CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall, 1 Carden Street

DATE Tuesday, May 24, 2016 – 5:30 p.m.

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

AUTHORITY TO MOVE INTO CLOSED MEETING

THAT the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to the Municipal Act, to consider:

C-2016.38 Meeting of the Shareholders of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc.

(a) Report from the Chair of GMHI re Actions and Decisions Section 239 (2)(a) and (b) the security of the property of the municipality and personal matters about identifiable individuals, respectively.

(b) GMHI-GHESI Shareholder Declaration Section 239 (2)(b) personal matters about identifiable individuals

C-2016.39 Report from the Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee - Resident Appointments to the Waste Innovation Centre Public Liaison Committee Section 239 (2)(b) personal matters about identifiable individuals

C-2016.40 Report of the Nominating Committee – Council Appointment to the Joint Social Services Terms of Reference Advisory Committee Section 239 (2)(b) personal matters about identifiable individuals

C-2016.41 Dolime Update Section 239 (2)(e) litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals

C-2016.42 Snow Disposal Facility Section 239 (2)(a) the security of the property of the municipality

CLOSED MEETING

Page 1 of 5 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

OPEN MEETING – 7:00 P.M.

O Canada Silent Reflection Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

CLOSED MEETING SUMMARY

PRESENTATION

a) Presentation of City of Guelph Medals to the following members of the Guelph Royals BU14 Blue Soccer Team in recognition of winning gold at the OSA Provincial Futsal Cup in February 2016: Tate Campbell, Sam Costanzo, Luke Creighton, Tyler Grondinger, Ryan Jack, Ola Ognnote, Devon Corbit, Jacob McBride, Chase Slotboom, Jaydon Troke, Antonio Vrbanac, Gray Yates; Coaches – Matt McBride, Chad Campbell, Bogdan Bonescu; Team Managers – Sue Jack and Pam Costanzo.

b) Presentation of “Mayor’s for the Day” by Amy Greatorex, grade 12 student at John F. Ross CVI and Lexi Braund, grade 10 student at GCVI.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES (Councillor Hofland) “THAT the minutes of the Council Meetings held April 7, 11, 18, 20, 25 and 27, 2016 be confirmed as recorded and without being read.”

CONSENT REPORTS/AGENDA – ITEMS TO BE EXTRACTED The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate Council’s consideration of the various matters and are suggested for consideration. If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation of the Consent Reports/Agenda, please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with separately. The balance of the Consent Reports/Agenda will be approved in one resolution.

Consent Reports/Agenda from:

Corporate Services Committee To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted CS-2016.12 Transfer of Railway Right of Way and Assignment of Other Interests to Guelph Junction Railway Limited

CS-2016.14 2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement

Page 2 of 5 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

CS-2016.16 Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and Budget PSAB Reconciliation

Adoption of balance of Corporate Services Committee Fourth Consent Report - Councillor Hofland, Chair

Governance Committee To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted GOV-2016.5 Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

Adoption of balance of Governance Committee Third Consent Report – Mayor Guthrie, Chair

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted IDE-2016.12 Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Pilot Implementation

IDE-2016.13 Update on Source Water Protection Plan and Appointment of the Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspectors

IDE-2016.15 2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees and Building By- law Amendments

IDE-2016.16 180 Gordon Street Brownfield Tax Increment-Based Grant Agreement Extension

Adoption of balance of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Fourth Consent Report – Councillor Bell, Chair

Page 3 of 5 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Nominating Committee To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted NOM-2016.1 Council Appointment to the Joint Social Services Terms of Reference Advisory Committee

Adoption of balance of Nominating Committee First Consent Report – Mayor Guthrie, Chair

Public Services Committee To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted PS-2016.8 Cultural Property Category A Designation for Guelph Museums

Adoption of balance of Public Services Committee Third Consent Report – Councillor Downer, Chair

Council Consent Agenda To be Item City Presentation Delegations Extracted CON-2016.24 York Road Reconstruction from Wyndham Street East to Ontario Street, Contract No. 16-020

Adoption of balance of the Council Consent Agenda.

ITEMS EXTRACTED FROM COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL REPORTS AND COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA (Chairs to present the extracted items) Once extracted items are identified, they will be dealt with in the following order: 1) delegations (may include presentations) 2) staff presentations only 3) all others.

Reports from: • Corporate Services Committee– Councillor Hofland • Governance Committee – Mayor Guthrie • Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee – Councillor Bell • Nominating Committee – Mayor Guthrie • Public Services Committee– Councillor Council Downer • Consent – Mayor Guthrie

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS

Page 4 of 5 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Councillor Van Hellemond’s motion for which notice was given April 25, 2016.

That the following motion be referred to the Public Services Committee for consideration:

“That staff be directed to undertake a by-law review of the Bed & Breakfast Schedule within the City of Guelph’s Licensing By-law, commencing in 2017.”

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

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

NOTICE OF MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

Page 5 of 5 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:51 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor P. Allt Councillor J. Hofland Councillor B. Bell Councillor L. Piper (departed 9:03 p.m.) Councillor C. Billings Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor C. Downer Councillor A. Van Hellemond (departed 8:32 p.m.) Councillor D. Gibson Councillor K. Wettstein (departed 9:03 p.m.) Councillor J. Gordon

Regrets: Councillor M. MacKinnon

Staff: Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Call to Order (7:51 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There was no disclosure.

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council

1. Moved by Councillor Van Hellemond Seconded by Councillor Bell

That the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to Section 239 (2) (c) and (b), respectively, of the Municipal Act regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality and personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal employees.

CARRIED

Closed Meeting (7:52 p.m.)

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

The following matters were considered:

C-2016.27 City of Guelph Contribution Agreement with Metrolinx

C-2016.28 CAO Performance & Performance of the Organization Page 1

April 7, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (9:03 p.m.)

Open Meeting (9:04 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie spoke regarding the matters addressed in closed and identified the following:

C-2016.27 City of Guelph Contribution Agreement with Metrolinx Direction was provided to staff.

C-2016.28 CAO Performance & Performance of the Organization Mayor Guthrie had provided information.

Adjournment (9:05 p.m.)

2. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

______Mayor Guthrie

______Stephen O’Brien - City Clerk

Page 2

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Monday, April 11, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor J. Hofland Councillor P. Allt Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor B. Bell Councillor L. Piper (arrived at 5:04 p.m.) Councillor C. Billings (arrived at 5:04 p.m.) Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson Councillor K. Wettstein Councillor J. Gordon

Staff: Ms. J. Sweeney, Acting Deputy Clerk

Call to Order (5:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council

1. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to Section 239 (2)(a) (b) and (d) of The Municipal Act, with respect to security of the property, personal matters about identifiable individuals and labour relations or employee negotiations. CARRIED

Closed Meeting (5:04 p.m.)

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

The following matters were considered:

C-2016.23 Governance Committee Update – CAO Contract C-2016.24 Labour Relations C-2016.25 Decision Making: Terms of Reference/Scope – Follow UP on February 29, 2016 Matter C-2016.26 Transactional Committee: Process Update

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (6:55 p.m.)

Open Meeting (7:00 p.m.)

Page 1

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor J. Hofland Councillor P. Allt Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor B. Bell Councillor L. Piper Councillor C. Billings Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor C. Downer Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor D. Gibson Councillor K. Wettstein Councillor J. Gordon

Staff: Mr. S. Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Mr. T. Salter, General Manager, Planning, Urban Design & Building Services Ms. S. Kirkwood, Manager of Development Planning Mr. C. DeVriendt, Senior Development Planner Ms. J. Sweeney, Acting Deputy Clerk Ms. D. Black, Council Committee Coordinator

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie addressed the matters discussed in the closed meeting and identified the following:

C-2016.23 Governance Committee Update – CAO Contract

Direction was given to the Mayor.

C-2016.24 Labour Relations

Information was received, direction was given to staff and there is a motion to be considered in open session regarding this matter and will be raised under Special Resolutions for consideration.

C-2016.25 Decision Making: Terms of Reference/Scope – Follow Up on February 29, 2016 Matter

The matter was deferred.

C-2016.26 Transactional Committee: Process Update

Direction was given to staff.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures

Consent Agenda Page 2

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

The following item was extracted:

CON.2016.11 132 Harts Lane West – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment (File: 23T14502/OP1401/ZC1406) – Ward 6

2. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the balance of the April 11, 2016 Consent Agenda as identified below, be adopted:

CON-2016.12 PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF 30 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, WARD 5

1. That Report 16-19 regarding the proposed demolition of one (1) single detached dwelling at 30 University Avenue West, legally described as Plan 363 Lot 20; City of Guelph, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 11th, 2016, is received.

2. That the proposed demolition of one (1) detached dwelling at 30 University Avenue West be approved.

3. That the applicant be requested to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with the City of Guelph Official Plan (Urban Forest policies) prior to undertaking activities which may injure or destroy trees.

4. That the applicant be requested to erect protective fencing at one (1) metre from the drip line of any existing trees to be retained on the property or on adjacent properties, which may be impacted by demolition or construction activities.

5. That the applicant be requested to contact the City’s Environmental Planner to inspect the tree protection fence prior to demolition and/or site alteration commencing.

6. That if demolition is to occur during breeding bird season (approximately May 1 to July 31), a nest search be undertaken by a wildlife biologist prior to demolition so as to protect the breeding birds in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) prior to any works occurring.

7. That the applicant be requested to contact the General Manager of Solid Waste Resources, within Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise regarding options for the salvage or recycling of all demolition materials.

Page 3

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

CON-2016.13 YORK TRUNK SEWER & PAISLEY-CLYTHE FEEDERMAIN PHASE 2A AND WATERWORKS PLACE IMPROVEMENTS - CONTRACT NO. 2-1606

1. That the tender from Coco Paving Inc. be accepted and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement for Contract No. 2-1606 for York Trunk Sewer & Paisley-Clythe Feedermain Phase 2A and Waterworks Place Improvements for a total tendered price of $14,646,450.52 with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

CON-2016.14 REPORT TO THE CITY OF GUELPH REGARDING AN ALLEGATION OF AN IMPROPERLY CLOSED MEETING OF COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF GUELPH ON JANUARY 25, 2016

1. That the report to the City of Guelph regarding an allegation of an improperly closed meeting of council for the City of Guelph on January 25, 2016 be received.

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

Planning Public Meeting

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

45 Yarmouth Street: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File: ZC1604) - Ward 1

Chris DeVriendt, Senior Development Planner advised the applicant is requesting to change the zoning from the existing CBD1 (Central Business District) Zone to a CBD.1- ? (Specialized Central Business District) to permit the development of a 14 storey apartment building containing approximately 89 dwelling units, and requesting twenty parking spaces in the Baker Street Parking Lot. He addressed the pedestrian and vehicular access, waste collection, the urban design, and sight line concerns. He stated staff will establish a framework for the bonusing provisions and community benefit requirements and will report back to Council. He also advised housing and employment targets, urban design guidelines, access points, the Baker Street development, community benefit requirements, sight lines, the Downtown Secondary Plan, aesthetics of the top of the building, SEPTED analysis, parking relocation during construction, elevation diagrams including landscaping, the Community Energy Initiative and commercial use possibilities will be reviewed.

Dave Hannam, representing the applicant advised there will be a mix of one and two bedroom rental units and they are requesting a site specific exemption to include an apartment building as a permitted use. He explained the issues with the current

Page 4

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

parking spots and advised they want to provide a 1:1 parking ratio. He addressed the sight lines, building height, angular planes, commercial frontage issues, waste collection, pedestrian access, boulevard enhancements and traffic impacts. He noted they are willing to discuss the community benefit component and inclusion of affordable housing units and acknowledged the need for close proximity parking during construction.

Raza Mehdi, on behalf of the applicant explained the building design and materials and addressed urban design concerns. He explained that the second parking entrance is to prevent cross parking and protection of the 55 Yarmouth Street parking.

Charles Minett, a practitioner on Yarmouth Street stated there are a number of practitioners on Yarmouth Street and a group on Norfolk Street that rely on curbside parking for their elderly and disabled patients and he is concerned about the parking impact. He raised concerns about site lines, possible intimidation when walking on Baker Street, as well as the distance to walk if no cross-site pedestrian access is available. He wants the heritage of the buildings incorporated and the development to be a maximum of half the height of what is proposed.

Chris Bisson, property owner on Yarmouth Street stated the 69 parking spots are insufficient for the development. He raised issues regarding waste collection and traffic impacts, particularly left hand turns onto Woolwich Street during peak periods. He believes development and parking decisions should be deferred until the Baker Street development has been determined.

Ken Chase, an interested resident would prefer commercial use on the second floor and retail use on the first floor. He addressed the removal of Baker Street pedestrian access, the walkability of the site, the number of entrances and parking issues. He stated the Baker Street development should be determined before any parking allocation decisions are addressed.

Suzanne Marshall, a Yarmouth Street resident requested that special event, evening and weekend parking be given consideration when determining parking allocation.

3. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That Report 16-22 regarding a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application (File: ZC1604) by Zelinka Priamo Ltd. on behalf of Ayerswood Development Corporation to permit the development of a 14 storey, 89 unit apartment building on the property municipally known as 45 Yarmouth Street and legally described as Parts 1 to 6, Plan 61R-4481, also known as Part of Lots 90 and 91, Canada Company Survey Registered Plan No. 8, City of Guelph, County of Wellington, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 11, 2016, be received.

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

Page 5

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

The meeting recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m.

Extracted Consent Items

132 Harts Lane West – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan Amendment and Zoning

Laura Murr, city resident raised the issue of equitable handling of developments on wetlands and addressed the need to protect the buffer zones. She suggested the City’s Official Plan needs to be amended to allow the City to receive cash-in-lieu for bonusing. She also addressed the lack of setbacks to protect the boundary trees.

Brett Walkling, nearby resident stated the 10 storey building does not fit with the current landscape of the neighbourhood and suggested a building of four storeys would be more appropriate. He also addressed traffic concerns that would result from the number of units and believes the developer could find a way to develop the lands within existing regulations.

Astrid Clos, on behalf of the applicant advised that just under 30% of the land is being conveyed to the City for parkland purposes and the wetland buffer conforms to the Natural Heritage Strategy and Official Plan for the City. She explained the building height rationale and the park and trail locations.

Andrew Lambden, applicant provided details of the environmentally-friendly homes they intend to build and the improvements made to the property to date. He stated they will be donating funds for trails and using the Hart farm barn boards and beams within the community, and the design of the community use building will honour the Hart family. He explained the water recharge and runoff system, trail and park plans and the street names.

4. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That the application from Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants on behalf of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. for approval of a proposed Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision consisting of 342 residential units, consisting of 117 single detached dwellings, 4 semi-detached dwellings, 68 cluster townhouse units, and 153 apartment units, an open space block, two stormwater management blocks, a walkway/servicing block, a walkway block and a park block, as shown on Attachment 5, applying to property municipally known 132 Harts Lane West and legally described as Part of Lot 4, Concession 7 (formerly Township of Puslinch), City of Guelph, be approved for a five (5) year period in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto.

2. That the application by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants on behalf of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. for approval of an Official Plan Amendment to add an exemption clause to Section 7.2.32 of the Official Plan to allow the apartment block (Block 121) to have a net density to not exceed 152 units per hectare, be approved, in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto.

Page 6

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

3. That the Development Agreement outlining the owner’s commitment to satisfy the City that the Neighbourhood Club use applying exclusively to Lot 58 within Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T14502 will be operated and maintained in a manner that meet the intent of the zoning by-law between The Corporation of the City of Guelph and Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. be executed by the Mayor and Clerk.

4. That the application by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants on behalf of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. for approval of an Zoning By-law Amendment from the UR (Urban Reserve) Zone to the R.1D-? (Specialized Single Detached Residential) Zone, R.1C-? (Specialized Single Detached Residential) Zone, R.1C- 28 (Specialized Single Detached Residential) Zone, R.2-? (Specialized Semi- Detached/Duplex Residential) Zone, R.2-3 (Specialized Semi-Detached/Duplex Residential) Zone, R.3A-? (Cluster Townhouse) Zone, R.4B-? (Specialized Apartment) Zone, P.1 (Conservation Land) Zone, P.2 (Neighbourhood Park) Zone, and WL (Wetland) Zone to implement a residential Draft Plan of Subdivision comprising 342 residential units, be approved, in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto.

5. That Council direct staff to prepare a report to Council describing the proponent’s Conservation Plan for the Hart farmhouse and with recommendations regarding Council’s intention to designate the Hart farmhouse under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

6. That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, City Council has determined that no further public notice is required related to the minor modifications to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment affecting 132 Harts Lane West.

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

Special Resolutions

5. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Piper

That the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Guelph and CUPE Locals 973 and 241 on file with Human Resources be approved.

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

Page 7

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

By-laws

6. Moved by Councillor Billings Seconded by Councillor Bell

That By-law Number (2016) – 20033 to (2016) - 20040, inclusive are hereby passed.

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

Adjournment (9:45 p.m.)

7. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

Minutes to be confirmed on May 24, 2016.

______Mayor Guthrie

______Joyce Sweeney, Acting Deputy Clerk

Page 8

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 1

Draft Plan of Subdivision Conditions, Official Plan and Zoning

PART A: DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS "THAT the application by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants on behalf of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. for approval of a proposed Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision applying to property municipally known 132 Harts Lane West and legally described as Part of Lot 4, Concession 7 (formerly Township of Puslinch), City of Guelph, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

CITY CONDITIONS

1. That this approval applies only to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants, dated December 17, 2015, as shown in Attachment 5, including road widenings and reserves. The Developer shall convey a 0.3 metre reserve adjacent to Kortright Road West outside of the right-of-way.

Conditions to be met prior to grading and site alteration

2. The Developer shall complete a tree inventory, preservation and compensation plan, satisfactory to the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services, in accordance with the City of Guelph By-law (2010)-19058, prior to any tree removal, grading or construction on the site.

3. The Developer shall obtain a site alteration permit in accordance with City of Guelph By-law (2007)-18420 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if grading/earthworks is to occur prior to entering into the subdivision agreement.

4. The Developer shall prepare and implement a construction traffic access and control plan for all phases of servicing and building construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any costs related to the implementation of such a plan shall be borne by the Developer.

5. The Developer agrees that no work, including, but not limited to tree removal, grading or construction, will occur on the lands until such time as the Developer has obtained written permission from the City Engineer or has entered into a subdivision agreement with the City.

6. The Developer shall enter into an Engineering Services Agreement with the City, satisfactory to the City Engineer.

7. The Developer shall prepare an overall site drainage and grading plan, satisfactory to the City Engineer, for the entire subdivision. Such a plan will be used as the basis for a detailed lot grading plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permit within the subdivision.

Page 9

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 2

8. The Developer shall construct, install and maintain erosion and sediment control facilities, satisfactory to the City Engineer, in accordance with a plan that has been submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.

9. The Developer shall retain a qualified environmental inspector, satisfactory to the City, to inspect the site during all phases of development and construction including grading, servicing and building construction. The environmental inspector shall monitor and inspect the erosion and sediment control measures and procedures. The environmental inspector shall report on their findings to the City.

10.The Developer shall submit a detailed Storm Water Management Report and Plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which shows how storm water will be controlled and conveyed to the receiving water body. The report and plans shall address the issue of water quantity and quality in accordance with recognized best management practices, Provincial Guidelines, the City’s “Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities” and the Storm Water Management Design Report for the applicable watershed. Maintenance and operational requirements for any control and/or conveyance facilities must be described.

11.The Developer shall submit a Hydrogeological Study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which shows how pre-development infiltration will be maintained under post-development conditions.

12.The Developer shall ensure that any domestic wells located within the lands be properly decommissioned in accordance with current Ministry of the Environment Regulations and Guidelines to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any boreholes drilled for hydrogeological or geotechnical investigations must also be properly abandoned.

13.The Developer shall stabilize all disturbed soil within 90 days of being disturbed, control all noxious weeds and keep ground cover to a maximum height of 150 mm (6 inches) until the release of the development agreement on the block/lot so disturbed.

14.The Developer acknowledges that the City does not allow retaining walls higher than 1.0 metre abutting existing residential properties without the permission of the City Engineer.

15.The Developer shall prepare an Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) based on terms of reference approved by the City and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).

a. The EIR will provide details with respect to: stormwater management and wetland water balance mitigation; on-going shallow groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the wetland and a related monitoring program pre and post development; design details regarding the reconstruction of

Page 10

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 3

Harts Lane; detailed tree management plans including Landscaping, Replanting and Replacement Plan and detailed landscape plans (by an accredited landscape architect); detailed habitat management plans including invasive species management, buffer enhancement/design and mitigation plans for wildlife habitat; education and stewardship information; detailed mitigation plans to support the trail and detailed trail design; a salt management plan; and, an ecological monitoring program that includes pre and post development monitoring, baseline data, identifies thresholds and associates measures; a monitoring program for terrestrial crayfish; grading, drainage and erosion and sediment control plans, and any other information to implement recommendations from the Environmental Impact Study dated April 8, 2015 and Addendum dated December 2015. As well, the EIR will include and will address the Grand River Conservation Authority comments from their letters dated August 8, 2014 and July 29, 2015.

b. The Developer shall complete a Tree Inventory, Preservation and Compensation Plan, satisfactory to the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services and in accordance with the City of Guelph Bylaw (2010)-19058 prior to any grading, tree removal or construction on the site.

c. The Developer will undertake a post-development monitoring program as detailed in the Environmental Implementation Report to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services.

The Developer shall implement all recommendations of the EIR to the satisfaction of the City and GRCA.

16.Prior to any construction or grading on the lands, the Developer shall submit a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the Record of Site Condition regulation (O. Reg. 153/04 as amended), describing the current conditions of the property to the satisfaction of the City. The City also requires the Qualified Person responsible for preparing the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to submit a reliance letter to indicate that, despite any limitations or qualifications included in the report, the City is authorized to rely on all information and opinion provided in the report.

17.If contamination is found, prior to any construction or grading on the lands, the Developer shall complete the following at their expense:

a. Submit all environmental assessment reports, including reliance letter, prepared in accordance with the Record of Site Condition (O. Reg. 153/04, as amended) describing the current conditions of the land to be developed and the proposed remedial action plan to the satisfaction of the City;

Page 11

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 4

b. Complete any necessary remediation work in accordance with the accepted remedial action plan and submit certification from a Qualified Person that the lands to be developed meet the Site Condition Standards of the intended land use; and

c. File a Record of Site Condition on the Provincial Environmental Registry for lands to be developed and submit the MOECC acknowledgement letter for the Record of Site Condition to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer.

Conditions to be met prior to execution of subdivision agreement

18.That any dead ends and open sides of road allowances created by the draft plan be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves, which shall be conveyed to the City at the expense of the Developer.

19.The Developer shall have engineering drawings and final reports prepared for the approval of the City Engineer.

20.With the exception of any share determined by the City to be the City’s share in accordance with Its by-laws and policies, the Developer is responsible for the total cost of the design and construction of all municipal services within and external to the subdivision that are required by the City to service the lands within the plan of subdivision including such works as sanitary facilities, storm facilities, water facilities, walkways and road works including sidewalks, boulevards and curbs, with the distance, size and alignment of such services to be determined by the City, including but not limited to (a) sidewalk on Kortright Road West abutting the plan, (b) trunk sanitary sewer from its present terminus on Carrington Place to the property limits of the subdivision at Harts Lane, (c) trunk sanitary sewer from the subdivision property limits across the existing Harts Lane right-of-way to the existing sewer on the east side of the wetland, (d) watermain from the subdivision property limits across the existing Harts Lane right-of-way to the east side of the wetland. This also includes the Developer paying the cost of the design, construction and removal of any works of a temporary nature including temporary cul-de-sacs, sewers, stormwater management facilities, watermains and emergency accesses.

21.The Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which describes the potential impacts of groundwater and provides recommendations for pavement design and pipe bedding.

22.The Developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study including sight line distances and daylighting triangles at the street corners to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall implement the recommendations of the Study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

23.The Developer shall pay the cost of supplying and erecting street name and traffic control signs in the subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City.

Page 12

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 5

24.The Developer shall prepare a street tree planting plan and implement such plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

25.The Developer shall pay to the City the cost of installing bus stop pads at locations to be determined by Guelph Transit.

26.The Developer shall provide an On-Street Parking Plan for the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

27.The site plans for all corner building lots, as determined by the City, shall be submitted to the City for approval of driveway location.

28.The Developer shall pay the cost of the installation of one Second Order Geodetic Benchmark within the proposed subdivision to the satisfaction of City Engineer.

29.The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of design and development of the Basic Park Development as per the City of Guelph current “Specifications for Parkland Development”, which includes clearing, grubbing, topsoiling, grading, sodding and any required servicing including water, storm, sanitary and hydro for any phase containing a Park block to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. The Developer shall provide the City with cash or letter of credit to cover the City approved estimate for the cost of development of the Basic Park Development for the Park Block to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

30.The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of design and development of the demarcation of all lands conveyed to the City in accordance with the City of Guelph Property Demarcation Policy. This shall include the submission of drawings and the administration of the construction contract up to the end of the warrantee period completed by an Ontario Association of Landscape Architect (OALA) member for approval to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. The Developer shall provide the City with cash or letter of credit to cover the City approved estimate for the cost of development of the demarcation for the City lands to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. All fencing shall be installed following grading operations and property lines must be accurately surveyed and clearly marked in the field prior to establishing all fence line locations. Fences shall be erected directly adjacent to the established property line within the City owned lands.

31.The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of design and implementation of the Open Space Works and Restoration in accordance with the “Environmental Implementation Report” to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. This shall include the submission of drawings and the administration of the construction contract up to the end of the warrantee period completed by an Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) member for approval to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. The Developer shall provide the City with cash or letter of credit to cover the City approved estimate for the cost of the Open Space works and restoration for the City lands to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

Page 13

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 6

32.The Developer shall design and develop the Storm Water Management Facility Landscaping in accordance with the City’s current “Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities” to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services and the City Engineer. This shall include the submission of drawings and the administration of the construction contract up to the end of the warrantee period completed by an Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) member for approval to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. The Developer shall provide the City with cash or letter of credit to cover the City approved estimate for the cost of development of the Storm Water Management Facility Landscaping for the City lands to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

33.The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of detailed design of the Pedestrian Trail System for the Storm Water Management & Open Space Blocks and the Walkway Block. This shall include obtaining any required permits, submitting drawings for approval, identifying the trail system, trail gates, trail and interpretative signage, rest areas, bridges and abutments, ramps, guard and hand rails, retaining walls and trail design details, to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services and the City Engineer. This shall include the submission of drawings for approval completed by a full member, with seal, of Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) member to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

34. The Developer shall provide to the City the completed FADM Design Checklist and Technical Infeasibility Justification Forms for any trails that do not meet Accessibility Standards to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

35.The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of design and development of the Harts Lane Trail and Walkway Block, including rough and fine grading and drainage, trail surfacing, trail subbase, any associated infrastructure (trail trail gates, trail and interpretative signage, rest areas, bridges and abutments, ramps, guard and hand rails, retaining walls) and sodding/seeding to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services. The easterly extent of the Harts Lane Trail development shall be to the extent of water and sewer main work in Harts Lane. The Walkway Block development shall include the full extent of the walkway up to the adjoining sidewalks. The Developer shall provide the City with cash or letter of credit to cover the City approved estimate for the cost of development of these trails to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Public Services.

36.Developer shall provide Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise with a digital file in AutoCAD - DWG format of DXF format containing the as built information: parcel fabric, street network, grades and contours and landscaping of the park, trails, open space and storm water management blocks.

Page 14

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 7

37.The Developer shall implement the recommended conservation plan contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment conducted by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. for 132 Harts Lane West (dated February 6, 2013) as received by Heritage Guelph at their meeting of February 11, 2013. Further, prior to the registration of the plan, the heritage farmhouse shall be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

38.The Developer shall phase the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Such phasing shall conform to the current Development Priorities Plan.

39.The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the dwelling units on the subject site will be constructed to a standard that promotes energy efficiency in order to comply with the Community Energy Initiative, to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with the letter attached as Attachment 11 from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Report 16-23 dated April 11, 2016

Conditions to be met prior to registration of the plan

40.The Developer shall obtain approval of the City with respect to the availability of adequate water supply and sewage treatment capacity, prior to the registration of the plan, or any part thereof.

41.The Developer shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement, to be registered on title, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, which includes all requirements, financial and otherwise to the satisfaction of the City of Guelph.

42.That the road allowances included in the draft plan be shown and dedicated at the expense of the Developer as public highways and that prior to the registration of any phase of the subdivision, the City shall receive a letter from the O.L.S. preparing the plan that certifies that the layout of the roads in the plan conforms to the City’s “Geometric Design Criteria – July 23, 1993”.

43.That all easements, blocks and rights-of-way required within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision be conveyed clear of encumbrance to the satisfaction of the City of Guelph, Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc. and other Guelph utilities. Every Transfer Easement shall be accompanied by a Postponement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, for any mortgage, charge or lease and such Postponement shall be registered on title by the City at the expense of the Developer.

44.The Developer shall pay any outstanding debts owed to the City.

45.The Developer shall pay development charges to the City in accordance with By-law Number (2014) - 19692, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereof and in accordance with the Education Development Charges By-laws of the Upper Grand District School Board (Wellington County) and the Wellington Catholic District School Board as amended from time to time, or any successor by-laws thereto.

Page 15

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 8

46.The Developer shall erect and maintain signs at specified entrances to the subdivision showing the proposed land uses and zoning of all the lots and blocks within the proposed subdivision and predominantly place on such signs the wording “For the zoning of all lands abutting the subdivision, inquiries should be directed to Planning Services, City Hall”. The signs shall be resistant to weathering and vandalism.

47.The Developer shall place the following notifications in all offers of purchase and sale for all lots and/or dwelling units and agrees that these same notifications shall be placed in the City’s subdivision agreement to be registered on title:

a. “Purchasers and/or tenants of specified lots are advised that sump pumps will be required for every lot unless a gravity outlet for the foundation drain can be provided on the lot in accordance with a certified design by a Professional Engineer. Furthermore, all sump pumps must be discharged to the rear yard.”

b. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units are advised that if any fee has been paid by the purchaser to the Developers for the planting of trees on City boulevards in front of residential units does not obligate the City nor guarantee that a tree will be planted on the boulevard in front or on the side of a particular residential dwelling.”

c. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units located in the subdivision plan, are advised prior to the completion of home sales, of the time frame during which construction activities may occur, and the potential for residents to be inconvenienced by construction activities such as noise, dust, dirt, debris, drainage and construction traffic.”

d. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units abutting City owned lands are advised that abutting City owned lands may be fenced in accordance with the current standards and specifications of the City.”

e. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units abutting City owned lands are advised that no private gates will be allowed into Blocks 123, 124 and 126 and Lots 43-58 that abut these Blocks and Lots.”

f. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units are advised that a public trail will be installed or exists abutting or in close proximity to Blocks 120, 122 and Lots 40-58 and that public access to this trail will occur between Blocks 120 and 122 and Lots 50 and 51.”

g. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots are advised that the Stormwater Management Block has been vegetated to create a natural setting. Be advised that the City will not carry out routine maintenance such as grass cutting. Some maintenance may occur in the areas that are developed by the City for public walkways, bikeways and trails.”

Page 16

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 9

h. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots are advised that the Open Space Block has been retained in its natural condition. Be advised that the City will not carry out regular maintenance such as grass cutting. Periodic maintenance may occur from time to time to support the open space function and public trail system.”

i. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots are advised that the Park Block has been designed for active public use and may include sportsfields, playgrounds, trails and other park amenities. Be advised that the City may carry out regular maintenance such as grass cutting. Periodic maintenance may also occur from time to time to support the park functions.”

j. “Purchasers and/or tenants of all lots or units are advised that the boundaries of the open space, walkway, stormwater management and park blocks will be demarcated in accordance with the City of Guelph Property Demarcation Policy. This demarcation will consist of living fences and property demarcation markers. The Developer shall also send written notification of proposed demarcation types to any existing homeowners in lots adjacent to open space, walkway, stormwater management and park blocks.”

48.The Developer agrees to provide temporary signage describing the existing/proposed park, open space, trail and required fencing on all entrance signs for the development, at the street frontage of park block 122 and open space block(s) 123 and 126, and entrance/exit of trails, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services. The signage shall:

• advise prospective purchasers of dwellings in the area of the type of park, open space and/or trail and level of maintenance of these parcels of land by the City; • clearly state that the maintenance of the park block and/or trail are the responsibility of the Developer until such time as the City accepts the park and/or trail, and partially releases the associated Letter of Credit; and • clearly state that all questions relating to the maintenance of the park block and/or trail shall be directed to both the Developer and the City.

The signage shall be erected when rough grading on and adjacent to the building lots has begun and must be maintained by the Developer until acceptance of the Blocks by the City. The Developer further agrees that the proposed park block, open space block(s), trails and fencing be identified on any marketing or promotional materials

49.The Developer shall dedicate Block 122 for park purposes in accordance with the provisions of City of Guelph By-law (1989)-13410, as amended by By-law (1990)-13545, By-Law (2007- 18225), or any successor thereof.

Page 17

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 10

50.The Developer acknowledges that the final design of the Harts Lane Trail and Walkway Block may necessitate changes to the lot and block lines that are shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with these lot and block line changes.

51.The Developer agrees to eliminate the use of any covenants that would restrict the use of clotheslines and that prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, the Developer’s lawyer shall certify to the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services that there are no restrictive covenants which restrict the use of clotheslines.

52.The Developer shall ensure that all telephone service and cable TV service in the plan shall be underground. The Developer shall enter into a servicing agreement with the appropriate service providers to provide for the installation of underground utility services for the Lands.

53.The Developer shall ensure that street lighting and underground wiring shall be provided throughout the subdivision at the Developer's expense and in accordance with the policies of the City of Guelph and Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc.

54.That site plans for all corner building lots, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval of driveway location.

55.The Developer shall pay to the City, the total cost of reproduction and distribution of the Guelph Residents Environmental Handbook, to all future residents within the plan, with such payment based on a cost of one handbook per residential dwelling unit as determined by the City.

56.The Developer shall provide the City with a letter of credit to cover the City approved cost estimate for the post-development monitoring program to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit

57.All Stage 1 Services are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

58.The Developer shall provide the City with written confirmation from the Engineering Department of Guelph Hydro that the subdivision hydro servicing has been completed to the satisfaction of Guelph Hydro.

59.The Developer shall submit a report prepared by a Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official certifying that all fill placed below proposed building locations has adequate structural capacity to support the proposed building. All fill placed within the allowable zoning bylaw envelope for building construction shall be certified to a maximum distance of 30 metres from

Page 18

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 11

the street line. This report shall include the following information; lot number, depth of fill, top elevation of fill and the area approved for building construction from the street line.

60.The Developer shall submit a report prepared by a Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official providing an opinion on the presence of soil gases (Radon and Methane) in the plan in accordance with applicable provisions contained in the Ontario Building Code.

AGENCY CONDITIONS:

61.Prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to the registration of the plan, the owners or their agents shall submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority:

i. A detailed storm water management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of Environment Report entitled, “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual” and in keeping with the Preliminary Servicing & Stormwater Management Report (dated May 22, 2015, prepared by GM BluePlan Engineering).

ii. An erosion and siltation control plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority Guidelines for sediment and erosion control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on site throughout all phases of grading and construction.

iii. Detailed lot grading and drainage plans showing existing and proposed grades. iv. An Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority in consultation with the City. The EIR should include the above noted reports, monitoring and mitigation outlined in the EIS. The EIR should also provide on- going shallow groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the wetland and a recommended monitoring program pre and post development.

v. The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the GRCA prior to any grading within the regulated area.

62.That the subdivision agreement between the owners and the municipality contain provisions for:

a) The completion and maintenance of the works in accordance with the approved plans and reports contained in Condition 59.

Page 19

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 12

63.The Developer shall ensure that all telephone service and cable TV service in the plan shall be underground. The Developer shall enter into a servicing agreement with the appropriate service providers to provide for the installation of underground utility services for the Lands.

64.The Developer and the Wellington Catholic School Board shall reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of signage, at the developer’s expense, affixed to the subdivision sign advising potential Separate School supporters of the location of schools serving the area and the current practice of busing students outside the immediate area should schools in the area be at capacity.

65.The Developer agrees to provide the Upper Grand District School Board with a digital file of the plan of subdivision in either ARC/INFO export of DXF format containing the following information: parcel fabric and street network.

66.The Developer agrees in the subdivision agreement to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same, by inserting the following clause in all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease, until such time as a permanent school is assigned:

• “Whereas the Upper Grand District School Board has designated this subdivision as a Development Area for the purposes of school accommodation, and despite the best efforts of the Upper Grand District School Board, sufficient accommodation may not be available for all anticipated students from the area, you are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bused to a school outside the area, and further, that students may in future have to be transferred to another school.

67.The Developer and the Upper Grand District School Board shall reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to Upper Grand District School Board specifications) affixed to the permanent development sign advising perspective residents that students may be directed to schools outside the neighbourhood.

68.The Developer shall satisfy all requirements and conditions of Canada Post including advisories and suitable mailbox locations. The Developer shall ensure that the eventual lot/home owner is advised in writing by the developer / subdivider / builder that Canada Post has selected the municipal easement to their lot for a Community Mail Box installation and the developer shall be responsible for the installation of concrete pads in accordance with the requirements of Canada Post, in locations to be approved by Canada Post to facilitate the placement of Community Mail Boxes.

NOTES: That this Draft Plan Approval shall lapse at the expiration of 5 years from the date of issuance of Draft Plan approval.

Page 20

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 13

That prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, the Grand River Conservation Authority shall advise the City in writing how conditions 61 and 62 have been satisfied.

That prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, the Wellington Catholic District School Board shall advise the City in writing how condition 64 has been satisfied.

That prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, Upper Grand District School Board shall advise the City in writing how conditions 65-67 have been satisfied.

That prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc, shall advise the City in writing how conditions 53 and 58 have been satisfied.

That prior to the registration of all or any portion of the plan, Canada Post shall advise the City in writing how condition 68 has been satisfied.

AND

PART B: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT

THAT the application by Astrid J. Clos Planning Consultants on behalf of Terra View Custom Homes Ltd. for approval of an Official Plan Amendment to add the following exemption clause in Section 7.2.32 of the Plan to allow the net density of development to not exceed 152 units per hectare within the 1.02 hectare apartment block (Block Number 121) of the residential draft plan of subdivision shown in Attachment 5, affecting the lands municipally known as 132 Harts Lane West and legally described as Part of Lot 4, Concession 7 (formerly Township of Puslinch), City of Guelph, be approved:

“In spite of the density provisions of policy 7.2.32 the net density of development within apartment Block 121 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 23T-14502 on lands known municipally as 132 Harts Lane West shall not exceed 152 units per hectare.”

AND

PART C: ZONING REGULATIONS

That the Zoning By-law amendment application be approved and that City Staff be instructed to prepare the necessary amendment to Zoning By-law Number (1995)- 14864, as amended, to transfer the subject lands from the UR (Urban Reserve) Zone, as follows:

Page 21

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 14

LOTS/BLOCKS LAND USE ZONING Lots 1-2, 5-18, 20, 25-35, 59- Single Detached Residential R.1D-50 71, 74-78, 83-99, 101, 103-113, 119 Lots 19, 21-24, 36-39, 43-57, Single Detached Residential R.1C-28 72-73, 79-82, 100, 102, 114- 118 Lot 58 Single Detached Residential R.1C-30 Lots 3-4 Semi-Detached Residential R.2-27 Lots 40-42 Semi-Detached Residential R.2-3 Block 120 Cluster Townhouses R.3A-59 Block 121 Apartment R.4B-19 Block 122 Neighbourhood Park P.2 Blocks 123, 124 Stormwater Management P.1 Block 125 Walkway/Servicing P.1 Block 126 Open Space and Wetland P.1 and WL Block 127 Walkway P.2

1. Section 5.1.3.3 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 5.1.3.3.30:

5.1.3.3.30 R.1C-30 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 29 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.1.3.3.30.1 Permitted Uses In accordance with the Uses permitted by Section 5.1.1 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, with the following addition:

Neighbourhood Club

For the purposes of the R.1C-30 Zone, Neighbourhood Club is defined as a Place used as a private facility that serves the neighbourhood and is operated by members of a not-for-profit organization that maintains formal membership for community, social, literary, recreational or cultural purposes and permits a neighbourhood guest facility up to a maximum of two guest suites for the exclusive use of the not-for-profit organization. The Use does not include uses that are normally carried out as a commercial enterprise and does not include an Amusement Park, Arena or Public Hall, Gaming Establishment or Religious Establishment

5.1.3.3.30.2 Regulations In accordance with Section 5.1.2 and Table 5.1.2 (Residential Single Detached) Zone regulations of By-law Number (1995)–14864, as amended, with the following additions and exceptions:

Page 22

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 15

5.1.3.3.30.2.1 Minimum Front Yard The minimum Front Yard shall be 4.5 metres to Habitable Floor Space and 6 metres to the front wall of the Garage.

5.1.3.3.30.2.2 Minimum Side Yard The minimum Side Yard shall be 0.6 metres on one side and 1.2 metres on the other side.

5.1.3.3.30.2.3 Development Regulations for Neighbourhood Club • The Neighbourhood Club Use shall only be permitted within the existing heritage Building • Minimum of two off-street Parking Spaces shall be required • The Neighbourhood Club Use shall not be permitted in association with any other permitted Use

2. Section 5.1.3.4 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 5.1.3.4.50:

5.1.3.4.50 R.1D-50 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 29 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.1.3.4.50.1 Permitted Uses In accordance with the Uses permitted by Section 5.1.1 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended.

5.1.3.4.50.2 Regulations In accordance with Section 5.1.2 and Table 5.1.2 (Residential Single Detached) Zone regulations of By-law Number (1995)–14864, as amended, with the following additions and exceptions:

5.1.3.4.50.2.1 Minimum Front Yard The minimum Front Yard shall be 4.5 metres to Habitable Floor Space and 6 metres to the front wall of the Garage.

5.1.3.4.50.2.2 Driveway Width A Lot with a Lot Frontage of 11 metres or greater shall have a maximum Driveway width of 6 metres.

5.1.3.4.50.2.3 Minimum Side Yard Where a rear yard catch basin and storm lateral is located, the minimum Side Yard shall be 1.5 metres for that Side Yard and the other Side Yard shall be a minimum of 0.6 metres. The adjacent Lot shall also have a minimum Side Yard of 1.5 metres where it abuts a Side Yard containing a storm lateral, so as to provide a combined minimum total of 3.0 metres.

Page 23

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 16

3. Section 5.2.3.1 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 5.2.3.1.27:

5.2.3.1.27 R.2-27 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 29 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.2.3.1.27.1 Permitted Uses In accordance with the Uses permitted by Section 5.2.2 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended.

5.2.3.1.27.2 Regulations In accordance with Section 5.2.2 and Table 5.2.2 (Residential Semi- Detached/Duplex) Zone regulations of By-law Number (1995)–14864, as amended, with the following additions and exceptions:

5.2.3.1.27.2.1 Minimum Front Yard The minimum Front Yard shall be 4.5 metres to Habitable Floor Space and 6 metres to the front wall of the Garage.

5.2.3.1.27.2.2 Minimum Side Yard The minimum Side Yard shall be 0 metres on the common wall and 0.6 metres on the other side.

5.2.3.1.27.2.3 Minimum Side Yard Where a rear yard catch basin and storm lateral is located, the minimum Side Yard shall be 1.5 m for that Side Yard and the other Side Yard shall be a minimum of 0.6 metres. The adjacent Lot shall also have a minimum Side Yard of 1.5 metres where it abuts a Side Yard containing a storm lateral, so as to provide a combined minimum total of 3 meters.

4. Section 5.3.3.1 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 5.3.3.1.59:

5.3.3.1.59 R.3A-59 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 29 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.3.3.1.59.1 Permitted Uses In accordance will the permitted Uses outlined in Section 5.3.1.1 of the By- law, with the following addition:

Multiple Attached Dwelling

5.3.3.1.59.2 Regulations In accordance with all regulations outlined in Section 5.3.2 and Table 5.3.2 (Cluster Townhouse) Zone regulations of By-law Number (1995)–14864, as amended, with the following additions and exceptions:

Page 24

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 17

5.3.3.1.59.2.1 Maximum Building Height The maximum building height within 30 metres of the single detached lots with frontage on Rickson Avenue shall be 2 Storeys. The maximum Building height for the remainder of the block shall be a maximum of 4 Storeys.

5.3.3.1.59.2.2 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit The minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit shall be 167 m2.

5.3.3.1.59.2.3 Minimum Distance between Buildings • The distance between the front, exterior side and rear face of one Building and the front, exterior side and rear face of another Building, each of which contains windows of Habitable Rooms, shall in no case be less than 12 metres.

• The distance between the interior Side Yard of any two Buildings on the same Lot shall in no case be less than 3 metres.

5. Section 5.4.3.2 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new subsection 5.4.3.2.19:

5.4.3.2.19 R.4B-19 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 29 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.4.3.2.19.1 Permitted Uses In accordance with the Uses permitted by Section 5.4.1.1 of By-law Number (1995)-14864, as amended.

5.4.3.2.19.2 Regulations In accordance with Section 5.4.2 and Table 5.4.2 (Residential Apartment) Zone of By-law Number (1995)–14864, as amended, with the following additions and exceptions:

5.4.3.2.19.2.1 Building Setbacks The minimum Building setback from the P.2 Zone shall be a minimum of 4.5 metres and a maximum of 8 metres.

5.4.3.2.19.2.2 Angular Plane Despite Section 4.16, the Angular Plane regulations do not apply.

5.4.3.2.19.2.3 Setbacks of Upper Storeys • The eighth Storey of the building shall be setback a minimum of 1.8 metres from the Building facing the P.2 (Neighbourhood Park) Zone and the two adjoining sides. • The ninth and tenth Storeys shall be setback an additional minimum of 1.8 metres from the eighth Storey of the Building facing the P.2 (Neighbourhood Park) Zone and the two adjoining sides. Page 25

April 11, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Schedule 1 Page 18

5.4.3.2.19.2.4 Minimum Side Yard The minimum Side Yard shall be 3 m.

5.4.3.2.19.2.5 Minimum Common Amenity Area The minimum Common Amenity Area required shall be 9.8 square metres per unit.

5.4.3.2.19.2.6 Maximum Floor Space Index The maximum Floor Space Index shall be 2.3.

5.4.3.2.19.2.7 Maximum Density The maximum density shall be 152 units per hectare.

Page 26

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in Meeting Room C, Guelph City Hall on Monday, April 18, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor J. Hofland Councillor P. Allt Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor B. Bell Councillor L. Piper (arrived 5:21 p.m.) Councillor C. Billings Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson (departed 7:57 p.m.) Councillor K. Wettstein Councillor J. Gordon

Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, Chief Administrative Officer Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO of Corporate Services Mr. S. Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO of Public Services Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Others Present: Mr. F. Dean Mr. N. Bellchamber

Call to Order (5:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council

1. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That Section 239 (3.1) of the Municipal Act related to a meeting of a council may be closed to the public for the purpose of educating or training the members. CARRIED

Closed Meeting (5:04 p.m.)

The following matters were considered:

GOV-C-2016.29 Council Training and Development (Extension of Orientation)

Page 1

April 18, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (8:34 p.m.)

Open Meeting (8:34 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie reported information was received regarding the Council Training and Development.

Adjournment (8:34 p.m.)

2. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

______Mayor Guthrie

______Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk

Page 2

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor P. Allt Councillor D. Gibson Councillor B. Bell (arrived 6:25 p.m.) Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor J. Gordon Councillor K. Wettstein

Regrets: Councillor J. Hofland Councillor A. Van Hellemond

Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, Chief Administrative Officer Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO of Corporate Services Mr. S. Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO of Public Services Mr. T. Salter, General Manager, Planning, Urban Design and Building Services Mr. P. Cartwright, General Manager, Business Development and Enterprise Ms. M. Aldunate, Manager of Policy Planning & Urban Design Ms. S. Kirkwood, Manager of Development Planning Mr. I. Panabaker, Corporate Manager Ms. S. Laughlin, Senior Policy Planner Mr. D. De Groot, Urban Designer Mr. J. Downham, Planner II – Policy and Analytics Ms. J. Sweeney, Acting Deputy Clerk Ms. G. van den Burg, Council Committee Coordinator

Call to Order (6:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There was no disclosure.

Presentations

Mr. Scott Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise, provided an introduction to the growth and development, urban design, and monitoring Downtown implementation.

Ms. Melissa Aldunate, Manager of Policy Planning & Urban Design, provided a general overview of the vision of growth in Guelph and the policies and principles behind the urban design action plan.

Page 1

April 20, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Mr. David De Groot, Urban Designer, outlined the principles of designing a city and its public spaces and future approaches to these design plans, including intensification.

Mr. Jason Downham, Planner II – Policy and Analytics, highlighted key components of the City’s 2nd annual growth monitoring report including information on development activity, the housing supply in accordance with Guelph’s population forecast, the provincial policy statement, and the achievement of the Places to Grow targets.

Councillor Bob Bell arrived at 6:25 p.m..

Ms. Sylvia Kirkwood, Manager of Development Planning, outlined the purpose of the development priorities plan, development activity in 2015 and future development activitiy.

Mr. Peter Cartwright, General Manager, Business Development and Enterprise, provided an overview of the progress on the development of Wilson Street Reconstruction and Parkade project and the Downtown Strategy and Real Estate Market Sounding.

Mr. Ian Panabaker, Corporate Manager, highlighted some of the key development projects that have been completed in the past 5 years in accordance with the community infrastructure plan as well as future infrastructure investments.

Ms. Stacey Laughlin, Senior Policy Planner, provided background on the Downtown zoning by-law regulations, the Downtown Secondary Plan, and its urban design standards related to frontage requirements, cultural heritage resources and vehicle and bicycle parking standards.

Mr. Todd Salter, General Manager, Planning, Urban Design and Building Services, summarized the vision of future development, the plans to implement the vision, and the actions required to implement the vision.

CON-2016.16 Urban Design Action Plan Update and Urban Design Manual Project

1. Moved by Councillor Gordon Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That Report 16-24 from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise titled “Urban Design Action Plan Update and Urban Design Manual Project” dated April 20, 2016, be received.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0) CARRIED

Page 2

April 20, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

CON-2016.15 Guelph Growth Management – Annual Monitoring Report 2015

2. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Billings

That Report #16-25 from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise titled “Guelph Growth Management: Annual Monitoring Report 2015” dated April 20, 2016, be received.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0) CARRIED

CON-2016.17 Downtown Zoning By-law Update: Discussion Paper

3. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Gibson

1. That Report 16-20 from Planning, Urban Design and Building Services regarding the Downtown Zoning By-law Update: Discussion Paper dated April 20, 2016 be received; and

2. That Council directs staff to use the Downtown Zoning By-law Update: Discussion Paper included as Attachment 1 to Report 16-20 as the basis to develop a new draft Zoning By-law for Downtown Guelph and undertake additional stakeholder and public engagement.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0) CARRIED

CON-2016.18 2016 Development Priorities Plan

Ms. Susan Watson, resident, spoke to this item.

4. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Allt

That Council direct staff to investigate and report back on the most effective way to quantify the cost of growth.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gordon, Piper, Salisbury, and Wettstein (9) VOTING AGAINST: Councillors Gibson and MacKinnon (2) CARRIED

Page 3

April 20, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

5. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

1. That Report 16-16, from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise, regarding the 2016 Development Priorities Plan, dated April 20, 2016, be received; and

2. That Council approve a 2016 target for the registration of 934 housing units within plans of subdivision in accordance with the 2016 Development Priorities Plan; and

3. That Council approve a 2016 target for the draft plan approval of up to 540 housing units within plans of subdivision in accordance with the 2016 Development Priorities Plan; and

4. That amendments to the timing of registration of plans of subdivision be permitted only by Council approval unless it can be shown that there is no impact on the capital budget and that the dwelling unit targets for 2016 are not exceeded.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: (0) CARRIED

Adjournment (8:26 p.m.)

6. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Gibson

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

______Mayor Guthrie

______Joyce Sweeney – Acting Deputy Clerk

Page 4

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in the Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor Guthrie Councillor P. Allt Councillor J. Hofland Councillor B. Bell Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper (arrived at 5:02 p.m.) Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor J. Gordon Councillor K. Wettstein

Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, CAO Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO of Corporate Services Mr. S. Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO of Public Services Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk Ms. D. Black, Council Committee Coordinator

Call to Order (5:01 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council

1. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor MacKinnon

That the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to Section 239 (2) (a), (b), (c), and (e) of the Municipal Act with respect to security of the property, personal matters about identifiable individuals, proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality and litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals. CARRIED

Closed Meeting (5:01 p.m.)

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

The following matters were considered:

C-2016.27 City of Guelph Contribution Agreement with Metrolinx

Page 1

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

C-2016.32 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing – 1159 Victoria Road South (Victoria Park Village) – Update on Appeals of Zoning By-law Amendment (City File: ZC1206) and Applications for Site Plan Approval (City Files: 12A042 & 12A043) – Ward 6

C-2016.30 Solid Waste Resources 2015 Negative Variance

C-2016.25 Decision Making: Terms of Reference and Scope – Follow Up on February 29, 2016 Matter

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (6:55 p.m.)

Council recessed.

Open Meeting (7:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie spoke regarding the matters addressed in closed and identified the following:

Minutes – Council Closed Meeting Minutes of March 7, 9, and 21, 2016

These minutes were approved by Council.

C-2016.27 City of Guelph Contribution Agreement with Metrolinx

Staff were given direction on this matter.

C-2016.32 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing – 1159 Victoria Road South (Victoria Park Village) – Update on Appeals of Zoning By-law Amendment (City File: ZC1206) and Applications for Site Plan Approval (City /files: 12A042 & 12A043) – Ward 6

Staff were given direction on this matter.

C-2016.30 Solid Waste Resources 2015 Negative Variance

Staff were given direction on this matter.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

Page 2

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Presentations

Dr. Franco Vaccarino, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Guelph provided an update of the University of Guelph’s strategic plans and addressed the relationship between the City and University.

Confirmation of Minutes

1. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Piper

That the minutes of the Council Meetings held March 7, 9 and 21, 2016 and be confirmed as recorded and without being read.

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

Consent Reports

Integrity Commissioner Second Consent Report

The following item was extracted:

IC-2016.1 Complaint Against Five Members of Council

2. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Downer

That the report of the Integrity Commissioner dated April 25, 2016 be received.

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

Motion

3. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That the Integrity Commissioner be directed to identify the source of the leak as it pertains to the complaint against the five members of Council.

Amendment

4. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Allt

Page 3

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

That the scope of the Integrity Commissioner investigation include all leaked information that is in the public realm related to the January 25th, 2016 meeting.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillors Allt and Piper (2) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (10) DEFEATED

During the discussion of the Motion and Amendment, Councillor Salisbury declared a pecuniary interest in this matter before the votes because he believed he was being implicated. He left the room and did not vote on or discuss the matter further.

Main Motion

5. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That the Integrity Commissioner be directed to identify the source of the leak as it pertains to the complaint against the five members of Council.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Councillor Bell (1) VOTING AGAINST: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Allt, Billings, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) DEFEATED

The meeting recessed at 8:44 p.m. and resumed at 8:55 p.m

Corporate Services Committee Third Consent Report

The following item was extracted:

CS-2016.7 2015 Preliminary Year End Operating Variance Report (Unaudited)

Councillor Hofland presented the balance of the Corporate Services Committee Third Consent Report.

3. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Gordon

That the balance of the April 25, 2016 Corporate Services Committee Third Consent Report as identified below, be adopted:

CS-2016.10 2016 Property Tax Policy

1. That Report CS-2016.08 entitled ‘2016 Property Tax Policy’ be received for information.

2. That the maximum allowable capping parameters be used for 2016 allowing the City of Guelph to exit the capping program in the shortest time frame available.

Page 4

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

3. That the 2016 City of Guelph Property Tax Policies as set out in Schedule 1 be approved.

4. That the tax policies be incorporated into the tax ratio, tax rate, and capping by- laws and submitted to Council on April 25, 2016.

VOTING IN FAVOUR: Mayor Guthrie, Councillors Bell, Downer, Gibson, Gordon, Hofland, MacKinnon, Piper, Salisbury, Van Hellemond and Wettstein (11) VOTING AGAINST: Councillor Billings (1) Councillor Allt was not present at the time of the vote. CARRIED

Governance Committee Second Consent Report

The following items were extracted:

GOV-2016.2 Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update GOV-2016.3 Council Committee Structure – Committee-of-the-Whole GOV-2016.4 Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Third Consent Report

Councillor Bell presented the balance of the Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Third Consent Report.

5. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Salisbury

That the April 25, 2016 Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Third Consent Report as identified below, be adopted:

IDE-2016.8 Sign By-law Variances – 197 Hanlon Creek Boulevard

1. That Report 16-26 from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise dated April 5, 2016 regarding sign by-law variances for 197 Hanlon Creek Boulevard, be received.

2. That the request for variances from the City of Guelph Sign By-law to permit one (1) sign with an area of 10.96m2 to be located on the second storey of a building face fronting an adjacent property at 197 Hanlon Creek Boulevard, be approved.

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

Public Services Committee Second Consent Report

Councillor Downer presented the Public Services Committee April 25, 2016 Consent Report.

Page 5

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

6. Moved by Councillor Downer Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the April 25, 2016 Public Services Committee Second Consent Report as identified below, be adopted:

PS-2016.4 Canada Summer Games 2021 Update and Regional Bid Investigation

1. That Public Services Report PS-16-07 “Canada Summer Games 2021 Update and Regional Bid Investigation” dated April 4, 2016, be received.

2. That Council endorses the Regional Sport Tourism Office’s ongoing investigation of a regional bid for the 2021 Canada Summer Games and submission of a Letter of Intent to bid.

PS-2016.5 Harvard Road Transit Service

1. That Public Services Report PS-16-08 “Harvard Road Transit Service” dated April 4, 2016, be received.

2. That Option 1: Reroute Route 57 to use Stone Road westbound instead of Harvard Road be chosen for a trial period of three semesters and further public consultation to occur.

Wellington Guelph Drug Strategy

That staff be directed to dialogue with Wellington Guelph Drug Strategy on further scoping of recommendations #11 and #12 on pages 4 and 5 from the “We can do it Better” booklet and to report back to the Public Services Committee on those recommendations by the end of the third quarter 2016.

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

Council Consent Agenda

7. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Billings

That the balance of the April 25, 2016 Consent Agenda as identified below, be adopted:

CON-2016.15 Annual Asphalt, Contract 2-1601

1. That the tender of Brantco Construction, Cambridge be accepted for Contract 2- 1601 for the Annual Asphalt Contract at a tendered price of $2,258,956.15.

2. A contingency amount of $500,000 be added to the total contract value.

Page 6

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

3. The Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement for Contract 2-1601 for the Annual Asphalt Contract for a total tendered plus contingency price of $2,758,956.15 with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

CON-2016.16 Stevenson Street Reconstruction Phase II (Grange Street to Bennett Avenue) Contract 2-1609

1. That the tender from Blue Con Construction be accepted and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement for Contract 2-1609 for the Stevenson Street Reconstruction Phase II Contract for a total tendered price of $4,331,661.52 including HST with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

2. That Council approve a budget increase in the amount of $760,000 for project SC0003 WW12 Stevenson– York-Eramosa.

3. That the additional budget be funded via $202,000 from the Wastewater Development Charge Reserve Fund and $558,000 from the Wastewater Rate Capital Reserve.

4. Prepare a by-law for the temporary closure of Stevenson Street between Grange Street and Bennett Avenue during the period of construction.

CON-2016.17 Restated Resolutions: Municipal Council Support Resolution (Blanket): Notice to Proceed (NTP) for Projects Previously Supported by Council Under Feed-In-Tariff Program 3.1

WHEREAS capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the FIT Contract, Version 3.1;

AND WHEREAS the Province's FIT Program encourages the construction and operation of rooftop solar PV and ground mount solar PV generation projects (the "Projects");

AND WHEREAS one or more Projects may be subject to FIT Contracts and may be constructed and operated in the City of Guelph ("Local Municipality");

AND WHEREAS in accordance with the FIT Rules, Version 3.0, the Council of the Local Municipality ("Council") had previously indicated, by a resolution, its support for Projects in the Local Municipality (the "Prior Resolution");

AND WHEREAS Council now indicates, by a resolution dated no earlier than June 10, 2015, Council's continued support for the construction and operation of the Projects anywhere in the Local Municipality (the "New Resolution");

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the FIT Contract, where a New Resolution is received in respect of the Projects in the Local Municipality, Suppliers will be recognized as fulfilling the requirements under Section 2.4(d)(vii) of the FIT

Page 7

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Contract, which may result in Suppliers being offered Notice to Proceed in accordance with the terms of their respective FIT Contract(s);

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Council of the City of Guelph supports the construction and operation of the Projects anywhere in the City of Guelph.

This resolution's sole purpose is to enable Suppliers to achieve Notice to Proceed under their FIT Contracts and may not be used for the purpose of any other form of municipal approval in relation to a FIT Contract or Project or for any other purpose.

This resolution shall expire twelve (12) months after its adoption by Council.

That Report IDE-BDE-1607 from Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise, dated April 25, 2016 be received.

That Council direct the City Clerk to facilitate the signing by two elected officials of the attached "MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SUPPORT RESOLUTION (BLANKET) - NOTICE TO PROCEED" (Attachment #1 to the report).

That Council direct the Manager, Community Energy to provide a completed and signed "MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SUPPORT RESOLUTION (BLANKET) - NOTICE TO PROCEED" (Attachment #1 to the report) to applicants requesting same for the purposes of completing their contract obligations to the Independent Electricity System Operator's Feed-In-Tariff 3.1 Program.

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

Extracted Items

GOV-2016.3 Council Committee Structure – Committee-of-the-Whole

The following addressed Council: • Hugh Whiteley • Steven Petric

8. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That a Committee-of-the-Whole governance structure, as outlined in this report and effective on September 1, 2016, be approved.

2. That City Clerk’s Office staff report back to Council in June with a Meeting Management Review report based on the adoption of a Committee-of-the-Whole governance structure.

Page 8

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

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

GOV-2016.4 Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope

The following addressed Council: • Keithio Mwanzia, President and CEO, Guelph Chamber of Commerce • Hugh Whiteley • Maria Finoro, owner and President of MF Property Management Ltd. • Michael Finoro, President, Finterra Realty Inc. • Sally Ludwig, Co-Founder of Transition Guelph • Susan Watson • Steve Dyck, President Guelph Solar supportive of CEI • Jonathan Knowles • Cynthia Bragg • Mike Darmon • Mike Schreiner • Maggie Laidlaw

David McAuley withdrew his request to delegate before the meeting and was not present.

Procedural Motion

9. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Bell

That Section 21.1 of the Procedural By-law be invoked to allow Council to continue past 11:00 p.m. CARRIED

The following also addressed Council: • Mary-Kate Gilbertson, Anwaatin Inc. • Evan Ferrari, Executive Director, eMERGE Sustainability

Councillor Downer assumed the Chair (10:56 p.m.) Mayor Guthrie resumed the Chair (11:00 p.m.)

10. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That Council receive Report IDE-BDE-1604 entitled “Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope” for information.

2. THAT Council direct staff to provide a stand-alone, detailed formal report on the progress of the Community Energy Initiative (CEI) from inception in April 2007 to date that is consistent with format of previous and current (as described in this repot IDE-BDE-1604) CEI reports.

Page 9

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

3. That Council approve the establishment of a Community Energy Initiative update process that includes the following key principles as described in report IDE– BDE- 1604: • Establishing a community-based advisory committee which will provide governance, oversight and reporting to the community and to Council; • A reference to the most recent Community Energy Initiative activity, status and gap analysis report; • Improved community engagement with a strong interaction with local stakeholders; • Clarity on roles of Local Government, Local Government Agencies, and local stakeholders; • Improved understanding of the local, regional and global transforming energy market; • Reconfirmation of policy, program and regulation framework; • Partnering with external third party advocacy and support groups such as, but not limited to Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and QUEST (Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow); • Initiating rigorous analysis, reporting and oversight in support of developing acceptable baseline and targets and communicating measurable results; and • Update performance metrics which measure annual local performance, and measures such performance against benchmark communities; and

4. That staff report back to Council with the results of the CEI update process described at key milestones as described in this report with a final report on the overall CEI process to be delivered no later than Q1 2017.

5. That Council delegate authority to staff to make funding applications, subject to the joint approval of the Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services and the Deputy CAP of Corporate Service, to the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s Municipal Energy Plan Program, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Funds for supporting funds and other resources in support of the CEI Update process.

Amendment

11. Moved by Councillor Piper Seconded by Councillor Allt

That Clause 3 of the Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope recommendations be amended to remove the word “governance” and replace it with “guidance”.

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

Second Amendment

12. Moved by Councillor Billings Seconded by Councillor Gibson

Page 10

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

That a bullet point be added to Clause 3 of the Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope recommendations to state:

“That the key deliverables include rigorous cases with net present value calculations and fully disclosed assumptions for projects.”

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

Main Motion as Amended

13. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That Council receive Report IDE-BDE-1604 entitled “Community Energy Initiative Update – Proposed Scope” for information.

2. THAT Council direct staff to provide a stand-alone, detailed formal report on the progress of the Community Energy Initiative (CEI) from inception in April 2007 to date that is consistent with format of previous and current (as described in this repot IDE-BDE-1604) CEI reports.

3. That Council approve the establishment of a Community Energy Initiative update process that includes the following key principles as described in report IDE– BDE- 1604: • Establishing a community-based advisory committee which will provide guidance, oversight and reporting to the community and to Council; • A reference to the most recent Community Energy Initiative activity, status and gap analysis report; • Improved community engagement with a strong interaction with local stakeholders; • Clarity on roles of Local Government, Local Government Agencies, and local stakeholders; • Improved understanding of the local, regional and global transforming energy market; • Reconfirmation of policy, program and regulation framework; • Partnering with external third party advocacy and support groups such as, but not limited to Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and QUEST (Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow); • Initiating rigorous analysis, reporting and oversight in support of developing acceptable baseline and targets and communicating measurable results; • Update performance metrics which measure annual local performance, and measures such performance against benchmark communities; • That key deliverables include rigorous business cases with net present value calculations and fully disclosed assumptions for projects.

Page 11

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

4. That staff report back to Council with the results of the CEI update process described at key milestones as described in this report with a final report on the overall CEI process to be delivered no later than Q1 2017.

5. That Council delegate authority to staff to make funding applications, subject to the joint approval of the Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services and the Deputy CAP of Corporate Service, to the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s Municipal Energy Plan Program, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Funds for supporting funds and other resources in support of the CEI Update process.

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

CS-2016.7 2015 Preliminary Year End Operating Variance Report (Unaudited)

14. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That report CS-2016-14 entitled “2015 Preliminary Year End Operating Variance Report (Unaudited)” be received for information.

2. That staff be directed to report back to the Corporate Services Committee on an updated operating variance reporting system using best practices from other municipalities and that scope greater transparency and greater frequency of report to Council.

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

GOV-2016.2 Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update

15. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Piper

1. That report CAO-S-1601 “Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update” be received.

2. That report CAO-S-1601 “Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update” be approved.

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

Page 12

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

CS-2016.7 2015 Preliminary Year End Operating Variance Report (Unaudited)

16. Moved by Councillor Hofland Seconded by Councillor Allt

1. That report CS-2016-14 entitled “2015 Preliminary Year End Operating Variance Report (Unaudited)” be received for information.

2. That staff be directed to report back to the Corporate Services Committee on an updated operating variance reporting system using best practices from other municipalities and that scope greater transparency and greater frequency of report to Council.

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

GOV-2016.2 Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-2016) Priority Project Update

17. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Piper

1. That report CAO-S-1601 “Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update’ be received; and

2. That report CAO-S-1601 ”Corporate Strategic Plan (2012-16) Priority Project Update’ be approved.

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

By-laws

18. Moved by Councillor Gibson Seconded by Councillor Bell

That By-laws Numbered (2016)-20041 to (2016)-20048, inclusive, are hereby passed.

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

There was discussion regarding adding an item to the agenda and it was determined to wait and add it to a future agenda.

Page 13

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Procedural Motion

19. Moved by Councillor MacKinnon Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

That Section 21.1 of the Procedural By-law be suspended to allow Council to continue past midnight. CARRIED

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council (11:44 p.m.)

20. Moved by Councillor Allt Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That the Council of the City of Guelph now hold a meeting that is closed to the public, pursuant to Section 239 (2) (b) and (c) of the Municipal Act with respect to personal matters about identifiable individuals and proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality. CARRIED

Closed Meeting (11:45 p.m.)

C-2016.31 CAO Performance Objectives

C-2016.33 Downtown Property

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (12:12 a.m.)

Council recessed.

Open Meeting (12:13 a.m.)

Attendance

Council: Mayor Guthrie Councillor P. Allt Councillor J. Hofland Councillor B. Bell Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor D. Gibson Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor J. Gordon Councillor K. Wettstein

Staff: Ms. A. Pappert, CAO Mr. M. Amorosi, Deputy CAO of Corporate Services Mr. S. Stewart, Deputy CAO of Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Mr. D. Thomson, Deputy CAO of Public Services Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Page 14

April 25, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie spoke regarding the matters addressed in closed and identified the following:

C-2016.31 CAO Performance Objectives

Staff were given direction on this matter.

C-2016.33 Downtown Property

Staff were given direction on this matter.

Adjournment (12:14 a.m.)

21. Moved by Councillor Bell Seconded by Councillor Hofland

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

Minutes to be confirmed on May 24, 2016.

______Mayor Guthrie

______Stephen O’Brien - City Clerk

Page 15

Minutes of Guelph City Council Held in Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Attendance

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor J. Hofland Councillor B. Bell Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper Councillor C. Downer Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor J. Gordon

Absent: Councillors P. Allt, D. Gibson, M. Salisbury, K. Wettstein

Staff: Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Others Present: Ms. L. Bernardi, Bernardi Human Resource Law

Call to Order (5:00 p.m.)

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

Authority to Resolve into a Closed Meeting of Council

1. Moved by Councillor Billings Seconded by Councillor Van Hellemond

Section 239 (2)(b) of the Municipal Act related to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.

CARRIED

Closed Meeting (5:03 p.m.)

The following matters were considered:

C-2016.34 CAO Contract

Rise and recess from Closed Meeting (6:55 p.m.)

Page 1

April 27, 2016 Guelph City Council Meeting

Open Meeting (6:56 p.m.)

Attendance:

Council: Mayor C. Guthrie Councillor C. Billings Councillor L. Piper Councillor C. Downer Councillor M. Salisbury Councillor J. Gordon Councillor A. Van Hellemond Councillor M. MacKinnon Councillor K. Wettstein

Absent: Councillors P. Allt, D. Gibson

Staff: Mr. S. O’Brien, City Clerk

Mayor Guthrie called the meeting to order.

Closed Meeting Summary

Mayor Guthrie reported information was received regarding the Council Training and Development.

Adjournment (6:57 p.m.)

2. Moved by Councillor Van Hellemond Seconded by Councillor Wettstein

That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

______Mayor Guthrie

______Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk

Page 2

CONSENT REPORT OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

May 24, 2016

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

Your Corporate Services Committee beg leave to present their Fourth Consent Report as recommended at its meeting of May 2, 2016.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Corporate Services Committee will be approved in one resolution.

CS-2016.12 Transfer of Railway Right of Way and Assignment of Other Interests to Guelph Junction Railway Limited

1. That the transfer to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the right of way lands previously owned by Canadian Pacific Railway and transferred to the City in 1999, except that portion of the right of way lands being used by the City as a trail, as shown on the draft reference plans attached to report CAO-LS-1610, is approved.

2. That the assignment to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the City’s interests in the various agreements assigned to the City by Canadian Pacific Railway in an agreement dated March 31, 1999 is approved.

3. That the transfer to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the remaining right of way lands in the Northwest Industrial Park, as shown outlined in red and green on Schedule C to report CAO-LR-1610 is approved.

4. That the assignment to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the City’s interest in the Tri-Party Agreement between Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and Guelph Junction Railway dated October 22, 1956, as amended, including the City’s ownership interest, operating rights and maintenance obligations in and for the track in the Northwest Industrial Park, is approved.

5. That the City Solicitor is authorized to approve and execute on behalf of the City any documents required to implement the above resolutions.

6. That the General Manager Parks and Recreation is authorized to execute an agreement between Guelph Junction Railway Limited and the City that provides the City with an opportunity to purchase additional lands for trails in the event Guelph Junction Railway Limited intends to transfer to a non-affiliated third party any part of Guelph Junction Railway Limited’s right of way between Speedavle Avenue and the City limits as shown outlined in orange on Schedule D in Report CAO-LR-1610 or in the event there is intended to be a change in control of Guelph Junction Railway Limited from the City to a non-affiliated third party.

Page 2 Corporate Services Committee – 4th Consent Report May 24, 2016

CS-2016.14 2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement

1. That report CS-2016-24 dated May 2, 2016, entitled “2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement” be received for information.

2. That Council approve the following reserve and reserve fund consolidations and closures as described throughout the report: 1) Consolidate and close Accumulated Sick Leave Reserves 102 and 103 into Accumulated Sick Leave Reserve 100; 2) Consolidate and close Social Housing Reserve 208 into the Affordable Housing Reserve 119; 3) Consolidate and close the Capital Fire Reserve Fund 173 into the Equipment Replacement Fire Reserve Fund 111; 4) Consolidate and close the Capital Transit Improvement Reserve Fund 161 into the Capital Transit Reserve Fund 172; 5) Closure of the Investing in Ontario Act Reserve Fund 200, as funds have been fully allocated to capital projects.

CS-2016.16 Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and Budget PSAB Reconciliation

That Council approve compliance report CS-2016-25, Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and 2016 Budget PSAB Reconciliation included in Table 1 and Attachment 1 respectively.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Councillor June Hofland, Chair Corporate Services Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the May 2, 2016 Corporate Services Committee meeting. STAFF REPORT TO Corporate Services Committee

SERVICE AREA Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Legal, Realty & Risk Services Legal Services

DATE May 2, 2106

SUBJECT Transfer of Railway Right of Way and Assignment of Other Interests to Guelph Junction Railway Limited

REPORT NUMBER CAO-LR-1610

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide information to Council regarding a transfer of the City’s interest in the railway right of way and the assignment of certain other interests to Guelph Junction Railway Limited in accordance with the agreement made in 1999 and to obtain Council’s instruction to proceed with the transfer.

KEY FINDINGS In 1999, the City purchased the railway right of way owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (“CPR”) in the City of Guelph and the Township of Guelph Eramosa and the interest of CPR in a number of agreements, including the Tri-Party Agreement relating to the Northwest Industrial Park. Although there is not an executed agreement in place, it was agreed between the City and Guelph Junction Railway Limited (“GJR”) at the time of the purchase that when GJR paid the City approximately $800,000, the City would transfer and assign these interests to GJR.

The City had retained intended railway right of way lands in part of the Northwest Industrial Park for unknown reasons. Most of this right of way has existing railway lines on it. The vacant right of way may be required for a connection between the north and south lines as a result of the MTO expropriation.

The debt owing to the City, including interest, was paid in full in December, 2009. In 2011, the GJR Board requested the City transfer the former CPR railway right of way and the right of way in the Northwest Industrial Park to GJR. Council authorized this transfer on November 28, 2011. No action was

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT

taken on the transfer due to the failure to identify the existing trail lands along one portion of the right of way and the cost of obtaining reference plans to do so.

In April, 2015, Legal and Realty Services commenced a project to determine ownership of the railway right of way and other railway interests. It was determined that in addition to the interest in the right of way, there were numerous agreements which had been assigned from CPR to the City in 1999, including CPR’s interest in a Tri-Party Agreement between CPR, GJR and Canadian National Railway relating to construction and operation of railway services in the Northwest Industrial Park. Ownership and intended use for the Northwest Industrial Park right of ways was also determined.

In November, 2015, the GJR Board approved funding in the GJR 2016 budget for the reference plans and other costs required to effect the transfer of the City owned right of ways.

On February 12, 2016, the GJR Board approved the transfer of the railway right of way, less the existing trail and the interests in the agreements to GJR. Subsequently, the Parks and Recreation department requested that some provision be made for future City trails over parts of the right of way being transferred. On April 8, 2016, the GJR Board approved staff entering into an agreement between the City and GJR which provided the City with the right to purchase portions of the right of way for trail purposes in the future if GJR intended to sell the right of way or if there was a change in control of GJR.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

GJR has assumed the costs for the reference plans related to its’ interests and the cost of registration.

The title search and related costs for determining the City owned railway related properties was funded through the Realty Services budget in 2015.

ACTION REQUIRED To approve the transfer of the former CPR railway right of way, the Northwest Industrial Park right of way and the assignment of the City’s interests in railway agreements to Guelph Junction Railway Limited and to approve an agreement for the future purchase by the City of portions of the railway lands for trail purposes.

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the transfer to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the right of way lands previously owned by Canadian Pacific Railway and transferred to the City in 1999, except that portion of the right of way lands being used by the City as a trail, as shown on the draft reference plans attached to report CAO-LR- 1610 is approved.

2. That the assignment to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the City’s interests in the various agreements assigned to the City by Canadian Pacific Railway in an agreement dated March 31, 1999 is approved.

3. That the transfer to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the remaining right of way lands in the Northwest Industrial Park, as shown outlined in red and green on Schedule C to report CAO-LR-1610 is approved.

4. That the assignment to Guelph Junction Railway Limited of the City’s interest in the Tri-Party Agreement between Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and Guelph Junction Railway dated October 22, 1956, as amended, including the City’s ownership interest, operating rights and maintenance obligations in and for the track in the Northwest Industrial Park, is approved.

5. That the City Solicitor is authorized to approve and execute on behalf of the City any documents required to implement the above resolutions.

6. That the General Manager Parks and Recreation is authorized to execute an agreement between Guelph Junction Railway Limited and the City that provides the City with an opportunity to purchase additional lands for trails in the event Guelph Junction Railway Limited intends to transfer to a non- affiliated third party any part of Guelph Junction Railway Limited’s right of way between Speedvale Avenue and the City limits as shown outlined in orange on Schedule D in Report CAO-LR-1610 or in the event there is intended to be a change in control of Guelph Junction Railway Limited from the City to a non-affiliated third party.

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND

For the purpose of this report, references to Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway shall include that corporation and any of its subsidiaries or lessees from time to time.

Construction of the Railway

In the late 1880’s, Guelph Junction Railway (GJR) constructed a railway line from Norwich Street in Guelph to Guelph Junction in Campbellville. This line was leased to Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) for 100 years. CPR constructed a track from Norwich Street North to Fergus.

The Tri-Party Agreement

In 1956, Canadian National Railway (CNR) and CPR entered into an agreement with GJR (the “Tri-Party Agreement”) for the construction and operation of a railway line in the Northwest Industrial Park (the “Northwest Industrial Lead”). The agreement provided that GJR would acquire the land for the railway right of way and pay the cost of construction for the track and CNR and CPR would operate on the track. CNR and CPR also agreed to share certain operating and maintenance costs and to pay $5.00 per car to GJR until the cost of the construction of the track was repaid, at which time CNR and CPR would each become 50% owners of the track. GJR retained ownership of the right of way unless GJR terminated the agreement, in which case ownership of the right of way would vest in CNR and CPR. There were a number of amendments to this agreement for the construction of additional railway line in the Northwest Industrial Park.

In the mid-1990’s, the cost of construction of the Northwest Industrial Lead was paid in full by CNR and CPR and the ownership of the track vested in these two companies.

City Lands in Northwest Industrial Park

The City was the “developer” of the lands in the Northwest Industrial Park. The City retained certain lands for the use of GJR for the construction of the Northwest Industrial Lead. Some of these lands were transferred to GJR in 1969. It is unknown why the City did not transfer all of the intended railway right of way lands to GJR.

PAGE 4

STAFF REPORT Transfer of the CPR Interests to the City

In 1997-98, CPR advised GJR that it would not be renewing its lease of the GJR right of way running to Campbellville. CPR also provided notice that it was abandoning the rail line running from Norwich Street to Fergus. As part of the requirements for rail line abandonment, the City was provided with the right to purchase the CPR right of way and track within the City limits. The City decided to purchase the right of way, including a portion extending beyond the City limits into Guelph Eramosa Township that was required for continued operation of the railway within the City. The intended purpose was to ensure rail service was available in the City and to provide for the development of part of the TransCanada Trail along the Speed River on the railway right of way. Although not clearly documented, the railway lands purchased by the City were intended to be transferred to GJR when GJR had repaid to the City the relevant portion of the purchase price, being approximately $800,000.

As part of the purchase transaction, CPR assigned to the City numerous agreements relating to its right of way, mostly for utility and pipe crossings (the “CPR Agreements”). CPR’s interest in the Tri-Party Agreement was also assigned to the City.

GJR Begins Operating

In 1999, GJR began operating the rail service from Campbellville through the City and into the Northwest Industrial Park. GJR contracted with Ontario Southland Railway to actually provide the rail service. No agreements were ever made between the City and GJR regarding the use by GJR of the City owned rights of way and track. GJR assumed CPR’s responsibilities under the Tri-Party Agreement and the CPR Agreements, although there was no actual assignment of those agreements to GJR.

Repayment of the Debt and Request to Transfer

The debt owing to the City, including interest, was paid in full in December, 2009. In 2011, the GJR Board requested the City transfer the former CPR railway right of way to GJR. Council authorized this transfer on November 28, 2011. No action was taken on the transfer due to the failure to identify the existing trail lands along that portion of the right of way along the Speed River and the cost of obtaining reference plans to do so. At the time, no reference was made to the CPR Agreements or the Tri-Party Agreement.

PAGE 5

STAFF REPORT

REPORT

In April, 2015, Legal and Realty Services commenced a project to determine ownership of the railway rights of way and other railway interests and to create a list of the outstanding CPR agreements and other agreements affecting the railway. A full title search of the railway lands was completed. From this search, a map was created showing the ownership of the railway lands, excluding the CN/Metrolinx mainline, in the City. The map is attached as Schedule A.

In the fall of 2015, the GJR Board authorized funds in the 2016 GJR Budget to complete the reference plans required for the completion of the transfer of the former CPR right of way from the City to GJR.

The Speed River Lands

The reference plans for the railway right of way adjacent to the Speed River have now been completed in draft form and those showing trail lands are attached as Schedule B. The entire right of way between Norwich Street and Marcon Street will be transferred to GJR because there is no trail on this section of the right of way. The Parts on the reference plans showing the right of way between Marcon Street and Speedvale Avenue outlined in red are the trail lands and will be retained by the City with the balance of the right of way to be transferred to GJR. The City and GJR will negotiate a maintenance agreement to clarify the obligations of both parties with regard to this section of the right of way.

Northwest Industrial Park

The remaining lands owned by the City at the western end of the Northwest Industrial Park are shown on the map attached as Schedule C. The straight line outlined in blue running north and south contains infrastructure servicing Linamar and other businesses. With the exception of the infrastructure land outlined in blue and the curved section outlined in green, GJR has constructed tracks on the City lands outlined in red.

In 2015, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation expropriated one of the railway lines crossing the Hanlon Expressway. Without both lines as currently configured, a connection between the lines in the Northwest Industrial Park would need to be constructed to ensure continued rail service was available to the affected

PAGE 6

STAFF REPORT customers. The future right of way held by the City, shown in green on Schedule C, is required to construct this connection.

The land shown in red and green on Schedule C are to be transferred to GJR with the City retaining the land shown in blue. This was part of the land Council approved to be transferred to GJR in 2011.

GJR Board Approval

On February 12, 2016, the GJR Board approved the transfer of the railway right of way, less the existing trail, and the NW Lands and the interests in the agreements to GJR.

City Infrastructure

The City has infrastructure in the railway rights of way throughout the Northwest Industrial Park, the former CPR right of way and the GJR right of way south of Norwich Street. Some of this is documented through the CPR agreements, however these agreements became void when they were assigned to the City. Realty Services is working with Engineering to identify all of the City infrastructure in the railway right of way. Once this work is completed, a master infrastructure crossing agreement will be put in place between the City and GJR which will identify all locations and provide the appropriate rights of entry to the City.

Future Trails

When CPR abandoned the railway line from the City limits to Fergus most of the right of way was purchased by Guelph Eramosa Township and the Province. The trail closest to the City is now known as Kissing Bridge Trail which is separated from the end of the operating railway line by a small portion of the abandoned right of way which is owned by the Province.

In discussions with the Parks and Recreation department regarding the actual limits of the trail lands to be retained by the City for the portion of the right of way along the Speed River, Parks and Open Space planning staff expressed an interest in potentially using the other parts of the right of way between Speedvale Avenue and the northerly City limits for future trails. Specifically, staff wanted to ensure that if the City decided in the future it wanted to construct trails along those right of ways, GJR would be willing to transfer the required portions of the right of way to the

PAGE 7

STAFF REPORT City. The part of the right of way staff is interested in is shown in orange on the map attached as Schedule D.

On April 8, 2016, the GJR Board approved GJR entering into an agreement with the City for the purchase by the City of portions of the right of way for trail purposes in the event GJR was intending to sell the right of way or there was going to be a change in control of GJR to a non-affiliated third party.

The portion of the railway right of way north of the City limits which leads to the Kissing Bridge Trail is also a potential future trail, however there has been no interest to date by the Province or Guelph Eramosa Township in securing an interest in those lands prior to the City transfer to GJR.

Conclusion

In transferring the former CPR right of way and the remaining sections of the current and future Northwest Industrial Park right of way to GJR, the City will be completing the intended plan in 1999 that the railway lands were being held in trust for GJR until the cost of acquisition was paid by GJR at which time GJR would assume ownership of all rail related properties and interests held by the City. While the right of way is owned by the City, the City has some responsibility for any liability that arises relating to the lands, including liabilities relating to the railway operations. This is compounded by the City’s ownership interest in the Northwest Industrial Lead railway line.

The railway agreements assigned to the City by CPR are part of railway operations and have been administered by GJR since GJR commenced the operation of rail service in 1999. It does not appear that there was ever any intention that the City retain any rights in these agreements.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN

3. City Building – 3.2 Be economically viable, resilient, diverse and attractive for business.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION

Business Development & Enterprise Finance Parks & Recreation

PAGE 8

STAFF REPORT

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

GJR has assumed the costs of most of reference plans and the costs of registration.

The City’s costs for title searches and reference plans relating to its lands were paid from Realty Services 2015 budget.

SCHEDULES Schedule A – Map of Railway Rights of Way Schedule B – Draft Reference Plans Schedule C – Northwest Industrial Park Lands Schedule D – Future Trail Lands

Original signed by Donna Jaques

Report Author & Recommended By: Donna Jaques City Solicitor Ext. 2288 [email protected]

original signed by Peter Cartwright

Recommended By: Peter Cartwright General Manager, Business Development & Enterprise Ext. 2820 [email protected]

PAGE 9

STAFF REPORT

Schedule A – Railway Right of Way Map

PAGE 10

STAFF REPORT

PAGE 11

STAFF REPORT Schedule B – Draft Reference Plans – Marcon Street to George Street

PAGE 12

STAFF REPORT Schedule B – Draft Reference Plan – George Street to Earl Street

PAGE 13

STAFF REPORT Schedule B – Draft Reference Plan – Earl Street to Speedvale Avenue

PAGE 14

STAFF REPORT Schedule C – Western Portion of Northwest Industrial Park

Railway Tracks

Infrastructure Lands

Vacant Right of Way

PAGE 15

STAFF REPORT Schedule D – Future Trail Lands

PAGE 16

STAFF REPORT

TO Corporate Service Committee

SERVICE AREA Corporate Services, Finance

DATE May 2, 2016

SUBJECT 2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement

REPORT NUMBER CS-2016-24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide Council with an annual reserve and reserve fund report outlining transfers of funds in and out of all reserves, as well as report on the funding status compared to recommended targets, where they exist.

This report is the first annual report to Council and has been prepared as a result of the BMA Financial Condition Assessment in 2015. Council has previously requested detailed information about the City’s reserves; activity and balances. This report provides a summary of all 2015 transactions including outstanding commitments yet to be spent.

The report further explains the interconnected relationship between the City’s reserves, the Cash and Investment Portfolio, and the cash flow challenges that exist with an unspent committed balance of $145.4M.

KEY FINDINGS • The City’s 2015 actual reserve balances total $210M before any year end surplus/deficit allocations. After factoring in Council approved commitments, the year-end balance is $64.8M of which $37.8M is tax- supported. Further to this the tax-supported balance is segregated as follows: Compensation related $15.4M Miscellaneous operating including stabilization $ 8.7M Total Operating Reserves $24.1M

Capital – equipment replacement $3.3M Capital – department $1.3M Capital - strategic $7.4M Capital – other miscellaneous $1.7M Total Capital Reserve Funds $13.7M

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT

• Overall the City’s capital reserves are in a critical position with less than $13.7M available to fund emergency or unplanned capital expenditures. This includes the ability to match other levels of government funding to obtain grants that become available. Of the $13.7M, approximately $3.5M was used in the 2016 budget to stabilize the tax rate, and a further $1.5M is restricted for specific use.

In order to address this issue, staff will be reviewing the capital “committed but not yet spent” tax supported projects totalling $21.6M in order to redirect these funds to current priority needs. This will occur during the 2nd quarter, 2016.

Additionally, staff will continue to advocate for increased tax supported capital contributions through the 2017 budget process. Council received a report in February 2016 entitled “Infrastructure Environment and Funding Options” that spoke to this capital need and the alternative ways that Council could consider addressing this issue.

• Of the total tax-supported operating reserves of $24.1M, $5.7M is available for tax rate stabilization. This includes general tax rate stabilization, contingency funds, employee benefit stabilization and gapping funds. Based on recommended targets of 8% - 10% of own source revenues (~$20M), these reserves are significantly under-funded. This message was communicated through the BMA Financial Condition Assessment. In a year with extreme weather or other unexpected emergencies, the City could exceed these current balances. Staff will be recommending that the entire 2015 tax supported operating surplus of $1.1M be directed to this group of reserves, and will also address this situation during the 2017 operating budget.

• The non-tax supported Water and Wastewater rate stabilization reserve balances meet or exceed the targets established due to having strong operating budgets that are fully reflective of actual cost of operations. These departments have been successful in achieving Council approved user rates that pay for current operating needs as well as setting aside funds for future capital infrastructure replacement needs. There are long- term financial planning legislative requirements for these services that require rates to adequately fund the operations and capital needs. In 2009 through 2012 the rates for these services increased substantially as a result these long-term financial plans and the reserve balances reflect this investment from both an operating and capital perspective.

• The City’s reserve assets of $210M form the majority of the City’s cash and investment portfolio, which are used to earn income for operating and capital needs. It is challenging for staff to maximize investment earnings when there is a “committed but not yet spent” total reserve balance of

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT

$145.4M as timing of these expenditures is difficult to predict.

• The City has identified a number of planned 2016 actions in addition to the capital project review outlined above to address the concerns raised through this report and also to bring clarity and efficiency to managing the City’s Reserves and Reserve Funds. These include:

1. Reset the capital reserve fund management to align with the recommendations presented in the 2015 BMA Financial Condition Assessment.

2. Perform a comprehensive review of all reserves and reserve funds and consolidate where needed.

3. Establish funding targets for miscellaneous reserves and reserve funds where appropriate, and recommend funding reallocations where targets have been reached.

4. Review and recommend changes to the General Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy as well as the Compensation Reserve Policy.

5. Review and update the Hanlon Creek Business Park business case for slower than planned industrial land sales. Recommend alternative strategies and mitigation measures to address the cash flow concerns.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report.

Reserves and reserve funds are established by Council to assist with long-term financial stability, operating and capital budgeting and absorbing unexpected shifts in revenue or expenditures.

ACTION REQUIRED That Council receive Report CS-2016-24 “2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement” and approve the consolidation of reserves and reserve funds as recommended by staff in this report.

RECOMMENDATION That report CS-2016-24 dated May 2, 2016, entitled “2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund Statement” be received for information; and

That Council approve the following reserve and reserve fund consolidations and closures as described throughout the report:

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT 1. Consolidate and close Accumulated Sick Leave Reserves 102 and 103 into Accumulated Sick Leave Reserve 100; 2. Consolidate and close Social Housing Reserve 208 into the Affordable Housing Reserve 119; 3. Consolidate and close the Capital Fire Reserve Fund 173 into the Equipment Replacement Fire Reserve Fund 111; 4. Consolidate and close the Capital Transit Improvement Reserve Fund 161 into the Capital Transit Reserve Fund 172; 5. Closure of the Investing in Ontario Act Reserve Fund 200, as funds have been fully allocated to capital projects

BACKGROUND Reserves and reserve funds are established by Council to assist with long-term financial stability, operating and capital budgeting and absorbing unexpected shifts in revenue or expenditures. The City has both reserves and reserve funds:

1. Reserves are established for a pre-determined use and are applied at the discretion of Council for that purpose. • Funded through: o an allocation from net revenue at the discretion of council, after the provision for all known expenditures, or o an approved budgeted transfer from operating to support a program, project or strategy, as authorized under the provisions set out in the Municipal Act • Reserves have no reference to any specific asset and do not require segregation, as in the case of a reserve fund (they do not earn interest) • A reserve may be established for a predetermined purpose and applied for that purpose at the discretion of council • Reserves are important because they enable the City to manage fluctuations in revenues and expenditures, onetime expenditures, manage cash flows and provide sufficient liquidity

2. Reserve Funds are restricted by statute or by Council discretion and must be segregated from general revenues. o Obligatory Reserve Funds: are created whenever a statute requires revenue received for a specific purpose to be segregated from the general revenues of the municipality. Obligatory reserve funds can only be used for their prescribed purpose. Examples include Development Charge reserve funds, Parkland Dedication, and Gas Tax reserve funds. o Discretionary Reserve Funds: are created under Section 417 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (S.O. 2001, c.25). Discretionary reserve funds are established whenever a municipal Council wishes to earmark revenues to finance a future expenditure for which it has the authority to spend money, and to set aside a

PAGE 4

STAFF REPORT certain portion of any year’s revenues so that the funds are available as required. Revenues set aside for road widening and for acquisition or replacement of fixed assets are examples of discretionary reserve funds.

Two major advantages of using discretionary reserve funds are:

a) They help stabilize the general municipal tax levy. In a year when a large amount of revenue is required to finance capital projects, a previously established discretionary reserve fund can enable a municipality to spend money without affecting the general municipal levy or the need to issue debentures; b) The assets of the reserve fund can be invested to earn income, thus helping to reduce the amount of money to be set aside.

The City has 102 reserves and reserve funds that collectively have a closing actual balance of $210M and an uncommitted balance of $64.8M as at December 31, 2015, before 2015 year end surplus/deficit allocations. It was identified as part of the BMA Financial Condition Assessment in 2015 that the City’s Reserves and Reserve funds should be consolidated where possible as the current volume is inefficient to manage, causes confusion regarding the purpose of like funds and limits the appropriate flexibility in use of these assets. Throughout this report, staff will outline planned consolidation activities for the 2016 fiscal year.

The City has a General Reserve and Reserve Fund Policy that guides the high-level strategy of these assets. This includes prescribing how the reserve funds earn interest income, what funds are able to debt borrow and guidance on internal fund borrowing. This policy is due for a wholesome review in 2016, as was also identified in the BMA Financial Condition Assessment Action Plan.

The reserves and reserve funds are a significant financial asset for the City and contribute to the majority of the City’s cash and investment portfolio. The significant gap between the actual and uncommitted balance of $145.4M causes a considerable challenge in balancing needed liquidity for the City’s operations with earning interest on investment income. A planned 2016 staff review of the projects committed with these funds will address cash flow issues by clarifying the timing of expenditures.

REPORT

Reserves The City manages its Reserves in three categories:

• Compensation / Staffing Reserves

PAGE 5

STAFF REPORT • Miscellaneous Tax Supported Reserves • Miscellaneous Non-Tax Supported Reserves

As at December 31, 2015, the City had a total uncommitted reserve balance of $31.2M segregated between tax supported of $24.1M and non-tax supported of $7.1M. Please note that these balances are before any 2015 surplus / deficit year end transfers that Council will approve in June 2016 after the results of the financial statement audit are known.

Compensation / Staffing Reserves – Staffing reserves are used to: manage corporate fluctuations in benefits payable; set aside funds for significant compensation related liabilities (accumulated sick leave, WSIB and employee future benefits); and maintain funds for severances, union negotiations and job evaluation changes.

2015 Significant Reserve Transactions to Note:

• The Employee Benefit Stabilization Reserve (#131) decreased by $1.27M due to funding transferred to the operating fund for over-budget employee benefit related costs; • The City did not meet its 2015 gapping target of $2.1M causing a decrease in the Employee Gapping reserve (#191) of $123k year over year; • City staff are recommending the consolidation of $520k of funds from the Accumulated Sick Leave Reserves for CUPE 1946 and 241 employees (#102 & #103) into the Accumulated Sick Leave Reserve for Fire employees (#100). Reserves 102 and 103 will be closed and deactivated effective December 31, 2015. This consolidation is recommended as all tax-supported accumulated sick funds are still required to meet the targeted funding balances for these reserves.

2016 Proposed Reserve Activities to Note:

• Staff will consider consolidating the Early Retiree Benefit Reserve (#212) into the Employee Benefit Stabilization Reserve (#131) as effective 2016, the full cost of retiree benefits are now included in the base budget and any overages / savings are accounted for similar to any other employee benefit. There is no longer a need to track these funds separately. • Staff are reviewing the future need for the Joint Job Evaluation Committee Reserve (#196) as this is not a corporate requirement, per the BMA Financial Condition Assessment. • Staff will update the Compensation Reserve Policy based on the results of this review.

PAGE 6

STAFF REPORT Funded Status of Compensation Reserves: Due to a wholesome review of the compensation reserves in 2011, specific targets exist for this set of reserves and the results are detailed in the chart below. Staff will be addressing the reserves that fall below target through future budgets. Due to affordability, it is unlikely that they will meet target in the short-term. Staff are comfortable that these reserves are sufficiently funded to meet 2016 needs. Reserve Target 2015 Target 2015 Actual Result (‘000’s) Balance Balance (‘000s) (‘000’s) Employee Benefit $2,000 $2,000 $1,838 Stabilization + Reserve 95% of the Sick leave Sick Leave $9,016 $9,069 Liability

50% of the WSIB WSIB $2,700 $1,799

Liability  Land 95% of the Ambulance Severance $1,378 $722 Severance Liability

Miscellaneous Reserves (Tax and Non-Tax Supported): Miscellaneous reserves are funded by approved transfers from operating or operating surplus allocations and are used to support a predetermined purpose at the discretion of council.

a) Stabilization and Contingency Reserves: The most well-known of these reserves are the tax and non-tax stabilization and contingency reserves, which have specific funding targets to ensure appropriate liquidity when needed. Municipal comparators aim to maintain a target balance of 5%-15% of own source revenues in the stabilization reserves. The City’s stabilization funds compared to targets measure up as follows: Reserve Target 2015 Target 2015 Actual Result Balance Balance (‘000s) (‘000’s) Tax Supported 8-10% of Stabilization, own $20,375 $5,727 Operating source Contingency, revenues

PAGE 7

STAFF REPORT Employee Benefit Stabilization & Gapping Water Rate 8-10% of Stabilization own $2,527 $2,521 source revenues Wastewater Rate 8-10% of Stabilization own $2,878 $3,297 source revenues

City staff have raised concern to Council through the annual Corporate Financial Dashboard reporting, the 2015 & 2016 budget expansion packages, and the BMA Financial Condition Assessment Report in 2015 that the tax supported stabilization and contingency funds are significantly underfunded. Staff will be recommending that the 2015 tax supported operating surplus be directed to the stabilization and contingency reserves, along with continuing to address remaining shortfalls in future budget years.

The non-tax supported Water and Wastewater rate stabilization reserve balances meet or exceed the targets established due to having strong operating budgets that are fully reflective of actual cost of operations. These departments have been successful in achieving Council approved user rates that pay for current operating needs as well as setting aside funds for future capital infrastructure replacement needs. There are long-term financial planning legislative requirements for these services that require rates to adequately fund the operations and capital needs. In 2009 through 2012 the rates for these services increased substantially as a result these long- term financial plans and the reserve balances reflect this investment from both an operating and capital perspective. The capital reserve fund balances can be seen on page 17 of this report for reference.

2015 Significant Reserve Transactions to Note:

• The City recovered $32k related to 2014/2015 ice storm costs that was received and directed to the Operating Contingency Reserve; • As part of the 2015 budget, both the water and wastewater departments allocated funds to a new operating contingency reserve that can be used to offset significant unplanned operational costs. The water department incurred significant costs in early 2015 related to the increased occurrence of frozen water mains/pipes. $200k was transferred from this reserve to operations.

PAGE 8

STAFF REPORT b) Tax Increment Based Grant Reserves (Brownfield 122, Heritage 192 and Downtown 358): As recommended in Committee Report FIN-12-01, the City’s Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG) program awards annual grants to eligible redevelopments over a maximum ten year period. The funding for the program is transferred in from the operating budget. The current balance of the three reserves is $4.15M, but is substantially committed against approved Tax Increment Based Grants payable.

c) Miscellaneous Tax Supported Reserves: The City has 10 miscellaneous reserves that are outlined in the chart below. These reserves do not have established targets at this time. Staff will be establishing funding targets in 2016 where necessary and will determine where funds should be directed once these balances are achieved.

Reserve Description Uncommitted Balance (‘000s) Affordable Housing Funded by approved transfers from (119) operating that are used to support $650 affordable housing projects within the City. Legal (193) Approved transfers from operating are used to pay fees and payments resulting $1,555 from Court/OMB settlements and over- budget expenses relating to retaining outside experts and consultants that assist the City in legal proceedings. Insurance (184) Surplus amounts from the annual insurance budget are transferred to the insurance reserve to be used for insurance $2,145 payouts and to lower future premiums.

Investment Strategy Reserve currently used by the City’s $89 (205) Community Investment Strategy Innovation Fund. Strategic Initiatives To provide funding for strategic initiatives (179) that are identified in the City’s Corporate Strategic Plan. Funds were transferred in $167 through a one-time contribution from the City’s operating contingency reserve. As part of the 2016 budget, these uncommitted funds were fully allocated to corporate programs.

PAGE 9

STAFF REPORT Downtown Budgeted transfers from operating are 0 Improvement (194) used to offer incentives for minor activation improvements (such as facade improvements) in the downtown. IT Licence (210) This reserve is funded through annual $760 operating budget transfers and used to fund the purchase of licence renewals. Election Costs (195) This reserve is used to accumulate annual $275 operating budget transfers to fund municipal election costs that are needed every four years. Building Operations This reserve is funded through annual $77 Maintenance (206) operating budget transfers and used to pay for unexpected and emergency repairs and maintenance. Westminster Woods This reserve was funded from Westminster $35 (345) Woods Ltd. to cover emergency repairs to City lands under licence agreement between the City and Westminster Woods Ltd. Total $5,755

2015 Significant Reserve Transactions to Note:

• Staff recommend consolidation of the Social Housing Reserve (#208) into the Affordable Housing Reserve (#119) as the County of Wellington is the designated service deliverer of social housing programs to the community and the City will focus its efforts in the affordable housing space; • City staff transferred $266k to the OMB legal reserve in 2015 as actual costs were under-budget; • The City funded $302k of strategic program costs from the Strategic Initiative Reserve during 2015.

2016 Proposed Reserve Work Plan Activities to Note:

• Reviewing the need for each of these miscellaneous reserves and consolidating where possible; • Establishing funding targets for miscellaneous reserves where it would be useful and appropriate and determining where funds should be directed if targeted balances have been achieved.

Reserve Funds Reserve funds differ from reserves in that reserve fund assets are segregated from general revenues and restricted in use to meet the purpose of the reserve fund. One of the main differentiations from the Reserves is that Reserve Funds earn investment income as the assets are segregated from operations.

PAGE 10

STAFF REPORT There are two types of reserve funds: Obligatory reserve funds and Discretionary reserve funds.

Obligatory Reserve Funds: An Obligatory reserve fund is created when a provincial statute requires that revenue received for special purposes is to be segregated from the general revenues of the municipality. Obligatory reserve funds are to be used solely for the purpose prescribed for them by statute. The City has the following 20 Obligatory Reserve Funds:

1. Parkland Dedication (300): This reserve fund has been set up as per Provincial legislation (subsection 42 (14) and (15) of the Planning Act) for the purpose of requiring the payment of cash-in-lieu of conveyance of land for a park or other public recreation purpose. The uncommitted balance in this reserve fund is $2.4M. 2. Downtown Parkland Dedication (301): This reserve fund has been set up as per Provincial legislation (subsection 42 (14) and (15) of the Planning Act) for the purpose of requiring the payment of cash-in-lieu of conveyance of land for a park or other public recreation purpose specifically from development in the downtown. The uncommitted balance in this fund is $529k. 3. Building Services Stabilization (188): The Ontario Building Code Act prescribes that a municipality establish a reserve fund to help stabilize slow years in terms of building activity and permit revenue. The uncommitted balance as at December 31, 2015 is $2.21M prior to the 2015 year end surplus transfer. Building Services reports annually to Council on their operations and this reserve compared to established targets. 4. Dedicated Gas Tax (342): Monies received from the Provincial government that are used to support increased public transportation ridership and investments in the renewal and expansion of public transportation. The uncommitted balance in this reserve fund at December 31, 2015 is $866k. 5. Federal Gas Tax (343): Funds received from the Federal government through the “New Deal for Cities and Communities” program to support environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure projects that can demonstrate progress towards clean air, clean water, and reduced greenhouse gas. The uncommitted balance in this reserve fund is $2.98M. 6. Development Charges (15 individual reserve funds) As set out under Subsection 16 (1) of the Development Charges Act, Development Charge (DC) reserve funds are comprised of all development charges collected by the City. These reserve funds are restricted by the Province’s Development Charge Act and legislation which states that these funds are to be used solely for growth-related infrastructure costs. Please refer to the separate staff report CS-2016-23 entitled 2015 Development

PAGE 11

STAFF REPORT Charge Reserve Fund Statement, also presented in May 2016, which provides a full accounting of and highlights of the DC Reserve Funds for the 2015 fiscal year.

2015 Significant Obligatory Reserve Fund Transactions to Note:

• The City collected $699k of Parkland and Downtown Parkland dedication revenues in 2015 compared to $855k in 2014. Staff monitor capital projects committed against these reserve funds to ensure that the City is able to meet the funding requirements. • The City received $2.78M of Dedicated Provincial Grant Funding and $7.05M of Federal Gas Tax Grant funding in 2015. The City spent a total of $13.8M of gas tax funds in 2015 to fund Council approved operating and capital expenditures

Discretionary Reserve Funds: The City’s discretionary reserve funds are commonly referred to as “the capital reserves” and are primarily used to fund Council approved capital projects annually. The City is proposing to change the way these capital reserves are managed in order to support the long-term sustainability of the City’s infrastructure, as recommended by the BMA Financial Condition Assessment in 2015. Currently the City manages its capital reserves in the following groupings:

Tax Supported (45 individual reserve funds):

• Equipment Replacement • Department Capital • Strategic • Miscellaneous Discretionary

Non-Tax Supported (5 individual reserve funds):

• Department Capital

As at December 31, 2015, the uncommitted balance in the discretionary reserve funds for tax supported was $13.8M and non-tax supported $30.1M. Some of the individual reserve funds are over-committed but are managed within the groupings described above. Staff recognize the over-committed positions and work to resolve these issues in future budgets.

The discretionary reserve funds are discussed in more detail below.

PAGE 12

STAFF REPORT Tax Supported

As recommended by BMA in the 2015 Financial Condition Assessment, the capital reserve funds should maintain a minimum cash balance equivalent to one year’s worth of the 10 year average of tax supported capital expenditure requirement, or $29M. This will ensure that one year of tax based funding is available in reserves to maintain liquidity and be available for emergency or unforeseen capital needs. This insufficient funding of tax supported capital has been presented to Council through a number of avenues, most recently in early 2016 via a staff report asking Council to consider a dedicated capital infrastructure levy as part of the 2017 budget.

The funding challenges have become more apparent through the 2016 Federal and Provincial Government grant announcements in that the City would need to provide matching funding (tax dollars) to a project in order to access the external grant funding. Staff will be working through the details of these grant announcements to recommend to Council later in 2016 which grants we are able to apply for given the tax supported funding restrictions we are working within.

Staff are currently working on the following 2016 work plan activities for all the tax supported capital reserve funds (Equipment, Departmental, City Strategic and Miscellaneous Reserve Funds) as follows:

• Consolidation of all tax supported reserve funds (excluding Police & Library) into one of three reserves; Infrastructure Renewal, Growth, and City Building. These align with the capital funding concept that was introduced during the 2016 Budget. • Setting funding targets for each of the three above reserve funds and incorporating these into the 2017 Council Approved Transfer to Capital.

1. Equipment Replacement: established to provide future budget contributions for capital equipment replacement – total uncommitted balance of $3.3M.

2015 Significant Reserve Fund Transactions to Note: • The City funded $9.2M of tax supported equipment replacement capital costs in 2015

2. Departmental Capital Reserve Funds are used to accumulate approved transfers from operating for the purpose of funding initiatives that support infrastructure life cycle or expansion. The total uncommitted balance of these reserve funds is $1.3M.

PAGE 13

STAFF REPORT 2015 Significant Reserve Fund Transactions to Note:

• Staff are recommending the consolidation of reserve funds #161 and #173 into #172 and #111 respectively; • The City funded $5.6M of tax supported life-cycle and expansion capital costs in 2015.

3. City Strategic Reserve Funds: City resources that are earmarked for a specific purpose or available to be used to finance future capital projects. The City’s Strategic reserve funds have a total uncommitted balance of $7.4M as at December 2015 and are discussed in more detail in the following chart.

Uncommitted Reserve Fund Description balance (‘000s) General Capital Tax Monies received from the operating (150) budget or the sale of surplus lands $5,074 and used as a corporate tax supported capital contingency. Capital Asset Renewal Funds received from the monetization (“CARR”) (351) of the City’s interest in Guelph Hydro that are used to finance the $6,406 renovation and replacement of existing City structures and facilities subject to the Council approved “CARR Policy”. Capital Strategic Funds transferred one-time for Planning (154) Capital Strategic Planning purposes. $16 DC Exemptions (156) Funds received from tax supported sources that are to be transferred to $3,116 DC reserve funds to compensate for DC exemptions. Accessibility Capital Funds transferred from the operating (159) budget to support capital projects $198 that improve accessibility. Roads Infrastructure Monies transferred in from operating (160) to fund road infrastructure. $569 Building Life Cycle Monies transferred from the operating (190) budget and used to fund capital life $80 cycle investments. Industrial Land (332) Revenues received from the sale of city-owned industrial or commercial $(8,029) land used to fund servicing costs, related debt payments and new land purchases. Total $7,430

PAGE 14

STAFF REPORT General Capital Tax #150 – As part of the 2016 Capital Budget, Council approved to use approximately $3.5M of the capital tax reserve fund towards capital projects in 2016 in order to maintain the tax rate under 3%. This leaves a balance of only $1.57M for corporate capital contingency.

Industrial Land Reserve Fund #332 – The industrial land reserve fund is predominately used for the Hanlon Creek Business Park development project whereby the costs associated with that project (including debt carrying costs) are funded from the Business Park land sales. Currently the land sales are not occurring at the pace expected and outlined in the business case therefore, the reserve fund is $6.8M over-drawn and has $1.2M of additional commitments approved to be spent. In 2015 $1.9M of land sales were realized and contributed to this reserve fund offset with $420k of debt servicing fees.

Staff will continue to market and sell the remaining available land in the business park and bring this reserve fund into a cash solvent position. Staff will also perform an update to the business case for this initiative and complete a full assessment of the project before a decision to continue with Phase 3 is recommended to Council. Finally, given the results of the updated business case, a formalized internal borrow for the Industrial Land Reserve Fund will be assessed.

2015 Significant Reserve Fund Transactions to Note:

• The City funded $3.8M of tax supported capital costs in 2015 from this grouping of reserve funds.

4. Miscellaneous Discretionary Reserve Funds: Reserve funds created under the Municipal Act when Council wishes to earmark revenues such as donations, grants, and special fees to finance a future expenditure for which it has the authority to spend money, and to set aside a certain portion of any year’s revenues so that the funds are available as required. Similar to the miscellaneous reserves, there are no established funding targets for these funds, so staff are unable to comment on the sufficiency of funding.

Reserve Fund Description Uncommitted Balance (‘000s) Museum related Monies received from private donations (135,136,137) or bequests that must be used for $180 approved museum related expenditures.

PAGE 15

STAFF REPORT Library Bequests (138) Funds received from private donations $325 used for approved library expenditures. Landfill Compensation Allocation from tipping fees used to $74 (155) compensate area residents for prolonged landfill operation. Sleeman Centre Revenues from naming rights agreement $43 (162,189) and ticket surcharge used to fund approved facility related expenditures. Tree Donation (178) Donation revenues received dedicated to $1 planting trees and improving the City’s tree canopy. Greening (355) Approved budgeted transfers from ($15) operating dedicated to greening the City’s fleet. Road Widening (331) Funds transferred in from the sale of $877 road allowances and the rental of road allowance property and used to fund road widening costs and land purchases for road widening projects. River Run (340) Funds collected from ticket surcharge ($1) used to pay for River Run capital repairs and maintenance. Greenhouse Gas (352) Monies from grants (Green Power Action $234 & Greening Canada) used to fund environmental initiatives. Transportation Demand One time grant from Provincial $23 Management (350) government used to fund transportation projects. Public Art (356) Funds transferred in from operating and $83 used to fund public art works or community art projects. IMICO Brownfield (357) Approved budgeted transfers from ($86) operating used to fund site monitoring and remediation work at IMICO. Total $1,738

2015 Significant Reserve Fund Transactions to Note: • The City funded $793k of tax supported capital costs in 2015 from this grouping of reserve funds • Recommend the closure of Reserve Fund #200 – Investing in Ontario Act as funds have been fully utilized.

Non-Tax Supported

Departmental Capital Reserve Funds are used to accumulate approved transfers from operating for the purpose of funding initiatives that support infrastructure life cycle or expansion. The total uncommitted balance of $30.1M is prior to any 2015 year end surplus transfers.

PAGE 16

STAFF REPORT

Reserve Fund Uncommitted

Balance (‘000s) POA Relocation (120) $848

Water Capital (152) $15,677

Wastewater Capital (153) $12,189 Water DC Exemptions (353) $357 Wastewater DC Exemptions (354) $1,072 Total $30,144

2015 Significant Reserve Fund Transactions to Note:

• In 2014, the water and wastewater capital reserve funds loaned money to the tax supported capital as a cost effective way to utilized internal cash flow instead of issuing an external debenture. In 2015, the City repaid $2.9M of principle and interest costs to these reserve funds. • The City funded $16.2M of non-tax supported capital costs in 2015 from this grouping of reserve funds

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN Organizational Excellence 1.3 Build robust systems, structures and frameworks aligned to strategy

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION None noted

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report.

Reserves and reserve funds are established by Council to assist with long-term financial stability, operating and capital budgeting and absorbing unexpected shifts in revenue or expenditures.

COMMUNICATIONS None noted

ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 – 2015 Statement of Reserve and Reserve Funds

Report Author Tara Baker, Acting GM Finance and City Treasurer

PAGE 17

STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

Recommended By Approved By Tara Baker Mark Amorosi Acting GM Finance and City Treasurer Deputy CAO, Corporate Services Corporate Services 519-822-1260 Ext. 2281 519-822-1260 Ext. 2084 [email protected] tara.baker@guelph .ca

PAGE 18 Reserve and Reserve Funds As At December 31, 2015

Net Transfer (To) / From Closing Opening Actual Net Transfer Net Transfer (To) / Reserves/Reserve External Revenues Proceeds (Funding) Closing Actual Uncommitted Identfier Name Balance Interest Earned (To)/From Operating From Capital Funds Earned of Debt Balance Commitments Balance RESERVES COMPENSATION/STAFFING 00131 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT STABILIZATION 3,105,230 - (1,267,476) - - - - 1,837,754 - 1,837,754 00191 SALARY GAPPING / CONTINGENCY 1,248,500 - (122,853) - - - - 1,125,646 - 1,125,646 00196 JOINT JOB EVALUATION COMMITTEE 259,976 - 14,785 - - - - 274,761 - 274,761 00197 HR NEGOTIATIONS 198,285 - (25,593) - - - - 172,693 - 172,693 00100 ACCUM SICK LEAVE - FIRE 4,343,117 - 343,344 - 520,411 - - 5,206,873 - 5,206,873 00101 ACCUM SICK LEAVE - POLICE 3,900,927 - (38,787) - - - - 3,862,141 - 3,862,141 00102 ACCUM SICK LEAVE - LIBRARY 353,378 - - - (353,378) - - - - - 00103 ACCUM SICK LEAVE - CUPE 241 167,032 - - - (167,032) - - - - - 00212 EARLY RETIREE BENEFITS 510,943 - (86,227) - - - - 424,715 - 424,715 00330 WSIB 1,566,019 - 233,198 - - - - 1,799,218 - 1,799,218 00338 LAND AMBULANCE RETIREMENT 602,000 - 120,123 - - - - 722,123 - 722,123 16,255,408 - (829,485) - 0 - - 15,425,923 - 15,425,923 MISCELLANEOUS TAX SUPPORTED 00180 TAX RATE STABILIZATION 1,590,972 - 600,000 - - - - 2,190,972 - 2,190,972 00198 OPERATING CONTINGENCY 541,080 - 31,743 - - - - 572,823 - 572,823 00208 SOCIAL HOUSING 142,939 - 0 - (142,939) - - - - - 00119 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 429,181 - 112,179 - 109,133 - - 650,493 - 650,493 00193 LEGAL / ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD 1,378,961 - 176,238 - - - - 1,555,199 - 1,555,199 00184 INSURANCE 1,973,147 - 171,901 - - - - 2,145,048 - 2,145,048 00205 INVESTMENT STRATEGY 89,278 - 0 - - - - 89,278 - 89,278 00179 STRATEGIC INITATIVES 747,212 - (57,802) - - - - 689,411 (522,188) 167,222 00194 DOWNTOWN IMPROVMENTS 348,922 - 0 - - - - 348,922 (348,922) 0.12 00210 IT LICENCES 608,000 - 152,000 - - - - 760,000 - 760,000 00195 ELECTION COSTS 165,108 - 109,914 - - - - 275,022 - 275,022 00206 BUILDING OPERATING MAINTENANCE 61,500 - 15,900 - - - - 77,400 - 77,400 00345 WESTMINISTER WOODS 35,000 - 0 - - - - 35,000 - 35,000 00122 BROWNFIELD STRATEGY 1,248,980 - 1,080,000 (169) - - - 2,328,811 (2,328,811) - 0.39 00192 HERITAGE REDEVELOPMENT 1,166,187 - (7,670) - - - - 1,158,517 (1,038,517) 120,000 00358 DOWNTOWN TIBG 342,000 - 323,310 - - - - 665,310 (665,310) 0.06 10,868,467 - 2,707,713 (169) (33,806) - - 13,542,205 (4,903,748) 8,638,457 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAX SUPPORTED 00181 WATER RATE STABILIZATION 2,002,507 - 518,914 - - - - 2,521,421 - 2,521,421 00182 WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION 2,829,309 - 467,389 - - - - 3,296,698 - 3,296,698 00105 WASTEWATER CONTINGENCY - - 890,049 - - - - 890,049 - 890,049 00106 WATER CONTINGENCY - - 20,000 - - - - 20,000 - 20,000 00211 POA CONTINGENCY 222,844 - 188,980 - - - - 411,824 - 411,824 5,054,660 - 2,085,333 - - - - 7,139,993 - 7,139,993 TOTAL RESERVES 32,178,535 - 3,963,561 (169) (33,806) - - 36,108,120 (4,903,748) 31,204,372 Net Transfer (To) / From Closing Opening Actual Net Transfer Net Transfer (To) / Reserves/Reserve External Revenues Proceeds (Funding) Closing Actual Uncommitted Identfier Name Balance Interest Earned (To)/From Operating From Capital Funds Earned of Debt Balance Commitments Balance OBLIGATORY RESERVE FUNDS 00300 PARKLAND DEDICATION 2,245,605 66,506 - (400,643) - 511,921 - 2,423,389 - 2,423,389 00301 DOWNTOWN PARKLAND DEDICATION 329,756 12,228 - - - 186,713 - 528,697 - 528,697 00188 BUILDING SERVICES OBC STABILIZATION 2,188,081 74,240 - (3,343) - - - 2,258,979 (46,999) 2,211,980 00342 DEDICATED GAS TAX 2,335,398 46,852 (2,724,590) (1,482,132) - 2,778,301 - 953,829 (87,498) 866,331 00343 FEDERAL GAS TAX 11,980,887 309,621 - (9,581,799) - 7,047,053 - 9,755,762 (6,780,614) 2,975,148 19,079,728 509,447 (2,724,590) (11,467,916) - 10,523,987 - 15,920,655 (6,915,111) 9,005,544 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 00311 WATER SERVICES 20,496,024 718,635 0 (4,014,036) 181,646 6,546,017 (138,866) 23,789,421 (11,797,864) 11,991,557 00312 WASTEWATER SERVICES 15,510,292 569,554 0 (4,804,732) 135,416 4,814,817 (127,629) 16,097,718 (19,882,330) (3,784,612) 00313 STORMWATER SERVICES (1,661,619) (47,237) - (39,317) 2,685 91,413 - (1,654,075) (327,451) (1,981,526) 00314 HIGHWAY & ROADS RELATED (4,052,675) 59,930 0 (8,858,634) 74,748 2,588,003 (167,409) (10,356,038) (7,214,036) (17,570,074) 00315 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES (1,445,309) (25,003) 0 - 6,115 253,629 (20,032) (1,230,600) - (1,230,600) 00316 LIBRARY SERVICES 1,749,610 56,192 - - 0 1,596 387,873 - 2,195,270 (1,472,618) 722,652 00317 TRANSIT (3,913) 4,147 - (183,122) 12,497 465,419 - 295,028 (429,621) (134,593) 00318 ADMINISTRATION 1,089,035 30,459 - (371,463) 7,359 293,955 - 1,049,346 (1,408,510) (359,164) 00319 INDOOR RECREATION 9,459,450 299,920 - (10,965) 8,158 1,839,647 - 11,596,210 (961,174) 10,635,036 00320 OUTDOOR RECREATION 2,268,451 84,076 - (1,131,938) 9,903 2,403,574 - 3,634,067 (4,640,449) (1,006,382) 00323 MUNICIPAL PARKING 4,353,753 135,104 - - 16,089 626,196 - 5,131,143 (2,128,010) 3,003,133 00324 POLICE SERVICES (2,840,117) (30,489) 0 (675,599) 8,577 357,104 (66,566) (3,247,089) (13,966,794) (17,213,883) 00325 AMBULANCE SERVICES (1,362,539) (39,013) - - 501 24,717 - (1,376,334) - (1,376,334) 00326 PROVINCIAL OFFENSES ACT (105,943) (2,971) - - 14 6,263 - (102,638) - (102,638) 00327 HEALTH SERVICES (1,017,593) (28,043) - 44,330 476 49,692 - (951,139) - (951,139) 42,436,906 1,785,262 0 (20,045,475) 465,780 20,748,321 (520,502) 44,870,291 (64,228,857) (19,358,565) TOTAL OBLIGATORY RESERVE FUNDS 61,516,634 2,294,709 (2,724,590) (31,513,392) 465,780 31,272,308 (520,502) 60,790,947 (71,143,968) (10,353,021) Net Transfer (To) / From Closing Opening Actual Net Transfer Net Transfer (To) / Reserves/Reserve External Revenues Proceeds (Funding) Closing Actual Uncommitted Identfier Name Balance Interest Earned (To)/From Operating From Capital Funds Earned of Debt Balance Commitments Balance DISCRETIONARY RESERVE FUNDS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT - TAX SUPPORTED 00111 FIRE 640,979 17,882 967,220 (1,011,103) (557) - - 614,421 (362,854) 251,567 00113 TRANSIT 1,946,344 42,472 1,481,854 (2,435,305) 0 - - 1,035,364 (957,047) 78,317 00115 POLICE 1,099,098 30,659 1,037,700 (1,114,200) 0 - - 1,053,256 (832,062) 221,194 00116 WASTE MANAGEMENT 1,162,347 24,764 242,000 (852,915) 0 - - 576,196 (448,613) 127,583 00118 COMPUTER 373,643 16,076 1,610,000 (1,244,770) 0 - - 754,949 (738,698) 16,251 00121 PLAY EQUIPMENT 57,536 6,618 700,100 (357,160) 0 - - 407,095 (395,366) 11,729 00124 OPERATIONS / FLEET 4,031,533 132,215 3,314,215 (2,227,459) 0 - - 5,250,504 (2,634,268) 2,616,236 9,311,480 270,686 9,353,089 (9,242,913) (557) - - 9,691,785 (6,368,908) 3,322,877 DEPARTMENT CAPITAL - TAX SUPPORTED 00151 PARKING 1,269,564 34,343 500,000 (662,419) - - - 1,141,489 (1,075,970) 65,519 00157 LIBRARY 1,014,541 26,618 210,000 (397,019) - - - 854,140 (68,719) 785,421 00158 POLICE 3,050,899 62,368 16,800 (1,802,494) - - - 1,327,572 (1,370,113) (42,541) 00164 ROADS 647,888 17,394 360,000 (452,008) - - - 573,274 (293,151) 280,123 00165 STORM WATER 489,103 12,066 0 (143,158) - - - 358,011 (193,357) 164,654 00166 PARK PLANNING (8,131) 6,757 746,450 (262,578) - - - 482,499 (735,204) (252,705) 00167 POLICY PLANNING 517,072 16,757 14,000 111,518 - - - 659,347 (603,891) 55,456 00169 OPERATIONS 1,125,565 38,117 1,172,500 (785,787) - - - 1,550,394 (1,432,005) 118,389 00171 CULTURE 156,686 4,176 60,000 (84,387) - - - 136,474 (129,563) 6,911 00172 TRANSIT 2,188,927 55,458 113,250 (653,545) 363 - - 1,704,452 (1,623,513) 80,939 00176 INFORMATION SERVICES 248,647 16,932 906,500 (232,053) - - - 940,026 (905,710) 34,316 00186 WASTE MANAGEMENT 293,542 4,829 - (252,899) - - - 45,471 (39,639) 5,832 00161 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT 363 - - - (363) - - - 0 - (0) 00173 FIRE (557) - - - 557 - - - - - 10,994,107 295,815 4,099,500 (5,616,830) 557 - - 9,773,149 (8,470,835) 1,302,314 STRATEGIC RESERVE FUNDS - TAX SUPPORTED 00150 CAPTIAL TAX 2,710,573 87,970 2,419,000 (71,588) - - - 5,145,954 (71,500) 5,074,454 00351 CAPITAL ASSET RENEWAL 8,924,637 232,066 51,580 (714,509) - - - 8,493,775 (2,087,338) 6,406,437 00154 CAPITAL STRATEGIC PLANNING 15,795 456 - - - - - 16,251 - 16,251 00156 DC EXEMPTIONS 3,084,630 92,188 350,000 (7,200) (132,257) - - 3,387,361 (270,926) 3,116,435 00159 ACCESSIBLITY CAPITAL 411,366 8,679 - (222,113) - - - 197,932 - 197,932 00160 ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE 3,132,195 76,855 1,385,000 (2,330,679) - - - 2,263,372 (1,694,664) 568,708 00190 BUILDING LIFE CYCLE 868,170 28,969 1,201,700 (933,294) - - - 1,165,544 (1,085,685) 79,859 00332 INDUSTRIAL LAND 1,188,761 (208,851) (10,000,000) 509,769 - 1,891,934 (210,800) (6,829,188) (1,200,000) (8,029,188) 20,336,126 318,332 (4,592,720) (3,769,614) (132,257) 1,891,934 (210,800) 13,841,001 (6,410,113) 7,430,888 Net Transfer (To) / From Closing Opening Actual Net Transfer Net Transfer (To) / Reserves/Reserve External Revenues Proceeds (Funding) Closing Actual Uncommitted Identfier Name Balance Interest Earned (To)/From Operating From Capital Funds Earned of Debt Balance Commitments Balance MISCELLANEOUS DISCRETIONARY RESERVE FUNDS - TAX SUPPORTED 00135 MUSEUM DEVELOPMENT 241,885 5,333 25,950 (140,769) - 90 - 132,489 - 132,489 00136 MCRAE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT 146,287 2,551 - (146,000) - 29,961 - 32,798 - 32,798 00137 MOON-MACKEIGAN ARTIFACT 13,962 412 - - - 599 - 14,973 - 14,973 00138 LIBRARY BEQUESTS 282,646 8,650 33,353 - - - - 324,649 - 324,649 00155 LANDFILL COMPENSATION 100,303 2,887 - (844) - - - 102,345 (27,846) 74,499 00162 SLEEMAN CENTRE NAMING RIGHTS 5,106 69 57,735 (63,157) - - - (246) - (246) 00178 TREE DONATION PROGRAM 450 17 - - - 300 - 767 - 767 00189 SLEEMAN CENTRE 34,517 1,108 8,453 (831) - - - 43,247 - 43,247 00200 INVESTING ONTARIO ACT 99,515 - - (99,515) ------00331 ROAD WIDENING 852,369 24,633 - - - - - 877,002 - 877,002 00340 RIVER RUN 112,094 2,569 66,109 (112,498) - - - 68,275 (69,178) (903) 00352 GREENHOUSE GAS 464,399 11,275 - (148,488) - - - 327,187 (92,824) 234,363 00350 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MGMT 22,187 641 - - - - - 22,828 - 22,828 00355 GREENING 34,537 284 - (50,000) - 547 - (14,633) - (14,633) 00356 PUBLIC ART 74,672 2,240 - (14,343) - 20,000 - 82,568 - 82,568 00357 BROWNFIELD CAPITAL 58,529 1,453 - (16,520) - 0 - 43,462 (129,860) (86,398) 2,543,457 64,122 191,599 (792,964) - 51,496 0 2,057,711 (319,708) 1,738,003 DEPARTMENT CAPITAL - NON-TAX SUPPORTED 00120 POA RELOCATION 985,252 27,747 400,000 (57,483) - - (392,821) 962,694 (114,329) 848,365 00152 WATERWORKS 29,122,258 919,759 11,417,354 (7,166,351) - - 1,223,533 35,516,553 (19,839,606) 15,676,947 00153 WASTEWATER 33,093,762 1,033,212 11,496,845 (8,131,522) - - 1,689,641 39,181,939 (26,992,894) 12,189,045 00353 WATERWORKS DC EXEMPTIONS 521,808 16,654 300,000 (18,400) (172,694) - - 647,367 (290,019) 357,348 00354 WASTEWATER DC EXEMPTIONS 2,169,076 53,344 300,000 (819,500) (127,023) - - 1,575,897 (503,747) 1,072,150 65,892,155 2,050,717 23,914,199 (16,193,256) (299,717) - 2,520,353 77,884,451 (47,740,595) 30,143,856 TOTAL DISCRETIONARY RESERVE FUNDS 109,077,325 2,999,672 32,965,667 (35,615,577) (431,974) 1,943,430 2,309,553 113,248,097 (69,310,159) 43,937,938

TOTAL ALL RESERVES AND RESERVE FUNDS 202,772,493 5,294,381 34,204,638 (67,129,138) - 33,215,738 1,789,052 210,147,164 (145,357,874) 64,789,290 STAFF REPORT TO Corporate Services Committee

SERVICE AREA Corporate Services, Finance

DATE May 2, 2016

SUBJECT Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and Budget PSAB Reconciliation

REPORT NUMBER CS-2016-25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT • To provide Council with the budget impact of amortization, post- employment benefit costs and landfill post-closure costs in accordance with Ontario Regulation 284/09. • To further provide a reconciliation of the 2016 City of Guelph Tax Supported and Non-Tax Supported budgets to a full-accrual presentation required by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) for the annual financial statements.

KEY FINDINGS Ontario Regulation 284/09 This is an annual report required by legislation and is presented to Committee each year. The impact of amortization, post-employment benefits and solid waste landfill post-closure expenses in 2016 totals $47,652,555 (Table 1).

Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) While Ontario Regulation 284/09 requires that the report to Council should include budget information for the items detailed above, there is also a requirement to report an approved budget on the same basis as the annual financial statements. These statements are prepared in accordance with PSAB standards. For this reason, additional amendments related to debt, reserves and reserve fund transfers and other capital related revenues and expenses are reported to present the 2016 Budget in accordance with PSAB (Attachment 1).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. However, the information contained in this report will be reflected in the 2016 annual audited financial statements.

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT

ACTION REQUIRED That Council approve compliance report CS-2016-25 Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and 2016 Budget PSAB Reconciliation included in Table 1 and Attachment 1 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION That Council approve compliance report CS-2016-25 Budget Impacts per Ontario Regulation 284/09 and 2016 Budget PSAB Reconciliation included in Table 1 and Attachment 1 respectively.

BACKGROUND

Ontario Regulation 284/09

Provincial requirements as contained in Ontario Regulation 284/09 allow municipalities to exclude the following expenses from their municipal budgets:

• Amortization expense on tangible capital assets • Post-employment benefit expenses • Solid waste landfill post-closure expenses

However, municipalities must report on the impact of excluding these expenses from the annual budget. A compliance report was first presented to Council for the 2010 Budget and the City has prepared it annually since then.

The City of Guelph excludes amortization, post-employment benefits and solid waste landfill post-closure expenses from its budget, therefore this report is prepared to inform Council of the impact on the 2016 budget if these expenses had been included in the 2016 Budget. This is for information purposes only and has no impact on the long-term financial planning strategy of the City.

In accordance with the regulation, Council is required to adopt this report by resolution.

PSAB Accrual Accounting Requirement

PSAB sets financial accounting and reporting standards for municipalities and other levels of government. These standards require the City to record revenues and expenses using an accrual basis. This means that revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned; expenses are recognized in the period in which they are incurred. In addition, transfers between funds and internal charges/recoveries among City departments must be eliminated from the financial statements as these are not deemed to be revenues or expenses to the City as a whole. Finally there are

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT a number of transactions that are presented differently on the financial statements that also require adjustments including debt principle payments, capital asset acquisitions and the disposition of long-term liabilities/receivables. The year-end surplus/deficit must be reported after recognizing all these accrual accounting impacts.

REPORT

Ontario Regulation 284/09

As allowed under the Ontario Regulation 284/09 which was introduced by the Province of Ontario in 2009, the City of Guelph excludes the following expenses from its 2016 tax supported operating and non-tax supported budgets:

1. Amortization Expense

Amortization expense for 2016 is estimated to be $44.3 million. Amortization reflects the allocation of the cost of tangible capital assets over their useful lives. It is also a means of setting funds aside for the future replacement of capital assets. However, this amount is inadequate to cover the future financial requirements for asset replacement due to the difference between the historical cost of assets which forms the basis of amortization and the replacement cost of those assets.

In order to help meet the annual financial commitment required for asset replacement, the City of Guelph includes in its 2016 tax supported operating and non-tax supported operating budgets contributions of $42.4 million to capital reserves. These contributions will provide funding for capital replacement and rehabilitation. The City is currently working on a capital funding strategy for 2017 and forward through the new Asset Management function at the City approved during the 2016 operating budget as well as in accordance with the 2015 BMA Financial Condition Assessment.

2. Post-Employment Benefit Expenses

Post-Employment Benefit expenses are benefits to be paid to employees in the future for their service while employed with the City. These include medical and dental benefits for eligible retirees, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits, and retirement benefits earned during employment.

Post-Employment Benefit expenses to be paid in the future are not included in the City’s budgets. However, the City does budget an annual transfer to reserves to build funding for the ultimate payment of these costs. The 2016 budget includes funds of $700,000 for the current year’s contribution

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT to the post employment benefit reserves. The total 2016 cost of these post-retirement benefits is estimated to be $2.9 million which includes the increase in the post-employment liability and the current year post- employment payments. While this shortfall will be met through the City’s compensation reserves when they become payable, it is deducted in the table below to show its impact on the 2016 Budget.

3. Solid waste landfill post-closure expenses

Though Ontario Regulation 284/09 allows municipalities to exclude solid waste landfill post-closure expenses from their budgets, the City of Guelph continues to budget for the current year expense related to the closure of its solid waste landfill site in 2003. This is separate from the accounting treatment of the annual reduction of the post-closure liability that was calculated and set up in 2008 in order to comply with PSAB requirements.

The estimated City’s liability for Solid Waste landfill post-closure costs of $400,000 is added back in the table below to show its impact on the City’s surplus.

Table 1. Ontario Regulation 284/09 Budget Impact

Amortization of Tangible Capital Assets ($44,300,000) Post-employment benefit ($2,952,555) Increase in landfill post-closure liability ($400,00) Total Impact ($47,652,555)

PSAB Accrual Accounting Requirement

To reflect the impact of all accruals as required by PSAB, the City reports the surplus after necessary adjustments to recognize only the period’s revenues and expenses and exclude transfers between funds and internal charges/recoveries among City departments. To this end, costs that relate to assets that will not be consumed in 2016 are removed from the budgeted capital expenses. As well, items that would not have been included as expenses/revenues under accrual accounting are removed from 2016 budgeted figures while those that would have been accrued are now added to the total expenditures and revenues.

Attachment 1 shows the reconciliation of the City’s Council approved 2016 budget from a cash basis to an accrual basis according to the PSAB format and states the amended accumulated surplus at the year-end. This reconciliation shows both the required adjustments under Ontario Regulation 284/09 as well as the additional amendments for accrual accounting resulting in an estimated annual surplus of $52.3 million in 2016.

PAGE 4

STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN Innovation in Local Government 2.3 Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION N/A

COMMUNICATIONS N/A

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: 2016 Tax Supported & Non-Tax Supported Budgets (Unconsolidated) PSAB Reconciliation

Prepared By: Ron Maeresera Senior Corporate Analyst, Financial Planning

Recommended By 'APProved By Tara Baker Mark Amorosi Acting GM Finance and City Treasurer Deputy CAO, Corporate Services Corporate Services 519-822-1260 Ext. 2281 519-822-1260 Ext. 2289 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 5 Attachment 1 2016 City of Guelph Tax Supported & Non Tax Supported Budgets (Unconsolidated) PSAB Reconciliation 2016 Approved Budget (Prepared on a Cash Basis) Revenues $ Operating (358,843,084) Capital (88,753,200) Total Revenues (447,596,284) Expenses Operating 358,843,084 Non-Tangible Capital 10,700,000 Capital 78,053,200 Total Expenditures 447,596,284

Net Budget -

Adjustments Required to Reconcile to an Accrual Based Budget Reductions to Revenues Transfers from Reserves/Reserve Funds (1) 51,761,300 Increases to Revenues Contributed Subdivision Assets (2) (5,430,000) Reductions to Expenditures Transfers to Reserve/Reserve Funds (3) (53,580,474) Capital Expenses(4) (88,753,200) Debt Principal Payments (5) (6,486,517) Increases to Expenditures Post-Closure Landfill Liability (6) 400,000 Tax Increment Based Grant Program(7) 2,524,207 Post-Employment Benefit (8) 2,952,555 Amortization of Tangible Capital Assets(9) 44,300,000 Annual (Surplus)/Deficit (52,312,129)

(1) “Transfers from Reserve/Reserve Funds” are the budgeted amounts transferred from reserves to fund expenditures, mainly related to capital work. These are not considered revenue under PSAB accounting because transfers are not revenues received from external sources. Funds are recorded as revenue at the time they are received as part of tax revenue or grant revenue. (2) "Contributed Subdivision Assets" are non-cash accounting revenue recognised upon the City taking ownership of new subdivision infrastructure within the City limits. The City budgets for costs of maintenance and replacement of assets in the year when the service is required. (3) “Transfers to Reserve/Reserve Funds” are the budgeted contributions to reserves to fund future expenditures included in the City’s operating budget. These are not considered as expenses under PSAB accounting because transfers represent re- allocation of funds internally and are not actual payments to external entities. Funds are recorded as expenses when goods / services are received by the City. (4) “Capital Expenses” is the amount budgeted to be spent on capital projects in the City’s capital budget. Capital acquisition costs are not considered as expenses under PSAB accounting as they are capitalized on the balance sheet as tangible capital assets and amortized as an expense over the useful life of the assets (5) “Debt principal payments” are included in the City’s operating budget in order to set aside the funds required to pay the principal portion of the current year’s debt obligations. These are not considered an expense under PSAB accounting; instead debt principal is recorded as a reduction of the City’s long-term debt liability. (6) “Increase in Post-Closure Landfill Liability” is a non-cash accounting cost that is excluded from the City’s operating budget. The City, in conformance with PSAB accounting rules, set up a liability in 2008 that accounted for the present value of the total expected costs associated with the closure of the landfill site in 2003. The City continues to budget on a cash basis for the annual post closure costs necessitating an adjustment to reduce/increse the initial estimated liability. (7) "Tax Increment Based Grant Program" is included as a transfer to reserves in the City's operating budget in order to set aside the funds required to cover the long-term obligations expected under the program. These are considered expenses under PSAB and are recorded when the grant is provided. (8) "Post Employment Benefits" are expenditures related to benefits earned over the life of employees' service and are paid upon retirement or injury. The City budgets for contributions to reserves annually to fund future obligations but under PSAB, the expenditures are recorded over the life of the employee. (9) “Amortization of tangible capital assets” is a non-cash expense and is therefore not included in the City’s operating budget. However, amortization is considered an expense under PSAB accounting and has been added to expenditures for financial reporting purposes. CONSENT REPORT OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

May 24, 2016

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

Your Governance Committee beg leave to present their THIRD CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of May 3, 2016.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of Governance Committee will be approved in one resolution.

GOV-2016.5 Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

That Council approve Report # CAO-I-1602 and the Project Charter (Attachment 1) to draft an Affordable Housing Reserve Policy.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Mayor Guthrie, Chair Governance Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the May 3, 2016 Governance Committee meeting. STAFF REPORT TO Governance Committee

SERVICE AREA Office of the CAO

DATE May 3, 2016

SUBJECT Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

REPORT NUMBER CAO-I-1602

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To outline the scope and objectives to update the City’s policy on the Affordable Housing Reserve and to seek Council endorsement of key principles in the development of the policy.

KEY FINDINGS The City is developing an Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS) that will provide concrete recommendations on how to best support achievement of the city-wide 30% affordable housing target, along with mechanisms to monitor achievement of the target. It will recommend approaches to address affordable housing issues within the market end of the housing continuum which will complement the non- market strategies and recommendations contained in Wellington County’s Ten-year Housing and Homelessness Plan (HHP). The strategy will also provide direction to the future of the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve (AHR).

The AHR was established in 2002 as a mechanism to fund and incent the development of affordable housing. This reserve is one of the tools available to the City to help address affordable housing issues facing our community. Staff and Council have consistently identified the need to develop a more comprehensive, contemporary AHR policy and sustainable funding model.

Staff is beginning the work to update the policy framework for the reserve. As staff begins this work, a key principle being proposed is that in the updated policy, the reserve be used for the creation of permanent housing options only. In the past, the reserve has been used to develop both non-permanent and permanent housing. Proposing that the AHR be used only for permanent housing options aligns with the financial incentives proposed in the draft directions of the AHS. It is also supports the goal of the County’s HHP to “increase the supply and mix of affordable housing options for low-to-moderate income households”.

Focussing on the creation of permanent housing also aligns with the Housing First principle. Housing First is the contemporary approach towards ending homelessness that moves homeless people directly into permanent housing.

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT Funding for non-permanent housing and programs, such as homelessness, emergency shelters and transitional housing, will continue to be supported through the City’s funding to the County, as Service Manager for the social programs.

This policy work is being done separately from but aligned to the work of the City’s AHS. The scope of the reserve policy will be broader than the strategy. The AHS is focussed only on market housing, however, the AHR policy is being developed to be applicable to the creation of both market and non-market affordable housing opportunities. When completed, the policy will emphasize the types of projects/investments that provide the best return on investment for the City.

A project charter has been developed which outlines the strategy, scope and work of this project. It is intended that the policy will define: . What is funded . Who is funded . How much funding is provided . How funding is requested/accessed . How the reserve is funded

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No financial impact. Consulting funds are available through the Affordable Housing Strategy project budget.

ACTION REQUIRED Approve the project charter which outlines the approach to the work of updating the Affordable Housing Reserve policy.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve Report # CAO-I-1602 and the Project Charter (Attachment 1) to draft an Affordable Housing Reserve Policy.

BACKGROUND History of the Affordable Housing Reserve Since 2002, the City has had an AHR. The AHR was established as part of the implementation of the City’s 2002 Affordable Housing Action Plan. The current AHR policy identifies the reserve’s purpose to: . Fund the City’s share of capital costs for affordable housing projects in partnership with Wellington County, pursuant to Federal-Provincial programs available at the time; and . Offer incentives to encourage affordable housing projects.

The existing policy provides minimal direction to staff and Council for assessing funding requests and determining an appropriate funding amount. Over the past several years, staff and Council have consistently identified the need to develop a more comprehensive, contemporary AHR policy and sustainable funding model. This need was recognized in the AHS project charter.

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT

The Reserve has been used for capital costs to renovate a building to establish a youth shelter and to offset City fees for: . non-profit housing . affordable home ownership units . supportive housing

Over its life, the Reserve has been funded by transfers from year-end surpluses of the County-managed Social Housing operation budget and from one time transfers from the City’s operating revenue. A consistent funding source or amount has not been established.

As part of the last two budget cycles (2015 and 2016), City Council contributed $250,000 and $100,000 respectively to the AHR. The current balance of the fund is $650,493 (as of December 31, 2015).

The City’s Affordable Housing Strategy The City is in the process of developing an AHS. The purpose of this strategy is to address municipal requirements under the Provincial Growth Plan and Provincial Policy Statement to plan for a range of housing types and densities by establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of affordable rental and ownership housing. The strategy will provide concrete recommendations regarding how to best support achievement of the city-wide 30% affordable housing target, along with mechanisms to monitor achievement of the target.

The approved project charter for the AHS (Housing Strategy Background Report, PBEE Report 14-15) scoped the strategy to focus on affordable market housing1. The County of Wellington, as Service Manager, is responsible for the non-market end of the housing continuum2 and its related programs, which the City supports through its funding to the County in the social services budget.

The AHS work has identified three key affordable housing issues facing our city:

1. There are not enough small units to rent or buy to meet the affordability needs of all smaller households 2. A lack of available primary rental supply makes it difficult for people to find affordable rental housing 3. The secondary rental market provides choice of affordable dwelling types but the supply is not as secure as the primary rental market.

The Affordable Housing Strategy: Draft Directions Report (IDE Report #15-101) described a number of potential tools which may impact the city’s affordability

1 Market Housing refers to rental or owned housing that receives no direct government subsidies and, as such, has rents and purchase prices that are determined through market forces

2 Non-market housing is rental or ownership housing that requires government money to build or operate

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT issues. One of these tools is the provision of financial incentives which includes the City’s existing AHR.

REPORT Staff is beginning to work on updating the policy framework for the City’s AHR. The AHR policy will guide the provision of financial incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing projects. The reserve is intended to support the goals of and respond to the key issues of housing affordability facing our city and is one of the tools available to the City to help address affordable housing issues.

This policy work is being done separately from but aligned to the work of the City’s AHS. The reserve policy will be broader than the strategy. The AHS is focussed only on market housing, however, the AHR policy is being developed to be applicable to the creation of both market and non-market affordable housing opportunities. When completed, the policy will focus on the types of projects/investments that provide the best return on investment for the City.

The project charter for this work is contained in Attachment 1 and provides details about the project strategy, scope and beginning assumptions. In summary, it is intended that the policy will define: . The type of projects and/or investments which are eligible for funding . The type of organizations which are eligible to apply for funding . The amount (or range) of funding available for each type of project/investment . The process to administer funding to eligible organizations and projects/investments . Sustainable funding sources and levels for the reserve . Connections with and ability to leverage other funding sources

Principles for Council Consideration: A key principle being proposed for developing the AHR policy is that the reserve will be focused on the creation of new, permanent housing. This approach aligns with the financial incentives proposed in the draft directions of the AHS. It also supports the goal of the County’s HHP to “increase the supply and mix of affordable housing options for low-to-moderate income households”. Focussing on the creation of permanent housing aligns with the Housing First principle which is the contemporary approach towards ending homelessness that moves homeless people directly into permanent housing.

For the purposes of developing the AHR policy, non-permanent housing is considered to be temporary or interim accommodations for individuals and families who have no shelter, are at risk of homelessness or are in crisis. Funding for non- permanent housing and programs, such as homelessness, emergency shelters and transitional housing, will continue to be supported through the City’s social services budget to the County, as Service Manager, and the City’s direct funding to Wyndham House Youth Emergency Shelter.

PAGE 4

STAFF REPORT

The City budgeted $19.9M in 2016 to fund Wellington County as the Service Manager for Ontario Works and Social Housing for the provision of housing and homelessness services. This funding includes homelessness programs, emergency shelters and transitional housing. Of that amount, the County reimbursed the City $1.7M (2015) as a year-end surplus. The City also provides over $400,000 in direct funding to Wyndham House Youth Emergency Shelter.

The following chart depicts the continuum of housing and identifies non-market and market housing. The chart also identifies permanent and non-permanent housing.

Non-Permanent Housing Permanent Housing (Focus of AHR policy)

When scoping this work, the following assumptions were made: . Council supports and wants an AHR as demonstrated by their decision to allocate funds to the reserve in both the 2015 and 2016 budgets . Meaningful incentives are required to encourage and influence the development of new affordable housing opportunities in the city . The AHR will be designed to have an impactful influence on the creation of affordable housing within the city . The AHR must maintain a healthy financial balance and make funds available to entities (e.g. developers, providers, others) which create affordable housing.

The work to develop the policy will: . Be guided by the issues identified and actions (directions) proposed in the City’s AHS work; . Be designed so that the financial incentives provided will be impactful on the creation of affordable housing;

PAGE 5

STAFF REPORT . Be based on latitudes and limitations of governing legislations (e.g. Planning Act, Municipal Act, etc.); . Complement strategies and plans developed by Wellington County as the Service Manager for social and affordable housing, including the HHP; . Employ community engagement and open government principles for policy development; . Consider the practices of other municipalities’ use of incentives for the creation of affordable housing; . Examine past funding practices and use of reserve funds; . Consider community engagement feedback received during the development of the AHS.

It is staff’s intention to present the proposed policy in time to guide the 2017 budget process and provide Council with a framework to determine reserve contributions for future years.

Next Steps Over the next several months, staff will: . Conduct research and an environmental scan of other municipalities . Work with a consultant to perform pro forma modelling to calculate the “tipping point” at which a City investment/financial incentive will impact the affordability of new housing. . Consult with expert stakeholders.

The work with the consultant will also support the development of the recommendations of the AHS. It is anticipated that the modelling will provide insight into the cost factors which drive the development of ownership units over rental units. Since the AHS has identified that the City is not meeting its targets for new affordable rental housing, this information will influence what approaches will be recommended in the AHS to assist the City in meeting the target in future years.

The draft AHR policy will be presented to Council for approval in November 2016.

Timelines, coordinated with the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy June 2016 Affordable Housing Strategy: Draft Directions Assessment

October 2016 Final Affordable Housing Strategy

November 2016 Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN Organizational Excellence 1.2 Develop collaborative work team and apply whole systems thinking to deliver creative solutions 1.3 Build robust systems, structures and frameworks aligned to strategy

PAGE 6

STAFF REPORT

Innovation in Local Government 2.1 Build an adaptive environment, for government innovation to ensure fiscal and service sustainability 2.2 Deliver Public Service better 2.3 Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement

City Building 3.1 Ensure a well-designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City 3.3 Strengthen citizen and stakeholder engagement and communications

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION The AHR Policy will be developed in collaboration with: . Finance . Planning . Legal . Business Development and Enterprise . Communications . Intergovernmental Relations, Policy and Open Government

COMMUNICATIONS A community engagement plan will be developed to seek input from expert stakeholders on the City’s financial incentives in support of affordable housing. A tactical communication plan will be developed to promote the stakeholder input opportunities and communicate the final policy on the AHR.

ATTACHMENTS ATT-1 Affordable Housing Reserve Policy Project Charter

Report Author Karen Kawakami Social Services Policy and Program Liaison Intergovernmental Relations, Policy and Open Government

Approved By Recommended By Cathy Kennedy Barbara Swartzentruber Manager, Policy and Intergovernmental Executive Director, Intergovernmental Relations Relations, Policy and Open Government Office of the Chief Administrative Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Officer 519-822-1260 ext. 3066 519-822-1260 X 2255 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 7

ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

Dat e: 01-04-16

Project Name: Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT DEFINITION

CORPORA TE PROJ ECT PURPOSE:

To develop a policy w hich governs the use and funding of the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve (AHR)

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS:

Project success w ill be influenced by: . A reserve which can make a impactful influence on creating affordable housing within the city . A stable funding source for the reserve . Support from municipal and sector specialists . Support from City Council . Connection w ith and implementation of the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS) and the city-related strategies of the County’s 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan (HHP)

PROJ ECT GOA LS:

The policy will outline: . The type of projects and/or investments w hich are eligible for funding . The type of organizations w hich are eligible to apply for funding . The amount (or range) of funding available for each type of project / investment . The process to administer funding to eligible organizations and projects / investments . Funding sources for the reserve . Connections w ith and ability to leverage other funding sources

PROJ ECT STRA TEGY :

The approach to the project w ork w ill: . Be guided by the issues identified and actions (directions) proposed in the City’s AHS . Be designed so that the financial incentives provided w ill be impactful on the creation of affordable housing . Utilize a consultant to perform “pro forma modelling” that: - Calculates and itemizes the cost of development under various conditions (e.g. new construction, renovation, etc.), tenures (e.g. rental, ownership, etc.) and unit sizing - Calculates the “tipping point” at which the City’s investment / financial incentive impacts the affordability of housing development - Provides insight into the cost factors w hich drive the development of ow nership units over rental units - Will be used to assess the financial feasibility of funding-related directions in the AHS . Be based on latitudes and limitations of governing legislations (e.g. Planning Act, Municipal Act, etc.) . Support / complement strategies and plans (including the HHP) developed by the Wellington County as the Service Manager for social and affordable housing . Employ community engagement and open government principles for policy development - Engagement w ill be limited to elements of the proposed policy w hich are w ithin scope . Consider the practices of other municipalities’ use of incentives for the creation of affordable

Page 1 ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

housing . Examine past funding practices and use of reserve funds . Consider/use community engagement feedback received during the development of the AHS

When completed, the AHR policy w ill be presented to Council for approval. Presentation of the policy will be in sufficient time to provide Council with a framew ork for decision-making regarding the AHR for the City’s 2017 budget process

PROJECT PRODUCT DEFINITION END PRODUCTS:

A detailed policy w hich defines: . The type of projects and/or investments that are eligible for funding . The type of organizations w hich are eligible to apply for funding . The high-level process to administer funding to eligible organizations and projects/investments (i.e. establish decision-making authority to administer funding) . Funding sources for the reserve

KEY INTERIM PRODUCTS:

. Open government policy development framew ork . Community engagement framew ork . Communications plan . Staff report to Governance Committee w hich approves the scope and approach to the project

PROJ ECT SCOPE Project Scope Is (Includes): Project Scope Is Not (Does Not Include): Funding which incents the creation of new Deliberation of whether or not the City should permanent affordable housing within both the maintain an affordable housing reserve market1 and non-market2 end of the housing continuum A spectrum of financial transaction types for Undertaking any actions to develop new fund uses will be considered such as direct corporate entities which may complement the financial incentives, purchasing of land, fee City’s efforts to encourage new affordable waivers, forgivable loans, etc. housing development An analysis of the legal and financial Providing funding commitments to any implications of the various ways in which the stakeholders fund could be used Retaining a consultant to perform “pro forma Development of any application forms, etc. to modelling” to calculate the cost of development access reserve funding under various conditions (e.g. new construction, renovation, etc.), tenures (e.g. rental, ow nership,

1 Market Housing refers to rental or owned housing that receives no direct government subsidies and, as such, has rents and purchase prices that are determined through market forces

2 Non-market housing is rental or ownership housing that requires government money to build or operate Page 2 ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

etc.) and unit sizing and calculate the “tipping point” at w hich the City’s investment / financial incentive impacts the affordability of housing development Utilization of the consultant’s work to assess Development of any legal contracts, etc. for the financial feasibility of funding-related reserve fund recipients directions of the AHS A defined process to access funding from the Review and/or change to any funding provided AHR, including a timeframe during which through other mechanisms, such as requests for funding can be made Community Benefit Agreements (e.g. CBA with Wyndham Housing for the Youth Emergency Shelter) Consultation with expert stakeholders who can Funding for any forms of temporary housing, advise the City on financial incentives which including emergency shelters and transitional will have a meaningful impact on the creation of housing affordable housing Recommendations for a source and amount of If the AHR funding is supplemented with other sustainable funding municipal funding sources to leverage federal/provincial funding, determining any conditions or parameters for this additional funding falls outside the scope of the AHR policy development The AHR will be considered the first source for Funding for retrofits or other incentives for any City contributions required to leverage existing housing federal and/or provincial funding of affordable housing opportunities which could be supplemented by other municipal sources as appropriate Community engagement principles and open government practices

PARAM ETERS

PROJ ECT OBJ ECTIV ES SCHEDULE:

April – July 2016: Research practices of other municipalities Review past practices and uses of the current AHR Retain consultant and complete related w ork Research and analyze elements of draft policy

Aug - Oct 2016: Propose AHR contribution for 2017 budget based on work to date Conduct all stakeholder consultation Modify draft policy with stakeholder input

Nov 2016: Submit report and draft policy to Governance Committee

BUDGET:

Page 3 ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

TBD KNOWN CONSTRAINTS: RESOURCES:

Time Historically, the AHR has been funded by annual contributions w hich have been decided upon through the City’s budget process. The policy, and its anticipated approval, must be completed in time to guide the 2017 budget process and provide Council with a framew ork to determine reserve contributions for future years

Staffing The Project Committee is committed to this project until completion of the policy

The proposed timelines and strategy are ambitious. Priority and dedicated time must be assigned to this project by the Steering Committee

Additional expertise will be accessed as required

Cost Planning has funds available for consulting fees if required. These funds are part of the AHS strategy

OTHER:

Scope The project scope is limited to the development of the policy for Council’s approval. Implementation of any approved policy w ill be managed as w ork outside the scope of this project

BEGINNING ASSUMPTIONS:

. Council w ants and supports an AHR as demonstrated by their decision to allocate funds to the reserve as part of the 2015 and 2016 budget

. Council w ants to establish an AHR that can have a impactful influence on the creation of affordable housing w ithin the city

. Encouraging and influencing the development of new affordable housing opportunities w ould be strongly enhanced by providing impactful municipal financial incentives, in conjunction with other tools and strategies to be identified through the AHS. The AHR is one of the tools available to the City to help address affordable housing issues

. In order to be an effective tool, the AHR must maintain a healthy financial balance and make those funds available to entities (e.g. developers, providers, others) w hich create affordable housing

. The policy will be connected to the findings and recommendations from the City’s AHS (and associated reports) and also the County’s HHP, for guiding the use, access and funding of the AHR

. Staff will propose an AHR contribution amount based on the w ork done to date as part of the budget building process (est. July 2016). The policy w ill be completed in time to provide a framew ork for Council w hen deliberating a contribution to the AHR as part of the 2017 budget (est. Nov 2016) Page 4 ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

. The reserve will be focused on the creation of new , permanent housing. This approach w ill also address the financial incentives proposed in the draft directions of the AHS. It also aligns with Housing First principles. Housing First is the contemporary approach tow ards ending homelessness that moves homeless people directly into permanent housing.

. Non-permanent housing options on the housing continuum (i.e. homelessness, emergency shelters and transitional housing) will not be eligible to receive financial incentives from the Affordable Housing Reserve. These services w ill continue to be supported through the City’s funding to the County, as Service Manager for the social programs w hich include homelessness, emergency shelters and transitional housing

. New requests for funding from the existing AHR w ill not be considered until the policy and associated funding model are approved by Council

. The policy and procedures surrounding an AHR may require updating / reworking if/w hen proposed legislative changes take effect (e.g. inclusionary zoning)

. Historically, federal and/or provincial funding of new affordable housing developments has required a municipal contribution. The AHR will be the first source of funding for the municipal contribution. Other municipal funding sources may be utilized to supplement the AHR as appropriate

. The City provides support (facilities, funding, other) to organizations via other mechanisms, such as Community Benefit Agreements. These other funding/support mechanisms fall outside the scope of the review and development of the AHR policy

. The list of expert stakeholders used for the Affordable Housing Strategy w ill be the basis for the expert stakeholders for the AHR, plus others as appropriate

RISK ASSESSMENT: (High, Medium, Low) Probability Impact Schedule Risk:

2017 budget timelines are changed and Council deliberations are held Low Low earlier than previous years

Budget Risk:

A consultant is needed to either conduct research or facilitate High Low stakeholder and/or public consultation sessions

Technical Risk:

Proposed provincial legislations are enacted w hich negatively impact Medium Low proposed policy recommendations

Other Risk:

Page 5 ATT-1: Project Charter to Update the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

PROJECT CHARTER

REPORTING RELA TIONSHIPS:

Interim report(s) and the final policy w ill be presented to City Council for approval through the Governance Committee

COMPLETION CRITERIA

The project w ill be considered complete w hen: . A draft policy has been developed . The draft policy has been presented to Governance Committee

Page 6 Affordable Housing Reserve Policy

Governance Committee May 3, 2016

1

Why are we here? • Provide update on the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve (AHR) policy • Seek approval of the project charter – Including scope and key principles

2

1 What is the AHR? • Established in 2002, the Affordable Housing Reserve (AHR) is intended to: – Fund the City’s share of capital costs for affordable housing projects in partnership with Wellington County; and – Offer incentives to encourage affordable housing projects

3

How has the AHR been funded? • Through: – Transfers from year-end surpluses of the County-managed Social Housing operations budget; and – One time transfers from the City’s operating revenue • There’s no consistent funding source or amount 4

2 Why Update the Policy? • Staff and Council recognize the need for a more comprehensive AHR policy and sustainable funding model • The City is in the process of developing an Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS) • The AHR is intended to support the goals of the AHS and respond to the key issues of housing affordability • The reserve policy will be broader than the strategy – The policy will be applicable to the creation of market and non-market affordable housing opportunities

5

Where does the AHR fit on the housing continuum? Key principle: AHR will focus on the creation of new, permanent housing Non- permanent Housing Permanent Housing

6

3 What are our early assumptions? • Council wants and supports an AHR • The AHR will have an impactful influence on the creation of affordable housing • Meaningful incentives are required • The AHR must maintain a healthy financial balance

7

What is the vision for the new policy? • It is intended that the policy will define: – What is funded – Who is funded – How much funding is provided – How funding is requested/accessed – How the reserve is funded 8

4 Key components of the Project Charter • The work to develop the policy will: – Be guided by the issues identified and directions proposed in the City’s AHS work; – Be designed so that the financial incentives provided will be impactful; – Be based on latitudes and limitations of governing legislations (e.g. Planning Act, Municipal Act, etc.); – Complement strategies and plans developed by Wellington County as the Service Manager for social and affordable housing, including the HHP. 9

What are the next steps? • Over the next several months, staff will: – Conduct research and an environmental scan of other municipalities – Work with a consultant to perform pro forma modelling to calculate the “tipping point” at which an investment/financial incentive will impact the affordability of new housing – Consult with expert stakeholders • Timelines: – June 2016 AHS: Draft Directions Assessment – October 2016 Final AHS – November 2016 AHR Policy 10

5 CONSENT REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE

May 24, 2016

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

Your Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee beg leave to present their FOURTH CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of May 3, 2016.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee will be approved in one resolution.

IDE-2016.12 Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Pilot Implementation

1. That the GEERS report referral back to staff be placed on the Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee Consent Report for consideration at the May 24, 2016 Council meeting.

2. That report IDE- BDE-1606 entitled Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Pilot Implementation be referred back to staff to gather further information from outside sources, further options for potential third-party finances and support and further information on a city-wide residential energy audit option as a first step for consideration within a GEERS program.

3. That staff report back regarding how electric vehicle charging infrastructure might be facilitated through GEERS in residential homes.

4. That the referral to staff regarding GEERS include that staff report back on: i) further development of GEERS as a pilot iii) anyalsis of the costs and revenue related to administration iv) transaction costs v) budget implications vi) determining the technologies and/or efficiencies to be supported.

Page 2 May 24, 2016

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Fourth Consent Report

5. That staff report back to committee on the GEERS report no later than October, 2016.

IDE-2016.13 Update on Source Water Protection Plan and Appointment of the Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspectors

1. That Peter Rider, the City of Guelph’s current Risk Management Official (RMO) be appointed as the RMO and as a Risk Management Inspector (RMI), and that Prasoon Adhikari, the City’s current Environmental Engineer be appointed as a RMI under subsection 47(6) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 2006.

2. That the Clerk be directed to issue Certificates of Appointment to RMOs and RMIs as required under subsection 47(7) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 2006.

IDE-2016.15 2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees and Building By-law Amendments

1. That report 16-33 dated May 3, 2016 entitled “2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees and Building By-law Amendments”, be received.

2. That an amended Building By-law, included as Attachment 2, be enacted to, among other things, repeal appointment by-law (1995)-14803.

IDE-2016.16 180 Gordon Street Brownfield Tax Increment-Based Grant Agreement Extension

1. That IDE report #16-27, regarding 180 Gordon Brownfield Tax Increment- Based Grant Agreement Extension, dated May 3, 2016 be received.

2. That the request to extend the deadline for project completion from March 28, 2017 to March 28, 2021 be approved.

3. That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the Tax Increment-Based Grant agreement between the City and 180 Gordon Street Ltd., to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services, the City Solicitor, and the City Treasurer.

Page 3 May 24, 2016

Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee Fourth Consent Report

4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the amendment to the Tax Increment-Based Grant Agreement.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Councillor Bell, Chair Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise Committee

PLEASE BRING THE MATERIAL THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED WITH THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 3, 2016 INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE MEETING. Making a Dlffemtce

TO Infrastructure Development and Enterprise Committee

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE May 3, 2016

SUBJECT Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Pilot Implementation

REPORT NUMBER IDE - BDE - 1606

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE Of REPORT

The full GEERS Program was presented to Council on September 28, 2015. At that time Council provided the following direction:

• That staff be directed to continue with the detailed design of the GEERS program including establishing an advisory group, developing a financing structure, designing a business process using Local Improvement Charges to facilitate energy efficiency retrofit projects, and investigating potential investors. • That staff be directed to draft the necessary by-laws to allow the use of Local Improvement Charges for energy projects. • That staff be directed to report back by Q1 2016, with a full report on program details, as described.

Council also received, in the form of a memo, a list of issues/questions that were received through the IDE Committee dated September 16, 2015. It is attached as Attachment 1.

Since Council has provided its direction and under the leadership of Business, Development and Enterprise a number of key activities have taken place:

1. Formation of an internal GEERS advisory group consisting of Building Services, Legal, Finance, Communications and Community Engagement. 2. Working with the advisory group to develop aspects of the activities defining the next steps of implementing the GEERS program, as described in this report. 3. Formation of an external support group consisting of Union Gas, Guelph Hydro electrical Systems Inc., University of Guelph and eMerge Guelph 4. Development of a survey process that includes an online survey as well

PAGE 1 as a statistically-based telephone survey. 5. Environmental scans of activity provincially, Canada-wide and in the US of similar programs.

This report is presented to provide recommendations and a summary of activities related to the next stages of implementing the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS)

KEY FINDINGS

Through the activities listed above and consideration of all the analysis, consultations, broader market knowledge etc., four major determinations have been made:

1. Staff will propose a pilot that focuses on approximately 20 homes in Guelph. A pilot will mitigate higher-scale risks and provide critical feedback to the consideration of scaling up a GEERS program in the future.

2. Given that GEERS is an element of the Community Energy Initiative (CEI) as a broader strategic plan, it is recommended that continued development of GEERS take place in parallel to the anticipated Community Energy Initiative Update that is expected to run through to end of Ql 2017.

3. The value proposition, including payback and other value-added benefits, varies widely for each potential homeowner who may engage in the GEERS program. Determining market uptake for a scaled-up GEERS program will depend on the marketing and sales approach to a number of different segments within the residential sector. Development of this approach will continue to be analyzed through the proposed pilot.

4. Although support for GEERS in principle is apparent at both Council and through the internal GEERS advisory group, there remains the outstanding question of how the program relates to competing corporate priorities and resources.

Therefore, it is recommended that the GEERS pilot, as described in this report, be considered for implementation through the 2018 budgeting process.

FINANCIAl IMPliCATIONS

Financial impact on the corporation, related to the pilot GEERS program falls into two main categories:

PAGE 2 FF

~REP R Making a Difference

1. Impact on the corporation related to issuing debenture to support the GEERS pilot capital needs. 2. Administration and transaction costs related to rolling out a GEERS pilot

NOTE: As described in the previous September 28, 2015 report and described in this report, the Local Improvement Charge mechanism allows for full cost recovery of capital, administrative and transaction costs. Cost/revenue details will be further developed through the ongoing pilot design and be described in detail through the 2018 budget process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive report IDE- BDE- 1606 for information; and

That Council direct staff to continue the development of GEERS, as a pilot as described in report number IDE-BDE -1606, with consideration to further identifying pilot participants, an analysis of the costs and revenue related to administration, transaction costs, and budget implications and determining the technologies to be supported; and

That the consideration of the implementation of a GEERS pilot be delayed until such time that Council has approved the Community Energy Initiative update as described in report number GOV-2016.4; and

That the funding of a GEERS pilot be considered through the 2018 budget process.

BACKGROUND

The Community Energy Initiative (CEI) began in 2007 with Council's adoption of the Community Energy Plan (CEP). A primary goal of the CEI is to reduce per-capita energy consumption in Guelph by 50% over the period of 2007-2031. The first recommendation of the CEI to achieve this goal is to "use efficiency to create at minimum all the energy needed to support the growth of the residential sector".

In 2007, there were 33,000 homes in Guelph. Per the projections in the Places to Grow Act, another 20,000 homes will be added by the reference year of 2031. Meeting this CEI objective will necessitate significant improvements in the energy efficiency of Guelph's residential building stock.

PAGE 3 FF

Making. Dlffemlc•

Many factors prevent the open market for energy efficiency retrofits from achieving its full potential. Government/utility incentives, such as the Government of Canada's EcoEnergy for Homes program, have attempted to remove some market frictions, but have had limited uptake. A potentially transformative innovation is the recent amendment to legislation related to Local Improvement Charges (LICs) which came into force October 25, 2012. LICs had hitherto provided a user-pay model for municipal infrastructure such as sewers, water mains, and roads. LICs permitted the municipality to mandate that property owners would pay for the cost of infrastructure installation and/or upgrades servicing their property.

The LIC concept has been extended in a number of jurisdictions in the United States to allow its use on a voluntary basis to finance energy-related projects. The Province of Ontario followed suit in 2012 through an amendment to LIC legislation.

Along with a number of other municipalities, the City of Guelph proceeded to explore how to implement programming based on this innovation. This investigation was a collective effort coordinated by the Clean Air Partnership, and was named the Collaboration on Home Energy Efficiency Retrofits in Ontario (CHEERIO). The work of CHEERIO led the City of Toronto to become the first Ontario municipality to begin using LICs for residential energy efficiency retrofits via its Home Energy Loan Program (HELP), launched in March of 2014. The HELP program is a pilot with full analysis and forward recommendations expected early in 2017.

A similar approach is being used by the Halifax Regional Municipality with its Solar City program, launched in March of 2013.

In Ontario, a growing number of cities are in various stages of utilizing the LIC mechanism to drive energy efficiency in their residential sectors. Most of these cities are considering programs around the LIC mechanism in the context of creating and/or implementing community energy plans similar to Guelph's Community Energy Initiative. Generally, the use of LIC's to drive home energy retrofits is new to Ontario municipalities and to move forward without a pilot would be premature.

The Community Energy unit of Business Development and Enterprise presented a strategic plan for a program to deliver the CEI residential energy efficiency recommendation entitled "Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy" (GEERS) to council in September, 2015. Council provided the following direction:

• That staff be directed to continue with the detailed design of the GEERS program including establishing an advisory group, developing a financing structure, designing a business process using Local Improvement Charges to facilitate energy efficiency retrofit projects, and investigating potential investors.

PAGE 4 Making. Diffmm<• • That staff be directed to draft the necessary by-laws to allow the use of Local Improvement Charges for energy projects. • That staff be directed to report back by Q1 2016, with a full report on program details, as described.

Council also received, in the form of a memo, a list of issues/questions that were received through the IDE Committee dated September 16, 2015. It is attached as Attachment 1.

The "REPORT', section of this report outlines staff's response to this direction and the questions/concerns outlined in the aforementioned memo (Attachment 1) under the following principles:

• Overall, a pilot reduces financial and reputational risk to all parties involved in a GEERS program - the City, homeowners, participating contractors and community-based partner organizations.

• A small scale roll-out (current target of 20 participants) has hampered the ability to engage community delivery partners and market-based investors. The proposed pilot, therefore, considers recoverable city-based financing and administration costs which can be vetted through the 2018 budgeting process. The recommended pilot will:

o Continued to be developed through 2016 and Q1 2017. Ongoing community engagement allows for further development of marketing, communications and the value proposition for various segments of the residential market.

o Be considered in the context of a proposed Community Energy Initiative update.

• Interest from the Ontario provincial government in the use of the LIC mechanism in the building sector is growing. The implementation of the pilot, along with knowledge gained in similar programs in other municipalities will provide important input to ongoing efforts to seek program expansion support from the Province as well as Provincially-regulated utilities (Guelph Hydro and Union Gas).

PAGE 5 Making a Difference

REPORT

1. Description of the Proposed Pilot

The September 16, 2015 GEERS business plan proposed a rapid ramp-up to a volume of business that would then be sustained until the conclusion of the planning period in 2031. This report is based on a piloted approach to implementing GEERS rather than a rapid ramp-up. What follows is a description of the GEERS pilot.

a) local Improvement Charge {LIC) Administration. A pilot offers an opportunity for in-depth learning about the practical application of the LIC legislation (O.Reg. 586/06 Local Improvement Charges- Priority Lien Status), including identifying potential challenges when implementing an LIC-based energy retrofit program. Such challenges would then be addressed prior to full program implementation with minimal impact. By contrast, if no pilot is performed and a significant issue with LIC implementation were to arise, it could result in delays, failure to meet targets, and potentially irreversible repercussions for investor confidence. A pilot is therefore expected to mitigate the risk associated with LIC implementation. b) Investment. Full deployment offers a monetary scale that will be attractive to potential market-based or institutional investors. By contrast, the smaller dollar value of a pilot and the uncertainty about commitment to a long-term program may make it only of interest to public sector entities, including the City itself. Examples of such entities are the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund, and Infrastructure Ontario. c) Potential Costs to the Corporation. Most costs associated with the proposed program are variable and directly related to the volume of retrofits performed. However, some costs, including initial program design and consultations to develop legal agreements, are fixed and can only be recouped by spreading them evenly according to an overhead allocation formula. The full implications of this, in the context of a pilot, will be defined in detail through the pilot process. d) Sales and marketing. The pilot will consist of a small number of participants, and there are several available channels to secure such participants. Sales and marketing efforts associated with the pilot are expected to be minimal. However, incorporating the ongoing development of the GEERS program through a CEI Update process will allow for a

PAGE 6 Making a Oifference

broader engagement with the community to develop ongoing sales and marketing strategies. e) Customers. Because of the channels that will be exploited to secure pilot participants (including the CEI update process), the pilot customer pool will likely be biased toward individuals that are already familiar with, and supportive of, the program. For example, such individuals could have a higher tolerance for a project with marginal economic benefit. By contrast, in the full deployment, the majority of projects will need to have clarity as to the economics to be accepted by potential customers. The pilot provide opportunity to continue the study of the economics of different housing type and retrofit scenarios. f) Utility incentives. Guelph's local utilities are currently in the development stages of their own energy conservation programs. Developing GEERS through the remainder of 2016 will allow for further exploration of collaboration with the utilities. g) Delivery partner. The GEERS program was developed with the goal of having a substantial portion of program delivery performed by a 3rd party. As defined in the September, 2015 report, a relationship was cultivated with eMerge Guelph for this purpose. eMerge remains committed to supporting GEERS in principle, but has elected to withdraw from full involvement in a pilot at this time to avoid the perception of having undue influence over program design and hence compromising its ability to become a potential provider. Also, although overhead costs are recoverable, the scale of the project is such that transferring the costs to a 3rd party would not be enough to establish a commitment. As such, the pilot will not allow for an accurate model of the relationship between the Corporation and a 3rd party delivery partner. h) Contractors. There may be a perception among suitable contractors that participation in a pilot will confer an unfair advantage over competitors. It will therefore be necessary to communicate clearly that no contractor participating in the pilot will be granted any form of preferential treatment when and if full deployment proceeds. i) legal administration. The legal agreements between the Corporation and customers, as well as between the Corporation and any 3rd party financing provider, will need to be equally robust for the pilot as well as for the full deployment. As such, the effort and cost associated with development of these agreements will be identical whether or not the program moves on to full deployment. The considerations involved in recouping this cost are addressed in Section 3E below.

PAGE 7 j) Quality assurance. The possibility of 20 homes participating in a pilot is not expected to have undue burden on the execution of building permit applications, inspections, and close-out processes.

2. Survey Activity and Results

Extensive community survey development has taken place through Ql of 2016 in cooperation with the University of Guelph's Community Engaged Scholarship Institute (CESI). An online survey has been developed by CESI participants in cooperation with local utilities Guelph Hydro and Union Gas who have a great deal of experience in surveys.

In addition, a third-party telephone survey firm, Oraclepoll, has been retained to conduct a statistically driven telephone survey during the week of March 28. The full report of this survey is appended as Attachment B.

A summary of analysis of the results of the telephone survey is summarized below.

Guelph home owners appear to have a high interest in making energy efficiency improvements to their residences as 82% claimed to have made renovations or upgrades. This includes a significant number that have upgraded light bulbs and those that have installed climate controls, made improvements to windows and doors and weatherizing. However, they were least likely to have made improvements to ventilation or air conditioning and home insulation.

The most cited responses or reasons provided for not upgrading related to belief that their homes were newer, the cost of making changes and the perceived lack of need or having done everything that they can.

More than a third of residents have applied for financial support with the most common participation being through a federal program and through their local utility, compared to a lower number that have used a provincial initiative. Among those using a program, satisfaction was highest for those taking part in a local utility initiative, while it was moderate for federal programs and low with respect to provincial plans.

Having taken part in a past initiative appears to have been a positive experience. Few or only one in ten said that their previous experience would make them less likely to participate in a future program, compared to almost six in ten that said it would make them more likely to participate.

The likelihood to take part in a new program would be based on how easy it is to access, what the incentives would be and if the program helps them save money by conserving.

PAGE 8 Almost one-quarter of residents plan to make energy efficiency changes to their home over the next 24 monthsr with insulation upgrades and window and door renovations being the most named plans. Most intend to pay for their renovations with cash or savings1 but a significant number will use some form of credit including credit lines or home equity loans.

Cost is a recurring theme when it comes to energy efficiency renovations. It was the most named barrier that residents named for preventing them from undertaking home retrofits1 including the long payback period. Price was also the main motivator that would encourage people to make energy efficiency changes/ including saving money on their utility bills and to offset future rising energy costs. Money trumps other issues such as climate changer local energy security and even home comfort.

When the GEERS program was explained, residents for the most part saw it in a favourable light with feedback comments tending to be positive or neutral - positive. They included liking it because it is a good idea and that it will help them to conserve and save money. There were many that want to know more about the program1 its details and the costs.

While there was a split of opinion on the GEERS program and its potential impact on undertaking renovations or upgrades/ there was resonance among 22% that said it would make them more likely and 25% maybe likely to upgrade.

The low interest loan option to pay for renovations through tax billing received mixed reviews. When asked 1 31% expressed interest in the low interest loan option through their tax bill 1 while 43% preferred other financing options and more than a quarter or 26% did not know. Concerns included the impact of the tax liability on their ability to resell their homer interest costs and the belief that their taxes are already high enough.

On the issue of having their monthly energy savings being greater than the cost of their renovation loan payment, results were also split. However1 more or 43% said that this is unimportant to them compared to 21% important/ with the remainder being neutral or unsure.

Interest in each of a series of potential new retrofit areas was moderate, but was highest for heat pumps, rainwater harvesting and solar panels.

Having a balance owing on a GEERS program residence would not appear to negatively impact on the majority of residents when it comes to purchasing a home. Only slightly more than a third or 35% said they would be less likely to purchase the home with a tax balance owing.

PAGE 9 More than half or 54% would be more likely to purchase a residence with an energy performance label, while 38% claimed this labelling would have no impact on their purchasing decision.

The GEERS program does appear to have a market in the community as 42% of home owners stated that they would be likely to participate in the initiative over the course of the next five to ten years. Saving money and helping to conserve were the biggest factors in participating, but there are those on the sideline wanting to know more about the program such as its total cost.

The program does need to overcome objections such as the belief held that homes are already efficient enough and that the legacy cost of a loan tax balance would negatively impact home resale. Another area that needs to be addressed is the perception that tax bills are already too high. This could include showing residents savings in relative terms or what their total costs would be without the retrofits in light of rising energy prices.

Despite the reservations of some, almost three-quarters of residents feel that the GEERS program is headed in the right direction with respect to encouraging people to undertake home energy efficiency retrofits. In addition, only 11% of those that have taken part in a past energy efficiency program see GEERS as not being as good in comparison.

With there being a demand in the community for GEERS, it also seems that residents want the ability to select their own contractors for the program or have an approved list to choose from, rather than have the City selecting companies.

A scientifically-based survey is an important first step in establishing the final design of the online survey.

The results of the telephone survey are expected to inform the final design of the online survey which will be rolled out through Q3 AND Q4 OF 2016.

3. Continued Development of GEERS through 2016

A. Two Technology Pathways

The original GEERS business plan envisioned a standard retrofit package including insulation, HVAC items, triple-glazed windows, and so forth. Additional items could be added to the basic package as options, including rooftop solar (PV/electric, or thermal), re-roofing, electric vehicle charger, rainwater harvesting, grey water recovery, and permeable pavement. With the option of a pilot being proposed, the opportunity presented itself to simplify the pilot by focusing on a single technology, namely rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems modelled after the similar single­ technology program (solar thermal) in Halifax.

PAGE 10 Making a Dlffereru:e

Attachment C summarizes a full review of the implications of the two pathways.

There is no staff recommendation at this time related to which pathway is most effective for the GEERS pilot. Direction will be determined further through the ongoing survey process and the community engagement aspects of the anticipated Community Energy Initiative update. B. By-laws

Ontario Regulation 586/06 (Local Improvement Charges - Priority Lien Status) defines a number of requirements with respect to municipal by-laws and other matters. In consultation with the Associate City Solicitor, the following documents have been developed to be utilized in the rollout of the GEERS program when and if it is implemented:

1. An outline of the requirements of the regulation (Attachment D) 2. A draft Public Notice of the first by-law (Attachment E) 3. A draft first by-law describing the program and declaring the date it will take effect (attachment F) 4. A draft second by-law creating a local improvement roll, listing all properties to which LICs will apply (Attachment G)

C. Engagement of Contractors in a Pilot?

The market for home renovations in Guelph is extensive and has many potential participants. Anecdotal indications are that the program will be received positively by the contractor community, for the following reasons:

1. Contractor's sales and marketing costs, which can amount to 25% of project value, will not be incurred for GEERS pilot projects. 2. GEERS will be an attractive up-selling opportunity for existing contracts, as the contractor will not incur a second mobilization cost and can pass these savings on to the customer. 3. GEERS projects will offer the opportunity to up-sell other renovations such as granite countertops and bathroom upgrades, again with discounts arising from the elimination of mobilization costs. 4. If it moves to full deployment, GEERS will contribute to a steady, reliable stream of business.

It is proposed to engage the contractor community via the local trade association, Renomark, as well as the Guelph & District Home Builders' Association.

There are three options for how the GEERS program may manage the contractor role:

PAGE 11 1. Contractor assignment. The Corporation will identify a limited set of contractors that meet specific criteria, and will allocate a contractor to each GEERS project without involvement of the property owner. 2. Prequalified vendor list. The Corporation will create a pre-qualified contractor list, consisting of those providers that meet specified criteria. Program participants will be able to select any contractor from this list, and contractors may apply at any time to be qualified for inclusion. 3. Unrestricted homeowner selection. The Corporation will not intervene in any way in the contractor selection process, and the program participant will be left entirely to their own devices to select the contractor they prefer.

The first option is not recommended, as it introduces a level of complexity and rigour that is not warranted. It also increases the risk that the Corporation will be perceived as having some measure of responsibility for the quality of workmanship in completed projects.

The second option offers an attractive balance of providing guidance to the homeowner without undue restriction of the contracting process.

The third option is the simplest from the perspective of the Corporation. It is therefore recommended to use the third option for the pilot program.

However, through the ongoing community engagement process, continued investigation will take place as to matching qualified vendors with interested pilot participants that is both beneficial to the home-owners and help build opportunity for local contractors and product and service providers.

D. How Will Pilot Participants Be Selected?

The pilot is expected to include a total of 20 participants. The participants will be required to meet the following criteria. Note that the requirements of participation are largely linked to the legislated conditions for eligibility for Local Improvement Charges.

1. They must reside in Guelph. 2. They must be the owner of their primary residence. 3. They must have no arrears on their municipal property taxes. 4. Their property must not be covered by federal mortgage insurance (e.g. CMHC).CMHC supported mortgages will not allow for added burden of LIC payments. 5. They must be willing to obtain the approval of their mortgage lender prior to finalizing the agreement to participate in the program.

PAGE 12 Making allirferente 6. They must accept the terms of the program, including the fact that no guarantee can be made regarding the results of the energy efficiency improvements.

The methods for enlisting these participants are listed below.

Market survey. The GEERS project team is currently undertaking a survey of Guelph residents to gauge their potential interest in the program. This survey is taking two forms, the first being a telephone survey conducted by OraclePoll (the results of which are provided in this report), the second being an online and in-person survey conducted by the University of Guelph via the Community Engaged Scholarship Institute. The latter format will include a question asking the respondent if they would be interested in participating in the pilot. If they respond affirmatively, the surveyor will gather their contact information and add them to the list of potential participants.

Community Engagement. The community engagement portion of the anticipated update to the Community Energy Initiative will provide an opportunity to engage the community and identify homeowners willing to participate in a pilot.

Social media. The Corporate Communications department has a number of social media tools, such as websites, twitter etc., available to communicate with the citizens of Guelph for a variety of purposes. It is proposed to use these methods to publicize the pilot and to encourage participants to step forward.

Fairness. A process will be developed where the entire community is provided an opportunity to participate in a pilot and that pilot participants are chosen in a manner that does not unfairly advantage or disadvantage tax­ payers across the community.

Media. The Corporate Communications department will be able to prepare a press release describing the pilot. It is intended that the local print and online media will pick up the story and expose a broad cross-section of the Guelph population to the opportunity to participate in the pilot.

E. Financing and Costs of GEERS Retrofits

Financing

Depending on the technology pathway chosen the capital needs of the GEERS pilot will range from approximately $260,000 to $640,000.

PAGE 13 T Making a Difference The following summarizes the investigation related to these capital needs, in cooperation via the City's Finance representation on the internal advisory group:

Cash flow - The City has sufficient cash flow to accommodate a pilot program in the $260k to $640k range. In order to achieve full cost recover interest would be calculated for each agreement from the initial payment of expenses until permanent financing is in place, using the City's average rate of return on investments, for 2015 this was 2.89%.

long-term funding -This program could be funded through a debenture from Infrastructure Ontario or a direct issue by the City.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) - rates offered by IO are slightly higher than those the City could potentially obtain and the legal costs associated with a debenture issue would be high relative to the funds obtained. The flexibility of timing and size of issue offered by IO allows for better matching to the needs of the program. Funding through the City would be as part of a larger debenture and would occur based on the City's overall needs. Keeping all costs associated with financing this program within a single debenture would be more transparent in terms of the total cost of the program. Thus a single debenture with payments aligned with the local improvement repayment would be the recommended option. IO would be able to facilitate such debenture.

Debt Policy - currently the City is at Council's approved debt capacity. While it is anticipated that this program will be self-funding, Finance has identified that Council approval of an exemption of this program from its Debt Policy would be required and exclude this debt when calculating City required debt ratios. The provincially mandated debt servicing limit (ARL) would still include this obligation, however, the City's self-imposed limits are only 40% of the provincial limit and this would not put the City in danger of being offside provincially.

Program Costs

The financial analysis for the project focuses on the cash inflows and outflows that happen at project initiation, and over the lifecycle of the LIC repayment stream:

PAGE 14 Making a Diffmnc• ~~f~:'~~~~~~n\~tiin~,'t"c~~~:~ ~~~\:"~~r~:

2 Payments to contractors Outflow Up front

3 Other initial per-project costs Outflow Up front • Order management Ill Building permit (application/ inspection 1 close-out) • Energy audit • Project design including building science assessment • Incentive application and fulfillment • LIC initiation • Bylaw administration 4 Other initial fixed program costs Outflow Up front • Design of application forms and business process • Standard legal agreement

5 Other periodic fixed costs Outflow Periodic1 each time debt is e Debenture management including legal issued opinion

6 LIC payment collection Inflow Annual

7 Debenture repayment Outflow Annual

8 Ongoing costs Outflow Annual • LIC administration • Default provision Item 4 will be incurred only once/ and can be recovered in either of the following ways:

1. Pilot participants bear the full cost

2. Pilot participants bear the full cost initially1 but are provided a rebate (one­ time or annualized through a lower LIC payment) as production volumes accumulate and the average cost per participant declines

PAGE 15 Making a Diffem!

See Section 3.A. - Two Technology Pathways

1.0 Average project investment per $12,900 $31,900 dwelling

2.0 Total investment (equal to $258,000 $638,000 debenture proceeds) 1.0 x 20 homes

3.0 Total estimated recoverable $23,455 $58,000 estimated administrative costs

4.0 Overhead/contingency 2.0 x 5% $13,455 $34,000

5.0 Reserve for payment defaults over $10,000 $24,000 life of LIC

6.0 Average Annual dwelling

7.0 Total annual LIC receipts 6.0 x 20 $18,649 $46,118 homes

8.0 Debenture annual repayment $18,153 $44,890

9.0 Allocation for annual LIC $496 $1,228 administration 7.0- 8.0

Dwellings included in pilot 20

LIC rate 3.8%

PAGE 16 Making a Differt~~Ce

LIC repayment term (years) 20

Debenture rate 3.5%

Debenture term (years) 20

Should the program transition from the pilot to full deployment/ and production volumes increase/ per-project costs will decline as economies of scale are realized and efficiencies are identified. For example, it is anticipated that the building permit process will be simplified over time as the nature and implications of each retrofit component become better established. It is also anticipated that energy audits will be phased out as a program performance measurement tool, and will become a value-added extra service for property owners that wish to acquire an Energy Performance Label for their home.

If the program continues after a pilot, each year of the program will behave much like an independent business, with its own dedicated debt issue and associated interest rate and other terms. For this reason, there will be few financial implications should the program be discontinued at the conclusion of the pilot.

As shown in the chart above, each tranche of projects will have similar metrics, with any changes arising from cost inflation and interest rate fluctuation.

This analysis confirms that it is feasible to perform the pilot with no requirement for recourse to funding from the tax-supported budget.

As described above this statement is proposed to be presented and approved through the 2018 budgeting process. financial Risk

Attachments H and I, respectively, show a structured risk analysis to both the City and the Property Owner.

Extensive consultation with Finance has also provided some key1 high-level commentary related to the financial risks of the GEERS pilot.

1) GEERS Program Owner- staff have considered the City managing this project directly or the possibility of having one of the City's wholly owned subsidiaries manage the program. This decision could have impacts on how

PAGE 17 Making a Differtn

Community Energy staff have participated in a research project to describe the potential for applying the Local Improvement Charge Mechanism to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Sector. The research was led by a consulting firm/ Sustainable Alternative Consulting Inc. 1 in cooperation with Sustainable Buildings Canada and Love Energy Consulting. The City of London also participated in the research project.

A legal opinion produced as part of research project has concluded that LICs can be used for environmental retrofits for a proven municipal purpose on all types of buildings except buildings owned by municipalities and their local boards. Alternatively/ LICs cannot be used for industrial process energy improvements or on brownfields. LIC's can also be applied to environmental retrofits that include storm water management, low impact development retrofits and district energy system line expansion and connections.

PAGE 18 There appears to be no major impediment to expanding, in the future, a GEERS program to include the ICI sector in Guelph.

G. Community Partner(s)

The GEERS program was developed with the goal of having a substantial portion of program delivery performed by a 3rd party. As defined in the September, 2015 report, a relationship was cultivated with eMerge Guelph for this purpose. eMerge remains committed to supporting GEERS in principle, but has elected to withdraw from full involvement in a pilot to avoid the perception of having undue influence over program design and hence having an advantage over other potential providers. Also, although overhead costs are recoverable, the scale of the project is such that transferring the costs to a 3rd party would not be enough to establish a commitment.

As such, the pilot will not allow for an accurate model of the relationship between the Corporation and a 3rd party delivery partner.

TIM EliNE

It is recommended that the GEERS pilot developed as described in this report follow the anticipated progress of the Community Energy Initiative update with the goal of having the program considered and approved through the 2018 budget process.

End October 2016 Interim Report on: • Selection of GEERS pilot participants • A detailed update on GEERS survey results • Advise of technology pathway • Final costing analysis - capital and operating

Q2 2017 Report on: • Defined role of third-party stakeholders • Update on provincial government support for LIC programs • Anticipated 2018 budget submission - program detail, operating and capital costs and revenues

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PlAN

City Building Community Energy Initiative

PAGE 19 Making a Ditlerenct DEPARTMENTAl CONSULTATION

As directed by Council in September, 2015 and internal advisory group has been established to act as a conduit for ongoing corporate support and collaboration.

Advisory group members are:

Peter Cartwright, General Manager, Business Development and Enterprise Rob Kerr, Manager, Community Energy, Business Development and Enterprise Ian Panabaker, Manager Downtown Renewal, Business Development and Enterprise Alex Chapman, Program Manager, Corporate Building Maintenance Bruce Banting, Legal Services James Krauter, Manager of Taxation and Revenue, Finance Adrian Van Eck, Program Manager Inspection, Building Services Patricia Halajski, Communications Officer, Corporate Services Rodrigo Goller, Community Engagement Coordinator, Office of the CAO

FINANCIAl IMPLICATIONS

As described in this report, financial implications fall into two categories:

Capital -The total costs of the recommended pilot are in the range of $260,000 to $640,000. The source of this capital is expected to be sourced through debenture and recoverable through the Local Improvement Charge Mechanism over 20 years.

Operating - Operating costs cover the administrative and transaction costs for a GEERS pilot as described in this report are expected to be approximately 10% of the capital outlay. Operating costs are fully recoverable.

PAGE 20 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A- GEERS Memo Summarizing Questions and Issues Attachment B - Oraclepoll Telephone Survey Report Attachment C - Assessment of Two Technology Pathways Attachment D - Legal Requirements for Carrying out a Local Improvement Project on Private Property by Agreement Attachment E - Public Notice GEERS By-law Attachment F- First By-law GEERS Attachment G - Second By-law GEERS Attachment H - Corporate Risk Analysis Attachment I - Property Owner Risk Analysis

Report Author Rob Kerr Manager, Community Energy

Recommended By Peter Cartwright Scott Stewart, C.E.T General Manager Deputy CAO Business Development and Infrastructure Development and Enterprise Enterprise 519-822-1260 ext. 3445 519-822-1260 ext. 2820 [email protected] peter. cartwrig ht@guelph .ca

PAGE 21 Making a Diffmnce

Attachment A GEERS Memo Summarizing Questions and Issues (September 2015) L

DATE September 16, 2015 TO Derrick Thomson, Interim D/CAO IDE Guelph City Council

FROM Peter Cartwright, General Manager Business Development and Enterprise

SUBJECT Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Summary of Questions and Issues Raised at IDE Committee, September 8th, 2015

This memorandum is to summarize the questions and issues raised regarding the above named report at IDE Committee, September 8, 2015.

Further, this memorandum is to acknowledge and thank the Committee for input to the Report and to indicate that it will be fully considered when reporting back to Committee/Council as per recommendations #2 and #4 of Report #IDE-BDE-1507:

2. That staff be directed to continue with the detailed design of the GEERS program including establishing an advisory group, developing a financing structure, designing a business process using Local Improvement Charges to facilitate energy efficiency retrofit projects, and investigating potential investors.

4. That staff be directed to report back by Q1 2016, with a full report on program details, as described.

Summary of Questions/Issues Raised: a) Why is focus on residential? Why not also include industrial, commercial and/or institution uses? b) What criteria will be used to vet qualified contractors? This matter appears to need more work. c) The goals, especially with respect to an 80% market penetration rate, appear to be aggressive. Final report will need to consider different, less aggressive targets and different ramp up scenarios. d) Program needs to allow for the approved use of new technologies which may evolve over time.

PAGE 22 T Makllt!J a Difforentl! e) Will there be any restrictions in using solar? f) Why does local government need to be so involved in administrating the program? Can some of the administrative obligations/requirements be transferred to the homeowner or other stakeholders? g) The business assumptions require a better sensitivity analysis. h) Can an assessment of the energy cost savings vs. loan repayments be shown as there are concerns regarding the financial burden of homeowners? What is the expected payback period of the capital outlay? i) The projected administrative costs of the program appear to low, and too much front ended. A re-assessment has been suggested. j) What will happen to discarded or replaced material? How will it be disposed? k) Greater clarity required regarding how the loan is to be secured, and the obligations/risks to the homeowner. Specifically, what happens when a homeowner is in default of making payments? I) Greater clarity is required with respect to the City providing guarantees to the private sector investment that will back the program loans. Specifically, will this impact the City's credit ratings? m) Will Electric Vehicle hookup be eligible? n) What will be the economic impact/benefit to the business community? o) Can this program be done as a pilot (possibly one or two year)?

We trust this memorandum captures the questions and issues presented by the IDE Committee on September 8th, 2015.

Peter Cartwright General Manager

Business Development and Enterprise Location: City Hall, 1 Carden Street

T 519-822-1260 X 2820 F 519-837-5636 E [email protected]

PAGE 23 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Attachment B Oraclepoll Telephone Survey Report

Making a Difference

Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) Survey Report

By:

oraclepe ll R E S E A R C H

Apri/2016

PAGE 24 T Making a Diffi!rence TABLE NTENTS

METHODOLOGY & lOGISTICS 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

Energy Efficiency Renovations or Upgrades Completed 4

Past Program Experience 6

Plans to Undertake Energy Efficiency Renovations 8

Motivators to Undertake Energy Efficiency Projects 9

GEERS & Opinions of the Program 11

GEERS Savings & Other Options 14

Purchasing a GEERS Home 16

Likelihood to Participate & Why 18

Program Comparison & Contractors 20

Residential Profile 22

Summary 23

PAGE 25 STAFF

REPORT Making • Difference METHODOLOGY & LOGISTICS

Overview

• The following represents the findings from a public opinion telephone survey of n=450 City of Guelph home owners conducted by Oracle poll Research Limited for The City of Guelph. • The survey covered issues related to home energy efficiency renovations or upgrades that Guelph residents have undertaken or plan to complete. It also assessed opinions of a new pilot project that the City is planning called the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS), including the possible participation of residents. • Screening questions ensured that only home owners were interviewed and that they were one of the persons responsible for making decisions regarding home improvements or purchasing energy related products and services.

Logistics

• Surveys were conducted by telephone at the Oraclepoll call centre using person to person live operators from the days of March 30th to April 4th 2016. • The survey was conducted using person to person interviewing with computer-assisted techniques of telephone (CATI) and random number selection (RDD). The sample frame was inclusive of private numbers as well as cell phone only households. A total of 20% of all interviews were monitored and the management of Oraclepoll Research Limited supervised 100%. • Initial calls were made between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Subsequent call-backs of no­ answers and busy numbers were made on a (staggered) daily rotating basis up to 5 times (from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00p.m.) until contact was made. At least one call was made on a weekend. • In addition, telephone interview appointments were attempted with those respondents unable to complete the survey at the time of contact. If no contact was made at a number after the fifth attempt, the number was discarded and a new one supplemented it.

Study Sample & Confidence

• A total of n=75 respondents per each of the City's Wards were interviewed and in total we completed n=450 total surveys (n=75 x 6 Wards). The margin of error for n=450 sample is ±4.9% 19/20 times.

PAGE 26 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

EXECUTIVE SUMMAR

Energy Efficiency Renovations or Upgrades Completed

Respondents were first asked if they had completed any upgrades or renovations with respect to energy efficiency at their current residence.

Ql. "Have you ever completed any energy efficiency renovations or upgrades to (this) your current home?"

100% la2% I 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

DYes • No

A high percentage of Guelph home owners or 82% (n=370) surveyed claimed that they have undertaken energy efficiency upgrades or renovations to their current residence. While uptake with respect to completing upgrades was high across all residents it was lowest among those with newer homes less than five years old {49%) .

Q2

The 18% or n=80 that have not completed any upgrades or renovations were asked about the main reason why they had not been undertaken (Q2). Most named by 31% was that they live in a new or

PAGE 27 Making alliff.....,ce newer house, followed by the cost of upgrades or them not being worth it (24%) and that there is no need as they have done all that they can (23%). Other mentions included upgrades not being a concern as their energy costs are reasonable (7%), that their home is well insulated (4%) and that they have never considered renovating (2%). A total of 9% did not know or had no opinion.

PAGE 28 STAFF

REPORT Making a Diff

Q3. "I am now going to read a list of possible energy efficiency renovations or upgrades that you may have completed. After each one please tell me if you have carried them out within the last two years, in last two to five years, five years or longer or have not undertaken them."

Last 2 Last 2-5 Have RENOVATIONS & UPGRADES COMPLETED Longer Years Years Not Than 5 Years _. I o!lll I • I • .1 r • ..- ...,

A. Upgrading to a high efficiency furnace 19% 18% 31% 32%

B. Installed climate controls (such as a programmable thermostat) 23% 28% 18% 31%

C. Made upgrades to your home's insulation 5% 10% 25% 60%

D. Upgrade windows or doors 14% 27% 35% 25%

E. Weatherized your home (e.g., caulking and weather stripping) 18% 22% 43% 17%

F. Ventilation and Air Conditioning 5% 14% 18% 63%

PAGE 29 Making a Dlffelence

G. Upgraded lighting bulbs by switching to LED's 58% 9% 5% 28%

The energy efficiency changes that residents were most likely to have completed in the past two years were upgrading lighting bulbs by 58%. The actions most undertaken in the past two to five years included, installing climate controls (28%), upgrading windows and doors (27%) and weatherizing their home (22%). Overall, more residents made efficiency changes in the longer than five-year window including upgrading windows or doors (35%), upgrading furnaces (31%), installing climate controls (31%) and making improvements to home insulation (25%).

Home owners were least likely to have made improvements to their ventilation or air conditioning (63%), upgrades to their home insulation (60%) and weatherizing (43%).

PAGE 30 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Past Program Experience

Next the 82% or n=370 residents that have completed energy efficiency upgrades to their homes were asked if they have applied in the past for any programs sponsored by the federal government, provincial government or their local utility (LDC).

Q4. "Have you ever applied for any provincial, federal, or local utility (through Guelph Hydro) programs for financial support to undertake renovations or upgrades to your home?" .

• A. Provincial - Yes • B. Federal- Yes DC. LDC Program- Yes

A total of 27% of home owners claimed that they have applied for financial support through a federal program, followed by 23% that have worked through an LDC initiative and only 13% that have utilized a provincial program.

PAGE 31 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difftrence Those residents that have applied for a federal, provincial or LDC program were then asked to rate their overall experience with each. Only those that participated in a program delivered by each of the three entities were asked the follow-up experience question.

QS. "I would like you to rate your overall experience with [the] I [each of] the program(s) that you participated in using a scale from one being very dissatisfied to five being very satisfied."

I - .. ·- Neither Satisfied nor PROGRAM EXPERIENCE RATING Total Dissatisfied Total - Dissatisfied Satisfied (1&2) (3) (4 &5) I I

A. Provincial (n=48) 44% 8% 48%

B. Federal (n=98) 15% 17% 67%

C. Local Utility- LDC (n=84) 8% 6% 86%

There was a high level of satisfaction among those participating in an LDC led program with 86% being satisfied or very satisfied compared to only 9% expressing dissatisfaction. The next highest level of satisfaction was expressed by those involved in a federal initiative at 67%, while 17% had a neutral opinion (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) and 15% were dissatisfied. Residents taking part in provincial programs were split with only 48% being satisfied and 44% dissatisfied, while 8% were neutral.

Two follow-up questions were then asked to program participants, the first which questioned respondents if their past experience in a program would make them more likely to participate in future government programs that support home energy efficiency, less likely or would it have no

PAGE 32 ST FF REP impact {Q6). A total of 57% said that they would be more likely to participate, while 27% claimed that their past experience would have no impact on future decisions. Only 11% had an experience that would make them less likely to participate in the future and 5% were undecided.

Next participants were asked in an open ended unaided question to explain the reason as to why that they would or would not participate in a future program (Q7). A total of 21% did not know or were unsure. Among those with an opinion, the most named response by 14% was that it would depend on how easy the program is to use or access, followed by 13% that said financial incentives would be important, 12% if it helps them conserve energy and save money, 11% that they would want the LDC or municipality to run the program, 8% said that it would depend on the cost and 7% that their savings would need to be shown.

PAGE 33 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Plans to Undertake Energy Efficiency Renovations

All respondents (n=450) were asked about their plans over the next two years to complete any renovations or upgrades related to energy efficiency.

QB. "Do you have plans or are you considering undertaking any energy efficiency renovations or making upgrades to your current home in the next two years?"

100%

80% lss%1

60%

40%

20%

0%

DYes • No oDon't know

A total of 23% of those interviewed said that they have plans to make energy efficiency renovations or upgrades to their home over the next 24 months, most or 66% do not and 11% were unsure.

Those planning renovations or upgrades (23% or n=103) were questioned about the types of renovations or upgrades that they are considering (Q9}. When combining the results of the multiple responses accepted (n=153), most named by 28% were insulation upgrades, followed by changing windows (23%), upgrading climate controls (12%) and weatherizing (10%) . A total of 9% plan to make lighting changes, 8% plan to upgrade to a high efficiency furnace, 5% will install a new heat pump, while 5% were unsure.

Residents considering new energy efficiency projects (n=103) were then asked how that they intend to finance the renovations (QlO). After merging the multiple answers to the question (n=150), most said that they would pay cash or from their savings (45%), while 27% would use a line of credit or credit card, 11% a home equity loan, 9% a government or utility program and 7% a manufacturers initiative. A total of 2% did not know.

PAGE 34 STAFF

REPORT Making a DiffHence Motivators to Undertake Energy Efficiency Projects

An open ended or unaided question allowing for multiple answers was asked to all respondents about what barriers if any are preventing them from undertaking energy efficiency retrofits to their home {gill. The most cited reason among the n=474 responses provided was the high initial or up front cost by 41%, followed by the belief that retrofits are not needed (19%), that they will not be In their home long enough to realize the benefits (10%), time or effort required (5%) and not knowing where to start (5%). There were 18% that said no barriers are preventing them from undertaking retrofits, while 3% could not recall any.

Next all residents surveyed were asked to rate the importance of a series of possible motivators that may impact on their decision to complete energy efficiency projects.

Q12. "I would now like you to rate the importance of each of the following motivators that may have an impact on your decision to undertake energy efficiency projects in your home. For each one that I read, please respond using a scale from one not at all important to five very important."

r .. + Neither -- • Important Total MOTIVATOR IMPORTANCE Total nor Important Unimportant Unimportant . I (4 & 5} . (1 &2} (3}

A. Concerns over climate change and 21% 17% 62% reducing your carbon footprint

B. Concerns over future rising energy costs 1v/o o% 77%

c;. Saving money on your monthly energy bills 12% 4% 84% I II I D. Improving the comfort level in your home 20% 23% 58%

PAGE 35 MakiiiJia Difference

E. Improving energy security in Guelph 24%

F. Creating local jobs in Guelph 23%

G. Help to fulfill Guelph's sustainability 27% 17% 56% objectives

Cost related motivators are most important to Guelph home owners when it comes to making energy efficiency changes to their home. A high 84% said that saving money on their utility bills was important or very important and 77% also claimed that rising future energy costs were important to them.

Of next highest importance were concerns over climate change (62%) and creating local jobs {62%), followed by improving home comfort (58%), while the lowest importance was accorded for fulfilling Guelph's sustainability objectives (56%) and improving energy security in Guelph (54%).

PAGE 36 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference GEERS & Opinions of the Program

Survey questioning then moved specifically to the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) and respondents were first read the following preamble describing the program.

"The Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy encourages residents to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes in the areas of insulation, windows, weatherizing, climate control devices, furnaces, air conditioners and heat recovery systems. It makes these upgrades affordable to residents as the upfront costs of these retrofits are paid through the program. The.homeowner then repays these costs over a 5 to 25-year period at low interest rates through special monthly charges on their tax bill. If your home is sold the new owner would assume the payments while benefiting from the upgrades. The program benefits the local economy creating jobs for contractors and equipment suppliers while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the sustainability objectives of the City of Guelph. The approximate cost of a full home retrofit is $10,000 to $25,000."

A series of questions followed, with the first one asking respondents in an open ended unaided question to provide their opinions or thoughts of the GEERS program.

Q13. "Overall, what are your initial opinions of the GEERS program?"

-- .. - Percent It sounds good I good idea 36%

Don't know 14%

Good idea but will not use it 11%

Do not like it added to tax bill 8%

What are details I need to know more in general 7%

Good for young families 5%

Something we need 5%

Need to know more about the costs 4%

Could lower resale price of homes 4%

PAGE 37 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

Concerned about extra fees 3%

It will have a minimal effect 2%

There would have to be changes to the program 1%

There were 46% of responses that were positive including that it appears to be a good idea (36%), that it is good for young families (5%) and is something that is needed (5%). A total of 18% of comments were negative including not wanting costs being added to their tax bill (8%), the belief that it may lower home values (4%), may have hidden fees (3%), would have a minimal impact (2%) and that the program would need to be changed (1%). Neutral answers revolved around favoring the program but not being likely to use it (11%), needing to know more about the programs details (7%) and the program costs (4%). A total of 14% did not know or had no opinion.

Then respondents were asked what impact that the GEERS program would have on their decision to complete renovations or upgrades to their homes.

Q14. "Would the GEERS program make you more likely, maybe likely or would it have no impact on your decision to undertake renovations or upgrades to your home?"

Percent

More likely 22%

Maybe 25%

No Impact 46%

Don't know 7%

There was a split of opinion with 46% of residents saying that the GEERS program would have no impact on their decision to undertake renovations or upgrades to their home, but 47% said it would make them either more likely or maybe likely. There were 7% that were undecided.

PAGE 38 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference The next question dealt with the financing of renovations and upgrades and what the demand was for the low interest loan option of the program.

Q15. "If you were to undertake energy efficiency renovations or upgrades to your home would you prefer to use the low interest loan option paid through your tax bill or a different payment or financing option?"

a -- Percent

Low interest option through tax bill 31%

Other payment or financing option 43%

Don't know 26%

Slightly more than three in ten or 31% expressed interest in the low interest loan option through their tax bill, while 43% prefer other financing options and more than a quarter or 26% did not know.

The 43% or n=194 that said they would prefer another payment or financing method were asked an open ended follow-up question (Q16) about why they would not use the loan option payment through their tax bill. The future impact of the tax liability on selling their home was most named by 33%, followed by 23% that cited the cost or interest charges and 18% that their taxes are already too high. A total of 15% did not know or could not name anything, while 6% said the plan is best suited to younger residents and 5% want to know more about the program.

PAGE 39 STAFF

RE-PORT Making a Difftrence GEERS Savings & Other Options

A series of questions were asked about participation in the GEERS program. First respondents were read a short descriptive paragraph explaining that their monthly savings may not be greater than their new loan payment amount. Afterwards they were asked about the importance of their monthly energy savings being greater than their new monthly payments.

Q17. "While participation in GEERS will lead to savings on your monthly energy bill, there is no · guarantee that those savings will be greater than your new monthly payments for the renovation loan. Any net economic benefits will depend on your energy consumption habits and future rising energy prices. Keep in mind that due to rising energy prices your bill may continue to rise and still be higher than your new payment if you did not complete the renovations".

"If you were to participate in the program, how important is it that your monthly energy savings are greater than your new monthly payments? Please respond using a scale from one not at all important to five very important."

100% .------

80% +------

60% +------

40% +------

· -, 20%

' '

0% ----- L

IITotal unimportant CNeutral • Total important cDon't know

Results reveal a split of opinion on the issue. A total of 43% of residents stated that it is important that their monthly savings are greater than their new monthly payments, but 21% claim that it is unimportant, while 25% have a neutral view (neither important nor unimportant) and 12% were unsure.

PAGE 40 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Respondents were read a list of possible areas for GEERS financing to be extended and they were asked if they were interested in each.

Q18. "The GEERS financing plan option may be extended to include retrofits related to clean energy supply and water conservation. I am going to read a list of possible retrofits and after each one please tell me if you would be interested in each."

...... r ...... % - . _...... GEERS FINANCING OPTION EXTENSION AREAS ... .. Yes ...... I . . I

A. Re-roofing 19%

B. Solar PhotoVoltaic panels 46%

C. Solar hot water system 38%

D. Rainwater harvesting 50%

E. Electric vehicle chargers 31%

F. Permeable driveway paving 42%

G. Heat pumps I Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning SO%

Overall, interest in each of the potential new retrofit areas was moderate, but was highest for heat pumps (SO%), rainwater harvesting (50%) and solar panels (46%). It was lowest for electric vehicle chargers (31%) and especially re-roofing (19%).

PAGE 41 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Purchasing a GEERS Home

Respondents were first read a preamble outlining the fact that some homes on the resale market may have an outstanding balance owed to the GEERS program as a result of energy retrofits. They were then asked about the likelihood of them purchasing a GEERS home with an outstanding balance owed on it.

Q19. "Prospective home-buyers may purchase residences that will have an outstanding,. balance owed to the GEERS program as a result of a previous owners home energy efficiency investment. Based on the proposed program design the new buyer would assume these payments. If you were in the market to purchase a new home, would knowing that it \1Las part of the GEERS renovation program with an outstanding balance make you more likely to purchase the residence, less likely or would it have no impact?"

Percent

More likely 4%

Less likely 35%

No impact 50%

Don't know 11%

Only 4% of Guelph residents surveyed would be more likely to purchase a GEERS program residence with a balance owing on it and 35% claimed that they would be less likely to buy it. Half or 50% said that the balance owing would have no impact on their purchasing decision and 11% did not know or were unsure. Next respondents were asked about the impact of having a home being awarded a recognized energy performance label on their decision to purchase a GEERS program residence.

PAGE 42 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Q20. "If the home was awarded a recognized energy performance label such as EnerGuide, would this make you more likely to purchase the residence, less likely or would it have no impact?"

.. Percent

More likely 54%

Less likely 3%

No impact 38%

Don't know 5%

More than half or 54% would be more likely to purchase a residence with an energy performance label compared to a low 3% that '-Yould be less likely. A total of 38% claimed this labelling would have no impact on their purchasing decision and 5% were unsure.

PAGE 43 ·I STAFF

REPORT Making a Difftrence Likelihood to Participate & Why

Guelph homeowners were asked about the likelihood of them participating in the GEERS program over the course ofthe next five to ten years.

Q21. "Based on what you know about the GEERS program, how likely are you to participate in it at some point over the next five to ten years? Please respond using a scale from one not at all likely to five very likely."

100% ,------

80% +------

60% +------~----

40% +-- - -l

20%

0%

• Total unlikely cNeutral • Total likely CDon't know

There is interest among home owners in the initiative with 42% being likely to participate in the GEERS program, while 23% were neutral being neither likely nor unlikely. A total of 31% said that they would not be likely to participate and 4% were unsure. Those with homes 16+ years old (44%) and 11-15 years of age (44%) would be more likely to participate than those with newer residences 5-10 {36%) and under five years old (25%).

In an open ended follow up question, respondents were asked about the main reason for their response (022). While 16% did not know or had no comment, 15% said that the program will save them money on energy costs, 12% stated that involvement would depend on the cost, 12% like it because it will help them conserve and 12% stated that they have already done all that they can. Other mentions included not being sure yet if they will participate (5%), liking the concept (4%), that it will depend on where they are living (4%), wanting more information (4%) and that it would be better for others (4%). A total of 3% said it will have a negative impact on them selling their home and 2% cited each of them being too old, liking its green aspect, having no interest and liking the features of the program.

PAGE44 RT Making a DifkrerKe

When then asked if they felt that the program is headed in the right direction with respect to encouraging Guelph residents to undertake energy efficiency upgrades to their homes (Q23), 73% said that it is, only 16% do not feel it is, while 12% were unsure.

In an open ended probe, respondents were also questioned about what else that they felt the GEERS program could include to encourage residents to participate in the initiative (Q24). Most or 57% did not know of anything else or said nothing, while among those with an opinion 19% want more information or awareness of the program, 10% more financing options, 7% free grant money, 6% something that would show a before and after with respect to savings and 1% more program offerings or components.

PAGE 45 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difffl'ence Program Comparison & Contractors

The 33% of respondents or n=149 that have taken part in a past program offered by the federal or provincial government and their LDC were asked a question comparing those programs with GEERS.

Q25. ''How does GEERS program compare to the previous program(s) for financial support to undertake renovations or upgrades to your home that you participated in? Would you say that it is a better program, about the same or not as good?"

Percent

Better 11%

Same 44%

Not as good 11%

Don'tknow 33%

Most or 55% feel that the GEERS program is about the same {44%) or better {11%), compared to only 11% that felt it is not as good, but a high 33% were unsure or undecided.

All n=450 survey respondents were asked a question about contractors and the selection process.

Q26. "Contractors will be needed to perform the renovations or upgrades associated with this program. Do you feel that the City should select the contractors, provide residents with a pre­ approved list form which they can choose from or should residents select the contractors of their choice"?

Percent

City selected 4%

Approved contractor list 34%

Homeowners to select any contractor they want 50%

Don't know 12%

PAGE 46 Half of residents or 50% want the ability to select their own contractors, 34% would like the City to approve a list for them to choose from and only 4% want the City to select the companies. There were 12% that did not know or were undecided.

In a final survey question, all respondents were asked to recall or name a local organization or program that helps people save money on their energy bills while reducing their impact on the environment ffim. There was a very low recall of local organizations as 80% said that they did not know of any. Other mentions were generic and included responses such as City run programs (5%), federal or provincial initiatives (4%), those run by Guelph Hydro (4%) and solar programs (3%).

PAGE 47 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference Residential Profile

The following is the residential profile of survey respondents.

Age of Residence Percent

Less than 5 years 5%

5-10 years 5%

11-15 years 11%

16 years or older 79%

tfype of Home Percent

Fully detached home 72%

Semi-detached home or townhouse 21%

Multi-unit residential I duplex etc. 7%

Energy Source Percent

Natural gas 78%

Electric 20%

Oil 1%

Solar 1%

PAGE 48 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

Monthly heating cost- winter Percent

Under$100 12%

$100-$199 29%

$200-$299 10%

$300-$399 20%

$400 or more 21%

Don't know I Refused 8%

Air Conditioning Percent

Yes 79%

No 21%

PAGE 49 Maklll!J a Diffl!l1!n(e Summary

Guelph home owners appear to have a high interest in making energy efficiency improvements to their residences as 82% claimed to have made renovations or upgrades. This includes a significant number that have upgraded light bulbs and those that have installed climate controls, made improvements to windows and doors and weatherizing. However, they were least likely to have made improvements to ventilation or air conditioning and home insulation.

The most cited responses or reasons provided for not upgrading related to belief that their homes were newer, the cost of making changes and the perceived lack of need or having done everything that they can.

More than a third of residents have applied for financial support with the most common participation being through a federal program and through their LDC, compared to a lower number that have used a provincial initiative. Among those using a program, satisfaction was highest for those taking part in an LDC initiative, while it was moderate for federal programs and low with respect to provincial plans.

Having taken part in a past initiative appears to have been a positive experience. Few or only one in ten said that their previous experience would make them less likely to participate in a future program, compared to almost six in ten that said it would make them more likely to participate.

The likelihood to take part in a new program would be based on how easy it is to access, what the incentives would be and if the program helps them save money by conserving.

Almost one-quarter of residents plan to make energy efficiency changes to their home over the next 24 months, with insulation upgrades and window and door renovations being the most named plans. Most intend to pay for their renovations with cash or savings, but a significant number will use some form of credit including credit lines or home equity loans.

Cost is a recurring theme when it comes to energy efficiency renovations. It was the most named barrier that residents named for preventing them from undertaking home retrofits, including the long payback period. Price was also the main motivator that would encourage people to make energy efficiency changes, including saving money on their utility bills and to offset future rising energy costs. Money trumps other issues such as climate change, local energy security and even home comfort.

When the GEERS program was explained, residents for the most part saw it in a favourable light with feedback comments tending to be positive or neutral - positive. They included liking it because it is a good idea and that it will help them to conserve and save money. There were many that want to know more about the program, its details and the costs.

While there was a split of opinion on the GEERS program and its potential impact on undertaking renovations or upgrades, there was resonance among 22% that said it would make them more likely and 25% maybe likely to upgrade.

PAGE 50 The low interest loan option to pay for renovations through tax billing received mixed reviews. When asked, 31% expressed interest in the low interest loan option through their tax bill, while 43% preferred other financing options and more than a quarter or 26% did not know. Concerns included the impact of the tax liability on their ability to resell their home, interest costs and the belief that their taxes are already high enough.

On the issue of having their monthly energy savings being greater than the cost of their renovation loan payment, results were also split. However, more or 43% said that this is unimportant to them compared to 21% important, with the remainder being neutral or unsure.

Interest in each of a series of potential new retrofit areas was moderate, but was highest for heat pumps, rainwater harvesting and solar panels.

Having a balance owing on a GEERS program residence would not appear to negatively impact on the majority of residents when it comes to purchasing a home. Only slightly more than a third or 35% said they would be less likely to purchase the home with a tax balance owing.

More than half or 54% would be more likely to purchase a residence with an energy performance label, while 38% claimed this labelling would have no impact on their purchasing decision.

The GEERS program does appear to have a market in the community as 42% of home owners stated that they would be likely to participate in the initiative over the course of the next five to ten years. Saving money and helping to conserve were the biggest factors in participating, but there are those on the sideline wanting to know more about the program such as its total cost.

The program does need to overcome objections such as the belief held that homes are already efficient enough and that the legacy cost of a loan tax balance would negatively impact home resale. Another area that needs to be addressed is the perception that tax bills are already too high. This could include showing residents savings in relative terms or what their total costs would be without the retrofits in light of rising energy prices.

Despite the reservations of some, almost three-quarters of residents feel that the GEERS program is headed in the right direction with respect to encouraging people to undertake home energy efficiency retrofits. In addition, only 11% of those that have taken part in a past energy efficiency program see GEERS as not being as good in comparison.

With there being a demand in the community for GEERS, it also seems that residents want the ability to select their own contractors for the program or have an approved list to choose from, rather than have the City selecting companies.

PAGE 51 Making • Differeme Attachment C Assessment of Two Technology Pathways

Investment. The initial investment for the solar option is expected to be more than twice that of the full retrofit. However, both options will incur a similar cost for the legal opinion on the financing issue. Hence the higher capital investment of solar means the fixed cost is spread over a larger investment base and results in a lower overhead cost as a percentage of the total project investment. liC administration. Soft costs associated with LIC administration will be essentially identical between the two options. However, as is the case with the previous item, these costs will be spread over a larger investment base in the case of the solar option, resulting in a lower overhead cost as a percentage of total project investment.

Net cost to the Corporation. As articulated in the comparison of the pilot and full deployment, fixed costs (including initial program design and consultations to develop legal agreements) can only be recouped by spreading them evenly according to an overhead allocation formula. These fixed costs will be lower as a percentage of total project investment for the solar option than for the full retrofit option.

Sales and marketing. As described in the pilot versus full deployment analysis, there will essentially be no sales and marketing effort associated with pilot. This will be true of both the full retrofit option and the solar option, except for the fact that the solar contracting business is well established and enterprises in this space have well-developed sales pitches, marketing collateral, and customer relationship management business processes. The energy retrofit sector is not as mature on these measures.

Customers. Energy retrofits tend to happen in bursts when support is available via government-sponsored programs, and focus on whatever technologies happen to be included in the current program. As a result, there is a greater likelihood that some pilot customers will have implemented some portion of the standard retrofit package already. This will mean lower consistency across participants in what components are included in the project. By contrast, solar is an all-or-nothing proposition, both because the system itself is done as one package rather than piecemeal, and because of other deal-breaker factors such as having an unsuitable roof or being in a grid-constrained area where Guelph Hydro is not permitting any further solar array connections.

Utility incentives. The full retrofit option will be subject to whatever Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) or Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs

PAGE 52 ST FF

REP Making a Difforence are available from the utilities. This makes it representative of what will be encountered in the full deployment, barring the launch of any new CDM/DSM programs after the pilot is complete. By contrast, the solar option is only subject to the availability of the MicroFIT program, which may be frozen at any time if the IESO Annual Procurement Target is reached. This circumstance is not representative of the full deployment and will not yield usable insights.

Supplier bulk purchases. The full retrofit option does not offer sufficient investment to make it worthwhile for suppliers to offer bulk discounts, as the initial dollar value is low to start with, and then each individual project component only represents a small fraction of that amount. By contrast, a solar-only pilot could involve tendering for all project materials to yield a meaningful discount.

Delivery partner. As explained in the pilot/full deployment analysis, there will likely be no delivery partner during the pilot. This will be true regardless of whether the full retrofit or solar option is selected.

Contractors. The full retrofit option will involve a large number of potential providers, with minimal potential to evaluate the quality of each and to screen out unsuitable ones. By contrast, the solar option will involve a much smaller field of providers (there are two in Guelph, and potentially two more if the geographic reach includes Kitchener-Waterloo). This will reduce the complexity of managing and evaluating the pilot, but will also make it less representative of the full deployment. legal administration. The market for energy retrofits is less well established, making it likely that custom agreements will need to be developed (if contracts will be signed directly between the homeowner and the contractor). By contrast, the solar option is built around the standard IESO MicroFIT agreement and any standard installation contract that the provider already uses. Again, this means a solar-only pilot will be simpler, but less representative of full deployment.

Building efficiency performance. As explained in the pilot vs. full deployment analysis, a pilot of the full retrofit will require pre and post energy audits to demonstrate results. By comparison, the solar PV business has well-established methods and tools to predict PV system performance and the resulting revenues. Again, this simplifies the solar-only option but makes it less instructive as a model for full deployment.

Quality assurance. For the full retrofit option, the building permit application, inspection, and close-out process will require full evaluation of each project element to establish applicability. A solar-only pilot, on the other hand, would rely on an

PAGE 53 Making allifferemo established standard (and reduced cost) permit process. Once again, this means the solar option is simpler but less representative of a full deployment.

Building science. The full retrofit option will require minimization of risk by analyzing the effect on building systems on a case-by-case basis. For solar, the potential effect on the building is minimal and well understood, with well­ established mitigation measures (requirement for structural assessment by a professional engineer, standard treatment of roof penetrations to avoid leaks, etc.). Again, a solar option is simpler but will not offer usable insights that are applicable to the full deployment.

PAGE 54 ST FF REP Attachment D legal Requirements for Carrying out a local Improvement Project on Private Property by Agreement

Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 586/06 (Local Improvement Charges- Priority Lien Status) and the Municipal Act 2001

Bruce Banting- March 24, 2014

Summarv of Basic 1 Tl£Qical Ste1;1s legislative Authoritv

1. The municipality must ensure that the proposed project elements meet the requirements of the legislation. (a) "work": - Must be a capital work; and

Reg. s.1(1), definition of - May be the construction of energy efficiency works or "work" renewable energy works. (b) "private" property: must be a property that is not owned by the s.1(2)(q) municipality or a local board of the municipality. (c) "special charge": must be a fee or charge imposed in respect of the cost of the work. s. 1(1), definition (d) The municipality must have the authority to undertake the private work of "private" under section 9, 10 or 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001: - If the proposed project will provide a service or thing that s. 1{1), definition the municipality considers necessary or desirable for the of "special charge" public, then the municipality has authority to undertake it; s. 2{1) and - If the proposed project relates to the economic, social or environmental well-being of the municipality, then the municipality has authority to undertake it. Act, s. 10{1)

PAGE 55 Act, s. 10(2), paragraph 5

2. The municipality and the owners of the lots which would be specially Reg. s. 36.2(1){a) charged to raise the cost of the work must enter into an agreement.

Required contents of the agreement: (a) The owners must consent to their lots being specially charged. (b) Must provide for how the cost of the work will be apportioned among the specially charged lots. s. 36.2(1){a) The basis for this apportionment can be a basis that:

- The municipality considers appropriate; s. 36.2(2) (The municipality could probably consider apportionment on the basis of the proportionate costs, as appropriate.) - Is authorized under Part XII (Fees and Charges} of the Act (Part XII authorizes apportionment on the basis of: - Amount of services or activities provided or done s. 36.2(2) by or on behalf of the municipality for each property; - Location of property; - Physical characteristics of property, including buildings and structures on the property s. 36.2(2) - Zoning of property or other land use classification. - Is not based on or computed by reference to the Act, s. 391(1)(a) assessment of the property under the Assessment Act. (c) Signatures of the municipality and the owner of every affected lot. (d) The estimated cost of the work. (e) The estimated lifetime of the work. (f) A description of the apportionment method. Act, s. 394(2) (g) The amount of the special charges for each lot to be specially charged. (h) The manner in which a cost over-run or under-run would be dealt with if Act, s. 394(2} the actual cost of work differs from the estimated cost of work. (i) When the special charges are to be paid.

Act, s. 394(2)

PAGE 56 Reg. s. 36.2(3)

s. 36.2(4)

s. 36.2(5)(a)

s. 36.2(5)(b)

s. 36.2{5)(c)

s. 36.2(5)(c)

s. 36.2(5)(d)

s. 36.2(5)(e)

3. The clerk of the municipality must determine whether the agreement is s. 36.4(2) sufficient.

4. If the agreement is sufficient, then the clerk of the municipality must certify s. 36.4(2) the agreement.

5. The municipality must decide whether its public notice will include: {a) the description of each specific work the municipality intends to s. 36.6(2)(a) undertake; or (b) the description of the general program the municipality has established to undertake the types of work. s. 36.6(2)(b)

6. The municipality must give notice to the public of its intention to pass a by- s. 36.6(1) law to undertake the work as a local improvement (First By-law)

This public notice must include whichever description (specific vs. general)

PAGE 57 ST FF

REP RT Making a Dlffenm

7. The municipality must pass a by-law (First By-law) to undertake the work as s. 36.5(1) a local improvement for the purpose of raising the cost of the work by imposing special charges on lots upon which the local improvement will be located. This by-law must authorize either the specific works or the general program as selected in Step 5.

s. 36.5(2)

8. The municipality must obtain permission of each owner for the municipality s. 2(4) to enter and undertake the work on each private property.

9. The municipality must enter each private property and construct each private work.

10. After constructing the work, the municipality must add up the costs of the work. The costs may include: - Engineering expenses;

Reasonable administrative costs; s. 36.3, paragraph 1

s. 36.3, paragraph - Interest on borrowing by the municipality; and 2

s. 36.3, paragraph 3 - Estimated cost of incurring long-term debt. s. 36.3, paragraph 5

PAGE 58 MakillgaDifferi!!Ke

11. The Treasurer must prepare a local improvement roll s. 36.10 The local improvement roll must set out: - the cost of the work; - every lot to be specially charged; s. 36.10{a) -the name ofthe owner of each lot; - the special charges with which each lot is to be specially charged; s. 36.10{b) -when the special charges are to be paid; and s. 36.10{b) - the lifetime of the work. s. 36.10(c)

s. 36.10(d)

s. 36.10{e)

12. The municipality must give notice of the proposed local improvement roll to s. 36.11{1) the owners of lots liable to be specially charged.

13. The municipality must make copies of the proposed local improvement roll s. 36.12 available for inspection at the office of the clerk.

14. The treasurer must receive and consider: (a) Objections to the proposed local improvement roll, from the owners; s. 36.11(2)(a) and (b) Proposed revisions to the proposed local improvement roll, from the municipality. s. 36.11(2)(b)

15. The treasurer must make any corrections to the proposed local s. 36.11(2)(c) improvement roll that the treasurer considers fair and equitable.

16. The treasurer must certify the proposed local improvement roll. s. 36.11(2)

PAGE 59 ST FF RE RT

17. The municipality must pass a special charges by-law (Second By-law). s. 36.14(1) This Second By-law must provide that: (a) the amount specially charged on each lot set out in the roll is sufficient

to raise that lot's share of the cost by a specified number of annual s. 36.14(1)(a) payments; and (b) a special charge is imposed in each year on each lot equal to the amount of the payment payable in that year.

s. 36.14(1)(b)

18. The treasurer must enter the amount of each annual payment in the local s. 36.14(2) improvement roll.

PAGE 60 Attachment E Public Notice GEERS By-law NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy

Take notice that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Guelph intends to pass a by-law to undertake work as a local improvement under section 36.5 of Ontario Regulation 586/06 (Local Improvement Charges- Priority Lien Status).

The type of work to be undertaken is as set out in Schedule "A" hereto.

The program that the City has established to undertake this work is set out in Schedule "B" hereto.

Dated ______

Name:

Title:

PAGE 61 Schedule "A"

Type of Work to be undertaken

PAGE 62 Schedule "B"

Program to undertake the Work

PAGE 63 T FF

REP Making a Differen

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUElPH

By-law Number (2016) - XXXX

A by-law to undertake the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy as a Local Improvement under Ontario Regulation 586/06.

WHEREAS the City intends to undertake the type of work set out in Schedule "A11 hereto;

AND WHEREAS the City has established a program, as set out in Schedule "B" hereto, to undertake this work;

AND WHEREAS the City wishes to undertake the work as a local improvement for the purpose of raising all or any part of the cost of the work by imposing special charges on lots upon which all or some part of the local improvement is or will be located;

AND WHEREAS the City has given notice to the public of the City's intention to pass a by-law authorizing the undertaking of work under the program;

AND WHEREAS subsection 36.5(1) of Ontario Regulation 586/06 (Local Improvement Charges - Priority Lien Status) permits the City to pass a by-law to authorize the undertaking of works which satisfy the requirements of the municipal program;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE OF GUElPH ENACTS AS FOllOWS:

1. The City shall undertake the work set out in Schedule "A" hereto, under the program set out in Schedule "B" hereto, as a local improvement for the purpose

PAGE 64 Maklii!J a Difference

of raising all or any part of the cost of the work by imposing special charges on lots upon which all or some part of the local improvement is or will be located.

2. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is passed.

PASSED this day of 1 2016.

CAM GUTHRIE - MAYOR

STEPHEN O'BRIEN - CITY CLERK

PAGE 65 Making a Difference Schedule "All

Type of Work to be undertaken

PAGE 66 Schedule "B"

Program to undertake the Work

PAGE 67 s R Attachment G Second By-law GEERS

THE CORPORATION Of THE CITY Of GUElPH

By-law Number (2016) - YYYY

A by-law to impose special charges under the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy in respect of the local improvement roll designated as GEERS LIR-1.

WHEREAS the Council of the City has passed By-law Number (2016)-XXXX to undertake the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy;

AND WHEREAS the treasurer of the City has certified the local improvement roll designated as GEERS LIR-1 on

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil Of THE CORPORATION Of THE CITY Of GUElPH ENACTS AS FOllOWS:

3. The amount specially charged on each lot set out in the local improvement roll designated as GEERS LIR-1 is sufficient to raise that lot's share of the cost by twenty (20) annual payments.

4. A special charge is imposed in each year on such lot equal to the amount of the payment payable in that year.

5. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is passed.

PASSED this day of 1 20 •

CAM GUTHRIE - MAYOR

STEPHEN O'BRIEN - CITY ClERK

PAGE 68 Attachment H Corporate Risk Analysis

Risks to the Corporation are analyzed below, in accordance with the City of Guelph Enterprise Risk Management Framework. The risk rating is obtained by multiplying the impact ( 4 = Catastrophic, 1 = Minor) by the likelihood (5 = Almost certain, 1 = rare).

1.0 Service delivery: Customer expectations not 2 3 6 met

2.0 Employees: Risk of negative impact including 3 0 0 physical harm

3.0 Public: Risk of negative impact on Guelph 3 3 9 citizens

4.0 Physical environment: Risk of damage to 3 0 0 natural capital

5.0 Reputation: Risk of program failure damaging 3 3 9 City reputation or undermining confidence

6.0 Financial: Costs exceed expectations 4 4

6.1 Financial: Risk of fraudulent use of program 3 2

6.2 Financial: Risk of property owner efault 3 2

7.0 Regulatory: Risk of noncompliance with LIC 4 3 rules

7.1 Regulatory: Risk of noncompliance with building 4 3 codes

Risks with a rating of 6 or higher require action, while 10 or higher requires a mitigation plan, as detailed below.

Service delivery: Customer expectations not met. This risk will be addressed by ensuring that the application materials and the contractual agreement between

PAGE 69 RT Making a Differl!iiCe the homeowner and the Corporation makes clear that there are no warranties or representations with respect to the energy efficiency performance of the home. This is a well-established concept in the energy management sector, as occupant behaviour can have a dramatic impact on building energy efficiency. It will be further mitigated by requiring a pre and post energy audit of the building to demonstrate the impact of the retrofit on energy efficiency performance.

Public: Risk of negative impact on Guelph citizens. This is the risk that a retrofit causes actual harm to a building. It is well established that increased insulation and air-tightness of the building envelope can have undesirable consequences, including spalling of exterior finishes, moisture buildup, and indoor air quality issues. This can be mitigated by including a building science assessment as part of the preparatory work on each project.

Reputation: Risk of program failure damaging City reputation or undermining confidence. This is a strategic-level risk, and is addressed by ensuring that more tactical risks are well mitigated.

financial: Costs exceed expectations. This risk is broken down into five elements, each of which is described below along with the corresponding mitigation measures.

1. Contractor cost exceeds initial estimate. This risk will be addressed by requiring contractors to commit to fixed-price bids. They will assume the risk of any cost overruns, and will set an appropriate premium for assuming this risk. This premium will be offset by the sales and marketing costs that contractors will not have to incur related to GEERS projects. 2. Other per-project costs exceeding expectations. Cost estimates will be based on conservative assumptions with appropriate contingencies as a buffer against overruns. 3. Other initial program costs exceeding expectations. Nearly all of these costs will be incurred prior to the start of participant sign-up, so they will be taken into account when the final standard terms are established. 4. Interest rate fluctuations. The issuing of a debenture will effectively launch each tranche of GEERS retrofit projects. All projects undertaken within that tranche will be subject to the same terms. Hence, any interest rate changes will have no effect until the next tranche, and will be factored into the financing terms at that time. 5. Exchange rate fluctuations. If bulk purchase deals are negotiated with suppliers, pricing will be requested in Canadian dollars and will be fixed for the duration of the purchase agreement. If no such deals are negotiated, this

PAGE 70 Making a Difference

risk will be borne solely by the contractor and must be factored into their pricing.

Financial: Risk of fraudulent use of program. This is the risk that funds intended for energy efficiency retrofits will be redirected toward some other use, by either the property owner or the contractor. This risk will be mitigated by ensuring that the final inspection includes validation that the originally planned project components were, indeed, completed.

Financial: Risk of property owner default. A comparison with comparable programs in the United States indicates that the property owner does not increase their risk of default by participating. As such, the program assumes that the established city-wide risk of property tax default will be equivalent for GEERS participants. The buffer for cost overruns will include an amount proportional to the overall property tax default rate for the city.

Regulatory: Risk of noncompliance with liC rules. This risk is being mitigated by including a representative from the Legal, Realty, and Risk group (Bruce Banting) on the GEERS advisory committee, and by consulting with him on matters related to LIC regulatory compliance.

Regulatory: Risk of noncompliance with building codes. This risk is mitigated first by including a representative of the Building Services department on the GEERS advisory committee, and second by ensuring that proper building permit compliance is integral to the GEERS business process.

By pursuing the above approach, it is concluded that risks that the GEERS program poses to the Corporation can be kept to an acceptably low level.

PAGE 71 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difforen<• Attachment I Property Owner Risk Analysis

Risk analysis: Property owners Risks to property owners are outlined below, using an analysis methodology extended from the Enterprise Risk Management Framework and using the same rating system, whereby the impact ( 4 = Catastrophic, 1 = Minor) is multiplied by the likelihood (5 = Almost certain, 1 = rare) to obtain the risk rating.

Ite Description Impact Likelih Rati m ood ng

1.0 Service delivery: Customer expectations not 3 2 6 met

2.0 Homeowner: Risk of negative impact including 4 3 12 physical harm

3.0 Financial: LIC costs exceeds avoided cost 2 2 4

3.1 Financial: Risk of property tax default 4 1 4

Each risk, and the measures to mitigate it, is outlined below.

Service delivery: Customer expectations not met. The key way that a customer's expectations may not be met is if the project does not deliver the energy efficiency improvements that were anticipated. This will be mitigated by requiring a pre and post audit to demonstrate performance. Further mitigation measures include establishing a list of pre-qualified contractors and approved materials.

Homeowner: Risk of negative impact including physical harm. This risk is equivalent to risk 3.0 in the analysis of risks to the Corporation. The same measures are employed to mitigate the risk, namely including a building science assessment as part of the preparatory work on each project.

Financial: LIC cost exceeds avoided cost. This is related but not identical to risk 1.0. Some properties may be identified in advance as having an LIC cost that is expected to exceed the avoided cost, and the property owner may decide to proceed regardless as they have different motivations for participating. The order fulfillment process will include the step of educating the property owner about the

PAGE 72 Making • Difference effects of behaviour on energy performance, to ensure they understand why it is hence not possible to guarantee results. financial: Risk of property tax default. It is expected that in most cases, there will be a close relationship between the LIC cost and the avoided utility billings, and this will mean that the property owner is not at a net financial disadvantage. Because of the minimal impact on the property owner's finances, it is anticipated that the program will not increase the risk that the owner will be unable to remain current on property tax payments including the LIC portion. This is supported by evidence from PACE programs in the United States, which shows that there is no increase in the default risk for program participants.

By pursuing the above approach, it is concluded that risks that the GEERS program poses to property owners can be kept to an acceptably low level.

PAGE 73 ST FF

REP Making a Difference TO Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE May 3, 2016

SUBJECT Update on Source Water Protection Plan and Appointment of the Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspectors

REPORT NUMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide an update on the Grand River Source Protection Plan and to appoint a Risk Management Official and Risk Management Inspector in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

KEY FINDINGS The Grand River Source Protection Plan (SPP) contains policies to manage Prescribed Drinking Water Quality threats. The SPP was approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on November 26, 2015 with the effective date of July 1, 2016.

Through considerable effort, staff has developed procedures and guidelines to prepare for implementation of the SPP by the effective date. As well, new process associated with the SPP requirements have been integrated into existing City business processes.

To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the City of Guelph must appoint a Risk Management Official (RMO) and Risk Management Inspector (RMI) prior to the effective date. Staff recommends that the City's Risk Management Official be appointed as both a RMO and RMI and that the City's Environmental Engineer be appointed as a RMI and backup RMO under the CWA.

The Tier 3 Water Quantity Study for the development of water quantity protection policies is currently underway and expected to be completed in 2016. The resulting water quantity policies will be incorporated into the Grand River Source Protection Plan in 2017.

Staff will report back to Council on the progress of the SPP implementation and the Tier 3 Water Quantity Study within one year of the effective date.

PAGE 1 Making a Difference

fiNANCIAl IMPliCATIONS Funding to date for City of Guelph's Source Water Protection Program has been through the Water Services Capital Budget.

The RMO and RMI roles have already been incorporated into the Risk Management Official's and Environmental Engineer's existing job descriptions. Additional program staff may be required in the future to support the SPP requirements. Any additional resource needs will be addressed in future budget requests.

ACTION REQUIRED That Council appoint the RMO and RMis and under subsection and 47(7) of the CWA, direct the Clerk to issue certificates of appointment to the RMOs and RMis, and delegate the authority to the Deputy CAO, Infrastructure/ Development and Enterprise to appoint future RMOs and RMis.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That Peter Rider, the City of Guelph's current Risk Management Official (RMO) be appointed as the RMO and as a Risk Management Inspector (RMI) and that Prasoon Adhikari, the City's current Environmental Engineer be appointed as a RMI under subsection 47(6) of the CWA, 2006.

2. That the Clerk be directed to issue Certificates of Appointment to RMOs and RMis as required under subsection 47(7) of the CWA, 2006.

BACKGROUND Following the Walkerton water tragedy, the Province created the CWA to set a framework to protect drinking water at the source. In recent years, the Province of Ontario has made safe drinking water a priority by implementing legislation to ensure delivery of safe drinking water. Using a comprehensive 'from source to tap' approach, the City of Guelph continues to keep in step with new provincial directions to ensure multiple barriers are in place to deliver safe drinking water.

The SP Program is a highly regulated program1 with specific deliverables and extensive public consultation at each stage of delivery. Administered by the

Conservation Authorities, Source Protection Committees1 a group of appointed representatives from municipalities, agricultural, public, golf courses, aggregate and other industries, are responsible for the delivery of key components that are prescribed under the CWA. Details on the program can be found on the GRCA website at: https://www.sourcewater.ca/en/source-protection­ areas/Grand-River-Source-Protection-Pian.aspx

PAGE 2 Making a Differen

The SP Program includes a number of key deliverables including the Assessment Report. The Assessment Report was approved August 16, 2012 and summarizes a series of technical studies that outline vulnerable areas on maps and a total count of low, moderate and significant drinking water risks to every municipal drinking water system as prescribed by the Province. Drinking water threats include those land activities that may impair water quality or impact water quantity. Land use activities related to septic systems, waste disposal sites, agricultural source material (i.e. manure), fuels, road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, solvents and other related chemicals are defined in the CWA as threats to the quality of source waters. Water quantity threats are defined in the CWA by water taking related to dewatering or irrigation systems or paving over recharge areas preventing the seepage of groundwater.

The final key deliverable is approval of the Source Protection Plan which contains policies to manage all of the Prescribed Drinking Water Quality threats. The SPP for the City of Guelph was approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on November 26, 2015 with an effective date of July 1, 2016. A link to the SPP can be found here: https://www.sourcewater.ca/en/source-protection­ areas/resources/Documents/Grand/Grand Plan Vol2 Ch8.pdf

The SPP contains specific actions to ensure drinking water threats cease to be or never become significant risks to drinking water. Mandatory actions can only be assigned to land use activities identified as a significant threat as outlined in the regulation. As a first step, Source Protection Committees have been advised by the Province to focus on mandatory actions related to existing and future significant threats from land use activities within the highly vulnerable areas.

Regulation of drinking water threats under Part IV of the CWA is one of the new powers enabling the responsible municipality to protect municipal drinking water. Part IV powers allow a municipality to address specific activities that are threats to drinking water in wellhead protection areas and intake protection zones where these threats are or could be significant. This authority has been made available to address a gap in legislation. For example, the Planning Act addresses land use but not specific threat activities that may harm drinking water.

Where specified in the SPP, the City will be required to: • Enforce prohibition of certain threat activities (CWA Section 57) by the RMO. • Require a person to seek approval from the RMO prior to engaging in certain threat activities and make such activities subject to routine inspections by RMis (CWA Sections 56 and 58). • Require a person to seek approval from the RMO prior to the issuance of a Planning Act or Building Code Act related permit (CWA Section 59) as part of the complete application requirements under the Planning Act and as applicable law under the Building Code Act.

PAGE 3 Making a Differe11

A land owner who engages in a significant drinking water threat activity that is subject to a Risk Management Plan policy in the Source Protection Plan will be required to liaise with the RMO to negotiate a Risk Management Plan. Once approved by written notice from the RMO, the property will be subject to routine inspections by RMis. On an annual basis, the RMO will also be required to prepare an annual summary report on the overall progress and actions taken by the RMO and RMis and submit it to the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Authority.

Staff has provided Council with program updates as the Source Protection Program has developed, including the Council Meeting of Feb 4, 2013 for approval of the SPP and PBEE Committee report 2012-A.25 on June 18, 2012 for a summary and update of the SPP process and requirements.

REPORT

RMO and RMI Appointments The Grand River Source Protection Plan (SPP) was approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on November 26, 2015. The effective date of the Plan is July 1, 2016.

Under the CWA, the City of Guelph will be responsible for the enforcement of all (Part IV) policies. CWA Section 47(6) requires the City of Guelph to appoint the required RMO and RMI(s) to enforce the risk management components of the SPP. The City of Guelph must appoint a RMO and RMI prior to July 1, 2016 to comply with the CWA.

In addition to being appointed by the municipality, individuals who are being appointed must also have completed the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's approved training program.

The RMO will have responsibilities under the CWA that include, but are not limited to: • Negotiating/establishing Risk Management Plans • Evaluating risk assessments • Issuing orders that specify actions to comply • Issuing notices of failure to comply, including fines similar to Provincial offences • Attending Environmental Review Tribunal hearings • Preparing annual reports to Source Protection Committees • Issuing notices for complete application for Building Code and Planning Act • Permits and approvals

RMis will have responsibilities under the CWA that include, but are not limited to: PAGE 4 Making a Differen

Staff recommends that Peter Rider, the City's Risk Management Official be appointed as both a RMO under the CWA and a RMI under the CWA and that Prasoon Adhikari, the City's Environmental Engineer be appointed as a RMI under the CWA. Both individuals being appointed have successfully completed the required MOECC RMO/RMI training, under the CWA.

Following the appointments of an RMO and RMI, the City Clerk will be required by the CWA to issue a certificate to each appointee.

SPP Implementation Significant progress has been made by staff to prepare for the implementation of the SPP including:

1. The RMO has collaborated with staff in the Legal Services, Development Engineering, Water Services, Planning and Building divisions to develop new business processes to meet the effective date of July 1, 2016. 2. In addition to the new administrative requirements noted above, the City of Guelph has recently signed the Lake Erie Source Water Information Management System (LSWIMS) collaboration agreement with Wellington County, Halton Region, Oxford County and the GRCA to design and implement a data management application tool to facilitate data collection, management and reporting for the program. The LSWIMS tool will create process efficiencies and supplement the information that will be tracked in the current AMANDA system that is used by several departments. 3. Regular monthly meetings are occurring with staff from neighbouring municipalities in Halton Region and Wellington County to discuss issues associated with the SPP implementation. 4. A communications plan has been developed for the SPP program in and staff will monitor feedback to ensure that an adequate level of program messaging is provided to stakeholders.

Staff will report back to Council on the status of the above within one year of the implementation date to provide an update on progress and program implementation.

Tier 3 Water Quantity Study Technical work continues on the Tier 3 Water Quantity Study (Study). The Study will establish a water budget for the City of Guelph and Guelph-Eramosa Township water supplies. Specifically, the Study will develop Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA-Q1 and Q2) for water quantity and identify water PAGE 5 FF

RE Making a Differeme quantity threats to ensure the protection of water quantity for existing and future municipal water supplies.

It is anticipated that the technical work will be completed at the end of 2016 and the outcome of this work will be the "WHPA Q-1 and Q-2 Local Area" which represents the combined area of influence from all water well pumping. It is important to recognise that the footprint of this area is different and larger than the WHPAs for water quality. Following this, water quantity policy development will commence in late 2016 and continue through 2017. This work will result in water quantity policies to be incorporated into the Grand River SPP. The water quantity policies will complete the content of the Grand River SPP. Staff will be providing future updates to Council on progress on the Tier 3 Study and resulting policies.

The water quantity polices that will be developed for the City of Guelph and Guelph-Eramosa Township will extend beyond the city limits· into Wellington County. As such, the City of Guelph, Wellington County and the surrounding Townships will be key stakeholders in the policy development process since there may be financial or economic implications associated with any proposed water quantity policies.

To ensure that water quality and quantity protection is maintained across municipal borders as the program transitions to the implementation phase, City staff are collaborating with staff in the surrounding municipalities to establish a procedural Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Further details will be provided to Council as the MOU nears completion.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PlAN:

1.2 Develop collaborative work teams and apply whole systems thinking to deliver creative solutions. 3.1 Ensure a well-designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City. fiNANCIAl IMPliCATIONS: The RMO and RMI roles have already been incorporated into the City's Risk Management Official's and the City's Environmental Engineer's existing job descriptions and responsibilities. As such, there is no financial impact associated with the current appointments. Both individuals have completed the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's approved training program.

Since the SPP program is a new and regulatory driven responsibility for the City, staff will closely monitor workload, progress and financial implications. Given the requirements under the CWA and the fact that the City of Guelph is one of the largest municipalities in Canada to be dependent on groundwater, there will likely be a need for expansion of staff resources and a future evaluation of

PAGE 6 STAFF

REPORT Making a Dilferen

Since the program was initiated in 2007; the SPP has been funded through the Water Services Capital Budget. Staff will monitor program needs including funding as this program transitions into the implementation phase on July 1, 2016 and report back to Council within one year.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION: Staff from the Water, Planning, Building, Development and Environmental Engineering, Communications and Legal divisions have been involved in preparing for implementation of the SPP.

COMMUNICATIONS: A comprehensive communications plan for the implementation phase of the SPP is currently being implemented. Outreach and education with stakeholders and the public began in 2010 and will continue with ongoing efforts to maintain and improve awareness of the SPP program in Guelph.

ATTACHMENTS N/A

Report Author Peter G. Rider, P. Geo., Risk Management Official

By Recommended By Kealy man, P.Eng., MPA, Scott Stewart, C.E.T. General Manager/City Engineer Deputy CAO Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise 519-822-1260 X 2248 519-822-1260, ext. 3445 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 7 Source Water Protection: Program Update and Appointing the RMO and RMis

Presentation to IDE Committee

May 3, 2016

1 Presentation Outline

• Background and Context • Source Protection Plan Approval • Steps taken to prepare for July 1, 2016 • Appointment under the Clean Water Act • Program Funding • Tier 3 Water Quantity Study • Next Steps

2 Background and Context: Ontario's Clean Water Act, 2006

~ Passed in 2006 to implement 12 of 22 recommendations on source protection from the Walkerton Report ~ Source Protection Planning Areas established on a watershed basis ~ Source Protection Committees set up to oversee program ~ Protect current and future municipal drinking water sources from: - contamination (quality) and - depletion (quantity) yelp

®Ontario . _ c1~C11l 1\Jae zr ~.ct A- ~. ~ 3 Lake Erie Source Protection Region

Lake Erie Watershed Region: Source Protection Program SludyArea Base Map Objectives: Legend: 1. Identify vulnerable areas c:J Erie S PP Azu 0 Municipal Boondary Loke 2. Identify water quality and quantity issues 3. Identify threats 4. Establish the level of risk +N 5. Develop policies to address significant risks

DRINKING WATER N SOURCE PROTECfiO 4 Key Program Deliverables: Assessment Report, Source Protection Plan

lAKt [ ltll SOURCE I ri

Grand River Source Protection Area

I

APPROVED ASSESSMENT REPORT

Prepared by: Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee

Under tfle Clean Wa ter Act, 2006 (Ontario Regulation 28 7107)

August 1G , 201 2

Approved August 16, 2012 Approved November 26, 2015 EFFECTIVE DATE July 1, 2016 5 Source Water Protection Program: Work Plan Phase 1 Identifying priority tasks that must be completed by July 1 2016 (prior to effective date) <"'\, ...... ~ Phase 2 Laying out road map for longer term implementation (threat confirmation, education and outreach policies, Official Plan conformity, etc.)

6 Preparing for Implementation: Work Completed to Date • Ongoing liaison with Source Protection Committee and various Working Groups • Developing Internal/External program education materials • Establishing an information/data management system • Integrating application review process and screening tools into existing administrative processes • Preparing guidance documents and templates (inspection forms, RMP,

orders, notices, etc.) 7 Source Protection Timeline

Source Prot ection MOECC Plan Submitted to Minister Reviews MOECC Approves Effective SPP Date. SPP

2014 2015 2016 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 + t Develop Education and Review and Develop Supporting Council to Outreach Materials Update City Processes Documents Appoint Threats and Templates RMO/RMI

Update Develop Risk Liaison with Neighboring Develop City Management Municipalities Communications Website Plan Guidance Plan City of Guelph City of Guelph Prepares for Source Protection Implementation Implements Source Protection Plan 8 Next Steps

re July 1, 2016 • Council to officially "appoint" RMO and RMI as per the Clean Water Act requirements • Ensure that Source Water Protection review is fully integrated into the existing development/approval process

Post July 1, 2016 • Drinking water threat verification process for properties in the City • Develop Water Quantity Policies • Continue Education and Outreach initiatives • Revise Official Plan to address Source Protection Plan policies 9 Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment

To Date: • Initiated in 2008 • Focus on City of Guelph and Guelph-Eramosa Township • Characterization Report (completed 2011) • Groundwater Flow Model Report (completed 2014) • Risk Assessment Report (completed 2014)

Next steps (2016-2017) • Finalize Tier 3 and complete Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process • Develop water quantity policies and submit to Minister for approval and incorporation into the Grand River Source Protection Plan 10 11 Making a Dlffe«!llce TO Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE May 3, 2016

SUBJECT 2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabmzation Reserve fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit fees and Building By-law Amendments

REPORT NUMBER 16-33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To present a summary on 2015 building permit revenue & expenditures, the building stabilization reserve fund, building permit fees and to recommend amendments to the Building By-law. KEY FINDINGS 1. The operating budget surplus for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act for 2015 was $764,915. This amount was transferred to the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund. 2. The balance in the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, not including interest, was $2,949,653 as of December 31, 2015. 3. Building permit fees are not recommended to increase on June 1, 2016. 4. Amendments are recommended to the Building By-law due to the hiring of the new Chief Building Official. FINANCIAl IMPliCATIONS In accordance with the Council approved policy, the balance of the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund shall not exceed the anticipated funding for approximately one (1) year of operation which was $2,842,901 in 2015.

As of December 31, 2015, the balance of the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund exceeds this funding level by approximately $100,000. ACTION REQUIRED Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee to receive the report on 2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees and Building By-law Amendments.

Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee to approve the recommended amendments to the Building By-law, including repeal of the separate by-law appointing the Chief Building Official.

PAGE 1 F R RECOMMENDATION 1. That report 16-33 dated May 3, 2016 entitled 2015 Building Permit Revenue & Expenditures, Building Stabilization Reserve Fund, Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees and Building By-law Amendments, be received.

2. That an amended Building By-law, included as Attachment 2, be enacted to, among other things, repeal appointment by-law (1995)-14803.

BACKGROUND

2015 Annual Report on Building Permit Fee Revenues and Costs In accordance with Subsection 7.(4) of the Building Code Act (the Act), municipalities shall prepare an annual report on the total building permit fees collected, the direct and indirect costs of delivering services related to the administration and enforcement of the Act and the amount of an established reserve fund. All indirect costs (i.e. support and overhead costs) were reviewed utilizing the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) methodology in 2011.

Purpose of the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund The Act allows permit fees to be set to recover the costs associated with the administration and enforcement of the Act, as well as reasonable contributions to a reserve fund. The reserve fund can be used to offset lean years, implement service enhancements and to cover unexpected expenses related to the administration and enforcement of the Act. City Council adopted the revised Building Stabilization Reserve Fund Policy (#188) in April of 2010.

Funding of the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund Where building permit revenues exceed expenditures, the surplus is transferred to the reserve fund. Where expenditures exceed building permit revenues, funds are transferred from the reserve fund.

Building Stabilization Reserve Fund Balance The balance of the reserve fund, as established by the Building Stabilization Reserve Fund Policy, shall not exceed the anticipated funding for approximately one year of Building Services operations for the administration and enforcement of the Act which was $2,842,901 in 2015. This balance provides staff with an upper limit to freeze automatic permit fee increases and the ability to maintain a healthy reserve fund. The reserve fund balance now exceeds the anticipated funding for one year of operation by approximately $100,000.

Automatic Setting of Building Permit Fees In 2010, City Council approved the automatic increase of building permit fees to be equal to the increase to the City of Guelph's tax-supported operating budget (2.99% in 2016) plus 20 percent (0.60%) of the increase, which could have resulted in a 3.59% increase to fees in 2016. This formula has been used to determine the annual fee increases since that time.

PAGE 2 REP MaklngillllffOfllll«! The new fees would normally come into effect on June 1st of each year to allow time for staff to compare the year-end Building Stabilization Reserve Fund balance to the established cap on the reserve fund, advertise the required Public Notice and inform our industry partners. However, a permit fee increase is not being recommended for 2016. The minor overage of the Council approved cap of approximately $100,000 does not warrant a reduction in permit fees in 2016. Staff will evaluate whether a decrease in permit fees should be considered if the reserve fund balance continues to exceed the required funding in 2017.

Building By-law Amendments Subsection 3.(2) of the Act requires a municipality to appoint a Chief Building Official and Inspectors to enforce the requirements of the Act. Previously, the Chief Building Official was appointed under a separate by-law. Due to the recent hiring of the Chief Building Official, it is recommended that this appointment be done under the Building By-law which is where all other appointments are made. Due to the hiring of additional seasonal staff, it is recommended that those appointments be included as well.

REPORT 2015 Permit Fee Revenue, Expenditures and Reserve Fund See Attachment 1 for a summary of revenue collected, direct and indirect costs, surplus transferred to the reserve fund and the balance in the reserve fund, not including interest, as of December 31, 2015.

Annual Setting of Building Permit Fees It is recommended that building permit fees do not increase on June 1, 2016.

Building By-law Amendment It is recommended that the Building By-law be amended as a result of the new Chief Building Official and additional staff being hired to appoint them as required by the Act, as per Attachment 2.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PlAN 2.1: Build an adaptive environment for government innovation to ensure fiscal and service sustainability. 2.3: Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement.

DEPARTMENTAl CONSULTATION Legal Services, Finance

COMMUNICATIONS 1. An information notice will be sent to industry partners notifying them that building permit fees will not increase on June 1, 2016.

PAGE 3 STAFF

REPORT Making a Dlffertnce ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 2015 Permit Fee Revenue, Expenditures and Reserve Fund Attachment 2 Building By-law (2015)-19985, as amended

Prepared By: Rob Reynen Chief Building Official

Approved By Recommended By Todd Salter Scott Stewart, C.E.T. General Manager Deputy CAO Planning, Urban Design and Infrastructure, Development and Building Services Enterprise 519-822-1260, ext. 2395 519-822-1260, ext. 3445 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 4 Attachment 1

2015 PERMIT FEE REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND RESERVE FUND

1. TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE REVENUE COLLECTED $3,607,816

2. a) Total direct costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, including the review of permit applications and inspections of construction & demolition $2,382,901

b) Total indirect costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, including support and overhead costs $460,000

TOTAL COSTS OF DELIVERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE BUILDING CODE ACT $2,842,901

3. TRANSFER TO RESERVE FUND FROM OPERATING BUDGET $764,915

4. TOTAL AMOUNT OF BUILDING STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 (not including interest) $2,949,653 Attachment 2

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUElPH

By-law Number (2016) - XXXXX

A by-law to amend the Building By-law being By-law Number (2015)-19985.

WHEREAS the Council of the City has passed a Building By-law being By-law Number (2015)-19985;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City wishes to amend that Building By- law;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUElPH ENACTS AS FOllOWS:

1. In the brief description of the by-law in the upper right corner of the front page, insert the words "Chief Building Official and" after the words "Appointment of" in the fourth line.

2. On the front page, in section 2, replace the definition of "Chief Building Official" with the following:

"Chief Building Official" means the Chief Building Official appointed by this by-law, as described in Schedule "C", for the purposes of enforcement of the Act.

3. On page 6 replace section 11 (Appointment of Inspectors) with the following:

Appointment of Chief Building Official and Inspectors

The individuals listed in Schedule "C" of this by-law are appointed to enforce the Act.

4. On page 7, in section 14 (Repeal and Replacement of Previous By-laws), insert the following as a new third paragraph:

By-law number (1995)-14803 is hereby repealed and replaced by this by-law as of the date and time of this amending by-law coming into effect.

5. In Schedule "C", delete existing sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 and replace them with the following:

1. The individuals listed in this Schedule are hereby appointed to the positions identified herein and these individuals shall be responsible for the enforcement of the Act.

2. An appointment made under this by-law shall be deemed to be revoked if the individual ceases to be employed by the City of Guelph in any of the positions listed below. 3. Each of the Program Manager of Permit Services and the Program Manager of Inspection Services is hereby appointed as an Acting Chief Building Official and shall have the authority to carry out any duties of the Chief Building Official in his or her absence or as directed by him or her, including the authority to issue Permits and Stop Work Orders.

4. The Technical Services Specialist shall have the authority to issue Permits for construction and demolition as directed by and on behalf of the Chief Building Official.

6. In Schedule "C", in the table at the bottom of the page, in the first row below the headings, change "Manager of Inspection Services" to "Chief Building Official".

7. In Schedule "C", in the table at the bottom of the page, in the third row below the headings, change "Supervisor of Inspections" to "Program Manager of Inspection Services".

8. In Schedule "C', in the table at the bottom of the page, insert a new fourth row as follows:

Technical Services Specialist Nicholas Rosenberg

9. In Schedule "C", in the table at the bottom of the page, under Inspectors, add the following names in alphabetical order:

Matthew Graziosi Alex Pacheco Sean Wyse lO.This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is passed.

PASSED this day of 1 2016.

CAM GUTHRIE- MAYOR

STEPHEN O'BRIEN - CITY ClERK STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference TO Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Committee

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE May 3, 2016

SUBJECT 180 Gordon Brownfield Tax Increment-Based Grant Agreement Extension

REPORT NUMBER 16-27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT The owner of 180 Gordon Street has requested that their Brownfield Tax Increment-Based Grant (TIBG) agreement with the City be amended to extend the deadline for project completion. This report provides a recommended response to that request.

Location: 180 Gordon Street

KEY FINDINGS On March 28, 2011 Council approved a TIBG pursuant to the Brownfield Redevelopment CIP. The City and the owner entered into an agreement that requires that the project be complete by March 28, 2017. The intent of including project completion deadlines within Brownfield TIBG agreements is to ensure projects proceed expeditiously. If a project does not appear to be proceeding, then funding can be reallocated to another project. The 180 Gordon Street project has been subject to delays largely outside of the owner's control, and the owner is taking steps to complete the project.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This grant payment has already been budgeted. Allowing a deadline extension would not negatively affect the financial schedule established to manage future TIBG payments.

ACTION REQUIRED Council is being asked to: • approve an extension to deadline to complete the project; • direct staff to prepare an amendment to the agreement between the City and the owner of 180 Gordon Street; and • authorize the Mayor and Clerk execute the amendment.

PAGE 1 STAFF

REPORT Making a Dllf•r•nce RECOMMENDATION 1. That IDE report #16-27, regarding 180 Gordon Brownfield Tax Increment­ Based Grant Agreement Extension, dated May 3, 2016 be received.

2. That the request to extend the deadline for project completion from March 28, 2017 to March 28, 2021 be approved.

3. That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the Tax Increment-Based Grant agreement between the City and 180 Gordon Street Ltd., to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Building Services, the City Solicitor, and the City Treasurer; 4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the amendment to the Tax Increment-Based Grant Agreement. BACKGROUND Guelph's Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan (CIP) includes financial incentive programs to stimulate investment in remediation, reuse and redevelopment of brownfields. The premise of the CIP is that City investment in the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites will result in proportionally greater improvements to environmental and neighbourhood conditions while creating additional tax revenues in the long-term.

The property at 180 Gordon Street is 0.16 ha in size, and is located southeast of the Gordon Street Bridge over the Speed River. The Site has historically been used as an automobile service station (1936-2003) and more recently as a car and truck rental establishment (1995-2003). The site is currently zoned to permit 10 townhouse units.

On March 28, 2011 Council approved a Tax Increment-Based Grant (TIBG) pursuant to the Brownfield Redevelopment CIP to an upset limit of $156,000 (see PBEE Report #11-22, pg. 111). The City entered into an agreement with the owner to specify the terms and conditions of the grant. The agreement requires that the project be complete by March 28, 2017. On September 24,' 2012 Council approved an increase in the grant upset limit to $294,000 (see PBEE Report #12-75, pg. 304).

The property is also benefiting from up to three years of tax cancellation in accordance with the Brownfield Redevelopment CIP's Tax Assistance program.

On February 29, 2016 the City received a request from the owner to extend the project completion deadline by four years to 2021 (see Attachment 1).

REPORT The Brownfield Redevelopment CIP does not place a time limit on completing a brownfield redevelopment project. The deadline has been established by staff in all recent Brownfield TIBG agreements to ensure that projects proceed expeditiously.

PAGE 2 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference If a project does not appear to be proceeding, then funding can be reallocated to another project.

The redevelopment project has been subject to two key delays since Council approved the grant in 2011.

• The owners applied to rezone the property on March 11, 2011. Council approved the rezoning on March 5, 2012 (see Report #12-27, pg 32). That decision was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by a third party. The OMB approved the rezoning on July 26, 2013.

• The work required to characterize the groundwater contamination, in support of the required Record of Site Condition, was much more time consuming than anticipated. The proponents began working to characterize the site in 2012, and after much discussion with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the process concluded with a Record of Site condition being filed on September 3, 2015.

These delays resulted in the project not being able to be delivered on-time to those who pre-purchased the condominium units. Accordingly, the developer needs to have the project refinanced, and construction cannot be completed before the TIBG agreement deadline of March 28, 2017. These delays were largely outside of the owner's control and are not due to a lack of effort on their part.

The owner has shown a commitment to completing the project, for example by proceeding though the site plan approval process, where the project is near final approval. Furthermore, there are no negative financial implications to extending the grant timelines. In addition, there are no other brownfield TIBG applications awaiting funding, therefore funds can continue to be allocated to 180 Gordon Street. For these reasons, staff recommend that the request to extend the grant deadline be approved.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Ensure a well designed, safe, inclusive, appealing and sustainable City 3.2 Be economically viable, resilient, diverse and attractive for business

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This grant payment has already been budgeted. Granting the extension would not negatively affect the financial schedule established to manage future TIBG payments.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION: • Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services • Finance • Legal, Realty and Risk Services • Downtown Renewal

PAGE 3 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference COMMUNICATIONS: None

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Request to Extend the TIBG agreement

Report Author Approved By Tim Donegani Melissa Aldunate Policy Planner Manager of Policy Planning and Urban 24~ Approved By Recommended By Todd Salter Scott Stewart, C.E.T. General Manager Deputy CAO Planning, Urban Design and Infrastructure, Development and Building Services Enterprise 519.822.1260, ext. 2395 519.822.1260, ext. 3445 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 4 STAFF

REPORT Making a Dlfforonct Attachment 1 - Request to Extend the TIBG agreement

Date: February 29, 2016

To: Mr. Tim Donegani Policy Planner Planning Services City of Guelph

From: Christian Huggett, MCIP RPP Manager of Planning and Development Podium Developments 3 Bridgman Avenue, Suite 205 Toronto ON M5R 3V4

Re: Request of Extension of Tax-Increment Grant 180 Gordon Street

Dear Mr. Donegani:

We represent 180 Gordon street Ltd, the owner of 180 Gordon street in Guelph. This site has been subject to a number of planning processes and grant applications since its purchase in 2010, but ultimately is now approved for the construction of 10 townhouse units overlooking the Speed and Eramosa Rivers. More specifically, the site has been the subject of:

• Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Ontario Municipal Board Hearing • Site Plan Application (near completion) • Tarion Pre-Approval for Sale of 10 units • Sales of 60% of Units • Risk Assessment • Record of Site Condition • Certificate of Property Use • Grand River Conservation Authority Tree Replacement Strategy • Tax-Increment Grant

This letter concerns the final process; the Tax-Increment Grant was approved in January 2012, set to expire on March 28, 2017 . Unfortunately, through the process of trying to develop this small site (0.39 acres), the environmental process for Risk Assessment, Record of Site Condition and Certificate of Property Use took the greater part of 3 years, with approval resulting finally in Fall 2015. This extended timeline forced the cancellation of all unit sales, due to the inability to meet the agreed-upon Tarion timelines. As a result, the project was delayed and we now req uire a marketing re-launch. The continued approval of the Tax-Increment Grant helps to offset the considerable remediation costs and study that have been expended on-site, and make the site financially viable for re-launch.

We respectfully are asking for a 4-year extension to this deadline, which is less than 1 year from the time of Council's consideration, and would not capture the re-launch of the project, construction timing and completion. We request the extension of this deadline to allow for the successful completion of this

Page 1 of 2 ~J Er.dg:n~:" ;.,,~ Sutt:- 2:-5 T 4if79:'611-l ;nfc.@;l•):itJII· k;::tftiHI t:f"~ (•1/f! r r· •'1\t} -·:; r.f.iP )\/.1 F :0:-?5185?C' ,,,,;:-· ::•"' ~ Jn··:ff·,.:.! j~n·.. : ·nts •X•m

PAGE 5 STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference

important site in Guelph. We believe that this site is a critical location relative to the entry into the Guelph downtown, and its development is an improvement to the Gordon Street streetscape.

We look forward to seeing this project realized in Guelph, and the Grant greatly assists with this.

Respectfully submitted ,

Christian Huggett, MCIP RPP Manager of Planning and Development

Page 2 of 2 ~~ So1.:!Gman -\\·t- •::u :-:- ::J)2 r ~lf:7'r:511:. llh.'Q,'jl(lllill~lr.l.!'it·lt fJII1•':1h CJil -crontn ClJ \ t: r~ .fv',! F ti:'SS:S51:~1 JtA'J.' ~~~Jdtu w:l::'!o:·J(.~cmo;.'1k: ·.:.orr.

PAGE 6 CONSENT REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

May 24, 2016

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

Your Nominating Committee beg leave to present their FIRST CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting on May 16, 2016.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of Governance Committee will be approved in one resolution.

NOM-C-2016.1 Council Appointments to the Social Services Terms of Reference Advisory Committee

That ______be appointed to the Social Services Terms of Reference Advisory Committee as the City of Guelph’s Council representative for such time as the mandate of the Committee has been met, to end no later than November 30, 2018.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

CONSENT REPORT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE

May 24, 2016

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

Your Public Services Committee beg leave to present their THIRD CONSENT REPORT as recommended at its meeting of May 2, 2016.

If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Report of the Public Services Committee will be approved in one resolution.

PS-2016.8 Cultural Property Category A Designation for Guelph Museums

1. That the Public Services Report # PS-16-09 “Cultural Property Category A Designation for Guelph Museums” dated May 2, 2016 be received; and

2. That the certified cultural property or property acquired with a Movable Cultural Property grant be transferred to another designated organization in the event that the City ceases operations of Guelph Museums, be approved.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Councillor Cathy Downer, Chair Public Services Committee

Please bring the material that was distributed with the Agenda for the May 2, 2016 Public Services Committee meeting. STAFF REPORT TO Public Services Committee

SERVICE AREA Public Services – Culture, Tourism and Community Investment

DATE May 2, 2016

SUBJECT Cultural Property Category A Designation for Guelph Museums

REPORT NUMBER PS-16-09

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT To inform Council about Guelph Museum’s application for Category A Designation under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act; and to seek approval of a resolution required for the designation.

KEY FINDINGS Organizations must be officially designated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to access the tax incentives and grant provisions under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. Guelph Museums is preparing an application to be designated a Category A organization. One of the requirements of a successful designation application is a dissolution clause committing the City to transfer cultural property to another designated organization should the City of Guelph cease operations of Guelph Museums.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A

ACTION REQUIRED To receive the report for information and to recommend a resolution indicating that certified cultural property or property acquired with a Movable Cultural Property grant will be transferred to another designated organization if the City of Guelph ceases operations of Guelph Museums.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Public Services Report # PS-16-09 “Cultural Property Category A Designation for Guelph Museums” dated May 2, 2016 be received

2. That the certified cultural property or property acquired with a Movable Cultural Property grant be transferred to another designated organization in the event that the City ceases operations of Guelph Museums, be approved

PAGE 1

STAFF REPORT

BACKGROUND

Organizations must be officially designated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to access the tax incentives and grant provisions under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

Through the combined provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, enhanced tax incentives are available for cultural property which is donated or sold to a designated institution or public authority, where certain legal, technical and curatorial requirements are met. An institution must be designated before it can legally accept a gift of cultural property for which tax incentives are desired.

Designated organizations include institutions such as museums, public art galleries, and libraries; and public authorities including municipalities and other government bodies that collect, preserve and present cultural property.

Cultural property includes objects recovered from the soil or waters of Canada, objects of material ethnographic culture, military objects, objects of applied and decorative arts, objects of fine arts, scientific or technological objects, archival material, and musical instruments.

There are two categories of designated organizations in Canada:

• Category A: which provides unlimited designation for property from one or more of the above groups • Category B: which provides limited designation for a specific object or collection

In Guelph, the Art Gallery of Guelph and the University of Guelph, McLaughlin Library, Archival and Special Collections hold Category A designations.

In the past, Guelph Museums applied for and received two separate Category B designations. The first, in 1997, enabled us to accept and provide tax incentives for the donation of Lt. Col. John McCrae’s military medals. The second, in 2005, enabled us to accept the donation of the Memorial Cross that was given to Janet McCrae in honour of the death of her son John.

REPORT

Guelph Museums is in the process of applying for Category A designation. This will allow us unlimited designation for cultural property, eliminating the need for separate Category B applications for each donation or purchase. We are aware of a gift of historic art that is intended to be donated to the Museum once our

PAGE 2

STAFF REPORT designation is in place, and we are confident that further gifts of cultural property will be forthcoming.

Among other requirements, we are required to have a dissolution clause that indicates that certified cultural property or cultural property acquired with a Movable Culture Property grant will be transferred to another designated organization should Guelph Museums cease operations.

We request that Council pass a resolution to this effect.

CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN

Organizational Excellence 1.3 Build robust systems, structures and frameworks aligned to strategy

Innovation in Local Government 2.2 Deliver public services better 2.3 Ensure accountability, transparency and engagement

City Building 3.2 Be economically viable, resilient, diverse and attractive for business 3.3 Strengthen citizen and stakeholder engagement and communications

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION

N/A

COMMUNICATIONS

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

N/A

PAGE 3

STAFF REPORT

Prepared by: Tammy Adkin Manager, Guelph Museums

______Recommended By Approved By Colleen Clack Derrick Thomson General Manager Deputy CAO Culture, Tourism & Community Investment Public Services 519-822-1260 ext. 2588 519-822-1260 ext. 2665 [email protected] [email protected]

PAGE 4

CONSENT AGENDA

May 24, 2016

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Guelph City Council.

SUMMARY OF REPORTS:

The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate Council’s consideration of the various matters and are suggested for consideration. If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation of the Consent Agenda, please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with immediately. The balance of the Consent Agenda will be approved in one resolution.

A REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

REPORT DIRECTION

CON-2016.24 York Road Reconstruction from Wyndham Approve Street East to Ontario Street Contract No. 16- 020

That the tender from Drexler Construction Limited be accepted and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement for Contract 16-020 for the York Road Reconstruction Contract for a total tendered price of $2,697,310.00 (price include 13% HST) with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

attach. STAFF

REPORT Making a Difference TO City Council

SERVICE AREA Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise

DATE May 24, 2016

SUBJECT York Road Reconstruction from Wyndham Street East to Ontario Street Contract No 16-020

REPORT NUMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT: To award the tender from Drexler Construction Limited and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement for Contract 16-020 for the York Road Reconstruction project.

KEY FINDINGS • The City completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2007 for York Road from Wyndham Street to the east City limit that identified improvements to be made along York Road. • An application for the 2016 York Road project from Wyndham Street to Ontario Street was submitted to the Ministry of Transportation under the Connecting Links program and has been awarded $2.6M in provincial grant funding. • Construction is expected to commence in July 2016 and anticipated to be completed by the end of December 2016. • A public open house was held on April 6, 2016 at which time project details and the road closure traffic plan was presented to residents. • To minimize construction impacts, a number of measures will be considered such as staging of construction to accommodate park users and reduce traffic impacts.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Funding for this project will be from the approved Capital budget as set out in the attached Budget and Financial Schedule. Upon completion of the project the city will receive $2.6 million in grant funding from the Ministry of Transportation under the Connecting links program.

ACTION REQUIRED Council to approve the award of the tender for the York Road Contract 16-020.

PAGEl STAFF

REPORT Making a Different• RECOMMENDATION 1. That the tender from Drexler Construction Limited be accepted and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement for Contract 16-020 for the York Road Reconstruction Contract for a total tendered price of $2,697,310.00(price include 13% HST) with actual payment to be made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

BACKGROUND The reconstruction of York Road from Wyndham Street to Ontario Street was identified through the York Road Environmental Assessment (EA) completed in 2007. The York Road EA was undertaken to address transportation needs along York Road as a truck and critical transit route in the City. The EA identified improvements required York Road from Wyndham Street to the eastern City limit, east of Watson Road.

City staff and the engineering consultant, Amec Foster Wheeler, have completed the detailed engineering design for tender documentation. Construction on York Road between Wyndham Street East and Ontario Street is expected to begin in July 2016 and be completed by end of December 2016.

Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2016 and is expected to be completed by the end of December 2016. Work includes the replacement of water and sewer pipes, curb, gutter and sidewalks, on street parking and the addition of multi-use path and bike lanes. The final design for York Road is consistent with the approved EA and when the project is completed, the road will remain a two-lane road.

The Cycling Master Plan is a 10-year strategy to make cycling easier, safer and more accessible in Guelph by building a connected network of on- and off-road bike facilities throughout Guelph. It is part of the City of Guelph's efforts to support sustainable transportation, relieve traffic congestion, and make mobility accessible to all road users.

REPORT Tenders for the above mentioned project were received on Contract 16-020, May gth, 2016 as follows (prices include 13% HST). Staff review all tenders were verified for legal and arithmetic accuracy. The following is the list of the contractors that submitted acceptable tenders:

1. Drexler Construction Limited $2,697,310.00 2. J.G. Goetz Construction Limited $2,857,846.73 3. Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd $3,529,663.85

Drexler Construction Limited has successfully completed previous reconstruction contracts for the City. Therefore it is recommended that the contract be awarded to this firm.

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

PAGE2 STAFF

REPORT Making a Differen

Contingency allowed= $400,000.00

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION: Throughout the design process, Engineering and Capital Infrastructure Services staff engaged in extensive consultation with several City departments including Water Services, Wastewater Services, Operations, Parks and Recreation and Planning Services. Feedback and recommendations from this consultation are reflected in the final design.

COMMUNICATIONS: To engage the community regarding this project, the City held a Public Information Center on April 6, 2016. City staff and consultants shared project timelines, methods and impacts, answered questions and concerns about the project, and obtained feedback from the public and businesses. The PIC was attended by approximately 30 people.

The PIC was advertised in the City News section of the Guelph Tribune (March 24 and March 31), on the City's website and via mobile signs along York Road.

Project information is also available online through guelph.ca/construction. Updates will be provided throughout the project at key milestones or in the case of changes to planned work. Construction notices will be posted on the City's website, in City News, through social and news media, and delivered to nearby residents and businesses prior to commencing any work.

ATTACHMENTS Appendix A Budget and Financial Schedule Appendix B Construction Area and Staging Map for York Road

Report Author

Majde Qaqish 1 P.Eng. Project Engineer ~ Approved By ecommended By

Kealy Dedman1 P.Eng. Scott Stewart1 C.E.T. General Manager/City Engineer Deputy CAO Engineering and Capital Infrastructure{ Development and Enterprise

Infrastructure Services 519-822-12601 ext. 3445 519-822-1260, ext. 2248 [email protected] kealy [email protected]

PAGE3 Appendix A Budget and Financing Schedule JOE Project number: R D0277/SW0071 /SC0013/WDOO 15 Project name: York Road Reconstruction from Wyndham Street East to Ontario Street Prepared by: Jenny Chang Contract#: 16-020 Date· May 9, 2016

External Financing Internal Flnanclna Total Development Eng Srvc Agrmt Federal Gas Current City Cost Charge Recoveries Tax Revenues Reserves Debt A. Budget AQQroval & Additional Funding RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 5,406,000 0 0 4,024,800 0 1,381,200 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 3,713,000 0 0 1,477,000 0 436,000 1,800,000 SC0013 Ward One- Sewer Replacement 5,548,640 0 0 0 0 5,548,640 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 5,722,300 0 0 0 0 5,722,300 0 Budget Approval 20,389,940 0 0 5,501,800 0 13,088,140 1,800,000 B. Budget Requirement Tender Price: Drexler Construction Limited (exc. HST) 2,387,000 0 0 644,082 0 1,532,196 210,722 Plus: HST Payable (calculated at 1.76%) 42,011 0 0 11 ,336 0 26,967 3,709 City Share 2,429,011 0 0 655,418 0 1,559,163 214,430 plus: Expenditures to Date RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 3,395,121 0 0 2,527,688 0 867,433 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 965,561 0 0 384,092 0 113,381 468,088 SC0013 Ward One - Sewer Replacement 3,186,223 0 0 0 0 3,186,223 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 3,131,921 0 0 0 0 3,131,921 0 Sub-total 10,678,826 0 0 2,911,780 0 7,298,958 468,088 plus: Committed Work on Exisiting POs & Contracts RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 1,042,106 0 0 775,854 0 266,252 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 779,863 0 0 310,223 0 91,576 378,064 SC0013 Ward One - Sewer Replacement 814,294 0 0 0 0 814,294 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 614,036 0 0 0 0 614,036 0 Sub-total 3,250,300 0 0 1,086,077 0 1,786,158 378,064 plus: Contingency RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 142,464 0 0 106,065 0 36,399 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 101,760 0 0 40,479 0 11 ,949 49,332 SC0013 Ward One - Sewer Replacement 81,408 0 0 0 0 81,408 0 WD0015 Ward One- Watermain Replacement 81,408 0 0 0 0 81,408 0 Sub-total 407,040 0 0 146,545 0 211,164 49,332 plus: Material and Lab RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 10,176 0 0 7,576 0 2,600 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 10,176 0 0 4,048 0 1,195 4,933 SC0013 Ward One - Sewer Replacement 5,088 0 0 0 0 5,088 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 5,088 0 0 0 0 5,088 0 Sub-total 30,528 0 0 11,624 0 13,971 4,933 plus: Engineering RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 40,704 0 0 30,304 0 10,400 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 40,704 0 0 16,192 0 4,780 19,733 SC0013 Ward One - Sewer Replacement 40,704 0 0 0 0 40,704 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 40,704 0 0 0 0 40,704 0 Sub-total 162,816 0 0 46,496 0 96,587 19,733 plus: Waterworks RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 10,176 0 0 4,048 0 1,195 4,933 SC0013 Ward One- Sewer Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 10,176 0 0 0 0 10,176 0 Sub-total 20,352 0 0 4,048 0 11,371 4,933 plus: Future Work RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 164,869 0 0 122,746 0 42,123 0 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 1,092,441 0 0 434,564 0 128,280 529,597 SC0013 Ward One- Sewer Replacement 925,351 0 0 0 0 925,351 0 WD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 1,228,407 0 0 0 0 1,228,407 0 Sub-total 3,411,067 0 0 557,309 0 2,324,161 529,597 TOTAL BUDGET REQUIREMENT 20,389,940 0 0 5,419,297 oT 13,301,533 1,590,179 C. SurQius I (Deficit! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Revised pro·ect budget 20,389,940 0 0 5,419,297 0 13,301,533 1,590,179

Summary Budget Expenses This request Balance RD0277 CIP Road Upgardes 5,406,000 4,437,227 803,904 164,869 SW0071 Storm Sewer Repl CIP 3,713,000 1,745,423 875, 136 1,092,441 SC0013 Ward One- Sewer Replacement 5,548,640 4,000,518 622,771 925,351 IWD0015 Ward One - Watermain Replacement 5,722,300 3,745,957 747,936 1,228,407 Total 20,389,940 13,929,126 3,049,747 3,411,067 f­ Vl w ~

~w GROVES ~ ~------~~~

ELIZABETH ST

f­ Vl > <{ tJ) ii2 UJ ""--' 0 UJ ::;:"" UJ I :;:

FERGUSON Sf UJ :::> "'0

f­ Vl 2

~------L------:::>~ +------Lb------~~----~~--~ I

HOWITT ST OLIVER ST f­ Vl MANITOBA ST tJ) ii2 f- cr: tJ) <{ Vl i----·I ~ BEVERLEY ST 0 ::;: f­ Vl 2 0 0 0 (.!)""

a.--' tJ) > f­ <{ Vl ~ "'0 UJ "" :::> ""a. :;: 0 JAMES ST E 0 ~ 0 ""UJ "' I JAMES ST W ~:;:

FORBES AV > r---~-~ :;:"' UJ FAIR V- -I\m ;o ~ () m I r 2

0"" SE~~t, Legend "so-t- ~ [~~]City of Guelph Boundary Major Roads

DEAN AV Local Roads --+-- Railway ~~ Watercourse 0 75 150 tm Waterbody UNIVERSITY AV UNIVERSITY AV E - 1:7,500 xj Parks - ~ 3 = ~==~======~-~======The City of Guelph, its employees and agents, do not undertake to l guarantee the validity of the contents of the digital or hardcopy ~ map files, and will not be liable for any claims for damages or loss arising from their application or interpretation, by any party. It is ~ not intended to replace a survey or be used for legal description. Appendix B ·~ ~~ o~~ue~pa:. n~~a~~ ~~~~~~~~~: ~i~~~~tG~:Ip~s~i:~i~~~~ ~~~ Construction Area ~ additional information at 519-822-1260. York Road Reconstruction from Produced by the City of Guelph Wyndham Street East to Ontario Street MakingaDifftrmce f Infrastructure, Development & Enterprise : Engineering Services 1 :;;, April 21, 2016

- BYLAWS –

- May 24, 2016 –

By-law Number (2016) – 20058 A by-law to amend By-law Number To amend the Traffic By-law. (2002) – 17017 (to remove Baker Street, east side, Woolwich to 99m south thereof, anytime; to remove Baker Street, west side, 108m south of Woolwich to 45m south thereof, anytime; to Remove Baker Street, west side, Chapel Lane to Quebec, anytime; to remove Quebec Street, south side, Norfolk Street to 8m east of Baker Street, anytime; to remove Yarmouth Street, east side, Norfolk to 50m north thereof, anytime; in the No Parking Schedule; to remove Macdonell Street [Highway located within downtown area], north side, Norfolk Street to 76m east of Carden Street, 2-hours, 9am-9pm Mon-Sat, once per day [5 hours, once per day, within signed disabled parking spaces] on any Highway or combination of Highways indicated in Column I as being within the downtown area; in the Restricted Parking Schedule; To remove; in the 15 Minute/Public Loading Zones Schedule; To remove; in the Permissive Overnight Parking 2:00 a.m. – 6:00 a.m. Schedule)

By-law Number (2016) – 20059 A by-law to authorize the execution of To authorize the execution of Contract an agreement between Drexler 16-020 for the York Road Reconstruction Construction Limited and the Contract as per Consent Report CON- Corporation of the City of Guelph. 2016.24. (Contract 16-020 for the York Road Reconstruction Contract)

By-law Number (2016) – 20060 A by-law to amend the Building By-law To amend the Building By-law as per being By-law Number (2015)-19985. Consent Report IDE-2016.15.