Welcome everyone to the Community Services Advisory Committee. It's the September 21 meeting, and we'll
call the meeting to order. Joining us virtually is a member that will be, not a member, an individual
who is doing a deputation. I'm expecting Councillor Dodd to join us virtually. We have received
your grants from Member Jason Dantis and the remaining members are in the council chambers. We'll
begin by calling for additional business. Are there any items for additional business? Seeing none,
I'll move on then. Any declarations of interest? No declarations? Confirmation of the minutes. These are the
minutes from July 20, 2022. Council has received these minutes and approved them, but for purposes
we do need the committee to have a mover. Member Nicole? Is moving the minutes? Any questions
regarding the minutes? All those in favor? That's carried. Thank you. Next item is our
deputation, and we have a presentation from MacFluis, the manager of Planning, sorry,
environmental planning for gray, solvable conservation authority, and I'll turn the meeting over
then to Mac. Thank you. Great. Thank you for having me virtually night. As I introduced my name is
Vaxluis, I'm the manager of environmental planning with gray, solvable conservation authority. I'm here to
present GSEA's planning and permit fee review that something we've been undertaking this past year,
and I'll start off with just introducing the planning department with the CA does from a planning
permitting perspective and then discuss the review and report that we've been undertaking. So I'm just
going to turn off my video on presenting if that's all right, and we'll go to the next slide.
Okay, so this is the GSEA planning team at present. There are six staff members.
We're pretty young team overall. We had lost a lot of experience last year,
about 35 years of planning experience with retirement of my predecessor and two other planning
staffed of archers earlier in the year. So other than myself and just team went to the environmental
planner, the other staff we have, they're relatively new hires within the last year and a half.
We deal with a very high volume of planning and permit applications,
greatly we've been seeing over 900 planning and permit applications a year with an additional volume of
phone calls email inquiries and violations. So to put this into perspective of what we're seeing,
we took a look at the volumes that other conservation authorities were seeing within their areas.
GSEA is within the top 20% of application volume compared to other CAs within the province,
yet we're within the bottom 40% of staffing levels. So we're doing a lot of work with less
at the moment anyways. Next slide please.
So recently the province undertook changes to the Conservation Authorities Act with the purpose of
defining the programs and services that a CA can undertake. So they define the mandatory roles that
CAs have. So first off CAs can act on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on
planning act matters. So this includes reviewing planning applications such as zoning bylaw amendments,
plans of subdivisions, consent applications, official plan amendments, and commenting on those applications
with respect to the natural hazard policies identified in the provincial policy statement.
We also review and provide input on comprehensive municipal zoning bylaw as well as overall official
plans. Our review includes the natural hazard policies, but it excludes the hazardous force types in
wildland fire that are also identified in those policies. We're a public body under the planning act.
So we must be notified of municipal planning documents and applications. CAs are also mandated to
comment on natural hazards related to applications made under the Resource Act, Drane Object, Environmental
Assessment Act, and Niagara Scrubbing Planning and Development Act. We have a regular Tory responsibility
under Section 28 of the Conservation Authority's Act. Section 28 in power CAs to regulate
development and alterations within areas and features that are defined by the regulation.
So what this means is that landowners need permits from our office if they're undertaking
development within or near areas such as floodplains, wetlands, shorelines of the Great Lakes and inland
valley lands and other hazardous types of lands. So these functions that are listed are
from a planning department perspective. There's other things that the Conservation Authority's
have to do, but this is limited to just planning and we're required to carry out these options.
Next slide please. We also have the option for discretionary role and this is established to
remember random of understandings with our member municipalities. What we can enter in agreements
to provide for planning and technical services under the Planning Act on behalf of the municipality.
So the agreements detail the types of level of programs and services that are to be provided by the CA.
These discretionary role typically extends to things such as stormwater management review,
natural heritage review under the provincial policy statement as well as the water policies of the
provincial policy statement. The table below just outlines the different agreements that we have
with our member municipalities and when they were established. So they were initially established in 2007,
most of them. There was an effort to renew those agreements back in 2019 and you can see that some of them
were renewed, including the city of own sound agreement in 2020. However, the COVID-19 pandemic
really put a wrench and carry on with receiving the other agreements. So that's something we certainly
would like to get back to. Next slide please. So with undertaking these programs and services,
we need to collect fees to be able to do what we are required to do and also within our discretionary
roles. So CA is can charge fees for plan review and section 28 permits. The Ministry of Natural Resources
and Forestry guidance on fees is for full recovery cost of the program. Additionally, the Planning Act
section 69 of the Planning Act does that fees are designed to meet the anticipated cost for the
processing and reviewing the applications. When we look at our current fees that we have,
they were originally established around 2006 and then were reviewed on an annual basis and generally
increased based on CPI, CPI rate of that previous year. So there was really no, from what we could tell,
there was no comprehensive review of the fees at the time they were established. You'll see the short
file that this is resulted in as I as I go on in this presentation. The other thing I'd like to
note too is that when the regulation was established in 2006 and these agreements were established in 2007,
the authority we were operating with about five, four to five planning staff at the time. We're
presently we have six staff but we've been operating with five for quite a while and the application
volumes have only gone up since then. While we've been able to add a six staff this year,
we haven't really felt the benefit of that because I've been on a parental leave for part of this year,
and we have another staff member at the moment who's on a parental leave and will be returning short of
an excite please. So in 2021, GSEA Engaged Watson's in Associates, a professional
economic consulting firm to undertake a comprehensive review of our program rates and fees.
They were tasked with assessing the full cost of providing planning and permitting services
and then provide a result and in return provide a fee recommendation that conforms with legislation
they were directed to utilize cost recovery principle with affordability and competitiveness
where they looked at analyzing cost comparators with other conservation authorities and municipalities.
We knew that going with Watson's, they've undertaken this type of work with several other
conservation authorities and municipalities so we knew that we would get a defensible, defensible product
going with Watson's next slide please. So this graphic outlines the activity-based
costing methodology that attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating
departments and individuals involved in tearing out the planning and permitting functions.
So the first part of this was to identify the indirect costs associated with the department
that's including things such as GIS support, IT support and Mint support, your corporate overhead
such as HR, you know, the theory of authority has a cost to upgrade the building as well as providing
materials and equipment for staff to use and vehicles to conduct site visits with.
It also reminds the direct costs associated with undertaking the service delivery.
This is primarily primarily related to planning, staff, salary and wages,
and any other staff that are directly involved in reviewing the planning implication.
And then it takes those costs and assesses them with the different fee,
kind of cost-incategories and spreading in them out across the different type of applications.
Next slide please.
So when you as a net methodology, the Watson's report identified an annual cost of 1.1 $7 million for the
department. The majority of costs that were identified or associated with direct service costs,
and I should hope to that this is including additional staff members that all highlight
over the next slide, not just the staff that we currently have.
As mentioned, the minister's fee policy recommend recommends a user pay principle for fee collection
and the proposed fees that Watson presented with us, including consideration for other costs,
providing use services, and the Watson review balances the this across fee categories based on
effort requirements. So one of the things we had to do at a staff level to help Watson's
was to take every type of application that we have, both planning and permit and assess what would be
a standard or a typical type of that application and the amount of effort it takes to undertake
the review with that application. So literally from the intake to filing, to review, to site,
visit, to prepare and comments, to issue and comments, and any other things such as meetings that may
be associated with that review of application. Next slide please.
So one of the things that I don't believe it's felt it specifically within the report and
all first I should note that you can find the report on GSEA's website. It's under the planning
permits tab, it will be the top, the top one there, and it's our project page that has the report
as well as the fee, the proposed fee tables with that. So that's where you can find the report.
I'm not going to present the overall tables in this but I'll get into some of the highlights that are
associated with what the findings were. But in discussion with Watson's and looking at the volumes
that we see as well as the staffing levels, we were seeing staff operating at about 130%
capacity, which is not sustainable. With the positions that we have proposed, this would
lower it down on average to about 95% within the planning department. So the positions we would like to
add are the as a regulations officer position, which we are actually able to hire this year.
Based on some of the savings we're seeing with the parental leaves that we had.
The regulations officer, their primary duty is to undertake permit review as well as enforcement
of that of situations where
People proceed with works without kidding their permit. We'd like to hire a water resources engineer. I don't believe this position would be full-time within the planning department. They would be part-time and their primary role would be to provide technical review assistance on those engineered plans that we get such as flood-tained reports, stormwater management reports, geotechnical reports, hydrogelogical reports, you know, the full gamut of reports.
As well as a planning call, this position would be someone who specializes in natural heritage review. They would undertake review of environmental impact studies.
We recognize that we probably don't have enough environmental impact studies for this position to review fully.
We need, like, as there are sole responsibility.
So this position would also probably be involved in the general plan review with the applications that we get from our municipalities.
So, with our current fee structure, that would provide for 33% cost recovery with the proposed staff positions that would leave us with a $748,000 shortfall.
If we maintain our current staffing level and the current fee structure, it only provides for about 44% cost recovery and would leave us with a $492,000 shortfall.
If we do not factor in the required staffing or overhead or indirect cost, the current fee structure is only still capturing about 64% of the overall cost, so a $919,000 shortfall.
Next slide to this.
As mentioned, the proposed fee table, you can find on our website, but I'm going to go over some of the highlights from that and some of the items that have garnered some discussion from it.
So they are full cost recovery recommendations that have been provided in those fee tables.
One of the things that it introduces is minor and major categories for planning review.
So in a minor category, there's no technical studies or there may be one minor technical review associated with that application.
So this would be really your standard type of zoning by-law amendment where there's not a lot of technical information needed to consider it versus the major where there's a full technical studies required to support the application.
So you're seeing two full studies such as the storm water management report and an EIS for geotechnical or whatever type of study that would be involved in reviewing that.
That could also include a floodplain study.
There's a full range of studies there that we can have an interested in and comment on.
It introduces a 20% discount provided for the total fee of combined applications.
The current process for discounting combined applications is that the first applications assess that the full cost and then each subsequent application sees a 50% discount.
That can be a little bit of a tricky calculation we find.
And there's a lot of questions back and forth that could be raised when the availability collects the fee.
So once it's identified 20% as a discount that would be about the same as utilizing the 50% on second applications.
And it would be a much simpler math exercise where you're just taking the total of all the applications that are applying to 20% discount.
Free consultation fees are to be credited against the formal application fees so that's to recognize that.
There's a level of effort that goes into undertaking the pre-consultation that is necessarily duplicated when we get the formal applications because much of the work's been done at the pre-constage.
Next slide please.
So some of the fees on the table that raised interest it wasn't necessarily the fee itself or the number more so the percent increase.
So the Watson's report noted in major zoning by law and then proposed to increase over 1200%.
So it's not truly the increase that.
That you'd actually see because it's looking at our present days owning by law amendment fee which is 790 or sorry $390 and comparing it to the major application category.
So the way that would really truly break out to be a better comparison is that if we had a technical review associated with that zoning by law amendment.
Presently we would collect the zoning by law amendment fee of the $390.
Plus invoice the applicant directly for the technical review of the EIS Council and Water Management report.
So I've added those values that under a present fee schedule.
So in an instance where you have a zoning by law amendment plus two technical reviews the fees $3,410.
Compared to the major which automatically has those technical reviews rolled into it.
So we're not invoicing separately afterwards the fees $5,100.
So really the proposed changes almost 50% increase.
There's the same rationale with the official plan amendment application where that technical review fee is rolled into the major application already.
And it's not really fair to compare it to the standalone official plan amendment fee that we see today.
Next slide please.
Same principle with the minor major site plan reviews where we're seeing increases reported around 6509% and 777%.
They would also include an element of technical review that increases as you get to the major category and we wouldn't be invoicing separately.
For that technical review.
Another part of the fee table that's garnered some attention is the class B and C environmental assessments which represent a 749% increase and a 1,224% increase.
So again our present fee is very low when considering environmental assessments and the potential work that's involved in review those types of files or applications.
We only have one base fee right now and it doesn't include breaking it into class A, B or C categories.
So the class B and C get into more technical reviews of those environmental assessments.
Typically though these projects are municipal projects and we don't charge a fee to remember municipalities so we actually haven't even seen a class C application over the past year or over the past five years and we've only seen one class B application over the past five years.
And these are again of our largely municipal projects so we're not even collecting a fee in that case.
Next slide please.
So right now we're in the consultation phase but we're getting closer to the finish line so the things that we are considering is.
You know there's been from home we've heard from the memories as tall as a bit of questions around the major and minor fee categories.
Some may prefer to have the technical review fees broken out as present and our fee table doesn't include a technical review fee.
So it's possible we can do that and it would be similar to our existing approach.
I think ultimately that would really work out in our discussions with our member municipalities of what their preferences in collecting fees through the MOU agreements that we have.
I think we we've been looking at further consideration the multiple application discount but I think the 20% that Watson's presented does make sense.
And then there's we're looking at doing some refinement to the definitions of the permit categories.
This presentation is largely focused on planning.
The permit categories under our regulation there's a minor category that we feel is quite high considering the types of projects that typically fall within that minor category.
So we're looking at introducing another level of category that would be even below that and capture some really basic things in there at a reasonable cost because one of the things that we're concerned about.
Is that people look at the fee schedule and think well I'm just going to do the work anyways because that's too expensive and we don't want to increase the amount of violations that we see.
Because we largely don't get fees coming back in with that so I think it makes sense for everyone to have a more basic category below the better that would be will make a lot of sense for my cost perspective.
Next slide please.
So our next steps we've been taking in the comments we've received.
We've been looking at some of the different options that we have.
We're preparing a proposed revised proposed fee schedule for the board recommendation and targeting our September meeting which is next Wednesday.
I believe that September 28th.
Once it's approved we're going to look at implementation to our MLUs with municipalities and begin hiring the proposed positions.
It would really make a lot of sense to have those positions on board before we start collecting the increase fees.
So ideally that would line up to to start off 2023 with the revised fees.
And then implement new fee schedule.
Next slide.
And that's all I have for today so if there's any questions.
Please let me know.
Thank you Mac.
That was a lot of information to.
Crunchy into short period of time.
Members of the committee do you have any direct questions for Mr. Blues.
Go ahead Morgan.
Through you Madam Chair is just in regards to the sustainability of your proposed fee structure.
How long do you think these fees would be in place?
A couple years five years.
Yes.
Thank you.
I believe they would be looked at on an annual basis as President practice.
There is a component in the report and I can't recall off the top of my head.
There is an element of looking at those fees every year and in assessing.
What are reasonable increase would be.
But that's outlined in the Boston Street Board.
Thank you.
Other questions.
Go ahead Jim.
Through you Madam Chair.
The question is with respect to the proposed revised fees.
Where the technical reviews are included.
Just for a price comparison is a typical.
Like a current use of application plus two technical reviews is two technical reviews.
The most common number or would be more likely that there would be more than that.
It could include more than that.
There's no real common number because it really depends on the application and what's required to support it.
It's just we realize once we get to two technical reviews there's a level of effort there that's quite substantial and any additional technical reports beyond that.
Doesn't substantially increase the level of effort versus if we have just a basic application where there's either a scope report the level of effort is quite less than the major one.
So that's what we were trying to capture with that.
Thank you.
Staff would you like to deal with a D one at this time or just comment.
Yeah, if we could Madam Chair I think well max on the line if if you don't mind.
Don't want to recap what he said tonight but really the reason for this were the changes to the Conservation Authority's act and the provincial mandate that there be this transparent review of fees.
And that those municipal programs and services really would be based on that cost recovery basis.
We certainly support great county staff comment and I'll just read a couple of lines here that the conservation authorities across the county and for sure in own sound plan integral role in the plan review and development application process without these comments municipalities and or the county would need to hire staff with natural heritage expertise or contract.
Out that review to a third party and and that's certainly the case in own sound when we talk about the development team.
Mac and his group at grace all the left certainly part of that.
So the methodology for reviewing their fees was really established by the regulation.
They picked Watson's to do it.
They're doing 10 other authorities on Ontario so they certainly have it down to a science.
I think it's important to note whatever they don't collect for their budget through these types of.
Cost recoveries would be then added to the municipal levels or levy so I think you know it really is important that they they put a fine point on the the amount and the cost of providing these services that are generally two developers.
It's really important to that the fees will be consistent among the watersheds so all the great county municipalities covered by grace.
And authority will, you know, will be paying the same fees. Really appreciate Max comment about the new kind of basic fee, but certainly the minor and major fee categories in terms of those technical reviews. I think that's really positive.
The combination discount, the report notes that the MOU will certainly clarify things like definition, the role, the timing.
Um, exactly what type of application falls into what category in that MOU will come back to this committee. So we would just recommend that this committee recommends that council direct staff to share this report with GSEA as the city's comments on the permitting fees.
Thank you for that.
I don't hear me earlier.
Happy move that recommendation.
Thank you. Are there any comments or questions regarding that particular report?
It's item 81 that we're dealing with now.
Um, and the recommendation has been moved. All those in favor?
That's carried. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda. Thank you very much, Mack.
It's been very helpful with your expertise.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda is a public question period.
We, I don't believe we have any public questions.
Correspondence was received from a letter from Mr. Ferguson.
And I'll ask staff to comment on this particular letter.
Lauren, is Mr. Ferguson on the line with us?
Oh, okay.
Well, I guess I would want to thank Mr. Ferguson for taking time to write to us with his idea for a
design review panel.
His proposal really suggests that this panel would provide input on the architectural drawings
and guidelines for developments likely kind of twice as we work through that
development approvals process.
He certainly correct.
Currently there is no review panel in on sound.
However, this doesn't mean that architectural design and guidelines are not being considered.
Matters of urban design including architectural control are important.
So section 41 of the Planning Act really says two things need to be in play or sorry.
It says under section 41 matters relating to exterior design can be included in site plan control.
A few of two things in place.
One is official plan policies that lay that out and second is a site plan control by line.
I can tell you that the city has both of those things.
Our new official plan has policies on urban design and schedule e of the official plan
lays out the studies and requirements for complete application and things like urban design
studies, significant viewcatic corridor as well as shadowing studies are part of that.
So we have the required OP and bylaw in place.
So staff have utilized architectural control on projects within the river district as well as on projects
that are designated under the Heritage Ontario Heritage Act.
So like other plans these architectural control guidelines and drawings become schedules to the site plan agreement.
So recent examples actually came to this committee was the St. Mary's Church.
The development of St. Mary's Church.
I can tell you that all new plans of subdivision being approved today require or have a condition recommended by staff
that includes architectural control guidelines.
So we also carefully review those facade grants in terms of architecture.
In the city's five year capital plan we also have a project identified to create urban design guidelines.
It won't be a one size fits all but you know really laying out unique criteria for the downtown
the water front areas, east city, commercial et cetera.
So these guidelines would create clear expectations for developers and for staff in reviewing those.
Just like you've heard from Mac tonight.
If necessary we would get a peer review of that of those studies and guidelines.
I would remind committee Bill 109 more homes more choices mandates site plan approval delegation to staff.
We have 60 days now in which to get an application in review it for a complete list circulated to our agency partners.
Review those technical reports and studies.
So we have a similar the feedback and prepare a report for staff delegation and approval all in 60 days.
With a lot of other stuff going on at the same time.
So moving to include a design panel would certainly complicate and probably compromise our ability to.
You know achieve those deadlines.
So I would recommend that the committee just received Mr. Ferguson's letter.
Thank you any questions or comments or a motion to receive.
Morgan.
That's a motion to receive all those in favor.
Thank you.
Okay next item is reports from parks and open space.
First report being regarding greenwood cemetery by law update.
Thank you madam chair and good evening committee.
Report CS-22104 discusses greenwood cemetery Jewish and Muslim sections and an update to the by law.
Cemetery is regulated under the Ontario funeral burials and cremation services act under the authority of the municipal act in the greenwood cemetery by law.
Greenwood cemetery by law regulates the day to day operation at cemetery.
In 2020 a new greenwood cemetery master plan was approved by council.
The goal or the review and update was to ensure continuity of service delivery.
Ensure the needs and expectations of families and funeral service providers are met.
Ensure the cemetery can respond to changing and diverse needs of the community.
And examine the lifespan and sustainability of greenwood cemetery.
The updated planning.
The updated plan included 16 recommendations across key themes of interment options, administration, operations and grounds and buildings and buildings and maintenance.
Interment options included a recommendation to formalize the existing Jewish section through an agreement executed by by law.
And to establish a Muslim section also via an agreement executed by by law to provide space for culturally specific interment practices and funeral services to occur in a manner consistent with each community's needs as well as to formally establish a natural burial section.
The purpose of this report is to prevent a new draft greenwood cemetery by law consistent with the recommendations in the master plan and bring forward draft agreements for consideration and approval with the best to seek it.
Betha Zikil Synagogue and the Oensound Muslim Association.
To formally establish dedicated sections for culturally appropriate interments.
In 2022 the city solicitor prepared a new greenwood cemetery by law and agreements for dedicated sections for natural burles in Jewish and Muslim burles.
Updates included in the new draft by law attached to the report include provisions relating to the formal establishment of the sections.
Increasing the number of cremation internments per law from 3 to 4 and housekeeping amendments that reflect current service delivery practices.
In addition to the new draft greenwood cemetery by law Jewish and Muslim section agreements called reserve sectionary contracts were prepared.
These agreements will allow the Jewish and Muslim communities to reserve the rights to use lots in the prescribed areas exclusively for the determined deceased members of their respective communities.
The new draft by law is progressive and ensures that greenwood cemetery continues to serve the diverse needs of our community.
Financial implications with this report were legal fees for research and preparation of the agreements in by law.
There's no cost to submit the amended greenwood cemetery by law to the PAO for approval.
Who's the Bremen Authority of Ontario Regulator.
So the recommendation with this report is that a consideration of staff CS-22104, respecting updating the greenwood cemetery by law.
The community services committee recommends city council direct staff to bring forward a by law to repeal the greenwood cemetery by law number 2014-12
and replace it with a revised by law as I would mind in the report.
Bring forward a by law to authorize a marine clerk to execute an agreement to dedicate north west section range of 38 and 39 law numbers 3 to 32 as the Muslim section.
Bring forward a by law to authorize a marine clerk to execute an agreement to dedicate the north west section ranges 441 numbers 3 to 32 as the Jewish section.
Thank you.
Mr. Parsons.
Just a question.
Can you explain to us why three by laws are required as opposed to one that contains everything?
I can.
So the the the agreement cemetery by law itself is our day-to-day operations and the other two by laws are to execute agreements with the association.
So the agreements are not part of the formal cemetery by law in which case if either community comes to us in which is which is to propose changes to that we don't have to change the entire cemetery.
The entire cemetery by law which then has to be posted for 30 days and go back through the regulatory process.
So that's similar to us when we do maintenance at St Mary cemetery for instance that's a separate agreement with individual.
That's correct. That's how we operated before that's that agreement was terminated.
Okay, are there any questions of members of the committee or a motion to adopt the recommendations.
Councillor Hamley.
All those in favor of the motion.
That's carried.
Thank you.
Okay. Next item is a report from Mr. Parsons on the Emerald Ashbore Management.
Thank you madam chair as you referred the CS-22105 refers to the Emerald Ashbore Management Plan and next steps.
In 2014 the city adopted an EAB Management Plan Emerald Ashbore.
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the Emerald Ashbore.
Some are as the cities are borer culture program and resources dedicated to this program.
Review the current EAB program and the successes and challenges of implementation.
And consider next steps in the management of the disease and replacement of the urban forest.
Emerald Ashbore is a highly destructive invasive beetle that attacks and kills all ash tree species in the first genus family.
City employees to international society of our borer culture certified arborists who respond to between 280 and 410 calls for service annually.
Staff are currently responding to high and medium priority service calls.
Low priority service calls that are cosmetic currently have a lag time of up to two years before service can be prepared.
Under the existing model staff work fully committed to service calls and do not have the capacity to perform the work required to remove such a significant surge of necessary renewables.
And response to the pending EAB throughout the city developed the EAB plan initially AB plan in 2014.
It attempted to project the impacts of the EAB and all and sound and the plan provided direction over 10 year time frame.
The team plan projected costs to increase significantly over the 10 year life of the plan estimating on term costs to be greater than a million dollars.
Based on the experience of Ontario municipalities dealing with infestation as part of us.
A key action of the 2014 plan was establishing a tree inventory for the city for city properties and integral part of managing any asset is creating a baseline inventory.
So in 2015 the city completed a tree inventory of cities trees on trees on city lands and parks.
The inventory included street trees and trees within city parks and open spaces in higher traffic areas.
The inventory was not scope to include hazard lands or apartment lands.
The plan estimated 600 ash trees on city properties and rates of waste and 7500 in parks and open spaces.
The inventory result returned a result of 1,092 ash trees on streets and within managed areas of parks and open spaces.
Again this does not include un-inventory spaces such as city owners carbon hazard lands or wooded and on maintain portions of parks.
In 2016 the city proactively initiated a program of anoculating 165 ash trees to protect the selected trees from the advance of EAB towards the sound from the south.
Those two years prior to actually discovering EAB and all and sound.
These trees have been anoculated by annually for the prescribed treatment for EAB resistance.
In 2017 and the non-treatment years, EAB treatment occurs by annually, generally.
In the non-treatment years, dead ash trees are removed to the manage the city's risk and liability and heavily travel areas like roads and trails.
Subsequent treatment occurred in 2018 and 2020 on the selected trees.
The city's annually EAB management budget part of the city's approved annual operating budget is $25,000.
These funds have been used in alternate years to anoculate 165 significant trees in year one and removed 10 to 15 ash trees in year two.
On an alternating year one year two cycle.
In the spring of 2022 began to observe nearly 100% of untreated ash trees in city,
on city lands came out with scarce foliage and high numbers of epicornment shoots,
indicating advanced infestation.
Since 2017 the city's removed 32 dead ash trees in response to calls for service.
25 were removed in 2019 via the management plan actions.
And it's all 226 were non-inventory trees were removed as part of the forestry renewal program,
if you remember around the St. George's Victoria Park area.
15 ash trees were removed in August 15 from the city property near the visitor center that had shown significant decline.
Since 2017 a total of 72 of the 1992 inventory trees had been removed.
Emerald ash war inoculation program has had mixed results.
It has anticipated that some of the 165 trees that have been infested
and will have to be removed despite treatment efforts.
A range of 855 to 1,020 inventoryed ash trees will need to be removed.
Pending the outcome of a renewed inventory in 2023 capturing the 20 meter buffer between city lands and private properties
that have about what it areas currently.
Uninventory ash trees make up 20 to 30% of those forested areas.
This leads to anticipate thousands of additional trees within the 20 meter buffer
that will need to be removed.
An exact number cannot be determined without an updated inventory.
Treatment does not have a long term impact on some species,
and an updated approach to managing invasive species is required.
The following steps are recommended.
A new inventory is scheduled for 2023 via the city's normal.
A couple of budget. Due to the, in terms of, staff line, a leverage than a renewed inventory, it's
a better understanding of the density of ash species in hazardous ravine and the skyland lands,
within the recommended 20 meter buffers on. The updated inventory will include a tree health assessment
and a system managing the risk and identifying prioritizing trees for removal. Removal strategy due
to the nature of BAB infestation, because trees become increasingly difficult to remove safely once
bark begins to sluff. This signals that the tree is structurally compromised and cannot be climbed or used
for rigging and increasing the hazards for tree workers tasked with removal.
Dead and dying ash trees prevent an increasingly significant risk to streets, trails, parks
and private properties that a butt city lands. Contractors will be required to form the volume
ash trees removal detailed in this report, and it's current staff cannot keep up with current
removal, a proctor of pruning and maintenance. Trees in the right away present the highest risk
to the public following the death of the tree given the great and give the grace environment
on the environmental benefit to the community. So, accordingly, they are the most desirable to retain.
Through the 2023 tree inventory, staff will gain a clear understanding of the current condition of ash trees
and city lands, including those that have been included in the treatment program to date.
Retention efforts and ongoing treatment is recommended for treated trees that are found to
have responded well to inoculation, and staff have observed that some inoculated trees appear
to be in decline. Pending the outcome of the inventory, some previously treated trees may need to be removed.
Although ash trees and parks and open spaces are generally in better condition, in many cases,
they present significant lower level of risk when dead. Over 10 years, a loss of untreated
parks and open space trees has been more manageable with stage removals, or would be more manageable
with stage removals. Trees in unmanned sections of city on lands within 20 meters of a private
property boundary, or to be included in the 2023 tree inventory, to assist staff with strategic
planning of removals, these areas present the least risk. Managed removals would not occur until
ash trees in the right away and parks have been removed. Staff will continue to respond to calls for
service for individual trees, approximate to private property, and assess them for action within the
existing forestry management program. The phase plan will be implemented over a 10-year period for 2023 through
the end of 2032. Replacement trees with a removal of 855 to 1,020 inventory to ash trees
is significant to the cities or urban canopy. Coupled with strategic removals driven by risk
management is essential to plan and implement replacements to renew the city's tree density.
Over the course of the removal process, staff will seek to engage local volunteers to support
tree planting efforts, as well as funding opportunities for tree planting under renewals such as
TD3 days. There is an event plan for the spring of 2023 in partnership with the city and
neighborhood's north under the TD3 days program that will point 300 hardwoods of mixed non-ash
species. The financial implications with the support of managing the A, B, and
Festation and all its own will be significant. Current rates are estimated that removal of 855 to
1,020 ash trees will cost between 1.28 million and 1.53 million. It is anticipated that the phase
approach will take 10 years to complete, focusing on the highest risk trees first. This value
translates into a need for an increase of the park's arboral cultural operating budget of $140,000 to
retain contractors to perform removals. Further study is required to understand the number of
ash trees that will need to be removed from buffer zones on city lands, proximity to private properties and
trails. 50,000 has been approved for a new tree inventory in 2023 as part of the city's 2023 capital budget.
Future costs are to be determined by the 2023 tree inventory process. Tree replacement costs
are to be determined by available annual funding opportunities. In 2022, $12,000 is allocated
to park an open space operating budget for tree and tree planting materials to deliver the existing
core tree planting program. The recommendation with this report is that in consideration of staff's
report CS-22105, respecting the city's emerald ash board management plan and next steps,
community services committee recommends that city council direct staff to bring forward a budget request
to support the manager removal of emerald ash board, infested trees on city lands over a 10-year period,
considered as a part of the overall review of the 2023 operating budget. Thank you.
Thank you for that. Are there questions of committee members?
Just walk me through how this would come on the budget inventory first and then the 10-year plan
comes in the 2024 budget or I just don't want to do an inventory and I agree to a 10-year plan.
It's kind of putting a cart before it horse. The way this would work is that we know about the
first thousand trees and this request for an increase that will come before the budget comes with
the budget proposal really addresses those and the $50,000 approved for a tree inventory in 2023
will then inform additional costs as we have a clear understanding of those trees that are not reflected on
the inventory. The numbers reflected in this report are reflected trees that we know about now and I work
to describe in the report that there will be additional costs when we have a more detailed
tree inventory that include areas that have not previously been included.
And just to kind of clarify for Councillor Hamley, the way I see it working in discussions with Kate,
we would bring forward the operating variants each year. So you'll see an operating variants presented
in the city's a boriculture program with the overall operating budget. One year you might have
$100,000 to put towards that. The next year you might say, look at we only have 50,000 but
the first step of doing this inventory will really help inform and guide our decision making about how many
high priority trees do we have and how urgently do they need to be removed from our risk management
perspective. But I think your question is, you don't want to get into pre-approving a bunch of
stuff and certainly we understand that. For the questions, someone prepared to move the motion.
Councillor Hamley has moved the motion. All those in favor? That's carried. Thank you.
The next item is Mr. Parsons again with Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Renovation.
Thank you. After this one, we'll be halfway through. As is referred, thank you, Madam Chair.
It's CS-221, 10 Greenwood Cemetery Chapel Renovation design and next steps this report before us.
In 2020, City Council approved an updated Greenwood Cemetery master plan and discussed some of the
details about it in the earlier report this evening. The buildings and maintenance theme included
a recommendation to develop a business case for the restoration of the chapel, including indoor
column barrier and contemplative space. The business case was provided in a report to committee in 2020,
they recommended moving forward with design. The City's 222 capital budget has approved includes a project
22d74, which includes both the design and renovation of the chapel for uses and indoor column
and RFP for design was issued in the fall of 2021 with a project being awarded to John Rutledge
Architect at a cost of $30,000. The draft design was presented on July 26, 2022 to the Accessibility
Advisory Committee. The purpose of this report is to update the business case based on the current design
concept, provide design concept for approval with information on how feedback from a AC and staff have
been included in the updated concept plan. The initial draft is attached with this report.
Highlights of the design elements considered by the initial design exercise are summarized in table 1
and Lauren, if I could get you to go to table 1 in this report, please.
So you see the design elements that are being considered and contemplated are restoration and preservation
of the staying-glass windows, restoration and preservation of the entrance doors. Preservation of this
is a trust ceiling, restoration and preparation of the main chapel area for our indoor column
creation of an accessible entry including a ramp, installation of a low-pitched slope ceiling
on the roof, sorry not ceiling, on the rear addition portion of the building, which is not the same
vintage as the main chapel, creation of indoor column area in the main chapel room, creation of a second
column, very room in the rear portion of the building, an accessible foyer or entry area, and an accessible
customer service office. It is important to note that all energy consumption elements of the design are to be
energy efficient, including installing solar tubes in the foyer and office areas to provide
natural daylight with zero energy use, supplemented by energy-efficient LED lighting and energy-efficient
HVAC systems. Additional insulation between the ceiling and roof deck will also improve the energy
efficiency of the building during heating and cooling periods. Through the design process, additional
column barrier in an adjacent room have been proposed by the architect that were not contemplated by
the business case in report CS2155. Additional column barrier in space increases the gross floor
area and saleable column barrier in space by 45% compared to the previous report. The table below
summarizes revenues and expenses. Inticipated revenues total $1.558 million, total cost of construction
is anticipated to be $585,000 for a net revenue of $973,250. The updated business case maintains
positive revenue, and it will revenues that outpaced the venture payment for that. It will be allocated to the
cemetery reserve for future capital and major maintenance projects and to offset the cost of the
of the dementia should any coming year not generates efficient new sales and services to offset the annualized
cost of repaying the debenture. The concept design, attachment one with this report was outlined
and provided to AC on July 26 is noted to provide an opportunity to review the accessible elements
and ensure any adjustments or additions recommended by AC could be included in the detailed design.
Community generally had positive feedback on the concept design and items for consideration by
AC outlined in table two along with how these items will be addressed. A multidisciplinary
staff team including building planning and heritage reviewed the initial concept and provided input.
The design is consistent with the heritage character of the building. We will enhance accessibility
of the cemetery and responsive the changing and diverse needs of the community by offering a new option
families to celebrate the life of a loved one at the time of the tournament. This project is
financially responsible and supports the completion of a key result in the strategic plan to
complete the adaptor reuse of a heritage building that serves the public interest. Once the project is
complete, the city's planning and heritage division will explore a designation of greenwood cemetery under
the Ontario Heritage Act. When the detailed design is complete, a tender will be prepared for issuance
with the award expected by December 2022 for Q2 of 2023 construction. The financial implications with
this report would be $1.321 million in anticipated growth revenue based on new sales. $585,000 in
anticipated construction costs for a net revenue of $973,500. $973,500. $973,500. A cost to be would be
debentured and repaid from new sales. The recommendation with this report is that a consideration of staff
report CS-221-10, respecting greenwood cemetery shelf renovation design and next steps. The community
services committee recommends the city council receive the updated business case for renovating
the chapel at greenwood cemetery and direct staff to proceed to complete detailed design and tender
for construction of the greenwood cemetery chapel renovation based on the concept design included with
this report. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the committee have any questions or comments or
care to move the recommendation. Janet will move the recommendation. All those in favor?
That's carried. Thank you. Next report Mr. Parsons. Kelso Beach and Naewash Park Master Plan.
Thank you Madam Chair and I will say in terms of time or more than halfway through
in terms of numbers of reports or halfway there. CS-221-12 discusses a Kelso Beach and Naewash Park Master
Plan public engagement and next steps. The Kelso Beach Master Plan completed in 2010 by North
Wood Associates, Landscape Park, Texas provided guidance in the operations and capital development
of the 9.86 hectare shoreline property located at 119th Street West over the last 10 years.
The Master Plan is an invaluable tool to ensure seamless continuity of service delivery to the
community and guide decision makers and ensuring Kelso Beach continues to meet the needs of residents
and visitors. To ensure plans are relevant in parks and open spaces to a best practice to review
refresh and renew plans in minimum every 10 years. The plan is now 11 years old. Many of the recommendations
have been implemented since the plan was initially approved and over the last decade the function
and use of the park have changed and needs of our user groups have evolved and it's appropriate
time to update the plan. The purpose of this report is to provide a status update on the progress of
the project. Review the public input generated by our city online public engagement tool and report
on next steps. The initial schedule of the Kelso Beach at Naewash Park Master Plan update has been
revised due to operational needs in the parks and open space division. Table 1 it lines the
tasks that were identified with the previous report and a revised project schedule with the final plan
to be prepared for December 2022. In June the city rolled out a new public engagement tool,
our city, including the Kelso Beach at Naewash Park Master Plan is one of the launch projects.
A public input survey for the project was posted at launch on June 13th and ran for 14 days until June
26th. In addition to the survey, the site provided background about the project and about the
park to help inform survey respondents. The portal also provides a location for ongoing project updates
and the survey asked 14 questions, 43 responses were received. 12 questions were designed to generate
basic metrics and are summarized in table 2. And just some of the interesting points from those first
12 questions were 86% of respondents lived in O'N sound. 68% who responded had lived in O'N sound
for more than 10 years. Between two age ranges, 25 to 34 and 55 to 64 we had almost 60% of respondents
in those two age groups. 86% identified as non-indigenous and 5% identified as indigenous
or having indigenous links to the property, which I will note is about exactly with a national
rate of indigenous peoples in Canada. In terms of people that visit
Is it Council Beach and Awasch Park? Most of them visited, but 40% visited weekly, and 37% visited monthly.
And the most common reasons for visiting the park were to use the splash-piled and playground or cultural events.
61% felt that the grounds of the park were genuinely well maintained.
Question 12 of the survey, ask respondents. Are there any services or amenities missing from Council Beach and Awasch Park?
Respondents, we're invited to enter into a text box.
It could enter more than one thing in that box of they wished.
So there were 43 responses that generated 56 ideas, and we've allocated those ideas into three themes, amenities, services, and parks operations.
There's a table of those pieces of feedback on page 8 of the report.
Question 13 of the survey, ask respondents, are there any barriers that prevent you from using Council Beach and Awasch Park?
Of the 43 responses to that question, 29 responded, there were no barriers.
14 responses, noting barriers are summarized in table 4 using the same themes.
And that table can be found on page 9.
In addition to survey responses, staff received direct correspondence from residents in stakeholder groups offering and put on to the development and operation of the park.
And direct correspondence is summarized in table 5.
Those, those pieces of response would be request to install flag.
Call me, they get you an emuico-dong reconciliation garden.
Formalize the official name of Council Beach and Awasch Park by updating signage of the park in other city resources.
Formalize parking at the entrances in the south end of the park to support increased attendance and frequency of cultural events.
Link to they get you an emuico-dong reconciliation garden.
And there was a request submitted to create two beach volleyball courts.
A Council Beach and Awasch Park for formal league play as a bookable facility open to the community use outside of league play.
In terms of next steps, in September and October, I've planned to host four sessions.
We're stakeholder and community organizations.
State Corps, older organizations have received direct invitation to attend any one of the four sessions to discuss their use and vision for their respective park uses.
In terms of capital planning for the property, the approved 2023 capital budget includes a five year forecast for KELSE Beach and Awasch Park.
It's important to note that only 2023 is approved.
However, the five year forecast informs Council staff and the public about short and medium-term projects.
Improvements and major maintenance that is planned for the park are summarized in table six at the bottom of page 10.
There's currently one million, 5,500 in capital renovations contemplated for KELSE Beach and Awasch Park between 2023 and 2027.
On $180,500 is approved as part of the 2023 capital budget.
In 2022, a major overhauled the electrical infrastructure at KELSE Beach and Awasch Park.
Part of the approved capital program is part of a larger project subject to KELSE Beach's fund grant application.
Report CS-2210, KELSE Beach and Awasch Park electrical tender outcome and next steps details of the project's cancellation due to tender pricing and distribution of the project elements across the five year forecast.
So we weren't able to do one big project.
We've taken most of the elements of that project and spread it out over the five years for requests in each of those budget years.
The report set aside $297,500 that the city had committed to the grant.
25,000 was allocated to replace two electrical pedestals that were in poor condition.
And there was a balance of $272,500 remaining in the parks reserve.
150,000 included in the grant proposal for electrical upgrades at the main stage with the latest currently unfunded in the city's five year capital forecast.
Staff intends to revisit the scope of main stage of electrical upgrades as a component of the stakeholder consultation.
Five year capital plan may be modified based on changes or new priorities or projects with a revised scope due to the master plan process.
There are no new financial implications with this report.
Budget figures will include recommendations in the final.
KELSE Beach at Naewash Park Master Plan.
The recommendation with this report is that in consideration of staff report CS-221-12,
respecting KELSE Beach at Naewash Park Public Engagement and next steps.
Community Services Committee recommends the city council receive the report for information.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Parsons. I now understand why you have two containers of liquid refreshment.
Maybe three over there. Well needed.
Deputy Mayor O'Leary.
Thank you madam chair. I will move the recommendation and I just wanted to just for a little few more.
I know the best question in this in this whole questionnaire is if you recite outside of on sound where do you live and 37 skip the question.
Thank you. Are there other questions or comments to the report?
All those in favor of the recommendation?
That's carried.
Have you had enough of a breather?
Okay. It's a good job you talk fast.
On with the next one, me being the get you nomin wickward on reconciliation garden.
I will make a note on the speed that Tim challenged me to keep my reports under five minutes.
And each one of these on average is 4.8 minutes.
We've got two minutes and an even three left.
So CS-2121, the get you in a wickward on reconciliation garden interpretive park comment is the next report.
An excerpt from reports CS-191-21.
Susan Shank initiated the reconciliation garden project as the circle of one heart's garden.
May 9th 2013 at the recreation parks advisory committee I believe it was on.
The circle of one heart garden group prepared their proposal over the next two years and returned to community services committee on May 18th 2016 with a revised scope and a new project name reconciliation garden.
The interpretive park fulfills a commitment made by the city to the project in 2017.
Since 2019, two construction phases have been completed along with the installation of the grandmother's detergents culture commissioned by the get you nomin wickward on reconciliation garden steering committee.
The city contributed $13,500 to the cost of the sculpture.
Council has included a project 22E.3.
$7,500 in the capital budget in the 2022 capital budget to support the development manufacturing installation of interpretive signage at the site.
Although Council supported content for a plaque in 2019 in the approval of the overall design the community steering committee has brought forward new wording to ensure visitors are informed in situ of the purpose and significance of the garden.
A copy of the plaque content is included as attachment 1.
The content has been developed over several years in iterations by the get you name wickward on reconciliation garden committee.
Content for the plaque is written in the voice of local indigenous and matey communities.
It's important that the experience is an intergenerational trauma done to these communities be communicated openly in order to promote understanding and take further steps to live and work in a positive ways.
Ensure the visibility in partnership and promoting and taking tangible steps towards reconciliation.
Financial implications with this report are $7,500 in 2022 included in the city's approved capital program.
The recommendation with this report is that in consideration of staff reports CS-22-2121 respecting the content for the get you name wickward on interpretive plaque.
Community services committee recommends the city council receive the report for information.
Thank you.
Thank you for that comments.
I know Deputy Mayor O'Leary was.
Didn't you start this way back?
Yeah.
It's a while.
But I know that you had certainly supported it long ago.
Looking for comments, concerns, approval of the recommendation.
Okay, all those in favor of the recommendation?
That's carried.
Thank you.
Next report is from Mr. Parsons regarding commemorative forest monument location.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Reports CS-22-22 commemorative forest monument location and concept design is the next report.
In 2021, the city restructured the memorial tree program into a commemorative forest program model through report CS-21-10.
The new memorial tree program prevented overcrowding or prevents overcrowding of trees promotes more even distribution distribution of trees throughout the city's parks and trails.
Allowed for a long term approach when selecting trees species provides a central monument commemorating the contribution and essentialized location.
And avoids creating negative experiences in the future for donors when trees planted too close together don't mature evenly or the classic characteristics of the chosen species.
Funding for the construction of a central monument for the commemorative forest program is included as part of the city's 2023 capital budget at a cost of $20,000.
The detailed sheet for project 23D-14 is included with this report as attachment one.
The purpose of this report is to set out a recommended location for the central monument along with a general design.
Harrison Park is classified as a city park with more than 40 hectares of streams, trails, gardens, playgrounds, forests and green space in the heart of one sound.
Harrison Park was one of the area's greatest attractions, retaining the natural beauty and rustic charm that have drawn generations of people to its gates.
Harrison Park is a designated cultural heritage landscape under part for the Ontario Heritage Act.
The area of the area proposed for the commemorative forest monument is outside of the area covered by the heritage designation.
Based on data collected is estimated the park welcomes 493,500 visitors by a year by vehicle and in the report there is a slight error in the pedestrian numbers it should be 41,000 pedestrians a year.
The location proposed for a central monument of the commemorative forest program indicated on the air photo below is in the area east of the fitness trail north of the base of the tobogganel.
It's adjacent to a well-traveled recreational trail.
The new program allows for donors to have their contribution acknowledge on a 15 cm by 15 cm individualized plaque and a basic concept design to determine scale and location has been drafted in house.
Using the concept as a starting point a detailed design by landscape architect would be contemplated and included in the capital budget request.
Or was contemplated and included in the budget request meeting that on the capital details she would have accounted for a design.
The detailed design can be completed over the winter with construction anticipated in Q2 of 2023.
An image of the concept design below is to scale, demonstrating the general design elements and scale compared to human figures.
Each year there would be a commemorative commemorative ceremony in September to acknowledge and celebrate the donations in the monument area.
The public and donors and families and friends would be invited to attend this event.
The proposal location is in an area that is part of Harrison Park but within the geographic township with Georgia and Bluffs and regulated by the Niagara Scarfin Commission Development Control.
Permits from the township may be required to construct their monument and Niagara Scarfin Commission Development will be required.
Grace Alba Conservation Authority may also require a permit for the placement of the structure in this area.
Financial implications for this report are $20,000 included in the approved 2023 capital budget including $2,500 for design and $17,500 for construction.
The recommendation with this report is that a consideration of staff reports ES-22122 respecting the commemorative forest monument committee services committee recommends a city council, a bruise location and general design of the commemorative forest monument in Harrison Park.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Parsons.
Any comments on this particular report?
Questions?
Through you Madam Chair, is it similar to one at like Nichols Gully at the memorial forest that there is that kind of the same concept?
Similar in that it has similar plaques and things.
This concept design is meant to be kind of modular so that if it expands beyond the initial installation, we could expand it in the future as well.
Any other questions?
I have a couple.
Do you anticipate any concerns from the conservation authority or Niagara Scarfin Commission?
We don't anticipate any concerns in this location as we have effectively gone through this exercise with the Bowel Imignment and that's approximately the location as well.
And didn't have any resistance from either of those agencies on that project?
My second question is, is there any impediment by the toboggan hill or people using that can there be damages?
No, so the location chosen is, it's further north, so it wouldn't be in the slides on we've considered that of course.
I like that term slides on.
Okay that's good.
Morgan has no.
You've moved the recommendation?
Yes.
Okay, Morgan's moved the recommendation.
All those in favor?
That's carried.
Thank you.
And I must apologize to the other staff for not having as much time to say or report on the agenda that Mr. Parsons has.
But we appreciate all the work that you've done to clear for this.
Next report is from the Director of Community Services regarding sanitary surconnection.
The Harris of Park Senior Center.
Okay.
Thank you.
This year and just recently if you've been to Harrison Park you'll see that we've been undertaking a water proofing of the foundation of the seniors building.
So the city's corporate property and project supervisor was leading that project.
Got a photo there on the first page of the report of what that looked like.
During this work we discovered a steel holding tank kind of at the front of the building.
And even though our records indicate that in 1999 the building was connected to the sanitary surre upon further research it seems like that component of the project was removed from the scope.
So the sanitary system for that seniors building hadn't been connected.
So it's considered a private system so there's several buildings in the park.
Later on the system, they include the pool, a changehouse, the campground, trailer dump, the campground
washrooms, the in-restraint, the community hall, et cetera. And just this summer, there was
a project to connect that community hall, line, or to upgrade it. The city sewer connection
by law does require a connection where there is a service that exists, and this is certainly
the most responsible course of action. So how do we kind of fix this connection? So we're
proposing to use some funds that were set aside in 2023 for the replacement of the sewer line
at the restaurant. With a few clean out manholes being installed and proper maintenance of the
grease traps that line is working well in consultation with Mr. Crone. They think that upgrade is
not required. So stop for proposing that $50,000 of those of the $75,000 funds be allocated to
connect the senior building to the the park's capital or the park sanitary system. So the recommendation
is that this committee would recommend council supports the reallocation of the 2023 capital
project funds in 2023-D-8 to connect the building to the Harrison Park sanitary system.
Thank you. Questions, comments? Sorry. Councilor Hanley.
So what ends up happening to the sewage from that building now?
It goes into the spiel holding tank.
Yeah, it's like a septic tank, yep.
Any other questions or comments?
Mover of the recommendation? Councilor Hanley moved the recommendation? All those in favor?
That's carried. Thank you. Moving on to facilities booking coordinator regarding the
summer recreation program wrap up. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is report CS-22113 regarding summer
recreation programs 2022 wrap up. So the city offers four specialty candidates, three specialty
camps within city facilities and the intention is to provide affordable and inclusive recreation
opportunities in our city. So the programs, focus and skill development that supports participation
and sports and these programs consist of hockey skills, power skating, which both rental
rainy week summer time period and then there's two separate, one week soccer camps, one in July
and one in August. Following each program, staff center to survey for parents and guardians to complete
which provides feedback for program improvements in the next years. It's been notable details
from this from each program. All three programs offered where either at capacity are very close to
capacity. Staff feel this was strongly influenced by the change in younger groupings. Last year
Council approved establishing younger groups where program offerings aren't necessarily as common. So this
proved to be a positive adjustment that has encouraged again next year. All three programs resulted
in small revenues to the city, which although that's not the goal, the program, it's certainly
a positive. All three programs received positive comments about the instructor and program curriculum
and all instructors have indicated an interest in returning the next year. The vast majority of
respondents stated they'd be a rather satisfied or very satisfied and also expressed an interest
in registering their child again next year as well. Paris and Parks swimming, although participation
numbers were down slightly from 2021, the park pool still continues to be a popular spot for locals
and camping guests. The city received roughly $5,500 sponsorship dollars and paid the YMCA just over 43,000
as part of the 2022 memorandum of understanding for the operation of the pool on behalf of the
city. All these programs are in line with the city's budget. Lastly, the Springfest games or the
senior games have not happened the last three years. I just wanted to note the city's been approached by
a new senior coordinator at the Legion, who is looking to partner with the city and assist with
the operation and execution of the games in 2023 when they resume. The recommendation of this report
is that community services committee, sorry, that they direct the staff to undertake the necessary
preparations to offer soccer camp in 2023 in partnership with some minor soccer and all over Clark,
undertake the necessary preparations to offer hockey skills and power skating in 2023
and direct staff to explore options for 2023 Springfest games in collaboration with the new
senior coordinator at the On Sound Legion with support from city staff. Thank you, Andy. Any comments
questions to that particular report? Morgan? Just as a parent who had a son participate in the soccer
very, very well run and kudos to the staff and the coordination and everything of it. So thank you.
Thanks Morgan. Any other comments or someone prepared to move the recommendation?
Nicole? All those in favor of the recommendation? That's carried.
Thank you. Next your report is from the manager of arena operations regarding the arena operations
capital update. Thank you madam chair and committee. This report CS-22-120 is in regards to the
arena operations capital update and that involves the LED lighting upgrades at the Bayshore Community
Center as well as the Julema Carthorina and the refrigeration plan upgrades at the Bayshore Community Center.
On February 28, city council directed staff to bring forward a by-law to authorize the
merit clerk to execute an agreement to award RFT-22-007 to SIMCORE Federation and that was the award
for that agreement was for 551,920. In May of 2021, or sorry 2022 report CS-22-061 was brought forward to
this committee and this was to inform council three change orders that were totaling 29,577 dollars.
So this project saw the complete replacement of all the mechanical equipment within their
refrigeration plant room and these upgrades will have significant positive impacts on the
IS quality and the energy consumption at the Bayshore Community Center. In June of 2022, RFP-22,
2022-037 was awarded to think green solutions to replace the existing lighting at the Bayshore Community
Center with LEDs and fluorescent tubes and fixtures at the Julema Carthorina Regional Rax Center.
This RFP was well below budget and showed some significant energy savings for both facilities
the refrigeration plan upgrades resulted in a 20% increase in the cooling capacity at the Bayshore
compared to the older system. These upgrades also included the reduction of the ammonia refrigeration
charged by nearly 50% and brought the room up to current TSSA codes which result in increased safety
for staff and facility users. Even with the increase size of the new plant to meet the facility
demands the significant energy savings will be realized with an expected 15 to 19% energy reduction
or almost 100,000 kilowatt hours per year. The savings come from the reduced run hours of compressors
and increased condenser size which allows for a lower discharge pressure. The Bayshore lighting upgrades
will significantly reduce energy consumption saving close to 220,000 kilowatt hours per year with a
payback of under two years for the project and this also translates into CO2E reduction
of 317,000 pounds annually. The Julema Carthor Regional Rax Center will also see a reduction of close to
16,000 kilowatt hours per year resulting in estimated five year payback for the project.
While this is not a significant as the Bayshore will also see a reduction of 24,000,
24,800 pounds of CO2E annually. So these estimates are based on the replacement of the
fixtures equipment, kilowatt reduction compared to the older fixtures that were replaced in each facility
and then estimated based on the hours of operation of each facility. The Bayshore Community Center
refrigeration plan project came in on budget was completed on schedule and was partially funded
by an Ontario Trilium Grant which told 70% of the project cost. The potential energy savings will
be an estimated 18,000 annually and this is based on a nine month ice usage. The lighting upgrades
at the Bayshore result in approximately 54,800 annual energy and mating maintenance savings and
the Julema Carthor lighting upgrades will see an approximate savings of 5,500 annually in energy and
maintenance and just note that these savings are based on energy consumption and do not include
extra charges such as delivery or global adjustment. So the recommendation for this report that
in consideration of staff reports CS-2220, respecting a re-enact operations capital update that the
community services committee recommends the city council receive this report for information purposes.
Thank you comments. First Deputy Mayor O'Leary. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan, this is a really
really good report and you should be congratulated. You're using funny words here like on time
on budget and you even used under budget once. So we don't get to hear those very often. So that's a big
job at the Bayshore and to have it done on time. So close to training camp and job well done. Good job.
Councillor Hamley? Just on the lighting. Was there any performance improvements with the lighting?
Yeah, we actually saw a large change especially on the arena surface. That was one area that we really
focused on, but we do think from a safety standpoint as well that we'll see an improvement with this lighting.
Thank you. I haven't been down yet, but I hear it's much brighter.
And we're all looking forward to seeing that. I just haven't had a chance to yet, but I do hear good things
move it. Any other comments looking for someone to move the recommendation?
Somebody. Deputy Mayor O'Leary has moved the recommendation. All those in favor?
That's carried. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Nothing under building no matters postponed. No
motions for which notice was previously given. We do have some correspondence items with someone
like to comment on the development update. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just bring to your attention
the July and August update. You'll see for the first time in there the reporting on the site plan
approval as required by the province. Those staff delegations are reported there. I would note in the building
highlights are your to date construction value, $31.5 million. Up over 2021, permit revenue just in August
alone $70,973. So construction in 2022 trending ahead. I would note 119 new residential units
permits issued this year. I did a calculation based on a question asked by Council and I think it's
interesting to note in the last five years of all those building permits that are shown there in
the chart in the bottom left hand corner. About 23%. So of the 496 units built in the last five
years, 23% are technically affordable. The target that we have in the gray county housing and homelessness
strategy is 30%. So we're not quite there yet, but I think it's a really admirable number to be able
to point out and be proud of. Absolutely, thank you. Other poor responded side of anyone
questions on the building permit? I'm Councillor Hammond. Just because this is the first that we've
had this new process with the decisions like how do you see this working moving forward and just kind
of interested in that? So far it's working really well. We're using eScribe so that it's tracked
and it can be publicly available. The reports are being presented here publicly. The reports include
a little section on timing. So we're meeting the 60 day timeline remembering that in January,
if we don't meet those timelines, we have to refund those application fees. So really important to
be making sure we're hitting that target. So the ones that are reported here are relatively simple
applications, but so far so good. I hope this makes it transparent in terms of the applications that
are being approved. And hopefully when the minutes come forward to council, they can be noted again there.
Thank you. Are we to receive each item separately or together? Collectively. Okay. The other items were site plan decisions, any comments on those or nothing?
And the last item on the information was the heritage news quarterly newsletter. So, looking for a motion to receive all of these items, of course, points.
Nicole? Well, no, we're okay, Nicole. Move that recommendation. All those in favor? That's carried.
Additional business. We had nothing. Notice this is a motion. There is nothing.
And everyone around the table has spoken except the city manager. So, can we just hear something from you?
Through each area, yeah, it'd be glad to really give a hats off and congratulations to the teams sitting to my left.
Led by Pam and Adam and Andy and Ryan down there. The entire community services team has been under a lot of stress this past week leading up to this committee meeting.
And they've really pulled it together and these reports show the amount of work going through in a positive way.
Thank you very much and we certainly would agree as council members.
With that, I'll move or declare the meeting adjourned at 705 and if anybody had bets on the time, you're probably lost.
Good evening.