The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout Agenda Regular Council Meeting Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at 5:30 PM Municipal Office, Council Chambers
Page
1. Call Meeting to Order/Mayor's Introductory Remarks
2. Agenda
a) Introduction of Amendments to the Agenda
b) Confirmation of Agenda
THAT the Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of Wednesday, May 17, 2017 be approved, as presented.
3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
4. Adoption of Minutes
a) Motion to Adopt the Minutes of the Following Meetings:
• April 19, 2017 Statutory Public Hearing; • April 19, 2017 Regular Council Meeting;
THAT the Minutes of the Statutory Public Hearing held on April 19, 2017, and Regular Council Meeting held on April 19, 2017, be approved, as presented.
5. Staff Reports
a) Authorization the Borrowing and the Submission of an Application to 6 - 15 Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for Financing of Capital Works; By-law No. 41-17 Condenser, Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade Authorization the Borrowing and the Submission of an Application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for Financing of Capital Works; By-Law No. 41-17 Condenser, Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade - Pdf
THAT Council authorizes the passing of By-law No. 41-17, Being a By- law of the Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout to authorize the borrowing and submission of an application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for financing in the amount of $482,631.46 towards the costs of the Condenser; Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade.
Page 1 of 86 Regular Council Agenda May 17, 2017
b) Quarterly Financial Report - First Quarter 16 - 31 Quarterly Financial Report - First Quarter - Pdf
THAT Council receives, as information, the Quarterly Financial Report – First Quarter 2017 – as attached to the Treasurer’s Report dated May 17, 2017.
c) Policy No. 2-9 Promote Use of Municipal Water 32 - 38 Policy No. 2-9 Promote Use of Municipal Water - Pdf
THAT Council authorizes the passing of By-law No. 40-17 Being a By- Law that adopts Policy No. 2-9 – Promote Use of Municipal Water.
d) Road Allowance Closure and Sale - Carter 39 - 42 Road Allowance Closure and Sale - Carter - Pdf
THATCouncil authorizes the passing of By-law No. 38-17 to Permanently Close, Declare Surplus and Authorize the Sale of a Highway of the Municipality (Carter).
e) Informational Report - Road Allowance Closure and Sale 43 - 47 Informational Report - Road Allowance Closure and Sale - Pdf
THAT Council directs staff to move forward with the closing and sale to any interested abutting property owners of an unopened road allowance, a lane located between Front Street and King Street at the west end of urban Sioux Lookout.
f) The Keeping of Chickens: Results of Public Consultation Survey and 48 - 81 Determination of Next Steps The Keeping of Chickens: Results of Public Consultation Survey and Determination of Next Steps - Pdf
THAT Council receives the Manager of Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk’s Report, dated May 17, 2017, summarizing the findings of “The Keeping of Chickens – Public Consultation Survey”; and further
THAT Council directs staff to (please select preferred option(s)): Option 1: • take no further action on this matter, other than reinforcing the “status quo” to the public, namely, that keeping chickens in the Municipality is prohibited, except as provided for in the Zoning By- law. Advise the public that any individuals currently keeping chickens (other than on farms or in other permitted zones) will need to cease this practice through attrition (i.e., as chickens die or are killed, they are not to be replaced);
Page 2 of 86 Regular Council Agenda May 17, 2017
Option 2: • amend Zoning and Animal Control By-laws to permit chickens within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout, without any regulation, enforcement or complaint mechanisms;
Option 3: • develop a licensing/regulation/enforcement regime, based on best practices used in other municipalities, and considering such things as setbacks, standards of care and related matters, and bring to Council for review and approval.
g) Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) - Call for Nominations - Board 82 - 86 of Directors Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) - Call for Nominations - Board of Directors - Pdf
THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout nominates Councillor Yolaine Kirlew to the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) Board of Directors for the 2017/18 term of office.
6. Determination of Item(s) Requiring Separate Discussion
a) That the following Item(s) will require a separate discussion:
______.
7. Adoption of Item(s) Not Requiring Separate Discussion
a) Motion to Adopt Item(s) Not Requiring Separate Discussion
THAT Council approves the following recommendation(s):
______.
8. Delegations/Presentations/Committee Presentations
a) Peter Frise, Vice President of Corporate and Client Services, Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. (Tax Policy and Reassessment Impact Study)
9. Consideration of Item(s) Requiring Separate Discussion
10. By-laws
a) The following By-laws to be introduced, read a First, Second and Third time and considered for passing by Council:
• By-law No. 38-17, Being a By-law to Permanently Close, Declare Surplus and Authorize the Sale of a Highway of The Municipality
Page 3 of 86 Regular Council Agenda May 17, 2017
• By-law No. 40-17, Being a By-law to Adopt Policy 2-9 Promote Use of Municipal Water • By-law No. 41-17, Being a By-law to Authorize Certain New Capital Works of The Corporation of The Municipality of Sioux Lookout ("The Municipality"); To Authorize the Submission of an Application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation ("OILC") for Financing Such Capital Works; To Authorize Temporary Borrowing from OILC to Meet Expenditures in Connection with Such Works; and to Authorize Long Term Borrowing for Such Works Through the Issue of Debentures to OILC
THAT By-law Nos. 38-17, 40-17 and 42-17 be read a First, Second and Third time and passed.
11. Notices of Motion/Motions to Reconsider
a) None
12. Outside Resolutions/Requests for Endorsement
a) None
13. Questions/Comments from Members of Council/Mayor's Report
a) Members of Council and Mayor Lawrance to provide updates on their activities since the last Regular Council Meeting
1. Comments from Members of Council 2. Mayor’s Report
14. Motion to Move into Closed Session
To discuss matters of a general nature as noted below:
a) a) Subject matter relating to personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees (per Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, Sec. 239(2)(b)); 1 Item: Updates to Council’s Boards, Commissions and Committees: membership
b) Subject matter relating to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (per Municipal Act 2001, as amended, Sec. 239(2)(c)); 2 Items: potential acquisition of federally-owned land; subdivision update
c) Subject matter relating to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (per Municipal Act 2001, as amended, Sec. 239(2)(e)); 1 Item: municipal options regarding private corporations
15. Report Out From Closed Session
Page 4 of 86 Regular Council Agenda May 17, 2017
a) Ratification of Resolutions/Passing of Resolutions and/or By-laws Arising from Closed Session.
16. Confirmatory By-law
a) By-law No. 43-17 - Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout
THAT By-law No. 43-17, Being a By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout (Wednesday, May 17, 2017 Regular Council Meeting) be read a First, Second and Third time, and passed.
17. Motion to Adjourn
a) Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
THAT the Regular Council Meeting of Wednesday, May 17, 2017 be adjourned at ______.
18. Media Question Period
a) Opportunity for the media to ask questions.
Page 5 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Christy McIntomney, Treasurer DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-059 - Authorization the Borrowing and the Submission of an Application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for Financing of Capital Works; By-Law No. 41-17 Condenser, Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade
TITLE: Authorization the Borrowing and the Submission of an Application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for Financing of Capital Works; By-Law No. 41-17 Condenser, Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorizes the passing of By-law No.41-17, Being a By-law of the Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout to authorize the borrowing and submission of an application to Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) for financing in the amount of $482,631.46 towards the costs of the Condenser; Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade.
PURPOSE: By-law No.41-17 will authorize The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout to the borrowing and submission of an application in the amount of $$482,631.46 for the Condenser; Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Upgrade.
BACKGROUND: In the 2016 Budget Council passed the Fuller Street Upgrade and the replacement of the Condenser for the Sioux Lookout Public Library during this time it was determined that a portion of the funds for the Fuller Street Upgrade would come from Reserves and the balance would be funded through long term debt.
Page 1 of 10 Page 6 of 86
In the summer 2014 the first phase of the design of the Cedar Bay Road was completed this project was phased in over the next two years completing in 2016. It was determined that a portion of the funds would be covered from a private donation and the balance would be funded through long term debt.
DISCUSSION: The Cedar Bay Road and Fuller Street Project was completed in 2016 along with the installation of the Condenser at the Sioux lookout Public Library the total outstanding costs for all three projects is $482,631.46.
As such, the Municipality has completed one application to borrow the funds from OILC. The application consisted of the following:
1. Rate of 1.81% over 5 years for the Cedar Bay Road, Fuller Street Project and the Condenser (Principal Amount $482,631.46. The payment for this debenture will be covered through taxation.
In order to have the application executed OILC requires that the By-law must be passed to authorize the borrowing and the submission of the application.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Pillar No. 2 – Investment Attraction – ensuring that the Municipality has the resources to fund its future infrastructure replacement and rehabilitation requirements will allow the Municipality to achieve its strategic plan and long term community growth plans.
Pillar No. 3 – Customer Service Delivery – ensuring that the Municipality has the financial resources needed to fully fund its infrastructure replacement needs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The debenture required is $482,631.46 the payments will be covered though taxation. The total payments will be 48,263.16 semi annually.
In the 2017 Budget the expenditures for the payment of the debenture was allocated into the budget therefore the funds for this debenture payment has already been approved for through the budget process for the 2017 taxation year.
SIGNATURES:
Page 2 of 10 Page 7 of 86
Christy McIntomney, Dipl.M.M. Treasurer
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Page 3 of 10 Page 8 of 86 Single-tier/County/Region’s purposes (New Capital Work Borrowing By-law)
OILC IS PROVIDING THIS DOCUMENT AS A GENERAL SERVICE TO ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY OTHER OILC DOCUMENT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CREATE OR CONSTITUTE A SOLICITOR-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OILC AND THE USER. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE GIVEN REGARDING THE USE OR APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. OILC ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE THAT YOU MAY MAKE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT YOU HAVE YOUR OWN LAWYER REVIEW YOUR DOCUMENTS TO CONFIRM THAT THEY MEET THE NEEDS FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
Page 4 of 10 Page 9 of 86 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT
BY-LAW NUMBER 41-17
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN NEW CAPITAL WORKS OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT (THE MUNICIPALITY”); TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDS CORPORATION (“OILC”) FOR FINANCING SUCH CAPITAL WORKS; TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY BORROWING FROM OILC TO MEET EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH WORKS; AND TO AUTHORIZE LONG TERM BORROWING FOR SUCH WORKS THROUGH THE ISSUE OF DEBENTURES TO OILC
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario), as amended, (the “Act”) provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise;
AND WHEREAS it is now deemed to be expedient to authorize for the purposes of the Municipality the new capital work(s) described in column (2) of Schedule “A” (individually a “Capital Work”, collectively the “Capital Works”, as the case may be) attached hereto and forming part of this By-law (“Schedule “A”) in the amount of the respective estimated expenditure set out in column (3) of Schedule “A”, subject in each case to approval by OILC of the financing for such Capital Work(s) that will be requested by the Municipality in the Application as hereinafter defined;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with section 4 of Ontario Regulation 403/02 (the “Regulation”), the Council of the Municipality had its Treasurer calculate an updated limit in respect of its most recent annual debt and financial obligation limit received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (as so updated, the “Updated Limit”), and, on the basis of the authorized estimated expenditure for the Capital Work or each Capital Work, as the case may be, as set out in column (3) of Schedule “A” (the “Authorized Expenditure” for any such Capital Work), the Treasurer calculated the estimated annual amount payable in respect of the Capital Work or each Capital Work, as the case may be, (collectively the “Estimated Annual Amount Payable”) and determined that the Estimated Annual Amount Payable does not cause the Municipality to exceed the Updated Limit, and accordingly the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the Regulation, is not required before any such Capital Work is authorized by the Council of the Municipality;
AND WHEREAS subsection 405(1) of the Act provides, amongst other things, that a municipality may authorize temporary borrowing to meet expenditures made in connection with a work to be financed in whole or in part by the issue of debentures if, the municipality is an upper-tier municipality, a lower-tier municipality in a county or a single-tier municipality and it has approved the issue of debentures for the work;
AND WHEREAS subsection 401(1) of the Act provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way, and may
Page 5 of 10 Page 10 of 86 issue debentures and prescribed financial instruments and enter prescribed financial agreements for or in relation to the debt;
AND WHEREAS the Act also provides that a municipality shall authorize long term borrowing by the issue of debentures or through another municipality under section 403 or 404 of the Act;
AND WHEREAS OILC has invited Ontario municipalities desirous of obtaining temporary and long term debt financing in order to meet capital expenditures incurred on or after January 1, 2004 in connection with eligible capital works to make application to OILC for such financing by completing and submitting an application on the form provided by OILC;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality has completed and submitted an application to OILC (the “Application”) to request financing for the Capital Work(s) by way of long term borrowing through the issue of debentures to OILC and by way of temporary borrowing from OILC pending the issue of such debentures;
AND WHEREAS OILC has accepted and has approved the Application;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Council of the Municipality hereby confirms, ratifies and approves the execution by the Treasurer of the Application and the submission by such authorized official of the Application, duly executed by such authorized official, to OILC for the financing of the Capital Work(s) in the maximum aggregate principal amount OF $482631.46 substantially in the form of Schedule “B” hereto and forming part of this By-law, with such changes thereon as such authorized official may hereafter approve, such execution and delivery to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
2. (a) The undertaking of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be, in the amount of the respective estimated Authorized Expenditure set out in column (3) of Schedule “A” is hereby approved and authorized;
(b) any one or more of the Mayor and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to conclude contracts on behalf of the Municipality for the undertaking of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be, in accordance with the Municipality’s usual protocol;
(c) where applicable, the Engineer of the Municipality will forthwith make such plans, profiles and specifications and furnish such information as in the opinion of the Engineer are necessary for the undertaking of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be; and
(d) where applicable, the undertaking of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be, shall be carried on and executed under the superintendence and according to the direction and orders of such Engineer.
MBDOCS-951493-1 (External Draft) Page 6 of 10 Page 11 of 86 3. The Mayor and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to negotiate and enter into, execute and deliver for and on behalf of the Municipality a financing agreement (a “Financing Agreement”) with OILC that provides for temporary and long term borrowing from OILC in respect of the Capital Work(s) on such terms and conditions as such authorized officials may approve, such execution and delivery to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
4. The Mayor and/or the Treasurer are hereby authorized, pending the substantial completion the Capital Work or each Capital Work, as the case may be, or as otherwise agreed with OILC, to make temporary borrowings pursuant to section 405 of the Act in respect of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be, on the terms and conditions provided in the Financing Agreement and on such other terms and conditions as such authorized officials may agree, and to sign such evidence of indebtedness as OILC may require (the “Note”) and to deliver the Note to OILC, such execution and delivery to be conclusive evidence of such agreement; and the Treasurer is authorized to sign such certifications as OILC may require in connection with such borrowings in respect of the Capital Work(s); provided that the amount of borrowings allocated to the Capital Work or to each Capital Work, as the case may be, does not exceed the Authorized Expenditure for such Capital Work and does not exceed the related loan amount set out in column (4) of Schedule “A” in respect of such Capital Work.
5. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Financing Agreement and such other terms and conditions as OILC may otherwise require, the Mayor and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to long term borrow for the Capital Work(s) and to issue debentures to OILC on the terms and conditions provided in the Financing Agreement and on such other terms and conditions as such authorized officials may agree (the “Debentures”); provided that the principal amount of the Debentures issued in respect of the Capital Work or of each Capital Work, as the case may be, does not exceed the Authorized Expenditure for such Capital Work and does not exceed the related loan amount set out in column (4) of Schedule “A” in respect of such Capital Work.
6. In accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Act, 2011, as amended from time to time hereafter, as security for the payment by the Municipality of the indebtedness of the Municipality to OILC under the Note and/or the Debentures, as the case may be (the “Obligations”), the Municipality is hereby authorized to agree in writing with OILC that the Minister of Finance is entitled, without notice to the Municipality, to deduct from money appropriated by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for payment to the Municipality, amounts not exceeding the amounts that the Municipality fails to pay OILC on account of the Obligations and to pay such amounts to OILC from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
MBDOCS-951493-1 (External Draft) Page 7 of 10 Page 12 of 86 7. For the purposes of meeting the Obligations, the Municipality shall provide for raising in each year as part of the general levy, the amounts of principal and interest payable in each year under the Note and/or any outstanding Debenture, to the extent that the amounts have not been provided for by any other available source including other taxes or fees or charges imposed on persons or property by a by-law of any municipality.
8. (a) The Mayor and/or the Treasurer are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Note, the Mayor and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the Financing Agreement, and to issue the Debentures, one or more of the Clerk and the Treasurer are hereby authorized to generally do all things and to execute all other documents and papers in the name of the Municipality in order to perform the Obligations of the Municipality under the Financing Agreement and to execute and deliver the Note and to issue the Debentures, and the Treasurer is authorized to affix the Municipality’s municipal seal to any such documents and papers.
(b) The money realized in respect of the Note and the Debentures, including any premium, and any earnings derived from the investment of that money, after providing for the expenses related to the execution and delivery of the Note and to the issue of the Debentures, if any, shall be apportioned and applied to the respective Capital Work and to no other purpose except as permitted by the Act.
9. This By-law takes effect on the day of passing.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 17th day of MAY A.D. 2017.
______Doug Lawrance Brian P. MacKinnon Mayor Clerk
MBDOCS-951493-1 (External Draft) Page 8 of 10 Page 13 of 86 Schedule “A” to By-Law Number 41-17(New Capital Work(s))
(1) (2) (3) (4) Capital Work Description of Capital Work Estimated Loan Amount Number Expenditure 1 Fuller Street Upgrade $408,442.34 $333,442.34 2 Cedar Bay Road $126,896.03 $116,896.03 3 Condenser $ 32,293.00 $ 32,293.09
MBDOCS-951493-1 (External Draft) Page 9 of 10 Page 14 of 86 Schedule “B”
Please insert the OILC Application into Schedule “B”.
MBDOCS-951493-1 (External Draft) Page 10 of 10 Page 15 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Christy McIntomney, Treasurer DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-058 - Quarterly Financial Report - First Quarter
TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report - First Quarter
RECOMMENDATION: That Council receives, as information, the Quarterly Financial Report – First Quarter 2017 – as attached to the Treasurer’s Report dated May 17, 2017.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update and overview of the Municipality’s operations, from a financial perspective, in relation to the 2017 approved budget as at March 31st, 2017.
BACKGROUND: The attached 2017 Budget Variance Report details the 2017 actual revenue and expenditures and the variance from the 2017 Budget.
The process in preparing the Budget Variance Report involved the review and analysis of the variances identified with in the operating budget. These reports are reviewed by the Managers on a daily basis through the live Manager’s report.
DISCUSSION: The purpose of the 2017 Budget Variance Report is to provide a high level financial progress overview of the Municipality’s operations as at March 31, 2017. This statement includes both the general Municipal and Airport operations.
Page 1 of 16 Page 16 of 86
As at March 31, 2017 it is reasonable to expect that the Municipality’s expenditures and revenues should be about 25% of the originally budgeted amounts. There area of course exceptions, for example whereas building inspections revenues will be will be low during the first quarter and high in the second and third quarter of each fiscal year.
A detailed analysis of all variances between actual and budgeted figures has been reviewed by the Management Team. Every effort is being made to ensure that the cost savings are being achieved, where possible.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Pillar No. 1 – Community Development • Enhance and strengthen the ability to implement the Strategic Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Key among Council’s responsibilities is to act as the financial steward for the Corporation; this includes ensuring its policies and procedures respecting the financial management of the organization are followed. By reviewing the quarterly revenues and expenditures, and receiving information on any variances in its approved budget, Council is upholding its fiduciary responsibilities and ensuring transparency and accountability.
SIGNATURES:
Christy McIntomney, Dipl.M.M. Treasurer
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Page 2 of 16 Page 17 of 86 SIOUX LOOKOUT - AIRPORT 1ST QUARTER 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance
ADMINISTRATION Revenue CHARGE FOR SERVICE & MATERIALS ($180) ($180) ($720) 25.% INTEREST ON OVERDUE ACCOUNTS ($27,602) ($27,602) ($30,000) 92.% INTEREST EARNED ($5,966) ($5,966) ($10,000) 60.% WSIB RECOVERIES - AIRPORT ($748) ($748) 0.% PROPERTY TAXES - TENANTS ($45,547) ($45,547) ($221,911) 21.% TRANSFER FROM RESERVES ($197,748) 0.% Revenue Total ($80,043) ($80,043) ($460,379) 17.% Page 3 of 16 Expenditure WAGES - ADMINISTRATION $32,914 $32,914 $150,177 22.% BENEFITS - ADMINISTRATION $9,577 $9,577 $37,529 26.% TRAVEL & MILEAGE $748 $748 $6,000 12.% TRAINING $10,000 0.% EQUIPMENT/TECHNOLOGY $5,000 0.% SUPPLIES $420 $420 $2,000 21.% POSTAGE COURIER $200 0.% SUBSCRIPTIONS $2,000 0.% MEMBERSHIPS $2,310 $2,310 $3,500 66.% AUDIT FEES $10,000 0.% TELEPHONE $868 $868 $6,000 14.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $1,000 0.% CONTRACTED COMPUTER SERVICES $359 $359 $1,000 36.% LEGAL $150 $150 $10,000 2.% INSURANCE $49,500 0.%
Page 18 of 86 MARKETING & PROMOTION $2,086 $2,086 $15,000 14.% INTEREST & BANK CHARGES $500 0.% EQUIPMENT RENTAL $188 $188 $750 25.% MUNICIPAL TAXES $245,400 $245,400 $245,400 100.% DEBT - INTEREST - TERMINAL - BRIDGE LOAN $2,478 $2,478 0.% DEBT - PRINCIPLE - TERMINAL DEBT - INTEREST - AIRPORT SERVICE EXTENSION PROJECT $13,649 $13,649 $54,137 25.% DEBT - PRINCIPLE - AIRPORT SERVICE EXTENSION PROJECT $35,835 $35,835 $143,611 25.% BOARD EXPENSES $315 $315 $2,500 13.% TRANSFER TO RESERVES $121,152 0.% ALLOCATED ADMIN CHARGES $92,657 0.% BAD DEBTS $418 $418 $25,000 2.% ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS ($9,864) ($9,864) 0.% Expenditure Total $337,851 $337,851 $994,613 34.%
ADMINISTRATION Total $257,808 $257,808 $534,234 48.%
Page 4 of 16 AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE Revenue CHARGE FOR SERVICE & MATERIAL AIRCRAFT LANDING FEES ($77,452) ($77,452) ($279,411) 28.% PARKING FEES/PLUG-IN ($91) ($91) ($1,627) 6.% TENANT SNOW CLEARING ($375) ($375) ($2,200) 17.% Revenue Total ($77,918) ($77,918) ($283,238) 28.%
Expenditure FUEL COSTS $644 $644 $2,013 32.% LABOUR $1,200 0.% PARTS AND LUBES $31 $31 $1,500 2.% FUEL COSTS $687 $687 $4,280 16.% PARTS AND LUBES $555 $555 $750 74.% LABOUR $250 0.% FUEL COSTS $142 0.%
Page 19 of 86 PARTS AND LUBES $332 $332 $500 66.% LABOUR $250 0.% FUEL COSTS $538 $538 $1,443 37.% PARTS AND LUBES $2,000 0.% LABOUR $1,000 0.% FUEL COSTS $1,155 $1,155 $2,468 47.% PARTS AND LUBES $731 $731 $750 97.% LABOUR $57 $57 $750 8.% FUEL COSTS $257 $257 $694 37.% PARTS AND LUBES $1,000 0.% LABOUR $57 $57 $500 11.% FUEL COSTS $77 $77 $150 51.% PARTS AND LUBES $5 $5 $150 3.% LABOUR $150 0.% FUEL COSTS $758 $758 $905 84.% PARTS AND LUBES $39 $39 $2,500 2.% LABOUR $433 $433 $4,200 10.% FUEL COSTS Page 5 of 16 PARTS AND LUBES $685 $685 $500 137.% FUEL COSTS $434 $434 $1,041 42.% PARTS AND LUBES $684 $684 $1,500 46.% LABOUR $207 $207 $1,000 21.% FUEL COSTS $1,923 $1,923 $3,398 57.% PARTS AND LUBES $834 $834 $2,500 33.% LABOUR $75 $75 $1,500 5.% FUEL COSTS $375 $375 $1,000 37.% PARTS AND LUBES $47 $47 $1,500 3.% LABOUR $1,500 0.% FUEL COSTS $1,500 0.% PARTS AND LUBES $1,000 0.% LABOUR $19 $19 $250 8.% FUEL COSTS $81 $81 $358 23.% PARTS AND LUBES $969 $969 $750 129.% LABOUR $250 0.% FUEL COSTS $1,597 $1,597 $1,119 143.% Page 20 of 86 PARTS AND LUBES $180 $180 $500 36.% LABOUR $250 0.% PUBLIC WORKS - VEHICLE $338 $338 $3,000 11.% EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $5,000 0.% MATERIALS $810 $810 $3,200 25.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $3,100 0.% CONTRACTED ELECTRICAL SERVICES $1,500 0.% CONTRACTED HVAC SERVICES $500 0.% CONTRACTED GARBAGE SERVICES $30 $30 $150 20.% UTILITIES - HEATING $12,416 $12,416 $21,000 59.% UTILITIES - HYDRO $1,636 $1,636 $14,100 12.% WAGES - AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE $18,473 $18,473 $97,430 19.% BENEFITS - AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE $2,659 $2,659 $22,662 12.% TRAVEL & MILEAGE $4,200 0.% TRAINING $6,000 0.% CONSTRUCT MTNCE SUPPLIES $14,237 $14,237 $67,000 21.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $7,500 0.% Page 6 of 16 CONTRACTED ELECTRICAL SERVICES $5,171 $5,171 $7,500 69.% CONTRACTED GENERATOR SERVICES $104 $104 $2,500 4.% CONTRACTED LINE PAINTING $5,000 0.% CONTRACTED CRACK SEALING $5,000 0.% CONTRACTED COMPUTER SERVICE $937 $937 $3,770 25.% UTILITIES $4,348 $4,348 $33,000 13.% LICENCES & PERMITS $681 $681 $725 94.% Expenditure Total $76,306 $76,306 $364,798 21.%
AIRSIDE MAINTENANCE Total ($1,612) ($1,612) $81,560 (2.%)
AVIATION FUEL SERVICES Revenue FUEL CONCESSION FEE ($53,857) ($53,857) ($177,036) 30.% AIRPORT DEALER FEE - UNASSIGNED JET-A ($896) ($896) ($4,872) 18.%
Page 21 of 86 AIRPORT DEALER FEE - UNASSIGNED AV-GAS ($6,792) ($6,792) ($46,084) 15.% AIRPORT DEALER FEE - ASSIGNED JET-A ($52,662) ($52,662) ($174,002) 30.% INTO PLANE SERVICING - UNASSIGNED JET-A ($8,096) ($8,096) ($43,368) 19.% INTO PLANE SERVICING - ASSIGNED JET-A ($173,889) ($173,889) ($589,682) 29.% SUNDRY ($8,255) ($8,255) 0.% CALL OUT RECOVERIES ($14,012) ($14,012) ($61,380) 23.% GASOLINE & DIESEL SALES ($13,280) ($13,280) ($26,678) 50.% AIRCARFT FUEL SALES - ASSIGNED JET-A ($2,076,993) ($2,076,993) ($6,145,907) 34.% AIRCARFT FUEL SALES - UNASSIGNED JET-A ($35,317) ($35,317) ($175,682) 20.% Revenue Total ($2,444,049) ($2,444,049) ($7,444,691) 33.%
Expenditure FUEL COSTS $2,552 $2,552 $8,640 30.% PARTS AND LUBE $4,632 $4,632 $3,000 154.% LABOUR $678 $678 $3,000 23.% FUEL COSTS $4,645 $4,645 $7,145 65.% PARTS AND LUBE $1,858 $1,858 $3,000 62.% LABOUR $239 $239 $3,000 8.% Page 7 of 16 PUBLIC WORKS - VEHICLE $368 $368 $4,000 9.% EQUIPMENT $2,000 0.% CONSTRUCT MTNCE SUPPLIES $1,510 $1,510 $1,000 151.% TELEPHONE $122 $122 $750 16.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $114 $114 $1,000 11.% UTILITIES - HYDRO $1,179 $1,179 $8,000 15.% UTILITIES - HEAT $2,422 $2,422 $7,500 32.% AIRCRAFT FUEL PURCHASE BUYBACKS DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL TO EQUIPMENT/TRUCKS ($15,722) ($15,722) ($34,051) 46.% WAGES - AVIATION FUEL SERVICES $90,934 $90,934 $438,768 21.% BENEFITS - AVIATION FUEL SERVICES $26,596 $26,596 $91,392 29.% TRAVEL AND MILEAGE $250 0.% TRAINING $1,000 0.% EQUIPMENT $1,000 0.% COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT $1,309 $1,309 $2,000 65.% CONSTRUCT MTNCE SUPPLIES $469 $469 $1,200 39.% OFFICE SUPPLIES $40 $40 $500 8.% Page 22 of 86 AIRCRAFT FUEL PURCHASES - JET-A $2,164,775 $2,164,775 $6,255,714 35.% AIRCRAFT FUEL PURCHASES AIRPORT FEE - JET-A $53,857 $53,857 $177,036 30.% FUEL PURCHASES - FSII $12,200 $12,200 $55,000 22.% EQUIPMENT FUEL PURCHASES $37,506 $37,506 $79,625 47.% UNIFORMS $498 $498 $5,000 10.% CONTRACTED SERVICE $203 $203 $3,000 7.% CONTRACTED COMPUTER SERVICES $750 0.% LICENSES AND PERMITS/RADIO $681 $681 $725 94.% CREDIT CARD DISCOUNTS $2,271 $2,271 $11,000 21.% Expenditure Total $2,395,936 $2,395,936 $7,141,944 34.%
AVIATION FUEL SERVICES Total ($48,113) ($48,113) ($302,747) 16.%
GROUNDSIDE MAINTENANCE Revenue ADVERTISING SIGNS ($1,238) 0.% Page 8 of 16 SNOW CLEARING CUSTOMER PARKING ($21,033) ($21,033) ($77,913) 27.% TENANT PARKING STALLS ($2,855) ($2,855) ($5,820) 49.% CAR RENTAL PARKING STALLS ($475) ($475) ($2,700) 18.% PROPERTY RENTALS ($34,075) ($34,075) ($137,236) 25.% TICKETS/FINES ($95) ($95) ($4,000) 2.% Revenue Total ($58,533) ($58,533) ($228,907) 26.%
Expenditure WAGES - GROUND MAINTENANCE $17,041 $17,041 $97,430 17.% BENEFITS - GROUND MAINTENANCE $2,658 $2,658 $22,662 12.% CONSTRUCT MTNCE SUPPLIES $4,500 0.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $1,500 0.% CONTRACTED PARKING SALES $1,960 $1,960 $6,160 32.% UTILITIES $224 $224 $2,900 8.% Expenditure Total $21,883 $21,883 $135,152 16.% Page 23 of 86 GROUNDSIDE MAINTENANCE Total ($36,650) ($36,650) ($93,755) 39.% TERMINAL SERVICES Revenue BANK MACHINE COMMISSIONS ($158) ($158) ($1,021) 15.% ROYLANE COMMISSIONS ($1,060) ($1,060) ($12,720) 8.% FOOD SERVICE COMMISSSIONS ($2,438) ($2,438) ($8,740) 28.% SUNDRY REVENUE VENDING MACHINE SALES ($600) ($600) ($2,400) 25.% ADVERTISING RENTALS ($930) ($930) ($6,398) 15.% ENTERPRISE CARE RENTALS ($825) ($825) ($7,190) 11.% AVIS CAR RENTALS ($25) ($25) ($1,170) 2.% BELL PAY PHONES ($100) 0.% TENANT SPACE RENTALS ($26,169) ($26,169) ($104,896) 25.% FACILITY FEES ($106,719) ($106,719) ($308,047) 35.% COST RECOVERY HYDRO ($19,578) 0.% Page 9 of 16 NAV CANADA CPST RECOVERY ($1,176) ($1,176) ($3,358) 35.% Revenue Total ($140,100) ($140,100) ($475,618) 29.%
Expenditure MATERIALS & SUPPLIES $2,000 0.% CONTRACTED SERVICES $113 $113 $3,500 3.% WAGES - TERMINAL SERVICE - OPERATIONS & MTNCE $23,991 $23,991 $114,234 21.% BENEFITS - TERMINAL SERVICE - OPERATIONS & MTNCE $8,108 $8,108 $28,119 29.% NEW EQUIPMENT $1,200 0.% JANITORIAL SUPPLY $3,129 $3,129 $14,000 22.% CONSTRUCT MTNCE SUPPLIES $430 $430 $3,300 13.% TELEPHONE CONTRACTED SERVICE $270 $270 $2,000 14.% CONTRACTED ELECTRICAL SERVICES $74 $74 $4,000 2.% CONTRACTED HVAC SERVICES $2,500 0.% CONTRACTED GARBAGE SERVICES $1,253 $1,253 $8,160 15.% CONTRACTED COMPUTER SERVICES $1,193 $1,193 $4,800 25.% Page 24 of 86 UTILITIES $10,918 $10,918 $65,000 17.% Expenditure Total $49,479 $49,479 $252,813 20.% TERMINAL SERVICES Total ($90,621) ($90,621) ($222,805) 41.%
AIRPORT Total $80,812 $80,812 ($3,513) (2300.%) Page 10 of 16 Page 25 of 86 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance Building Inspections Operating Revenue ($2,622) ($2,622) ($70,200) 4.% Operating Expenses $29,595 $29,595 $132,021 22.% Reserves Building Inspections Total $26,973 $26,973 $61,821 44.%
By Law Operating Revenue ($5,311) ($5,311) ($281,750) 2.% Operating Expenses $34,572 $34,572 $278,062 12.% By Law Total $29,261 $29,261 ($3,688) (793.%)
Cedar Bay Debt Servicing $9,530 0.% Operating Revenue ($960) ($960) ($55,554) 2.% Operating Expenses $8,788 $8,788 $111,092 8.% Cedar Bay Total $7,828 $7,828 $65,068 12.%
Cemeteries Operating Revenue ($1,592) ($1,592) ($25,350) 6.% Operating Expenses $5,921 $5,921 $76,848 8.% Reserves 3,050 0.% Cemeteries Total $4,329 $4,329 $54,548 8.%
Clerks Operating Revenue ($946) ($946) ($18,400) 5.% Operating Expenses $121,825 $121,825 $595,529 20.% Clerks Total $120,879 $120,879 $577,129 21.%
Corporate Operating Revenue ($7,452) 0.% Operating Expenses $69,478 $69,478 $258,037 27.% Corporate Total $69,478 $69,478 $250,585 28.%
Council Operating Expenses $54,678 $54,678 $205,997 27.% Council Total $54,678 $54,678 $205,997 27.%
Culture Debt Servicing ($12,591) ($12,591) $144,327 (9.%) Operating Revenue ($12,371) ($12,371) ($47,474) 26.% Operating Expenses $28,513 $28,513 $196,059 15.% Culture Total $3,551 $3,551 $292,912 1.%
Day Care Operating Revenue ($256,615) ($256,615) ($1,538,049) 17.% Operating Expenses $350,235 $350,235 $1,877,563 19.% Day Care Total $93,620 $93,620 $339,514 28.%
Page 11 of 16 Page 26 of 86 Page 1 of 6 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance
Economic Development Operating Revenue ($91,572) ($91,572) ($428,536) 21.% Operating Expenses $148,753 $148,753 $626,321 24.% Economic Development Total $57,181 $57,181 $197,785 29.%
Emergency Services Allocation $53,731 0.% Debt Servicing $7,338 0.% Operating Revenue ($4,340) ($4,340) ($36,000) 12.% Operating Expenses $40,180 $40,180 $372,073 11.% Reserves $55,000 0.% Emergency Services Total $35,840 $35,840 $452,142 8.%
Facilities - Administration Operating Revenue Operating Expenses $80,467 $80,467 $250,199 32.% Facilities - Administration Total $80,467 $80,467 $250,199 32.%
Facilities - Culture & Recreation Allocation $33,890 0.% Operating Revenue ($2,649) ($2,649) ($10,000) 26.% Operating Expenses $15,170 $15,170 $144,028 11.% Facilities - Culture & Recreation Total $12,521 $12,521 $167,918 7.%
Facilities - Environmental Operating Expenses $2,242 $2,242 $62,332 4.% Facilities - Environmental Total $2,242 $2,242 $62,332 4.%
Facilities - General Allocation $52,851 0.% Debt Servicing $11,806 $11,806 $125,403 9.% Operating Revenue ($80,058) ($80,058) ($233,260) 34.% Operating Expenses $73,653 $73,653 $385,372 19.% Facilities - General Total $5,401 $5,401 $330,366 2.%
Page 12 of 16 Page 27 of 86 Page 2 of 6 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance
Facilities - Health Services Debt Servicing $27,645 $27,645 $110,128 25.% Operating Revenue ($27,532) ($27,532) ($110,127) 25.% Operating Expenses $20,488 $20,488 $62,558 33.% Reserves $1,123 0.% Facilities - Health Services Total $20,601 $20,601 $63,682 32.%
Facilities - Protection Operating Expenses $41,249 0.% Facilities - Protection Total $0 $0 $41,249 0.%
Facilities - Social & Family Services Operating Expenses $238 $238 $39,226 1.% Facilities - Social & Family Services Total $238 $238 $39,226 1.%
Facilities - Transportation Allocation $5,134 0.% Operating Expenses $11,581 $11,581 $84,966 14.% Facilities - Transportation Total $11,581 $11,581 $90,100 13.%
Facilities - Vested Properties Operating Revenue ($8,850) ($8,850) ($35,400) 25.% Operating Expenses $21,803 $21,803 $50,304 43.% Facilities - Vested Properties Total $12,953 $12,953 $14,904 87.%
Human Resources Operating Revenue ($4,590) ($4,590) ($20,861) 22.% Operating Expenses $68,602 $68,602 $305,746 22.% Human Resources Total $64,012 $64,012 $284,885 22.%
Information & Technology Operating Revenue Operating Expenses $17,569 $17,569 $86,011 20.% Information & Technology Total $17,569 $17,569 $86,011 20.%
Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Public Works Debt Servicing $19,597 0.% Operating Revenue ($5,916) ($5,916) ($5,000) 118.% Operating Expenses $50,091 $50,091 $222,115 23.% Reserves $180,000 0.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Public Works Total $44,175 $44,175 $416,712 11.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - General Operating Expenses $1,216 $1,216 $5,139 24.% Reserves $3,010 0.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - General Total $1,216 $1,216 $8,149 15.%
Page 13 of 16 Page 28 of 86 Page 3 of 6 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Corporate Operating Expenses $1,454 $1,454 $1,756 83.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Corporate Total $1,454 $1,454 $1,756 83.%
Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Protection Services Operating Expenses $782 $782 $35,650 2.% Reserves $20,212 0.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Protection Services Total $782 $782 $55,862 1.%
Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Culture & Recreation Operating Expenses $412 $412 $19,000 2.% Reserves $6,700 0.% Municipal Fleet & Equipment - Culture & Recreation Total $412 $412 $25,700 2.%
Parks & Gardens Debt Servicing $1,347 $1,347 $5,370 25.% Operating Revenue ($910) ($910) ($43,813) 2.% Operating Expenses $9,105 $9,105 $172,621 5.% Parks & Gardens Total $9,542 $9,542 $134,178 7.%
Planning & Development Operating Revenue ($300) ($300) ($16,000) 2.% Operating Expenses $14,008 $14,008 $194,704 7.% Reserves Planning & Development Total $13,708 $13,708 $178,704 8.%
Project & Infrastructure Management Operating Revenue ($1,675) ($1,675) 0.% Operating Expenses $47,544 $47,544 $173,530 27.% Project & Infrastructure Management Total $45,869 $45,869 $173,530 26.%
Public Works Debt Servicing $832 $832 $161,431 1.% Operating Revenue ($19,968) ($19,968) ($42,625) 47.% Operating Expenses $237,841 $237,841 $1,357,780 18.% Reserves $275,000 0.% Public Works Total $218,705 $218,705 $1,751,586 12.%
Recreation Debt Servicing 14,449 14,449 60,875 24.% Operating Revenue ($138,525) ($138,525) ($465,500) 30.% Operating Expenses $276,209 $276,209 $1,236,100 22.% Recreation Total $152,133 $152,133 $831,475 18.%
Sanitary Sewer System Debt Servicing $21,881 $21,881 $89,409 24.% Operating Revenue ($280,585) ($280,585) ($1,189,673) 24.%
Page 14 of 16 Page 29 of 86 Page 4 of 6 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance Operating Expenses $134,289 $134,289 $784,302 17.% Reserves $315,962 0.% Sanitary Sewer System Total ($124,415) ($124,415) $0 0.%
Water Distribution System Debt Servicing $65,613 $65,613 $216,452 30.% Operating Revenue ($359,862) ($359,862) ($1,529,504) 24.% Operating Expenses $207,644 $207,644 $1,072,323 19.% Reserves $240,729 0.% Water Distribution System Total ($86,605) ($86,605) $0 0.%
Waste Management Debt Servicing $16,761 $16,761 $134,508 12.% Operating Revenue ($89,979) ($89,979) ($475,500) 19.% Operating Expenses $101,431 $101,431 $526,697 19.% Reserves Waste Management Total $28,213 $28,213 $185,705 15.%
Treasury Operating Revenue ($383,628) ($383,628) ($1,782,310) 22.% Operating Expenses $136,406 $136,406 $830,731 16.% Treasury Total ($247,222) ($247,222) ($951,579) 26.%
Taxation Operating Revenue ($4,994,966) ($4,994,966) ($10,431,514) 48.% Operating Expenses $40,058 $40,058 $162,000 25.% Taxation Total ($4,954,908) ($4,954,908) ($10,269,514) 48.%
Treasury - KDSB Operating Expenses $234,711 $234,711 $938,884 25.% Treasury - KDSB Total $234,711 $234,711 $938,884 25.%
Treasury - Northwest Health Unit Operating Expenses $52,005 $52,005 $208,020 25.% Treasury - Northwest Health Unit $52,005 $52,005 $208,020 25.%
Treasury - Kenora Home for the Ages Operating Expenses $446,639 0.% Treasury - Kenora Home for the Ages Total $0 $0 $446,639 0.%
Treasury - Policing Operating Revenue Operating Expenses $147,287 $147,287 $1,609,508 9.% Treasury - Policing Total $147,287 $147,287 $1,609,508 9.%
Treasury - School Board Transfers Operating Revenue ($362,015) ($362,015) ($1,447,150) 25.%
Page 15 of 16 Page 30 of 86 Page 5 of 6 THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT 1st Quarter Report March 31, 2017
2017 - Q1 YTD 2017 BUDGET Variance Operating Expenses $363,066 $363,066 $1,447,150 25.% Treasury - School Board Transfers Total $1,051 $1,051 $0 0.%
Treasury - Library Operating Expenses $165,000 $165,000 $330,000 50.% Treasury - Library Total $165,000 $165,000 $330,000 50.%
Grand Total ($3,565,684) ($3,565,684) $0 0.%
Page 16 of 16 Page 31 of 86 Page 6 of 6 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Council FROM: Jody Brinkman, Chief Building Official/ Development Services Manager DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-057 - Policy No. 2-9 Promote Use of Municipal Water
TITLE: Policy No. 2-9 Promote Use of Municipal Water
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorizes the passing of By-Law No. 40-17. Being a By-Law that adopts Policy No. 2-9 – Promote Use of Municipal Water.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to pass a By-Law to adopt the amended version of Policy No. 2-9 – Promote Use of Municipal Water.
BACKGROUND: At the May 21, 2008 Council Meeting, the Environment Committee brought forward a report and recommendation to Council to adopt a policy to promote the use of Municipal drinking water at public functions and within Municipal facilities instead of bottled water. As a result, Council passed resolution No. CL-146-08, thereby directing the creation of Policy No. 2-9 – Promote Use of Municipal Water.
In the spring of 2012, the Environment Committee reviewed the original policy adopted by Council in 2008. Following this review, the Committee recognized that there were ambiguities in the existing Policy, and brought forward recommendations to Council in June 2012 to clarify the Policy and to expand the Policy by permitting the general public to refill their water bottles at Municipal Facilities at no charge.
Page 1 of 7 Page 32 of 86 Council reviewed the Committee`s recommendations at their regular June Council Meeting and determined that the spirit and intent of the Policy, namely to promote the use of local tap water and to permit residents to refill their water bottles (up to 1 Litre) at Municipal Facilities, could be upheld as an organizational practice and no longer required a specific Policy. Staff was directed to bring forward a report recommending that Policy No. 2-9 be rescinded.
This report was brought to the September 19, 2012 regular meeting of Council with the recommendation that Council rescind Policy No. 2-9 – Promote Use of Municipal Water, and further that the promotion of Municipal tap water be adopted as an organizational practice and further that residents and visitors be permitted to refill personal water bottles (up to 1 Litre) at Municipal Facilities.
At the request of the Environment Committee Policy No. 2-9 was brought back to Council on October 19, 2016. In general Council supported reinstating the policy however had some concerns regarding the wording of the policy. Council’s concern was with potential difficulties involved in providing Municipal water at events outside of Municipal Facilities, the wording of the policy has been changed to reflect this.
DISCUSSION: Policy No. 2-9 is an initiative of the Environment Committee and is a Policy that they feel strongly about. The intent of the Policy is essentially to promote the use of Municipal drinking water within Municipal Facilities. While staff can`t restrict general public from bringing bottled water to Municipal Facilities we can do our part by only providing tap water to public and staff. Being that using tap water is an organizational practice, essentially a suggested course of action, the Municipality isn`t necessarily following through with this practice, having an actual Policy will provide the ability to enforce this practice within the Municipal organization.
Purchasing bottled water is expensive, it has potential long term health hazards due to chemicals in the plastic bottles leaching into the water inside the bottle. Bottled water is shipped long distances which contribute to Climate Change, for the most part the bottles are recyclable however some end up in the landfill and littered throughout the Municipality.
The Municipality is large organization which host multiple public events a year, utilizing only tap water in Municipal Facilities will show that the Municipality is doing their part to be a more environmentally friendly organization. In doing so promote the use of tap water throughout the Municipality.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Pillar 1 – Community Development
Strategic Pillar 2 – Community Engagement
Page 2 of 7 Page 33 of 86
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Outside of staff time to prepare the report and update the Policy the costs will be minimal. In fact savings could be realized if tap water is used at our facilities.
ATTACHMENTS: Policy No. 2-9 - Amended Version Policy No. 2-9 - Original By-law No. 40-17
SIGNATURES:
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Jody Brinkman Manager of Development Services
Page 3 of 7 Page 34 of 86 MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT
Policy Manual
SECTION NAME SECTION NO. POLICY NO.
General Administration 2 2-9
POLICY REVIEW DATE NO. OF PAGES
Promote Use of Municipal Water May 21 , 2011 2 Pages
EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS
May 21, 2008- Res. No. CL 146-08 June 20, 2012- Res. No. CL-XXX-12
IMPLEMENTATION ADMINISTERED BY
May 21 , 2008 Deputy Clerk
PREAMBLE
Purchasing bottled water is very expensive. Bottle water can cost in excess of twice the per litre cost of gasoline. It has potential health hazards due to chemicals in the plastic bottles leeching into the water inside the bottle. The water in bottles is not as regulated as our Municipal water. Bottled water is shipped long distances. The Sioux Lookout Environment Committee recommends that the Municipality eliminate the use of bottled water and promote the use of Municipal water.
POLICY WHEREAS bottled water is costly, and in fact costs several hundred times more per litre than Municipal tap water; and
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout is committed to providing safe and affordable services for residents and is committed to fiscal responsibility; and
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout has spent millions of dollars on the construction of water and wastewater treatment facilities to provide potable water for the community; and
WHEREAS the Municipality adheres to strict Provincial Regulations for continuous monitoring and testing to ensure the ongoing safety of locally sourced drinking water; and
Page 4 of 7 Page 35 of 86 MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT
Policy Manual
SECTION NAME SECTION NO. POLICY NO.
General Administration 2 2-9
POLICY REVIEW DATE NO. OF PAGES
Promote Use of Municipal Water May 21, 2011 2 Pages
EFFECTIVE DATE REVISIONS
May 21, 2008 – Res. No. CL146-08 May 17, 2017 – Res. No. CL-XXX-17
IMPLEMENTATION ADMINISTERED BY
May 21, 2008 Deputy Clerk
PREAMBLE
Purchasing bottled water is very expensive. Bottle water can cost in excess of twice the per litre cost of gasoline. It has potential health hazards due to chemicals in the plastic bottles leeching into the water inside the bottle. The water in bottles is not as regulated as our Municipal water. Bottled water is shipped long distances. The Sioux Lookout Environment Committee recommends that the Municipality eliminate the use of bottled water and promote the use of Municipal water.
POLICY
WHEREAS bottled water is costly and does not always meet the same quality standards; and
WHEREAS the Municipality is facing increased costs in many areas and always strives to reduce costs to municipal taxpayers; and
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout has spent millions of dollars on building water treatment plants to provide potable water for the community residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS the Municipality spends significant dollars each year to staff and operate the water treatment plants; and
WHEREAS the Municipality follows strict Provincial Regulations for monitoring and testing the safety of the water source; and
Page 5 of 7 Page 36 of 86 WHEREAS empty bottles can end up in the landfill rather than the recycling bin; and
WHEREAS bottled water is usually transported by truck to Sioux Lookout and unnecessarily contributes to pollution and the production of greenhouse gases;
NOW THEREFORE IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE MUNICIPALITY THAT the Municipality will only supply locally sourced tap water at all municipal functions within Municipal facilities; and further
THAT only locally sourced tap water be provided by the Municipality free of charge to staff and visitors at all Municipal facilities; and further
THAT the following list of Municipal Facilities, where the budget allows, accommodate fully accessible cold water refilling stations and that such stations be available to the general public use, free of charge, for refilling personal water vessels up to 1 litre capacity:
- Centennial Centre - Heritage Railway Station - Municipal Office - Recreation Centre - Sioux Lookout Public Library - Municipal Airport
POLICY REVIEW This policy will be reviewed as required but, in any case, no later than three years following the date of the last review.
The Deputy Clerk be responsible for initiating the review of this policy.
Page 6 of 7 Page 37 of 86 THE CORPORTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT
BY-LAW NO. 40-17
BEING A BY-LAW TO ADOPT POLICY 2-9 – PROMOTE USE OF MUNICIPAL WATER ______
WHEREAS Council deems it advisable and expedient that By-law No. 40-17 be adopted;
NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT Policy 2-9, attached hereto, is adopted as the Promote Use of Municipal Water Policy
2. THAT this By-law shall come into force on the date of its final passing and take effect upon installation of the required signage.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MAY 2017.
______Doug Lawrance, Mayor
______Brian P. MacKinnon, Clerk
Page 7 of 7 Page 38 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Council FROM: Jody Brinkman, Chief Building Official/ Development Services Manager DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-056 - Road Allowance Closure and Sale - Carter
TITLE: Road Allowance Closure and Sale - Carter
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorizes the passing of By-Law No. 38-17 to Permanently Close, Declare Surplus and Authorize the Sale of a Highway of the Municipality.
PURPOSE: To authorize the passing of By-Law No. 38-17.
BACKGROUND: An offer to purchase the unopened road allowance was received from Richard and Phil Carter in the fall of 2016. It is their intention to use the additional land to expand their existing property and for future building opportunities. The property overhead is shown as the attached map.
DISCUSSION: The application was reviewed and approved at the September 28th, 2016 Public Meeting and subsequent Council Meeting. Since that time Mr. Carter has completed the required survey and is ready to purchase the abutting road allowance.
Page 1 of 4 Page 39 of 86 RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Not Applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff time to prepare this report, as well as the $1000 purchase price received for this section of unopened road allowance.
SIGNATURES:
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Jody Brinkman Manager of Development Services
Page 2 of 4 Page 40 of 86
Page 3 of 4 Page 41 of 86 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT
BY-LAW NO. 38-17
BEING A BY-LAW TO PERMANENTLY CLOSE, DECLARE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF A HIGHWAY OF THE MUNICIPALITY
WHEREAS it is desirable to close the highway hereinafter referred to “the Highway”; to declare it surplus to the requirements of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout (“the Corporation”) and to authorize its sale;
AND WHEREAS notice to the public of the intention of the Council to pass this By-law has been given as required by the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Corporation’s By-laws;
AND WHEREAS the Council has heard all persons wishing to make submissions with respect to the proposed closing, surplus declaration and sale of the Highway;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Highway, more particularly described as follows, namely:
PART 1, 23R14525; PART OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN RANGE 3 AND 4, IN THE RESERVE, IN THE TOWNSHIP OF DRAYTON; MUNICIPALITY OF SIOUX LOOKOUT; DISTRICT OF KENORA
BEING ALL OF THE PIN 42042-1113
IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED as a highway of the Corporation.
2. Upon registration of this By-law:
a. the Highway is declared to be surplus to the requirements of the Corporation; and
b. the closed Highway may be sold by direct sale to the abutting owner for nominal consideration plus costs associated with the transaction as determined by the clerk.
3. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to take such action and execute such documents, under the Corporate Seal of the Corporation where required, as may be necessary and expedient to give effect to this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into force and take effect upon the final passing hereof, subject to compliance with Subsection 34(1) the Municipal Act, 2001 as to the coming into effect of the highway closure by registration in the appropriate Land Registry Office.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MAY 2017.
______Doug Lawrance, Mayor
______Brian P. MacKinnon, Municipal Clerk
Page 4 of 4 Page 42 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Council FROM: Jody Brinkman, Chief Building Official/ Development Services Manager DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-061 - Informational Report - Road Allowance Closure and Sale
TITLE: Informational Report - Road Allowance Closure and Sale
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council directs staff to move forward with the closing and sale to any interested abutting property owners of an unopened road allowance, a lane located between Front Street and King Street at the west end of urban Sioux Lookout.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction for the closing and sale of a section of unopened road allowance.
BACKGROUND: This came forward when a partially built addition was discovered at 134 Front Street by Municipal staff and after further investigation it was determined that the addition was being constructed without the issuance of a Building Permit and encroached into the abutting unopened road allowance. Work has stopped on the addition pending the outcome of closing the road allowance and the approval of a minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback. The unopened lane is located from 130 Front Street/129 King Street to 144 Front Street/143 King Street. See Attachment 1 - Affected Lane: The topography of the area would make it very difficult to convert the unopened road allowance into a suitable lane. The picture below shows the change in elevations throughout the area in question. See Attachment 2- Change in elevations:
Page 1 of 5 Page 43 of 86 DISCUSSION: After discussing with our planning consultant it was decided that we attempt to “legalize” the addition prior to moving forward with legal action, in part since the property owner had removed an addition previously constructed which encroached into the road allowance and was under the impression that this was part of his property. The former addition was not known to the Municipality. In order to begin the process the unopened road allowance must be sold to the affected property owner, in doing so we felt we should open up this opportunity to all property owners in the area. Bell, Sioux Hydro and the Public Work Manager have been contacted regarding this, there comments are as follows:
Bell – Requires an easement for access to Bell overhead lines, I am awaiting a response regarding the addition and how it will affect the easement and access. Sioux Hydro – Has no concerns with the proposed closure Public Works Manager – 134 Front Street and 138 Front Street are serviced from King Street through 135 King Street. These private services pass through the unopened road north to King Street, depending on which sections of the road allowance are sold an easement may be required for access to these services for maintenance purposes. Outside of that the Public Works Manager has no concerns.
We have been working with our legal representation to ensure if the road allowance closure and sale or the minor variance isn’t approved that we are in a position to move forward with legal action and the removal of the addition.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Pillar 1 – Community Development Strategic Pillar 2 – Community Engagement
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If the entire section of unopened road allowance is sold the Municipality will see a small profit over and above staff time associated with the applications and sales.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1- Affected Lane Attachment 2- Change in elevations
SIGNATURES:
Page 2 of 5 Page 44 of 86
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Jody Brinkman Manager of Development Services
Page 3 of 5 Page 45 of 86
Attachment 1 - Affected Lane
Page 4 of 5 Page 46 of 86
Attachment 2 – Change in elevations
Page 5 of 5 Page 47 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Brian MacKinnon, Manager of Corporate Services/ Municipal Clerk DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-064 - The Keeping of Chickens: Results of Public Consultation Survey and Determination of Next Steps
TITLE: The Keeping of Chickens: Results of Public Consultation Survey and Determination of Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receives the Manager of Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk’s Report, dated May 17, 2017, summarizing the findings of “The Keeping of Chickens – Public Consultation Survey”; and further
THAT Council directs staff to (please select preferred option(s)): Option 1: • take no further action on this matter, other than reinforcing the “status quo” to the public, namely, that keeping chickens in the Municipality is prohibited, except as provided for in the Zoning By-law. Advise the public that any individuals currently keeping chickens (other than on farms or in other permitted zones) will need to cease this practice through attrition (i.e., as chickens die or are killed, they are not to be replaced);
Option 2: • amend Zoning and Animal Control By-laws to permit chickens within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout, without any regulation, enforcement or complaint mechanisms;
Page 1 of 34 Page 48 of 86 Option 3: • develop a licensing/regulation/enforcement regime, based on best practices used in other municipalities, and considering such things as setbacks, standards of care and related matters, and bring to Council for review and approval.
PURPOSE: To provide Council with a summary of “The Keeping of Chickens Public Consultation Survey” and to determine how Council wishes to address this matter, in response to Councillor Timpson’s Notice of Motion, filed at the June 15, 2016 Regular Council Meeting.
BACKGROUND: Councillor Timpson filed a Notice of Motion at the June 15, 2016 Regular Council Meeting, which stated: Given the increasing interest in hobby farms, and in particular, those that raise chickens; and
Given that Council has passed Resolution No. CL053-15, calling on the Government of Ontario to increase the “Chicken Farmers of Ontario Exempt Flock Limit” from 300 to 4,000 broiler birds; and
Given that the Municipality’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Animal Control By-law currently lack adequate provisions to permit the keeping of chickens within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout;
I am requesting that staff investigate and make recommendations on the public policy implications associated with the keeping of chickens within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout.
Given other priorities, this matter received initial research, and the CAO issued a “Q&A with the CAO” public information bulletin on June 21, 2016, to advise the public why the matter was being discussed and what the public could expect in terms of next steps. The matter was then put on-hold until March 2017 due to other Council priorities.
Staff sought public input as a first step in determining the level of interest in and public expectations with respect to the keeping of chickens. A survey was launched on April 3, 2017 (and closed on April 21, 2017) and yielded 217 responses. The survey was available online and via hard copies. It was advertised in the local newspaper, on the Municipal website and via the Municipality’s social media feeds (Facebook and Twitter).
The survey responses demonstrate that there are a wide variety of feelings on the subject of keeping chickens. All responses (in aggregate form) are attached to this Report.
Page 2 of 34 Page 49 of 86
The following represents some of the feedback received:
•Keeping/Wanting to Keep Chickens o38% of respondents (84 individuals, or 2% of eligible electors) stated that they have an interest in keeping chickens in their yard; that number increases to 76.5% of respondents (166 individuals, or 5% of eligible electors) advised that they support residents being permitted to keep chickens on their property; conversely, 89% of respondents (193 individuals or 6% of eligible electors) presently do not keep chickens on their properties.
• Reasons for keeping/wanting to keep chickens: o Note, the internal logic on the electronic version of the survey prevented respondents from selecting more than one response; most people said (in the comments) that they keep/would want to keep chickens for most of the reasons listed, including: Fresh eggs for food (for family use) Fresh eggs to sell Meat Pets Family activity/educational Closer connection to local food Not applicable (do not have chickens; do not have an interest in having chickens) Other
•Current numbers: o86% of respondents (184 respondents, or 6% of eligible electors) do not presently keep chickens o9% of respondents (20 respondents, or 0.6% of eligible electors) keep more than six chickens
•If permitted, the most favoured restrictions included: o 66% (132 respondents, or 4% of eligible electors) – no roosters allowed o 65% (130 respondents, or 4% of eligible electors) – require standards of care regarding coop construction and manure handling o 44% (89 respondents, or 3% of eligible electors) – implement rules regarding distance from property lines o 44% (87 respondents, or 3% of eligible electors) – implement rules regarding distance from neighbouring building
•Should the Municipality develop a “Chicken By-law”? o32% (69 respondents, or 2% of eligible electors) – YES
Page 3 of 34 Page 50 of 86 o53% (113 respondents, or 4% of eligible electors) – NO o15% (33 respondents, or 1% of eligible electors) – UNDECIDED
•Should the Municipality investigate this matter further? o25% (54 respondents, or 2% of eligible electors) – YES o59% (126 respondents, or 4% of eligible electors) – NO o16% (34 respondents, or 1% of eligible electors) – UNDECIDED
•If keeping of chickens is regulated, how should the Municipality pay for this service? o17% (30 respondents, or less than 1% of eligible electors) – tax base o83% (143 respondents, or 4.5% of eligible electors) – user fees o Note: in addition to these responses, many respondents commented that they felt there should be no cost to anyone wishing to keep chickens.
DISCUSSION: Perhaps the most striking observation from an analysis of the survey responses is the low participation rate: less than 7% of eligible electors participated in this survey. This number could be even lower, factoring in the possibility that non-residents, or those under the age of 18 years, completed the survey.
Those who did complete the survey expressed a variety of views on the subject, including: • those who support homeowners’ keeping of chickens (“Let people do what they want for god sakes”); and • those who vehemently oppose homeowners’ keeping of chickens (“I would move. No way would I put up with that.”) • those who feel it is a “non-issue” that doesn’t require further involvement or investigation by the Municipality (“Leave it alone. There are better things to worry about with this town.”).
A significant number of respondents believe that the Municipality should not become involved in this matter, while simultaneously, a significant number of respondents also wouldn’t want to be bothered by noise or smell if their neighbour was to keep chickens (and would expect the Municipality to deal with any such complaints).
In terms of how other municipalities in the region are handling this matter, please note: • City of Dryden – does not permit the keeping of chickens (or other animals), unless certain provisions are met (set-backs, pens, etc.) (per Dryden Municipal Code) • City of Kenora – permits chickens in rural zone only (per Zoning By-law) • City of Thunder Bay – said “no” to chickens (spring 2016)
Page 4 of 34 Page 51 of 86 • Municipality of Red Lake – in 2015, removed “production of eggs” as only being solely permitted in an agricultural zone; however, was not added as a permitted use in other zones, so, technically, it is not permitted in residential zones. • Town of Fort Frances – said “yes” to chickens (fall 2016, by by-law), with the following restrictions: o No roosters o Regulations respecting coop size and location o Regulations respecting food and manure storage/disposal o Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited o Sale of eggs is prohibited (only for personal/family use)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: The issue of the keeping of chickens was not, specifically, contemplated during Council’s strategic planning process, and does not directly relate to any of Council’s strategic pillars.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: To date, the only cost associated with this topic has been advertisements in the local newspaper (advising/inviting people to complete The Keeping of Chickens Survey and advising/inviting people to attend this evening’s meeting to witness Council’s deliberations on this matter), and staff time to undertake research, develop and administer the survey and complete this Report.
Should Council wish to investigate this matter further, and/or should Council choose to regulate the keeping of chickens in the Municipality of Sioux Lookout, there would be additional costs, which would be estimated, based on the degree to which Council directs additional work on this file.
SIGNATURES:
Brian P. MacKinnon Manager of Corporate Services and Municipal Clerk
Page 5 of 34 Page 52 of 86
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Page 6 of 34 Page 53 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q1 Do you have an interest in keeping chickens in your yard?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 38.71% 84
No 43.32% 94
Undecided 17.97% 39
Total 217
Page1 /7 35 of 34 Page 54 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q2 Do you support residents being allowed to have chickens on their property within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 76.50% 166
No 17.97% 39
Undecided 5.53% 12
Total 217
Page2 /8 35 of 34 Page 55 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q3 Do you presently keep chickens in your yard?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 11.06% 24
No 88.94% 193
Total 217
Page3 /9 35 of 34 Page 56 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q4 Which of the following describes your situation?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
I keep chickens at ...
I keep chickens at ...
I keep chickens. I ...
I do not presently ha...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
I keep chickens at my home in the Municipality of Sioux Lookout. My property is zoned “Natural Resource” OR “Rural” 6.91% 15
I keep chickens at my home in the Municipality of Sioux Lookout. My property is not in a rural zone. 3.23% 7
I keep chickens. I do not live in the Municipality of Sioux Lookout. 1.84% 4
I do not presently have chickens. 88.02% 191
Total 217
Page4 10/ 35 of 34 Page 57 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q5 If you have, or would like to have chickens, what are your primary reasons? Check all that apply:
Answered: 207 Skipped: 10
fresh eggs for food (family...
fresh eggs to sell
meat
pets
family activity/edu...
closer connection t...
not applicable (do not have...
Other Reasons (please...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
fresh eggs for food (family use) 37.68% 78
fresh eggs to sell 0.97% 2
meat 2.42% 5
pets 0.97% 2
family activity/educational 0.48% 1
closer connection to local food 6.28% 13
not applicable (do not have chickens, do not have an interest in having chickens) 32.37% 67
Other Reasons (please specify) 18.84% 39
Total 207
# Other Reasons (please specify) Date
1 I would like others to keep chickens for all the above reasons. I'm 4/21/2017 4:34 AM
2 financial - put food on the table esp. if I dont have a lot of money 4/20/2017 11:08 AM
3 All of the above 4/20/2017 12:51 AM
Page5 11/ 35 of 34 Page 58 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
4 fresh eggs, meat, educational family activity, local food - could not check all that apply 4/17/2017 1:33 AM
5 n/a 4/11/2017 8:28 AM
6 Would consider having chickens as a source of meat and eggs and to teach our children where our food comes from. It 4/10/2017 4:05 AM would also be a way to help teach children that they do not need to depend on public infrastructure for survival.
7 fresh eggs for food, educational, closer connection to local food 4/7/2017 1:14 AM
8 They are great at creating amazing soil for our garden 4/6/2017 3:35 AM
9 Could not check mult options; fresh eggs for family use, meat, educational, connc to local food 4/5/2017 6:16 AM
10 All of the above (Can't check more than one) 4/4/2017 2:05 PM
11 All of the above are reasonable reasons. You can't click on more than one. 4/4/2017 2:01 PM
12 #5 does not allow you to choose more than one option. As a result I'm typing my information. My primary reason for 4/4/2017 12:50 PM wanting chickens is for fresh eggs, meat, and being able to eat organic, which is very important to my family.
13 fresh eggs, meat, pets, family education, local food 4/4/2017 7:46 AM
14 I could not check more than one, we raise for our own eggs, meat and consider them pets 4/4/2017 3:53 AM
15 Check all that apply does not work. Food and education 4/4/2017 12:40 AM
16 Fresh eggs and meat from a local source 4/3/2017 11:44 PM
17 All of the above 4/3/2017 3:04 PM
18 Survey says check all that apply and I can only choose one! Fresh eggs for family, closer connection to local food, 4/3/2017 12:13 PM family or educational activity
19 All but pets. Survey won't let me select more than 1 4/3/2017 12:03 PM
20 survey will only let you check 1 ...fresh eggs family use meat....family activity ,,,closer connection to food ... 4/3/2017 12:00 PM entertainment...
21 fresh eggs for food, closer connection to local food, family activity 4/3/2017 11:07 AM
22 all of the above enough fresh eggs for family and extebded family 4/3/2017 10:38 AM
23 it doesnt give you the option to check all that apply but i am all of the above except the "not applicable" 4/3/2017 10:30 AM
24 Check all apply does not work. For fresh eggs, family activity/educational and closer to local food 4/3/2017 10:08 AM
25 (Can only click one) fresh eggs, pets,educational,local food 4/3/2017 9:43 AM
26 It would only let me check one but also as a family activity and a closer connection to local food. 4/3/2017 7:05 AM
27 Would not let me check more than one. So 1, 3, 5, 6. 4/3/2017 5:31 AM
28 Simply because we live in a free country and we can, the government shouldn't have to know unless we plan on 4/3/2017 5:17 AM having a business
29 fresh eggs (thereby being pets), and some meat birds 4/3/2017 5:12 AM
30 N/a 4/3/2017 5:09 AM
31 pretty much all of the above 4/3/2017 4:58 AM
32 also pets/family educational/fresh eggs for family 4/3/2017 4:49 AM
33 Plus fresh eggs 4/3/2017 3:56 AM
34 Cannot click more than one on mobile. Eggs, meat, connection to local food and family activity 4/3/2017 3:27 AM
35 eggs to eat, eggs to sell, meat, educational experience 4/3/2017 3:15 AM
36 Multiple answers for above. Eggs for family, meat, educational, local food 4/3/2017 3:15 AM
37 Fresh local humanely raised eggs meat and as a family activity/ educational experience 4/3/2017 3:09 AM
38 Question will only allow me to select one item...I would select: Fresh eggs for family use and family activity and closer 4/3/2017 3:08 AM connection to local food.
39 It would not let me check all: eggs, meat, family activity/ educational, local food, knowledge of what my food is eating 4/3/2017 2:26 AM
Page6 12/ 35 of 34 Page 59 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q6 How many chickens do you keep?
Answered: 215 Skipped: 2
None
1
2
3
4
5
6
More than 6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
None 85.58% 184
1 0.00% 0
2 0.47% 1
3 0.47% 1
4 0.00% 0
5 0.93% 2
6 3.26% 7
More than 6 9.30% 20
Total 215
Page7 13/ 35 of 34 Page 60 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q7 How many chickens would you wish to keep?
Answered: 212 Skipped: 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
More than 6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
0 40.57% 86
1 0.00% 0
2 4.25% 9
3 6.13% 13
4 10.85% 23
5 2.83% 6
6 12.26% 26
More than 6 23.11% 49
Total 212
Page8 14/ 35 of 34 Page 61 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q8 Are you in favour of a change to the Zoning By-Law that would permit chickens to be kept in the urban (built-up) areas of Sioux Lookout?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 67.28% 146
No 26.73% 58
Undecided 5.99% 13
Total 217
Page9 15/ 35 of 34 Page 62 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q9 If chickens were to be allowed in urban (built-up) areas, which of the following restrictions should apply? Check all that you feel are important:
Answered: 201 Skipped: 16
no roosters allowed
limit of 6 hens or less
limit of 10 hens or less
Limit of animals per...
Limit of number per...
rules regarding...
rules regarding...
license/registr ation for th...
home butchering o...
home butchering o...
minimum lot size for...
Standards of care regardi...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
no roosters allowed 65.67% 132
limit of 6 hens or less 33.33% 67
limit of 10 hens or less 17.91% 36
Limit of animals per household under the Animal control By-Law 24.38% 49
Limit of number per family household egg supply - must identify reasons for hen as food & pay permit 11.44% 23
Page10 16 / 35 of 34 Page 63 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
rules regarding distance from neighbouring buildings 43.28% 87
rules regarding distance from property lines 44.28% 89
license/registration for the keeping of chickens (similar to dog tags, etc.) 25.37% 51
home butchering of birds allowed 37.31% 75
home butchering of birds not allowed 15.42% 31
minimum lot size for keeping chickens 30.85% 62
Standards of care regarding coop construction and manure handling 64.68% 130
Total Respondents: 201
# Other - please provide comment Date
1 within the urban center one must really limit the number of chickens one can possess. Less is better than more. if one 4/20/2017 11:08 AM wants a lot of chickens then move to a rural setting. I don't see a problem of someone having chickens but in doing so one should not negatively impact their neighbor with noise, smell or ???
2 I think individuals should be allowed have chickens. As we slowly peel away ability to be self sufficient we slowly take 4/17/2017 3:26 PM away a human right.
3 -no roosters should be allowed in town proper, however they should be allowed in the rural areas. -there should not 4/17/2017 1:33 AM be rules restricting butchering - people are allowed to butcher moose, deer, bear, ducks, geese, ruffled grouse, and fish in their yards - why not chickens? -if there are issues around standards of care - shouldn't that be an animal welfare (OSPCS) concern as opposed to bylaw?
4 I live near a chicken coop now and it is not pleasant. There is an almost constant smell of chicken feces and the flies 4/11/2017 8:45 AM were unreal this summer. It made it unpleasant to enjoy being outside.
5 Urban chicken permits and coop inspection certificates or identification numbers should be displayed on the outside of 4/10/2017 4:05 AM any coop. Coop inspectors or By-Law enforcement officials must be granted permission to access the property in order to follow up complaints of abuse. Chickens must be adequately sheltered and fed. Animal cruelty should not be tolerated. Chicken licenses should be based on the size and quality of the coop. Chicken licenses should not by like licensing cats and dogs but rather like hunting and fishing licenses with limits. Eg. 2017 Laying Hen License 6 Hen limit combined with a 2017 Meat Hen License 6 Hen limit for a total of 12 hens at any given time.
6 Concerns around attracting predators 4/7/2017 2:04 PM
7 The chicken coop have to be keep clean to reduce the smell. If the neighbors are fine with having Chickens next to 4/7/2017 7:09 AM them, then there is no issue
8 I feel it is important to let people that want to have chickens "have chickens".As far as laws and controls go Canada 4/7/2017 2:05 AM has and supports a govt.agency related to all aspects of animal care.
9 In built up urban areas, I think it is reasonable to allow some laying hens. One per family member??Max as suggested 4/6/2017 9:59 AM above 6 or less. I'm not sure on the number. Make people get permits to have laying birds. Regulate it.
10 The standard should be the hygiene level of the flock, not the number of birds. For example, we keep 30 meat hens 4/6/2017 3:35 AM each year and cover our chicken run (which is approximately 30'x20') with wood chips and other organic material. I take 10 minutes every few days and rake the manure to mix with the organic material. This all results in a extremely lower level of odour, there is still some. Our neighbour keeps 4 egg laying hens. She does not practice the same methods for her run (approximately 10'x8') that we do and it stinks like chicken poop. A neighbour should not have to put up with a smelly coop. If a person has a large flock and it does not stink or have any hygiene issues for the birds they should be able to keep as many birds as they wish.
11 - restrictions on home butchering - not simply allowed or not but allowed with restrictions i.e. where butchering can 4/5/2017 3:32 PM happen - have the chicken coup built to proper standards i.e. adequate room for the chickens; proper airflow etc
12 I believe the maximum number of animals allowed under the Animal Control By-law is four. That would be the max 4/4/2017 1:33 PM that should be allowed. I'm not sure I understand the fifth choice. You probably couldn't "license" each chicken; however, I think a license should be required to have chickens.
13 Applying any type of tax for those who choose to raise chickens for food such as meat or eggs should not apply. 4/4/2017 12:50 PM People should be encouraged to grow/ raise their own food, not be discouraged. People are taxed enough as it is, and finding locally grown, organic food should be encouraged , not discouraged through taxes.
Page11 17/ 35 of 34 Page 64 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
14 Should be in rear of property 4/4/2017 9:48 AM
15 standards of care would apply only with regard to the welfare of the chickens... not what the neighbour thinks. 4/4/2017 7:46 AM Roosters allowed in the rural only. Home butchering with reason..... under ten chickens - or if your laying hen dies.
16 A family of 4 needs a minimum of 12 hens to meet daily and baking needs, we do not need any special bylaws for 4/4/2017 5:10 AM chickens.
17 I think people with a certain acreage should be allowed roosters. 4/4/2017 3:53 AM
18 I do not think that chickens should in in the urban area. 4/4/2017 3:44 AM
19 Since hens do not lay every day the average family of 4 will need 12 hens of varying ages to ensure they have enough 4/4/2017 2:29 AM eggs for daily use and baking. Hens do not start to lay until they are 5 months of age and are done their useful life by 3 years of age.
20 Make sure people realize that after 3-4 years a hens egg production drops off. Often city people see them as pets by 4/3/2017 11:17 PM then and don't want to kill them so they surrender them to shelters (stupid). Maybe offer a slaughter for meat service?
21 just let people have chickens, why does the town need to govern this? 4/3/2017 2:08 PM
22 none 4/3/2017 12:00 PM
23 some food birds are only kept for 2 months before slaughter. the ability to have chicken moving around property to 4/3/2017 10:38 AM keep manure down to move chickens to new food closed free range. The overlap of replacement of laying hens every two years So if you had 12 birds every second year you would have 24 birds in that overlap.
24 I am disgusted by the thought of chickens being raised by my neighbours. If people want to raise chickens, they 4/3/2017 10:34 AM should live on a farm. There should be NO chickens. The town doesn't need one more thing to fight with people about. We can't even control the cats!
25 In some areas yards are small and neighbourhoods are crowded. I don't think chickens should be allowed in those 4/3/2017 10:21 AM areas. There needs to be a minimum yard size, and restrictions on how close the chicken coop can be to property lines and neighboring yards.
26 It is easier to keep more chickens in a coop with heat lamp rather than have a few trying to survive the winter so a 4/3/2017 7:05 AM chicken limit could be difficult in our climate. Perhaps a limit of 20 would be fair, and sometimes you're young chicks are too young to lay eggs and you're older ones don't really lay anymore. Definitely no roosters! People really don't realize how loud they are and how early they get up…! I think it is great that the city is looking into this as people really need to get back to locally sourced food options. It would also be good if the city could inspect coops to make sure that the animals are being taken care of properly.
27 People should be free to own chickens and do what they want with them on their own property 4/3/2017 5:17 AM
28 I think roosters are important for some broods - my only issue would be noise complaints in close proximity 4/3/2017 5:12 AM neighborhoods. Roosters should be allowed, but penalized if noisy (much like noisy dogs should be)
29 home butchering must be allowed. there is no qualified abatoir within a reasonable distance. whether it is permitted or 4/3/2017 4:58 AM not, it is going to happen. deal with it smartly to begin with. bird limit numbers if ever required (i don't think they are required) should be based on lot size with an easy math number to figure it out. ie a lot size of 1/4a limit x birds. lot size of 1/2 should have 2x bird limit right?
30 Damn roosters crowing at 5:00 am for a whole summer was enough 4/3/2017 4:38 AM
31 If chickens and coops are kept clean, that should be all that matters. There are already noise restrictions in place, no 4/3/2017 3:27 AM need for more rules. Too much nannying going on already.
32 Roosters are a considering where neighbors would be impacted by the noise 4/3/2017 3:15 AM
33 containment to lot and protection from predators is enforced. Failure to do say after "X" warning will be the loss of 4/3/2017 3:10 AM privilege of having chickens on lot
34 There should be differentiation made between urban and rural properties in regard to keeping chickens. People who 4/3/2017 2:26 AM live on large rural lots should not be under same restrictions as people who live right in town.
35 Noise control - chickens cannot interfere with neighbours sleep or enjoyment of their properties 4/3/2017 1:06 AM
Page12 18 / 35 of 34 Page 65 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q10 Do you think that the Municipality should restrict the keeping of chickens? i.e. develop a “Chicken By-law?”
Answered: 215 Skipped: 2
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 32.09% 69
No 52.56% 113
Undecided 15.35% 33
Total 215
Page13 19 / 35 of 34 Page 66 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q11 Do you think the Municipality should look further into this matter, by spending time and resources on researching the keeping of chickens (e.g. host an Open House to provide an opportunity for public input; do further research; consult with other stakeholders; hire consultants; provide a further report to Council, drafting options / by-laws; etc.)?
Answered: 214 Skipped: 3
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes 25.23% 54
No 58.88% 126
Undecided 15.89% 34
Total 214
Page14 20 / 35 of 34 Page 67 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q12 How would you feel if your neighbour kept a chicken pen/coop in his/her back yard?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Indifferent
Happy
Unhappy
Depends on the number
Depends on (provide...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Indifferent 18.89% 41
Happy 29.03% 63
Unhappy 16.13% 35
Depends on the number 9.68% 21
Depends on (provide comments) 26.27% 57
Total 217
# Depends on (provide comments) Date
1 Cleanliness of coop 4/21/2017 2:43 AM
2 how it impacts me. there should be a minimal impact. 4/20/2017 11:08 AM
3 Density not in urban 4/18/2017 12:30 PM
4 Only if it interferes with peaceful enjoyment of my back yard, either by noise of smell. 4/18/2017 1:00 AM
5 No problem as long as chickens were taken care of properly 4/18/2017 12:18 AM
6 number and how well they maintain the coop and yard 4/17/2017 6:32 AM
7 would not appreciate it 4/11/2017 8:28 AM
8 Depends on smell, which probably corolates with number of chickens and disposal of chicken waste. 4/10/2017 9:50 AM
9 As long as the chickens were looked after and kept in a good coop. 4/10/2017 4:05 AM
10 Would be fine as long as it was hens only (roosters too noisy) 4/8/2017 10:14 AM
11 I am fine with the Chickens next to us, Dont even know they are there 4/7/2017 7:09 AM
Page15 21 / 35 of 34 Page 68 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
12 neighbour, proximity to residence and standards of care 4/7/2017 2:18 AM
13 No different than if my neighbour had any other pet or animal 4/7/2017 2:05 AM
14 Proper upkeep and noise 4/6/2017 4:15 PM
15 the nosie level and the smell. A small amount would not smell. A large amount would. 4/6/2017 9:59 AM
16 How many birds they have and how they are managing the flock. 4/6/2017 3:35 AM
17 distance from my house; cleanness of coup; noise and smell 4/5/2017 3:32 PM
18 The number and the care being provided 4/5/2017 2:26 PM
19 I 4/5/2017 1:03 PM
20 Smell /Noise factors 4/5/2017 6:16 AM
21 noise and smell 4/4/2017 7:07 PM
22 How loud they are. 4/4/2017 2:38 PM
23 Wouldn't want a rooster 4/4/2017 2:06 PM
24 if my neighbour shares eggs with me 4/4/2017 2:05 PM
25 if no noise or nuisance I would be happy 4/4/2017 10:51 AM
26 Neighbours had over 60 chickens last summer...worst summer ever. Rotten odour in warm weather, butchering took 4/4/2017 9:48 AM place in the front yard and guts and feathers were dumped in the bush, manure was also dumped in the bush.
27 The number of chickens, but also treatment of the animals/living conditions 4/4/2017 9:36 AM
28 happy but I am in rural...... no roosters in urban. 4/4/2017 7:46 AM
29 The general responsibility of the chicken-lord(?) and what other controls are in place to ensure said chickens aren't a 4/4/2017 7:27 AM nuisance, that they are humanely-kept, etc.
30 My neighbour does have chickens and we have NO issues! 4/4/2017 7:02 AM
31 how clean they kept it 4/4/2017 3:10 AM
32 if they are properly in coop, not loose in yard. 4/4/2017 1:55 AM
33 Depends not only on number, but how well the chickens will be cared for. If they are cared for well, i would be happy 4/3/2017 11:19 PM
34 Certainly happy! Just as long as the henhouse and run are large enough and the conditions are humane. Local food is 4/3/2017 11:17 PM SO important. Manure MUST be handled properly too!
35 If the owner cleans up after the chicken, also concerned about the smell of the chickens 4/3/2017 5:37 PM
36 The chickens are fine. The roosters however are NOT very nice to live next door to, especially when they start 4/3/2017 1:11 PM crowing at 3AM!
37 How noisy they are. 4/3/2017 11:22 AM
38 how loud they are, and what types of feed they provided, our last neighbour just through out lots of table scraps 4/3/2017 11:18 AM
39 no damn roosters... :-) 4/3/2017 11:07 AM
40 I would move. No way would I put up with that. 4/3/2017 10:34 AM
41 Don't really care 4/3/2017 10:08 AM
42 If there is a rooster and how many chickens (hobby not business) given the area they get ( no overcrowding) 4/3/2017 9:43 AM
43 Depends on the number, cleanliness, appropriate provision of humane care. 4/3/2017 9:32 AM
44 Noise, structure and location of coop, smell, security and distance from my property 4/3/2017 7:43 AM
45 As long as the animals were well cared for. There also has to be a place to remove chicken waste such as the straw 4/3/2017 7:05 AM and manure as piles in town would probably be unwelcome.
46 Chickens are properly confined, housed and cared for. 4/3/2017 5:26 AM
47 The Condition that the animals are kept 4/3/2017 5:11 AM
48 I would be excited and supportive. 4/3/2017 4:58 AM
Page16 22 / 35 of 34 Page 69 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
49 If the rules were being followed and respect and thought given to how owning chickens may affect neighbors. 4/3/2017 4:28 AM
50 Lots are too small in my neighbourhood. There would be no way to isolate the noise and odour from neighbours' 4/3/2017 4:21 AM yards. Don't want to smell chicken waste while relaxing on my deck.
51 If it is appropriate - an appropriate number of hens for usage, appropriate condition of yard, coop, and cleanliness. 4/3/2017 3:08 AM
52 only if they took care of them properly just as you would any pet. 4/3/2017 3:05 AM
53 Fine if managed responsibly 4/3/2017 2:56 AM
54 Tidiness, distance from my home, does having chickens increase the rodent population? 4/3/2017 2:52 AM
55 the numbers noise smell and location 4/3/2017 1:52 AM
56 Noise (times allowed out of coop, number of chickens,construction of building), ethical treatment(sufficient 4/3/2017 1:44 AM space/warmth/food/vet care/minimize suffering), and smell (storage/disposal of waste)
57 Size of their yard the number of chickens and there keeping if the chickens noise and smell 4/3/2017 1:18 AM
Page17 23 / 35 of 34 Page 70 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q13 What are the reasons you do not support residents being allowed to have chickens on their properties within the Municipality of Sioux Lookout? Please select all that apply
Answered: 210 Skipped: 7
Not applicable - I do suppo...
Noise
Odour
Unsanitary conditions
May attract wildlife and...
Roaming chickens
Other (please specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Not applicable - I do support residents being allowed to keep chickens 64.76% 136
Noise 28.57% 60
Odour 30.00% 63
Unsanitary conditions 25.71% 54
May attract wildlife and/or rodents 26.19% 55
Roaming chickens 15.71% 33
Other (please specify) 7.14% 15
Total Respondents: 210
# Other (please specify) Date
1 Additional cost to taxpayers, re town staff to administer. 4/18/2017 1:00 AM
2 We cant control our dog and cat population now! 4/10/2017 1:57 AM
3 If someone's chickens continually roam onto my property, they will end up roasting in my BBQ. 4/6/2017 3:59 PM
4 I'd sum it up to improperly managing a flock to the point that the animal suffers. 4/6/2017 3:35 AM
5 Mess and clutter 4/4/2017 10:20 PM
Page18 24 / 35 of 34 Page 71 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
6 Home butchering, manure and bedding being thrown in the bush on property 4/4/2017 9:48 AM
7 Having chickens is no less offensive than dog owners who do not pick up the dog waste - or urban dwellers burning 4/4/2017 7:46 AM their household garbage in the back yard every night in the summer - gross!!!! much more invasive to public space then chickens......
8 I am assuming that you mean urban Sioux Lookout 4/4/2017 3:44 AM
9 Noise of roosters not chickens. 4/3/2017 1:11 PM
10 We have enough problems. 4/3/2017 10:34 AM
11 I support it but only if properly regulated so the keeping of chickens doesn't infringe on neighbours' ability to enjoy their 4/3/2017 9:32 AM property
12 I DO support residents being allowed to keep chickens, but think there should be rules in place to prevent all of the 4/3/2017 7:43 AM above possible issues. It's a public health issue, as well as animal rights issue, so at the very least the NWHU should be involved.
13 the only reason to not have someone keeping chickens is that paticular person. if they can't handle the animals, and 4/3/2017 4:58 AM the responsibilities that come with it, then the animlas get removed. same as any other animal.
14 disposal of remains? 4/3/2017 4:57 AM
15 Should be for household use only - I would not want quasi commercial egg farms popping up within residential 4/3/2017 3:08 AM neighbourhoods.
Page19 25 / 35 of 34 Page 72 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q14 If the Municipality determines it should regulate the keeping of chickens, what types of matters do you think the Municipality should regulate? Please select all that apply:
Answered: 179 Skipped: 38
Number of Chickens Per...
Size of Yard required for...
Chicken licensing...
Enforcement of chicken...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Number of Chickens Per Household 71.51% 128
Size of Yard required for chickens 60.89% 109
Chicken licensing (similar to dog/cat “tags” – registration, annual fee, etc.) 32.96% 59
Enforcement of chicken regulations 57.54% 103
Total Respondents: 179
Page20 26 / 35 of 34 Page 73 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q15 If the Municipality was to allow residents to have chickens on their property, please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements:
Answered: 217 Skipped: 0
Backyard chickens sho...
Backyard chickens sho...
Backyard chickens sho...
Residents should have ...
The Municipality...
The Municipality...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Total Weighted Disagree / No Agree Average Opinion
Backyard chickens should only be permitted for single detached 15.81% 13.95% 16.28% 28.37% 25.58% homes 34 30 35 61 55 215 3.34
Backyard chickens should be permitted for semi-detached homes, 25.12% 21.40% 24.19% 21.86% 7.44% duplexes and townhouses. 54 46 52 47 16 215 2.65
Backyard chickens should be permitted for apartments. 49.07% 25.46% 15.74% 6.48% 3.24% 106 55 34 14 7 216 1.89
Residents should have to apply for a permit before raising backyard 32.09% 13.49% 11.63% 22.33% 20.47% chickens. 69 29 25 48 44 215 2.86
The Municipality should inspect all properties to ensure appropriate 31.34% 18.43% 9.68% 17.97% 22.58% setback and construction before permitting a backyard chicken coop. 68 40 21 39 49 217 2.82
The Municipality should charge a fee to conduct inspections before 41.67% 15.74% 10.65% 11.57% 20.37% issuing a permit for backyard chickens. 90 34 23 25 44 216 2.53
Page21 27 / 35 of 34 Page 74 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q16 Describe additional information you would require in order to make an informed decision. Please select all that apply:
Answered: 128 Skipped: 89
Environmental implications
Impacts to human health
Provincial and/or Feder...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Environmental implications 52.34% 67
Impacts to human health 57.81% 74
Provincial and/or Federal regulations regarding the keeping of poultry 71.88% 92
Total Respondents: 128
Page22 28 / 35 of 34 Page 75 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q17 If the Municipality elects to regulate the keeping of chickens, it will result in new costs for the Municipality (potentially licensing, enforcement, etc.). How would you like to see this initiative funded:
Answered: 173 Skipped: 44
From the tax base (every...
Through User-Fees...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
17.34% From the tax base (every taxpayer contributes to the cost of providing the service/regulating the keeping of chickens) 30
82.66% Through User-Fees (require people to obtain a license to keep chickens, and charge for such a license – the license fee would be determined by the 143 cost of regulating/enforcing the program)
Total 173
Page23 29 / 35 of 34 Page 76 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
Q18 Do you have any suggestions on alternative approaches to address this issue?
Answered: 85 Skipped: 132
# Responses Date
1 Let people do what they want for god sakes 4/21/2017 5:22 AM
2 Rural zones should not be lumped in with rural residential (drayton) or urban zones 4/21/2017 2:49 AM
3 By-Law Officer should be able to Handle Enforcement issues without any addition expense to tax payers 4/21/2017 2:43 AM
4 don't make it another cat by-law in the same manner as council did previously; made themselves look foolish. make a 4/20/2017 11:08 AM decision and keep to it. move on to more pertinent issues and allot council/municipal time based on its value. don't spend hours on the chicken issue while spending minutes on important issues that affect many.
5 Set a maximum number of chickens (no roosters) in town and base the enforcement on complaints only. Charge a 4/18/2017 10:35 AM nominal fee similar to burn permits $5 (it has to be cheap otherwise keeping chickens isn't worth it).
6 I do not agree with either of above, but I dont know what other approach should be used; except leave Town out of it. 4/18/2017 1:00 AM
7 I don't think that this is an issue that the town should be involved in! 4/17/2017 3:26 PM
8 If someone's got ten chickens, it really isn't that loud. Most people who have chickens in town do a decent job of 4/17/2017 6:32 AM keeping the animals healthy and their housing clean. What are the current laws on keeping chickens and other animals on your property? Why can't the same standards of keeping pets healthy and from becoming a nuisance to your neighbors apply to chickens as well? How can the residents of Sioux Lookout be sure that any fees and money or tax payer money being collected by the town is actually being spent on bylaw enforcement and keeping our town healthy?
9 I don't agree with keeping chickens in neighbourhoods with small yards and close neighbours. Yard size / distance 4/17/2017 5:32 AM from property lines are the most important issues to me.
10 - Why would bylaw inspect for setbacks and appropriate coop construction when they do not do this for dog houses or 4/17/2017 1:33 AM kennels? There is no such bylaw for the keeping of any other animals in one's yard such as dogs or rabbits. -This survey is very much skewed to gather data to support a chicken bylaw and to restrict chicken keeping. -Bylaw cannot enforce the current bylaws regarding animals at large, noise, and pet waste - how are they going to enforce a chicken bylaw? -Has the economic potential to the community been considered at all? Or the current focus on local food / food security?
11 The town should also look into other towns regulations and see how they do it. Compare and make regulations 4/17/2017 12:46 AM accordingly.
12 Our taxes are high enough in most areas.. charging more red to keep chickens would be fair.. you should check on 4/17/2017 12:07 AM the chickens to make sure their up keeping is good.. but not at a cost
13 research experiences in other Municipalities 4/13/2017 8:17 AM
14 I think there has to be strict guidelines if chickens are allowed in the town of Sioux Lookout. There should be a limit on 4/11/2017 8:45 AM the number, to keep the noise and smell down. I think there should also be guidelines for the safe butchering and then disposal of not only guts but also feces.
15 I don't really see an issue with keeping chickens for eggs. 4/10/2017 9:50 AM
16 Coop inspections and registration should only have to be done once every 5 years unless the coop is moved, 4/10/2017 4:05 AM significantly modified or the property is sold. There should be a reasonable fee charged for the inspections and registration. Chicken licenses should be annual with the option to purchase multiple years up front. Property owners have to authorize chickens on rental property. Money from fines for chicken by-law infractions should fund any related cleanup efforts by either municipal staff or third party contractors. People who violate chicken by-laws should have to pay higher licensing fees for the next year in addition to fines. This would be to deter people that do not abide by the regulations from having chickens.
17 urban & rural areas should have similar but different regulations due to distance from town and proximity to neighbors. 4/10/2017 1:41 AM
Page24 30 / 35 of 34 Page 77 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
18 I would avoid regulation on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. We have kept several chickens for four years, and 4/8/2017 10:14 AM we do not know of any complaints made by our neighbours, though I admit the possibility that complaints may have been made regarding other poultry keepers.
19 chicken raising should only be allowed outside of town limits. 4/8/2017 9:51 AM
20 Unless there is a serious problem with Chicken, it should not have anything to do with the Town. They are quieter than 4/7/2017 7:09 AM the Ravens we have in our back yard, or the Dogs that are tied up all days barking.
21 If the town decides to allow chickens - I think the expense incurred should be the sole responsibility of the person(s) 4/7/2017 2:43 AM who raise chickens. This is not a taxpayer issue!
22 keep it simple. do not complicate the matter. less government involvement is better. 4/7/2017 2:18 AM
23 I don't see this as an issue,as far as costs go we already pay a bylaw officer to spend time "to non bylaw related issues 4/7/2017 2:05 AM such as directing traffic".We have traffic laws and a police force that are responsible for traffic patterns.
24 Raising chickens is quite common in Europe. They are readily available at markets with no user fees, home 4/7/2017 1:26 AM inspections or involvement of municipalities. If anything, a public information session could be held on best practices for raising chickens in our climate.
25 Have regulations, and operate on complaints only. No need to have licensing etc. 4/7/2017 12:48 AM
26 Convert the Mayfair into a Community Chicken Coup for those that do not have the yard required. 4/6/2017 4:15 PM
27 Why is this issue being considered? Is it a problem in the urban, built up area of town? If the Town is considering a 4/6/2017 3:59 PM chicken by-law in anticipation, then sheep (for wool and wool), goats (for milk), pigs (for breakfast) etc should also be addressed. If someone wishes to raise chickens or goats, sheep etc, then they should be considerate of their urban neighbors and move out into the country where raising farm animals has traditionally been carried out.
28 First solve the age old puzzle of which came first? The chicken or the egg. That'll solve all your problems 4/6/2017 11:52 AM
29 Why is the town of Sioux Lookout wasting time and money on this? if it is a noise issue utilise the noise restriction by- 4/5/2017 11:37 PM laws. If roaming animal by-law officers should deal with the situation the same way as a dog or cat. What's next rabbit by-law?
30 Hold a town meeting to allow everyone to express their opinions 4/5/2017 3:32 PM
31 Don't make the by-laws too complex, you're idiot by-law officer has a hard enough time dealing with the current ones, 4/5/2017 3:14 PM so this will just confuse him and piss off local residents when he goes on one of his power-trips. Wasting tax payers money on this issue is ridiculous, fix the roads, build a new arena, or something, this isn't that big of a deal. We have other problems in this town.
32 I am in support of gathering more evidence as to how this could be managed appropriately, however would strongly 4/5/2017 6:16 AM disagree with hiring a consultant or spending any significant amount of money towards investigating this issue, as it affects such a minority of residents. It seems there are many municipalities, etc that allow for poultry to be kept on private properties and I support this as an opportunity for Sioux Lookout to empower residents towards healthy, local food options. Please do not impose high costs of regulation/licensing/registration, as it will likely cost the incumbent a substantial investment for this optional hobby by way of equipment and purchasing the chickens themselves. It's likely that this hobby will be pursued by such a small percentage of residents, it's not worthy of a large time/money investment by the town. Can the municipality entertain a one time (low/resonable)registration fee with consent(contract) form for the participant to acknowledge the municipality guidelines/requests. If the participant is grossly abusing the system the matter can be brought forward and the consent(contract) be reviewed with warning? I feel strongly that residents should be allowed to pursue healthy, alternative, local empowering (esp with food sources) in the North as we are limited in so many other ways by our location. It would not be reasonable to have a by law officer (etc) come to private dwellings and investigate properties, possibly causing frustrations and creating unnecessary tensions for residents trying to educate themselves/children (learning experiences with food/animals) and challenging their opportunity to create a food source for themselves. There are plenty of other restrictions in the community, it would be wonderful to allow residents to use their property in creative ways that empower themselves, without causing any hardship or cost to the rest of the community/municipality.
33 people should mind there owen buness and worie about bigger things 4/4/2017 11:28 PM
34 Do not allow the raising of chickens in urban areas 4/4/2017 10:20 PM
35 regulations already exist. more regulations and associated wasted cost are not required. A landowner should have the 4/4/2017 7:07 PM freedom to have chickens if he/she wants/needs. it is their property and they are already paying property taxes. this is a non-issue
36 Laissez-Faire? 4/4/2017 2:05 PM
Page25 31 / 35 of 34 Page 78 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
37 I think this matter is already adequately covered in the Animal Control By-law and/or the Zoning By-law, but I'm not 4/4/2017 1:33 PM 100% certain. If it's not, I think both of those By-laws could be amended to address the situation (i.e. restrict the keeping of chickens to the rural area on properties that are designated as "farms" or those properties that are an appropriate size so that chicken coops/areas are far enough away from neighbours so as not to be a "public nuisance" as defined in the Animal Control By-law. Also, I think the Municipality has higher priorities and better things to do with its time, money and staff resources.
38 Yes no fees. If you tax everything there will no longer be any benefits to having chickens. Why raise chickens at $10 a 4/4/2017 1:18 PM pound once all the fees and taxes are put on when you can buy it for $3?
39 It appears in the questions that the town has already made a decision regarding taxing people and creating rules. 4/4/2017 12:50 PM Unfortunately I feel the questions are bias. Regarding question 17 I DO NOT AGREE with any additional fees or taxes. Home owners in sioux lookout are taxed enough as it is and more nickel and diming is not the answer!
40 I don't think any changes to the current rules are needed 4/4/2017 10:51 AM
41 Consider no chickens as Thunder Bay has done. I don't believe Sioux Lookout has the funding to police this issue as 4/4/2017 9:48 AM we all know one bad apple spoils the barrel! So one non complaint chicken owner will keep the bylaw officer very busy and the neighbors very annoyed.
42 Either the municipality regulates the price of food or allow people to find alternative sources 4/4/2017 8:35 AM
43 Don't take my chickens. 4/4/2017 8:27 AM
44 Although common sense should prevail - it does not always do so, and therefore must be regulated somehow. As 4/4/2017 7:46 AM mentioned earlier, chickens are no less offensive than barking, pooping dogs and cats - and burning garbage for which there are ALREADY regulations...... but regulations which seem unenforced. I would much rather see a ban on burning barrels than a ban on chickens. If chicken owners are forced to licence their animals, then so too should dog and cat owners.... Rather than licencing the chickens, I would rather see efforts put to guidelines for coop construction and mtce issues. Can't have people building coops under their neighbour's bedroom window for revenge right? Start with guidelines, then depending how ridiculous the chicken owners get - change to a by law when necessary. Common Sense Chicken Guidelines...... Folks don't have to do anything special to get a dog or cat.... so why chickens. OR, limit chicken ownership in the urban area to laying hens only. No meat chickens or roosters in the urban - roosters allowed in the rural AFTER the farmer gets permission from the immediate neighbour on each side of then. Let the farmer do the enforcement. If municipal involvement becomes inevitable on a larger scale - then the farmers should pay for it all. User pay like everything else.
45 I agree people should be able to have chickens as they choose without permit 4/4/2017 7:42 AM
46 Enough with the regulations! If people have issues with thier neighbours chickens advise them to take it up personally 4/4/2017 7:02 AM with them, stop wasting tax payers money on these issues!
47 If people in our region are striving to be more self-sustainable, resilient to rising prices and stanchly opposed to the 4/4/2017 5:57 AM toxicity of our food resulting from continually expanding agribusiness, they must be encouraged to do so for the health of our people and the food security of our area. This community was settled by resourceful families and individuals who followed the practices of there parents, grandparents and ancestors who grew healthy food and raised health livestock to sustain themselves in their back (and front) yards. Our municipality would be terribly misguided to impose any restrictions on the growing number of people and families who strive for food security through small scale farming of livestock. If noise is the issue, then noise is the issue to investigate, if a scent is an issue, then scent is the issue to investigate. Livestock farming is an age-old practice that has seen communities through hard times and supported the survival of people when sudden shifts occur in the social and economic environment. Focus on the issue, not the (chickens/turkey/rabbits/etc.) animal. We already have provisions to deal with disruptive behaviours that create undue hardship on others.
48 The municipality does not need a special bylaw, existing bylaws around smell and noise can deal with exceptional 4/4/2017 5:10 AM complaints.
49 I think this is a waste of tax payer or user fee money. We have much larger issues in Sioux Lookout than licensing a 4/4/2017 4:44 AM chicken or eggs.
50 I believe that this issue should only be dealt with on an individual complaint basis. There is no reason to charge the 4/4/2017 3:53 AM town or individuals for a by law.
51 No backyard chickens in town(urban area). All chickens must be rural residents/ 4/4/2017 3:44 AM
52 At the present time this seems like a waste of town tax $, Sioux Lookout residents have a long history of raising 4/4/2017 2:29 AM chickens in their yards, with very few issues. We're a very rural community access to fresh local food and gardening should be supported our chickens help us raise an average of 1000 lbs of vegtables annually in our garden - 500lbs of potatoes, the rest a mixture of root vegtables, tomatoes and squash.
Page26 32 / 35 of 34 Page 79 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
53 I don't think that any new costs should come back on all taxpayers. If someone decides to keep a chicken coop in their 4/4/2017 1:55 AM backyard - on their own property (not rented) then that is their decision. It should be up to that individual to pay any costs that should incur with the keeping of chickens. Individuals grow their own produce and now have chickens to supply fresh eggs, this all comes back to the already high costs of fresh food in the town. Let's not limit individuals who want to take care of their families with fresh and affordable food.
54 Please leave well enough alone and stop spending valuable resources on this issue. If there are issues with people 4/4/2017 1:25 AM having chickens they should be dealt with via laws already in place, ie., noise complaints.
55 Do not licence it. If let people do there thing. Do not over regulate this...please. people have a right to good clean local 4/3/2017 11:44 PM food. Dont let government interfere with that
56 I do not support the application of any cost for residents to own chickens. I would not encourage the town to invest 4/3/2017 10:35 PM time and funds with this to then impose more taxation or user fees. If residents would like to own chickens, let them own chickens. As well, there is a typo in question #13.
57 Licensing should not be required. Code of conduct should be promoted and publicized. Code should speak to respect 4/3/2017 9:21 PM for neighbours and generally fall under existing property maintenance and animal bylaws.
58 Is there really only two options to pay for regulation?? 4/3/2017 4:55 PM
59 Simply no roosters. And no further regulation or money wasted on this 4/3/2017 3:04 PM
60 The municipality should stay out of it and leave things alone, there are already ways on the books to deal with 4/3/2017 2:37 PM individual circumstances that cause a problem. There is no need for additional beuracrasy or bylaws.
61 Complaint basis. Should have few complaints 4/3/2017 12:03 PM
62 Do not regulate it 4/3/2017 12:00 PM
63 Keeping chicken should not cost the tax payers money. People should be allowed to have chicken for personal use if 4/3/2017 11:08 AM they want them.
64 This doesn't need to be over regulated, consultants and licensing are not required. Let people have and grow chickens 4/3/2017 10:58 AM to eat or for eggs with minimal cost to tax payers and no user fees. No inspections, no chicken manager with an assistant. This is a basic necessity, the right to harvest your own meat in a town that is ripe with extreme markups. Please don't make another mockery of a basic human right, to be frugal, and generate a staple such as eggs or chicken meat in ones back yard. Make the right decision, don't over regulate this and try to make a profit. This town is sick of municipal government wasting our money, take this opportunity to do something the taxpayers will appreciate.
65 I dont ride the horses out at cedar bay but i still pay for them, and you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You 4/3/2017 10:38 AM dont inspect where/how my dogs live on my property why inspect my chickens. i am not selling my eggs my family is the only ones eating them so leave it. not everyone in sioux is going to want to raise chickens so just leave it unless you get complaints
66 NO CHICKENS. Aren't there enough people leaving town? 4/3/2017 10:34 AM
67 Don't regulate the keeping of chickens. It is not necessary. 4/3/2017 10:08 AM
68 Stop wasting money on this. The by law can investigate complaints and deal with this as it comes. Common sense 4/3/2017 9:43 AM stuff. If you live in town proper then of course 50 chickens in your backyard is outrageous. But If there are complaints against how the chickens are housed or treated deal with that. Stop trying to make a bureaucratic mess with permits and inspections. People want chickens to be a bit more natural or teach some life skills to their kids or as a hobby. Don't kill this.
69 How about NOT worrying about chickens. Seems like our community has bigger fish to fry than worrying about bi laws 4/3/2017 8:16 AM and taxing people who want to better their lives by providing their families with home grown food. Perhaps focus more on housing, youth, the horrific pot holes in town, etc.
70 You could make up by law that says if there are any complaints or concerns, that the city can inspect the chicken coop 4/3/2017 7:05 AM but I don't think having to pay for an inspection or chicken tags etc. is a great plan. Just have clear by laws that state the chicken coop must be well tended to and the animals cared for, and cannot be a burden to neighbouring properties. No roosters in town.
71 Leave government out of a simple freedom. Stop draining tax payers money on "research and open houses" about the 4/3/2017 5:17 AM issue and just butt out of people's lives trying to tax them
72 I honestly think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The majority of people looking to keep birds is relatively 4/3/2017 5:12 AM small, and they are responsible pet keepers / urban farmers. Frankly, I think dogs running around loose in this town is a FAR greater problem than people keeping a few birds for eggs or meat.
Page27 33 / 35 of 34 Page 80 of 86 The Keeping of Chickens - Public Consultation Survey SurveyMonkey
73 it hasn't been a problem until a certian by-law officer came into power. remove the problem, not the happy birds. i 4/3/2017 4:58 AM can't drive through town without seeing several dogs at large but we are wasting time and money on a personal matter for a new by-law officer? lets make him head french fry maker and go back to being happy.
74 leave rural residential out of this we pay tax for little to no service and the freedom to do what we want in our gardens 4/3/2017 4:49 AM and such (small scale farming)should not be an issue.
75 No chickens allowed 4/3/2017 4:38 AM
76 What issue? The survey fails to outline issues . Your survey implies there is a bylaw in place already. Perhaps handle 4/3/2017 4:38 AM noise and roaming animal complaints the same way dogs/cat complaints are handled.
77 What issue? Another reason to tax us... another right to take away... 4/3/2017 3:33 AM
78 What are other communities allowing? Once a precedent is set it becomes more difficult to change. We need to be 4/3/2017 3:28 AM respectful of our neighbours but allow necessity for fresh food.
79 Leave it alone. There are better things to worry about with this town. 4/3/2017 3:27 AM
80 I feel that it would be unethical to charge a licensing fee for keeping of chickens. I think this would deter many people 4/3/2017 3:15 AM from keeping/getting chickens. I think it should be a free option to families to provide themselves with local food. If there are complaints, THEN and only THEN should Bylaw get involved
81 Answer to #17 dependent on cost of permitting etc. Some who raise chickens may do so for affordability of food, but if 4/3/2017 3:15 AM permitting is expensive, then affordability is affected. I support the municipality looking into this, for a reasonable cost. Consultant costs can be excessive in some cases so must be well justified.
82 Item 17 - variance 1 time charge and subsequent fines for not following criteria. 4/3/2017 3:10 AM
83 Education first, enforcement from voiced concerns. 4/3/2017 3:08 AM
84 from drayton road on should have no restrictions. I can see in residential built up area within the town. with the 4/3/2017 3:05 AM exception of Roosters. Due to noise concerns. I have kept my chickens clean happy and healthy and I do not feel I should be bothered by the bylaw officer. I dont expect the taxes to be raised because I wanted chickens. I live in a 14 acres rural property and just want to be left alone. my chicken are my pets and I love the fresh eggs in the morning. If the harshest thing you can do to me is make me have a permit then fine I will gladly pay that. But I dont get inspections for my dogs and where they live on my property I dont expect an inspection for any other animal.
85 Allow chickens in rural area's only - not in town. 4/3/2017 1:06 AM
Page28 34 / 35 of 34 Page 81 of 86 REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Brian MacKinnon, Manager of Corporate Services/ Municipal Clerk DATE: May 17, 2017 SUBJECT: RP-2017-062 - Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) - Call for Nominations - Board of Directors
TITLE: Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) - Call for Nominations - Board of Directors
RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout nominates Councillor Yolaine Kirlew to the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) Board of Directors for the 2017/18 term of office.
PURPOSE: To provide Council with an opportunity to nominate Councillor Kirlew to serve on the OGRA Board of Directors, representing the “Northern Zone” for the 2017/18 term (filling a vacancy).
BACKGROUND: Councillor Kirlew was approached by Councillor Virginia Ridley, City of London, and currently the only female Board Member on the OGRA Board, to ask her if she was interested in letting her name stand as a nominee to fill a vacancy on the OGRA Board from September 2017 through February 2018.
Councillor Kirlew approached staff and advised that she was interested in letting her name stand, providing Council supported her nomination.
DISCUSSION:
Page 1 of 5 Page 82 of 86 The mandate of the Ontario Good Roads Association is to represent the transportation and public works interests of municipalities through advocacy, consultation, training and the delivery of identified services.
Board Meetings and related travel obligations during the partial term of office will include the following: • September 12-15, 2017 • November 15-17, 2017 • January 17-19, 2018 • February 25, 2018, followed by Annual Conference February 26-28, 2018.
Councillor Kirlew’s participation on the Board would provide the Municipality with a voice at this provincial-level organization, and may assist with obtaining resources relevant to the public works and engineering functions of the Municipality.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: This is an administrative matter with no direct link to Council’s Strategic Plan. However, supporting women in leadership roles in local government is a priority of the Diverse Voices for Change initiative which Council has endorsed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Councillor Kirlew has advised that costs associated with her participation will be borne by OGRA (travel, accommodations, incidentals, etc.); the cost to the Municipality would be Councillor Kirlew’s per diems and meal allowances, estimated as follows: • Nine (9) days (fall 2017 and winter 2018 Board Meetings and Annual Conference) at a rate of $150/day (per diem) plus meal allowance at a rate of $80/day (per Policy No. 1-6, Council Travel Expenses) for a total Municipal cost of $2,070.
Please note that $920 of this total amount would be borne by the 2017 budget and $1,150 would be borne by the 2018 budget.
SIGNATURES:
Brian P. MacKinnon Manager of Corporate Services and Municipal Clerk
Page 2 of 5 Page 83 of 86
Ann Mitchell Chief Administrative Officer
Page 3 of 5 Page 84 of 86 April 24, 2017
Call for Nominations - OGRA Board of Directors - Vacancy
Due to a resignation the Board of Directors of the Ontario Good Roads Association Nominating Committee is soliciting nominations to the Board of Directors for the Northern Zone for a term to expire February 28, 2018.
Those nominated by the Nominating Committee shall be selected from OGRA's municipal or First Nations membership.
The Northern Zone consists of the municipalities in the Districts of Algoma, Cochrane, Kenora, Manitoulin Island, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timiskaming; municipalities in and including the District of Muskoka and the City of Greater Sudbury.
Any member of Council or a permanent full time staff from an OGRA member municipality or First Nations in the Northern Zone interested in being considered as a candidate for a position on the Board of Directors must complete the attached Nomination Consent form and submit it along with their resume to the attention of the Chair of the Nominating Committee by no later than May 25, 2017. Fax your information to 289-291 -6477, e-mail to [email protected] or mail to OGRA, 1525 Cornwall Road , Unit 22, Oakville, Ontario L6J OB2
The Nominating Committee will meet in June to recommend a candidate to the Board. The members of the Committee are:
Chair: Robert Burlie, Immediate Past President Vice Chair: Rick Champagne, Past President Members: Paul Ainslie, OGRA Director Bryan Lewis, OGRA Director John McKean, OGRA Director
Any questions regarding the Nomination process or serving on the Board of Directors can be directed to the undersigned at [email protected].
Yours truly,
,.,.~ ::..> L A "' 5 J. W . Tiernay, Executive Director c: Robert Burlie, Chair, Nominating Committee
Page 4 of 5 Page 85 of 86 Ontario Good Roads Association Board of Directors Nomination and Consent Form
We hereby nominate the following to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Good Roads Association for the 2017/18 term of office: Name of Candidate Name:------Position:______
Municipality:______
Moved by: ______
Seconded by: ______
(Candidates must be nominated by two eligible members of OGRA. A resolution of Council is acceptable but not mandatory) Candidate Consent
The candidate nominated above must sign below indicating they consent to the Nomination and agree to let their name stand for office.
I, ------hereby consent to the Nomination (Name of Candidate) to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Good Roads Association.
Signature Date
Submit completed form and candidate's resume by fax or e-mail to the attention of Rob Burlie, Chair, OGRA Nominating Committee Fax: 289-291-6477 E-mail: [email protected] Page 5 of 5 Page 86 of 86