooperative or non-profit carshare service also wish to request parking spaces for

PAGE 5

STAFF REPORT Making a Difleren<e

their vehicles, the Agreement includes a clause to terminate the contract and afford staff time to evaluate options for fair treatment.

Minor updates that do not change the intent of the Agreement may occur in consultation with Legal Services and facility managers, Traffic and Parking and Bylaw Enforcement staff.

Proposed Non-Revenue Generating Parking locations Discussions have occurred to determine which city-owned facilities already have available space to accommodate a reserved carshare parking space. All facility managers that were consulted were supportive of the principle of providing cars hare spaces throughout the city.

II Exhibition Arena and the East End Library have been identified as city-owned facilities with available parking. The facility operators are supportive of supplying one parking space for carshare parking.

11 The Guelph Civic Museum is interested in having a carshare vehicle at their location, and suggested exchanging one of the carpool spaces installed as part of the LEED certification into a carshare space, which has similar benefits.

• Other city locations, such as the libraries on leased properties, the recreation and community centres, the Evergreen Senior's Centre, and the Guelph Police locations currently experience high demand for existing parking but will continue to be monitored as potential future sites.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There is no added cost to providing parking spaces for carshare vehicles. All costs of promotion, signage, and communications are to be covered by the carshare service provider as per the Agreement.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 2.2 Deliver public services better 3.1 Ensure a well designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION • Public Works (Traffic and Parking, Road Maintenance) • Legal Services • By-law Compliance • Community Services (Libraries, Recreation Centres) • Culture (Sleeman Centre, Museum, River Run Centre) • Guelph Police Services

PAGE 6

STAFF REPORT

COMMUNICATIONS N/A

ATTACHMENTS N/A

Report Author Jennifer Juste TDM Coordinator

~ Kealy Dedman, P.Eng., MPA General Manager/City Engineer Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services 519-822-1260, ext. 2248 kealy [email protected]

Report Author Allister Mcilveen Manager of Transportation

Making a Difference

ui~ Approved By AI Horsman Deputy CAO Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services 519-822-1260, ext. 5606 [email protected]

PAGE 7

STAFF REPORT Mallng • Dlllormco

TO Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE April 8, 2015

SUBJECT SIGN BY-LAW VARIANCE · 435 Stone Road West .

REPORT NUMBER 15-31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . .

PURPOSE OF REPORT . . . To advise Council of a Sign By-law variance request for 435 Stone Road West.

· KEY FINDINGS The City of Guelph Sign By-la~ Number (1996)-15245, as amended, restricts

· the location of a sign in a Regional Shopping Centre (RC-1) zone to the first storey of a building face. . . . .

· SignOhtario has submitted a ~igh by- law variance application on behalf of Fit 4 Less by Goodl ife Fitness to permit one (1) sign with an area of5.7rri2 to be ·

· located on the second storey of a .building face fronting a public road allowance .

. The ·requested variance from tti~ SignBy~ iaw is recorhrnendedforapproval for .. the following reasons: · · · ·

. . . . .· . . . .

• The request is n~asonable given the surrounding area ~md the size of . building; . . .

• The proposed signage meets all other regulations.for a building .sign . located in .a RC-1 zone; . . . .

• The proposed location on the second storey will not detract from the .. appearance of the building;

• The proposed sign will not have a negative impact on the streetscape or surrounding area. ·

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A

· ACTION REQUIRED To approve the . requested Sign By-law variance for 435 Stone Road West.

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Making • Difforonct

1. That the report from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 8, 2015 regarding a sign by-law variance for 435 Stone Road West, be received.

2. That the request for a variance from the Sign By-law for 435 Stone Road West to permit one (1) sign with an area of 5. 7m 2 to be located on the second storey of a building face fronting a public road allowance, be approved.

BACKGROUND Sun Signs had submitted a sign permit application on behalf of Fit 4 Less by Goodlife Fitness as part of their rebranding at 435 Stone Road West (see "Schedule A - Location Map"). Upon review of the application, it was observed that a sign with an area of 5. 7m2 was proposed to be located on the second storey of the building. The City of Guelph Sign By-law Number (1996)-15245, as amended, restricts signage to the first storey of a building face in a Regional Shopping Centre (RC-1) zone.

REPORT Sign Ontario Ltd. has submitted a sign by-law variance application on behalf of Fit 4 Less by Good life Fitness to permit one (1) sign with an area of 5. 7m2 to be located on the second storey of a building face fronting a public road allowance. See "Schedule B- Sign Variance Drawings" for illustrations. Sign Ontario Ltd. has provided a letter of rationale in support of the variance; please see Schedule C -"Letter of Rationale from Applicant" :

The requested variance is as follows:

By-Law Requirements Request Permitted location on a build ing face fronting a public 1st storey of a building face 2nd storey of a building face road allowance

The requested variance from the Sign By-law is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

• The request is reasonable given the surrounding area and the size of building;

• The proposed signage meets all other regulations for a building sign located in a RC-1 zone;

• The proposed location on the second storey will not detract from the appearance of the building;

• The proposed sign will not have a negative impact on the streetscape or surrounding area.

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1- Ensure a well-designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION: N/A

COMMUNICATIONS: N/A

Location Map ATTACHMENTS Schedule A Schedule B Schedule C

Sign Variance Drawings Letter of Rationale from Applicant

Prepared By: Bill Bond Zoning Inspector III Senior Bylaw Administrator

Approved By Patrick Sheehy Program Manager- Zoning

Approved By Todd Salter General Manager

Approved By Rob Reynen Acting Chief Building Official

Rec AI H rsman Deputy CAO

Making a Differonco

Planning, Urban Design and Building Services 519.822.1260, ext. 2395 [email protected]

Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise 519.822.1260, ext. 5606 a I. horsma n @guelph .ca

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT

.~ 0 -' w u: w z :!;

.-

0 30 60 120 180 2~0 m

,_b'f..,.Ccy ... c;.....~.p~o =-.:;.~· o..-.,._ocM\d[n-pno• , O..., q,.,.ncl't.,.,.,'G

SCHEDULE A- Location Map

'----l

I Ul

-- _ WILSONVIEW:Av ' ·~

1:~ '----j ~ r----

1 ~ ,--' ~

~CHANCELLORS-WY

-

435 Stone Road West

Making a Difference

~·DiUcrmu:

PAGE 4

STAFF REPORT

SCHEDULE B- Sign Variance Drawings

Sign age

Proposed Location on the Building

Making a Difforenct

PAGE 5

STAFF REPORT

C)

cr)

Proposed Location on the Building

38n I~ .,I

Dl D

::::nla ged Detail

Existing f' ropo:;:;d

Making a Difforence

/

PAGE 6

STAFF REPORT Making • Difftrtnco

SCHEDULE C- Letter of Rationale from the Applicant

January 19, 2015

City of Guelph 1 Carden Street Guelph, Ontario Canada N1H 3A1

Re: Letter of Rationale for Goodlife Fitness Stone Road Mall 435 Stone Rd W Guelph ON

To whom it may concern ,

~ sign tario 519.2 7 1. 1707

sales@signont . c a

fax : S l 9.2 7 2 . 1707

2838 , Pe r th Line 3 4

Strat f o r d On tar io

NSA 6S5

W\>1\oJ. s i g n on t. c a

It has been brought to our attention that the existing Goodlife Fitness sign has been relocated to the second story without a permit, and that a variance will be required in order to replace this sign with the new Goodlife Fit 4 Less branding.

1. The proposed Fit 4 Less sign will be replacing the existing Goodlife Fitness signs that is currently installed on the second story of the North West elevation of Stone Road Mall.

2. The landlord Primaris Reit has approved the placement of the sign on the second storey.

3. Although the previous Goodlife Fitness sign was relocated to the second storey without a permit it has not to date cause any issues or concerns with adjacent properties.

4. The proposed sign will not occupy more than 20% of the building face .

5. It is in Good life's Corporate look to have a sign on the highest point of the building.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Thanks .

·~L-d/M:L '/3J6 Melissa Betto Sign Ontario Ltd .

PAGE 7


PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE April 27, 2015


Your Public Services Committee beg leave to present their SECOND CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of April 7, 2015.



immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Public Services

Committee will be approved in one resolution.

PS-2015.9 Cenotaph Policy

1. That the Public Services Report # PS-15-16 “Cenotaph Policy” dated April 7, 2015, be received.

2. That staff be given approval to correct any errors or omissions on the Guelph

Cenotaph as well as add any new names in the future, subject to the criteria

set out in this report.


Councillor Cathy Downer, Chair

Public Services Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the April 7, 2015 Public Services Committee meeting.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 1

TO Public Services Committee

SERVICE AREA Public Services – Culture, Tourism and Community Investments

DATE April 7, 2015

SUBJECT Cenotaph Policy

REPORT NUMBER PS-15-16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To recommend a policy for determining how names will be added to the Guelph

Cenotaph, and how previous omissions and errors will be corrected.

KEY FINDINGS Staff have determined that there is a need for a corporate policy regarding the

correction or addition of names to Guelph’s Cenotaph, especially since there are no existing guidelines in place from any other level of government or from the Legion. It has come to light in recent months that a number of names have been

omitted from the cenotaph from both the First World War and Second World War. A policy is needed to ensure that these omissions are corrected and to

provide guidance for the addition of any new names in the future, should it be required.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost to add any missing names is minimal and can be covered within

existing operating budgets.

ACTION REQUIRED That the report is approved and that staff be given direction to proceed with

correcting previous errors or omissions, and that the addition of any new names in the future is subject to the guidelines in the report.

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT the Public Services Report # PS-15-16 “Cenotaph Policy” dated April 7,

2015 be received

2. THAT staff be given approval to correct any errors or omissions on the

Guelph Cenotaph as well as add any new names in the future, subject to the criteria set out in this report.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 2

BACKGROUND

Guelph’s Cenotaph is a memorial wall, located in Trafalgar Square at the junction of Wyndham Street, Eramosa Road and Woolwich Street, on which is listed the names of many Guelph natives who died during the First World War, the Second World War

and the Korean War. It is situated next to the War Memorial, a monument sculpted by artist Alfred Howell.

Until now, there has been no formal policy or process in place regarding the addition of names to the cenotaph. The last time names were added was following

the Korean War. Research indicates that in the past, lists of names were either compiled by volunteers at the Legion or submitted by families and loved ones.

In recent months, a number of inquiries have been received regarding possible errors or omissions in the list of names on the cenotaph. Several of these inquires

have come from relatives doing research into the lives of their loved ones. The lack of a clear policy or guideline for the listing of names has resulted in the omission of

some names, which now needs to be corrected.

REPORT

As part of the background research and to establish a database for future

reference, Guelph Museums' staff were asked to create a detailed catalogue of the names currently listed on the cenotaph, including a photo documentation of all the

names. Staff also undertook a best practises survey of other municipalities to determine

what policies are in place elsewhere. Ten comparator municipalities (Kitchener, Burlington, Windsor, Kingston, Brantford, Ajax, Whitby, Waterloo, Hamilton and

Ottawa) were selected based on their geography, population, high veteran demographic and/or recent news of a local veterans' death. Contact was also made

with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the Department of National Defence, and the Royal Canadian Legion.

This research determined that: There seems to be a general lack of understanding in most of the

municipalities surveyed as to who makes decisions related to their cenotaph(s);

Only two municipal comparators knew who their decision makers were and in

both cases, these decisions are associated with their Culture departments; No formal written cenotaph policies or guidelines are available from the

Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the Department of National Defence, or the Royal Canadian Legion;

Other municipalities have recognized the need to add those killed during

Peacekeeping and NATO missions to cenotaphs/memorials.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 3

As a criteria for adding names to Guelph’s Cenotaph, it is recommended that:

The names of any members of the Canadian Forces from Guelph, who have

died as a result of their military service, will be added to the Guelph Cenotaph in honour of their service.

This will allow for the inclusion of those who participated in peacekeeping or other NATO activities, in addition to those who served during a declared war or conflict.

In an attempt to exhaust all avenues to determine what names may have been missed, a process will be undertaken to interview a variety of community

stakeholders including members of the Royal Canadian Legion, local historians, Guelph Museums' staff, and any other interested community members.

Moving forward, in the circumstance of any future deaths, staff in the Culture, Tourism & Community Investments department will work with the Department of

Veteran’s Affairs, the Department of National Defence, and the Royal Canadian Legion to ensure that the correct names are added to the cenotaph.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN

Innovation in Local Government 2.2 Deliver Public Service better

2.3 Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION Corporate Communications

COMMUNICATIONS A media release and social media postings will be sent out seeking the public’s assistance in identifying any individuals whose names may be missing from the cenotaph. Staff will review and evaluate any submitted names to ensure factual

accuracy.

ATTACHMENTS N/A

Report Author Colleen Clack

General Manager, Culture, Tourism and Community Investments Public Services

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 4

__________________________ __________________________ Approved By Recommended By

Colleen Clack Derrick Thomson General Manager Deputy CAO

Culture, Tourism and Public Services Community Investments 519-822-1260 ext. 2588 519-822-1260 ext. 2665

[email protected] [email protected]



CONSENT AGENDA

Monday April 27, 2015

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Guelph City Council. SUMMARY OF REPORTS: The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate Council’s consideration of the various matters and are suggested for consideration. If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation of the Consent Agenda, please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Agenda will be approved in one resolution. A REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

REPORT DIRECTION

CON-2015.16 ANNUAL ASPHALT, CONTRACT 2-1501 1. That the tender of Capital Paving Inc., Guelph be accepted and that

the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement for Contract 2-1501 for the Annual Asphalt Contract for a total tendered price of $2,058,032.50 with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Approve

CON-2015.17 PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF 1211, 1221 AND

1231 GORDON STREET – WARD 6 1. That Report 15-39 regarding the proposed demolition of three (3)

single detached dwellings at 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street, legally described as Concession 7 Part Lot; Registered Plan 61R522 Part 1 and Parts 2 to 5; City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 27, 2015, be received.

2. That the proposed demolition of three (3) detached dwellings at

1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street be approved. 3. That the applicant be required to implement all tree

preservation/compensation measures in accordance with the approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and as further specified through Conditions of Site Plan Approval and/or the approved tree permit issued under the City’s Private Tree Protection By-law.

Approve

4. That the applicant be required to implement mitigation measures identified in the EIR and in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act regarding the removal/relocation of bats from the three (3) detached dwellings prior to demolition.

5. That a Tree Permit under the Private Tree Protection By-law be

obtained from the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any of the dwellings.

attach.

STAFF

REPORT

1

TO City Council SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise DATE April 27, 2015 SUBJECT ANNUAL ASPHALT, CONTRACT 2-1501

REPORT NUMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To award the tender for the Annual Asphalt Contract 2-1501

KEY FINDINGS N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funding for this contract is from approved capital budgets and developer contributions.

ACTION REQUIRED City Council to approve the award of the tender for the Annual Asphalt Contract 2-1501

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the tender of Capital Paving Inc., Guelph be accepted and that the

Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement for Contract 2-1501 for the Annual Asphalt Contract for a total tendered price of $2,058,032.50 with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

BACKGROUND The contract work entails the rehabilitation of existing roads, hot mix asphalt paving and associated improvements including curb and gutters and sidewalks at various locations within the City as part of our ongoing infrastructure sustainability initiatives. The improvements will not include underground infrastructure. In addition, the contract also includes placement of hot mix asphalt paving on new subdivision streets in various locations within the City. This project was tendered in March 2015 as Contract 2-1501.

STAFF

REPORT

2

REPORT Tenders for the above mentioned project were received Tuesday, March 31, 2015 as follows:

1. Capital Paving Inc., Guelph………………………………….$2,058,032.50 2. E and E Seegmiller, Kitchener……………………………..$2,133,918.26 3. Cox Construction Limited, Guelph……………………….$2,683,124.66 4. Coco Paving, Petersburg………………………………………$2,844,210.00 5. Brantco Construction, Cambridge………………………..$3,040,571.23

The tenders were checked for legal and arithmetic accuracy. All were found to arithmetically correct in the above order of tender. Capital Paving Inc., Guelph has successfully completed work on previous annual asphalt and capital project contracts in the City of Guelph. Staff therefore recommend that the contract be awarded to this firm.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 3.1 Ensure a well-designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funding for this contract is from approved capital budgets and developer contributions.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION Operations, Traffic Investigations, Water Services, Wastewater Services, Transportation Planning and Engineering were circulated the proposed list for repairs and have provided their input.

COMMUNICATIONS A notice of construction will be forwarded to the residents and businesses in the project areas prior to construction and the annual asphalt program will also be published in the City Page of the Guelph Tribune as well as posted on guelph.ca

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Budget and Financial Schedule Attachment 2 2015 Annual Asphalt Program link:

http://guelph.ca/seasonal/2015-annual-asphalt-list/

http://guelph.ca/seasonal/2015-annual-asphalt-list/

STAFF

REPORT

3

Report Author Grant Ferguson Program Manager, Technical Services Original signed by Kealy Dedman original signed by Al Horsman _____________________ _____________________ Approved By Recommended By

Kealy Dedman, P. Eng. Al Horsman General Manager/City Engineer Deputy CAO Engineering and Capital Infrastructure, Development Infrastructure Services and Enterprise 519-822-1260, ext. 2248 519-822-1260, ext. 5606 [email protected] [email protected]



JDE Project number: Capital Budget: RD0276/DA0087/DA0126/DA0188/DA0194/DA0158/TF0004Project name: Annual Asphalt

Contract # 2-1501Prepared by: Walter EstradaDate: April 07, 2015

Total Federal Developers Provincial Current CityCost Gas Tax Accounts Gov't Grants Revenues Reserves Debt

A. Budget Approval & Additional FundingRD0276 Pavement Deficit 11,091,000 8,872,800 0 0 0 2,218,200 0DA0087 Chillico Woods 226,549 226,549DA0126 Chillico Glen Part A 82,176 82,176DA0188 Chillico Glen Part B 63,659 63,659DA0194 Cityview Heights Ph.2 388,035 388,035DA0158 Southgate Bus. Park Ph.1 190,682 190,682TF0004 Traffic Signals 631,500 631,500Budget Approval 12,673,602 8,872,800 951,102 0 0 2,849,700 0

B. Budget RequirementRD0276 Pavement Deficit 1,547,607DA0087 Chillico Woods 168,224DA0126 Chillico Glen Part A 44,863DA0188 Chillico Glen Part B 63,659DA0194 Cityview Heights Ph.2 66,729DA0158 Southgate Bus. Park Ph.1 85,370TF0004 Traffic Signals 81,581Tender Price: Capital Paving Inc (excluding HST) 2,058,033Less: HST (calculated at 13%) 187,429

Budget and Financing Schedule

External Financing Internal Financing

Less: HST (calculated at 13%) 187,429Add: HST Payable (calculated at 1.76%) 25,375City Share (RD0276+TF0004) 1,467,134 1,027,142 110,102 0 0 329,890 0Developers Share (DA0087,DA0126,DA0188,DA0194,DA015 8) 428,845 300,235 32,183 0 0 96,427 0Total Cost: Capital Paving Inc (including HST) 1,895,979 1,327,376 142,285 0 0 426,317 0plus: Expenditures to Date - All Projects 9,695,887 6,788,099 727,637 0 0 2,180,151 0plus: Committed Work on Exisiting POs & Contracts - All Projects 60,543 42,386 4,543 0 0 13,613 0plus: Contingency- All Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0plus: Future Work- All Projects 1,021,193 714,938 76,636 0 0 229,619 0TOTAL BUDGET REQUIREMENT 12,673,602 8,872,800 951,102 0 0 2,849,700 0

C. Surplus / (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D. Revised project budget 12,673,602 8,872,800 951,102 0 0 2,849,700 0

Summary

BudgetPO & Expenses

to dateThis Request Balance

RD0276 Pavement Deficit 11,091,000 9,215,874 1,393,668 481,458DA0087 Chillico Woods 226,549 267 168,224 58,058DA0126 Chillico Glen Part A 82,176 0 44,863 37,313DA0188 Chillico Glen Part B 63,659 0 63,659 0DA0194 Cityview Heights Ph.2 388,035 10,492 66,729 310,814DA0158 Southgate Bus. Park Ph.1 190,682 85,370 105,312TF0004 Traffic Signals 631,500 529,797 73,467 28,237

12,673,602 9,756,430 1,895,979 1,021,193TOTAL

Capital Budget

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 1

TO City Council

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE April 27, 2015

SUBJECT Proposed Demolition of 1211, 1221 and 1231

Gordon Street

Ward 6

REPORT NUMBER 15-39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide background and a staff recommendation related to a request for demolition approval of three (3) single detached dwellings.

KEY FINDINGS Three (3) existing single detached dwellings are proposed to be demolished and

replaced with a proposed mixed use development consisting of seventy seven (77) new residential apartment units and three hundred and seven (307) square metres of commercial space, resulting in a net gain of residential dwelling units.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None.

ACTION REQUIRED Council is being asked to approve the demolition request.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report 15-39 regarding the proposed demolition of three (3) single

detached dwellings at 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street, legally described as Concession 7 Part Lot; Registered Plan 61R522 Part 1 and Parts 2 to 5; City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 27, 2015,

be received.

2. That the proposed demolition of three (3) detached dwellings at 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street be approved.

3. That the applicant be required to implement all tree preservation/compensation measures in accordance with the approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

and as further specified through Conditions of Site Plan Approval and/or the approved tree permit issued under the City’s Private Tree Protection By-law.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 2

4. That the applicant be required to implement mitigation measures identified in the EIR and in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act regarding

the removal/relocation of bats from the three (3) detached dwellings prior to demolition.

5. That a Tree Permit under the Private Tree Protection By-law be obtained from

the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any of the dwellings


Resources, within Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise regarding options for the salvage or recycling of all demolition materials.

BACKGROUND An application to demolish three (3) single detached dwellings at 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street was received on November 14, 2014 by Planning, Urban

Design and Building Services.

The subject properties are located on the west side of Gordon Street and north of

Edinburgh Road South. The subject properties are zoned WL (Wetland), which permits Wetland Flood Control Facilities, Recreation Trails (approved by the Grand

River Conservation Authority) and Wildlife Management Areas; P.1 (Conservation Land), which permits Conservation Areas, Flood Control Facilities, Recreation Trails and Wildlife Management Areas; and NC-8 (Specialized Neighbourhood Shopping

Centre) which permits Dwelling Units with permitted commercial uses in the same building in accordance with Section 4.15.2, Art Galleries, Artisan Studios, Clubs, Day

Care Centres in accordance with Section 4.26, Dry Cleaning Outlets, Financial Establishments, Group Homes in accordance with Section 4.25, Laundries, Libraries,

Medical Clinics, Medical Offices, Offices, Personal Service Establishments, Religious Establishments, Restaurant, Restaurants (take-out), Retail Establishments, Veterinary Services, Accessory Uses in accordance with Section 4.23 and Occasional

Uses in accordance with Section 4.21.

The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing dwellings on the subject properties and subsequently construct a new mixed-use structure consisting of seventy seven (77) residential apartment units and three hundred and seven (307)

square metres of retail/commercial space (see location map and site photos on Attachments 1 and 2). There is currently an active Site Plan application (file number

SP13A044) which was submitted on October 16, 2013. The proposed site plan and front elevation concept drawings for the replacement building is included in

Attachment 3 for information and was submitted as part of the site plan application.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 3

REPORT The City’s Demolition Control By-law was passed under the authority of Section 33 of the Planning Act. The By-law is intended to help the City “...retain the existing stock of residential units and former residential buildings in the City of Guelph.”

Section 33 of the Planning Act allows that Council’s decision may be appealed by the applicant to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, an applicant may appeal

if there is no decision within 30 days of filing the application.

Cultural Heritage Resources The structures at 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street are not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and have not been listed (as non-designated) in the City of

Guelph’s Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties according to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Section 27, Subsection 4 of Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act states that restriction on demolition applies only if a property is listed in the register before

any application is made for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 to demolish or remove a building or structure located on the property.

The Senior Heritage Planner has conducted a site visit for photographic

documentation and to assess the integrity of the property’s potential heritage attributes. The property as it exists today has limited cultural heritage value when assessed using the three criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest

established by Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is staff’s opinion that the buildings do not have significant architectural/design value,

historical/associative or contextual value. Heritage Planning staff have no objection to the proposed demolition of all buildings on the subject properties.

Tree Protection The subject properties once consolidated is more than 0.2 hectares in size and,

therefore is regulated by the Private Tree Protection By-law.

An Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) was submitted as part of the site plan application for the property which addressed a number of natural heritage

matters pertaining to the site. Two specific parts of the EIR are also related to the proposed demolition activities.

Trees Tree removals were addressed through the EIR. Approximately 160 trees are to be

removed from the site. Tree compensation is to be provided for all tree removals where the trees are in excellent to fair condition at a minimum of replacement of

3:1. Removals are to accommodate demolition, grading and site alternation resulting from the redevelopment of the site, as well as restoration and enhancement works within the wetland buffer. Compensation plantings will be

used on site to support restoration and enhancement of the wetland and its buffer.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 4

Tree removal and compensation will be implemented in accordance with the approved EIR through Conditions of Site Plan Approval and the City’s Private Tree

By-law.

Bats Through the EIR the 3 houses on site have been identified through the as roosting (breeding) sites for Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus). None of the 3 bat species

listed under the Endangered Species Act were found to be using the buildings as roosting sites. Big Brown Bat is a protected species under the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act, 1997 (FWCA). As such, it is prohibited to harass, capture or kill Big Brown Bats.

In order to comply with FWCA requirements, mitigation measures will be implemented prior to demolition to ensure that the bats are removed/relocated

from the buildings, as recommended within the EIR. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry was also consulted regarding the mitigation measures. Bat

houses have also been erected along the wetland edge to help create alternative roosting habitats for bats, in accordance with the EIR.

Recommendation The approval of the demolition application is recommended as the existing

dwellings are not significant cultural heritage resources, and are proposed to be replaced with a new mixed use residential/commercial development. Therefore,

there will be no overall loss of residential stock proposed as a result of this application.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN City Building – Strategic Directions 3.1: Ensure a well-designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION The City’s Senior Heritage Planner and Environmental Development Planner were consulted regarding the proposed demolition permit.

COMMUNICATIONS A sign was posted on the subject property advising that a demolition permit has been submitted and that interested parties can contact Building Services for

additional information.

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 5

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Location Map

Attachment 2 - Site Photos Attachment 3 - Proposed Site Plan for Mixed Use Development

Attachment 4 - Proposed Front Elevation for Mixed Use Development

Prepared By: Approved By:

Randy Harris Sylvia Kirkwood Administrator of Manager of Development Planning Planning Technical Services

original signed by Todd Salter original signed by Al Horsman

_________________ __________________________ Approved By Recommended By Todd Salter Al Horsman

General Manager Deputy CAO Planning, Urban Design and Building Infrastructure, Development

Services and Enterprise 519-822-1260, ext.2395 519-822-1260, ext. 5606 [email protected] [email protected]

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 6

ATTACHMENT 1 – Location Map

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 7

ATTACHMENT 2 – Site Photos

Aerial Photograph

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 8

Photos of 1211, 1221 and 1231 Gordon Street

1211 Gordon Street

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 9

1221 Gordon Street

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 10

1231 Gordon Street

(Photos taken by Randy Harris April 2015)

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 11

ATTACHMENT 3 – Proposed Site Plan for Mixed Use Development

STAFF

REPORT

PAGE 12

ATTACHMENT 4 – Proposed Front Elevation for Mixed Use

Development

Please recycle! - BYLAWS –

- April 27, 2015 –

By-law Number (2015) – 19887

A by-law to make City by-laws apply to City highways located outside the geographic limits of the City.

To make City by-laws apply to city

highways outside of city limits as approved by Council March 23, 2015.

By-law Number (2105)-19888

A by-law to amend By-law Number (2012)-19356, as amended, being a by-

law respecting Building, Demolition, Conditional and Change of Use Permits, Inspections, appointment of Inspectors

and a Code of Conduct and to adopt Municipal Code Amendment #523, which

amends Chapter 116 of the Municipal Code.

To amend the Building By-law to appoint

and remove inspectors.

By-law Number (2015)-19889 A by-law to remove:

Block 95 & Part of Block 95, Plan 61M182 designated as Parts 30 to 51,

Reference Plan 61R20549 in the City of Guelph from Part Lot Control. (49, 51,

53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63 Jeffrey Drive)

A by-law to remove land from part lot control to create separate parcels for

townhouse dwelling units known municipally as 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59,

61, 63 Jeffrey Drive.


A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between iN4Structure Ltd.

and The Corporation of the City of Guelph. (Contract No. 2-1507 – Summit

Towns Phase 2 Subdivision road construction and servicing)

To execute Contract No. 2-1507 with

respect to Summit Towns Phase 2 Subdivision road construction and

servicing.

By-law Number (2015)-19891 A By-law to provide for the temporary

closure of Law Drive and Pettitt Drive within the Summit Towns Phase 2

Subdivision during servicing and road construction. (Contract 2-1507).

To provide for the temporary closure of roads with respect to Summit Towns

Phase 2 Subdivision road construction and servicing.

By-law Number (2015)-19892 A by-law to set tax ratios and tax rate

reductions for prescribed property subclasses for the Corporation of the

City of Guelph for the year 2015.

To set the tax ratios and tax rate reductions for 2015 as per Corporate

Services Committee Consent Report clause CS-2015.12.

By-law Number (2015)-19893 A by-law to levy education tax rates for the year 2015.

To levy education tax rates for 2015.


A by-law to set the tax rates for City purposes for the year 2015 and to

provide for a final tax levy and the payment of taxes.

To set the tax rates for 2015 and to

provide for a final tax levy and payment of taxes.

By-law Number (2015)-19895 A by-law to impose and levy a rate of

taxation for the Board of Management for the Downtown Business

Improvement Area of the City of Guelph for the 2015 taxation year.

To impose and levy a rate of taxation for the Board of Management for the

Downtown Business Improvement Area. For 2015.

city council agenda - city of guelph - city of guelph · that report 15-22 regarding an application...

Documents