THIS MEETING MAY BE TELECAST ON PUBLIC TELEVISION OR WEBCAST ON THE CITY’S PUBLIC WEBSITE

COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 2:00 P.M.

AGENDA

Mayor Jaworsky in the Chair

1. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a) October 24, 2016 - Council Meeting Page 9

Recommendation: That the minutes of the Council Meeting held on October 24, 2016 be approved as printed.

b) November 14, 2016 – Special Council Meeting Page 20

Recommendation: That the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on November 14, 2016 be approved as printed.

Council Meeting Page 1 of 183 November 21, 2016 3. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

a) Title: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Page 22 Report – November 14, 2016 Report No.: CORP2016-112 Prepared By: Lissy MacKinnon

Recommendations: 1. That CORP2016-112 be approved.

2. That the recommendations of the Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting of Monday, November 14, 2016 be adopted.

4. PRESENTATIONS None

5. DELEGATIONS

a) Canadian Blood Service, Call for Donors Gina Leyva, Events Coordinator, Canadian Blood Services

b) Kitchener-Waterloo Community Spirit Lions Club Update, Promoting “Skate with Santa” Event Joanne McQuiggan, Executive Director, Lion’s Quest Canada

c) Book Presentation: “The Elgins from Armour to Engineers, 1977-2016” Captain Ron Ormson, Adjutant, 31 Combat Engineer Regiment (The Elgins) and Professor Emeritus Leonard Curchin, Major (retired), CD.

d) Immigration into Region of Waterloo and Introduction of “Mercy – One Life, Many Stories” E. Grace H. Ibrahima

6. CONSENT MOTION

That Consent Motion Items (a) and (b) be approved.

a) Title: October 2016 Health & Safety Report Page 33 Report No.: CORP2016-096 Prepared By: Susan Bradley

Information.

Council Meeting Page 2 of 183 November 21, 2016 b) Title: November 2016 Health & Safety Report Page 36 Report No.: CORP2016-108 Prepared By: Susan Bradley

Information.

7. STAFF REPORTS

a) Title: Recommendation to Designate 3 and 5 Father Page 39 David Bauer Drive, under the Ontario Heritage Act Report No.: IPPW2016-042 Prepared By: Michelle Lee

Recommendation: 1. That staff report IPPW2016-042 be approved.

2. That Council designate the property at 3 Father David Bauer Drive and containing a former Seagram Barrel Warehouse, to be of cultural heritage value, under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and direct the City clerk to issue a notice of intention to designate pursuant to the requirements set out in the Ontario Heritage Act.

3. That Council designate the property at 5 Father David Bauer Drive and containing a former Seagram Barrel Warehouse, to be of cultural heritage value, under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and direct the City clerk to issue a notice of intention to designate pursuant to the requirements set out in the Ontario Heritage Act.

4. That Council direct staff to develop zoning regulations to implement the viewshed conservation to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services in consultation with Economic Development.

Council Meeting Page 3 of 183 November 21, 2016 b) Title: Water Services Utility – 2017 Rates Page 60 Report No.: IPPW2016-104 Prepared By: Todd Chapman & Michael Pugliese

Presentation: Michael Pugliese, Financial Analyst, IPPW and Todd Chapman, Manager Project Management, IPPW

Recommendations: 1. That the Council receives IPPW2016-104 as information.

2. That Council direct staff to bring IPPW2016-104.1 attached as Appendix A, back for Council consideration at the Council meeting on December 12, 2016.

c) Title: Alternative Voting Methods (Internet Voting) Page 84 Report No.: CORP2016-105 Prepared By: Olga Smith

Recommendations: 1. That Staff Report CORP2016-105 be approved.

2. That Council confirm that the 2018 municipal election be conducted in the same manner as the 2014 municipal election using paper ballots and ballot tabulators; and further that alternate voting methods (internet voting) be deferred until such time as Elections Ontario and/or Elections Canada develop provincial and/or federal standards for internet voting.

OR 3. That Council approve additional funding of $126,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve for the 2018 municipal elections, using paper ballots and ballot tabulators for advance voting and election day and internet voting for advance voting only, be approved.

OR 4. That Council approve additional funding of $218,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve for the 2018 municipal elections, using paper ballots and ballot tabulators and internet voting for advance voting and election day, be approved.

Council Meeting Page 4 of 183 November 21, 2016 d) Title: Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016 Page 94 Report No.: CORP2016-106 Prepared By: Olga Smith

Presentation: OIga Smith, City Clerk, Director, Legislative Services

Recommendation: 1. That Staff Report CORP2016-106 be approved.

2. That Council receive the summary on the Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016 as information.

3. That Council maintains the existing first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 municipal election.

4. That the Clerk be directed to monitor ranked ballot elections in Ontario and report back to Council with a comprehensive report after the 2018 municipal election.

8. CLOSED MEETING

Recommendations: That Council hold a closed meeting for the purposes of considering the following subject matter:

a) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees (Committee Appointments)

COUNCIL MEETING WILL RECESS AND RECONVENE AT 6:30 P.M.

Council Meeting Page 5 of 183 November 21, 2016 COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL NIGHT

9. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

10. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

11. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS

a) Title: Committee Night – Annual Report Page 144 Report No.: CORP2016-109 Prepared By: Julie Scott

Information.

b) Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee Update Sharon Giles, Chair and Carrie Speers, Co-Chair, Grant River Accessibility Advisory Committee

c) Title: Waterloo Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Page 148 Committee RE: Urban Forestry Sub- Committee: Towards A Comprehensive Urban Forestry Plan Report No.: CTTEE2016-005 Prepared By: Scott M. Ramsay & Anna Marie Cipriani

Presentation: Scott M. Ramsey, Chair, Waterloo Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee

Recommendations: 1. That CTTEE2016-005 be accepted by Council.

2. That City staff consider its recommendation as they move toward the development of a comprehensive urban forestry strategy.

d) Title: Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Page 169 Transportation Committee (WACAT) Night Report 2016 Report No.: CTTEE2016-006 Prepared By: Anne Crowe, Chair (WACAT) & John Griffin

Presentation: Anne Crowe, Chair, Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation

Council Meeting Page 6 of 183 November 21, 2016 Recommendations: 1. That CTTEE2016-006 be received.

2. That Council approve in principle the Grand Trail Project concept. 3. That Council approve municipal staff support to work with WACAT to make the Grand Trail a reality

4. That Council approve letter of support for future funding applications.

e) Title: Waterloo Economic Development Advisory Page 175 Committee (WEDAC) Annual Update Report No.: CTTEE2016-007 Prepared By: Grant Gingerich, Chair, WEDAC

Presentation: Grant Gingerich, Chair, WEDAC

Information.

f) Title: Waterloo Park Advisory Committee (WPAC) Page 179 Annual Update Report No.: CTTEE2016-009 Prepared By: Paul McKone, Chair, WPAC

Presentation: Paul McKone, Chair, WPAC

Information.

g) Municipal Heritage Committee Annual Update Nick Lawler, Chair, Municipal Heritage Committee

h) Audit Committee Annual Update Frank Mensink, Chair, Audit Committee

i) Advisory Committee on Culture Annual Update Jesse McGinnis, Chair & Shahnez Khan, member, Advisory Committee on Culture

12. FORMAL/INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS None

13. CONSIDERATION OF NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN AT PREVIOUS MEETING None

Council Meeting Page 7 of 183 November 21, 2016 14. NOTICE OF MOTION None

15. COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE None

16. REGIONAL INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

a) Region of Waterloo Council Info – November 9, 2016 Page 182

17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

18. NEW BUSINESS i. Delegations ii. Items removed from Consent Motion to be dealt with separately iii. Staff Reports iv. Other Business

19. QUESTIONS

20. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS

Recommendation: That the By-laws listed below be read a first, second and third time and finally passed, numbered sequentially commencing with By-law Number 2016-065 and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign them accordingly.

a) By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of Council – November 21, 2016 - Regular

21. ADJOURNMENT

Council Meeting Page 8 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 317 October 24, 2016

A meeting of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Waterloo was held on October 24, 2016 at 5:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, Ontario.

COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 24, 2016

Minutes - DRAFT

PRESENT: Mayor Dave Jaworsky, Councillor Brian Bourke, Councillor Angela Vieth, Councillor Diane Freeman, Councillor Mark Whaley, Councillor Jeff Henry, Councillor Melissa Durrell

ABSENT: Councillor Bob Mavin

Mayor Jaworsky in the Chair

1. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

No disclosure of pecuniary interest was declared by any other member of Council at this point in the meeting.

2. CLOSED MEETING

Moved by Councillor Whaley, seconded by Councillor Bourke:

That Council hold a closed meeting for the purposes of considering the following subject matter:

a) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (Potential Disposition of City-Owned Land)

Council Meeting Page 9 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 318 October 24, 2016

b) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Legal Advice re Special Area Levies)

Carried Unanimously

Council Meeting Recessed. (Time: 5:02 p.m.) Council Meeting Reconvened. (Time: 6:32 p.m.)

PRESENT: Mayor Dave Jaworsky, Councillor Brian Bourke, Councillor Angela Vieth, Councillor Diane Freeman, Councillor Mark Whaley, Councillor Jeff Henry, Councillor Melissa Durrell

ABSENT: Councillor Bob Mavin

3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

No disclosure of pecuniary interest was declared by any other member of Council at this point in the meeting.

4. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

The Mayor opened the meeting with a moment of reflection.

5. PRESENTATIONS

a) Kitchener-Waterloo International Children’s Games Recognition

Darcy Drummund, Coordinator, Sport & Recreation provided an overview of the Children’s Games program. Robbie Mulder, President, K-W International Children’s Games Committee and Carmen Read, swimmer with the Kitchener-Waterloo International Children’s Games delegation, provided an overview of the International Children’s Games and an overview on the accomplishments of the athletes who participated at the New Taipei International Children's Games in July 2016.

Councillor Bourke thanked the athletes and Councillor Vieth and Mayor Jaworsky presented Certificates of Recognition to the athletes that attended the games.

Council Meeting Page 10 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 319 October 24, 2016

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Councillor Bourke, seconded by Councillor Vieth:

a) September 26, 2016 - Council Meeting

That the minutes of the Council Meeting held on September 26, 2016 be approved as printed.

b) October 3, 2016 – Special Council Meeting

That the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on October 3, 2016 be approved as printed. Carried Unanimously

7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Moved by Councillor Henry, seconded by Councillor Freeman:

a) Title: Committee of the Whole Report October 3, 2016 Report No.: CORP2016-099 Prepared By: Lissy MacKinnon

1. That COR2016-099 be approved.

2. That the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole meeting of Monday, October 3, 2016 be adopted.

b) Title: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Report - October 17, 2016 Report No.: CORP2016-100 Prepared By: Lissy MacKinnon

1. That COR2016-100 be approved.

2. That the recommendations of the Finance & Strategic Planning Committee meeting of Monday, October 17, 2016 be adopted.

Carried Unanimously

Council Meeting Page 11 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 320 October 24, 2016

8. CONSENT MOTION

Moved by Councillor Durrell, seconded by Councillor Vieth:

That Consent Motion Items (a) to (c) be approved.

a) Title: Traffic and Parking By-law Amendments - Various Locations Report No.: IPPW2016-103 Prepared By: Christine Koehler

1. That IPPW2016-65 be approved.

2. That Traffic and Parking By-law #08-077 be updated with the amendments contained herein.

Carried Unanimously

b) Title: Drinking Water Quality Management System - Management Review and Operational Plan Update Report No.: IPPW2016-080 Prepared By: Paola Mendez

Information.

c) Title: Purchasing Award Summary – Q3 2016 Report No.: CORP2016-083 Prepared By: Tracie Bell

Information.

9. STAFF REPORTS

a) Title: Security Policy Report No.: CORP2016-095 Prepared By: Kevin Lobsinger & Julie Scott

Moved by Councillor Whaley, seconded by Councillor Freeman:

1. That Council approve report CORP2016-095.

2. That Council approve Corporate Policy A-029 Security Policy.

Carried Unanimously

Council Meeting Page 12 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 321 October 24, 2016

b) Title: Waterloo Economic Development Committee (WEDC) Terms of Reference Update Report No.: CORP2016-094 Prepared By: Julie Scott

Moved by Councillor Whaley, seconded by Councillor Bourke:

1. That Council approve report CORP2016-094.

2. That Council approve the revised terms of reference for the Waterloo Economic Development Committee.

Carried Unanimously

c) Title: Kitchener-Waterloo Joint Service Initiatives Committee Update Report No.: CAO2016-010 Prepared By: Brad Witzel

Brad Witzel, Executive Officer, CAO reviewed the report and responded to questions of Council.

Information.

d) Title: Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Candidates Report No.: CORP2016-093 Prepared By: Cassandra Pacey

Cassandra Pacey, Financial Analyst and Todd Chapman, Program Management Manager reviewed the report and responded to questions of Council.

Moved by Councillor Henry, seconded by Councillor Durrell:

1. That Council approve CORP2015-093.

2. That Council endorses and approves the submission of the following projects as the City of Waterloo’s applications to the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund: 1) Installation of a Water Leak Detection System (LDS); 2) Restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 52; 3) Restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 12; 4) Restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 14; 5) Restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 7; 6) Retrofit and restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 20;

Council Meeting Page 13 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 322 October 24, 2016

7) Retrofit and restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 30; 8) Retrofit and restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 33; 9) Retrofit and restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 38; 10) Restoration of pond permanent pool volume for Pond 55.

3. That Council approve the release of budgeted and unbudgeted funding for the City of Waterloo’s application to the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund as identified below:

1) $153,600 from the Stormwater Reserve, be approved and advanced from 2019 to 2016 (ref #872 - as per the 2016- 2018 approved Capital Budget and 2019-2023 Capital Forecast).

2) $539,816 from the Stormwater Reserve, be approved and advanced from 2019 to 2017 (ref #872 - as per the 2016- 2018 approved Capital Budget and 2019-2023 Capital Forecast), subject to a successful application.

3) $400,000 be approved & released in 2017 from the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (unbudgeted), subject to a successful application.

4) $219,168 be approved & released in 2017 from the Water Reserve (unbudgeted), subject to a successful application.

4. That Council authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign the grant applications and contribution agreements for the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund and any related documents.

Carried Unanimously

e) Title: Accessibility Standards Report No.: IPPW2016-070 Prepared By: Bebe Khan

Bebe Khan, Site Plan Coordinator reviewed the report and responded to questions of Council.

Moved by Councillor Vieth, seconded by Councillor Freeman:

1. That IPPW2016-070 be approved.

Council Meeting Page 14 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 323 October 24, 2016

2. That Council approve the Accessibility Standards.

3. That Council direct staff to apply the Accessibility Standards in their review of all new public and private development and construction projects in the City of Waterloo.

4. That staff be directed to update the Accessibility Standards on an “as needed" basis to reflect new legislative requirements and emerging standards.

Carried Unanimously

g) Title: Northdale Streetscape Master Plan / Class Environmental Assessment Study Report No.: IPPW2016-101 Prepared By: Mike Lupsa

Mike Lupsa, Senior Project Engineer, provided a brief overview of the project to date and introduced Don Drackley of IBI Group the consultant for the Northdale Streetscape Master Plan/Class Environmental Assessment Study.

Don Drackley, IBI Group reviewed the report and responded to questions of Council.

Philip Marfisi, Associate Vice President, University Affairs (Waterloo), Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union, spoke in support of the report specifically the residential streets being two-way with parking on one side and shared auto/bike lanes on the other and the potential to maximize the transformation of Larch Street for improved green/community space and maximizing Hickory Street’s potential to be an active transportation corridor. Mr. Marfisi advised the City should also reduce speed limits given high pedestrian traffic and should consider budgeting for pedestrian scale lighting.

Moved by Councillor Henry, seconded by Councillor Vieth:

1. That Council approves report IPPW2016-101.

2. That Council approves the preferred concepts recommended by the Draft Environmental Study Report for the Northdale Streetscape Master Plan.

3. That Council directs staff to file the Notice of Completion and commence the mandatory thirty day public review period, as required by the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process

Carried Unanimously

Council Meeting Page 15 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 324 October 24, 2016

10. NOTICE OF MOTION a) Fair Pricing of E-Books for Public Libraries

Moved by Councillor Durrell, seconded by Councillor Freeman:

That Council waive the notice requirement with respect to the Notice of Motion.

Carried Unanimously

Moved by Councillor Vieth, seconded by Councillor Henry:

Whereas: public libraries provide residents with a community space where they can freely access a wide variety of information in both print and digital format;

Whereas: municipal governments are key funders of public libraries, appoint public library boards and work in partnership with public library boards to deliver library services that are responsive to community needs;

Whereas: electronic books (e-books) are becoming an increasingly preferred medium for library users to access content and information;

Whereas: major multi-national publishers are charging public libraries significantly higher costs to purchase e-books for their collections than they charge consumers;

Whereas: imposing unreasonably high costs on public libraries to purchase e-books is not an appropriate solution to the publishing industry's concerns regarding the evolution of digital technology, including piracy;

Therefore be it resolved: that the City of Waterloo requests the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport work with the federal and the other provincial and territorial governments to find a solution that will allow public libraries to purchase e-books from publishers at a fair and reasonable price.

And that: a copy of this resolution be sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Waterloo Public Library Board.

Carried Unanimously

Council Meeting Page 16 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 325 October 24, 2016

11. REGIONAL INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

a) Region of Waterloo Council Info –September 21, 2016

12. NEW BUSINESS

i. Child Care Worker & Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day

Mayor Jaworsky read a statement regarding the 15th annual Child Care Worker & Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day on Wednesday, October 26, 2016, a day of recognition for the many people who work providing early learning and child care services in your community. This annual awareness day recognizes the education, skills, commitment and dedication of Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) and child care staff. Today, we recognize the hard work, meaningful care and continuous learning these educators provide children every day.

ii. Other Business

Mayor Jaworsky announced that during this year’s Oktoberfest, Waterloo was given the German Pioneers award for their 150th anniversary being incorporated as a City.

Mayor Jaworsky also advised of various fundraiser campaigns happening in Waterloo: • Kia and Leela held their 7th annual Spooky Tours Cancer fundraising Event. The event is over but donations can be made through their Go Fund Me page. • City of Waterloo Firefighters is selling Breast Cancer Awareness T-shirts with proceeds going to the Zonta Club of KW in honour of Betty Thompson. T-shirts are available at Fire station 1 or email [email protected] for contact information. • October is child abuse prevention month in Ontario. Family & Children Services of Waterloo Region held their Speak up for Kids walk on October 19, 2016. 200 high school students participated and it was a huge success.

Mayor Jaworsky announced that Waterloo Active shirts were given to the first 100 people who tweeted doing something active in Waterloo.

Mayor Jaworsky advised the City is hosting the Amplify Culture Summit, a full day summit celebrating creativity and innovation in Waterloo Region. The Summit will be held at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and at Knox Waterloo Presbyterian Church on Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

Councillor Brian Bourke advised that Hockey Helps the Homeless Tournament will be held on Friday, October 28, 2016 at RIM Park.

Council Meeting Page 17 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 326 October 24, 2016

13. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS

Moved by Councillor Durrell, seconded by Councillor Whaley:

That the By-law Nos. 2016-054, 2016-055, 2016-056, 2016-057, 2016-058, 2016-059, and 2016-060 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign them accordingly.

Carried Unanimously

a) By-law No. 2016-054 Signing By-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with the Province of Ontario - Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (CORP2016-089, October 17, 2016)

b) By-law No. 2016-055 By-law establishing (widening) a public highway in the City of Waterloo known as Conservation Drive. 745 Erbsville Road. AAR Holdings Inc. (Committee of Adjustment decision A-82/15)

c) By-law No. 2016-056 By-law amending By-law 1108, being a Zoning By-law controlling land use development within the City of Waterloo. Removing Holding “H” Provision at 311-312 Batavia Place. 311 Batavia Inc. (IPPW2016-081, October 3, 2016)

d) By-law No. 2016-057 By-law amending By-law 1418, being a Zoning By-law controlling land use development within the City of Waterloo. Rezoning lands from "Neighbourhood Residential - Townhouse Linear (NR-TL)" to "Neighbourhood Residential - Townhouse Linear (NR-TL) with site-specific provisions. Part of 430 Wilmot Line. Activa Holdings Inc. (IPPW2016-092, September 26, 2016)

e) By-law No. 2016-058 By-law establishing (opening) a public highway in the City of Waterloo known as Platinum Drive. (Waterloo West Retail GP Limited). Erb Street West. (CAO2014-004, March 3, 2014)

f) By-law No. 2016-059 By-law establishing (opening) a public highway in the City of Waterloo known as Copper Drive. Waterloo West Retail GP Limited. Erb Street West. (CAO2014-004, March 3, 2014)

Council Meeting Page 18 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes Page 327 October 24, 2016

g) By-law No. 2016-060 By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of Council - October 24, 2016 - Regular

14. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Whaley, seconded by Councillor Durrell:

That the meeting adjourn. (Time: 8:01 p.m.)

Carried Unanimously

READ AND APPROVED, November 21, 2016

Mayor

City Clerk

Council Meeting Page 19 of 183 November 21, 2016 Special Council Meeting Minutes Page 328 November 14, 2016

A meeting of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Waterloo was held on November 14, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, Ontario.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

Monday, November 14, 2016

Minutes

PRESENT: Mayor Dave Jaworsky, Councillor Brian Bourke, Councillor Angela Vieth, Councillor Diane Freeman, Councillor Mark Whaley, Councillor Jeff Henry, Councillor Melissa Durrell

ABSENT: Councillor Bob Mavin

Mayor Jaworsky in the Chair

1. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

No disclosure of pecuniary interest was declared by any other member of Council at this point in the meeting.

2. ENACTMENT OF BY-LAWS

Moved by Councillor Freeman, seconded by Councillor Bourke:

That the By-law Nos. 2016-061, 2016-062, 2016-063, and 2016-064 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign them accordingly.

Council Meeting Page 20 of 183 November 21, 2016 Special Council Meeting Minutes Page 329 November 14, 2016

a) By-law No. 2016-061 By-law amending By-law No. 1108, being a Zoning By-law controlling land use development within the City of Waterloo. 155 Caroline Street South. (IPPW2016-077, September 26, 2016)

b) By-law No. 2016-062 By-law to provide for the 2017 Interim Tax Levy and for payment of the 2017 Interim Property Taxes. (CORP2016-091, November 14, 2016)

c) By-law No. 2016-063 By-law to authorize the borrowing for temporary loans. (CORP2016-102, November 14, 2016)

d) By-law No. 2016-064 By-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of Council, November 14, 2016 – Special

3. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Whaley, seconded by Councillor Durrell:

That the meeting adjourn. (Time: 5:01 p.m.)

Carried Unanimously

READ AND APPROVED, November 21, 2016

Mayor

City Clerk

Council Meeting Page 21 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Corporate Services

Legislative Services

Title: Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Report – November 14, 2016 Report Number: CORP2016-112 Author: Lissy MacKinnon Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 14, 2016 File: None Attachments: None Ward No.: City Wide

Recommendation:

1. That CORP2016-112 be approved

2. That the recommendations of the Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting of Monday, November 14, 2016 be adopted.

A. Executive Summary This report contains the recommendations approved by the Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting of Monday, November 14, 2016.

B. Financial Implications None

C. Technology Implications None

D. Legal Considerations Staff did not seek legal advice.

E. Link to Strategic Plan/Economic Vitality (Strategic Pillars: Sustainability and Our Living Environment, Public Engagement, Healthy & Safe Community, Vibrant Neighbourhoods, Getting Around, Economic Vitality)  Public engagement

F. Previous Reports on this Topic None

Council Meeting Page 22 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Corporate Services

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date

Author: Lissy MacKinnon Director: Olga Smith Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: n/a n/a

CAO

Council Meeting Page 23 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Corporate Services

Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Report – November 14, 2016 CORP2016-112

STAFF REPORT

1. Approval of Minutes - October 17, 2016 – Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting

That the minutes of the Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting held on October 17, 2016 be approved as printed.

2. Title: Park Amenity Upgrades – Release of Capital Funding Report No.: COM2016-022

1. That Council approve COM2016-022.

2. That capital funding for 2016 for the Park Amenity Upgrades in the amount of $308,000 be released; $156,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund (CRF) and $152,000 from Development Charges (DC), as per the approved 2016-18 Capital Budget (Ref #213).

3. That on January 1, 2017, capital funding for 2017 for the Park Amenity Upgrades in the amount of $318,000 be released; $162,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund (CRF) and $156,000 from Development Charges (DC), as per the approved 2016-18 Capital Budget (Ref #213).

3. Title: Uptown Vision Committee Comments to Facilitate Employment Growth in Uptown Report No.: CTTEE2016-004

Information.

4. Title: 2016 Surplus Projection Report No.: CORP2016-090

Information.

Council Meeting Page 24 of 183 November 21, 2016 4 Corporate Services

5. Title: 2017 Interim Tax Levy Report No.: CORP2016-091

1. That Council approves the Staff Report CORP2016-091.

2. That Council approves the 2017 Interim Tax Levy By-law, attached as Schedule ‘A’.

6. Title: By-law to Authorize the Borrowing for Temporary Loans Report No.: CORP2016-102

1. That CORP2016-102 be approved.

2. That Council approves the borrowing for temporary loans, if required, not to exceed an aggregate of $73,921,000 to meet the current expenditures for 2016, 2017 and 2018.

3. That Council directs staff to report back on amount and terms should temporary borrowing be required.

7. Title: Reserves and Reserve Funds Annual Update Report No.: CORP2016-074

1. That Council approve report CORP2016-074.

2. That Council approve the new Industrial Land Reserve Fund policy attached as Appendix A.

3. That Council approve that the Insurance Reserve Fund be closed after year end transfers, and any remaining balance transferred to the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve, as the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve provides a contingency against unforeseen events that might put pressure on the tax rate.

4. That Council approve the new Water Capital Reserve, Sanitary Sewer Capital Reserve, Water Rate Stabilization Reserve, and Sanitary Sewer Rate Stabilization Reserve policies attached as Appendices B through E.

5. That Council approve that the Employee Development and Capacity Building Reserve policy be amended to the updated policy included as Appendix F.

6. That Council approve that the Council Approved Target Level of the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve be increased to a target equivalent to 5% of the Municipal Tax Levy.

Council Meeting Page 25 of 183 November 21, 2016 5 Corporate Services

7. That Council approve that the following housekeeping adjustments be updated in the Reserves and Reserve Fund Policies:

a. That Council approve that the Capital Infrastructure Reinvestment Reserve Fund expenditures policy be amended to remove the reference to energy management expenditures as eligible expenditures of this reserve fund, as these expenditures should be funded through the Facilities Maintenance Reserve energy management program number created in 2015.

b. That Council approve that the Consolidated Development Charges Reserve Fund Policy references to the $200,000 funding thresholds be updated to reflect the current approved Routine/Non-Routine project classification process.

c. That Council approve that the Parking Reserve Fund Revenue policy item b) is updated to state 100% of all net parking program revenue, as the phase-in period is now complete.

d. That Council approve that the Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund Revenue policy be updated to state that Cash in lieu of parkland can be taken at the discretion of the municipality consistent with the City of Waterloo Parkland Dedication By-law 2015-044 (By-law to amend By- law 2011-024) and Policies, enacted by Council on August 10, 2015.

e. That Council approve that the Sick Leave Reserve Fund Expenditures policy be amended to add that the payout is calculated annually and the appropriate transfer is processed at year end.

f. That Council approve that the Uptown Development Reserve Fund Revenues Policy be amended to include that year end surplus transfers will only occur to the extent that the City remains in an overall surplus position.

g. That Council approve that the Facilities Maintenance Reserve Revenue policy be updated to state that up to 75% of operational savings realized from the implementation of new energy management initiatives be used to assist in offsetting utility costs (e.g. electricity) within the operating budget, with the balance to be contributed to the Facilities Maintenance Reserve energy management program number.

h. That Council approve that the RIM Park Investment Reserve Revenues Policy be amended to include that year end surplus transfers will only occur to the extent that the City remains in an overall surplus position.

Council Meeting Page 26 of 183 November 21, 2016 6 Corporate Services

8. That Council approve the updated FC-006 Reserves and Reserve Funds Policy attached as Appendix H, as a result of the changes recommended in 1 through 7, inclusive.

8. Title: Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Implementation – 2017 & 2018 Funding Release Report No.: COM2016-021

1. That Council approve report COM2016-021.

2. That on January 1, 2017, capital funding of $349,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund for the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Implementation be approved, as per the 2016-18 approved Capital Budget (Ref# 238).

3. That on January 1, 2018, capital funding of $356,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund for the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan Implementation be approved, as per the 2016-2018 approved Capital Budget (Ref#238).

4. That staff be directed to investigate opportunities to expand the City’s tree canopy as part of Canada’s 150th Sesquicentennial including options for funding sources and report back to Council.

9. Title: RIM Park Ball Diamond Amenities – Release of Funds Report No.: CORP2016-087

1. That Council approve CORP2016-087.

2. That Council approve the release of funding in the amount of $7,000 from Capital Reserve Fund, $70,000 from Development Charges Reserve Funds, and $239,000 from Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund as per the 2016-2018 approved Capital Budget (ref #214).

3. That Council approve the release of funding on January 1, 2017 in the amount of $7,000 from Capital Reserve Fund, $71,000 from Development Charges Reserve Funds, and $244,000 from Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund as per the 2016-2018 approved Capital Budget (ref #214).

Council Meeting Page 27 of 183 November 21, 2016 7 Corporate Services

10. Title: 2017 Budget Confirmation Report No.: CORP2016-086

1. That Council approve CORP2016-086.

2. That Council re-adopt the 2017 tax increase of 2.3% approved on February 8, 2016.

11. Title: Renewal of Licence for Public Purposes - Mary Johnston and Keats Way Corridor Report No.: CORP2016-098

1. That Council approve CORP2016-098.

2. That Council approve the Licence Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure, for Mary Johnston and Keats Way corridors, for the use of these corridor lands for public recreational purposes for a five (5) year term effective January 1, 2017.

3. That Council authorize staff to automatically renew this agreement in the future, subject to the approval of the Community Services Commissioner and the Director of Legal Services.

4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the necessary documents.

12. Title: Waterloo North Hydro Property Acquisition - 475 Weber Street North Report No.: CAO2016-011

1. That CAO2016-011 be approved.

2. That Council approves funding for the acquisition of land (475 Weber Street North) from Waterloo North Hydro for the purpose of converting to park space in the amount of $120,612 to be funded from the Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund.

3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute any necessary agreements required for the purchase of Pt Blk C, PI 1155, City of Waterloo; Pt 1 Ft Reserve C, PI 1155, City of Waterloo as in 368239 (PIN 22273-0123), municipally known as 475 Weber Street North, Waterloo.

13. Title: 2015-2015 Strategic Plan – 2016 Progress report Report No.: CAO2016-009

Information.

Council Meeting Page 28 of 183 November 21, 2016 8 Corporate Services

14. Title: 2016-2018 Active Transportation Program Report No.: IPPW2016-017

Information.

15. Title: Corporate Asset Management Report Report No.: IPPW2016-099

1. That Council approve IPPW2016-099 and:

2. That Council approve that a public engagement strategy be undertaken beginning in 2017;

3. That Council approve the Corporate Policy A-030 Asset Management attached as Appendix 1.0;

4. That Council approve the development of an asset management strategy in 2017;

5. That Council approve the 2016 Asset Management Plan and that the plan is made publicly available, including on the City of Waterloo website by December 31, 2016,and be forwarded to the Ministry of Infrastructure

6. That Council approve the release of $318,000 of budgeted and $500,000 of unbudgeted funding for continued asset management activities and the addition of three (3) FTE for the asset management contract positions as identified in Section3.4 of the report.

7. That Council approve the use of the following funding strategies for consideration within the Long Term Financial Plan; a. Infrastructure Levy b. General Tax Levy c. Debt d. User Fees e. Grants f. Redirection of Waterloo North Hydro Investment Surplus

Council Meeting Page 29 of 183 November 21, 2016 9 Corporate Services

16. NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council waives the notice requirement with respect to the Notice of Motion.

a) AMO – Municipal Fiscal Gap – What’s Next Ontario?

WHEREAS recent polling, conducted on behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario indicates 76% of Ontarians are concerned or somewhat concerned property taxes will not cover the cost of infrastructure while maintaining municipal services, and 90% agree maintaining safe infrastructure is an important priority for their communities;

AND WHEREAS infrastructure and transit are identified by Ontarians as the biggest problems facing their municipal government;

AND WHEREAS a ten-year projection (2016-2025) of municipal expenditures against inflationary property tax and user fee increases, shows there to be an unfunded average annual need of $3.6 billion to fix local infrastructure and provide for municipal operating needs;

AND WHEREAS the $3.6 billion average annual need would equate to annual increases of 4.6% (including inflation) to province-wide property tax revenue for the next ten years;

AND WHEREAS this gap calculation also presumes all existing and multi-year planned federal and provincial transfers to municipal governments are fulfilled;

AND WHEREAS if future federal and provincial transfers are unfulfilled beyond 2015 levels, it would require annual province-wide property tax revenue increases of up to 8.35% for ten years;

AND WHEREAS the City of Waterloo continues to endeavor to strike a balance between affordability and addressing local infrastructure needs, if future federal and provincial transfers remain at 2015 levels, it is anticipated the city will require the equivalent of an annual 2% property tax revenue increase for ten years to meet our target maintenance levels for our $1.6B in infrastructure assets;

AND WHEREAS Ontarians already pay the highest property taxes in the country;

AND WHEREAS each municipal government in Ontario faces unique issues, the fiscal health and needs is a challenge which unites all municipal governments, regardless of size;

Council Meeting Page 30 of 183 November 21, 2016 10 Corporate Services

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Council supports the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in its work to close the fiscal gap; so that all municipalities can benefit from predictable and sustainable revenue, to finance the pressing infrastructure and municipal service needs faced by all municipal governments.

17. Title: Beechwood North Home Association Special Service Levy Vote Report No.: CORP2016-084

1. That CORP2016-084 be approved.

2. That Council direct the Clerk’s Office to conduct a vote amongst the homeowners of the Beechwood North Home Association asking:

3. Are you in favour of the City of Waterloo instituting a Special Service Levy on the properties within the geographic area of the Beechwood North Home Association to pay the operating and capital costs of the Association’s Recreation facilities?  Yes  No

4. That Council receive the terms and conditions of the proposed Lease Agreement that set out the rights and obligations upon which the City shall lease the premises.

5. That Council receive the terms and conditions of the proposed Licence and Operating Agreement that enable the Beechwood North Home Association use and quiet enjoyment of the premises.

6. That Council confirm that any approval of the proposed Licence and Operating agreement be conditional on City Staff scrutinizing for obvious or apparent structural, electrical and mechanical deficiencies of the facility in order to ensure that there are adequate reserves for repair and maintenance by the Beechwood North Home Association to fulfill its obligations.

7. That Council approve Voting Rules and Procedures, as drafted for Beechwood South Homes Association Inc., for conducting the vote amongst the homeowners of the Beechwood North Home Association.

8. That Council approve the proposed timeline that will provide members of the Beechwood North Home Association and the general public notice of a Public Meeting and the date(s) of the vote.

9. That Council approve the voter information package.

Council Meeting Page 31 of 183 November 21, 2016 11 Corporate Services

18. Other Business

That Council waives the notice requirement with respect to the Notice of Motion.

Whereas the Uptown Waterloo BIA is hosting the Festival of Living Streets on December 3rd to promote the re-opening of King Street following LRT construction, it is recommended that Waterloo City Council provide $15,000 from Council Community Priority and Contingency Reserve to the Uptown Waterloo BIA for the promotion and delivery of the Festival of Living Streets.

Council Meeting Page 32 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Corporate Services

STAFF REPORT Human Resources

Title: October 2016 Health and Safety Report Report Number: CORP2016-096 Author: Susan Bradley Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: n/a Attachments: n/a Ward No.: All

Recommendation:

That Council receive this report for information.

A. Executive Summary

1. Incident Reporting Period September 1-30, 2016.

Accident Sept Sept Total Total LT LT WSIB Total Category 2016 2015 YTD 2015 Days Days YTD WSIB Reports Reports Reports Reports Sept Sept Claims Claims 2016 2016 2015 2016 2015 Lost Time 0 4 7 11 16 34 7 11 Health Care 4 2 18 12 n/a n/a 18 12 Incidents/First 1 8 45 72 n/a n/a n/a n/a Aid Totals 5 14 70 96 16 34 25 23 *LT refers to Lost Time

In September 2016, there were four (4) health care claims submitted to WSIB. • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB was for gradual onset due to repetitive use. The claim has been denied by WSIB adjudicator. • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB was for ‘struck by’ when taking down tables after a function. • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB for laceration. WSIB adjudicator denied loss of earnings

Council Meeting Page 33 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Corporate Services

• One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB for PTSD and was allowed for health care benefits. The claim is pending decision for loss of earnings by the WSIB adjudicator.

The 16 days of lost time were due to the long latency occupational disease claim reported in 2012.

In September 2016 the incidents/first aids reported were lower than 2015 reports as the Waterloo Fire Services responded to a large fire in September 2015 which accounted for 11 of the reports.

2. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) - Claims Cost Summary 2016 to 2015 Monthly and Year- to- Date Totals Comparison

Category Sept 2016 Sept 2015 Total 2016 Total 2015 Health Care $4,202 $3,815 $51,354 $52,558

Lost Time $3,801 $11,775 $50,396 $60,918 (Advances) Administrative/ $4,400 $5,604 $36,655 $47,500 Physician Fees Totals (Year to $12,404 $21,195 $138,406 $160,976 Date)

In September 2016, the costs for health care, lost time and administrative/physician fees were significantly lower than the 2015 September costs. These costs were due to Fire Services incidents associated with the large fire in September 2015.

Action Taken: • Facility safety protocol improvements are a work in progress based on identified trends.

B. Financial Implications The associated costs are within 2016-2018 budget.

C. Technology Implications Not applicable

D. Legal Considerations Not applicable

E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Priorities: Multi-modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development)

Council Meeting Page 34 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Corporate Services

This monthly health and safety report supports Our Values in promoting a healthy workplace based on safe work practices and demonstrates our commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace

F. Previous Reports on this Topic Monthly reports

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Susan Bradley Director: Karen Boa Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: CAO

Council Meeting Page 35 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Corporate Services

STAFF REPORT Human Resources

Title: November 2016 Health and Safety Report Report Number: CORP2016-108 Author: Susan Bradley Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: n/a Attachments: n/a Ward No.: All

Recommendation:

That Council receive this report for information.

A. Executive Summary

1. Incident Reporting Period October 1-31, 2016.

Accident Oct Oct Total 2015 LT LT WSIB 2015 Category 2016 2015 YTD Total Days Days YTD Total Reports Reports Reports Reports Oct Oct Claims WSIB 2016 2016 2015 2016 Claims Lost Time 1 1 8 11 18 21 8 11 Health Care 3 1 21 12 n/a n/a 21 12 Incidents/First 4 3 49 72 n/a n/a n/a n/a Aid Totals 8 5 78 96 18 21 29 23 *LT refers to Lost Time

In October there was one (1) lost time claims submitted to WSIB. The claim was for 2 days lost time and it is still pending approval. A Return to Work plan was developed and offered to employee. The other 16 days of lost time were due to the long latency occupational disease claim reported in 2012.

In October 2016, there were 3 health care claims submitted to WSIB. • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB was for abrasion • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB was for contusion • One (1) health care claim submitted to WSIB was for laceration

Council Meeting Page 36 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Corporate Services

2. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) - Claims Cost Summary 2016 to 2015 Monthly and Year- to- Date Totals Comparison

Category Oct 2016 Oct 2015 Total 2016 Total 2015 Health Care $6,527 $16,145 $57,881 $57,267

Lost Time $4,406 $7,7760 $54,802 $66,999 (Advances) Administrative/ $4,217 $8,466 $40,872 $47,547 Physician Fees Totals (Year to $15,150 $32,372 $153,555 $164,051 Date)

In October, the costs for health care, lost time and administrative/physician fees were significantly lower than the 2015 October costs. In 2015, the costs were higher for the following reasons:

• An increase in health care and administrative/ physician fee costs • Lost time and health care costs related to a former employee claim from 2013 • A significant lost time claim from September 2015 • A noise induced hearing loss claim

B. Financial Implications The associated costs are within 2016-2018 budget.

C. Technology Implications Not applicable

D. Legal Considerations Not applicable

E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Priorities: Multi-modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development)

This monthly health and safety report supports Our Values in promoting a healthy workplace based on safe work practices and demonstrates our commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace.

F. Previous Reports on this Topic Monthly reports

Council Meeting Page 37 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Corporate Services

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Susan Bradley Director: Karen Boa Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance: CAO

Council Meeting Page 38 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Integrated Planning & Public Works

STAFF REPORT Growth Management

Title: Recommendation to Designate 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive under the Ontario Heritage Act Report Number: IPPW2016-042 Author: Michelle Lee Meeting Type: Committee of the Whole Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 7, 2016 File: [File] Attachments: Appendix A. Statement of Significance for 3 Father David Bauer Drive Appendix B. Statement of Significance for 5 Father David Bauer Drive Appendix C. Historical Context of the Seagram Viewshed Appendix D. Consultation Comments (Economic Development) Ward No.: Ward 7

Recommendation:

1. That staff report IPPW2016-042 be approved. 2. That Council designate the property at 3 Father David Bauer Drive and containing a former Seagram Barrel Warehouse, to be of cultural heritage value, under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and direct the City clerk to issue a notice of intention to designate pursuant to the requirements set out in the Ontario Heritage Act. 3. That Council designate the property at 5 Father David Bauer Drive and containing a former Seagram Barrel Warehouse, to be of cultural heritage value, under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and direct the City clerk to issue a notice of intention to designate pursuant to the requirements set out in the Ontario Heritage Act. 4. That Council direct staff to develop zoning regulations to implement the viewshed conservation to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services in consultation with Economic Development.

Council Meeting Page 39 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Integrated Planning & Public Works

A. Executive Summary The condominium boards representing the property owners of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive are requesting that Council designate the two properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The properties each contain a multi-storey building constructed ca. 1892 as a warehouse to store whisky barrels for the Seagram Distillery. The two buildings were converted to residential condominiums in the early 1990s and are now known as the Seagram Lofts. The proposed designation would conserve significant exterior features and select facades of the buildings and views of the buildings’ east and north facades from Caroline Street.

Staff, the Municipal Heritage Committee and the condominium boards are of the opinion that the properties contain significant cultural heritage value and meet the criteria for designation as set out in Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. This report recommends designation of the properties and the delineation and protection of a viewshed in recognition of the buildings’ cultural heritage value and their contribution to the character and urban design of the Uptown.

B. Financial Implications If designation is supported by Council, and with permission from the property owners, a cast bronze plaque will be installed on the buildings to recognize the designation and year of construction. Two bronze plaques are estimated to cost $400 with installation. This cost will be covered by Heritage operating funds.

Conservation of a viewshed may have a financial implication on the future land disposition process related to 41 Caroline Street, pending applicable zoning regulations.

C. Technology Implications None

D. Legal Considerations Staff did not seek legal advice.

Council is enabled by the Ontario Heritage Act to designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest if it meets the criteria prescribed in Regulation 9/06 and provided the designation is made in accordance with the process set out in the Act.

E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Priorities: Multi-modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development)

The designation of properties of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act supports the Strong Community priority of the Strategic Plan by fostering sense of place and identity through high quality, compact built form, accessibility to amenities, a vibrant culture, and the conservation of heritage resources. It also supports the Economic

Council Meeting Page 40 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Development priority by establishing a framework that will ensure a growth management approach that includes culture and heritage aspects in new development.

F. Previous Reports on this Topic

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date Author: Michelle Lee Director: Scott Nevin Commissioner: Cam Rapp Finance:

CAO

Council Meeting Page 41 of 183 November 21, 2016 4 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Recommendation to Designate 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive under the Ontario Heritage Act IPPW2016-042

Introduction The condominium boards representing the owners of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive have expressed an interest in designating their properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The properties contain 2 multi-storey, buff brick buildings which were constructed in 1892 as barrel warehouses for the Seagram Distillery. The buildings were converted to residential condominiums in the 1990s and are 5 now known as the Seagram Lofts. Of interest to 3 the condominium boards is the recognition and conservation of the exterior façades of the Seagram Lofts and the preservation of a key view of the buildings from Caroline Street.

Through discussions with the condominium The properties at 3 and 5 Father David Bauer boards, staff learned that the boards had each Drive and the former barrel warehouses known as the Seagram Lofts. consulted with their membership and obtained support for the designation.

Designating Properties under the Ontario Heritage Act Under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City of Waterloo is enabled to designate properties as a means to recognize and conserve built heritage that is of architectural, historical or contextual value to a community. In addition to helping conserve built heritage, designation is an important tool to help encourage stewardship and promote knowledge and appreciation of the City’s unique people and places. Waterloo currently has 43 individual properties and one Heritage Conservation District designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Criteria The Ontario Heritage Act outlines a process for designating properties and establishes evaluation criteria through Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value.

Council Meeting Page 42 of 183 November 21, 2016 5 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Council may designate a property if it meets any one of the design, historical or contextual values described in Regulation 9/06. How a property meets the criteria for determining heritage value, and the list of features or ‘heritage attributes’ that embody those values is described in a document called a Statement of Significance. If Council decides to designate a property, the description of cultural heritage value and the heritage features detailed in the Statement of Significance are incorporated into the designation by-law. Process The City of Waterloo follows a process that combines the requirements under the Act with additional steps to communicate with the property owner prior to consideration of the designation by Council (noted with an asterisk). The process entails:

1. Identifying the property as a candidate for designation 2. Researching and evaluating the property 3. Communicating results of the research with the property owner and identifying areas of concern or compromise* 4. Recommending designation to Council 5. Serving a Notice of Intention to Designate, with a 30 day appeal period (Notice is served on property owner, Ontario Heritage Trust and published in newspaper) 6. Passing and registering the designation bylaw 7. Listing the property on the Municipal Heritage Register 8. Listing the property on the Provincial Register

Candidate properties for designation may be identified by staff, the Municipal Heritage Committee or property owners. In the case of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive, the property owners approached the City with a request that the property be evaluated for possible designation. While there is no requirement under the Act to notify adjacent property owners regarding designations, City staff recognized a need to consult with Economic Development given the potential impact of the designation on adjacent City- owned land.

Protecting Views In addition to conserving property through designation, municipalities may also identify and conserve the view of a property or structure from a particular location or vantage point. Effective site design along with view protection can be important to ensure the continued prominence or visibility of a building identified as a landmark under the Ontario Heritage Act. In the past, the City of Waterloo supported this principle through the redevelopment of the Waterloo Town Square project that resulted in a terminating view from a new public road to the Seagram Lofts, and through the design and construction of the Barrel Warehouse Park that incorporated respectful landscape and industrial features that complemented the Seagram industry and enhanced views to the remaining buildings. Views of iconic buildings, structures, waterfronts and scenic landscapes may also be conserved for aesthetic reasons, or because the view contributes to sense of place and a high quality urban design.

Council Meeting Page 43 of 183 November 21, 2016 6 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Waterloo’s Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines set out a framework for the protection and conservation of significant views and vistas as a means to achieve high quality urban design and compatibility and integration of development with existing cultural heritage resources. These policies and guidelines focus primarily on the design of buildings, building location and massing with a purpose of facilitating compatible intensification. In accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014), the Official Plan defines significant vistas and viewsheds as cultural heritage resources, and requires that they be conserved.

The policies of Section 3.11.1(3) of the Official Plan demonstrate an expectation for urban design “that contributes to, protects or respects important views and vistas”. This policy applices to all site development in the City in the public and private realm.

The Official Plan includes other policies that promote heritage conservation including:

• 3.11.1(2) Character: “To reinforce and maintain the architectural, visual, and thematic integrity of structures, streetscapes, neighbourhoods and planned development by planning and designing new sites, buildings and additions that create and maintain sensitive designs in terms of the planned physical context into which such development is located and through the coordination of design elements. The physical design of the public and private realm shall be coordinated to fit within the existing character and context.” • 3.11.1(6) Heritage: “For building and site design to sympathetically conserve, respect and build upon cultural heritage resources of the City as a whole and the Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre in particular. The City shall encourage sensitive designs for new development in close proximity to prominent heritage resources and Heritage Districts.”

As an implementing tool, the City’s Urban Design Manual (UDM) includes a series of guidelines to promote, conserve and be respectful of important heritage resources. A summary of supporting guidelines are noted below:

• 2.2.2 Views and Vistas: “To design sites and buildings that contributes to interesting views and vistas from various perspectives.”

o 2.2.2.1. “Recognize and protect major views in the City with particular attention to those of open space, civic buildings, landmarks, heritage or cultural resources, cultural landscapes, urban landscapes and the skyline.” o 2.2.2.2. “Design sites, including the alignment of public and private streets to maintain, create or enhance prominent site views.”

• 2.2.4 Heritage: “To design sites and buildings to conserve prominent heritage resource(s) to enhance the quality and character of the surrounding character and to respectfully strengthen the cultural context and identity of the City.”

Council Meeting Page 44 of 183 November 21, 2016 7 Integrated Planning & Public Works

o 2.2.4.3. “Design new buildings or additions to architecturally complement the existing heritage resource with emphasis on the quality and character of new building materials, colours and elements.”

Seagram Lofts (which include the subject properties), the Barrel Warehouse Park (immediately to the east and north of the Lofts), and terminating sites or intersections are all identified in the UDM as key views that should be preserved and enhanced. Terminating sites are those that are located at the end of a road and create a framed view as one travels up the street.

Municipalities may identify and protect views using a variety of mechanisms, including zoning regulations, Official Plan policies, heritage designation, heritage impact assessments and legal agreements. The City already recognizes and conserves views in the MacGregor-Albert Heritage Conservation District (e.g. views of Waterloo Park from neighbourhood streets) through the combined application of District Plan policies, supportive zoning regulations and the use of Heritage Impact Assessments in the development review process. The cities of Guelph, Kingston, Ottawa and Toronto are examples of municipalities that have undertaken efforts to conserve iconic or historic views by identifying them in their Official Plan or secondary plans and apply zoning regulations that restrict building heights or setbacks for new site development within the viewshed. For City-owned properties, purchase and sale agreements can include specific requirements and conditions that will conserve a view as part of the sale and future development would be subject to the UDM guidelines ad an Heritage Impact Assessment.

Cultural Heritage Value of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive Heritage planning staff and the Municipal Heritage Committee have reviewed the historical information provided by the condominium boards as well as the City’s extensive Seagram Distillery archives and are of the opinion that both 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive contain significant design, historical and contextual heritage values, that meet all three the criteria under Regulation 9/06 for designation. As two of the most recognizable structures in the Uptown, the buildings form an integral part the City’s identity and character. The key cultural heritage values, described in detail in the Statement of Significance (Appendix C), pertain to the buildings’: 1) representative 19th century monumental industrial architecture style and design features, including the buff brick, the distinctive rows of small shuttered windows, and the painted Seagram Distillers sign (found on 3 Father David Bauer Drive); 2) association with an important phase in Waterloo’s early industrial development and the internationally renowned Seagram’s Distillery; and 3) value as a landmark and an iconic feature of the Uptown, enhanced by the visual and historical connection between the two buildings, the framed view of the 3 Father David Bauer Drive at the terminus of Willis Way where it meets Caroline Street, and the views of the two buildings along Caroline Street.

Council Meeting Page 45 of 183 November 21, 2016 8 Integrated Planning & Public Works

As a note, the City built Barrel Warehouse Park to reflect the historical legacy of the Seagram industry. The park space also provides an enhanced view of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive that was at one time obscured by industrial buildings constructed in the 1950s.

Recommendation to Designate Staff recommend that the cultural heritage values of 3 and 5 Father David Drive be conserved through designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Designation would enable the City to require Heritage Permits and Heritage Impact Assessments to ensure cultural heritage resources are considered and appropriately managed in advance of development, building alterations and public works projects. This would apply to any future development or site works on these properties, or any future development on adjacent lands.

Based on the value of the buildings as a landmark, and the City’s Urban Design Guidelines that identify Seagram Lofts as a “key view” for preservation and enhancement, staff recommend the designation bylaw include, as a character-defining feature, the view of 3 Father David Bauer Drive from Caroline Street South where it meets Willis Way (Figure 1) and the view of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive from Caroline Street South.

Listing these views as character-defining features in the designation bylaws for each property enables staff to ensure that, through the use of Heritage Impact Assessments, impacts on the view are considered as part of the development review process for adjacent lands. The identification of a view within a designation bylaw is a new approach for the City of Waterloo that will introduce a modest building setback along the 41 Caroline Street property.

The condo board for 3 Father David Bauer Drive originally requested consideration of a triangular viewshed extending approximately 125 degrees from the east façade of the building to preserve the view from a range of vantage points along Caroline Street South. Staff and the Municipal Heritage Committee propose a modified viewshed that directly reflects the buildings’ value as a terminating landmark, and their visual and historical connection. This viewshed would conserve an uninterrupted perpendicular view of the east façade of 3 Father David Bauer Drive framed by the buildings on Willis Way and terminating where Willis Way meets Caroline Street South, and the visual relationship between 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive as viewed from Caroline Street South. To conserve these views, staff propose a viewshed extending 90 degrees from the southeast corner of 3 Father David Bauer Drive and 90 degrees from the northeast corner of 5 Father David Bauer Drive to Caroline Street South, meeting to the public right of way, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Council Meeting Page 46 of 183 November 21, 2016 9 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Figure 1. View of the east facade of 3 Father David Bauer Drive from the corner of Caroline Street and Willis Way showing Seagram sign and distinct pattern of shuttered windows.

Figure 2. View of both former Seagram Barrel Warehouses from Caroline Street between Willis Way and Father David Bauer Drive

Council Meeting Page 47 of 183 November 21, 2016 10 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Figure 3. Proposed boundaries of a viewshed that would conserve a view of the east façade of 3 Father David Bauer Drive from the corner of Willis Way and Caroline Street South as well as a view of the two buildings from a range of points along Caroline Street.

Economic Development Recognizing that the lands within the viewshed boundary are City-owned, planning staff consulted with Economic Development staff to discuss the unique opportunities for and implications of view conservation on the future development of the City-owned property.

The majority of the lands within the viewshed proposed in Figure 3 are City parkland (Barrel Warehouse Park), which currently function to support and enhance the view of the Seagram Lofts.

Economic Development expressed concerns that the conical view originally requested by the condo board of 3 Father David Bauer Drive would have significant impacts on the future development of 41 Caroline Street South given the proportion of the property that would fall within the viewshed boundaries and zoning regulations that would impact

Council Meeting Page 48 of 183 November 21, 2016 11 Integrated Planning & Public Works where development could occur on the property (See Appendix D for expanded Economic Development comments).

The rectangular viewshed proposed in Figure 3 would reduce the area of direct impact from 750 m2 to 120 m2 (approximately 5.7m frontage impact or 7.5% of property frontage, compared to the original proposed 30.7m frontage or 39.7% of property frontage). It is believed that potential impacts could be mitigated through the site design that locates at grade and underground uses such as driveways, underground parking, landscaping and certain types of ground level amenities to the portion of the property that falls within the viewshed. The rectangular viewshed as proposed in Figure 3 would not impact the City-owned property at 7 Father David Bauer Drive or any privately owned properties across Caroline Street South because they fall outside of the recommended viewshed boundaries.

Economic Development staff have indicated their support for the designation of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive and a viewshed that limits its impact on surrounding City- owned land, as depicted in Figure 3 and addressing specific concerns through the refinement of the final zoning bylaw.

Municipal Heritage Committee At their October meeting, The Municipal Heritage Committee unanimously expressed their support for the designations and the viewshed proposed in Figure 3 that conserves views of the east façades of 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive.

Council Meeting Page 49 of 183 November 21, 2016 12 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Appendix A. Statement of Significance for 3 Father David Bauer Drive Legal Address: Waterloo Condo Plan 311 PIN: 233110000

Description of Historic Place 3 Father David Bauer Drive (Waterloo Condo Corporation 311) is a multi-story buff brick building comprising one of two buildings known as Seagram Lofts. Built ca. 1892 as a barrel warehouse for Seagram Distillery, the building is located on the south-east corner of Father David Bauer Drive and Caroline Street adjacent to the Barrel Warehouse Park.

Heritage Value The heritage significance of 3 Father David Bauer Drive relates to its design, associative and contextual values.

Design Value: The original façades, both east and west facing, while representative of late 19th century monumental industrial architecture, are also unique in their particular scale and configuration. Other well-known examples of warehouses for the aging of whisky and other spirits, such as those at the Gooderham & Worts Distillery in Toronto, are much smaller. The façades present a neoclassical form with a low pitched pediment delineated by a vertical row of dentils formed by brick corbels. The bricks are locally produced and buff coloured. This pediment sits atop of four slender, symbolic pilasters formed of raised brick which divide the façade surface into three sections. The most distinctive feature of the façades is the fenestration consisting on the east facade of 84 small windows arranged in tiers of five in the outside wall sections and numbering seven per tier in the centre section. The tops of the window openings consist of segmented arches in brick. Small, single leaf doorways occupy the central lower position in each façade. The original function of the multiple windows was to provide ventilation in a building that would have contained considerable build-ups of volatile fumes from evaporating spirits, sometimes known as the “angels’ share.” Reconstructed using the original brick, the north and south façades play a supporting role in maintaining the form and mass of the building.

Associative Value: The building has direct association with historic personalities and vital industrial developments that are significant to the community. Seagram's Distillery was founded by members of one of Waterloo's pioneering families. The Seagrams played important roles in the history of Waterloo, as industrialists, politicians and philanthropists. The 19th century patriarch, Joseph E. Seagram, moved from Hespeler (Cambridge) to Waterloo to manage the business interests of William Hespeler, his wife's uncle. The Granite Mills and Waterloo Distillery, as it was known then, had been

Council Meeting Page 50 of 183 November 21, 2016 13 Integrated Planning & Public Works founded in 1857. The distilling business along with other concerns such as milling and dry goods was owned by William Hespeler, George Randall, and William Roos. In 1883, Seagram purchased the businesses from the original owners, disposed of the other parts and renamed the successful spirit producing works, “J. E. Seagram's Distillery.” From 1857 to 1992 the distillery operated continuously, in the heart of Waterloo. As one of the community's leading industries, the Seagram complex provided regular employment to as many as 250 local citizens. Though the family is no longer in the alcohol distilling business, the Seagram name is known around the world.

Contextual Value: The building is a landmark and an icon in the City of Waterloo appearing on tourist promotion brochures, letterhead, postcards and web sites. It serves as a character-defining terminus to Willis Way where it meets Caroline Street. It defines the historic industrial character of the City as a manufacturing powerhouse of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is historically and visually linked to a cluster of extant former Seagram distillery buildings, including the former barrel warehouse building at 5 Father David Bauer Drive which repeats the building’s distinctive neo classical form and fenestration patterns. As well, it serves as a visual link to the proud tradition of the City and to a time when functional buildings were also statements of cultural sophistication with their classical architectural reference.

Character-defining features • The mass and outline of the building • Location and orientation of the building, including proximity to 5 Father David Bauer Dr. • The soft, varied-coloured and mottled buff brick laid in common bond pattern (east and west façades) and running bond pattern (north and south façades) • The east and west façades including: o pediments underlined by brick dentils o four brick pilasters on each façade o five tiers of small windows topped by segmented brick arches o appearance of the former window shutters o painted “Seagram Distillers Since 1857” sign • Views of the east facade from Caroline Street and Willis Way (See viewshed)

Sources City of Waterloo Website. History of the Seagram Plant in Waterloo.

Council Meeting Page 51 of 183 November 21, 2016 14 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Painted Seagram Distillers sign on east façade of 3 Father David Bauer Drive

Viewshed for 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive, showing direction of view from Caroline Street to the buildings’ east facades.

Council Meeting Page 52 of 183 November 21, 2016 15 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Appendix B. Statement of Significance for 5 Father David Bauer Drive Legal Address: Waterloo Condo Plan 335 PIN: 233350000

Description of Historic Place 5 Father David Bauer Drive (Waterloo Condo Corporation 335) is a multi-story buff brick building comprising one of two buildings known as Seagram Lofts. Built ca. 1892 as a barrel warehouse for Seagram Distillery, the building is located south of Father David Bauer Drive and east of 3 Father David Bauer Drive.

Heritage Value The heritage significance of 5 Father David Bauer Drive relates to its design, associative and contextual values.

Design Value: The original façades, both east and west facing, while representative of late 19th century monumental industrial architecture, are also unique in their particular scale and configuration. Other well-known examples of warehouses for the aging of whisky and other spirits, such as those at the Gooderham & Worts Distillery in Toronto, are much smaller. The façades present a neoclassical form with a low pitched pediment delineated by a vertical row of dentils formed by brick corbels. The bricks are locally produced and buff coloured. This pediment sits atop of four slender, symbolic pilasters formed of raised brick which divide the façade surface into three sections. The most distinctive feature of the façades is the fenestration consisting on the east facade of 142 small windows arranged in tiers of five in the outside wall sections and numbering seven per tier in the centre section. The tops of the window openings consist of segmented arches in brick. Small, single leaf doorways occupy the central lower position in each façade. The original function of the multiple windows was to provide ventilation in a building that would have contained considerable build-ups of volatile fumes from evaporating spirits, sometimes known as the “angels’ share.” Reconstructed using the original brick, the north and south façades play a supporting role in maintaining the form and mass of the building.

Associative Value: The building has direct association with historic personalities and vital industrial developments that are significant to the community. Seagram's Distillery was founded by members of one of Waterloo's pioneering families. The Seagrams played important roles in the history of Waterloo, as industrialists, politicians and philanthropists. The 19th century patriarch, Joseph E. Seagram, moved from Hespeler (Cambridge) to Waterloo to manage the business interests of William Hespeler, his wife's uncle. The Granite Mills and Waterloo Distillery, as it was known then, had been founded in 1857. The distilling business along with other concerns such as milling and dry goods was owned by William Hespeler, George Randall, and William Roos. In 1883,

Council Meeting Page 53 of 183 November 21, 2016 16 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Seagram purchased the businesses from the original owners, disposed of the other parts and renamed the successful spirit producing works, “J. E. Seagram's Distillery.” From 1857 to 1992 the distillery operated continuously, in the heart of Waterloo. As one of the community's leading industries, the Seagram complex provided regular employment to as many as 250 local citizens. Though the family is no longer in the alcohol distilling business, the Seagram name is known around the world.

Contextual Value: The building is a landmark and an icon in the City of Waterloo appearing on tourist promotion brochures, letterhead, postcards and web sites. It is the larger of the two remaining Seagram barrel warehouses that together serves as a character-defining feature of the Uptown. It defines the historic industrial character of the City as a manufacturing powerhouse of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is historically and visually linked to its smaller sister building, 3 Father David Bauer Drive as well as an number of other extant former Seagram distillery buildings within the former Seagram industrial lands. As well, it serves as a visual link to the proud tradition of the City and to a time when functional buildings were also statements of cultural sophistication with their classical architectural reference.

Character-defining features • The mass and outline of the building • Location and orientation of the building, including proximity to 3 Father David Bauer Dr. • The soft, varied-coloured and mottled buff brick laid in common bond pattern (east and west façades) and running bond pattern (north and south façades) • The east and west façades including: o pediments underlined by brick dentils o four brick pilasters on each façade o five tiers of small windows topped by segmented brick arches o appearance of the former window shutters • Views of the east facade from Caroline Street (See viewshed)

Sources City of Waterloo Website. History of the Seagram Plant in Waterloo.

Council Meeting Page 54 of 183 November 21, 2016 17 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Viewshed for 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive, showing direction of view from Caroline Street to the buildings’ east facades.

Council Meeting Page 55 of 183 November 21, 2016 18 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Appendix C. Historical Context of the Seagram Viewshed Views of the Seagram Distillery lands, and specifically the properties known as 3 and 5 Father David Bauer Drive, have changed over time with the construction and demolition of various Seagram buildings over the past 120 years. The buildings were originally constructed to serve a practical purpose and, unlike some public buildings from the same era, were not designed to serve as a focal point or as a terminating viewpoint at the end of a street. Through the process of redeveloping the Seagram lands and Waterloo Square starting in the 1990s, the City adopted planning and design strategies to enhance the prominence of the buildings, including the creation of the Barrel Warehouse Park immediately in front of the barrel warehouses, and the alignment of a new road (Willis Way) that centred on 3 Father David Bauer Drive rather than its original orientation further north on Caroline Street South. The following photos depict how the Seagram lands and views have evolved over time.

B A

Illustration of Seagram’s Distillery ca. 1890s. A and B represent 3 and 5 Father David Bauer, respectively. Barrel warehouses face east and are visible from Caroline Street.

Council Meeting Page 56 of 183 November 21, 2016 19 Integrated Planning & Public Works

B

A

Fire insurance map ca. 1913 showing orientation and visibility of 3 Father David Bauer Drive (A) and 5 Father David Bauer (B) from Caroline Street.

A

B

Waterloo Square (under construction) and Seagram Distillery ca 1960. New Seagram buildings were erected in the 1950s blocking the visibility of the barrel warehouses from Caroline Street. Demolition of these buildings and redevelopment of Waterloo Square presented an opportunity for the City to create new views to the historic buildings through site design and the orientation of Willis Way (approximate location depicted by white dotted line).

Council Meeting Page 57 of 183 November 21, 2016 20 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Redeveloped Seagram Lofts in 2010, now visible from Caroline Street South and serving as a terminating landmark at the end of Willis Way.

Council Meeting Page 58 of 183 November 21, 2016 21 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Appendix D. Consultation Comments (Economic Development)

Economic Development staff referenced other policies and Council direction to facilitate compatible intensification on this land given the limited supply of city-owned lands and intensification opportunities in The Uptown:

• a balance should be achieved between proposed view lines and future intensification reflected in IPPW2013-019 (Council Core Priorities for Uptown Waterloo), Official Plan policies (Section 3.11.1(1) Intensification)) and high water table that may result in density implications on the property; • the proposed designation would result in a HIA on future development on the City-owned lands and may introduce specific recommendations to facilitate compatible intensification. This is supported and may introduce new approaches to facilitate compatible intensification; • there is restricted access to this property with one defined access point established by the Region of Waterloo along the ION LRT route. Any extended side yard setback may result in significant impacts to the property.

Council Meeting Page 59 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Integrated Planning & Public Works

STAFF REPORT Water Services

Title: Water Services Utility - 2017 Rates Report Number: IPPW2016-104 Author: Todd Chapman, Michael Pugliese Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: Attachments: Appendix A: IPPW2016-104.1 Water Services Utility – 2017 Rates Ward No.: City-Wide

Recommendations:

1. That the Council receives IPPW2016-104 as information.

2. That Council direct staff to bring IPPW2016-104.1 attached as Appendix A, back for Council consideration at the Council meeting on December 12, 2016.

A. Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide advance release of the recommended 2017 water services utility rates and 2018-2026 rate forecast for Council and public information.

The proposed water services utility rate increase for 2017 is 5.82% of which the City’s share is 3.65% and the Region’s share is 2.17%. The recommended rate increase is very close to the previously approved 2017 rate forecast from last year’s water rate report (IPPW2016-001). There is a small $1.44 increase compared to the average annual household impact of last year’s rate report. This is due to the stormwater utility rates changing from prior forecasts as a result of the increased leaf collection budget request.

IPPW2016-104.1, attached as Appendix A, provides the details of the water services utility rates. Staff recommend the report be brought back to Council for consideration at the December 12, 2016 Council Meeting.

B. Financial Implications Detailed financial Implications are addressed in Appendix A: IPPW2016-104.1.

Council Meeting Page 60 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Integrated Planning & Public Works

C. Technology Implications None

D. Legal Considerations Staff did not seek legal advice.

E. Link to Strategic Plan/Economic Vitality (Strategic Pillars: Sustainability and Our Living Environment, Public Engagement, Healthy & Safe Community, Vibrant Neighbourhoods, Getting Around, Economic Vitality) Providing the report in advance is part of a public engagement strategy regarding proposed Water Services utility rate changes. The water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater rates and associated operating and capital budget are linked to the Strategic Plan: • Infrastructure renewal – Ensuring investment in infrastructure through responsible operations and maintenance activities and capital renewal/replacement strategies • Environmental leadership – Implementing watershed improvement and infrastructure projects and providing incentives to encourage green infrastructure.

F. Previous Reports on this Topic CORP2016-093 – Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Candidates IPPW2016-86 – Stormwater Utility and Credit Program Review IPPW2016-032 – Water & Sanitary Sewer Financial Plans and Rate Design Study Recommendations IPPW2016-018 – Financial Plan – Water and Sanitary Sewer Rate Design Study – Council Workshop IPPW2016-001 - Water Services Utility - 2016 Rates (January 18, 2016)

G. Approvals Name Signature Date

Author: Todd Chapman Author: Michael Pugliese

Director: Roy Garbotz (acting) Commissioner: Cameron Rapp Finance: Keshwer Patel

CAO

Council Meeting Page 61 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Integrated Planning & Public Works

STAFF REPORT Water Services

Title: Water Services Utility – 2017 Rates Report Number: IPPW2016-104.1 Author: Todd Chapman, Michael Pugliese Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: December 12, 2016 File: Attachments: Appendix A: Revenue and Expenditures, Appendix B: Water Services Fees & Charges Ward No.: City-Wide

Recommendations:

1. That the Council approves IPPW2016-104.1.

2. That Council approves the 2017 water rate as $1.74/m3, comprised of the City portion of the rate at $0.7149/m3 and the Regional portion of the rate at $1.0251/m3 as set out in Table 3 of report IPPW2016-104.1, and that the Fees & Charges By-Law is updated to reflect the water rate effective January 1, 2017.

3. That Council approves the 2017 sanitary sewer rate as $2.24/m3, comprised of the City portion of the rate at $1.1510/m3 and the Regional portion of the rate at $1.0890/m3 as set out in Table 3 of report IPPW2016-104.1, and that the Fees & Charges By-Law is updated to reflect the sanitary sewer rate effective January 1, 2017.

4. That Council approves the 2017 stormwater rates as outlined below and that the Fees & Charges By-Law is updated to reflect the stormwater rates effective January 1, 2017: • Residential; small $7.10/month, medium $10.66/month, and large $18.61/month • Multi-Residential; small $20.40/month, medium $86.32/month, and large $459.97/month • Institutional; small $33.07/month, medium $89.36/month, and large $182.99/month • Commercial/Industrial; small $27.36/month, medium $127.78/month, large $411.77/month, and largest $1,042.98/month

Council Meeting Page 62 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Integrated Planning & Public Works

5. That Council approves the 2018-2026 water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater rate forecast in principle as set out in Table 2 of report IPPW2016-104.1.

6. That Council approve that the Fees & Charges By-Law be updated for the rates and effective dates as shown on Appendix B of report IPPW2016-104.1.

A. Executive Summary

Water Services utility rates pay for the costs associated with providing high quality drinking water, collecting and treating sanitary wastewater and responsibly managing stormwater. Through these services, all residents and businesses within Waterloo can count on receiving a reliable supply of drinking water, sanitary sewer collection, protection of our source water, and a reduced risk from weather-related incidents like flooding.

The Water Services division budget is responsible for: • maintaining over $700 million in infrastructure, including 431 km of watermains, 407 km of sanitary sewers, 442 km of storm sewers and six pumping stations; • removal of sediment, as necessary, from our 55 stormwater ponds in order to reduce flood risks in the community and to improve the quality of water travelling to our creeks, rivers and lakes; • rehabilitating our creeks to prevent flooding and improve water quality for aquatic life; • replacing pipes, such as watermains, in order to increase the capacity of the system to keep pace with the growth in the community; and • fund Region wholesale water and wastewater charges to provide drinking water supply and treatment and wastewater treatment for the residents of Waterloo.

The recommended Water Services utility rates for 2017 are $1.74/m3 (comprised of the City portion of the rate at $0.7149/m3 and the Regional portion of the rate at $1.0251/m3) and $2.24/m3 for sanitary sewer (comprised of the City portion of the rate at $1.1510/m3 and the Regional portion of the rate at $1.0890/m3). Stormwater rates are considered a tiered flat rate with the majority (60%) of customers in the City of Waterloo, categorized in the residential medium rate tier with a recommended 2017 rate of $10.66/month. The recommended Water Services utility rate increase for 2017 is 5.82% of which the City’s share is 3.65% and the Region’s share is 2.17%.

The approved 2017 operating and capital budget is consistent with the forecast from last year.

B. Financial Implications

Staff has developed the 2017 water, sanitary sewer and stormwater rates along with the 2018-2026 rate forecast recommended in this report that aligns with the City of Waterloo approved 2017 Operating and Capital budgets. As such, it is recommended that the 2017 Water Services utility rates be approved as outlined in Table 2 of this report.

Council Meeting Page 63 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Integrated Planning & Public Works

C. Technology Implications

N/A

D. Legal Considerations

Staff did not seek legal advice.

E. Link to Strategic Plan/Economic Vitality (Strategic Pillars: Sustainability and Our Living Environment, Public Engagement, Healthy & Safe Community, Vibrant Neighbourhoods, Getting Around, Economic Vitality)

The water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater rates and associated operating and capital budget are linked to the Strategic Plan: • Infrastructure renewal – Ensuring investment in infrastructure through responsible operations and maintenance activities and capital renewal/replacement strategies • Environmental leadership – Implementing watershed improvement and infrastructure projects and providing incentives to encourage green infrastructure.

F. Previous Reports on this Topic CORP2016-093 – Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Candidates IPPW2016-099 – Comprehensive Asset Management Plan IPPW2016-086 – Stormwater Utility and Credit Program Review IPPW2016-032 – Water & Sanitary Sewer Financial Plans and Rate Design Study Recommendations IPPW2016-018 – Financial Plan – Water and Sanitary Sewer Rate Design Study – Council Workshop IPPW2016-001 - Water Services Utility - 2016 Rates (January 18, 2016)

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date

Author: Todd Chapman Author: Michael Pugliese Commissioner: Cameron Rapp Finance: Keshwer Patel

CAO

Council Meeting Page 64 of 183 November 21, 2016 4 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Water Services Utility – 2017 Rates IPPW2016-104.1

Section 1 – Overview of Water Services

The Water Services division within the Integrated Planning and Public Works department is responsible for the provision of potable drinking water, the collection of sanitary wastewater, and the management of stormwater (water quality control and flood control). Through these services, all residents and businesses within the City of Waterloo can count on receiving a reliable supply of drinking water, sanitary sewer collection, protection of our source water and a reduced risk from weather-related incidents like flooding. Water Services also provides sanitary wastewater collection to customers from the Bridgeport area, the Falconridge subdivision, and the Sunbridge subdivision in the City of Kitchener, and provides water and sanitary services to the Outlet Mall and Farmers Market in the Township of Woolwich and the Falconridge subdivision in the City of Kitchener.

Over $700 million in infrastructure is maintained by Water Services including: • 431 km of watermains • 407 km of sanitary sewers • 442 km of storm sewers • 55 stormwater management ponds • 6 sanitary pumping stations

The total replacement cost of this critical infrastructure is estimated as follows (2016 $’s): • water distribution – $215 million • sanitary sewer collection (including pumping stations) - $261 million • stormwater management - $203 million • stormwater ponds - $55 million

Water Services generates all funds for operations, maintenance and capital projects from water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater rates and service charges (no revenue is generated from property taxes). Water Services works closely with Finance (Revenue & Accounting Services and Financial Planning & Purchasing Services) on water utility billing and the preparation of budgets and 10 year rate forecasts.

Council Meeting Page 65 of 183 November 21, 2016 5 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Section 2 – Stormwater Management Background

Stormwater management (SWM) is the planning and controlling of stormwater runoff from rain and melted snow for the purposes of minimizing risk of erosion, flooding and water quality degradation. Stormwater management serves to reduce the impact created when our urban landscape changes from undeveloped, natural areas to cities with buildings, roadways, parking lots and ever-increasing impermeable areas. Good stormwater management practices and infrastructure provides: • flood risk protection to properties; • protection of our drinking water sources; and • minimizes the impact of pollution and erosion to the natural environment.

Stormwater management systems consists of infrastructure such as pipes, culverts, ditches, catchbasins, manholes, stormwater management ponds, infiltration facilities and engineered landscape features, as well as, natural features such as creeks, rivers and lakes. The operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, renewal and replacement of this infrastructure is subject to such legislation as the Ontario Water Resources Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, Clean Water Act, Water Opportunities Act and several guidelines published through the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and Ministry of Natural Resources. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) also provides a significant role in the permitting and approvals process.

Previous rate reports have described the funding gap that the Stormwater program has been operating under. As part of the 2015 budget process, Council approved the first step towards a more sustainable Stormwater funding level by approving the 2015-2018 Stormwater rate increases. Recently, an Asset Management Plan (AMP) report (CORP2016-099) was presented to Council for their approval. The report identified a funding gap of 3 million dollars, above what Staff had been recommending as a sustainable level. It should be noted that this gap will be addressed in future Rate reports under guidance from the AMP. Thus, there will be no adjustments to the proposed Water rates contained in this report to reflect the findings in the AMP.

The recommended ten year stormwater rate forecast, is provided in Table 2.

Section 3 – Operating and Capital Budget

The 2015 and 2016 Water services rate reports included three rate options for council to consider. The intent was to provide a consistent approach along with the tax base budget format. Given that 2017 is a non-budget year, the approved operating and capital budget is aligned with the 2017 water services utility rates and the 2018-2026 rate forecasts.

Section 4 – Region of Waterloo Wholesale Rates

The rate increases proposed by the City of Waterloo includes various factors. The single largest factor to the water and sanitary sewer rates is the proposed rate increases from

Council Meeting Page 66 of 183 November 21, 2016 6 Integrated Planning & Public Works the Region of Waterloo (ROW), our sole supplier of drinking water and treatment provider for our wastewater. For these services, the ROW charges wholesale rates to the City of Waterloo.

Similar to the City, the Region provides a ten year forecast of wholesale water and wastewater rates. The Regional wholesale rates are utilized by staff for planning, forecasting and rate-setting purposes. Table 1 provides the proposed Regional 2017 wholesale water and wastewater rates. It should be noted that the Region of Waterloo’s Wholesale rates are subject to approval by Regional Council, and were presented on November 16, 2016. Provided there are no significant changes to the Region’s 2017 wholesale rates, the City will maintain the staff recommended rates in this report.

Table 1 - Region of Waterloo Proposed 2017 Wholesale Rates:

Year Water ($/m3) Wastewater ($/m3) Total ($/m3) 2016 (actual) $1.0060 $1.0092 $2.0152 2017 (proposed) $1.0251 $1.0890 $2.1141 $ increase $0.0191 $0.0798 $0.0989 % increase over Regional portion of 1.90% 7.91% 4.91% rate

Section 5 – Recommended Rates

The recommended Water Services utility retail rates for 2017 are:

• Water - $1.74/m3 • Sanitary Sewer - $2.24/m3 • Stormwater o Residential; small $7.10/month, medium $10.66/month, and large $18.61/month o Multi-Residential; small $20.40/month, medium $86.32/month, and large $459.97/month o Institutional; small $33.07/month, medium $89.36/month, and large $182.99/month o Commercial/Industrial; small $27.36/month, medium $127.78/month, large $411.77/month, and largest $1,042.98/month

The effective date for the 2017 rates are January 1, 2017 and the 2018-2026 forecast rates will have an effective date of January 1 for modelling purposes. If the proposed 2017 rates were to be delayed beyond January 1, 2017, a revenue loss of approximately $191,000 per month would be incurred by the City.

The ten year forecast of water services utility rates is provided for planning purposes and is reviewed on an annual basis. The recommended rate forecasts are intended to accomplish a number of objectives:

Council Meeting Page 67 of 183 November 21, 2016 7 Integrated Planning & Public Works

• provide reasonable water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater operating and capital programs over the 10 year forecast, with sufficient user rates to support these programs; • provide stable rate increases, instead of volatile increases; • maintain appropriate reserve balances over the 10 year forecast; • enable our operations and maintenance programs to responsibly manage the water distribution, sanitary sewer collection and stormwater management infrastructure; • meet legislative requirements related to drinking water, sanitary sewers and stormwater management; • meet the challenges of both an aging and growing infrastructure system so as to renew/replace existing infrastructure and build capacity appropriately to ensure reliable infrastructure for a growing community; • allow flexibility to respond to unforeseen operating and capital pressures; and • incorporate the Region of Waterloo wholesale rate forecast.

Table 2 provides a summary of the 2017 recommended rates and 2018-2026 rate forecast (including an average annual household impact approximation).

Council Meeting Page 68 of 183 November 21, 2016 8 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Table 2 – Recommended Water Services Utility Rates:

2.55 3.14 3.81 23.76 31.65 51.30 42.45 39.12 11.01 16.54 198.23 638.80 133.92 713.57 138.63 283.88 1,618.02 1,404.96 16,224,763

2.49 3.06 3.72 22.63 30.14 48.86 40.43 36.60 10.49 15.75 188.79 608.38 127.54 679.59 132.03 270.36 1,540.97 1,365.84 16,025,960

2.46 2.96 3.63 9.99 21.55 28.70 46.53 38.50 40.20 15.00 179.80 579.41 121.47 647.23 125.74 257.49 1,467.59 1,329.24 15,076,109

2.42 2.85 3.54 9.51 20.52 27.33 44.31 36.67 52.08 14.29 171.24 551.82 115.69 616.41 119.75 245.23 1,397.70 1,289.04 14,475,740

2.33 2.73 3.45 9.06 19.54 26.03 42.20 34.92 53.64 13.61 163.09 525.54 110.18 587.06 114.05 233.55 1,331.14 1,236.96 12,356,589

2.21 2.63 3.37 8.63 18.61 24.79 40.19 33.26 61.44 12.96 155.32 500.51 104.93 559.10 108.62 222.43 1,267.75 1,183.32 10,923,634

2.07 2.51 3.29 8.22 18.61 23.61 99.93 38.28 31.68 54.96 12.34 147.92 476.68 532.48 103.45 211.84 1,207.38 1,121.88 12,567,720

1.92 2.43 3.21 7.83 18.61 22.49 95.17 36.46 98.52 30.17 46.44 11.75 140.88 453.98 507.12 201.75 1,149.89 1,066.92 12,507,876

1.79 2.37 3.13 7.46 18.61 21.42 90.64 34.72 93.83 28.73 44.04 11.19 134.17 432.36 482.97 192.14 1,095.13 1,020.48 12,237,085

1.74 2.24 3.05 7.10 18.61 20.40 86.32 33.07 89.36 27.36 53.67 10.66 127.78 411.77 976.44 459.97 182.99 1,042.98 13,364,682

1.70 2.17 2.98 5.61 8.43 18.61 16.13 68.24 26.14 70.64 21.63 44.06 101.01 325.51 824.49 922.77 363.61 144.66 *2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 5.01% 5.82% 4.51% 4.55% 5.15% 5.48% 4.53% 4.21% 3.12% 2.75% 2.86% 14,703,681

Year Water ($/m3) Sanitary ($/m3) Service Charge ($/month) Residential Small ($/month) Residential ($/month) Medium Residential Large ($/month) ResidentialMulti- Small ($/month) Multi-Residential ($/month) Medium Multi-Residential Large ($/month) Institutional Small ($/month) Institutional ($/month) Medium Institutional Large ($/month) Commercial/Industrial Small ($/month) Commercial/Industrial Medium ($/month) Commercial/Industrial Large ($/month) Commercial/Industrial Largest ($/month) **Average Household - Annual Impact ($) Household $ -Average Annual Increase Household % -Average Annual Increase Combined Reserve Ending Balance Notes: Effective* Date - Feb 2016 1, 2017 - 2026 Effective Dates - Jan 1st Annually the tier, including the Medium in stormwater water Residential of per month, m3 17 household consuming on a Based Impact: Average Annual - Household ** service monthly 15mm charge

Stormwater Tiers Stormwater

Council Meeting Page 69 of 183 November 21, 2016 9 Integrated Planning & Public Works

The following is a summary of how the rate forecast for 2017 and beyond has changed from the original forecast in last year’s rate report vs the rate in this report:

Average Household Annual Impact ($) 2016 2017 * 2018 * 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016 Rate Report (IPPW2016-001) 922.77 975.00 1,019.04 1,071.48 1,122.24 1,171.32 1,220.76 1,270.68 1,321.08 1,371.84 N/A Financial Plan Report (IPPW2016-032) 922.77 976.44 1,020.48 1,092.60 1,172.52 1,230.00 1,246.56 1,270.20 1,317.96 1,354.08 1,418.28 2017 Rate Report (IPPW2016-104.1) N/A 976.44 1,020.48 1,066.92 1,121.88 1,183.32 1,236.96 1,289.04 1,329.24 1,365.84 1,404.96 Total Change ($) N/A 1.44 1.44 (4.56) (0.36) 12.00 16.20 18.36 8.16 (6.00) N/A * Note: change of $1.44 vs previous rate forecast is due to the leaf collection budget request approval Section 6 – Allocation of Rate Increase

Breakdown of Retail Rate Increase – City and Region allocation

A significant cost driver of the water and sanitary sewer retail rates are the Region of Waterloo’s wholesale rates embedded within. The recommended water and sanitary sewer retail rate increases for 2017 are broken down into a City portion and a Region portion as provided in Table 3. The City portion of the 2017 overall retail rate increase is 0.29%, while the other 2.56% is attributable to the Regional wholesale rate increase, over the total 2016 rate.

Table 3- Allocation of Water and Sanitary Sewer Retail Rate Increase:

3 Increase Increase Increase over Rates / m 2016 ($) 2017 ($) ($) (%) total rate (%) City Portion of Rate - Water 0.6940 0.7149 0.0209 3.01% 0.54% City Portion of Rate - Sanitary Sewer 1.1608 1.1510 (0.0098) (0.84%) (0.25%) Sub-total - City Portion 1.8548 1.8659 0.0111 0.60% 0.29% Region Portion of Rate - Water 1.0060 1.0251 0.0191 1.90% 0.49% Region Portion of Rate - 7.91% Sanitary Sewer 1.0092 1.0890 0.0798 2.06% Sub-total - Region Portion 2.0152 2.1141 0.0989 4.91% 2.56% TOTAL RATE 3.8700 3.9800 0.1100 2.84% 2.84%

Note: The above City/Region breakdown of the City of Waterloo’s retail rate is a simple calculation to deduct the wholesale Region rate from the total rate charged to residents. It does not take into account specific factors including: City consumption patterns, effective dates of rate increases and City cost impacts from non-revenue water use & sanitary sewer flows. These impacts are not material on the total % figures noted in the table.

With regards to the Water service utility invoice, there is a ‘blended rate’ period that occurs each year. A blended rate occurs when the water / wastewater charge is a combination of the previous and current year’s rates. Staff will be coordinating the blended rate period, along with the City’s billing service provider, to ensure that the table that displays the split between City and Region rates is updated and accurate.

Breakdown of Average Annual Household Impact – City and Region allocation

Council Meeting Page 70 of 183 November 21, 2016 10 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Table 4 outlines the 2017 average annual water services utility household costs increase of 5.82%. This allocation includes; retail water, retail sanitary sewer, stormwater rate (medium residential tier), and monthly water meter service charge; split between City and Region. The proposed water services overall total utility rate increase for the average household is 5.82%, of which the City’s share is 3.65% and the Region’s share is 2.17%.

Table 4: Allocation of 2017 Average Annual Water Services Utility Household Cost:

Increase 2016 2017 Increase Increase over total Average Household annual Impact ($) ($) ($) (%) rate (%) Water Services Rate - City Stormwater * 99.47 127.92 28.45 28.60% 3.08% Water Services Rate - City Water Meter Fee ** 35.69 36.60 0.91 2.55% 0.10% Water Services Rate - City Portion 379.69 384.01 4.32 1.14% **** 0.47% (Water/Sanitary) Water Services Rate - Region Portion 407.92 427.91 19.99 4.91% 2.17% (Water/Sanitary) TOTAL COST *** 922.77 976.44 53.67 5.82% 5.82% * Residential Medium Tier ** 15mm Single Family Residence Meter *** Takes into account timing of water rate change in Feb. 2016 vs Jan. 1 2016 **** Does not tie to % in table 3 due to timing of rate change

Capital infrastructure renewal is a significant portion of Water Services expenditures on an annual basis and is accounted for when preparing the City’s rate forecast and pressures. The capital infrastructure renewal program includes items such as pipe replacement to ensure safe and reliable water, sanitary and stormwater services, flooding/drainage improvement projects to protect property from flood damage, and rehabilitation of creeks (e.g. Maple Hill Creek) and lakes (e.g. Silver Lake) to protect property and infrastructure adjacent to those creeks/lakes and improve water quality. Over the course of 2016-2018 Water Services is proposing to invest $29.6M in spending on capital works.

Section 7 – Reserve Levels – Updated model

The water, sanitary sewer and stormwater reserves fund the entire Water Services utility including the day-to-day operations, current and future capital needs, provides a stabilization measure to address revenue shortfalls and provides flexibility to allow Council to respond to unforeseen pressures or opportunities.

In April 2016, a rate design study was completed as referenced in IPPW2016-032. One of the components of the review was to evaluate reserve policies and target reserve levels. The following recommendations were approved by Council on April 18, 2016:

• Distinct reserves should be established for both capital works and rate stabilization

Council Meeting Page 71 of 183 November 21, 2016 11 Integrated Planning & Public Works

• Capital reserves should have a minimum balance of 1% of asset replacement value and a target balance of 2% of asset replacement value • Rate stabilization reserves should have a minimum balance of 5% of annual operating expenditures and a target balance of 10% of annual operating expenditures

The newly approved reserve levels have been worked into the 10 year water rate model; however as per IPPW2016-032 the transition to the new reserve structure does not begin until 2019.

The estimated replacement value of the City’s water assets (including water meters) is $215M. The estimated replacement value of the City’s sanitary sewer assets (including pumping stations) is $261M. The estimated replacement value of the City’s stormwater assets is $258M (this includes 55 stormwater management ponds). These replacement values have been obtained from IPPW2016-099 and are based on the best available data at this time. For the below Chart 1, the current estimated replacement values have been inflated using an annual factor of 3%.

Chart 1 illustrates the projected combined reserve levels over the course of the next ten years as compared to the industry best practices for minimum reserve levels and target reserve levels.

Chart 1 – Water Services Reserve Compared to Minimum & Target Reserve Levels:

For illustrative purposes, over the course of 2016-2020, the projected combined reserve levels would meet or exceed the minimum balance requirements as outlined by the above best practices. In 2021 the projected combined reserve levels would be below the minimum balance requirements but then gain strength again over the forecast period.

Council Meeting Page 72 of 183 November 21, 2016 12 Integrated Planning & Public Works

For comparative purposes, over the course of 2016-2026, projected combined reserve levels would be significantly below the target balance requirements as outlined by the above best practices.

Looking at the Capital and Rate Stabilization reserves individually (see charts 2 and 3 below), it’s clear that the newly formed rate stabilization reserves are well below minimum and target levels. As these are in their infancy, it will take time to build the reserves up to the required minimum target levels (note there is no dedicated rate stabilization reserve within the stormwater program).

The capital reserves for both water and sanitary sewer are at or near the target level over the forecast period. The stormwater reserve continues to be built up now that the shift towards a sustainable funding program has been created, although still below the minimum recommended levels. An additional pressure on the stormwater reserve was created with the approval of freezing residential large tier stormwater fees, as per IPPW2016-086.

Chart 2 - Combined Rate Stabilization Reserve for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater

Chart 3 - Combined Capital Reserve for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater

Council Meeting Page 73 of 183 November 21, 2016 13 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Section 8 – Fees & Charges By-Law

Appendix B outlines the 2017-2018 Water Services fees and charges to be incorporated into the Fees and Charges By-Law. Aside from the specific water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater rates discussed above, other Water Services fees are increasing approximately by the forecasted consumer price index (CPIX) of 1.8% in 2017, and 1.8% in 2018.

The proposed 2016-2018 fees have been taken into account and incorporated within the approved 2016-2018 Water Services budget.

Section 9 – Regional Sewer Surcharge

In February 2016 council requested Staff to investigate the potential savings for the City’s wastewater treatment costs through the Regional Sewer Surcharge clause found in Section C of the Regional Sewer Use Bylaw (50-92). The Regional Sewer Surcharge clause calculates an additional cost for properties that discharge effluent into the Wastewater collection system at concentrations higher than permitted. The surcharge is applied for the extra costs to treat the wastewater, rather than extra volume.

After discussing the surcharge in detail with Region of Waterloo staff, it was determined that there are no additional revenues that can be realized for the City since the surcharge is based on type of discharge rather than the flow capacity/rate. There is no additional capacity needed for the City to flow these higher concentrated effluents, rather it’s a treatment problem, in which the Region addresses with their surcharge program.

Section 10 – Rate Uncertainties and Risks

The ten year water and sanitary sewer rate forecast provided in this report is subject to numerous rate uncertainties / risks. Over the course of 2017-2026 rates may be significantly affected by:

• Master Plans – A Water Distribution Master Plan and Stormwater Master Plan is scheduled to be completed in 2016/2017 and 2017 respectively. A nominal amount of capital implementation funding has been budgeted, however it is anticipated that these studies may identify greater capital requirements outside of the current capital budget. • Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) – The City’s Comprehensive Asset Management Plan report IPPW2016-099 was approved November 14 2016. The financial plan for the AMP is being developed in two stages. The first stage follows the existing Council Approved budgets until 2019. The second stage will be the refinement of funding alternative analysis based on service levels input provided through the AMP Public Engagement Plan as well as any improved information available to from the analytical system. This stage will be an iterative process and will be incorporated within the LTFP. It is anticipated that changes to funding levels will be referred to the 2020-2022 budget cycle.

Council Meeting Page 74 of 183 November 21, 2016 14 Integrated Planning & Public Works

• Grant Opportunities – The City of Waterloo has recently applied for the joint Federal and Provincial Clean Water and Wastewater Grant Fund, to be awarded in January 2017. Should the proposed projects be accepted, the financial obligations would have an impact on the reserve levels as outlined in CORP2016-093. • Regulatory Drivers – Water Services is highly regulated to ensure the quality of drinking water to consumers and the responsible management of sanitary sewer and stormwater. New legislation that are requiring action and resources include the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notifications System Act, 2012 as well as the creation of guidance documents for the Safe Drinking Water Act outlining new requirements for watermain disinfection and oversight of repairs. The Water Opportunities Act provides specific requirements for municipalities to create and implement sustainability plans for water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems. The sustainability plans will require a conservation plan, an asset management plan, and a financial plan to be developed and implemented. These requirements could result in future budget and rate pressures that negatively impact reserve levels. The Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notifications System Act, 2012 has placed pressure on water, wastewater, and stormwater locate service provision. The Act requires locates to be provided free of charge and completed within 5 days. • Emergency Response - There is an increasing trend in emergency response requirements due to aging infrastructure (e.g. watermain breaks) and extreme weather events (e.g. flooding). Water Services has placed an emphasis on increasing resiliency and response capabilities in the event of emergencies. A Corporate Climate Change Adaptation Plan is currently underway which will identify additional measures that should be taken to increase resiliency related to City infrastructure, planning and response.

Section 11 – Annual Household Impact

Annual Household Impacts

The average annual water services utility bill for a single detached home in Waterloo with an average consumption rate of 17 cubic metres per month will be $976.44 in 2017 for water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater. This represents an increase of $53.67 annually, or 5.82% when compared to the average cost of $922.77 in 2016.

Chart 4 provides insight into the average household water and sanitary sewer costs for area municipalities. The proposed City of Waterloo 2017 rate is provided, however where the 2017 proposed or approved rate was unavailable for area municipalities, it has been left blank. Stormwater costs have not been included as only Kitchener and Waterloo have a stormwater utility, however a comparison of stormwater utilities is provided in Chart 5.

Chart 4 illustrates the following: • That there is an increasing trend in annual household water and wastewater costs for all area municipalities

Council Meeting Page 75 of 183 November 21, 2016 15 Integrated Planning & Public Works

• City of Waterloo compares favourably with area municipality comparators with an average annual household costs for water and sanitary sewer of $848.52

Chart 4 - Average Annual Household Cost: Water & Sanitary Sewer Rate:

A review of stormwater rates across Canada, outlined in Chart 5, allows for a relative comparison of annual household impact for municipalities that have stormwater rates. It should be noted that direct comparison is difficult because stormwater utilities are less defined than water and wastewater utilities and vary widely across Canada depending on local characteristics and regulatory requirements. There is an increasing trend amongst municipalities to shift from tax based funding to a dedicated stormwater utility. As this trend continues it is anticipated that better local comparator data will become available.

Council Meeting Page 76 of 183 November 21, 2016 16 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Chart 5 - Average Annual Household Cost: Stormwater Rate

Affordability

Another comparator which can be used to compare Waterloo to our neighbouring municipalities is affordability (annual household impact as a percentage of annual household income). The Municipal Competitiveness Study, developed by BMA Management Consulting, provides a summary of municipal comparator data, provided in Table 5. The American Water Works Association’s (a leading authority on water utility best practices) publication, “Affordability Assessment Tool for Federal Water Mandates”, 2013, identifies an affordability benchmark of less than 4.5% of median household income for water and wastewater combined costs.

Council Meeting Page 77 of 183 November 21, 2016 17 Integrated Planning & Public Works

Table 5 – Affordability Measure Comparison for Area Municipalities based on water and sanitary sewer:

Average 2014 Annual Household Annual Household Municipality Household Income Impact as a % of Impact (based on 2016 Rates 3 (based on the 2015 Average Household 17m per month) BMA Municipal Study) Income Waterloo* $823.30 $110,667 0.74% Woolwich $1,145.34 $130,431 0.88% N. Dumfries $1,026.16 $116,862 0.88% Wilmot $953.09 $110,367 0.86% Wellesley $1,026.16 $109,475 0.94% Guelph $886.08 $91,876 0.96% Kitchener $903.83 $84,341 1.07% Cambridge $1,016.31 $88,659 1.15%

*Note: Using Waterloo’s 2016 Annual Household Impact of $848.52 based on the recommended 2017 rates, the Annual Household Impact as a % of Average Household Income would be 0.77%

As part of the Water & Sanitary Sewer Financial Plans study (IPPW2016-032), Staff, along with the other area Municipalities explored options for affordability programs. While nothing concrete has materialized, City Staff will continue to engage with the Region and Neighboring Municipalities to explore potential affordability programs.

Section 12 – Communication

The Municipal Act 2001 requires municipalities maintain a notice policy and the City of Waterloo Notice Policy requires public notice of fees and charges changes. Notice of the proposed rate changes was provided in the Waterloo Chronicle on November 10, 2016, November 17, 2016, December 1 2016, and December 8 2016. Additional communications were displayed on the City’s web page and through social media.

The communication of the 2017 Water Services Utility Rates recommendations is consistent with municipal practice regarding user fee changes. The City of Waterloo’s normal practice of releasing rate information is to provide advertisement approximately 7 to 14 days prior to the rates being considered by Council for approval.

Information on www.waterloo.ca/water provides details of the rate increases along with information about the role the city plays in ensuring our residents receive a reliable supply of drinking water, sanitary sewer collection and protection from flooding and other forms of water-related property damage.

Council Meeting Page 78 of 183 November 21, 2016 18 Integrated Planning & Public Works

APPENDIX A

2017 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES

Council Meeting Page 79 of 183 November 21, 2016 19 Integrated Planning & Public Works

APPENDIX B WATER SERVICES FEES & CHARGES

IPPW - Water Services Utilities

Schedule "A" to Fees and Charges By-law: % Effe ctive 1-Jan-2018 2.49% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 2.51% 1-Jan-2018 2.50% 2.50% 1-Jan-2018 2.01% 1-Jan-2018 2.50% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 2.51% 1-Jan-2018 2.01% 1-Jan-2018 2.48% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 1.99% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 2.48% 1-Jan-2018 2.01% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 1.98% 1-Jan-2018 2.62% 2.43% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.87% 1-Jan-2018 5.80% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 1.27% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 2.01% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 1-Jan-2018 2.02% 2.02% Date of Fee of Date 3.13 6.32 1.79 2.37

38.63 75.29 68.15 44.27 82.26 30.27 41.10 14.48 20.52 11.56 41.10 22.16 77.57

113.65 151.14 164.58 173.95 160.00 113.42 211.55 630.83 758.27

6,722.46 8,793.36 3,950.64 2,332.15 Fee

25,054.70 14,018.40 17,841.60 10,832.40 11,724.48

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % Effe ctive 1-Jan-2017 2.50% 1-Jan-20171-Jan-2017 2.50% 1-Jan-2017 2.50% 2.50% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.49% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.50% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.47% 1-Jan-20171-Jan-2017 1.98% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.55% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.02% 1-Jan-20171-Jan-2017 2.35% 2.49% 1-Jan-2017 2.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.35% 1-Jan-2017 3.23% 1-Jan-2017 2.60% 1-Jan-20171-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 1-Jan-2017 2.06% 2.06% Date of Fee of Date 3.05 6.17 1.74 2.24

37.69 73.45 66.81 43.19 80.65 29.53 40.29 14.13 20.12 11.28 40.29 21.73 76.05

110.88 147.45 161.35 170.54 158.00 111.18 207.37 618.35 743.27

6,589.53 8,619.48 3,872.52 2,286.04 Fee

24,559.27 13,741.20 17,488.80 10,618.20 11,492.64

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Effe ctive 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 Date of Fee of Date 2.98 6.02 1.70 2.17

36.77 71.66 65.50 42.14 79.07 28.81 39.50 13.79 19.73 11.00 39.50 21.30 74.56

108.18 143.85 158.19 167.20 154.00 108.94 203.18 605.88 728.28

6,456.60 8,445.60 3,794.40 2,239.92 Fee

24,063.84 13,464.00 17,136.00 10,404.00 11,260.80

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Service Charges Service Water Rate Sanitary Sewer Rate Meters Water New - Meters Water 200mm Water Meter Charge (large commercial, industrial accounts) industrial commercial, (large Charge accounts) Meter Water 200mm industrial commercial, (large Charge Meter Water 250mm Charge Meter Pit 150mm Water Meter Charge (large commercial, industrial accounts) industrial commercial, (large Charge Meter Water 150mm Security Tag Replacement Tag Security 100mm Water Meter Charge (large commercial, industrial accounts) industrial commercial, (large Charge Meter Water 100mm Miscellaneous Repairs Minor 75mm Water Meter Charge (large commercial, industrial accounts) industrial commercial, (large Charge Meter Water 75mm Remote Re-wiring Remote (complete) Kit Meter 15mm Verification Administration 50mm Water Meter Charge (large commercial, industrial accounts) industrial commercial, (large Charge Meter Water 50mm Tail Piece Replacement Piece Tail 15mm Water Meter Charge (single family residential accounts) residential family (single Charge Meter accounts) Water 15mm Triplex i.e. apartments, (small accounts) Charge Meter Water 25mm industrial commercial, (small Charge Meter Water 40mm Remote/Mounting Bracket Assembly Fire Protection Charge (large commercial accounts) commercial (large Charge Protection Fire 250 mm fire250 mm rated 250 mm compound250 mm 200 mm fire200 mm rated 200 mm compound200 mm 150 mm fire150 mm rated 150 mm compound150 mm 100 mm fire100 mm rated 100 mm compound100 mm WATER AND SANITARY SEWER AND SANITARY WATER metre) cubic (per metre) cubic (per Deposit Accuracy Meter Water 15 mm Water Meter Replacement Fee - (Damaged, Frozen or Missing) plus Meter Cost Meter plus Missing) or Frozen (Damaged, - Fee Replacement Meter Water 25 mm 40 mm 50 mm 75 mm

Council Meeting Page 80 of 183 November 21, 2016 20 Integrated Planning & Public Works % # V/0! # V/0! # V/0! 1-Jan-2018 4.17% 1-Jan-2018 2.13% 1-Jan-2018 1.67% 1-Jan-2018 0.00% 1-Jan-2018 1.69% 1-Jan-2018 1.99% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 1.72% 1.92% 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 n/a 1.25% 1-Jan-2018 2.60% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 1.68% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 2.23% 1-Jan-2018 1.90% 1-Jan-2018 2.04% 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 1.45% 1-Jan-2018 2.00% 1-Jan-2018 2.23% 1-Jan-2018 1.88% 1-Jan-2018 1.83% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 1.92% 1.61% 1-Jan-20181-Jan-2018 1.01% 2.53% Effective Date 2.00

25.00 48.00 61.00 73.11 59.00 53.00 81.00 63.00 81.00

$30.00 255.00 182.00 204.00 275.00 107.00 549.00 700.00 204.00 275.00 380.00 111.00 212.00 500.00

Fee Rate Time, Material, Regional Wholesale Equipment & $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 79.00 $ 79.00 Administration % # V/0! # V/0! # V/0! 1-Jan-2017 0.00% 1-Jan-2017 2.17% 1-Jan-2017 1.69% 1-Jan-2017 1.72% 1-Jan-2017 2.01% 1-Jan-2017 1.75% 1-Jan-2017 1.96% 1-Jan-2017 0.00% 1-Jan-2017 1.27% 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 2.67% 1-Jan-2017 2.04% 1-Jan-2017 1.70% 1-Jan-2017 2.04% 1-Jan-2017 1.89% 1-Jan-2017 1.94% 1-Jan-2017 2.09% 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 1.47% 1-Jan-2017 2.04% 1-Jan-2017 1.89% 1-Jan-2017 2.19% 1-Jan-2017 1.87% 1-Jan-2017 1.64% 1-Jan-2017 1.96% 1-Jan-2017 2.60% 1-Jan-2017 1.02% Effective Date 2.00

24.00 47.00 60.00 71.68 58.00 52.00 80.00 62.00 79.00

$29.50 250.00 179.00 200.00 269.00 105.00 538.00 690.00 200.00 269.00 373.00 109.00 208.00 495.00

Fee Rate Time, Material, Regional Wholesale Equipment & $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77.00 $ 77.00 Administration 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 Effective Date 2.00

24.00 46.00 59.00 70.27 57.00 51.00 79.00 61.00 77.00

245.00 176.00 196.00 264.00 $29.00 103.00 527.00 680.00 196.00 264.00 365.00 107.00 204.00 490.00

Fee Rate Time, Material, Regional Wholesale Equipment & $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Administration Main Line (water) Line Main Service Line (water) Line Service sewer) (sanitary Line Service sewer) (sanitary Line Main Others - Miscellaneous New Service Subdivision call *Valve Box Adjustments (less than 300 mm) Non-Potable Water Building WaterBuilding Fee *Water Box Adjustments by hand (less than 1 metre) Lateral Blocked (previouslyFlushing per meter, 2015 rates per hour) Fee Access Metre Water and survey the of a review includes (Fee Fee Permit Device Prevention Backflow inspecting up to three (3) backflow prevention devices) Test Report Fee (Fee to review the Test Report)(amount per backflowdevice) prevention backflow (3) Backflow three Additional than Prevention more are Device there Permit if Fee Fee (Fee Permit to addition Backflow in Device Prevention prevention devices)(amount per backflow prevention device) Installation of Backflow Device Prior to Issuance of a Permit Test Tags (amount per tag) Alteration to the Water Drinking System Review Fee meter) linear (per Charge Frontage Water Frozen Line - on customer side of meter Hydrant - Use Permit Order Work Material and Time *Hydrant Adjustment (less than or equal to 150 mm) Flushing Camera Inspection (previously per meter, 2015 rates per hour) Frozen Line - on customer side of curb stop (1st time free) Vacuum Excavation *Hydrant Inspection (no parts) Camera Inspection Camera Vacuum Excavation with Canister System Shoring Sanitary Sewer Frontage Charge (per linear meter) linear (per Charge Frontage Sewer Sanitary Minimum Service Call Charge Backflow Prevention Fees

Council Meeting Page 81 of 183 November 21, 2016 21 Integrated Planning & Public Works % n/a 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% Date Effe ctive Effe ctive 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 Date of Fee of Date 7.46 18.61 21.42 90.64 34.72 93.83 28.73 11.19 76.00 152.00 n/a 21-Oct-13 Fee 2018 Rate Monthly $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % n/a 0% 0% 0% 26% 26% 27% 27% 26% 27% 26% 27% 1,095.13 26% 192.14 27%26% 134.17 432.36 27% 482.97 Date Effe ctive Effe ctive 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 Date of Fee of Date 7.10 18.61 20.40 86.32 33.07 89.36 27.36 10.66 182.99 127.78 411.77 459.97 1,042.98 Fee 2017 Rate Monthly $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Date Effe ctive Effe ctive 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 76.00 1-Feb-2016 152.00 Date of Fee of Date 5.61 8.43 18.61 16.13 68.24 26.14 70.64 21.63 76.00 144.66 824.49 101.01 325.51 363.61 152.00 n/a 21-Oct-13 n/a 21-Oct-13 Fee 2016 Rate Monthly $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (0.25 (0.25 (2 (0.5 2 2 2 (0.1 (0.1 2 (10 acres) (10 (2.5 acres) and (10 acres) (10 (0.25 acres) acres) (0.25 2 (0.25 acres) (0.25 (1 acre ) (2 acres) and 2 (0.5 acres) and 2 (0.1 acres) and 2 2 2 2 2 2 (1 acre ) 2 (10 acres) (10 acres) (2.5 acres) (10 2 2 (0.25 acres) (0.25 2 2 Prope rty Size Range less than or equal to 4046 m to equal or less than

less than or equal to 40469 m to equal or less than 10117 m to equal or less than and acre s) acre s) acre s) less than or equal to 1012 m to equal or less than Total 405 m to property area equal or less than Total 405 m property area than greater Total 1012 m to property area equal or less than Total 1012 m property area than greater Total 4046 m property area than greater Total 8094 m to property area equal or less than Total 8094 m property area than greater Total 40469 m property area than greater Total 2023 m to property area equal or less than Total 10117 m property area than greater Total 40469 m property area than greater Total 1012 m property area than greater Total 2023 m property area than greater less than or equal to 40469 m to equal or less than acre s) Rate Tier Residential Small Residential Large Residential Institutional Small Institutional Large Residential Medium Institutional Medium Multi-Residential Small Multi-Residential Large Multi-Residential Medium Commercial/Industrial Small Commercial/Industrial Large Commercial/Industrial Largest Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Medium Residential Institutional Prope rty Type Multi-Residential Commercial/Industrial WATER SERVICES - Stormwater Rates - Stormwater SERVICES WATER Stormwater Management Credit Program - Fees Application Fee - Non-residential / Multi-residential Administrative Fee - Residential - Fee Administrative Administrative Fee - Non-Residential / Multi-residential

Council Meeting Page 82 of 183 November 21, 2016 22 Integrated Planning & Public Works

% 2.07% 2.07% 1.83% 1.83% Effe ctive 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 n/a 1-Jan-2018 n/a Date of Fee of Date Fee min 2 hrs min 2 hrs $296 min $296 min $296 min hr ove r 2 hrs hr ove r 2 hrs Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & $223 per hr / / hr $223 per / hr $223 per Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, charge, $148 per $148 per charge, $148 per charge, % 2.11% 2.11% 1.86% 1.86% Effe ctive 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a 1-Jan-2017 n/a Date of Fee of Date Fee min 2 hrs min 2 hrs $290 min $290 min $290 min hr ove r 2 hrs hr ove r 2 hrs Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & $219 per hr / / hr $219 per / hr $219 per Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, charge, $145 per $145 per charge, $145 per charge, Effe ctive 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 1-Feb-2016 Date of Fee of Date Fee min 2 hrs min 2 hrs $284 min $284 min $284 min hr ove r 2 hrs hr ove r 2 hrs Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment & $215 per hr / / hr $215 per / hr $215 per Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, Time, Material, charge, $142 per $142 per charge, $142 per charge,

WATER SERVICES - Stormwater Management - Stormwater & Construction SERVICES WATER Cleaning Machine Sweeping (per hour, 2 hour minimum) Loader Scraping (per hour, 2 hour minimum) StormFlushing Lines (per hour, 2 hour minimum) Catchbasin Cleaning with Eductor (per hour, 2 hour minimum) Services Other Stormwater Management Pond Cleaning Installation or Repair Fence Silt Debris Pick-up, Hand Sweeping or Cleaning Removal Graffitti Repair Fence Spill Clean-up

Council Meeting Page 83 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Corporate Services

STAFF REPORT Legislative Services

Title: Alternate Voting Methods (Internet Voting) Report Number: CORP2016-105 Author: Olga Smith Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: N/A Attachments: N/A Ward No.: City-Wide

Recommendation:

1. That Staff Report CORP2016-105 be approved.

2. That Council confirm that the 2018 municipal election be conducted in the same manner as the 2014 municipal election using paper ballots and ballot tabulators; and further that alternate voting methods (internet voting) be deferred until such time as Elections Ontario and/or Elections Canada develop provincial and/or federal standards for internet voting.

OR 3. That Council approve additional funding of $126,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve for the 2018 municipal elections, using paper ballots and ballot tabulators for advance voting and election day and internet voting for advance voting only, be approved.

OR 4 That Council approve additional funding of $218,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve for the 2018 municipal elections, using paper ballots and ballot tabulators and internet voting for advance voting and election day, be approved.

A. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on alternate voting methods (internet voting) for Council’s consideration in advance of the 2018 municipal election. This report will not go into great detail about the advantages and disadvantages of internet voting, but will address some of the high level primary issues.

Council Meeting Page 84 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Corporate Services

B. Financial Implications In 2013, Council approved a one-time funding of $136,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Election Reserve to fund the 2014 Municipal Election. The balance of the 2014 Election Reserve at that time was $268,000.

During the 2016-2018 budget process, Council approved an annual increase of $29,878 to the Election Reserve with an additional one-time contribution of $29,878 to make up for the lack of contribution in 2015. In 2018, the Election Reserve will have a balance of $387,512.

The total cost of the 2014 Election was $360,140. Staff has increased the standard budget lines by 10% over 2014 to estimate the 2018 election costs. Also, since staff have not previously conducted an election using internet voting, it is difficult to quantify all additional costs that may be incurred. As a precaution, a 5% contingency has been factored into the estimates for internet voting. Aside from any normal inflationary impact since 2014, internet voting will significantly increase postage, advertising, translation and other costs.

Voting System Options Estimated Cost Election Reserve Balance for 2018 (Shortfall) $387,512 Tabulators Only/Paper Ballots $396,154 ($ 8,642) Tabulators & Advance Internet Voting $513,061 ($125,549) Tabulators & Full Internet Voting $605,061 ($217,549)

Staff recommends funding the one-time shortfall from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve. If there are any unspent funds after the election is complete, the amount will be returned to the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve. Tax Rate Stabilization is projected to have a balance of approximately $600,000 in 2018. If option 3 or 4 are chosen, it would further draw down the reserve by $126,000 or $218,000 respectively.

C. Technology Implications Information Management & Technology Services (IMTS) staff will continue to be an integral part of the 2018 Municipal Election team. IMTS staff works closely with Legislative Services staff on numerous aspects of the election from start to finish.

D. Legal Considerations Staff did not seek legal advice.

E. Link to Strategic Plan/Economic Vitality (Strategic Pillars: Multi-Modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development) Legislated Requirement (Municipal Elections Act) Public Engagement

Council Meeting Page 85 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Corporate Services

F. Previous Reports on this Topic CORP2013-053 – 2014 Election Equipment

G. Approvals Name Signature Date

Author: Olga Smith November 14, 2016

Director: Olga Smith November 14, 2016

Commissioner: Keshwer Patel November 14, 2016

Finance: Keshwer Patel November 14, 2016

CAO

Council Meeting Page 86 of 183 November 21, 2016 4 Corporate Services

Alternate Voting Methods (Internet Voting) CORP2016-105

At its meeting held on November 25, 2013, Council approved the following resolution:

1) That Staff Report CORP2013-053 be approved.

2) That the leasing of equipment and software from Dominion Voting Systems Corporation for the election years 2014, 2018 and 2022, be approved.

3) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute any agreements or other documents required to complete the transaction.

4) That, based on the 2014 experience, the annual contribution to the Election Reserve be reviewed with the 2015 budget process to ensure adequate future funding.

5) That additional funding of $136,000 from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve for the 2014 municipal elections, to be conducted in the same manner as the 2010 municipal election using paper ballots and ballot tabulators, be approved.

As part of staff’s investigation into internet voting, staff reviewed a number of post-2014 election results from municipalities who used internet voting, reports, surveys, articles and discussion papers. In this report, staff provides an overview of internet voting, and in some cases, this report contains the same or updated information as outlined in Staff Report CORP2013-053 presented to Council in 2013.

Arguments can be made both for and against internet voting. Internet voting has been successful in a number of jurisdictions but several European countries have decommissioned electronic voting methods due to transparency and security concerns. As noted previously, this report will not go into great detail about the advantages and disadvantages of internet voting, but will address some of the high level primary issues.

Since 2003, there has been an increase in Ontario municipalities introducing alternative voting methods (internet, telephone and mail-in voting). In 2014, 97 out of 414 Ontario municipalities offered paper, vote-by-mail, internet and telephone ballot options, others a combination of paper and internet or, in the case of 61 municipalities, offered all

Council Meeting Page 87 of 183 November 21, 2016 5 Corporate Services electronic (internet and telephone voting). The municipalities’ population ranges in size from 900 to approximately 300,000.

Proponents of internet voting advise of the advantages including:  designed to increase voter turnout/engagement/participation  provides additional voting opportunities for students and vacationers who are unable to visit a voting place (i.e. more convenient than voting proxies)  enhances accessibility and privacy for voters with disabilities

Opponents of internet voting advise of concerns including:  security concerns and process vulnerabilities  voter authentication  loss of transparency with reduced oversight of the voting process by candidates and scrutineers  availability of internet access in the community

1. Voter Turnout/Participation/Engagement Many variables influence voter turnout, including but not limited to:

 Controversial issues during the election period  Number of candidates for Mayor race  Level of interest by electors which can be influenced by age, education, economic conditions  Previous voting history within the family or networking group  Recent provincial and federal elections or by-elections in the municipality  Weather conditions on voting day

One of the main reasons identified for the growing trend towards internet voting is to make voting easier and more accessible for electors. Internet voting has not resulted in a large increase in voter participation in most municipalities that have used internet voting either for the first time or in previous elections. There is the argument that some municipalities may have seen an increase in voter turnout but that could be attributed to the “novelty” factor that can occur when internet voting is first introduced. In some cases, internet voting has had little or no effect on voter turnout rates.

The results of an extensive study conducted by Elections British Columbia, and presented to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in February 2014, dispel the myth that internet voting increases voter participation in general and participation by young people in particular:

“While there have been some internet voting elections where voter turnout has increased; when other factors such as the apparent closeness of the race and interest in particular contests (i.e. a mayoral election without an incumbent) are taken into consideration, research suggests that internet voting does not generally cause non-voters to vote. Instead, internet

Council Meeting Page 88 of 183 November 21, 2016 6 Corporate Services

voting is mostly used as a tool of convenience for individuals who have already decided to vote.”

In October 2016, the City of Halifax held its municipal election and has offered online voting and telephone voting since 2008. Despite an extensive public education campaign where ads were in radio, newspaper, billboards and social media, turnout was down by more than 10,000 from the 2012 election.

2. Security and Reliability Concerns From City of Kitchener Staff Report FCS-12-191, November 2, 2012 by R. Gosse, Director Legislated Services/City Clerk:

“Internet voting does have risks especially in the area of software/hardware “security which is one of the main reasons given by opponents of internet voting. Although there is a risk, there is no evidence that a government election utilizing the internet has ever been hacked or suffered a cyber-attack. That is not to say no internet voting system hasn’t been hacked, there are several cases of such attacks taking place during a pre-election period when outside persons and groups were invited to test the security of a system.

A security attack on an internet voting system can take place in basically 2 ways: hacking into the servers and; denial of service whereby multiple computers on the internet receive instructions to attack the web site hosting the voting system, essentially overloading and shutting down the web site. Although these risks are real and attacks have taken place, with today’s ever evolving security software, the risk is low that a system can be totally compromised.” [Emphasis added]

Dominion commits to providing “a layered and comprehensive set of security controls for the end-to-end online voting process” from the pre-voting (set-up) stage through to results reporting and publishing. Physical security mechanisms, access control, encryption, digital signatures and other systems and strategies are employed to ensure the security, confidentiality and integrity of the election process.

Research and information from experts in the computer science field warn of the risks of the use of online voting including:

 Widespread use of online voting could enable coercion of voters and possibly vote buying.  Software and hardware components that would be involved in marking, transmitting, receiving and counting an online ballot represent an unreasonably high risk to the chain-of-custody for the ballot.  Canadian government departments have already been successfully cyber attacked.  Computer and national security experts warn that online voting is not secure.

Council Meeting Page 89 of 183 November 21, 2016 7 Corporate Services

In recent years, both in Canada and the United States of America, there have been numerous successful cyber-attacks on government agencies and large corporations such as Canada’s Treasury Board, US Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon’s email system and large corporations such as AOL, Google and Yahoo. Denial of service attacks (DDos) disrupted online access to sites including Spotify, Netflix, PayPal and Twitter and even Linux developers were recently affected by a DDoS attack.

The 2012 the federal NDP leadership race was delayed for several hours due to attacks on the online voting system. Initial slowness on the first round of voting eventually turned into a total shutdown as officials scrambled to figure out what the problem was.

Internet voting systems are not 100% hacker-proof despite what vendors may claim when there is proof that so many vastly larger companies and agencies with enormous security expertise and budgets have been successfully penetrated.

3. Auditability Internet voting has been questioned because of the lack of auditability and the inability to re-create ballots in the event of a recount. The system offered by Dominion allows for ballots cast via the internet voting system to be subsequently printed on paper, in ballot format, for visual review by recount staff or tabulator scanning.

4. Scrutiny Internet voting does not allow candidates or the public to scrutinize the process to ensure voting is properly carried out. Votes are cast in private and there is no assurance that part of the process is taking place properly, free from coercion and/or fraud.

5. Accessibility The Dominion internet voting solution is fully compliant with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, making it accessible with any standard “read aloud” screen reader for individuals with vision issues. Internet ballots have a standard audio feature which speaks the instructions, races and candidate names as voters interact with the online ballot screens. Online voting could make voting easier for individuals with transportation or accessibility issues.

6. Lack of Federal/Provincial Standards Provincial and Federal elections are straightforward because there’s only one person to vote for, namely a Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) as compared to the municipal level, where voters typically choose a local councillor, a mayor, school board representatives, and in some cases, a question is on the ballot. At the municipal level, Ontario municipalities who have offered internet voting as an alternative voting option have done so without any provincial standards or framework.

Council Meeting Page 90 of 183 November 21, 2016 8 Corporate Services

Elections Canada has been investigating internet voting since 2003 and even released a report requesting approval to conduct an electronic voting test-run in a by-election in 2013 but the tests never took place. On June 7, 2016, the House created a Special Committee on Electoral Reform. The committee’s mandate is “to identify and conduct a study of viable alternative voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post-system, as well as to examine mandatory voting and online voting.” In parallel with the Committee on Electoral Reform, Maryam Monsef, Minister of Democratic Institutions, is conducting a cross-country consultations tour on the same topic. It is anticipated the Federal government may have established security standards for on line voting in 2018.

7. Additional Costs for Internet Voting The introduction of internet voting for advance voting may result in additional costs of approximately $86,000 including:  additional staff resources to support a help desk, develop/review policies and procedures for internet voting, test internet voting systems, etc.  costs for help desk (phone lines, office space and equipment)  costs for French translations of internet policies and procedures, manuals for workers, etc.  increased postage costs of $16,000 to $20,000 (staff recommends a two-step voting verification process wherein the voter will receive two notices by mail providing a special PIN and additional code unique to the voter).  $52,500 for internet voting system

If internet voting is offered up to and including Election Day, in addition to those noted above, further expenses of approximately $80,000 may be incurred:  to extend the help desk period  for laptops for election day  for external support because Information Management & Technology Services doesn’t have the resources to support voting places on election day  to train election workers using laptops

Staff does not recommend offering internet voting up to and including Election Day due to the associated cost and concerns raised above under security and reliability. In order to do so, laptop computers would be required at all voting locations to ensure the Voters’ List is continually updated in real time to avoid the possibility of someone voting online and then going to a voting location to vote on paper.

In addition to the cost of laptops for all voting locations, IMTS has advised that additional support personnel would need to be hired prior to and on Election Day to provide sufficient support in the event of technical problems. A power failure on Election Day could prevent electors from voting online and impact the voting process.

By closing internet voting prior to Election Day, staff can update and finalize the Voters’ Lists for each voting location and print hard copies for use on Election Day. On Election Day, voters’ names are manually struck off the list and scrutineers are allowed to view

Council Meeting Page 91 of 183 November 21, 2016 9 Corporate Services lists at voting locations. Closing internet voting early addresses concerns relating to contingency plans for extending voting hours if there is an issue on voting day.

Staff recommends continuing the use of paper ballots and ballot tabulators in conjunction with internet voting for advance voting only. Although internet voting may become the norm in future elections, staff believes it is best to transition gradually from the current norm of marking a paper ballot to only internet voting. Tabulators have been used in the City of Waterloo for six elections and voters are accustomed to them and have confidence in the established election processes.

Offering both paper ballots and internet voting delivers choice and convenience to voters. Those comfortable with computers and the internet can choose to vote online. Those who prefer a paper ballot or who do not have a computer or who are not comfortable voting on line can choose to go to a voting location and mark a paper ballot. Statistics from Guelph, Cambridge, Markham and Peterborough show that many voters prefer to go to a voting place on Election Day and mark their ballot.

8. 2014 Post-Election Voting Data – Internet Voting Cambridge was the only municipality in Waterloo Region to utilize internet and telephone voting in conjunction with paper ballots for the 2014 election. Cambridge offered internet or telephone voting for a two-week advance vote period from October 11 to 25, 2014. Election Day was paper ballots only. Cambridge did see a minor increase of 1.18% in voter turnout as compared to 2010.

Guelph also utilized internet voting for the first time for the 2014 election in conjunction with paper ballots. Guelph offered internet voting during an 18 day advanced voting period from October 7 to 24, 2014, however, casting a ballot on Election Day remained a popular choice with 59% of the total ballots being cast from any location within the City. Guelph did see an increase of 9% in voter turnout as compared to the 2010 election but the increase could be attributed to the mayoral race and not necessarily that internet voting was offered.

The statistics from municipalities offering a choice of paper ballots or internet voting show that most voters choose to mark a paper ballot.

Cambridge 2000 2003 2006 2010 2014

# of Eligible Electors (EE) 75,206 82,030 85,547 83,329 85,922 # of Voters (Turnout) 23,580 18,098 22,521 23,924 25,679 % of Turnout 31.35% 22% 26.33% 28.71% 29.89% # of Internet Voters 5200 % of Voters Using Internet 20% % of EE Using Internet 6.05%

Council Meeting Page 92 of 183 November 21, 2016 10 Corporate Services

Guelph 2000 2003 2006 2010 2014

# of Eligible Electors (EE) 82,794 89,968 # of Voters (Turnout) 28,072 38,873 % of Turnout 33.91% 43% # of Internet Voters 12,767 % of Voters Using Internet 32.84% % of EE Using Internet 14.1%

18000 16000 14000 12000

10000 Eligible voters 8000 Votes 6000 Turnout 4000 2000 0

City of Guelph Voter Turnout by Age -2014

9. Conclusions Internet voting can be a successful component of municipal elections, however, it has not been proven to increase overall voter turnout. Statistics indicate that the electors most likely to use the internet are also the electors who will go to a voting location on Election Day to cast their ballot. The internet appears to be a convenience for voters, but not a mechanism to encourage or promote voting.

Internet voting seems to be growing as an alternative voting method for municipalities as was evident in the 2014 election with 97 out of 414 Ontario municipalities offering online voting as an option; however the lack of provincial or federal standards relating to security does not provide the adequate protections against the inherent risks in internet voting.

Council Meeting Page 93 of 183 November 21, 2016

STAFF REPORT Legislative Services

Title: Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016 Report Number: CORP2016-106 Author: Olga Smith Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: N/A Attachments: Appendix 1 – Ontario Regulation 310/16 – Ranked Ballot Elections Appendix 2 – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing – “Follow Your Ballot: An example of Ranked Ballot Election” Appendix 3 – Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting History Ward No.: City-Wide

Recommendation:

1. That Staff Report CORP2016-106 be approved.

2. That Council receive the summary on the Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016 as information.

3. That Council maintains the existing first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 municipal election.

4. That the Clerk be directed to monitor ranked ballot elections in Ontario and report back to Council with a comprehensive report after the 2018 municipal election.

A. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update regarding Bill 181, Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016, that came into effect on June 9, 2016 amending the Municipal Elections Act and to provide an overview of the ranked ballot election.

Council Meeting Page 94 of 183 November 21, 2016 B. Financial Implications The 2018 election budget is estimated at $396,154. The election budget will need to be increased substantially if Council intends to proceed with a ranked ballot election. Cost estimates would include but are not limited to the development and roll-out of a comprehensive public consultation and education campaign, expenses related to the leasing of vote tabulation equipment software support relating to ranked ballot tabulation, cost of ballots, providing facilities and staff for voting locations. Even without a ranked ballot election, there is a significant amount of work to be completed in 2017 due to the legislative changes made in the Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016.

C. Technology Implications Information Management & Technology Services (IMTS) staff will continue to be an integral part of the 2018 Municipal Election team. IMTS staff works closely with Legislative Services staff on numerous aspects of the election from start to finish.

D. Legal Considerations Staff did not seek legal advice.

E. Link to Strategic Plan/Economic Vitality (Strategic Pillars: Multi-Modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development) Legislated Requirement (Municipal Elections Act) Public Engagement

F. Previous Reports on this Topic None

G. Approvals Name Signature Date

Author: Olga Smith November 14, 2016

Director: Olga Smith November 14, 2016

Commissioner: Keshwer Patel November 14, 2016

Finance: Keshwer Patel November 14, 2016

CAO

Council Meeting Page 95 of 183 November 21, 2016

Municipal Elections Modernization Act 2016 CORP2016-106

Bill 181 named the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 (MEMA) was first introduced on April 4, 2016 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Bill 181 received Royal Assent on June 9, 2016 and constitutes the most significant update to the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) and the conduct of municipal elections in Ontario within the last 20 years.

This report provides an overview of the revisions made to the MEA which significantly alters the conduct of municipal elections in Ontario, and will impact electors, candidates and election administrators.

The following are the major change categories:

1. Election calendar/timelines 2. Nomination period and process 3. Campaign Finance 4. Third Party Advertising 5. Clerk’s Authority 6. Accessibility 7. Election signs and advertising 8. General Election Administration 9. Ranked Ballots

1. Election Calendar/Timelines A number of key dates and timelines in the election calendar have been changed affecting everything from the nomination period for candidates to dates for the voters’ list availability and election policies and procedures. Some of the key dates are highlighted in the chart below:

Change Old Legislation New Legislation By-law – Use of Alternative Voting Methods June 1 of an May 1, 2017 election year By-law – Use of Ranked Ballots N/A  lower-tier deadline to pass by-law May 1, 2017

Council Meeting Page 96 of 183 November 21, 2016 Change Old Legislation New Legislation  upper-tier deadline to pass by-law July 1, 2017 Clerk’s Policies & Procedures for voting, vote June 1 of an December 31, 2017 counting equipment and alternative voting methods election year Clerk determines single or batch elimination – N/A December 31, 2017 Ranked Ballots Approval of Ballot Question  Approval by Council by-law 180 days prior March 1, 2018  Ordered by upper-tier/minister June 1 May 1, 2018 Opening of Nominations + 3rd party advertiser January 2 of an May 1, 2018 registration open election year Use of Corporate Resources Policy N/A May 1, 2018 Nomination Day Second Friday in July 27, 2018 September of an election year Availability of the Voters’ list First Tuesday in September 1, 2018 September of an election year Close of 3rd party advertising registrations N/A October 19, 2018

2. Nomination Period and Process The nomination period was changed from January 2nd to the second Friday in September to May 1st until the fourth Friday in July thereby reducing the nomination period from 37 weeks in 2014 to 13 weeks in 2018.

The Nomination of a person for an office of council must now be endorsed by 25 persons who are eligible to vote in an election for an office within the same municipality, as of the date of the endorsement.

3. Campaign Finances Significant changes were made to campaign financing and will affect how candidates campaign and report out on their campaigns. Key changes include:  Corporations and trade unions are now prohibited from making contributions to candidates (council and school trustees).  Candidates do not have to open a bank account IF they do not raise or spend money.  Contributions over $25 have to be made in a way that links the contributors’ name and account with the payment or by money order.

Council Meeting Page 97 of 183 November 21, 2016  If a candidate sells items for $25 or less in order to raise campaign funds, the money is considered campaign income rather than a contribution. Candidate does not need to issue a receipt in this case, or make sure that the person buying the item is eligible to make a campaign contribution.  Anonymous and cash contributions to a candidate cannot exceed $25.  The nomination fee is no longer deemed to be a campaign expense.  A new spending limit for candidates has been established for parties and expressions of appreciation after voting day.  After the 2018 municipal election, campaign deficits are no longer carried forward from the previous campaign.  Candidates can close their campaign and file their financial statements before December 31.  Expenses related to the preparation of the auditor’s report that accompanies the candidates financial statement can be incurred after December 31.  Nomination fees are only refundable if the financial statement is filed on time.  There is now a 30 day grace period for candidates who miss the filing deadline for a financial statement. This applies if the candidate files the relevant document and pays the Clerk a late filing fee of $500.00 in the appropriate time period.

4. Third Party Advertising The Municipal Elections Act now includes a framework for third party advertising:  “Third Party Advertising” is defined as “an advertisement” in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting, supporting or opposing a candidate or an issue in relation to an election in the local municipality, but does not include an advertisement by or under the direction of a candidate an advertisement that does not incur expenses by the person or entity that causes the advertisement.  Individuals, corporations and trade unions can register as third party advertisers and make contributions to third party advertisers.  Third party advertisers must register with the municipality where they want to advertise. A third party may register in multiple municipalities but each registration is a separate campaign with its own spending limits. A third party advertiser that registers in the local municipality is able to advertise in relation to a candidate or question being voted on by voters in that municipality.  Third party advertising must be done independently of candidates. Candidates are not able to neither direct a third party advertiser nor register as a third party advertiser.  Third party advertisers will have to abide by the same campaign finance rules as candidates.

Council Meeting Page 98 of 183 November 21, 2016 5. Clerk’s Authority The Clerk’s authority in the Municipal Elections Act has been expanded to include:  Clerks, rather than Council, has the authority to establish dates and times for advance voting (cannot begin more than 30 days prior to voting day), reduced voting hours in certain institutions (e.g. long term care facilities) and early opening on voting day.  Clerks have the authority to determine whether to permit the filing of financial statements electronically and any conditions or limits associated with electronic filing.  Clerks must now review financial statements and identify and report on contributions made to candidates and third party registrants in excess of established limits. Report is to be referred to Compliance Audit Committee.

6. Accessibility  Clerks are now required to prepare a plan for the identification, removal and prevention of barriers that affect voters and candidates with disabilities and make that plan available to the public before voting day. A report to be made available to the public within 90 days after the election.

7. Election Signs and Advertising  Candidates and third party advertisers need to identify themselves on campaign advertisements and signs so that is clear who is responsible for each sign and advertisement that appears or is broadcast.  Candidates must provide publishers/broadcasters with name, business address and telephone number which the broadcaster must retain for four years.

8. General Election Administration  Municipalities and school boards need to establish policies regarding the use of municipal/board resources during a campaign.  Councils and Boards may adopt by-law to establish policies prior to the election setting out conditions for recounts to be conducted by the Clerk.  Electors prohibited from taking photographs or videos of their marked ballot.  The use of registered mail is no longer a requirement.  Removing the requirement for original signatures on forms other than nomination forms, third party registration forms and proxy appointment forms. This will allow Clerks to use electronic methods to add voters, remove voters and make other amendments to the voters’ list. Clerks now have the ability to remove names of persons they know to be deceased from the voters’ list.

Council Meeting Page 99 of 183 November 21, 2016  Adding specific provisions to allow candidates to access apartment buildings, condominium buildings, non-profit housing cooperatives or gated communities for the purposes of campaigning.  Providing for tenants to be able to display signs in relation to an election through landlords or agents in control of apartment buildings, condominium buildings, non-profit housing cooperatives or gated communities, may set reasonable conditions relating to size of signs and may restrict the placement of signs in common areas.

9. Ranked Ballots The Ontario government committed to providing municipalities with the option of using ranked ballots in future elections as an alternative to the current first-past-the-post system. Ranked ballots allow a voter to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first choice, second choice, third choice etc.).

Currently, no jurisdiction, including any Canadian municipality, uses a ranked ballot election system. Ontario is the first province where changes have been introduced and have become law whereby all municipal councils in Ontario have the option to pass a by-law to implement ranked ballot elections starting with the next municipal election in 2018.

Section 1.1 of the MEA has been amended to include the following definition:

“ranked ballot election” means, with respect to an office on the council of a municipality, an election authorized under subsection 41.1(1);”

Section 41.1 of the MEA sets out a framework for ranked ballot as follows:

41.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, authorize elections for offices on a municipal council to be conducted in accordance with the following rules:

1. Electors vote by ranking candidates for an office in order of the elector’s preference. 2. Votes are distributed to candidates based on the rankings marked on the ballots. 3. The counting of votes is carried out in one or more rounds, with at least one candidate being elected or eliminated in each round.

Council Meeting Page 100 of 183 November 21, 2016 The specific requirements for the adoption of ranked ballots for 2018 are contained in two separate Regulations.

Ontario Regulation 310/16 – Ranked Ballot Elections, attached as Appendix 1, addresses the by-law authority and public consultation required for a municipality to implement ranked ballots. The Regulation requires the municipality to pass a by-law in order to conduct ranked ballot elections. It is important to note that this does not apply to school board elections, only elections for municipal offices.

The Regulation also addresses vote counting and reporting requirements for ranked ballot elections including:

1. Requirements for ballots; 2. How Rankings will be interpreted; 3. Elimination of candidates; 4. Calculation of the threshold.

There are two types of ranked ballots: single-member ranked ballot elections, also known as instant run-off voting (IRV) and multi-member ranked ballot elections, also known as single transferrable vote (STV). In the City of Waterloo, and under the current governance structure, a single-member ranked ballot process would apply to the Office of the Mayor and for each Ward office, where only one candidate is elected. A multi- member ranked ballot process would apply to each Regional Councillor position, where two candidates are elected to Regional Office.

Single-member ranked balloting To cross the threshold in a single-member ranked ballot election, votes would be distributed among candidates based on the rankings indicated by the voter on the ballot. In the event that a candidate does not receive enough votes to pass the threshold, subsequent rounds of vote counting would be conducted where the candidate(s) who received the lowest number of votes would be dropped from future counts, and his or her votes redistributed based on the rankings assigned to other candidates on the same ballot, until the threshold is met.

Applying the guidelines contained in the MEA in a single-member ranked ballot election, that number is 50 percent of the total votes plus one (a simple majority). First choice votes are counted for all of the candidates. If a candidate receives at least 50 per cent plus one vote, he or she is elected. If none of the candidates receives enough first choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. In a single-member

Council Meeting Page 101 of 183 November 21, 2016 election, your first choice vote is always counted. Your second or third choices will only be counted if your earlier choice has been eliminated.

Source: mah.gov.on.ca

In 2014, the successful candidate for the Office of Mayor and for the Office of Councillor in each ward, save and except for Wards 1 and 7 where the Council members were acclaimed, received the following votes:

Office of the Mayor - 14,103 votes (55.26%) Councillor Ward 2 - 798 votes (34.77%) Councillor Ward 3 - 2,218 votes (62.23%) Councillor Ward 4 - 2,771 votes (76.38%) Councillor Ward 5 - 3,111 votes (76.46%) Councillor Ward 6 - 2,404 votes (86.07%)

This means that the Office of the Mayor and Councillor for Wards 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be elected on the first round.

Council Meeting Page 102 of 183 November 21, 2016

The Office of Ward 2 Councillor would have been below the required threshold to be elected in the first round in 2014. Subsequent rounds of vote counting would have been required in order to determine the successful candidate for Ward 2.

Multi-member ranked balloting To cross the threshold in a multi-member ranked ballot election, votes would similarly be distributed among candidates based on the rankings indicated by the voter on the ballot. Unique to multi-member elections, if any candidate receives more than the number of votes that they need to be elected, their surplus votes are enough votes remaining to elect all candidates with the same threshold.

If a candidate receives more votes than they need to cross the threshold, known as surplus votes, then the voters for the first winning candidate receive a fraction of their vote back to be re-distributed to their second choice candidate based on the number of total voters who voted for that candidate. Surplus votes must be redistributed before eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes. If surplus votes are redistributed and the required number of candidates still has not crossed the threshold then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are redistributed according to the voter's next choice. Subsequent rounds of elimination would continue until the required number of candidates cross the threshold and are elected.

Applying the guidelines contained in the MEA in a multi-member ranked ballot election, the number of votes needed to win will depend on the total number of candidates being elected. The threshold would be calculated by dividing the number of votes cast by the total number of candidates being elected plus one, then adding one to make it a majority.

Council Meeting Page 103 of 183 November 21, 2016 Source: mah.gov.on.ca

In 2014, the Office of Region of Waterloo Councillor (Waterloo representatives) where two members were elected, votes received ranged between 2,133 (5.14%), 2,964 (7.14%), 7,851 (18.92%), 8,029 (19.35%), 8,374 (20.18%) and 12,138 (29.26%).

This means that for Office of Region of Waterloo Councillor (Waterloo representatives) all candidates were below the required threshold to be elected in the first round in 2014. Subsequent rounds of vote counting would have been required in order to determine the successful candidates for office.

Consultation with the Waterloo Region Area Municipal Clerks has been undertaken related to changes to the MEA including consideration of ranked ballots. There is consensus from the Waterloo Region Area Municipal Clerks that it is still premature to undertake ranked ballots because of the uncertainties, some of which include:

 Voting in a 2-tier structure;  Clarification required on elector’s right to vote [Regulation 4(1)(2)];  Regulations unclear for vote counting and reporting requirements.

Council Meeting Page 104 of 183 November 21, 2016 For these reasons, the Clerks in Waterloo Region do not support ranked ballot elections at this time.

Ontario Regulation 310/16 under the authority to conduct ranked ballot elections states:

“Ranked ballot elections are not authorized for any office on the council of an upper-tier municipality unless they are authorized for all offices on the council of every lower-tier municipality within the upper-tier municipality.

Ranked ballot elections are not authorized for any office on the council of an upper-tier municipality unless both of the following circumstances exist:

1. One or more members of the council of the upper-tier municipality are elected to the council by the electors of all or part of one or more lower-tier municipalities within the upper-tier municipality.

2. The members referred to in paragraph 1 who are elected to the council of the upper-tier municipality are not also elected to the council of a lower-tier municipality within the upper-tier municipality.

At their meeting of September 27, 2016, Cambridge City Council approved to maintain the first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 municipal election and have directed staff to monitor ranked ballot elections in Ontario and report back to Council after the 2018 municipal election.

As a result of the City of Cambridge Council’s decision (lower-tier), the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (upper-tier) cannot run a ranked ballot election in 2018. Should Waterloo Council direct staff to run a ranked ballot election in 2018, staff will need to provide for two voting processes for all offices as follows:

1. First-past-the-post election for Regional Chair, Mayor and Waterloo Regional Councillors as these offices are either directly elected to sit on Regional Council, or in the case of the Mayor, sit both on the local and Regional level. Ranked ballots do not apply to school board elections ; and,

2. Ranked ballot election for ward councillors.

A change to the electoral landscape such as ranked ballots poses many considerations and impacts, a breakdown must be considered:

Council Meeting Page 105 of 183 November 21, 2016 1. Public education and voter turnout The ranked ballot system is a fundamental departure from the experience of the average voter who is used to selecting a specified number of candidates for each office. For example, choose one candidate for the Office of Mayor, not a first, second and third choice for the Office of Mayor. A change to the ranked ballot approach may be confusing to experienced and new voters alike.

A significant amount of time, effort and election funding would have to be put towards public education and resources to inform voters about this new system. A change to ranked balloting could lead to public confusion and may have a negative impact on voter turnout which is typically quite low at the municipal level. Effective communication and public education would be essential to informing the public.

2. Public consultation and support Substantial public consultation and engagement is recommended before implementing such a significant change to the current electoral system. If Council directs staff to proceed with a ranked ballot as an option for the 2018 municipal election, a thorough public consultation process is recommended to gather public feedback. The results of this consultation would be one of several factors taken into consideration in a future decision report that would need to come before Council March 2017. 3. Ballot A composite ballot is currently used displaying all elected offices on the same ballot face. Offices for Mayor, Councillor and Regional Office may be elected by ranked ballot; however, there are no proposed changes to allow for school board election using a ranked ballot. Depending on the number of candidates for the Office of Mayor, Councillor and Regional Office, paper ballots may need to be larger, may need to use the front and back of the ballot face or a voter may need to use multiple ballots to vote.

Alternatively, depending on the complexity and number of candidates that would file for any given office, two ballots may be needed – one for ranked ballots and one for first- past-the-post for school boards which would create confusion at the polling stations. A ballot using ranked voting will be significantly different than a ballot voters are familiar with would not just cause confusion, an increase in spoiled ballots but would increase the time it takes each voter to cast their ballot. Therefore, this would pose longer wait times at voting locations.

It will be more time consuming for election workers at voting locations to issue, manage, balance and reconcile multiple ballots or dual face ballots and to educate voters with questions at the voting location.

Council Meeting Page 106 of 183 November 21, 2016 4. Voting equipment A change to a ranked ballot approach would affect the amount of time needed to prepare and test vote counting equipment and systems. Ranked balloting involves multiple rounds of voting based on a more complex mathematical calculation. As with any election, testing would have to be conducted on all vote counting equipment and systems to ensure that votes are counted correctly, as well as, the security and integrity of the systems.

Programming tabulators would be more complex and this would increase vendor costs. The logic and accuracy testing phase for voting equipment would need to develop new testing procedures, would take longer as it would have to test for multiple rounds of vote counting and would require additional staffing to complete.

Based on information provided by Minneapolis, MN and Cambridge, MA, the only two municipalities in the United States who conduct multi-member ranked ballot elections, a minimum of one additional day, seven additional hours with 10 staff would be needed to conduct logic and accuracy testing if ranked voting was implemented. A significant portion of this additional time is based on testing of accessible devices using audio ballot which will have to read out each office, with each candidate read out three or more times before selections can be made and tested.

A forum was held in August 2016 by the City of Markham involving a number of companies, including DataFix who conducted the 2014 election, related to voting equipment and software. The companies that provide voting equipment technology are aware of the changes to the MEA and are in the process of developing software that will be capable of processing a ranked ballot election. However, seeing that this is a new voting system in Canada, many have not conducted this type of election in the past and have limited experience doing so.

5. Election results and recount In order to be transparent with voting results, more in depth information would need to be available with ranked ballots. In addition to the candidates who have been elected and the number of ballots cast, which are currently reported, the Clerk would also have to report on the following:

 The number of ballots that were declined or rejected;  The threshold for each office;  The number of votes each candidate received in the first round (and thereafter where applicable) of vote counting;

Council Meeting Page 107 of 183 November 21, 2016  The results of each round of vote counting, including the number of votes received by each remaining candidate and the number of exhausted ballots.

Regulation stipulates that in the event of a tie and it cannot be determined which of the candidates has enough votes to meet or exceed the threshold, the following method will be used to determine the successful candidate:

 The tied candidate with the higher number of votes in the previous round will be considered to have the highest number of votes;  If candidates were tied in previous rounds, the vote totals in earlier rounds are used;  If the candidates were to tie in all previous rounds, the name of the candidate who will be considered to have the highest number of votes is chosen by lot in a draw;  The same process is applied to ties for candidates with the lowest number of votes in determining which candidate will be eliminated.

Timing is a consideration that must be seriously considered. Using a ranked ballot process will likely delay the time between the close of voting and the release of official results from the Clerk. With the current voting system, election results are typically generated very quickly with unofficial results announced at the end of voting day and official results announced the following business day. With ranked voting, unofficial results may still be available the same night; however, the verification of official results would require more time and could take more than a week. This delay would be required to ensure results are accurate and can vary significantly depending on the number of rounds of counting required and the vote counting systems implemented. Cambridge, MA, is one of two municipalities in the Unites States that utilizes multi- member ranked voting for their municipal elections. They produce preliminary results on the night of the election and unofficial results the following day. For the verification and posting of official elections results it takes 10 days to complete. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis conducted its first ranked ballot election in 2009. Following the first round of counting, ballots were hand counted starting Wednesday, November 4, 2009 and the count was completed Friday, November 13, 2009.

6. Accessibility The City has utilized accessibility devices at voting locations in an effort to mitigate potential barriers to voting. Devices include a handheld touch pad, "yes/no" paddles and a sip and puff machine. These devices gave the voter the opportunity to listen to an audio ballot with candidate options read out over headphones. Even with a FPTP ballot, it can take a significant amount of time to be read out in full. An area of potential

Council Meeting Page 108 of 183 November 21, 2016 concern for accessibility is the length of time it will take to have an audio ballot read out if a voter is now presented with the opportunity to rank each candidate three times, or more. Depending on the number of rankings allowed (first choice, second choice, and third choice) and the number of candidates for an office, this could make marking a ballot using an accessibility device significantly longer than it would to mark a paper ballot. This is especially alarming depending on the number of candidates for a specific position.

The vendor for tabulators and accessibility devices for the 2014 municipal election has indicated that they have not deployed the accessible audio ballot feature, which was used on the tabulators in 2014, in a ranked ballot system before. However, the vendor estimates that it could take up to twice as long, with twice as much effort, for a voter to mark an audio ballot if ranked ballot was used for the Offices of Mayor, Councillor and Regional Council.

7. Increased administrative costs It is anticipated that there will be considerable new costs to enact a new system of voting which is based on:  Paper ballot production costs will increase based on the size and number of ballot faces required for each voter, as well as, in anticipation of more spoiled ballots and replacement needs.  Additional staff will be needed to support research, planning and implementation ranked voting with new processes and audit procedures.  Extensive public education will be needed to inform and assist voters and this will require additional staff, as well as, promotional materials and communication initiatives.  One to two additional election workers (and additional tabulation machines) will be needed at each location to assist voters who are unclear on the new voting method and to ensure wait times are not increased.  Additional training will be required for all election workers to ensure that they are knowledgeable on ranked balloting and can assist voters.

8. Service Expansion Options for Future Municipal Elections For the 2014 municipal election, access to voting was increased in the following ways for the first time:

a) Eligible voters could cast their ballot city-wide at any one of the advanced voting locations.

Council Meeting Page 109 of 183 November 21, 2016 b) University Students could vote at an advance poll held at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University.

In anticipation of the 2018 municipal election, the Clerk's Office is considering the following options as natural evolutions for further expanding election services, customer service and accessibility:

a) Expanding advance voting period to allow greater access and opportunity for eligible voters to cast their ballot before Election Day.

b) Eligible voters could cast their ballot at any voting location in their ward on Election Day (Anywhere Voting).

9. Going Forward Due to significant changes affecting election administration in 2018, as well as, limited staffing and financial resources, staff recommends that Council maintain the current first-past-the-post election model for the 2018 municipal election for the following reasons: 1. Financial considerations – significant additional costs of conducting a ranked ballot election would significantly impact the election reserve budget. These additional costs have not been anticipated and budgeted for. The election budget is necessary to cover the costs of the municipal election every four years, but also must leave funds in reserve in case of a recount, a compliance audit and/or a by-election. Even if the election reserve held the funds to cover the additional costs of a ranked ballot election, the City's ability to carry out a recount, compliance audit and/or by-election may be compromised seeing that resources are limited.

2. Public education – the ranked ballot system is a fundamental departure from the experience of the average voter. No municipality in Ontario currently conducts ranked ballot elections and, as a result, there is a significant lack of public knowledge on this system among both experienced and new voters alike. A significant amount of time, effort and election funding would have to be put towards public education and resources to inform voters about this new system. In order to prevent public confusion and potential negative impacts to voter turnout, it would be beneficial to monitor the impacts of implementation and learn from the public education initiatives led by municipalities who adopt a ranked ballot system for the first time in 2018.

3. Equipment testing and results – in 2014, the City relied on tabulator equipment to assist at advanced voting location and on voting day at various locations

Council Meeting Page 110 of 183 November 21, 2016 throughout the City. This equipment ensures the consistent and accurate counting of votes, as well as, the timely production of results. Thorough logic and accuracy testing is undertaken prior to each election event to ensure that votes are counted accurately and consistently according to election procedures. Initial conversations with the 2014 vendor (Dominion) indicate that it is possible to conduct a ranked ballot election using their tabulator equipment; however, it is currently unknown whether the tabulator equipment can meet all of the requirements under the new legislation and draft regulations. There are unique requirements for having a ballot with both ranked and FPTP systems, for how a tabulator would have to read and count a first, second and third choice of candidate and for how tabulator results would calculate multiple rounds of vote counting. It is currently unclear, and untested, if and how the tabulator equipment meets these new requirements. As noted, the software to accommodate both types of systems is still in its infancy stage at this point.

4. Lack of current adoption – In the case of ranked ballot elections, there are no provinces or municipalities across Canada, let alone in Ontario, that are currently using this election system. Only two municipalities in the United States, Cambridge, MA and Minneapolis, MN, have implemented multi-member ranked balloting processes. A historical review of ranked ballots in the City of Minneapolis is attached in Appendix 3.

Staff will continue to monitor the growth and implementation of a ranked ballot system for those Ontario municipalities that decide to undertake this system. A comprehensive report would be planned following the 2018 election event in this regard.

Council Meeting Page 111 of 183 November 21, 2016 APPENDIX A

Council Meeting Page 112 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 113 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 114 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 115 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 116 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Page 117 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 118 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 119 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 120 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 121 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 122 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Page 123 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Page 124 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Page 125 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Meeting Page 126 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 127 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 128 of 183 November 21, 2016

Council Meeting Page 129 of 183 November 21, 2016 APPENDIX B

(http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page11118.aspx)

Follow Your Ballot: An example of a ranked ballot election Follow a ballot and learn what happens in a single-member and multi-member ranked ballot election.

Single-member election: an election where one candidate is elected In this election, you are being asked to vote on the kind of fruit that will be served as a snack.

Ranking the ballot

With ranked ballots you can rank your choices from your most preferred to least preferred option. You rank the choices as follows:

 Cherry 1  Pear 2  Strawberry 3  Apple 4

Calculate the threshold to be elected Thirty people voted, and only one fruit can be chosen. Sixteen votes are needed for a fruit to be elected (50 per cent of 30 votes is 15 votes, plus one makes it a majority).

Council Meeting Page 130 of 183 November 21, 2016 Count the first choice votes After the ballots are distributed according to first choices, the vote count looks like this:

None of the fruits has received enough votes to be elected.

Eliminate the option in last place and redistribute those ballots to other candidates Your first choice, Cherry got the fewest votes. Your ballot will now be given to your second choice, Pear. (The ballots of everyone else who voted for Cherry as their first choice will also be redistributed to their second choices).

After the 5 Cherry ballots are distributed, the new vote count is:

After the second round of counting, none of the fruits has received enough votes to be elected.

Council Meeting Page 131 of 183 November 21, 2016 Drop the last place and redistribute those ballots Strawberry now has the fewest votes. Your ballot stays with your second choice, Pear.

After the 7 Strawberry ballots are redistributed, the new vote count is:

Pear is elected with 17 votes. Even though your first choice didn’t get elected, your ballot helped your second choice to win.

Multi-member Election: an election where more than one candidate is elected In this election, you are being asked to vote on what new equipment should be installed in your neighbourhood park. Three pieces of equipment will be chosen out of a possible six.

Ranking the ballot

With ranked ballots you can rank your choices from your most preferred to least preferred option. You rank your choices as follows:

 Monkey bars 4  Picnic Table 5

Council Meeting Page 132 of 183 November 21, 2016  Sandbox 3  Slide 6  Swings 1  Treehouse 2

Calculate the threshold to be elected In a multi-member ranked ballot election, the number of votes needed to be elected will depend on how many seats are being filled.

In this example, one hundred people voted, and three pieces of equipment will be chosen.

In order to be elected, a piece of playground equipment must earn twenty-six votes.

To do the math, one hundred votes divided by 4(3 pieces of equipment will be chosen, plus one is 4) is 25 votes, plus one is 26.

Count the first choice votes After the ballots are distributed according to first choices, the vote count looks like this:

Swings has received more than 26 votes, and is declared the winner.

Council Meeting Page 133 of 183 November 21, 2016 Distribute the surplus Since the threshold is 26 votes, and Swings got 39 first choice votes, Swings got 13 more votes than is needed to be elected.

Swings has a surplus of 13 votes. Thirteen divided by 39 is one-third. This means that Swings only needed two-thirds of your vote (along with two-thirds of the vote of everyone else who had Swings as a first choice) to be elected.

The two-thirds of your vote that Swings needs to be elected will stay with Swings. The other one-third of your vote will be given to your second choice, Treehouse. Each ballot that had Swings as the first choice will give one-third of their vote to their second choice.

After the ballots are redistributed, the new vote count is:

Council Meeting Page 134 of 183 November 21, 2016 Round 1 total Votes added New total

Monkey Bars 12 11 ballots worth 1/3 each: 3.66 votes 15.66

Picnic Table 7 15 ballots worth 1/3 each: 5 votes 12

Sandbox 16 12 ballots worth 1/3 each: 4 votes 20

Slide 19 0 votes 19

Swings 39 - 39 ballots worth 1/3 each: -13 votes 26 elected

Treehouse 7 1 ballots worth 1/3 each: 0.33 votes 7.33

As it turns out, yours was the only ballot of the one hundred votes that chose Swings as the first choice and Treehouse as a second choice. Treehouse’s vote total increased by one-third of a vote.

None of the candidates other than Swings has earned the 26 votes needed to be elected.

Drop the last place and redistribute those ballots Treehouse got the fewest votes, so it is eliminated. Treehouse’s votes are now redistributed. Your one-third of a vote will be transferred to your third choice, Sandbox.

Council Meeting Page 135 of 183 November 21, 2016 After the Treehouse votes are redistributed, the new vote count is:

Round 2 total Votes added New total

Monkey Bars 15.66 1 16.66

Picnic Table 12 2 14

Sandbox 20 2.33 22.33

Slide 19 2 21

Swings 26 elected 0 26 elected

Treehouse 7.33 -7.33 votes redistributed 0

None of the other candidates has earned the 26 votes needed to be elected.

Council Meeting Page 136 of 183 November 21, 2016 Drop the last place and redistribute those ballots Picnic Table has the fewest votes, so it is now eliminated. Picnic Table’s votes are now redistributed according to their next choice.

=

Round 3 total Votes added New total

Monkey Bars 16.66 5 21.66

Picnic Table 14 -14 0

Sandbox 22.33 4 26.33 elected

Slide 21 5 26 elected

Swings 26 elected 0 26 elected

Treehouse 0 0 0

Council Meeting Page 137 of 183 November 21, 2016 Sandbox and Slide have each earned 26 votes, so they have reached the threshold to be elected.

Recall that in this election, three pieces of equipment were to be elected out of a possible six. Since three candidates have reached the threshold, the counting stops.

The three winning candidates are Sandbox, Slide and Swings.

Council Meeting Page 138 of 183 November 21, 2016 APPENDIX C

Minneapolis Ranked-Choice Voting History

(http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/rcv/RCV-HISTORY)

This page describes the process for ranked-choice voting that was first used in Minneapolis in November 2009. It also details how ranked-choice voting (RCV), or instant runoff voting (IRV) as it was called then, came to be in Minneapolis.

Background In 2006, the voters of Minneapolis approved a change from traditional balloting to Ranked Choice Voting for municipal elections. See how Ranked Choice Voting was approved.

Minnesota Election law requires both federal and state certification of all electronic voting systems. Since there was not any certified equipment that could conduct a Ranked Choice Voting election, the City of Minneapolis elections staff had to hand- count the 2009 election.

Research and Planning As part of the 2006 Minneapolis Instant Runoff Voting Task Force, elections staff completed research and reports that would guide the planning for implementing Ranked Choice Voting in Minneapolis. In December 2006, Minneapolis elections staff met with Secretary of State-elect Mark Ritchie to seek support for creation of the Minnesota Ranked Choice Voting Issues Task Force. This task force had an open membership and included two sub-committees: Technical Advisory and Legislative/Rules Committees.

Minneapolis in 2009 Election planning for the 2009 municipal election included a dual-track schedule, as it was possible that the City Council could postpone implementation of Ranked Choice Voting until a future year. The 2009 municipal election would have 22 offices on the ballots. In each precinct, there would be five different offices on the ballot. During the planning process that year, elections staff completed these tasks:  Officially adopted Ranked Choice Voting as the name of the voting method to more accurately reflect the process voters use to rank candidates in single and multi-seat offices. In addition, "Ranked Choice" did not imply "instant" results from the process.  Reviewed the newly-created Ranked Choice Voting city ordinance for housekeeping changes needed.  Determined the best method to count the multiple seat offices that would comply with Minnesota law was the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM), which could produce the same election results in a recount.  In May 2009, a "test election" was conducted for several purposes:

Council Meeting Page 139 of 183 November 21, 2016 Develop the first-draft ballot design. Work with different draft versions of materials to be used by election judges in the polling place to help voters. Kick-off voter outreach efforts by inviting various groups to experience Ranked Choice Voting & share their feedback on that experience and the ballot itself. Develop the method for hand-counting the single seat and multiple seat offices to determine the winner(s). Ballots were counted by combining all of the ballots for an office. For a turnout of 70,000, it was estimated that the hand-count for the 22 offices could take between 24 and 129 8-hour shifts of 39 counters.

 In June 2009, the council confirmed the Ranked Choice Voting election schedule.  The ballot design was improved based on the feedback from the Test Election and other community feedback.  In August 2009, the hand-count process was redesigned. A one-week "work-out" session developed the Minneapolis Method of hand-counting the ballots at the precinct level to use the precinct level data for analysis by office. Based on the Minneapolis Method, with a 70,000 voter turnout, it was estimated hand-counting the 22 offices would take 37 8-hour shifts with 102 election judges serving as counters and data entry staff. This new method would assure seating elected candidates on time.  The training plan for election judges was designed to use at least one-half of the class time to explain Ranked Choice Voting to the judges.  Hired an organization to conduct a impartial survey of voters, candidates and election judges concerning implementation.  Recruited a Historian to document the implementation.  In addition to traditional precinct staffing, election judges were recruited and scheduled to do counting and data entry.

The Minneapolis Method The Minneapolis Method combines a hand-count with data analysis that avoids using an uncertified ballot counting program.

With the planned implementation in 2013 of certified equipment for use in the initial tabulation of ballots up to the point of data analysis, the hand-count portion of the Minneapolis Method remains as an efficient method for conducting a recount. In Minnesota, a recount must be conducted by hand. In 2013, data analysis will still be completed under similar procedures to those followed in 2009.

Overall, determining winners based on the ballot data rather than sorting and re-sorting the actual ballots was easier and saved time. Some advantages of the Minneapolis Method include:

Council Meeting Page 140 of 183 November 21, 2016  Ballots are counted by precinct rather than combining all ballots for the office. This avoids the problem of candidate rotation precinct by precinct that complicates sorting ballots.  By precinct and office, ballots are sorted down to the unique 3-choice combination (including any possible write-in), counted and then documented on Precinct Ballot Summaries. For an office with 11 candidates, there can be up to 990 different 3-choice combinations…not including the write-ins.  Counting offices by precinct allowed multiple offices to be counted simultaneously. Combining all of an office’s ballots together for counting would have only allowed one city-wide office to be counted at a time.  When the counting of all offices on the precinct ballots is completed, the ballots can then be sealed and stored by precinct as required by Minnesota law.  Providing a means to verify that the same number of votes was counted for each of the five offices on the precinct ballots.  Counting by precinct meant that many precincts could be counted simultaneously which allows expanding the counting process if necessary.

Implementing the Minneapolis Method

The Tabulation Center The Minneapolis Elections Warehouse was converted to a tabulation center for counting, data entry and data analysis. Amenities included new vending machines in the break room, improved heating, ergonomic chairs, a cleaning crew and nametag racks to hold color-coded nametags to indicate political party affiliation.

Human Resources Counters and data entry judges were selected from among chair and assistant chair judges as well as top performing team judges as recommended by chair judges. Every day as judges arrived at the tabulation center, they picked up their name tags and timesheets, signed in with staff and were directed to a precinct pod seated next to a counter with a different color-coded nametag.

Supply and Transport A supply and transport crew was responsible for ballot security and delivering color- coded supplies to each precinct pod. The supplies were color-coded to help with organization and visual management.

Some highlights of color-coding of supplies:

 A different color was used for each of the five offices for both the name placards and also the ballot summaries.  Beige was used for precinct supply lists, duty cards and timesheets.  The only white paper allowed at the precinct pod was the actual ballots.

Other notes on organization:  Tables were taped off to create different spaces.

Council Meeting Page 141 of 183 November 21, 2016  Each pod had three sets of name placards with the candidate names to label their sorting area.  A three-letter abbreviation of each candidate name was taken from the first three letters of a candidate’s last name. Using the 3-letter abbreviation saved time for counters writing and the abbreviations were also built into the data entry documents.  Pods had two color-coded slips used to silently request assistance with supplies or process questions, which helped to reduce the background noise.

Sorting and Counting Precinct pods for counting were designed using a combination of tables to hold the ballot length. Each pod was staffed with six counters, three teams of two judges of different political parties. A crew of up to six roamed the floor to help with on-going training and to answer questions.

Counters at each precinct pod:

 Staged the ballots for the precinct (sorted them all the same direction).  Inspected each ballot for voter errors specific to Ranked Choice Voting and accounted for these errors.  Sorted the ballots for each office down to the unique 3-choice combination (including all write-ins), counted the ballots with that combination and completed a ballot summary for each unique combination in the precinct.

When a precinct office was completely counted, the supply and transit crew would review the ballot summaries for completeness and then deliver them to the data entry teams.

Counting each precinct took between five and one-half hours and eight hours, depending on the total number of ballots and number of ballots with voter errors. Counting began Wednesday, November 4, and was completed Friday, November 13.

Data Entry Data entry judges working at computers as a team of two judges of different parties, entered the precinct level data from the ballot summary sheets into the computer. The team also double-checked their work. A data analysis team then verified the data.

With six teams of two judges each, data entry of the ballot summaries for a precinct office took an average of one-half hour, depending on the number of ballot summaries. Data entry began Wednesday, November 4, and was completed Friday, November 13.

Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted using a dual track system. Each of the two teams consisted of a lead analyst and an observer. Both teams did analysis on the same office, performing the exact same steps and calculations, and then verified their results with each other.

Council Meeting Page 142 of 183 November 21, 2016

Data analysis of council offices (which have between 8 to 11 precincts) took 50 to 90 minutes. Analysis of the Park District offices (which have between 19 to 24 precincts) took 50 to 70 minutes. Determining the winning candidate for the city-wide office of Mayor (131 precincts) took four hours and 20 minutes for one round.

Data analysis for the two city-wide multiple-seat offices with five or six rounds took over eight hours each.

Council Meeting Page 143 of 183 November 21, 2016 1 Corporate Services

STAFF REPORT Legislative Services

Title: Committee Night – Annual Report Report Number: CORP2016-109 Author: Julie Scott Meeting Type: Council Meeting Council/Committee Date: November 21, 2016 File: [File] Attachments: [Attachments] Ward No.: City-Wide

Recommendation:

That Report CORP2016-109 be received as information.

C. Technology Implications Information

A. Executive Summary

Committee Night is an annual opportunity for Committees of Council to provide an overview of activities undertaken in the previous year and planned for the year ahead. It is also an opportunity to address administrative matters relating to Committees of Council. This report includes the annual update for Committees not submitting a separate report or presentation.

B. Financial Implications

None.

D. Legal Considerations

None E. Link to Strategic Plan (Strategic Priorities: Multi-modal Transportation, Infrastructure Renewal, Strong Community, Environmental Leadership, Corporate Excellence, Economic Development)

Strong Community – engaging the public to create a strong community

Council Meeting Page 144 of 183 November 21, 2016 2 Corporate Services

Corporate Excellence – strengthening Committee communication and collaboration

F. Previous Reports on this Topic

G. Approvals

Name Signature Date

Author: Julie Scott November 15, 2016 November 15, Director: Olga Smith 201600090 Commissioner: Keshwer Patel Finance:

CAO

Council Meeting Page 145 of 183 November 21, 2016 3 Corporate Services

Committee Night – Annual Report CORP2016-109

Committee Updates:

The following committees will not be submitting a separate report or presentation for Council. This is not uncommon in particular for quasi-judicial committees. The following represents an overview of the Committee mandate and information about the 2016 meetings.

Appeals Tribunal The Appeals Tribunal hears appeals relating to Property Standards Orders, Fence Variance applications, Rental Housing Licensing and Business Licensing appeals. No appeals or variance applications have been received for 2016. Fence Variance decisions may be appealed to Council but all other decisions are final.

Committee of Adjustment The Committee of Adjustment is an independent, quasi-judicial committee and its function and role are governed by the Planning Act. Appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions are made to the Ontario Municipal Board. In 2016 the Committee has considered 99 minor variance applications and 20 consent applications as of the date of writing this report.

Community Cash Grants Advisory Committee The Committee is mandated to review annual community grant applications, make recommendations to Council regarding the distribution of community grant funds and to evaluate the grant process. A Committee report is included along with a staff report presented to Council for consideration at a Finance and Strategic Planning Committee meeting early spring.

The Committee received 50 applications with a total request value of $200,954 for the 2016 grant. The committee recommended 37 organizations receive funding totalling $73,354 which represented the total budget available.

Dog Designation Appeal Committee The Dog Designation Appeal Committee considers appeals by dog owners whose dog has been designated as a potentially dangerous, dangerous, restricted or prohibited animal by the Kitchener-Waterloo Humane Society. The Committee meets as required within 30 days of the Legislative Services office receiving an appeal. To date, the Committee has heard one appeal in 2016.

Council Meeting Page 146 of 183 November 21, 2016 4 Corporate Services

Sign Variance Committee The Sign Variance Committee reviews and makes decisions on Sign applications that require a variance to the Sign By-Law. Decisions of the Committee may be appealed to Council. The Committee has received 24 sign variance applications to date in 2016.

UpTown Vision Committee The mandate of the UpTown Vision committee is to provide advice to Council and staff on issues that impact the economic, social, cultural, environmental, physical and educational situation in the uptown core.

Council Meeting Page 147 of 183 November 21, 2016

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REPORT Waterloo Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee Report of the Urban Forestry Sub-committee: Towards a Comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy Report #: CTTEE2016-005

Recommendations:

1) That this report be accepted by Council. 2) That City staff consider its recommendation as they move toward the development of a comprehensive urban forestry strategy.

Executive Summary:

As part of its work plan for 2016 WCEAC established a sub-committee to study urban forestry within the City of Waterloo. The existing urban forest policy was written in 1998 and was last updated in 2001, and needs to be revised. In addition to this policy, the city has a number of other plans, by-laws, policies and programs that speak to individual issues affecting the urban forest, but they do not fall within an integrated framework.

The estimated canopy cover in the city is low and has been declining slowly but steadily for the last decade. Unlike other cities, Waterloo has no defined set of targets for the expansion and stewardship of the urban forest. With no unifying document that addresses all components of the urban forest or goals for the future, the sub-committee concluded that it is time to develop a comprehensive urban forestry strategy for Waterloo.

Financial Implications: None

Prepared By: Scott M. Ramsay Date: 10 November 2016

Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 148 of 183 November 21, 2016 Technological Implications: None

Legal Considerations: None

Link to the Strategic Plan:

This report links to the pillar of Environmental Leadership.

Council Meeting Page 149 of 183 November 21, 2016 Towards a Comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy for the City of Waterloo

A Report Prepared by The Urban Forestry Sub-committee of The Waterloo Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee

4 October 2016

Prepared By: Scott M. Ramsay Date: 10 November 2016

Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 150 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

“Waterloo is a green city with healthy greenspaces.” From the Community Vision Statement

“We are all stewards of our environment. Acting now by preserving the natural environment, reducing our carbon footprint and building the city in an environmentally sound manner, will benefit future generations. Vision: Waterloo protects the environment and a sustainable future through proactive stewardship.”

From the 2015 – 2018 Strategic Plan, Environmental Leadership Priority

“We’d like to see the city have a neighbourhood canopy strategy...Right now it’s not taking urban canopy preservation seriously.”

City Resident Julie Wright, quoted in the Waterloo Chronicle, 12 Oct 2016

“Last Friday [7 Oct 2016], students from St. Nicholas Catholic School got out of the classroom to help the former 10,000 Trees Project launch into its next phase as the rebranded Ten Thousand Forests project. The tree plant [sic] ceremony took place at the nature centre at the Laurel Creek Conservation Area. ‘We’re passing on the shovel to the next generation,’ said volunteer Rick Relf, who has been part of the organization for about as long as program founder, city Coun. Mark Whaley.”

News item about volunteer tree planting quoted from the Waterloo Chronicle, 11 Oct 2016

4. Council Meeting Page 151 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

5. Council Meeting Page 152 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

Towards a Comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy for the City of Waterloo

Preface

This document is the work of the Urban Forestry Sub-committee of the Waterloo Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee (WCEAC). The sub-committee was formed in March 2016, as a result of discussions of initiatives to be undertaken as part of the WCEAC work plan for 2016. The following timeline outlines the work undertaken by the sub-committee:  8 March 2016: WCEAC approval of work plan for 2016 and sub-committee struck: members A Martinez, Z Moghal, S Ramsay, M Shafii, N Stark;  5 May 2016: Meeting with City Staff (T Wolfe and AM Cipriani) to discuss intent and scope of the sub-committee’s work;  10 May 2016: Sub-committee report to WCEAC;  31 May 2016: Sub-committee meeting, assignment of research tasks to sub- committee members;  29 June 2016: Sub-committee meeting, reports of research findings by sub- committee members;  13 September 2016: Sub-committee report to WCEAC, outline of draft document;  4 October 2016: Meeting with City Staff (T Wolfe and AM Cipriani) to outline and discuss the draft document;  11 October 2016: Sub-committee final report to WCEAC;  8 November 2016: WCEAC endorsement of final report and presentation to Council;  21 November 2016: Presentation to City Council;

The work of the sub-committee grew out of recognition that the city’s Urban Forest Policy was due for renewal. The 2014 Environmental Strategy identifies this as a set of actions that are either ongoing or to be initiated under the Greenspace Goals.  Within the existing Urban Forest Policy a number of points were identified as prompts for revision:  The existing policy was written in 1998, and last updated in 2001  The preamble of existing policy sets out some values of the urban forest in the broad sense, but the focus of the policy is street trees;  The document mixes policy with operational guidelines;  The policy references a list of preferred tree species, which needs to be updated especially in light of the invasion by emerald ash borer, and other threats to the health of the urban forest, but it does not speak to diversity in natural forest stands;  Need for a Comprehensive Urban Forest Strategy:  Estimated canopy cover in the city is low (< 12.5%) and has been declining slowly but steadily for the last decade; ■ There is no defined set of targets or goal for the expansion and stewardship of the urban forest;  Currently, no unifying document addresses all aspects of the urban forest in the City of Waterloo;

6. Council Meeting Page 153 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

■ Numerous plans, by-laws, policies and programs speak to individual issues affecting the urban forest, but they lack the coherence that would derive from a comprehensive strategy (see Appendix 1)  By their nature, strategies differ from policies in that they establish goals, and set actions for their achievement; ■ The metrics of success set out in a strategy define the monitoring process; ■ They include a mandate for regular implementation and progress reports;  A strategy can help to identify linkages with other aspects of city planning that are outside the narrowly defined scope of a policy document.  Evidence from other municipalities that have already moved in this direction, or are undertaking similar exercises:  Toronto, Oakville, Mississauga and Guelph have well developed urban forestry policies that establish goals for canopy cover and various actions for citizen engagement, including protection or promotion of trees on private property;  Outside of southern Ontario, Montréal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver are all examples of cities that have developed some innovative practices to support their urban forests.  The City of Kitchener is currently working to develop an urban forestry strategy

1. Value of the Urban Forest:  State of the Urban Forest in the Greater Toronto Area (Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition) talks about environmental and socioeconomic benefits of a healthy urban forest;  The report mentions an unhealthy reliance on three main species in the makeup of city forest canopy;  The size distribution of trees is smaller than recommended;  Cities lack the lack support from higher levels of government to establish well informed policies and practices in urban forestry: “each municipality is left to fend for its own piece of the urban forest.”  Benefits to Cities of a Healthy Urban Forest:  Climate change mitigation and resilience  Reduced energy expenditures for heating and cooling  Management of water flow  Greening the urban environment ■ Enhanced biodiversity ■ Support for healthy pollinator communities ■ Nature in the city  Products of the urban forest (e.g. food, wood)  Improved health and living conditions for residents  Extended life expectancy of city infrastructure ■ Reduced energy and cost

7. Council Meeting Page 154 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

 Appendix 2 offers a detailed outline of the value of a healthy urban forest;

2. The Urban Forest comprises a number of components that span public lands and private property:  Street Trees  Parkland and Conservation Areas  Environmental Lands  Valley Lands  Trees on Private Property

3. Goals of a Comprehensive Urban Forest Strategy:  Targets for Canopy Cover  Other cities have set targets (eg. Guelph, Oakville, Mississauga, Toronto) ■ 30 – 40% canopy cover is the range that many are working toward

 Forest Canopy Cover in Waterloo: ■ Data from the City estimates that forest cover is low, and has declined slowly but steadily over the last decade; ■ What is an appropriate made-in-Waterloo target: 25%? 30%? 40%? ■ What is an appropriate timeframe to achieve the target?  Targets for Tree Species Diversity  Update the existing diversity guidelines for street trees; ■ Allow a greater diversity of species, including non-natives; ■ Set abundance targets for each species;  Integrate diversity targets for trees on private property within the targets for street trees;  Establish principles of native tree diversity in parks and natural landscapes;  Targets for Forest Health  Establish a desired age or size structure for the urban forest; ■ Immature trees to fill in canopy gaps as they open; ■ Robust population of mature trees ■ Regular replacement of older trees as they senesce;  Targets informed by best practices in urban forestry, and arboriculture to maintain street trees and trees on private property to minimize risks of disease or damage from weather events; ■ Healthy canopy and root structure to maintain tree productivity ■ Healthy wood structure to maintain the strength of trees as they grow;

8. Council Meeting Page 155 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

■ Avoidance of stresses on tree growth and health due to competition from overcrowding;  Targets informed by ecology and urban forestry to promote healthy successional trajectories in natural spaces; ■ Management strategies to maintain locally significant forest patches; (e.g., City of Toronto’s use of prescribed fire to maintain unique oak savannah in High Park)  Where necessary expand the components of city policies, programs and by-laws that affect the urban forest.

4. Actions for Achieving Goals:  Planting Strategy to Achieve Targets for Canopy Cover and Species Diversity  Identify priority areas of the city for planting initiatives;  Management Plan for the Maintenance of a Healthy Forest  Update operational manuals for planting and maintenance to reflect current best practices ■ E.g. practices advocated by James Urban in Up by Roots: Healthy Trees and Soils in the Built Environment  Update, and expand list of prefered tree species (last updated Sept 2014) ■ Separate lists for different components of forest  Street tree list expanded to include diverse array of non- native species/genera  Focus on native species for natural greenspace; achieve diversity and resilience through community diversity, and natural succession across the city landscape  Develop user friendly guidelines for property owners ■ Landscaping considerations for planting  Soil volume and quality  Proximity to other trees  Competition for light, water and nutrients ■ Advice on selection of healthy nursery stock  Selection of species and varieties suitable for city environments  How to identify nurseries that sell high quality plants  Guidelines for cultivation during the first few years of tree establishment ■ Advice on arboriculture for mature trees  Planning Documents  Make reference to Comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy in existing planning documents ■ Official Plan  Several sections discuss the value and goals for enhancement of the urban forest, especially in chapters 8 & 10

9. Council Meeting Page 156 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

 Use principles outlined in the Official Plan to structure the Urban Forest Strategy, and make it truly comprehensive; ■ Waterloo Park Master Plan;  Continue implementation of the goals of the plan;  Build in additional elements to build civic awareness and engagement with the urban forest; e.g., interpretive signage/programs;  By-laws  Revise existing by-laws where necessary;  Adopt new by-laws to fill gaps that are identified during the development of the strategy;  Policies  Integrate existing policies into strategy, and update where necessary ■ Urban Forest Policy ■ Parks Policy ■ Environmental Land Acquisition and Maintenance Policy (1999)  Out of date policy that could be updated and integrated as a component of the urban forest strategy ■ Encroachment Policy  Draft a new Naturalization Policy as proposed in chapter 10 of the Official Plan  Adopt new policies to promote planting and maintenance of trees on private property ■ Incentives for property owners, e.g. property tax credit based on assessed value of trees; something comparable to, or in coordination with the stormwater credit program;  Programs  Integrate existing programs into strategy, and update where necessary ■ Urban Forest Program (2010)  Separate out goals of the program from the operations guidelines used by staff; i.e., make it a program that residents feel they can participate in ■ Partners in Parks Program  The Partners in Parks Program as it is currently written seems to limit its effectiveness (overly prescriptive; small budget to spend in any given year)  Develop new programs to promote an expanded urban forest ■ Communication Program ■ Tree sales at reduced price (e.g. $10 tree program in Vancouver) ■ Community challenges to develop ideas to enhance the urban forest and monitor tree health; e.g. Waterloo Codefest 2015 winning app, Timber  Strategies  Mesh with goals of existing strategies ■ Environmental Strategy (2014)

10. Council Meeting Page 157 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

 Section on Greenspace includes strategic objectives that speak directly to some of the goals of a Comprehensive Urban Forest Strategy ■ Built Heritage Strategy (2015)  Maintenance of older sections of the urban forest contributes to the goal of preserving cultural heritage landscapes  Budget Support  Full accounting should include not only costs of initiatives, but also a fair evaluation of the benefits to be gained from improving the urban forest  City staff (Forestry, Parks, Sustainability) to request allocations in support of the urban forest in the annual budget process  Members of Council to champion investment in the urban forest

5. Engagement  Internal  Councillors  City Staff  External  Residents and other property owners  RMOW & GRCA for a coordinated, region-wide forest initiative;  MTO (health and maintenance of forest stands adjacent to Highway 85)  Not-for-profit organizations: mission to promote urban forest health  Corporate sector: donations in support of environmental initiatives  Post-secondary institutions: research and training

6. Metrics of Success:  Regularly updated imagery showing the extent of urban forest canopy;  Street Tree Inventory  Basic inventory is complete  Additional information to include on the public face of the database: date tree planted, last date of health assessment or maintenance;  Measures of public access to the inventory  Inventory of other trees  Measures of tree health  Regular assessments by staff  Civic engagement through ability to report on tree health, flowering times (e.g. PlantWatch Naturewatch), etc. through city web portal, Timber  Surveys of public over the lifetime of the strategy:  attitudes toward urban forest  awareness of urban forest  priorities for urban forest  health outcomes from expansion of urban forest

11. Council Meeting Page 158 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

Appendix 1

City of Waterloo Urban Forest Overview

By-laws: • 2014-078 Protection of Trees on City Property ◦ sets out restrictions and prohibitions regarding city-owned trees, including alterations to soil, drainage, etc. ◦ prohibits planting of trees by persons on City property without authorization ◦ sets out permitted activities that may cause injury or destruction of city-owned trees ◦ sets out conditions for removal of trees on city property ◦ sets out who may enforce the by-law and right to access property ◦ sets out a range of orders, remedies and penalties for violation of the by-law • 2014-077 Regulation for Municipal Parks ◦ Protects all vegetation within city parks • 2004-094 Boulevards ◦ planting by owners on boulevards restricted to herbaceous plants • 2011-024 Parkland Dedication ◦ specifies the amount of dedicated parkland to be conveyed to the City based on development type; ◦ specifies the allowed types and characteristics of dedicated parkland • ZBR Zoning By-law Review ◦ OS1 – Public Park Zone ▪ permits city parkland ▪ permits city arboretum ◦ OS2 – Golf Course Zone ▪ permits city parkland ◦ OS3 – Conservation Zone ▪ permits conservation lands including woodlots ▪ permits municipal parkland ▪ permits restorative, scientific and educational uses, including woodland ◦ ESL1 – Environmentally Sensitive Landscape One Zone ▪ permits cultivation of native trees ▪ permits municipal parkland ◦ ESL2 – Environmentally Sensitive Landscape Two Zone ▪ permits conservation lands, including woodlots ▪ permits municipal parkland

Plans: • Official Plan ◦ Chapter 3, §3.11 Urban Design, discusses principles of landscaping, streetscaping and open spaces to be incorporated in urban development

12. Council Meeting Page 159 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

◦ Chapter 3, §3.12 Protected Countryside, discusses protection and regulation of uses in natural areas including woodlands on the periphery of the urban areas of the Region (references Regional Official Plan) ◦ Chapter 4, §4.7.5 Cultural Heritage Landscapes, requires protection of heritage landscapes ◦ Chapter 4, §4.7.7 Heritage Conservation Districts, allows the city to designate heritage conservation districts ◦ Chapter 5, §5.1.2 & §5.3, Trails and Open Space Network, protects natural areas to preserve environmental function, promotes awareness of and public education about open spaces; ◦ Chapter 8, §8.1 Environment and Energy Objectives, includes priorities related to natural heritage, prevent or minimize risks from natural hazards, and under air quality and climate change “protect and expand the urban forest” ◦ Chapter 8, §8.2 detailed focus on natural heritage, including environmentally sensitive landscapes, significant valleys, core natural features, restoration areas, and urban forest (§8.2.9) ◦ Chapter 8, §8.4 goes into detail about natural hazards ◦ Chapter 8, §8.6 goes into detail about air quality and climate change; §8.6.2(3) identifies enhancement and improvement of the urban forest as a way to achieve improved air quality and minimize the effects of climate change ◦ Chapter 10, §10.5 Open Space Land Use Policies, details of vision and policies related to open spaces, including parks and other green spaces (§10.5.2.1), and natural systems (§10.5.2.5); makes provision for the preparation of a Naturalization Policy; • Waterloo Park Master Plan ◦ Outlines development plans for the park, which include a green commons, an arboretum, a ecological/educational zone; only mentions the word forest once.

Policies: • Urban Forestry Policy (1998; last update in 2001) ◦ describes principal values of an urban forest ◦ focus on street trees ◦ mostly operational guidelines • Preferred Tree Species (most recent update Sept 2014) ◦ lists 15 native & 1 non-native species and planting requirements for each • A-011 Enforcement of the Protection of Trees on City Property By-Law ◦ outlines how enforcement provisions of By-Law 2014-078 are to be implemented; • A-012 Enforcement of the Parks By-Law ◦ outlines how enforcement provisions of By-Law 2014-077 are to be implemented; • Environmental Land Acquisition and Maintenance Policy (1999)

13. Council Meeting Page 160 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

◦ mentions amount of woodland in the City up to 1999, and the amount of woodland contained in parcels of land the city was seeking to acquire at the time; ◦ offers guidelines for staff on setting priorities and acquiring environmental lands for the city; ◦ sets out guidelines for maintenance and management of environmental lands; ◦ talks about tree-saving measures and opportunities ◦ Appendix D has useful definitions; Appendix E has information sheets for specific environmental lands • PWS 2006-47.1 Encroachment Policy ◦ deals with encroachment on city-owned lands; ◦ offers guidelines for enforcing compliance, education and awareness; ◦ references Partners in Parks Program, including terms and conditions, and process for public involvement in greening city spaces;

Programs: • Urban Forest Program (most recent update 2010) ◦ planning and operations manual ◦ Chapter 2 primarily focused on street trees ◦ Chapter 3 dedicated to forests on environmental lands: operational guidelines for minimizing hazards to public and property ◦ Chapter 4 details planting standards • Partners in Parks Program ◦ community planting program; ◦ sets out guidelines/prescriptions for city-supported community planting initiatives;

Strategies: • Environmental Strategy (2014) ◦ Greenspace: strategic objectives 1 maintain, enhance and restore greenspace; and 2 monitor terrestrial resources to support efforts for increasing biodiversity; ◦ Implementation Report (April 2015) ▪ Appendix A shows constant or slight decline of forest canopy over period of 2010 – 2014 (p 14) ▪ Mention of Forest Fest in 2013 and 2014 (p 15) ▪ Highlights Parks By-Law as completed action under Greenspace • Built Heritage Strategy (2015) ◦ references preservation of cultural heritage landscapes;

Other Resources: • Trees webpage: City of Waterloo Trees ◦ provides links to urban forest policy and program ◦ outlines municipal tree regulations ◦ lists municipal tree services

14. Council Meeting Page 161 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

◦ sidebar has a number of pages with useful information on digging around trees, emerald ash borer, landscaping, growing lawns in the shade, pruning, and watering ◦ list of FAQ addresses seven questions related to policies and by-laws; • Waterloo Interactive Map ◦ ArcGIS map with Street Tree layer, includes metadata for each tree in street tree inventory (does not include date planted, estimated age of tree, date of last inspection, health of tree at last inspection) • Open Data ◦ ArcGIS database including Environment, and Parks and Recreation data ◦ data sets are downloadable ◦ street tree database repeats data available on Waterloo Interactive Map ◦ potential to build inventory of trees in parks and other greenspaces • Waterloo Codefest (24 – 25 Oct 2015) ◦ winning team created an app called Timber: ▪ “This application connects residents with their environment by mapping the city’s tree canopy one tree at a time. ▪ “Using the city’s street trees and city boundary data sets, it allows citizens to monitor the health of trees and report trees that may be in distress. It also educates residents about the types of trees planted across the city and identifies the difference between a city-owned tree and a privately owned tree. • “Judges awarded this application top marks for its use of Waterloo- specific data and how easily citizens can relate to it.”

15. Council Meeting Page 162 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

Appendix 2 Urban forest and climate change

Here is some information regarding the impact of climate change on urban forest, and mitigation and adaptation strategies based on a number of documents that have addressed these points.

Benefits of Urban Forests Carbon capture and energy savings: Urban forests-like any forest-help mitigate climate change by capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, and by influencing energy needs for heating and cooling buildings. Shading and reduction of wind speed by trees can also help to reduce carbon emissions by reducing summer air conditioning and winter heating demand and, in turn, the level of emissions from supplying power plants [1]. Shading can also extend the useful life of street pavement by as much as ten years, thereby reducing emissions associated with the petroleum- intensive materials and operation of heavy equipment required to repave roads and haul away waste [2]. Provision of usable goods: The sustainable use of wood, food, and other goods provided by the local urban forest may also help mitigate climate change by displacing imports associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide emitted during production and transport. Adaptation to climate and weather changes: Urban forests enable cities to better adapt to the effect of climate change on temperature patterns and weather events. Urban trees can help control runoff from these by catching rain in their canopies and increasing the infiltration rate of deposited precipitation. Reducing stormwater flow reduces stress on urban sewer systems by limiting the risk of hazardous combined sewer overflows [3]. Furthermore, well-maintained urban forests help buffer high winds, control erosion, and reduce drought [1,3,4]. Increased community resilience: Urban forests provide critical social and cultural benefits that strengthen community resilience to climate change. Street trees hold spiritual value, promote social interaction, and contribute to a sense of place and family for local residents [5]. Overall, forested urban areas appear to have potentially stronger and more stable communities [5].

Stressors on urban forest Two main types of stressors: Continuous: see figure 1 taken from [6] transient: seasonal, biotic or abiotic stressors that occur for only a period of time, including seasonal moisture deficit, drought and heat, extreme wind and rainfall, air pollution, pests and disease, and flood events – climate change fall in this category

16. Council Meeting Page 163 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

Figure 1. Continuous stressors on urban canopy

Climate change impacts Climate change is bringing hotter summers that stress newly planted trees and increase the requirements for watering. Climate change is also expected to result in more variable precipitation, making it more difficult to rely on rainfall to provide the water needs of trees. Milder winters are allowing the proliferation of insect pests, and mid-winter warm spells can result in budburst followed by a freeze that damages new growth. Concentrations of ground-level ozone are also expected to increase with the onset of hotter summers. High concentrations of ozone damage leaves and slow down growth. Growing seasons are lengthening as climate change proceeds. This leads to a northward migration of trees and plants.

Evidence on the impact of climate change on urban forest Doubling of mortality rates across dominant genera in unmanaged old forests of the Pacific Northwest in recent decades [7]; Declining annual growth in Pacific Northwest forests [8]; Altered regeneration patterns and regeneration niches of extant and adjacent tree species being out of equilibrium with current climate [9];

17. Council Meeting Page 164 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

Enhanced growth and reproduction of insects and pathogens [10]; the hot and dry environments enrich carbohydrate concentrations in tree foliage, making urban trees more attractive to pests and pathogens [11]. Significant shift from infrequent large wildfires of short duration (average of 1 week) to more frequent, longer burning (5 weeks) fires since the 1980s in the western U.S. [12].

Strategies to improve urban forest resilience Mitigation: Climate change mitigation in urban areas focuses primarily on reducing GHG emissions. For instance, and trees of certain species may exhibit more desirable lifetime carbon capture-to-emissions ratios [13,14]. Other effective mitigation strategies include strategically planting trees around buildings to promote energy efficiency, enlarging and improving planting sites to improve tree longevity and increase stormwater infiltration, and including trees in street improvement projects [14]. Through planning and management that: Selects a diversity of species that are tolerant of or resistant to stressors; Provides planting infrastructure that supports adequate soil volume and soil moisture; Maintains trees to maximize wind resistance; and, Requires appropriate tree protection on sites where construction or maintenance activities occur. Adaptation strategies: Monitoring and recording tree and ecosystem dynamics to document how trees are responding to climate change and identify particular strengths and vulnerabilities; Planting trees tolerant of warmer and drier summer conditions as well as trees resistant to pests that are spreading as a result of warmer winters; Increasing the availability and planning of diverse species of trees to improve the resilience of the urban forest; Providing incentives for improved tree maintenance on private lands, and opportunities for neighbourhood organizations to plant and care for trees in suitable public and private areas; Reviewing and improving strategies for coping with pest invasions; Extreme weather response plans for managing damage to trees following storms; Reducing damage to trees from increased flooding and erosion due to intense rainfalls, by various ground stabilization and flood control strategies; Proactive design of parks and natural spaces to minimize damage from the impacts of increased use under warmer conditions. Community stewardship: Volunteer-based urban forest initiatives may complement or augment city-run adaptation and mitigation strategies [15,16]. Examples of community involvement: Clean – a non-profi, non-governmental environment organization coordinating tree planting events in Atlantic Canada for school groups, families and workplaces

18. Council Meeting Page 165 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

La Société de verdissement du Montréal métropolitain (SOVERDI) – its goal is greening Montreal by increasing the size and health of the urban forest Lower Mainland Green Team – involved in a range of activities, including planting native plants and trees in the Lower Mainland of B.C. Planting for Change – a schoolyard tree planting program run by ACER (Association for Canadian Educational Resources) REAP and Enactus Calgary – plant fruit bearing trees in lower income communities with support from Calgary businesses, addressing food insecurity and sequestering carbon Trees Winnipeg – with a mission to “protect, preserve & promote the urban forest & urban environment.” Its Broadway Restoration Project is designed to preserve the 75-year-old elms lining Winnipeg’s signature business area The UVR Working Group of the Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition – an advocate for trees as a natural shade for the purpose of public health implemented a Shade Policy for the City of Toronto Tree Canada – a non-profi organization that shares knowledge and greens communities across Canada by “providing education, technical expertise, and resources to plant and care for urban and rural trees.”

Relevant organizations Canadian Urban Forest Network (CUFN):

Example strategic urban forest plan: Toronto [17] Strategic Goals: 1. INCREASE CANOPY COVER: Protect, maintain and expand the urban forest to achieve a healthy, sustainable forest with a canopy cover of 40%. 2. ACHIEVE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION: Achieve an equitable distribution of the urban forest, increasing canopy where it is most needed. 3. INCREASE BIODIVERSITY: Increase biodiversity to improve urban forest resiliency and respond to climate change. 4. INCREASE AWARENESS: Increase awareness of the value of trees, the natural environment and the sensitivity of these resources.

19. Council Meeting Page 166 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

5. PROMOTE STEWARDSHIP: Promote stewardship and education of the multiple benefis of the urban forest and build collaborative partnerships for expanding the forest. 6. IMPROVE MONITORING: Improve information management systems and enhance the ability to inventory, monitor and analyze the urban forest Recommended climate change adaptation strategies: increasing and adapting tree species planting lists to include more species; developing a database with mapping of robust populations of native species for seed collection; promoting new standards for tree planting in hard landscapes that accommodate adequate soil volume; collaborating with Toronto Public Health on achieving common objectives such as reducing heat vulnerability in low canopy areas.

References [1] Nowak, D.J., et al. 2010. Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests: A Forests on the Edge Report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [2] McPherson, G., and J. Muchnick. 2005. Effects of Street Tree Shade on Asphalt Concrete Pavement Performance. Journal of Arboriculture. 31(6): 303-310. [3] Fazio, J.R. (ed). 2010. How Trees Can Retain Stormwater Runoff. Tree City USA Bulletin No. 55. Arbor Day Foundation: Nebraska City, NE. [4] Cullington, J., and J. Gye. 2010. Urban Forests: A Climate Adaptation Guide. Part of the BC Regional Adaptation Collaborative (RAC). Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: British Columbia, Canada. [5] Dandy, N. 2010. The Social and Cultural Values, and Governance, of Street Trees. Climate Change & Street Trees Project: Social Research Report. The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission. [6] Diamond Head Consulting Ltd., 2013, Urban Forest Climate Adaptation Framework for Metro Vancouver, Tree Species Selection, Planting and, Management, Submitted to Metro Vancouver, February 23, 2016 [7] P. Van Mantgem, N. Stephenson, J. Byrne, L. Daniels, J. Franklin, P. Fule, M. Harmon, A. Larson, J. Smith, A. Taylor and T. Veblen, "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States," Science, pp. 521-523, 2009. [8] J. Zhang, S. Huang and F. He, "Half-century evidence from western Canada shows forest dynamics are primarily driven by competition followed by climate.," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 112, no. 13, pp. 4009- 4014, 2015. [9] L. Boisvert-Marsh, C. Perie and S. d. Blois, "Shifting with climate? Evidence for recent changes in tree species distribution at high latitudes," Ecosphere, vol. 5, no. 7, 2014. [10] L. D. Daniels and R. W. Gray, "Disturbance regimes in coastal British Columbia," Journal of Ecosystems and Management, pp. 44-56, 2006.

20. Council Meeting Page 167 of 183 November 21, 2016 Urban Forestry Strategy WCEAC 2016

[11] Tubby, K. V., and J. F. Webber. 2010. Pests and Diseases Threatening Urban Trees under a Changing Climate. Forestry. 83(4): 451-59. [12] A. Westerling, H. Hidalgo, D. Cayan and T. Swetnam, "Warming and earlier spring increase in western U.S. forest wildfire activity," Science, vol. 313, no. 5789, pp. 940-943, 2006. [13] Nowak, D.J., J.C. Stevens, S.M. Sisinni, and C.J. Luley. 2002. Effects of Urban Tree Management and Species Selection on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(3): 113-22. [14] Bell, R., and J. Wheeler. 2006. Talking Trees: An Urban Forestry Toolkit for Local Governments. Proc. of ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. [15] Westphal, L. 1994. Overcoming Obstacles: Creating Volunteer Partnerships. Journal of Forestry. 92(10): 28-32. [16] Westphal, L. 2003. Social Aspects of Urban Forestry: Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empowerment Outcomes, Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3): 137-147. [17] Sustaining & Expanding the Urban Forest: Toronto’s Strategic Forest Management Plan. Toronto, Ontario. City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry, 2013.

21. Council Meeting Page 168 of 183 November 21, 2016

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REPORT

Waterloo Advisory Committee on Active Transportation Committee Night Report 2016 Report #: CTTEE2016-006

Recommendations:

We respectfully request Council’s approval in principle for the Grand Trail Project concept. In addition, we would very much appreciate municipal staff support to work with us to make the Grand Trail a reality and a letter of support for future funding applications.

Executive Summary:

The Grand Trails project will form a network of connected trails following the Grand River and its tributaries – a designated Canadian Heritage River - from the source in the Dundalk Highlands to the mouth of the river at Lake Erie. The network will include existing and new, land and water trails, to form a truly unique recreational experience. It will include appropriately accessible and serviced destination and experiential trails which will connect communities, places of interest and activities. The network will also provide connections to Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay via other major regional trails in line with the Ontario Trail strategy.

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 169 of 183 November 21, 2016 See attached Grand Trail Proposal for more information

Financial Implications: None

Technological Implications: None

Legal Considerations: None

Link to the Strategic Plan:

Multi-modal transportation; infrastructure renewal; strong community; environmental leadership; economic development

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 170 of 183 November 21, 2016 BACKGROUND

Throughout the Grand River watershed the level of interest for trails and trail development has continued to grow for municipal governments and their citizens alike. For many years there have been localized conversations regarding the potential to develop a trail network along the Grand River. In February 2015 representatives from various trail groups, biking clubs, Regional Tourism Offices, tourism operators, municipal staff and staff from the Grand River Conservation Authority met to explore the possibility of advancing this idea further. The concept presented was that of an inter- connected, multi-use pathway that would follow the Grand River from the source near Dundalk to the mouth at Port Maitland. The trail would connect municipalities while showcasing the natural environment and cultural heritage features of the watershed. Fundamental to the concept was the potential to extend the trail north of Dundalk to Georgian Bay and to link this major north-south trail route with other major regional trail systems such as the Waterfront Trail, the Trans-Canada Trail, the Guelph to Goderich Rail Trail, and the Brantford to Hamilton Rail Trail. Equally important was the opportunity to link the trail to local commuter and recreational trails.

The Grand Trail concept resonated with all attendees and the enthusiasm grew as the discussion continued. There was significant interest to further explore what could be done. On May 5, 2015 a Visioning Session was held with approximately 30 attendees, many of whom attended the first meeting. A large variety of exciting ideas and visions were shared. A list of organizations that have been involved to date is attached.

VISION AND VALUES STATEMENT

A small working group was formed to take the information generated from the Visioning Session and draft a vision, values statement and project description.

Vision Statement

The Grand Trails project will connect people and communities through heritage, cultural and outdoor experiences in the Grand River watershed.

Values Statements

• Develop the Grand River Watershed as a living storybook of adventure by partnering with all stakeholders to re-connect people and communities with the Grand River and each other, through intertwining trails on and off the river. • Be inclusive of everyone and accessible to people of all ages, interests and abilities in all seasons.

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 171 of 183 November 21, 2016 • Encourage community-focused cultural, heritage, educational, athletic and spiritual events on and around the river, acknowledging Indigenous connections with the river. • Encourage people to live in harmony with the environment by allowing people to interact with nature and educating them about the ecological diversity of the watershed. • Encourage research into the heritage and ecology of the watershed.

Project Description

The Grand Trails project will form a network of connected trails following the Grand River and its tributaries – a designated Canadian Heritage River - from the source in the Dundalk Highlands to the mouth of the river at Lake Erie. The network will include existing and new, land and water trails, to form a truly unique recreational experience. It will include appropriately accessible and serviced destination and experiential trails which will connect communities, places of interest and activities. The network will also provide connections to Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay via other major regional trails in line with the Ontario Trail strategy.

MOVING FORWARD

At this time there is no formal structure for this organization. A number of potential models have been considered including:

 Trust – a non-profit, charitable organization similar to the structure used by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (“Waterfront Trail”);  Conservancy – a non-profit organization that serves as an umbrella organization for local trail clubs similar to the Bruce Trail Conservancy; or  Association – an association of member municipalities with a common goal and objectives. The structuring organization could be a Foundation similar to the Walter Bean Grand River Trail project.

Regardless of the eventual organization structure it is recognized that the fulfilment of the Grand Trail dream can only be accomplished through the participation and partnership of the local and regional municipalities. The Steering Committee recognized it would be valuable to have additional input from senior municipal staff regarding the draft concept paper and possible next steps to move the project forward. A meeting was held on October 8th with representatives from the main municipalities covering the northern, central and southern Grand River watershed.

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 172 of 183 November 21, 2016 PROPOSAL

The response from senior municipal staff members was extremely positive. The group was unanimous in their recommendation that the next step should be to approach local municipalities to explain the project and to seek approval in principle of the trail concept and to authorize their staff to participate in further discussions.

The Grand Trail would travel through at least 17 upper and lower tier municipalities. If a trail loop along the Speed River were also included the number of municipalities grows to at least 20. Not all municipalities are at the same stage in the development of their trail infrastructure. In some cases virtually all of the trail system is in place while in others minimal trail development has occurred. The strength of the Grand Trail concept however lies in municipalities working together to create a benefit for all.

Completing this project means overcoming the unique challenges found in various areas of the watershed. In order to be successful this project should involve as many municipalities as possible.

We respectfully request Council’s approval in principle for the Grand Trail Project concept. In addition, we would very much appreciate municipal staff support to work with us to make the Grand Trail a reality and a letter of support for future funding applications.

Organizations

The following is a list of organizations that have been involved in the preliminary discussions regarding a potential Grand Trail:

Brant County Brant County Trails Brant Waterways Brantford, City of Centre-Wellington, Township of Grand Experiences Grand River Conservation Authority Grand River Fisheries Committee Grand Valley Trails Association Guelph Hiking Club Haldimand County Ontario Tourism Regional Tourism Office 1 Regional Tourism Office 3 Regional Tourism Office 4

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 173 of 183 November 21, 2016 Six Nations Tourism Waterloo, City of Waterloo Region Tourism Marketing Corp. Woolwich, Township of

Prepared By: Date: Committee Chair Signature: Council Meeting Page 174 of 183 November 21, 2016

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REPORT Waterloo Economic Development Committee (WEDC) WEDC ANNUAL UPDATE Report #: CTTEE2016-007

Recommendations: That Council receive this report for information.

Executive Summary: As we near the end of the current two-year WEDC term, a look back reveals an engaged and productive committee. The term began with a strategic prioritization exercise which focused the committee’s work on three priorities: optimizing the LRT, creating a city manufacturing strategy and leveraging our post-secondary educational institutions. Subcommittees were struck to address each priority.

The LRT subcommittee completed its work – including input on station area planning – and provided recommendations to Council. The manufacturing subcommittee also completed its work with recommendations going to the Economic Development Division. The post-secondary subcommittee continues with a focus on talent retention, in conjunction with the Town and Gown Committee.

In addition to the three WEDC strategic priorities, committee members also put considerable effort into reviews of the City’s draft zoning by-law, and our own Terms of Reference with motions on these and other items (detailed below) going to Council this past year.

Prepared By: Grant Gingrich, Chair WEDC Date: November 15, 2016 Signature of Committee Vice Chair (Sandra Stone): Council Meeting Page 175 of 183 November 21, 2016 Looking ahead, WEDC will again begin the new term with a strategic prioritization exercise; aligning work of the committee with the City’s Strategic Plan and with Economic Development Division priorities. Our focus will be on ensuring competitiveness and viability to deliver lasting, sustained economic growth for the City of Waterloo.

Financial Implications: N/A

Technological Implications: N/A

Legal Considerations: N/A

Link to the Strategic Plan: Economic Development: • Keep, grow, start and attract labour talent, entrepreneurs and businesses • Foster relationships with post-secondary sector • Promote Waterloo and strengthen area competitiveness in the world • Enhance relationships with external stakeholders • Embrace and plan around…other research clusters • Continue growth management approach…bring forward a comprehensive zoning bylaw • Capitalize on ION rapid transit to increase business expansion around station hubs • Implement culture plan Strong Communities: • Strengthen capacity to attract and retain newcomers Corporate Excellence • Build relationships with key stakeholders and community collaborators

Prepared By: Grant Gingrich, Chair WEDC Date: November 15, 2016 Signature of Committee Vice Chair (Sandra Stone): Council Meeting Page 176 of 183 November 21, 2016 Waterloo Economic Development Committee (WEDC) WEDC ANNUAL UPDATE Report #: CTTEE2016-007

Motions passed by WEDC in 2016:

I.Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (June 21, 2016): Moved by Mary D’Alton, Seconded by Carol Wiebe

1. That WEDC maintain ongoing dialogue with City staff to review Second Draft of the zoning by-law; 2. Consideration be given to creating more flexible regulations that are adaptable to changing needs of City over time and to minimize need for future amendments 3. Consideration be given to creating more ‘incentive’ based regulations 4. Consideration be given to broadening range of uses in employment areas to respond to changing work place environments 5. Consideration be given to allow broader range of manufacturing uses in employment areas 6. That consideration be given by senior staff to provide funds to staff to hire external, experienced resources to assist with the revision of the draft zoning by-law, or in the alternative, that timelines be extended 7. That this summary report be forwarded to City Council and staff.

Motion Carried Unanimously

This motion was sent to Council, the CAO, Commissioner of Integrated Planning and Public Works, the CFO and the Director of Planning Approvals

II.Communitech Data Hub (June 21, 2016) Moved by Mary D’Alton, Seconded by Sandra Banks:

“That WEDC supports in principal the funding request of $680,000.00 from the Economic Development Reserve Fund for the Communitech Data Hub in uptown Waterloo.”

Motion Carried Unanimously

This motion was sent to Council, the CAO, the CFO and was included in report CAO2016-003, taken to council July 18/16

III.Proposed Updated Regional Development Charges By-law 2016 (September 8, 2016) Please be advised that as Chair of WEDC, I have reviewed the materials on this matter provided to me by the Economic Development Division of the City of Waterloo. I have also circulated those materials to WEDC, including a draft of this letter.

Prepared By: Grant Gingrich, Chair WEDC Date: November 15, 2016 Signature of Committee Vice Chair (Sandra Stone): Council Meeting Page 177 of 183 November 21, 2016 Having received no strong objections to this letter, as Chair of WEDC, I support the following recommendations and ask that they be put before Council for endorsement:

1. The Region of Waterloo consider a longer implementation timeline with phasing and or grandfathering projects already in approvals progress to ensure the development community has the time to move currently planned and financed projects forward and also consider the impact of these new DC’s on future long term projects 2. The Region of Waterloo phase these new DC’s equitably across all core areas in the region regardless of whether or not a core area exemption is currently in place. 3. The Region of Waterloo ensure that the new transit DC’s are at a minimum partially shared with the Townships as all residents of Waterloo Region are sure to benefit from these investments. Respectfully Submitted, Grant Gingrich Chair, Waterloo Economic Development Committee (WEDC)

This motion was included in Staff Report CAO2016-008, taken to Council on Sept. 12/16; approved; correspondence sent to Regional Council

IV.Brainstorming/Mandate/Terms of Reference (September 20, 2016) Moved by Brad Marsland, seconded by Mary D’Alton

“That the notes from the WEDC Brainstorming session as amended be forwarded to Julie Scott and Legislated Services as input for their final committee report.”

All in Favour, motion passed

This motion was sent to Clerks, October 11/16 for inclusion in their report, CORP2016- 094 - Waterloo Economic Development Committee (WEDC) Terms of Reference Revisions, taken to Council on October 24th and approved.

Prepared By: Grant Gingrich, Chair WEDC Date: November 15, 2016 Signature of Committee Vice Chair (Sandra Stone): Council Meeting Page 178 of 183 November 21, 2016

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL REPORT Waterloo Park Advisory Committee Autumn 2016 Update Report #: CTTEE2016-009

Recommendations:

For Information Executive Summary:

Over the past year, the Waterloo Park Advisory Committee of Council (WPAC) has continued to identify and develop initiatives toward implementation of the 2009 Waterloo Park Master Plan (WPMP).

We’re pleased with the efforts of the Friends of Waterloo Park in its first year. This new group was established to help make progress in implementing elements of the Waterloo Park Master Plan for which no current capital funding exists. The inaugural members and delegates have worked diligently to refine their vision, mission, and messaging. Now through Committee Recruitment, they’re looking for more horsepower and champing at the bit to get underway in earnest.

With ION construction nearing completion, it’s exciting to think about the possibilities that will accompany having Waterloo Park/Laurier station right in the Park, and so close to the centre of it all. It will be a while before the Interior Perimeter Walkway can make use of the third LRT crossing point in the Park, but we’re delighted at the forethought and insistence involved in including it in the Master Plan.

Prepared By: Paul McKone, Chair Date: November 15, 2016 Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 179 of 183 November 21, 2016

ION completion means that the Central Promenade – which hadn’t been touched in years in anticipation of construction of the LRT, and that subsequently has been torn up for a long time during construction – is now ready to resume its prominent place at the heart of the Jewel of the City. Consultants and public input have produced functional plans – what sort of stuff the Central Promenade should include – and we’re now in the process of seeking Requests for Proposals for detailed plans. Eventually the Central Promenade, the most-heavily-used section of trail in the Region, will provide a mixed- used trail and dedicated cycle path, along with features that we expect will make it a destination in its own right.

In conjunction with this, work is progressing to address the safety issues surrounding the Central Street entry to the Park, which is used to access the Central Lot, the Tennis Club and Seagram Drive. It is this latter destination that is believed to cause the greatest hazard; those who cut through the Park via Central Street to avoid the difficult left-hand turn from Albert onto Seagram are seeking the shortest, fastest route, without much regard for Park users. Short-term plans will reduce or eliminate this through- traffic. Longer-term plans will improve parking and the pedestrian experience, as well as addressing accessibility issues.

On the west side of the Park, an exciting project is underway to create Harvest Tables for the Community Room at the Father David Bauer Drive entrance. The Public Art Committee, through the Advisory Committee on Culture, and Community Culture and Recreation Services, will soon shortlist a number of artists to design and create these signature features; we look forward to hearing about the successful artist sometime in January of next year.

In the new year, we’ll begin to explore the detailed design of the Park’s Festival Area. We’ll collaborate with Community, Culture and Recreation Services, the Advisory Committee on Culture, and those involved in the numerous festivals that inhabit the Park, to determine what’s most needed and when, so that we’ll have a comprehensive plan ready when the time is right.

To close, I’d like to say thank you to Council, for your work on developing and passing the City of Waterloo Final Accessibility Standards, on October 24, 2016. Your work will help us as we consider design decisions, help those who support other outdoor facilities, and ultimately help those for whom easy accessibility is more than an abstract concept.

Prepared By: Paul McKone, Chair Date: November 15, 2016 Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 180 of 183 November 21, 2016 Financial Implications:

Planning is based on the scheduled increase in capital funding that began in 2016. Technological Implications:

Implementation of the WPMP will require such things as renewed or improved electrical services, water and sewage upgrades, additional washrooms, communication infrastructure, Wi-Fi access. Legal Considerations:

None. Link to the Strategic Plan:

Implementation of the WPMP and its various projects and transitions reflect the City's strategic plan in multiple ways: ● Priority Areas: o Multi-modal transportation o Infrastructure renewal o Strong community o Environmental leadership ● Goal: o Economic Development ● Minor Linkage: o Corporate Excellence

Prepared By: Paul McKone, Chair Date: November 15, 2016 Committee Chair Signature:

Council Meeting Page 181 of 183 November 21, 2016 Council Info - November 9, 2016

Council Info is a summary of discussion and the major items presented at Council meetings. It is circulated immediately following each meeting. You are encouraged to quote from and copy this information. Please refer to the minutes for an official record of the meeting. Council endorses draft Wetland Strategy

Regional Council endorsed the seven guiding principles in the draft Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario. The Strategy seeks to identify opportunities to strengthen policies and stop the net loss of wetlands. Council suggested that a greater emphasis be given to the role of wetlands [with respect to the role of wetlands] in moderating some of the effects of climate change. It was also recommended that the Province consult widely with the scientific community before adopting substantive changes to the principles that have informed Ontario's wetland policies for many years. A report will be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for consideration in the ongoing dialogue on wetland conservation policies. Council endorses new GO Station location in Woolwich

Council has endorsed the recommendation by Metrolinx for a new GO Station location in the Region of Waterloo on the Kitchener Line at Breslau (Greenhouse Road) in the Township of Woolwich. Council also requested that the Ministry of Transportation and Metrolinx fully fund all costs associated with the new GO Station as part of the Regional Express Rail 10 year program. This new station is a positive step toward all day GO transit service to the Region and provides an opportunity for future connection to the Region of Waterloo International Airport. The Township of Woolwich and the Region of Waterloo will participate in a working group with Metrolinx to develop a work plan to advance the station to procurement. Council approves rain barrel program for 2017

With the success and positive public response from this year's rain barrel distribution, Regional Council has approved the distribution of 2,400 rain barrels at a cost of $40 per unit in 2017. This will help to promote low water use landscaping and the Water Conservation By-law. Since 2001, the Region has distributed more than 50,000 rain barrels through annual sales. Residents using these barrels save an estimated 55 million litres of drinking water each year. Look for details of the rain barrel distribution in 2017. Region seeks public input on 2017 budget

The Region is looking for community input on the 2017 budget starting November 10, 2016. Citizens can share their thoughts at one of two public input meetings or online at engageregionofwaterloo.ca. Public input meetings are scheduled for November 16 and

Council Meeting Page 182 of 183 November 21, 2016 December 14, 2016 at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers. The online forum will be open for input from November 10 - December 2, 2016. Tenders/Contracts:

The following tenders/contracts were approved by Council:  $12,768,314.40 plus applicable taxes to McLean Taylor Construction Limited for Fountain Street reconstruction and bridge superstructure replacement from Blair Road to Shantz Hill Road, in the City of Cambridge.  $854,180.00, sole source procurement, to Viking-Cives Ltd. for three (3) Plow Truck units, and name Viking-Cives Ltd. as the Vendor of Record for all Plow Truck acquisitions for a three (3) year period ending October 31, 2019.  $466,402.00 to Alfa Laval Inc. for Supply of Cloth Media Filter System at the Wellesley Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Next Council meeting Wednesday, November 30, 2016 p.m.

For more information, contact:

Bryan Stortz, Director, Corporate Communications, 519-575-4408 Regional Clerk's Office, 519-575-4420

Council Meeting Page 183 of 183 November 21, 2016