Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
A G E N D A COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE
Council Chambers Tuesday, 4:00 p.m. Second Floor, City Hall August 16, 2011
VISION LONDON - LONDON, THE FOREST CITY
We are a caring, responsive community committed to the health and well-being of all Londoners. The actions we take will be socially, environmentally and fiscally responsible so that our quality of life is enhanced and sustained for future generations. Our people, heritage, diverse economy, strategic location, land and resources are our strengths.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Councillor Harold Usher (Chair) Councillor Bill Armstrong Councillor Matt Brown Councillor Stephen Orser Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen Betty Mercier (Secretary) Mayor Joe Fontana (ex-officio)
PART 1 DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
PART 2 SCHEDULED ITEMS
4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS #1 to #9
4:10 p.m. DELEGATION -S. Cambria, 965 West Del Bourne – Rock Garden within the Public Boulevard COMMUNICATION #17
4:20 p.m. DELEGATION – M. Lake-Collins, Volunteer Committee to Museum London – Proposed Changes to the Museum London By-law COMMUNICATION #11
4:30 p.m. DELEGATION - M. Walker, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre – Request for City of London Policy to Prohibit the Leasing or Renting of City- Funded Space to Pornography Industry–Sponsored Events and a Request for the City of London to Ask the London Public Library Board to Reconsider Its Internet Service Policy COMMUNICATION #10
(CITY CLERK’S NOTE: Due to the explicit nature of the content of this communication, only a portion of the communication has been included on the published Agenda. A full copy of the communication has been provided to the Council Members for their consideration. Anyone else wishing a full copy of the communication may obtain one by emailing [email protected] , calling 519- 661-2500 Ext. 5396, or by visiting the City Clerk’s Office, Room 308, London City Hall.)
5:00 p.m. DELEGATION - Director, Parks and Recreation – Introduction to the Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan and 2009-2010 Accomplishments. COMMUNICATION #20
5:15 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING – Director, Environmental Programs & Solid Waste - Amendment to the Dog Licensing and Control By-law No. PH-4 COMMUNICATION #14
5:30 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING – Director, Environmental Programs & Solid Waste - Amendment to the Waste Management Fees and Charges By-law (WM-27) COMMUNICATION #16
1 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
C.N.C. - 2
5:45 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING – Executive Director, Community Services – Towards a Community Addiction and Mental Health Strategy for London.
6:00 p.m. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Updates on Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies COMMUNICATION #19
COMMITTEE RECONVENES AT CENTENNIAL HALL FOR A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING
7:00 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING – Raising Chickens in Poultry Pens within Residential Zones
7:15 p.m. L. Adams, 740 Valetta Street and G. Abayan-Dabuet, 172 West River Trace Walk
7:25 p.m. Advisory Committee on the Environment
7:30 p.m. A. Papmehl, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
7:35 p.m. M. Shepherd, 25 Argyle Street
7:40 p.m. L. Gerow, 172 West Rivertrace Walk
7:45 p.m. M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street
7:50 p.m. William O. Rosas, 1647 Kathryn Drive
7:55 p.m. S. ONeil, 534 Princess Avenue
8:00 p.m. Z. ONeil, 534 Princess Avenue
PART 3 CONSENT ITEMS
1. Dearness Services – Dearness Home Community Newsletter August – 2011.
(Secretary’s Note: A copy of the Dearness Home Newsletter - August 2011 is enclosed in Council member’s envelopes with a copy for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office.)
2. City Clerk – 5th Report of the London Housing Advisory Committee.
3. City Clerk – 7th Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
4. City Clerk – The 1,000 Acts of Kindness Challenge London Urban Services Organization.
5. Executive Director, Community Services – Introduction of Ontario211 Service to London-Implications for the City of London.
6. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Stewardship Ontario Funding of the City’s Household Special Waste Program.
7. Director, Building Controls and Chief Building Official – Taxi/Limousine By-law Review Extension of Limousine Vehicle Age.
8. Director of Municipal Housing – Child and Youth Network’s Policy Position Brief: A Housing Benefit for Families with Low Income.
9. Director of Municipal Housing – Convert-to-Rent/Rehabilitation Agreement 262 Clarence Street.
2 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
C.N.C. - 3
PART 4 ITEMS FOR DIRECTION
10. M. Walker, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre – Request for City of London Policy with Respect to Prohibition the Leasing or Renting of City Owned Space to Pornography Industry – Sponsored Events and a Request Related to the London Public Library Board’s Internet Policy.
11. (a) Chief Administrator Officer – Resubmitted – Museum London By-law
(b) M. Lake-Collins, Volunteer Committee to Museum London – Proposed Changes to the Museum London By-law
12. City Clerk – 8th Report of the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee
13. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Amendment to the Dog Licensing & Control By-law.
14. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Amendment to the Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By-law.
15. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Amendment to the Waste Management System Fees and Charges By-law.
16. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Rocks within the Public Boulevard at 965 Westdel Bourne.
17. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Municipal Partner Agreements for Blue Box Processing Services.
18. Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste – Updates on Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies.
19. Director of Parks and Recreation – Introduction to the Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan and 2009-2010 Accomplishments.
20. Raising Chickens in Poultry Pens within Residential Zones
(a) Councillor S. Orser – Kingston City Council Decision Regarding Backyard Chickens.
(b) L. Gerow, 172 West Rivertrace Walk – Backyard Chickens.
(c) M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street – Backyard Chickens.
(d) P. Reid, 1639 Scott Street – Backyard Chickens.
(e) A. Berchtold, 652 Elias Street – Backyard Chicken.
(f) A. Redmond, Submitted by e-mail – Backyard Chickens.
(g) O. Hobson, 45 Evergreen Avenue – Backyard Chickens.
(h) Rare Breeds Canada – Backyard Chickens.
(i) S. Price, 50 Forward Avenue – Backyard Chickens.
(j) J. Dunn, 1420 Westdel Bourne - Backyard Chickens.
(k) C. Murphy, 269 Taylor Street – Backyard Chickens.
(l) Dr. R. Harmsen, Queens University at Kingston – Backyard Chickens.
21. Kristi Bejczak, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of Canada – M&M National Family Dinner Night.
3 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
C.N.C. - 4
PART 5 DEFERRED MATTERS (not attached to this agenda)
PART 6 CONFIDENTIAL (No Confidential Appendix Included on this Agenda)
4 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
5TH REPORT OF THE
LONDON HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting scheduled on July 13, 2011, commencing at 12:15 p.m.
PRESENT: B. Sexsmith (Chair), K. Butler, D. Drennan, J. Stickling and S. Trosow and B. Mercier (Secretary).
ALSO PRESENT: J. Binder, G. Matthews, L. Stevens and N. Watson.
REGRETS: S. Courtice, M. Hardy-Trevenna, D. Peckham and P. Stewart.
I YOUR COMMITTEE REPORTS:
The meeting stood adjourned at 12:45 p.m. due to lack of quorum.
5 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
7th REPORT OF THE
ANIMAL WELFARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting held on July 26, 2011, commencing at 4:05 p.m.
PRESENT: E. Gerrow (Chair), D. A. Fortney, D. Harris, L. Jackson, J. Lalonde, W. L. MacKay, A. Papmehl, S. C. Rans, M. Shepherd, J. E. C. Symons, B. Warder, M. Warder and J. Martin, (Committee Secretary).
ALSO PRESENT: J. Stanford.
REGRETS: M. Blosh, V. Van Linden.
I YOUR COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Dog Parks 1. (A) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Sub- committee verbal report from J. Lalonde with respect to PCB’s in Pottersurg Creek, near the off leash dog park.
Breeders 2. (B) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) held a Sub- committee general discussion with respect to backyard breeders and puppy mills; it being noted that AWAC asked its Committee Secretary to provide past reports for the next meeting.
Wildlife Sub- 3. (C) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) held a committee general discussion with respect to the Class 7 animal listing of the Animal Control Bylaw. The AWAC supports a change to the by-law to allow Ministry of National Resources authorized wildlife custodians, within the City of London.
Deer Sub- 4. (D) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) held a committee general discussion with respect to the deer population. The AWAC asked that B. Bergsma, Ecologist Planner, be requested to provide an update on the current deer count and the status of the Deer Management Study.
Backyard 5. (2,11) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) held a Chickens general discussion with respect to animal welfare issues relating to the backyard chickens. The AWAC asked A. Papmehl to prepare a letter with the AWAC’s comments for the Backyard Chicken Public Participation Meeting (PPM), to be held August 16, and AWAC will send a delegation to the Backyard Chicken PPM, it being noted the AWAC reviewed and received a municipal council resolution adopted at its meeting June 20, 2011, with respect to this matter and reviewed and received the Overview of Policies and By-laws from other Municipalities that deal with Backyard Chickens.
Animal 6. (6) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) held a Services Program general discussion with respect to the Animal Services Program, it being noted that the AWAC reviewed and received a municipal council resolution adopted at its meeting June 20, 2011, with respect to this matter.
Feral Cat Day 7. (7) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a verbal presentation from M. Shepherd, and held a general discussion with respect to Feral Cat Day, October 16, 2011, and new initiatives for this event.
No More 8. (8) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Homeless Pets verbal presentation from M. Shepherd with respect to Bill Bruce as a speaker at Conference - the No More Homeless Pets Conference being held September 30, 2011 in Bill Bruce Toronto.
Strut Your 9. (9) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Mutt verbal presentation from M. Shepherd, with respect to Strut Your Mutt event and will discuss further at the next AWAC meeting.
6 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
AWAC – 2
Animal United 10. (10) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Nations – RedRover verbal presentation from M. Shepherd, with respect to the name change for Animal United Nations to RedRover.
Super 11. (Added) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Adoption Day verbal presentation from S. Rans with respect to the Super Adoption Day, noting that in 2010 the event was not well received. The AWAC asked that this matter be placed on its next agenda for further discussion.
Dog 12. (Added) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Licensing PPM verbal presentation from S. Rans advising that the Dog Licensing Public Participation Meeting (PPM) will be held August 16, 2011.
Dr. E. Attard 13. (Added) That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) heard a Presentation – Toronto verbal report from S. Rans, with respect to her upcoming meeting with Dr. E. Attard, Veterinarian, Toronto Animal Services.
14. That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) noted and filed the following:
6th Report of (a) (1) the 6th report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee from its the LDRRAC meeting held on July 26, 2011;
Newly Hired (b) (3) a Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on June Hearings Officers 20, 2011, with respect to newly hired Hearings Officers;
Terms of (c) (4) a Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on June Reference 20, 2011, with respect to the AWAC Terms of Reference; and,
Garbage (d) (5) a Municipal Council resolution adopted at its meeting held on June Collection Calendar 20, 2011, with respect to AWAC’s request related to the garbage collection calendar.
Next Meeting 15. That the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) will hold its next meeting on August 23, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
7 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 1
□ □
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY & NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011 FROM: CATHY SAUNDERS CITY CLERK
SUBJECT THE 1,000 ACTS OF KINDNESS CHALLENGE, LONDON URBAN SERVICES ORGANIZATION
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the Mayor BE AUTHORIZED to write a letter of support to the London Urban Services Organization (LUSO), for their 1,000 Acts of Kindness Challenge event, to encourage community members to take part in the challenge and help spread kindness throughout the City of London.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Agenda of the Community and Protective Services Committee – July 20, 2009 Agenda of the Community and Protective Services Committee – August 24, 2009
BACKGROUND
The City has received the attached letter dated June 16, 2011 from Meredith Fraser, Program Coordinator, Anti-Hate and Anti-Bias Program, on behalf of the 3rd Annual 1,000 Acts of Kindness Challenge, requesting continued support in making the annual event a success. Similar requests were received in 2009 with the following resolutions being passed by Council regarding this matter.
Municipal Council, at its meeting held on July 27, 2009, resolved:
“That „The 1,000 Acts of Kindness Challenge‟, initiated by the London Urban Services Organization (LUSO) to work toward the elimination of hatred in our community by promoting kindness as a positive alternative, BE SUPPORTED and community members BE ENCOURAGED to participate in this challenge; it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) reviewed and received a written communication, dated June 3, 2009, and heard a verbal presentation, from M. Fraser, Program Coordinator, Anti-Hate and Anti-Bias Program, LUSO, with respect to this matter.”
Municipal Council, at its meeting held on August 31, 2009 resolved:
“That on the recommendation of the Acting City Clerk, the Mayor BE AUTHORIZED to write a letter of support to the London Urban Services Organization (LUSO), for their 1,000 Acts of Kindness Challenge event, to encourage community members to take part in the challenge and help spread kindness throughout the City of London.”
RECOMMENDED BY:
CATHY SAUNDERS CITY CLERK
attachment /ds August 4, 2011 8 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office åott-t{oq-co
rr. j;:. íVlÀl r,rn ¡tltrc€, cttilr¡11 The Corporation of the City of London 300 Dufferin Avenue REcETvtD JUNIûZ0ll P.O. Box 5035 iefem{to London, Ontario Subseque¡n Rããñiã N6A 4L9 E For Àctlon For E For lnforrulon For His Worship J. Fontana,
for the Anti-Hate & Anti-Bias program at LUSO re dedicated to promoting the inclusiveness,
I
t am writing to request your supgortfor the.3d a1à,ta! The t_,000 Acts eif ) - a month-long, community;¡¡¡'6" event that was initiated in october 2009 kindness...one generous act at a time. ln that year, our community comp kindness in just one month; last year, past participants and- - supporters of !!e Challenge have incl e Thames V"fl"V Distr¡ct School Board, local Montesso Nonprofit Netwórk, My' Sisters' Place, and The Regional HIV/AIDS Connection, among others), Rogers TV, /A\, CBC Radio, and both local and national businesses. Literallythousands of people have committed to making our: city a more kind, more caring, and a morg welcoming place by participating in The 1,000 Acts of KindneJs Challénge for the pâst two years and we are excited host a successfulChallenge again this year!
demonstrate our commitment to compassion throuoh kind action!
ln 2009 and 2010, the City of London supported The 1,000 Acts of Kindness since 2009 through letters of support, Mayoral participation ties, an is). ln your iole as community leader an reqge.g mãf¡né the third annual,1,000,Acts of cceËsit willdelhre thè month of October as "Kindness Month" in the City of London for 2011. Rogers Tetevision is willing to capture this declaration in a short (1-2 minute) PSA that would be filmed in August andlcreened during statioñ breaks leading up to the Challenge and posted on the Challenge website. Additional opportunities for Chãllenge support indudJ- but are not limited to - the following: o City of London participation in the Challenge (at the cnrporate and/or departmental levels) \ . Awareness-raising campaigns - such as intranet prornotion of the Challenge to City of London emþloyees . Sponsorship of/participation in the Challenge lauhch event on October 1
To set up a meeting todiscus.s,these opportunities in more detail or to address any questions that you may have, please contact me via þhone at (519) 452-1466 or via e-mail at [email protected] t Thank yoa for y-our consideration and for your ongoing- to creatinO a vibr¿St€$l¿, compassion6[e, 269 kind, and hate-free community through your suppãrt õt "o-rrit."nttf¡¡s fantastic initiative! Subiect Sincerely,
Meredith Fraser, M.4., Ph.D Program Coordinator, Anti-Hate and Anti-Bias Program LUSO Community Services Cc: Elisabete Rodrigues, Executive Director,
3Å 452- THIRTY YEAR,S SRVINGOUR , COMMUNITY
9 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
CHAIR AND MEMBERS TO: COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
ROSS L. FAIR FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTRODUCTION OF ONTARIO211 SERVICE TO LONDON SUBJECT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF LONDON
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following actions BE TAKEN:
a) City Council ENDORSE the introduction of 211 Service in London; b) The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include provision for a City share of funding of the 211 Service in the 2012 budget for consideration; c) The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor the implementation and success of the 211 service in London with annual reporting back to Committee and Council on an annual basis
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, June 14th 2011 - delegation
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 14th 2011, the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee heard a delegation on the introduction of Ontario 211 Services by Andrew Lockie, CEO of the United Way of London-Middlesex; Martha Powell, CEO of the London Community Foundation and Bill Morris of Ontario211. The Committee referred the matter to the civic administration for consideration and a report back at a future meeting of the CNC.
For reference, a copy of the slide deck presented by the delegation is attached to this report as Appendix A.
Comments from the Civic Administration:
Providing timely, relevant and accessible points of contact for residents seeking information about municipal and other services has been a important topic for Council and the civic administration over the past several years and has been a priority for this Council. The civic administration is continuing its review of service delivery options including 311. Council has also endorsed a recommendation from the City Manager to explore strategic opportunities with Service Ontario for the provision of not only information services but also transactional services.
The intent of Ontario211 is to serve as “an information and referral service (helpline and website) that will provide residents of the city of London and the communities of Middlesex County with reliable information on social services. 211 services are free to use, confidential and provide residents with access to thousands of organizations.”
Several City-led initiatives have identified “system navigation” as key challenges for residents to access social services, including Age Friendly London and the Child and Youth Agenda. Ontario211 is positioned to assist with these challenges.
10 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
As with any information and referral service, there will be several factors that will be critical to its success:
Ease of access for the user Completeness and reliability of the service data Ability of the service provider to process information requests in a timely way to have the ability to communicate with a wide spectrum of callers, many of whom will be in crisis situations.
The City of Windsor, via its 311 call centre operation, has been selected to deliver Ontario211 services for Southwestern Ontario, including the City of London and Middlesex County. Local data for “211 London Middlesex” will be provided to the 211 Call Centre, Windsor, through a data sharing agreement with Information London/thehealhline,ca Information Network.
It is anticipated 211 London Middlesex will be operational in November, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 211 Services Corporation is primarily funded by the Province of Ontario. It has received funding to fulfill its mandate for Province wide coverage by the end of 2012. Costs include those of the corporation itself, as well as the call centres which require staff, training and ongoing data maintenance. A number of other funders, including municipalities, are already funding a portion of 211 services in their respective communities.
City of London will not be required to do so to initiate the roll out of the service locally, which presumably would entail additional funding to increase the capacity of the Windsor 311 call centre to handle the increased service volume.
The administration has been advised that the 211 Services Corporation is “finalizing” an investment model that will include contributions from both government and community. It is our understanding that Ontario 211 uses a standardized funding model consisting of $1 per capita per year for each municipality served, based on a 20% penetration rate. Costs would escalate based on call volume. Estimates suggest a 15% – 20% penetration to begin.
The 211 Services Corporation retained Deloitte to develop a proposed funding model for annual costs as follows:
o Province 60% o Municipality: 20% o United Way: 10% o Federal Government: 10%
The funding model varies greatly amongst the communities and currently no one adheres to the above formula. Some municipalities for example have covered the total costs of implementation.
Committee heard from the delegates that the extent of this cost is not precisely known but is expected to be in the range of $84,000 annually once the fully anticipated ongoing use is met, which will likely take some time.
Using the Deloitte model the estimated budget pressure for City of London would be $70,000 per year (20% of 350,000) for 211 service.
Area municipalities or local entities would appear to be responsible for preparing information on services (the data set) for use by Ontario 211 via a data sharing agreement. The Community Services Department currently provides annual funding of $20,000 on a service agreement with Michael Robbins to load local data on the provincial “Healthline.”
11 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ BENEFITS AND RISKS:
The need to provide system navigation for social services in our City is well supported. The 211 Services Corporation has built a provincial model that appears to be doing well in other areas of the Province. The Windsor 311 Call Centre is well-established and so would seem to have the capacity to deliver timely services to our residents. The local data collection work via the Healthline is also well-established. The cost sharing model with all orders of government, the United Way and the London Community Foundation all contributing seems workable.
From a risk perspective, the London and Middlesex communities will need to rely on the ability of City of Windsor workers to be very knowledgeable about local needs and services. The capacity of the service will also be directly related to the ability and interest of Windsor City Council to continue to fund and operate its own 311 Call Centre. If there is a decision to down size or close the Call Centre, our community will cease to have access to the service.
Should City Council decide to implement a London 311 Call Centre or a similar capacity emerges out of discussions with Service Ontario it follows that building capacity to handle local 211 calls would seem logical, however, it is not clear whether the 211 Services Corporation would be amenable to amending its arrangements.
CONCLUSION:
The need for 211 services for London is well-established and it would appear that the 211 Services Corporation has built a model that will be effective and efficient, even if London’s calls will be answered by City of Windsor staff. The funding model appears to be reasonable and assumes a broad sharing of costs across government and NGO funders. What is not clear is the long term viability of the 211 Services Model should other municipalities develop 311 capability or should Service Ontario indicate it has capacity to take on this service.
The civic administration is recommending that London City Council endorse the roll out of 211 service for the City of London; that the civic administration make provision for the anticipated London share of the costs in the 2012 budget; and that the administration monitor and report back to Committee on the implementation and success of the 211 initiative on an annual basis.
RECOMMENDED BY:
Ross L. Fair Executive Director Department of Community Services
CC: Bill Rayburn, CAO, Middlesex County Andrew Lockie, CEO, United Way of London and Middlesex Martha Powell, CEO, London Community Foundation Bill Morris, Ontario211 Corporation
12 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ APPENDIX A
13 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
14 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
15 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
16 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
17 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
18 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
19 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
20 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
21 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
22 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
23 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
24 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
25 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
26 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. DIRECTOR- ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT: STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO FUNDING OF THE CITY’S HOUSEHOLD SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the attached proposed By-law (Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of August 29, 2011 to approve a new agreement with Stewardship Ontario for funding of the City‟s Household Special Waste Program.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca include:
Extension of Household Special Waste Recycling and Disposal Service (May 17, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC), Agenda Item #7) Extension of Household Special Waste Recycling and Disposal Service (January 18, 2011 meeting of the CNC, Agenda Item #6) Extension of Household Special Waste Recycling and Disposal Service (July 21, 2010 meeting of the Board of Control, Agenda Item #11) Update: Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (May 10, 2010 meeting of Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC), Agenda Item #13) Interim Business Plan For The Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (January 11, 2010 meeting of ETC, Agenda Item #11) Update on Household Special Waste Program and Agreements (November 10, 2008 meeting of the ETC, Agenda Item #2)
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to enter into a new agreement with Stewardship Ontario for funding of the City‟s Household Special Waste (HSW) program.
CONTEXT
Until June 30, 2008, municipalities were responsible for all aspects of collecting and management of Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste (MHSW).
Beginning July 1, 2008 Stewards (companies responsible for bringing MHSW into the market place) became responsible for recycling/disposal costs associated with nine MHSW materials. Municipalities still remained responsible for the collection of these nine materials as well as collection and recycling/disposal of all other MHSW materials.
On July 1, 2010, full Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was extended to 22 MHSW materials which represent almost all of the materials received at the HSW Depot except for used oil. Under full EPR, the Stewards (through Stewardship Ontario – SO) are entirely responsible for dealing with left over MHSW product and empty containers including collection and recycling/disposal costs.
27 of 2171 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
Some Stewards introduced “eco-fees” on their products to cover the MHSW costs associated with their products. This led to a backlash from consumers and caused the Provincial Government to revise the MHSW program in October 2010.
Under the revised MHSW program the costs of some of the materials that were added to the program on July 1, 2010 will become the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment (e.g., fire extinguishers, rechargeable batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, sharps, mercury- containing devices and pharmaceuticals) and the cost of some materials will remain with municipalities (e.g., aerosol containers, some pesticides). The revised MHSW program funding took effect on July 1, 2011.
The approximate cost sharing between the City of London, the Stewards and the Province under each of the different EPR structures is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Estimate Cost Sharing for Different EPR Structures Period London Stewards Province Up to June 30, 2008a 100% 0% 0% July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010b 75% 25% 0% July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 – Original Programc 10% 90% 0% July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 – Revised Programd 10% 60% 30% After July 1, 2011 – Revised Programe 30% 45% 25% Notes a) All materials responsibility of municipality. b) Stewards responsible for post-collection costs of 9 materials representing approximately 50% of materials handled at London‟s HSW Depot. c) Stewards responsible for collection and post-collection costs of 22 materials representing approximately 80% of materials handled (all materials except used oil) and 90% of the costs. Used oil generates revenue and therefore is less expensive to handle than the other materials. d) Province assumed responsibility for some of the materials that were added to the program on July 1, 2010 and other materials that were added to the program on July 1, 2011 became the responsibility of the municipality. The Province agreed to temporarily cover the cost of the materials that the municipalities were responsible. e) Stewards responsible for collection and post-collection costs of 9 materials representing approximately 50% of materials and 60% of the costs of the materials handled at London‟s HSW Depot. The proposed funding agreement covers 45% of the HSW depots costs. Province is responsible for collection and post-collection costs of approximately 20% of materials handled (25% of costs) and the City is responsible for collection and post-collection costs of approximately 30% of materials handled.
DISCUSSION
Agreement with SO The proposed agreement from SO to engage the City of London to manage the nine MHSW materials the Stewards are still responsible for is provided in Appendix A. The agreement has been reviewed by Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, Legal Services and Risk Management.
Highlights of the MHSW agreement are:
payments of approximately $120,000 per year to the City to provide MHSW collection services (this covers the majority of the operating costs associated with collecting the nine MHSW materials the Stewards are responsible for; it does not cover capital costs nor administration costs) 100% of all post collection (recycling/disposal) costs for the nine MHSW materials the Stewards are responsible for Additional funding will be available for promotion and education
As noted in Table 1, the new EPR structure and agreement with SO will result in the portion of MHSW costs the City is responsible for increasing from 10% to 30% as of July 1, 2011. This is because the City will be responsible for more materials and, as noted above, the new agreement with the Stewards for the materials they are responsible for does not cover all of the operating costs or the capital and administration costs.
28 of 2172 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
This will increase costs to the City by $60,000 in 2011 and $120,000 in 2012. As a result of previous announcements on this matter, the increase costs had previously been incorporated into the 2011 budget and have been incorporated into the 2012 draft budget.
The proposed agreement still provides significant funding towards the City‟s HSW programs and it is recommended that the City sign the agreement.
Agreement with Province The Province is now responsible for 20% of the materials handled at the HSW depot. It is expected that the Province will engage not-for-profit organization to look at management of the materials they are responsible for and that the City will sign an agreement with this organization to provide services on their behalf. There is no public timeline outlining when this may occur.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with assistance from David Mounteer, Solicitor; Joy Jackson, Manager and Mike Losee, Manager, Solid Waste Engineering.
PREPARED BY:
WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 07 New MHSW Funding Agreement.doc
Appendix A: By-law to approve a New Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Service Agreement with Stewardship Ontario c. John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer Martin Hayward, City Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer Chris Traini, County Engineer, County of Middlesex David Pearce, Director, Channel Management MHSW, Stewardship Ontario
29 of 2173 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
APPENDIX A
Bill No. 2011
By-law No.
A By-law to approve a New Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Service Agreement regarding funding for the City of London‟s Household Special Waste Program with Stewardship Ontario; and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement.
WHEREAS subsection 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS subsection 10 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended provides that a municipality may provide any service or thing that the municipality considers necessary or desirable for the public, and may pass by-laws respecting same, and respecting economic, social and environmental well-being of the City, and the health, safety and well-being of persons;
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. The New Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Service Agreement to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and Stewardship Ontario regarding funding for the City of London‟s Household Special Waste Program, attached hereto as Schedule „A‟ to this By-law, is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute the Agreement approved under section 1 of this by-law.
3. This by-law shall come into force and effect on the day it is passed.
PASSED in Open Council on August 29, 2011
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk
First reading – Second reading – Third reading –
30 of 2174 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
31 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
32 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
33 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
34 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
35 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
36 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
37 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
38 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
39 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
40 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
41 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
42 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
43 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
44 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
45 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
46 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
47 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
48 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
49 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
50 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
51 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
52 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
53 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
54 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
55 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
56 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
57 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
58 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
59 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
60 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
61 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
62 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
63 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
64 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
65 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
66 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
67 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
68 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
69 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
70 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
71 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
72 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
73 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
74 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page #
□ □
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: G. KOTSIFAS, P. ENG. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING CONTROLS AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: TAXI/LIMOUSINE BY-LAW REVIEW – EXTENSION OF LIMOUSINE VEHICLE AGE
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director of Building Controls, the attached report requesting amendment to the current Taxicab & Limousine Licensing By-law L-126-256 in order to extend the age of limousines from 6 years of age to 7 BE RECEIVED for information purposes, and that the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee provide direction as identified in the report.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
April 26, 2010 – Taxi/Limousine By-law Review – ETC
June 7, 2010 – Summary of May 2010 Workshop – ETC
December 14, 2010 – Policy Options – CNC
June 19, 2011 – Taxi/Limousine By-law Review Proposed By-law - CNC
BACKGROUND
Municipal Council, at its session held on July 25, 2011 resolved:
“that the Director of Building Controls and Chief Building Official report back at the August meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee on the by-law requirements of the age of vehicles and the timing of the public participation meeting in November."
The current by-law includes a limousine age restriction of six years. During the development and review of the proposed by-law, the London Checker Limousine Brokers and Drivers Association made a request to amend the current Taxicab & Limousine Licensing By-law L-126- 256 in order to extend the age of limousines from 6 years of age to 7. There are approximately 18 limousines with this age requirement scheduled to be replaced by the October 31, 2011 renewal date in order to meet compliance.
The draft by-law, which is proposed to become effective March 1, 2012, sets the age limit for limousines to 6 years old, the same as the current by-law. The rationale for this proposal is that customers using executive limousines for transportation services expect a high degree of comfort and service. Other than cost savings for the limousine owner, there is no rationale to increase the age restriction of limousines.
Notwithstanding the above, a future public participation meeting is to be held in November 2011, the month after the required renewal date. Should Committee wish to consider options to extend the age of limousines beyond 6 years, until such time as the new by-law comes into effect, (anticipated to be in March 2012) then the following recommendation could be adopted: “That the Director of Building Controls and Chief Building Official be directed to report back to a Community and Neighbourhoods Committee public participation meeting in
1 75 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page #
□ □
September 2011 to consider options to amend the current Taxicab & Limousine Licensing By-law L-126-256 to allow the age of limousines to be extended beyond 6 years until such time as the new by-law comes into effect.”
Any proposed options will require a by-law amendment to the current by-law. Staff would introduce a by-law for consideration at a public participation meeting to be held in September 2011. This would provide sufficient time for adoption prior to October 31, 2011.
CONCLUSION
Should the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee wish to consider options to extend the age of limousines beyond 6 years, until such time as the new by-law comes into effect, staff would prepare options, with corresponding draft by-law(s), to amend the current Taxicab & Limousine Licensing By-law L-126-256 for consideration at a September 2011 public participation meeting.
PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
G. KOTSIFAS, P.ENG. PAT McNALLY, P.ENG. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING CONTROLS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES
cc: J. Smout , City Solicitors Office
2 76 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ CHAIR AND MEMBERS TO: COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011 LYNNE LIVINGSTONE FROM: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CHILD AND YOUTH NETWORK’S POLICY POSITION BRIEF: A HOUSING BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES WITH LOW INCOME
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood and Children’s Services, with the concurrence of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following actions BE TAKEN:
i. The Child and Youth Network’s policy position brief: “A Housing Benefit for Families with Low Income” attached hereto as Appendix A, BE ENDORSED by City Council, it being noted that this would be a new provincially funded benefit program.
ii. The position paper BE SUBMITTED to The Honourable Frances Lankin, P.C. and Dr. Munir Sheikh, Commissioners for the Review of Social Assistance Review in Ontario and to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration in the implementation and roll out of Ontario’s Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
. Child and Youth Network’s Position Paper: “Clearing the Path out of Poverty”… Step 2: Immediate Policy Changes to the Ontario Disability Support Program (May 30, 2011) . London Community Housing Strategy (June, 2010) . Child and Youth Network’s Position Paper: First Steps to “Clearing the Path out of Poverty” … (February 8, 2010) . Child and Youth Agenda (October 6, 2008)
BACKGROUND
In December 2008, City Council endorsed the Child and Youth Agenda (CYA), a London-based initiative to improve outcomes for children, youth and families. The Child and Youth Agenda’s vision of “Happy, healthy children and youth today; caring, creative, responsible adults tomorrow”, is driven by over 140 local organizations that comprise the Child and Youth Network (CYN). The four main priorities of the CYA are: Ending poverty; Promoting healthy eating and healthy physical activity; Improving literacy; and, Creating an integrated system of services that support children, youth and families.
To end poverty, the Child and Youth Network is striving to reduce the proportion of London families who are living in ”All Londoners deserve to have meaningful poverty by 25% in five years and by 50% in ten years. To opportunities to participate in and contribute accomplish this, the Network’s Ending Poverty to our community… Social policies should not be Implementation Team has developed a 3 year action plan: “band-aid” approaches that simply help people to pay the bills, but should promote Increase awareness and engage the community; opportunities for long-term self-sufficiency”. Reduce the impact of poverty and make day-to-day life better; and, (London's Social Policy Framework, 2006) Break the cycle and stop the next generation from living in poverty.
77 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Poverty cannot be solved locally. All orders of government play an integral role in reducing poverty. The Child and Youth Network’s Ending Poverty Implementation Team advocates on behalf of all children, youth and families in London living in poverty.
This policy position brief follows two previous policy position papers:
1. First Steps to “Clearing the Path Out of Poverty”…The City of London’s Child and Youth Network Position Paper Recommending Immediate Policy Changes to the Ontario Works Program
2. “Clearing the Path Out of Poverty”...Step 2: Immediate Policy Changes to the Ontario Disability Support Program
The purpose of this report is to:
1. Share the recommendations contained in “A Housing Benefit for Families with Low Income”.
2. Seek endorsement to submit the paper to The Honourable Frances Lankin, P.C. and Dr. Munir Sheikh, Commissioners for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario. Input into the first stage of this review is due September 2011. This input will be incorporated into an Options Paper to be released in late fall 2011, with final recommendations delivered to the provincial government in June 2012.
3. Seek endorsement to submit the paper to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration in the implementation and roll out of Ontario’s Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy.
Why was the policy position brief developed?
This policy brief paper was developed as part of the Child “Housing affordability is relative to the amount and Youth Network’s work to end poverty in London. It is of income that a household has. It is generally our position that the recommended Housing Benefit will recognized that renters who spend 30% or help make housing more affordable for people with low more of their gross household income on rent income. In addition, it would relieve some of the pressure have affordability issues, and those that are on the social housing system as it can provide rapid spending 50% or more of their gross household access to housing. income on housing are at risk of homelessness.“
Almost 17,000 - close to one third - of all renter (London’s Community Housing Strategy – households in London live in housing that is not Questions and Answers) affordable, suitable or adequate (Statistics Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). Almost 25,000 renters are paying 30 per cent or more of their income on rent. Of those, 45 per cent (11,000) are paying at least half of their income on shelter.
A Housing Benefit is income assistance that is provided directly to individuals and families with low income who have a high shelter to income ratio. Ontario's Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy (2011) commits to exploring a new Housing Benefit. London’s Community Housing Strategy (2010) commits to seeking additional rent subsidies and supplements, giving consideration to these being portable, or attached to the individual, rather than attached to the property. A Housing Benefit program delivered in the same way as the Ontario Child Benefit program - through the tax system - can help to make housing more stable and affordable relatively quickly and efficiently.
A Housing Benefit is not intended to replace existing programs. It is intended to broaden and diversify the affordable housing portfolio. While the existing programs help, barriers to affordable housing remain.
How was the policy position brief developed?
Members of London’s Child and Youth Network, Ending Poverty Implementation Team researched and contributed to this Housing Benefit policy position brief. The brief has been shared with the London Homeless Coalition, London’s Advocates Committee, and interested community members for feedback and comment.
London’s Child and Youth Network has endorsed the attached policy position brief.
78 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ What are we recommending?
Our six recommendations flow from recommendations endorsed in the London’s Community Housing Strategy, specifically, to:
Advocate for changes that will remove disincentives to work and increase stability in the transition from receiving assistance to being employed (3.2); and,
Provide additional rent subsidies and supplements, giving consideration to all rent subsidies and supplements being attached to the individual, not the property (3.12).
We recommend:
1. a Housing Benefit outside of social assistance intended to stabilize the affordable housing needs of people with low incomes who are struggling with housing costs and to help them move to employment and community engagement;
2. that the social assistance policies exempt income received from the Housing Benefit so that individuals and families receiving social assistance may have additional income to pay for their housing;
3. that the Housing Benefit Working Group’s proposal be considered as a working model but that the maximum rent amounts proposed be based on family composition as well as family size and that local shelter costs be considered in order to reflect the current cost of renting from the private market;
4. a coordinated approach to the opportunities available under the Canada Ontario Affordable Housing Program and the Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy to enable a Housing Benefit Program in London. The Housing Benefit Program may be incorporated into the London Community Housing Strategy;
5. that funding the Housing Benefit not result in further delays in addressing the needs of public and social housing providers and the many families and individuals who live in Rent Geared to Income housing in regard to the shelter portion of social assistance benefits; and,
6. that the Child and Youth Network’s policy brief, “A Housing Benefit for Families with Low Income”, be sent to the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario for consideration in their review of social assistance and to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for consideration in the implementation and roll out of Ontario’s Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy.
Next Steps
Upon endorsement by City Council, the position paper will be submitted to the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario and to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
CONCLUSION
The Child and Youth Network is dedicated to finding creative ways and advocating to all orders of government to end poverty in London. Members will continue to advocate for policy changes to help Londoners become financially stable and break the cycle of poverty. By working together, we will make London a great place to live and raise a family.
79 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the City of London 2011 budget.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the work done by the members of the Child and Youth Network, particularly the Income Security Working Group of the Ending Poverty Implementation Team.
SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDED BY:
Cheryl Smith Lynne Livingstone, Director Manager, Community Partnerships & Funding Neighbourhood and Children Services Department of Community Services Department of Community Services
CONCURRED BY:
Ross L. Fair Executive Director Department of Community Services cc: Martin Hayward, City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer Louise Stevens, Director, Municipal Housing Anna Lisa Barbon, Manager, Financial & Business Services Judith Binder, District Manager, Southwestern Ontario, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Tony Brutto, Senior Housing Advisor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Melissa Thomson, Director – Housing Policy Branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
80 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ APPENDIX A
81 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # □ □
82 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
83 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY & NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: L. STEVENS DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL HOUSING
SUBJECT: CONVERT-TO-RENT/REHABILITATION AGREEMENT 262 CLARENCE STREET
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director of Municipal Housing, with the concurrence of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following actions BE TAKEN with regard to the Convert-to-Rent/Rehabilitation project at 262 Clarence Street in London, which was approved by Municipal Council on March 8, 2010:
i) in accordance with Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law No A.-5814-11, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council on August 29, 2011, to authorize a Municipal Contribution Agreement substantially in the form of an agreement appended to the by-law and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and,
ii) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the said Agreement.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
COUNCIL HOUSING LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE
February 9, 2010 – Convert-to-Rent/ Rehabilitation Program at 262 Clarence Street
BACKGROUND
The Convert-To-Rent/Rehabilitation (CTR/Rehab) Assistance Program includes rehabilitation of existing rental units and special needs modifications. The rents for units approved under the CTR/Rehab Program are set at 80% of the Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (CMHC) Average Market Rents established annually in October. The City of London funding under the CTR/Rehab Program is a maximum of $24,000 per unit.
Municipal Contribution Agreement
As part of the City of London commitment to the Canada-Ontario Community Rental Housing Program, on May 20, 2003, Municipal Council approved a Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law and resolved that project specific agreements under the Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law be prepared for approval by Municipal Council.
Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law No. A.-5814-11 outlines the required contents of the contribution agreement with affordable housing proponents. The Convert-To-Rent Municipal Contribution Agreement (MCA) with successful proponents must be registered on title.
New Agreement Required
A proposal from Vernon Martin for the property at 262 Clarence Street, under the Convert-to- Rent/Rehabilitation Program, was approved by Council on March 8, 2010 and a Municipal Contribution Agreement was entered into with Vernon Martin for the property at 262 Clarence Street for a total of $60,000.
Recently, Vernon Martin sold 50% of the ownership of this property to his father, Mr. George Martin. A new Municipal Contribution Agreement has been created to reflect this new partnership.
84 of 217
Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page #
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The costs with respect to discharging the original MCA and the registration of the new MCA on title will be borne by the proponent.
PREPARED BY: CONCURRED BY:
LOUISE STEVENS ROSS L. FAIR DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL HOUSING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
cc. N. Watson, Housing Development Consultant J. Binder, District Manager, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation D. Mounteer, Solicitor
85 of 217
Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page #
By-law No.
A by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (the City) and Vernon Martin and George Martin (the Proponent) for the purpose of establishing the Proponent’s obligations under the Convert-to- Rent/Rehabilitation Program and the City’s obligation to provide funding to the Proponent; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
WHEREAS section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of London (the City) is responsible for the delivery and administration of affordable housing initiatives including affordable rental housing programs, convert-to- rent programs and other initiatives;
AND WHEREAS the Proponent has responded to the procurement process initiated by the City to undertake development activities in return for funding;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient for the City to enter into an agreement with the Proponent for the purpose of establishing the Proponent’s obligations with respect to the Convert-to- Rent/Rehabilitation Program and the City’s obligation to provide funding to the Proponent;
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. An agreement between the City and the Proponent for the purpose of establishing the Proponent’s obligations with respect to the Convert-to-Rent/Rehabilitation Program and the City’s obligation to provide funding to the Proponent be hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and the City Clerk be hereby authorized to execute the agreement approved in section 1, above, substantially in the form of agreement attached to this by-law and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
3. This by-law shall come into force and effect on the day it is passed.
PASSED in Open Council on , 2011.
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk First reading –
86 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
CITY OF LONDON CONVERT-TO-RENT / REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT DATED the day of September, 2011
Between: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON (the “City”)
OF THE FIRST PART:
-AND-
VERNON MARTIN and GEORGE MARTIN (the “Borrower”)
OF THE SECOND PART:
WHEREAS By-Law No. A.-5814-11, the Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law, (the By- Law), permits the City to make a loan to an owner of a rental property and forgive the total or partial repayment of the loan, provided that the owner has entered into an agreement with the City that conforms to the By-Law, its Regulations, and pursuant to the conditions attached to the loan and those included in this document;
AND WHEREAS the Borrower has requested a loan by a letter dated the 28th day of January 2010, and whereas the City has agreed to grant a forgivable loan to be earned over the term of this agreement, provided that the Borrower complies with prescribed conditions;
AND WHEREAS the Borrower is to undertake and complete all mandatory health and safety repairs to all non-eligible units and common areas and to undertake and complete the conversion and/or rehabilitation of the existing building into self-contained rental units, (the “Property”), situated at: Plan NIL PT Lot 5, N/W Horton St as in LC90556, City of London, County of Middlesex, known municipally as 262 Clarence Street, London, Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the City has agreed to give a forgivable loan to the Borrower provided that during the term of this agreement, six (6) units in the Property will be rented to tenants who spend less than thirty percent of their family income on rent and who have incomes below the Established Income Thresholds established from time to time by the City of London.
THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration given by the Borrower to the City (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged) the parties, covenant and agree as follows:
1. FORGIVABLE LOAN
The City agrees to grant to the Borrower a forgivable loan in the amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) which loan shall be fully forgivable by the City if the Borrower complies with the terms of the conditions in this agreement. The obligation to repay this loan will be reduced by 1/20 of the loan amount in each year of the term until forgiven or until the Borrower is required to repay the loan in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
2. RENT
(a)The Borrower shall provide affordable rental units that do not exceed the CMHC average market rent. Rents will remain affordable for a period of twenty years, including a 5 year phase out period. The CMHC „average market rents‟ are adjusted to include utilities. Maximum affordable rents for 2010 will be set as follows:
Unit Description 80% CMHC AMR Established Income Threshold
1 Bedroom Unit $540 $32,400 2 Bedroom Unit $675 $40,500
1 87 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
The above rents represent the maximum rent levels for units under this program.
(b)The rents as outlined in 2(a) will be inclusive of heat and water. Rents are exclusive of parking, telephone, cable and other similar fees. The completion date is estimated to be September 30, 2010. Qualified Households for each Unit shall be those households with annual income not in excess of the Established Income Thresholds herein for each Unit.
(c) In subsequent years while this Agreement is in force, the Borrower may implement rent increases that are no greater than those allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, or any successor legislation, rent guideline published annually. Where rent increases above this level are necessary because of increases in the eligible operating expenses, a Revenue and Expense Statement and a Projected Budget must be submitted to the City Housing Division. These statements are required at least four months prior to the effective date of the proposed rental increase. The City may request additional information to substantiate the requested rent increase. Upon review of the information supplied, the City, at its sole discretion, may approve the proposed rent increase in whole or in part. The increase will be the lower amount approved by the City or allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, or successor legislation.
(d) Following the full completion of the conversion and/or rehabilitation work related to the property, the Borrower shall annually on the anniversary date of the signing of this agreement, submit to the City of London Housing Division a completed „Project Owner‟s Annual Report‟ on the form attached hereto as Schedule “A”.
3. PHASE-OUT PERIOD
(a)The Phase-out Period means the last five (5) years of this agreement.
(b)During the Phase-out Period, the Borrower shall not increase the rent charged to in-situ tenants of units by more than the rent guideline increase permitted under section 2(c).
(c)Upon a unit becoming vacant during the Phase-out Period, the Borrower may rent the unit to a new tenant at any rent agreed to by the Borrower and the new tenant.
4. AFTER PHASE-OUT PERIOD
After the end of the Phase-out Period, the Borrower shall be permitted to rent units to new tenants at rents agreed to by the Borrower and the new tenants.
5. DEFAULT REPAYMENT
Should the Borrower be in default under the terms of the loan or under the terms of this Agreement or under the terms of any mortgage or other encumbrance registered on title to the Property, the City shall have the right to declare all or part of the unearned portion of the forgivable loan due and payable immediately. Interest will be payable only from the date of default until the loan is paid in full. The interest rate shall be the Bank of Canada Prime Rate plus 2% in effect at the time of the loan default.
The amount of the forgivable loan that must be repaid is equal to the total amount of the forgivable loan less any amount considered forgiven from the first day of the month following the payment of funds until the date of default.
6. LEASING
In the event the tenant in an assisted unit vacates the unit, the Borrower shall ensure the total household income of the new tenant of the unit is at or below the applicable income threshold.
Confirmation of the new tenant(s) name, household size and total household income completed by the tenant before occupancy must be retained by the Borrower for the term of this agreement.
2 88 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Where the Borrower and/or immediate family member moves into one of the assisted rental units, the unearned pro rata portion of the forgivable loan applicable to the rental unit is to be repaid, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 above. A legitimate and arms length Borrower/tenant relationship must exist.
Units shall be made available during the first year following completion of conversion work to individuals and families on the City Housing Access Centre Waiting List, subject to their ability to pay affordable rent for the available unit.
7. VACANT UNIT
If the Borrower is unable to locate a tenant with income below the established income threshold, the Borrower shall notify the City immediately. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the forfeiture of assistance.
8. FORFEITURE OF ASSISTANCE
During the term of this agreement, the number of units rented to tenants who have incomes at or below the Established Income Threshold, must be maintained at the original number stated in this agreement. In the event this requirement is not met, the unearned portion of the forgivable loan for any assisted unit(s) not rented to tenants meeting the established income thresholds becomes immediately due and payable in accordance with section 5.
9. DISCRIMINATION
The Borrower agrees, in the renting of the Property, not to discriminate against any person by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, a conviction for which a pardon has been granted, or other reason in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c.H.19, as amended from time to time.
10. MAINTENANCE
The Borrower shall be responsible for ensuring that the units are maintained to a minimum level of health and safety.
11. MONITORING
The Borrower shall retain the verification of income from tenants and other such records in a form satisfactory to the City and shall permit the City to have access to the Property and to inspect such records at any reasonable time. The Borrower will supply information as may be requested by the City to confirm adherence to this agreement.
12. SALE OF PROPERTY
The Borrower agrees to notify the City in writing at least twenty (20) working days prior to the closing date of any sale of the Property.
The Borrower covenants that any purchaser of the Property shall agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall execute a new agreement in this form before consent to the sale in writing may be given by the City. Rent increases will continue to be permitted in accordance with the terms of the original agreement. No increase in rents will be permitted at the time of sale.
In the event that the Property is sold or otherwise disposed of without the prior knowledge and written consent of the City, the Borrower shall be considered to be in default and any unearned loan forgiveness shall become due and payable immediately, together with accrued interest thereon calculated from the date of sale. The interest shall be the Bank of Canada Prime Rate Plus 2% in effect at the time of the loan default.
3 89 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
13. MORTGAGE POSTPONEMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, postponement of the Convert-To-Rent / Rehabilitation Assistance Program loan mortgage security will be considered only under the following conditions and at the sole discretion of the City:
Mortgage rollover; - to permit renewal of an existing prior mortgage at current market rates, - to permit refinancing of a prior mortgage(s) to obtain more favourable terms in respect of interest rate, monthly payments, to finance, at rates of no greater than the current market, cost market, cost overrun or the cost of repairs; and - to facilitate the making of such advances on a prior registered mortgage which was not fully advanced at the time of registration of the Convert-To- Rent / Rehabilitation Assistance Program loan mortgage provided such prior mortgage has not been increased, - Such other reasons as may be agreed to by the City.
City approval will be subject to a review to ensure continued viability of the project and to ensure monthly payments after additional financing do not result in excessive rent increases.
Postponements, including upon sale of the property, will not be approved where equity is being withdrawn.
14. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall continue in force for a period of 20 years from the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said parties hereto have caused these presents to be signed on the day and year first above-mentioned.
SIGNED, SEALED AND THE CORPORATION OF DELIVERED THE CITY OF LONDON
Per: ______
Joe Fontana, Mayor
Per: ______
Catharine Saunders, City Clerk
VERNON MARTIN and GEORGE MARTIN
Per: ______
Vernon Martin, Property Owner
Per: ______
George Martin, Property Owner
We have authority to bind the Corporation.
4 90 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
SCHEDULE “A”
Project Owner’s Annual Report
City of London Convert-To-Rent / Rehabilitation Assistance Program
A. Property Information
Current Reporting Period:
Contribution Agreement Start Date:
Contribution Agreement Expiry Date:
Contribution Agreement Phase-Out Period:
Initial Occupancy Date:
Company or Project Name:
Property Owner:
Address of Property:
Mailing Address:
B. AFFORDABLE RENTS (check if: heat & water included electricity included)
Unit Type of Unit Affordable Rent Base Year Affordable Rent Reporting Number (2010) Year (20XX)
C. Family Income Tenants
Total Gross Family Unit # Unit Type Tenant Name Tenants Move-In Date Income
5 91 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
D. Project Certification
I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the information provided in Sections B and C above is true and correct. I hereby authorize the City of London to review the rent roll from appropriate source(s) if deemed necessary.
______Date: ______Signature
Name: Owner of the Property
6 92 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
93 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 1
□ □
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE JULY 19, 2011 JEFF FIELDING FROM: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SUBJECT: MUSEUM LONDON BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATIONS
That, on the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the governing legislation for Museum London:
(a) the attached proposed by-law to revise the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act 1989, S.O.1989 c. Pr24, at the request of Museum London, BE REFERRED to the August 16, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee;
(b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to give written notice to the Board of Museum London, in accordance with The Corporation of the City of London Public Notice Policy, as contained in By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, that the above-noted proposed by- law has been referred to the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, for its meeting to be held on August 16, 2011, for consideration.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Communication from Museum London with respect to a request for the passage of a by-law to upgrade Museum London’s governing legislation as it relates to BILL Pr16, An Act Respecting London Regional Art and Historical Museum - Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, May 17, 2011.
BACKGROUND
“At its meeting held on May 17, 2011, the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC) received a communication dated May 6, 2011 from B. Meehan, Executive Director, Museum London, with respect to a request for the passage of a by-law to upgrade Museum London’s governing legislation as it relates to BILL Pr16, An Act Respecting London Regional Art and Historical Museums. The CNC referred the communication to the Civic Administration for consideration and report back at a future meeting of the CNC.”
In 2007 the Municipal Act was amended to provide municipalities with broad powers to establish dissolve and change local boards. Section 216 of the Municipal Act authorizes a municipality to pass by-laws to change a local board and provides that in the event of a conflict between a by-law changing a local board and the Municipal Act or any other Act, the by-law prevails. Accordingly, the City may pass by-laws effectively changing the provisions in the City of London Act pertaining to Museum London rather than seek an amendment to the private legislation.
Museum London wishes to update its legislation, which was passed in 1989 through the creation of a City by-law as provided for in Section 216 of the Municipal Act rather than using the previous private legislation approach.
94 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 2
□ □
Proposed Revisions to Museum London’s Act of Incorporation
A summary compendium of the proposed revisions to the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act 1989,S.O.1989 c. Pr24 is attached as Appendix B. The highlights of some of these changes include:
2. Corporation
Section 2.1. - The London Regional Art and Historical Museums is hereby continued as a non-profit Corporation without share capital under the name “Museum London”.
The proposed revision includes: changing the legal name to Museum London from London Regional Art and Historical Museums.
4. Board of Directors
Section 4.1 - The Corporation shall be under the management and control of a board of directors consisting of fifteen persons, who shall be elected by the members of the Corporation.
The proposed revisions to this section include:
removing the appointed seats on the Museum London Board (with the exception of the City Council seat) although the Museum will continue to recruit members from these constituencies;
reducing the number of members from 21 which has proven to be an ineffectual number for effective governance and quorum to 15; and,
adding “who shall be elected by the members of the corporation”.
Section 4.2 - A director may be elected for a term not exceeding three years. The Board shall stagger or vary the length of terms of office of directors elected to the Board so that as nearly as possible the terms of office of five directors shall expire annually.
The proposed revision to this section is: to add to the beginning of this section “A director may be elected for a term not exceeding three years.”
Section 4.6 No director shall hold office for more than two consecutive terms of three years each.
The proposed revision to this section includes: deleting reference to “but is again eligible for reappointment or re-election after a lapse of one year after the expiration of the second of the two consecutive terms”. This section now clearly states the term of office for directors.
5. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Section 5.1 - The Board shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson annually, from among the directors and may provide that, upon the expiration of the term of office of the chairperson or should the chair not wish to stand for re-election, the vice-chairperson shall become the chairperson of the Board.
The proposed revisions to this section include:
deletion of reference to the election of a secretary and treasurer from among the directors; and, the addition of the wording “or should the chair not wish to stand for re- election” as another circumstance that might arise where the vice- chairperson would become the chairperson of the Board.
95 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 3
□ □
Section 5.2 - The Board shall appoint a secretary of the Corporation who shall:
a) give notice of all minutes of meetings and proceedings of the Board; b) keep all minutes of meetings and proceedings of the Board; c) perform such duties, in addition to those set out in clauses (a) and (b) as the Board may from time to time direct.
The proposed addition Section 5.2 allows the Board to appoint a staff person, as opposed to a director, to perform these functions.
7. Executive Committee
Section 7.1 - The Board shall elect from among the directors an executive committee consisting of five directors who shall be the chairperson, the vice-chairperson, three other directors. The Board may delegate to the executive committee any powers of the Board subject to any restrictions imposed by the Board.
The proposed revision includes: removal of the reference to the Treasurer; and there are three other directors, instead of two, which total five directors.
8. Nominating Committee
Section 8.1 - The Board shall establish a nominating committee which shall consist of five members and shall include the chairperson of the Board, the executive director of the Corporation, a nominee of the City, and two directors designated by the Board, one of whom shall be appointed chairperson of the nominating committee by the Board.
The proposed revision includes:
changing the size of the nominating committee from seven members to five members; stating that “and this committee includes a nominee of the City”, instead of the Mayor or other nominee to provide clarity; the removal of a professional artist who resides in the City of London; and, reducing the number of other directors to two instead of three, to total a nominating committee of five members.
11. Powers of the Board
Section 11.1 - The Board has such powers as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out its objects, including the power,
(c) to collect and raise money by way of grants, gifts, donations, bequests, legacies and other payments and to hold, expend or deal with such funds;
The proposed revision to Section 11.1 (c) includes: the removal of the reference to the Charitable Gifts Act, as this Act was repealed in early 2011.
18. General
Section 18.2 - This by-law may be referred to as the “Museum London By-law.”
This by-law is referred to as the Museum London By-law instead of the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act 1989, S.O.1989 c. Pr24.
96 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 4
□ □
General Language Changes for Consistency
General proposed revisions include amending the language to ensure consistency e.g., refer to the Board being elected instead of being appointed throughout the document, change in the numbering, etc.
CONCLUSION
It is being requested that the proposed by-law to revise the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act 1989, S.O.1989 c. Pr24 be referred to the August 16, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee.
It is also requested that The City Clerk be directed to give written notice to the Board of Museum London, in accordance with The Corporation of the City of London Public Notice Policy, as contained in By-law No. A.-6151-17, as amended, that the proposed by-law has been referred to the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee meeting of August 16, 2011, for consideration.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The attached proposed by-law has been reviewed by Legal Services, the City Treasurer, the Deputy City Treasurer, the Executive Director of Museum London, the Head of Administration of Museum London, the Director of Financing of Museum London and the Executive Director of the London Public Library.
PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED BY:
ROBIN ARMISTEAD JEFF FIELDNG MANAGER, CULTURE AND MUNICIPAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER POLICY
Cc: Brian Meehan, Executive Director of Museum London Cc: Susanna Hubbard-Krimmer, Executive Director of the London Public Library
97 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Bill No. 2011
By-law No.
A By-law to continue the London Regional Art and Historical Museums as Museum London.
WHEREAS The City of London Act, 1974, S.O. 1974, c.148 established a corporation without share capital under the name "the London Art Gallery Board" for the purpose of planning, directing, altering, maintaining, operating and managing an Art Gallery or Art Galleries within the limits of the City of London;
AND WHEREAS The City of London Act, 1974 was amended by The City of London Act, 1997, S.O. 1977 c. 92; The City of London Act, 1978, S.O. 1978 c. 128 and The City of London Act, 1979, S.O. 1979 c. 129;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to The London Regional Art Gallery Act 1984, S.O. 1984, c. Pr 16, The City of London Act, 1974 as amended was repealed and The London Regional Art Gallery was continued as a non-profit corporation without share capital under the name London Regional Art Gallery;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to The London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act, 1989, S.O. 1989 c. Pr 24 The London Regional Art Gallery Act 1984 was repealed and The London Regional Art Gallery was continued as a non-profit corporation without share capital under the name London Regional Art and Historical Museums;
AND WHEREAS subsection 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS subsection 10(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may provide any service or thing that the municipality considers necessary or desirable for the public;
AND WHEREAS subsection 10(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may pass by-laws respecting: in paragraph 1, Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards, paragraph 3, Financial management of the municipality and its local boards, paragraph 5, Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and in paragraph 7 services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide under subsection 10(1);
AND WHEREAS subsection 216(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that without limiting sections 9 and 10 of the Act, those sections authorize a municipality to pass a by-law to change a local board;
AND WHEREAS subsection 216(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that in the event of a conflict between a by-law described in subsection 10(1) of the Act and any provision of this or any other Act or in the event of a conflict with a regulation made under any other Act, the by-law prevails;
AND WHEREAS the Council for the City of London considers it necessary and desirable for the public to provide an art gallery and historical museum;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to pass this by-law;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of London hereby enacts as follows:
98 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office 2
1. Definitions 1.1 For the purpose of this by-law,
“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Corporation;
“City” means The Corporation of the City of London;
“Corporation” means Museum London referred to in section 2.1;
“Council” means the Council of the City;
“Library Board” means The London Public Library Board
2. Corporation Continued 2.1 The London Regional Art and Historical Museums is hereby continued as a non-profit corporation without share capital under the name “Museum London”.
3. Objects 3.1 The objects of the Corporation are:
(a) to provide a permanent community institution in the service of society and its development for use by the public; (b) to acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment; (c) to provide a community facility for acquiring, conserving, preserving and exhibiting art and artifacts and to provide a comprehensive education and research program; and, (d) to maintain the proper environment for the maintenance and exhibition of the collection.
4. Board of Directors 4.1 The Corporation shall be under the management and control of a board of directors consisting of fifteen persons who shall be elected by the members of the Corporation with the exception of one director who shall be appointed by the Council.
4.2 A director may be elected for a term not exceeding three years. The Board shall stagger or vary the length of terms of office of directors elected to the Board so that as nearly as possible the terms of office of five directors shall expire annually.
4.3 A vacancy on the Board occurs when a director resigns, dies or becomes incapable of acting as a director or if the Board by resolution declares the seat of a director to be vacant by reason of his or her absence from three consecutive meetings of the Board without being authorized to do so by the Board.
4.4 If a vacancy on the Board occurs before the term of office for which a person has been elected has expired, the vacancy may be filled by the remaining directors for the remainder of the unexpired term.
4.5 Directors shall hold office until their successors are elected.
4.6 No director shall hold office for more than two consecutive terms of three years each.
4.7 The directors shall serve without compensation and no director shall, directly or indirectly, receive profit by virtue of being a director but reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duty may be paid provided such payments are in accordance with the City’s Municipal Council Policy governing the payment of expenses.
99 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office 3
5. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson 5.1 The Board shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson annually from among the directors and may provide that, upon the expiration of the term of office of the chairperson or should the chairperson not wish to stand for re-election; the vice- chairperson shall become the chairperson of the Board. 5.2 The Board shall appoint a secretary of the Corporation who shall: (a) give notice of all minutes of meetings and proceedings of the Board; (b) keep all minutes of meetings and proceedings of the Board; (c) perform such duties, in addition to those set out in clauses (a) and (b) as the Board may from time to time direct. 6. Quorum 6.1 The Board may fix its quorum which shall not be less than one-half of its members and no business shall be transacted by the Board except at a meeting of its members at which a quorum of the Board members is present. 6.2 The Board shall meet at least six times a year.
7. Executive Committee 7.1 The Board shall elect an executive committee annually from among the directors consisting of five directors who shall be the chairperson, the vice-chairperson and three other directors. The Board may delegate to the executive committee any powers of the Board subject to any restrictions imposed by the Board.
7.2 The executive committee may fix its quorum which shall not be less than one-half of its members and no business shall be transacted by the executive committee except at a meeting of its members at which a quorum of the executive committee is present.
8. Nominating Committee 8.1 The Board shall establish a nominating committee which shall consist of five members and shall include the chairperson of the Board, the executive director of the Corporation, a nominee of the City, and two directors designated by the Board, one of whom shall be appointed chairperson of the nominating committee by the Board.
8.2 The nominating committee shall:
(a) be responsible for developing guidelines for appointing nominees for election to the Board and shall determine guidelines for inviting nominees, and reporting to the Board as to its nominees for election to the Board; (b) nominate persons for election to the Board to fill any vacancies on the Board; and, (c) nominate directors and other individuals for consideration by the Board for election as officers of the Corporation.
9. Other Committees 9.1 The Board may establish other committees and may delegate to the committees such powers and duties as the Board may determine.
10. Members 10.1 The members of the Corporation are its directors, each of whom becomes a member of the Corporation upon his or her election or appointment to the Board.
11. Powers of the Board 11.1 The Board has such powers as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out its objects, including the power, (a) to purchase or otherwise acquire and to hold and to sell or otherwise dispose of any property for the purposes of the Corporation; (b) to plan, erect, alter, maintain, operate and manage art and historical museums within the City of London; (c) to collect and raise money by way of grants, gifts, donations, bequests, legacies and other payments and to hold, expend or deal with such funds; (d) to invest, in investments authorized under the Trustee Act for the investment of trust funds, moneys of the Corporation not immediately required for its purposes.
100 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office 4
12. Library Board 12.1 The Library Board may convey to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the Corporation by way of gift, the interest of the Library Board in such works of art and historical artifacts, including paintings, prints, woodcuts and sculptures, as the Library Board may by resolution determine.
12.2 The works of art and historical artifacts conveyed shall be used and administered in accordance with the purposes defined by any deed, will or other instrument creating any trust or obligation with respect thereto, and the Library Board is discharged from all obligations and trusts with respect to the works of art and historical artifacts so conveyed.
12.3 All trust funds held by the Library Board for the sole benefit of operating an art gallery and museum which immediately before the 20th day of December, 1979 were vested in and were under the control of the Library Board continue to be vested in the Corporation.
12.4 All trust funds held by the Library Board for the sole benefit of that part of the operations of the Library Board known as the London Historical Museums which immediately before the coming into force of the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act, 1989, S.O. 1989 c. Pr were vested in and were under the control of the Library Board vest in the City or, with the consent of the City, in the Corporation.
12.5 The trust funds mentioned in subsections 12.3 and 12.4 shall be used and administered in accordance with the purposes defined by the deed, will or other instrument creating the trust, and the Library Board is discharged from all obligations with respect to these trust funds.
12.6 All gifts, trusts, bequests, devises and grants of property or the income or proceeds thereof, heretofore or hereafter expressed in writing to be made, given or conveyed to the Library Board solely for operating an art gallery and museum or solely for the London Historical Museums shall, in so far as the same had not vested in possession or been carried into effect on the day the London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act, 1989, S.O. 1989 c. Pr 24 came into force, in the absence of any intention to the contrary set out in the deed, will or other instrument in writing, be construed as though the same had been expressed to be made to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the Corporation.
12.7 The executor, trustee or other person charged with the duty of carrying into effect or administering the deed, will or other instrument described in subsection 12.6 shall pay over or transfer all moneys and property to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the Corporation when the same becomes payable or transferable, and the receipt of the City or the Corporation is sufficient discharge therefore.
12.8 The Library Board may convey or otherwise give to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the Corporation any property of the Library Board not mentioned in this section that is no longer required by the Library Board for operating an art gallery and museum or for the London Historical Museums.
13. Use of City Property for Museums 13.1 Where the City has an interest in any property, including works of art or historical artifacts, or holds any trust funds for any purpose or under any trust or obligation that is consistent with the objects of the Corporation, the City may, subject to the terms of any gift, trust, bequest, devise, grant or loan of such property or trust funds, (a) provide for the use, administration, conservation, protection and preservation by the Corporation of the property, on such terms and conditions as the council of the City may decide; (b) provide for payment to the Corporation of all or a portion of the trust funds or the income therefrom on such terms and conditions as the council of the City may decide; and (c) enter into agreements with the Corporation to give effect to the matters mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).
14. Head Office 14.1 The head office of the Corporation shall be in the City of London.
101 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office 5
15. Local Board 15.1 The Corporation shall be deemed to be a local board for the purposes of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.
16. Exemption from Taxation 16.1 Property vested in or controlled by the Corporation shall be deemed to be exempt from taxation for municipal and school purposes in accordance with paragraph 9 of section 3 of the Assessment Act.
17. Dissolution 17.1 Subject to any instrument creating any trust or obligation with respect to the works of art and historical artifacts owned, possessed or controlled by the Corporation, the property of the Corporation upon its dissolution shall be distributed, after the payment of all debts and liabilities, to the City or to such organizations, having objects similar to those of the Corporation, as may be designated by Council to be used for the purpose of such objects.
18. General 18.1 If a provision of this By-law conflicts with a provision of another, the Municipal Act, 2001, The London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act, 1989, S.O. 1989 c. Pr 24 as amended, or any other Act, the provisions of this by-law apply.
18.2 This by-law may be referred to as the “Museum London By-law”.
18.3 This by-law comes into force and effect on the day it is passed.
PASSED in Open Council on , 2011.
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk First Reading – Second Reading – Third Reading –
102 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office London Regional Art and Historical Museums Act, 1989 S.O. c. Pr 24
Preamble Whereas The Corporation of the City of London hereby applies for special legislation in respect of the matters hereinafter set forth; and whereas it is expedient to grant the application;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
Definitions 1. In this Act,
"board" means the board of directors of the Museums; [By-law s.1.1]
"City" means The Corporation of the City of London; [By-law s.1.1]
"corporation" means London Regional Art and Historical Museums referred to in subsection 2 (1); [By-law s. 1.1]
"general membership" means the general membership referred to in section 6. [deleted – see By-law s.10.1 – Members are the directors]
Corporation continued 2. (1) London Regional Art Gallery is hereby continued as a non-profit corporation without share capital under the name "London Regional Art and Historical Museums". [By-law s. 2.1 – amended to reflect new name Museum London]
Objects (2) The objects of the corporation are,
(a) to provide a permanent community institution in the service of society and its development, for use by the public;
(b) to acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment;
(c) to provide a community facility for acquiring, conserving, preserving and exhibiting art and artifacts, and for provide a comprehensive education and research program;
(d) to maintain the proper environment for the maintenance and exhibition of the collection. [By-law s.3.1]
Board of Directors 3. (1) The corporation shall be under the management and control of a board of directors consisting of,
(a) one person appointed by and from the council of the City for a term of office not exceeding three years as the council shall decide;
(b) one person appointed by and from The London and Middlesex Historical Society for a term of office not exceeding three years as the Society shall decide;
(c) one person appointed by and from The London Public Library Board for a term of office not exceeding three years as the Library Board shall decide;
(d) one person elected by and from Canadian Artists' Representation for a term of office not exceeding three years as Canadian Artists' Representation shall decide;
(e) two persons appointed by and from the London Historical Museums Association for a term of office not exceeding three years as the Association shall decide;
103 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 2 - (f) two persons elected by and from the Volunteer Committee of the corporation for a term of office not exceeding three years as the Volunteer Committee shall decide;
(g) four persons elected by and from the general membership of the corporation for a term of office not exceeding three years as the general membership shall decide; and
(h) nine persons elected under subsection (2) for a term of office not exceeding three years as the board shall decide.
Idem (2) The directors appointed or elected under clauses (1) (a) to (g) shall elect nine directors, one of whom shall be a professional artist who resides in the City of London or the County of Middlesex and who is not a member of Canadian Artists' Representation.
Notice (3) Before electing any of the nine directors referred to in subsection (2), the board shall publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of London and County of Middlesex inviting nominations or applications of persons for election to the nine directorships and shall consider the nominations or applications. [Sections 3(1)(2) and (3) amended – See By-law s. 4.1 fixing number of directors at 15 elected by the membership, which shall be elected by the membership with the exception of one director appointed by the City Counci and s. 8.1 and 8.2 which establishes a nominating committee]
Staggered terms (4) The board and the electing and appointing bodies referred to in clauses (1) (a) to (g) shall, in consultation with each other, stagger or vary the length of terms of office of directors appointed or elected by them so that as nearly as possible the terms of office of seven directors shall expire annually and, if the board and the electing and appointing bodies are unable to agree on the order in which the directors' terms are to expire, the board shall determine the matter. [By-law s. 4.2 – amended – Board shall stagger length of term of directors so that as nearly as possible 5 directors shall expire annually]
Effect of vacancy (5) The failure to appoint or elect a director as provided in subsection (1), (2) or (7) does not invalidate the composition of the board or impair the powers of the board or of the remaining directors and, if a default continues for three months after an appointment or election should have been made, the remaining directors may, but are not obliged to, elect a director to fill the vacancy. [not included in By-law]
Board vacancy (6) A vacancy on the board occurs when a director resigns, dies or becomes incapable of acting as a director or if the board by resolution declares the seat of a director to be vacant by reason of his or her absence from three consecutive meetings of the board without being authorized to do so by the board. [By-law s. 4.3]
Idem (7) If a vacancy on the board occurs before the term of office for which a person has been appointed or elected has expired, the vacancy may be filled by the same authority which appointed or elected the person whose seat is vacant, and a person so appointed or elected shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term. [By-law 4.4 – amended – vacancy filled by directors]
104 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 3 -
Reappointment (8) Directors shall hold office until their successors are appointed or elected and, subject to subsection (9), are eligible for reappointment or re-election. [By-law s. 4.5 amended – “Directors shall hold office until their successors are appointed or elected.” ]
Idem (9) No director shall hold office for more than two consecutive terms of three years each, but is again eligible for reappointment or re-election after a lapse of one year after the expiration of the second of the two consecutive terms. [By-law s. 4.6 – amended – “No director shall hold office for more than two consecutive terms of three years each.”]
Directors to serve without compensation (10) The directors shall serve without compensation, and no director shall, directly or indirectly, receive profit by virtue of being a director but reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duty may be paid. [By-law s. 4.7 – added – “provided such expenses are in accordance with the City’s Municipal Council Policy governing the payment of expenses”]
Chairperson and vice-chairperson 4. (1) The board shall appoint or elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson annually from among the directors and may provide that, upon the expiration of the term of office of the chairperson, the vice- chairperson shall become the chairperson of the board. [By-law s. 5.1 – deleted “appoint” – added “or should the chair not wish to stand for re- election”]
Quorum (2) The board may fix its quorum which shall not be less than one-half of its members and no business shall be transacted by the board except at a meeting of its members at which a quorum of the board members is present. [By-law s. 6.1]
Meetings (3) The board shall meet at least six times a year. [By-law s. 6.2]
Executive Committee 5.(1) The board shall elect from among the directors an executive committee consisting of at least eight and no more than ten directors and the board may delegate to the executive committee any powers of the board subject to any restrictions imposed by the board. [ By-law s. 7.1 amended- “The Board shall elect an executive committee annually from among the directors consisting of five directors who shall be the chairperson, the vice- chairperson and three other directors. The Board may delegate to the executive committee any powers of the Board subject to any restrictions imposed by the Board. ]
Quorum (2) The executive committee may fix its quorum which shall not be less than one-half of its members and no business shall be transacted by the executive committee except at a meeting of its members at which a quorum of the executive committee is present.
105 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 4 - [By-law s. 7.2]
Meetings (3) The executive committee shall meet at least once a month. [not included in By-law]
Committees (4) The board may establish other committees and may delegate to the committees such powers and duties as the board may determine. [By-law s. 9.1]
Advisory Committee (5) The board may appoint advisory committees composed of such persons as the board may determine. [not included in By-law]
General Membership 6. The board may recognize and designate those persons who make subscriptions, gifts or donations of funds to the corporation for any of its purposes as a general membership consisting of the following categories or such other categories as the board may establish:
1. Individual donors
2. Corporate donors
3. Patrons
4. Benefactors
5. Sustaining members
6. Life members [By-law s. 10.1 – amended – members of the Corporation are its directors]
Powers of board 7. The board has such powers as arc necessary for the purpose of carrying out its objects, including the power,
(a) to purchase or otherwise acquire and to hold and to sell or otherwise dispose of any property for the purposes of the corporation;
(b) to plan, erect, alter, maintain, operate and manage art and historical museums within the City of London;
R.S.O. 1980, c. 63 (c) subject to the Charitable Gifts Act, to collect and raise money by way of grants, gifts, donations, bequests, legacies and other payments and to hold, expend or deal with such funds; and
R.S.O. 1980, c. 512 (d) to invest, in investments authorized under the Trustee Act for the investment of trust funds, moneys of the corporation not immediately required for its purposes.
106 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 5 - [By-law s. 11.1 – deleted reference to Charitable Gifts Act]
Definition 8. (1) In this section, "library board" means The London Public Library Board. [By-law s. 1.1]
Conveyance of works of art, etc., to City or corporation (2) The library board may convey to the City or, with the Conveyance consent of the City, to the corporation by way of gift, the interest of the library board in such works of art and historical artifacts, including paintings, prints, woodcuts and sculptures, as the library board may by resolution determine. [By-law s. 12.1]
Idem (3) The works of art and historical artifacts conveyed shall be used and administered in accordance with the purposes defined by any deed, will or other instrument creating any trust or obligation with respect thereto, and the library board is discharged from all obligations and trusts with respect to the works of art and historical artifacts so conveyed. [By-law s. 12.2]
Vesting of trusts (4) All trust funds held by the library board for the sole benefit of operating an art gallery and museum which immediately before the 20th day of December, 1979 were vested in and were under the control of the library board continue to be vested in the corporation. [By-law s. 12.3]
Idem (5) All trust funds held by the library board for the sole benefit of that part of the operations of the library board known as the London Historical Museums which immediately before the coming into force of this Act were vested in and were under the control of the library board vest in the City or, with the consent of the City, in the corporation. [By-law s. 12.4]
Use of trust funds (6) The trust funds mentioned in subsections (4) and (5) shall be used and administered in accordance with the purposes defined by the deed, will or other instrument creating the trust, and the library board is discharged from all obligations with respect to these trust funds. [By-law s. 12.5]
Transfer of property to City (7) All gifts, trusts, bequests, devises and grants of property or the income or proceeds thereof, heretofore or hereafter expressed in writing to be made, given or conveyed to the library board solely for operating an art gallery and museum or solely for the London Historical Museums shall, in so far as the same had not vested in possession or been carried into effect on the day this Act conies into force, in the absence of any intention to the contrary set out in the deed, will or other instrument in writing, be construed as though the same had been expressed to be made to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the corporation. [By-law s. 12.6]
Idem (8) The executor, trustee or other person charged with the duty of carrying into effect or administering the deed, will or other instrument described in subsection (7) shall pay over or transfer all moneys and property to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the corporation when the same becomes payable or transferable, and the receipt of the City or the corporation is sufficient discharge therefor. [By-law s. 12.7]
Disposition of library board to City or corporation (9) The library board may convey or otherwise give to the City or, with the consent of the City, to the corporation any property of the library board not mentioned in this section that is no longer required by the library board for operating an art gallery and museum or for the London Historical Museums.
107 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 6 - [By-law s. 12.8]
Use of City property by Museums 9. Where the City has an interest in any property, including works of art or historical artifacts, or holds any trust funds for any purpose or under any trust or obligation that is consistent with the objects of the corporation, the City may, subject to the terms of any gift, trust, bequest, devise, grant or loan of such property or trust funds,
(a) provide for the use, administration, conservation, protection and preservation by the corporation of the property, on such terms and conditions as the council of the City may decide;
(b) provide for payment to the corporation of all or a portion of the trust funds or the income therefrom on such terms and conditions as the council of the City may decide; and
(c) enter into agreements with the corporation to give effect to the matters mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). [By-law s. 13.1]
Head Office 10. The head office of the corporation shall be in the City of London in the County of Middlesex. [By-law s. 14.1 – deleted “in the County of Middlesex”]
Corporation deemed local board for purposes of R.S.O. 1980, c. 348 11. The corporation shall be deemed to be a local board for the purposes of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. [By-law s. 15.1]
Exemption from taxation 12. Property vested in or controlled by the corporation shall be deemed to be exempt from taxation for municipal and school purposes in accordance with paragraph 9 of section 3 of the Assessment Act. [By-law s. 16.1]
Dissolution 13. Subject to any instrument creating any trust or obligation with respect to the works of art and historical artifacts owned, possessed or controlled by the corporation, the property of the corporation upon its dissolution shall be distributed, after the payment of all debts and liabilities, to the City or to such organizations, having objects similar to those of the corporation, as may be designated by the council of the City, to be used for the purpose of such objects. [By-law s. 17.1]
Repeal 14. The London Regional Art Gallery Act, 1984, being chapter Pr 16, is repealed. [not applicable to By-law]
Commencement 15. This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on Commence-the 1st day of January, 1989. [By-law s. 18.1 – effective date is the day the by-law is passed]
Short title 16. The short title of this Act is the London Regional and Historical Museums Act, 1989. [By-law s. 18.2 – amended “Museum London By-law”]
History of Legislation Pertaining to London Art Gallery Board, London Regional Art and Historical Museums and Museum London
108 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office - 7 -
1974, April 26, Chapter 148, p. 1366 (Establishment, composition of Board, Term of Office, Members, powers etc.)
1977, December 16, Chapter 92, p.717 (Amendment to 1974, C. 148 – No obligation to subsidize operating costs)
1978, June 23, Chapter 128, p. 979 (Amendment to 1974, C.148 – Name change to “London Regional Art Gallery” deemed to be local board (as per OMERS) as of Jan 1, 2978, change in composition)
1979, December 20, Chapter 129, p. 756 (Conveyance of works of art and vesting of trusts in Art Gallery)
1984, November 27, Chapter Pr16, p. 1005 (London Regional Art Gallery Act – repeals 1974, 1977, 1978, and 1979 legislation)
109 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Subject: Request For Delegation Status at August 16,2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee
On behalf of The Volunteer Committee to Museum London, we are requesting delegation status at the above meeting to assist your Committee's consideration of the proposed changes to the Museum London By-Law.
We will be briefly updating the Committee on the extensive activities of the Volunteer Committee, its past and current contributions to the Museum and its presence in our community.
We will be requesting some amendments to the proposed by-law to ensure that this vital role is acknowledged and preserved and the spirit of civic engagement is further fostered.
Please advise as to the scheduled time of our delegation, Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Mary Lake Collins President of The Volunteer Committee to Museum London Representing over 65 active & 40 sustaining members and One of two Volunteer Committee Appointments to the Museum London Board
110 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
8TH REPORT OF THE LONDON DIVERSITY & RACE RELATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting held on July 21, 2011, commencing at 12:12 p.m.
PRESENT: P. Shanahan (Acting Chair), N. Buteau, Z. Elijah, U. Shabazz, and I. Silver, and J. Martin (Secretary).
ALSO PRESENT: R. Howse, K. Husain, C. Keller, L. Kowalchuk, C.Lord, D. Stolarski, T. Tomchick-Condon and U. Troughton.
REGRETS: M. Edwards, M. Fraser, S. Kassam and M. Singeris.
I YOUR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS:
Education Sub- 1. (B,16)That the following actions be taken with respect Committee to the “Breakfast with the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee”:
(a) the Mayor’s Office BE CONSULTED to determine the Mayor’s availability and to establish a potential date, in October or November, for the above-noted event;
(b) Corporate Communications BE REQUESTED to provide assistance with the design and development of an invitation;
(c) Human Resources, BE REQUESTED to provide assistance with event planning; and,
(d) The 7th Report of the LDRRAC, from its meeting held on June 16th, 2011, BE AMENDED in clause 4, by adding at the end “the LDRRAC approved the proposed budget of $1,200.00 and the proposed program format for the event”;
it being noted that the LDRRAC received a verbal presentation and the attached report from R. Howse, Chair, Education Sub-Committee.
II YOUR COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Acting Chair’s 2. The Acting Chair provided the following updates: Update (a) the TD Assistive Technology Lab, located in London, offers resources and technology options for adapting workplaces to accommodate disabilities; and,
111 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
(b) a review is underway with respect to the practice of posting personal information of Advisory Committee members online.
Community 3. That the London Diversity & Race Relations Updates Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) was advised of the following community updates by its members:
(a) TD Pride Launch was well attended and a huge success;
(b) the annual Council for London Seniors Multi-Cultural Picnic had 150 attendees and was a success;
(c) the Association Canadienne-Francaise de l’Ontario (ACFO) Annual Picnic;
(d) the Club Zola French Conversation Circle meeting; and,
(e) the Council Strategic Priorities meeting.
Communications 4. (A) That the London Diversity & Race Relations & Public Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) heard a verbal update from Relations Sub- Committee D. Stolarski, Chair, Communications and Public Relations Sub-Committee, advising of a vacancy for an LDRRAC voting member on the Sub-Committee, and that interested voting members should contact D. Stolarski.
Policy & 5. (C) That the London Diversity & Race Relations Planning Sub- Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) heard a verbal presentation Committee from P. Shanahan, Chair, Policy & Planning Sub- Committee, with respect to the Diversity Task Force Update, noting that;
(a) the Mayor has accepted the position of Honorary Chair for the “Ability First Coalition”; and,
(b) a recommendation is going forward with respect to the Terms of Reference for the Diversity Task Force which will invite all interested parties to become members.
Finance & 6. (D) That the London Diversity & Race Relations Resource Sub- Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) heard a verbal presentation Committee from P. Shanahan, Chair, Finance & Resource Sub- Committee, with respect to LDRRAC budget, noting that the expenses for the “Breakfast with LDRRAC” have not been invoiced, but will be incorporated in the next budget update.
112 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
7th Report of the 7. (1) That the London Diversity & Race Relations LDRRAC Advisory Committee received and noted the 7th Report of the London Diversity & Race Relations Advisory Committee from its meeting held on June 16th, 2011, as amended (see clause 1 of this report).
2012 Mayor’s 8. (2) That the London Diversity & Race Relations New Year’s Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) received and reviewed a Honour List communication, dated June 29, 2011, from the City Clerk, with respect to the 2012 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. The LDRRAC asked its Members to review all past recipients and provide one potential nominee for each of the two award categories (Humanitarian and Diversity) to be submitted to the Nominating Sub-Committee before the September meeting of the LDRRAC; it being noted that the LDRRAC asked that the nomination form be forwarded to its Members.
Ontario Medal 9. (3) That the London Diversity & Race Relations for Good Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) received and reviewed a Citizenship communication, dated May 2011, from Dr. E. Hoskins, Minister, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, with respect to the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship; it being noted that nominees must be received by August 17, 2011. All LDRRAC members are asked to submit potential nominees, by email, to a member of the Nominations Sub- Committee, prior to August 17, 2011.
Revised 10. (4) That the London Diversity & Race Relations Proposed Advisory Committee received and reviewed a Governance Structure communication, dated June 10, 2011, from the City Clerk, with respect to the revised proposed governance structure. The LDRRAC requested the following requests be considered by the City Clerk with respect to this matter:
(a) clarification related to where the advisory committees report to;
(b) clarification on what relationship LDRRAC has with the Diversity, Immigration and Race Relations box in the new proposed governance structure, (Table 5); and,
(c) confirmation that comments regarding the proposed governance structure will be considered after the July 31, 2011 suggested submission deadline.
Diversity at 11. (5) That the London Diversity & Race Relations Work in London Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) received and reviewed a Newsletter newsletter from E. Silveira, President, Diversity At Work in London Inc. The LDRRAC asked C. Keller to investigate if the City subscribes to the above-noted newsletter and to report back at the next meeting of the LDRRAC.
113 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Concerns 12. (Added) That the London Diversity & Race Relations Related to Hiring Advisory Committee (LDRRAC) heard a verbal update from Practices N. Buteau, with respect to the hiring practices of an Assessment and Consulting Services in Human Resources management.
The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m.
114 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
LDRRAC EDUCATION COMMITTEE Notes from the 2011 July 11 Meeting
Attendance: J. Robinson, M. Singeris, U. Troughton, B. Howse, L. Kowalchuk Regrets: I. Silver
1. Education Ctte members agree that LDRRAC’s mandate does notextend to the LTC, Police Commission or other such bodies governing City services. We, therefore, are opposed to inviting representatives of such bodies to the ‘Breakfast with LDRRAC’ events. 2. In preparation for the events, we need to package LDRRAC brochures in various languages, the Diversity Policy and a one-page overview of LDRRAC’s educational activities over the past 6 years. 3. Dates: Jackie is requested to contact the Mayor’s office to find 1 October and 1 November date from the list of our available dates below, on which he will commit to attend our breakfast events. Once the Mayor has committed, we will invite up to 6 City Councillors, Jeff Fielding, the HR Manager and additional City Hall staff to each breakfast. Our available dates are: Wed., October 19; Wed., October 26 or Thursday, October 27 and Wednesday, November 9 or Thursday, November 10. 4. Breakfast format = up to 50 people per breakfast. We hope that all LDRRAC members will attend both breakfasts. We intend to structure table 0f 8 groupings to have 1 LDRRAC facilitator and 1 LDRRAC note taker and a mix of other attendees. We will create a poster to place at the end of the continental breakfast pick-up line to direct attendees to their respective tables. 5. RSVP – We will request that each person invited respond by a deadline of 2 weeks in advance of each confirmed date. 6. Theme = Diversity Forward Together, with the subtitle: Breakfast With LDRRAC. Jackie: Please contact the City Hall Communications Department to request its assistance with the design and production of the invitations. 7. Event format – We will follow the TVDSB’s ‘community consultation’ format with facilitators trained to encourage discussion at the table groups. Discussion questions will be provided, as per the June LDRRAC Ed Ctte report. A brief training session for the facilitators will take place in conjunction with the September LDRRAC meeting. 8. HR – Jackie: Please find out which HR staffer has taken over the portfolio previously handled by Rose Lutman. We would welcome that person’s participation in planning the breakfasts. We would also like you to be part of our planning group. 9. The next meeting of the Education Ctte will take place on Thursday, 2011 September 08 at 10 a.m. in Becky’s office.
115 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 1
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE DOG LICENSING & CONTROL BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste, a) the attached proposed By-law (Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting of August 29, 2011 to amend the Dog Licensing & Control By-law PH-4 with respect to clarifying the offence of failing to have a current valid licence for a dog.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
None
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE & CONTEXT
The purpose of this proposed by-law amendment is to:
clarify the offence of failing to have a current valid licence for a dog contained in the Dog Licensing & Control By-law, and
clarify the fees and charges for late renewals of dog licences and to remove reference to the term “penalty”.
These amendments should assist in the enforcement and prosecution of the offence of failing to have a current valid dog licence.
DISCUSSION
Civic Administration recommends an amendment to the Dog Licensing & Control By-law (Appendix A) by deleting the current section 3.5 which reads as:
3.5 Licence - failure to renew - annually - prohibited No person shall, within the City of London, fail to renew a dog licence for the current year.
and replace it in its entirety with a new section 3.5 as follows:
3.5 Licence - failure to have current - prohibited No person who is an owner of a dog shall, within the City of London, fail to have a current valid licence for that dog.
Civic Administration also recommends an amendment to the Dog Licensing & Control By-law by replacing the current Schedule A with a new Schedule A (Appendix A) and that the by-law comes into force on October 31st, 2011 to allow time to obtain a set fine order.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This report was prepared with assistance from the City Solicitor’s Office.
116 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 2
PREPARED & RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P.ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 07 Animal Control by-law amendment.docx
Appendix A: A By-law to amend By-law PH-4, as amended, entitled “A by-law to provide for the regulation, restriction and prohibition of dogs in the City of London”.
c John Braam, P.Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer L. Marshall, Solicitor M. Schulthess, Solicitor D. Byskal, Solicitor
117 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 3
APPENDIX A
Bill No. 2011
By-law No.
A By-law to amend By-law PH-4, as amended, entitled “A by-law to provide for the regulation, restriction and prohibition of Dogs in the City of London”.
WHEREAS subsection 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. By-law PH-4 is amended by deleting section 3.5 and replacing it with the following new section 3.5 as follows:
3.5 Licence – failure to have current - prohibited No person who is an owner of a dog shall, within the City of London, fail to have a current valid licence for that dog.
2. By-law PH-4 is amended by deleting Schedule “A” and replacing it with a new Schedule “A”, attached as Schedule “A” to this amending by-law.
3. This by-law comes into force and effect on October 31st, 2011.
PASSED in Open Council on , 2011.
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk
First Reading – Second Reading – Third Reading –
118 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 4
SCHEDULE “A” Fees and Charges
Fees 1. KENNEL LICENSE FEE $150.00
2. DOG LICENSE FEES:
Registration for a Licence: (a) New dogs obtained January 1st through June 30th i Complete dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $50.00 ii Spayed/neutered dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $31.00 iii late applications (received after June 30th for dogs obtained January 1st through June 30th) are subject to an additional fee of: $10.00
(b) New dogs obtained July 1st through December 31st i Complete dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $29.00 ii Spayed/neutered dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $18.00
Renewal of a Licence: (c) Renewal applications received prior to licence expiry i Complete dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $50.00 ii Spayed/neutered dog in a dwelling unit regardless of ownership $31.00
Late Renewal of a Licence: (d) late renewal applications received January 1 to February 28 (same as renewal fees (c) above)
(e) late renewal applications received March 1st to May 31st (add $7.50 to license renewal fees in (c) above) (f) late renewal applications received June 1st to December 31st (add $12.50 to license renewal fees in (c) above)
Guide Dogs (f) Guide dogs January 1st to December 31st i Seeing eye dog No Charge ii Hearing ear dog No Charge
Miscellaneous: (g) Replacement tag $3.50 (h) Transfer $3.50 (i) Not Sufficient Fund Cheque $9.56 plus bank charges
3. HEARING FEE $50.00
NOTE: 1. The fees and charges imposed by this by-law are due and payable: (a) at the time of the transaction for which the fee or charge is imposed; or (b) if subsection 1(a) is not applicable, upon the due date specified in any invoice issued by The Corporation of the City of London or its contractor to any person or party in connection with a fee or charge imposed by this by-law.
2. The fees, charges and penalties imposed by this by-law can be paid: (a) at City Hall by debit, cash, or cheque; (b) at the Licence Agent by cash, cheque, debit, or credit card.
119 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 1
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011 FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE SUBJECT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE & RESOURCE MATERIALS COLLECTION BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the draft amending By-law, attached as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 29, 2011 to amend By-law WM-12 Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By-law to increase the size of allowable Blue Box Receptacle.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings) include: Purchase of Large Capacity Blue Boxes (June 14, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, Agenda Item #7)
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE & CONTEXT:
The purpose of the proposed By-law is to revise the Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By-law to increase the size of allowable Blue Box receptacle.
Civic Administration was authorized by Council on June 20, 2011 to purchase and distribute 117,300 large capacity Blue Boxes for use within the curbside recycling program. Distribution of these Blue Boxes is scheduled over a six-week period beginning August 15, 2011. The Blue Boxes being distributed are large capacity Blue Boxes from Orbis Canada which are eligible for 50% funding from Waste Diversion Ontario’s (WDO) Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF).
DISCUSSION:
The large capacity Blue Boxes purchased from Orbis Canada Limited have a capacity of 83 litres (18 gallons). Historically, Blue Boxes typically had a capacity of 50 to 60 litres (11 to 13 gallons). As written, the current Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By- law allows for the use of Blue Box receptacles of no less than 45 litres and no more than 68 litres. In order to use the large capacity Blue Boxes within the recycling program the By-law will be amended to allow Blue Boxes up to a 95 litre capacity.
This will also accommodate the increasing number of larger Blue Boxes available at local retailers in sizes ranging from 68 to 91 litres (15 to 20 gallons).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This report was prepared with the assistance of Laura Bechard, Solid Waste Planning Coordinator.
120 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 2
PREPARED BY:
WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES July 27, 2011 y:\shared\administration\committee reports\cnc 2011 blue box capacity.docx
c John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer
Appendix A: By-law amending Municipal Waste & Resource Materials Collection By-law
121 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 3
APPENDIX A
By-law No.
A By-law to amend By-law WM-12 Entitled “A By- law to provide for the collection of municipal waste and resource materials in the City of London.”
WHEREAS section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its power under the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council desires to amend By-law No. WM-12 being the Waste and Resource Materials Collection By-law;
NOW THERFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. Section 3.6 (b) of By-law WM-12 is amended by removing the following words and numbers “68 litres (15 gallons)” after the words “no more than” and replacing it with the following words and numbers “95 litres (21 gallons)”.
2. This by-law comes into force and effect on the day it is passed.
PASSED in Open Council on August 29, 2011
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk
First reading – Second reading – Third reading –
122 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FEES AND CHARGES BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the draft amending By-law, attached as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on August 29, 2011 to amend By-law WM-27 Waste Management Fees and Charges By-law to eliminate fees for appliances with Freon at City drop off depots.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings) include:
Update: Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (May 10, 2010 meeting of Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC), Agenda Item #13) Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (January 11, 2010 meeting of the ETC, Agenda Item #11)
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed By-law is to remove the fees and charges for the recycling of appliances containing Freon from the drop-off depot fees within the Waste Management Fees and Charges By-law.
CONTEXT & DISCUSSION
Funded by Ontario Power Authority, as part of their energy conservation initiatives, London Hydro implemented a program called Fridge and Freezer Pickup. Program participants can book appointments online or by phone to have their unwanted fridges and freezers collected at no cost. The appliances are then removed from the home and decommissioned in an environmentally conscious way. The Fridge and Freezer Pickup program is scheduled to run until 2014.
London Hydro has made arrangements to expand the Fridge and Freezer Pickup program to the Clarke Road and Oxford Street Community EnviroDepots and the W12A Landfill beginning September 1, 2011 and include all appliances with Freon (fridges, freezers, air conditioners and dehumidifiers). All appliances with Freon dropped off at these locations will be removed and properly decommissioned at no cost to the City.
In 2010, By-law WM-27 Waste Management Fees and Charges By-law was amended to include charges for accepting appliances containing Freon at the Clarke Road and Oxford Street Community EnviroDepots and at the W12A Landfill for a fee of $40 per appliance. This program was not implemented because of the difficulty in getting a contractor to service these locations and the possibility that the London Hydro Fridge and Freezer would be extended to the EnviroDepots and landfill.
Since the Fridge and Freezer Pickup program will be extended to the EnviroDepots and W12A Landfill, fees for dropping off appliances with Freon should be removed. Public Notice of the proposed change as required by Council By-law A-6151-17 was provided.
123 of 2171 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with the assistance of Laura Bechard, Solid Waste Planning Coordinator.
PREPARED BY:
WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES July 27, 2011 y:\shared\administration\committee reports\cnc 2001 waste fees - appliances.doc c John Braam, P.Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer Hans Schreff, Program Manager - Conservation Activities, London Hydro
Appendix A: By-law amending Waste Management System Fees & Charges By-Law
124 of 2172 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
APPENDIX A
Bill No. 2011
By-law No.
A By-law to amend By-law No. WM-27 entitled “A by-law to provide for imposing fees and charges for the services, activities and use of the waste management system.”
WHEREAS section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS sections 9, 10 and 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, authorizes a municipality to impose fees and charges on persons for various services or activities and for the use of its property;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. Schedule “A” of By-law WM-27 be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached new Schedule “A”..
2. This by-law shall come into force and effect on September 1, 2011.
PASSED in Open Council on August 29, 2011
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk
First reading - Second reading - Third reading –
125 of 2173 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
Schedule A Waste Management Fees and Charges Landfill Disposal Fees – Standard Fees Residential Waste 0 to 100 kgs $ 8.00 101 to 200 kgs $15.00
201 to 400 kgs $30.00 401 to 600 kgs $45.00 601 to 800 kgs $60.00 801 to 1,000 kgs $75.00 > 1,000 kgs $75.00 per tonne Business Waste $ 75.00 per tonne Waste from Outside Service Area Accepted Under Ministerial $ 150.00 per tonne Order Minimum Charge $ 75.00 per transaction - excluding residential/charitable organization waste
Landfill Disposal Fees – Pre-approved Fees Charitable Organization Waste $ 0.00 per tonne Daily Cover Waste $8.00 per tonne Brownfield Waste $30.00 per tonne Recycling Process Residuals $38.00 per tonne Recycling Process Residuals – reduced fee 1 $35.00 per tonne - charge account only; minimum monthly fee $9,750 Business Waste – reduced fee 1 $45.00 per tonne - charge account only; minimum monthly fee $12,750 Business Waste – reduced fee 2 $41.00 per tonne - charge account only; minimum monthly fee $38,500 Asbestos Waste $300.00 lump sum plus $75.00 per tonne
Drop-off Depot Fees Grass Clippings $1.00 per bag Bagged Residential Garbage $1.00 per container Renovation Materials Small load $20.00 per load Car load $45.00 per load Truck, Van, Small Trailer load $65.00 per load Composters (for purchase) $30.00 per unit Woodchips, compost, soil/compost mix (for purchase) $5.00 per bag
Waste Collection Fees Multi-Residential Buildings – Twice per week collection for $4.50 per unit per year buildings that received twice per week collection as of January 1, 2005 and new buildings that require twice per week collection. Multi-Residential Buildings that received once per week collection $130.00 per hour as of January 1, 2005 - extra collections Multi-Residential Buildings - bin rental $25.00 per month per bin Waste Management By-law WM12 Part 12 $130.00 per hour; (Owner has failed to comply with WM12, Part 12; City collects $130.00 minimum per event waste at expense of owner) Notes 1. Landfill Disposal Fees which are charged on a per tonne basis are prorated based on the weight of material disposed. 2. Landfill Disposal Fees are rounded up to the nearest dollar.
126 of 2174 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page #
Definitions 1. Standard Landfill Disposal Fees are tipping fees that are assessed to waste being disposed of at a landfill and do not require pre-approval from the City. 2. Pre-approved Landfill Disposal Fees are tipping fees that may apply to certain types or quantities of waste disposed of at a landfill that require pre-approval from the City before these tipping fees can be assessed. Standard landfill disposal fees apply if the disposal of the waste is not pre-approved. 3. Residential waste shall mean garbage and rubbish generated from residential curbside premises and multi-family building premises (refer to Waste Management By-law WM-12 for definition of garbage, rubbish, residential curbside premises and multi-family premises). 4. Business waste shall mean garbage, rubbish and trade waste generated from industrial, commercial and institutional properties but shall exclude resource materials and non-collectable waste except for trade waste (refer to Waste Management By-law WM-12 for definition of garbage, rubbish , trade waste, resource materials and non-collectable waste) 5. Charitable Organization Waste shall mean garbage, rubbish and trade waste generated from organizations that have registered charitable status (refer to Waste Management By-law WM-12 for definition of garbage, rubbish and trade waste). 6. Daily Cover Waste shall mean solid non-hazardous waste that is suitable for use as cover material. 7. Brownfield Waste shall mean solid non-hazardous waste from a “brownfield site” that is not suitable for use as cover material. 8. Recycling Process Residuals shall mean residuals produced from the recycling and/or composting of materials at facilities licensed by the Ministry of the Environment which have a diversion of 70% or greater. 9. Asbestos Waste shall mean solid waste that results from the removal of asbestos-containing construction or insulation material or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products and contains asbestos in more than a trivial amount or proportion. 10. Grass Clippings shall mean clippings produced from a lawn mower or lawn trimmer. 11. Renovation Materials shall mean waste materials from the construction/renovation of residential buildings and shall include metal, shingles, wood, drywall and other materials as appropriate. 12. Small Load shall mean any load containing less than 0.6 m3 of renovation materials. 13. Car Load shall mean any load container 0.6 m3 to less than 1.4 m3 of renovation materials. 14. Truck, Van, Small Trailer Load shall mean any load container 1.4 m3 or more of renovation materials. 15. Container shall mean waste collection receptacle (refer to Waste Management By-law WM-12 for definition) and includes metallic or plastic cans and polyethylene bags.
127 of 2175 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 1
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT: ROCKS WITHIN THE PUBLIC BOULEVARD AT 965 WESTDEL BOURNE
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the following actions BE TAKEN:
(a) That Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the property owner at 965 Westdel Bourne has placed large rocks within the public boulevard in contravention to the City’s Streets By-law and has requested an exemption to the By-law to allow the rocks to remain. Municipal staff has attempted to resolve this matter with the property owners in a manner that maintains public safety and allows the homeowner to beautify the boulevard. The homeowner has recently relocated some rocks and removed others; however many rocks remain a concern.
(b) That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement one of the following options available to address this matter:
(i) Enforce the S-1 Streets By-law and request in writing that the boulevard by restored to meet the requirements of the by-law by September 13, 2011 (15 days after Council’s August 29 meeting). If the work is not completed, the work will be undertake by or for the City of London and include the removal of these rocks and the re-establishment of an appropriate road-side shoulder and the costs will be invoiced to the owner at 965 Westdel Bourne; or,
(ii) Grant an exemption to the S-1 Streets By-law at 965 Westdel Bourne and enter into a Licensing Agreement with the property owner to allow the rocks to remain as they currently exist, for a two year period. The License Agreement shall clearly contain clauses relating to indemnification and insurance that transfer the liability, risk and all expenses related to the rock feature to the property owner at 965 Westdel Bourne.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER None
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
On July 19, 2011, a Delegation was scheduled before the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC) for Mr. Salvatore Cambria of 965 Westdel Bourne to hear concerns regarding an encroachment of large rocks on the road allowance in front of his property. Councillor Polhill provided a verbal report with respect to this matter on behalf of Mr. Cambria. On July 25, 2011, Municipal Council resolved:
That the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at the August 16, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, in response to a request from S. Cambria, 695 West Del Bourne for an exemption to the Streets By-law to allow his rock garden on the road allowance; it being noted that Councillor B. Polhill provided a verbal report with respect to this matter, on behalf of Mr. Cambria.
The primary purpose of this report is to advise Municipal Council of the situation which has arisen at 965 Westdel Bourne with regards to the placement of various sizes of rocks within the public boulevard immediately adjacent to the travelled portion of the roadway. The placement of this rock feature is a contravention of the Streets By-law and poses a safety concern. Municipal staff has attempted to resolve this matter with the property owners in a manner that maintains public safety and allows the homeowner to beautify and protect the boulevard area. The homeowner has recently relocated some rocks and removed others; however many rocks remain a concern. 128 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 2
CONTEXT
The property owner at 965 Westdel Bourne placed rocks, including several large ones, along the entire frontage of this property and immediately adjacent to the travelled portion of the roadway (see photographs below). This landscape feature is in contravention of the City of London’s S-1 Streets By-law, which states:
“no person shall, (either by himself or by permitting others) without lawful authority, obstruct, encumber, injure, or foul or cause or permit the obstruction, encumbering, injuring or fouling of any street.”
The intent of this Council Policy is to maintain the integrity of the right-of-way throughout the city. This is achieved by protecting the road allowance from encroachments and encumbrances that could potentially impact the safe, open and free access of the right-of-way.
The placement and scale of this landscape feature at 965 Westdel Bourne poses a safety concern to the public, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists passing through this area. This feature also presents a significant interference and risk to the City’s ability to provide road side operations and maintenance such as snow ploughing, street sweeping and grass cutting in the immediate area plus a danger to municipal staff, vehicles and equipment.
Street encroachments are prohibited by the City's Streets By-law and the established practice is to require removal of any encroachments that pose a danger to the public or interfere with City operations at the encroacher's expense.
Alternatively, the City can require the owner of the encroachment to enter into an encroachment or license agreement containing terms acceptable to the City if the encroachment provides benefit to the community. In these cases, a one time or annual fee may also apply. Where the encroachment is determined to be of a minor nature, the City, at its absolute discretion, may choose to waive the requirement for an encroachment or license agreement although the property owner has the right to apply for an agreement.
View looking south adjacent to existing shoulder in front of 965 Westdel Bourne
Approx. size = 10” x 5” Approx. size = 3”x 4’’
View looking north along 965 Westdel Bourne
Typical Granular Shoulder Rock material Feature
Typical grassed blvd.
129 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 3
A survey of the boulevard in front of 965 Westdel Bourne is provided below. The diagram shows that the main clustering of rocks is placed within the 2.5 meter road-side shoulder. This shoulder width is the standard width of a road-side shoulder for this class of road and its posted speed.
DISCUSSION
Why was this landscape feature built at this location?
The property owner has stated to staff that his reasons for placing the rocks at this location was a response to concerns regarding lawn maintenance within the road allowance portion of this property. The property owner claims that garbage trucks, delivery trucks and snow ploughs were constantly tearing up his lawn in this portion of the boulevard. His solution was to place these large rocks where a road side shoulder or grassed boulevard would otherwise be located and to help beautify the boulevard.
How were we made aware of this feature?
A complaint was received by Customer Relations staff about the placement of rocks adjacent to the travelled portion of the roadway.
What are City staffs concerns?
A number of City staff have reviewed and provided comment in relation to the placement of these rocks in the road allowance. Staffs comments have been summarized in the following points:
The placement of the large rocks in the road allowance poses a safety concern to the public, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists passing through this area. This presents a liability risk to the City of London. Most of the larger rocks are placed at an elevation that is higher than the adjacent paved roadway. The placement of the large rocks pose a risk and interference to road side operations and equipment and pose a potential safety concern to staff. For example, this area was covered with significant amounts of snow throughout this past winter. Markers were placed around the rocks. City staff took steps to ensure that roadside operation crews were aware of these large rocks adjacent to the travelled road in an effort to limit potential damage to equipment. The placement of these rocks prevented road operations staff from widening the windrow of snow in this area of Westdel Bourne, thereby narrowing the traveled corridor and limiting the widening of sight-lines at the end of driveways in this immediate area.
130 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 4
License/Encroachment Agreements
License Agreements involve granting permission for short or fixed periods of time, for non- permanent structures or objects and are between the City and the current property owner. This report will only discuss License Agreements since the rocks are non-permanent in nature. Encroachment Agreements generally involve granting permission for more permanent type structures (buildings, canopies etc.) on public land for long and indefinite periods of time. These agreements are registered on title and transfer with property ownership.
Realty Services Division of the City administers License Agreements for the occupation of public lands for private use. Realty Services have indicated that there are approximately 80 active license agreements in place in the City. These agreements generally involve licensing for sidewalk cafés/patios, use of rear yard green spaces for private use, parking and storage areas for business, etc on public property. Most license agreements generally involve parkland and underutilized public sites. Requests for license agreements are assessed on a case-by-case basis by Civic Administration. Staff reviews the impacts of the proposed encroachment on the basis of its potential interference with public safety, municipal use, specifically the maintenance of the municipal infrastructure, and its potential to create a hazard to city workers, the public and city assets. With the exception of sidewalk cafés/patios and parking, license agreements for the occupation of the City’s road allowance for private use are generally not granted by Civic Administration as they often involve risks to public safety and interfere with the maintenance and use of municipal infrastructure.
Options towards achieving resolution:
The following options are available to resolve this matter.
Option One: Enforce the S-1 Streets By-law and request in writing that the boulevard by restored to meet the requirements of the by-law by September 13, 2001 (15 days after Council’s August 29 meeting). If the work is not completed, the work will be undertake by or for the City of London and include the removal of these rocks and the re-establishment of an appropriate road-side shoulder as follows:
Municipal staff will make arrangements for the removal of the rocks from the roadway. This operation will involve a minimum of a half day of staff and equipment time and the presence of an enforcement official on site. The rocks will be disposed of off-site. Municipal staff will re-establish a 2.5 metre shoulder at this location with sod and/or appropriate granular materials. All costs associated with the removal of these objects will be invoiced to the property owner.
Authority for staff to undertake such action is granted in the Streets By-law through the following clauses:
No person shall, (either by himself or by permitting others) without lawful authority, obstruct, encumber, injure, or foul or cause or permit the obstruction, encumbering, injuring or fouling of any street.
2.10.2 A police officer, police cadet or municipal law enforcement officer may remove, impound, restrain or immobilize any object or vehicle placed, stopped, standing or parked on the street or highway over which the Corporation has jurisdiction, in contravention of this by-law.
2.10.5 Subject to subsections 2.10.7 and 2.10.8, all costs and charges for the removal, care and storage of any object or vehicle under this by-law are a lien upon it which may be enforced by the Corporation in the manner provided by the Repair and Storage Liens Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.24, as amended.
Option One: Grant an exemption to the S-1 Streets By-law for 965 Westdel Bourne and enter into a License Agreement with the property owner to allow the rocks to remain as they currently exist, within the road allowance, for a two-year period.
131 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 5
A license agreement with a two-year monitoring period will allow staff and new residents to assess the risks and impacts of this structure as the surrounding developing area builds out. This option is subject to the owner entering into a license agreement which will include requirements for the owner agreeing to accept all risk and all costs arising from placement of the rock feature and to provide evidence of satisfactory insurance coverage, for liability arising out of the placement of this rock feature on the City property.
The following clauses shall be included in any license agreement between the owner and City relating to indemnification and insurance:
1. (a) The Licensee shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all liability, loss, claims, demands, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, occasioned wholly or in part by any acts or omissions either in negligence or in nuisance whether wilful or otherwise by the Licensee, its employees or other persons for whom the Licensee is responsible.
(b) Notwithstanding the City Streets By-law no. S-1 the Licensee further agrees to waive any subrogation against the City, it employees and agents with respect to all property that is the subject of this License;
2. (a) The Licensee shall at its own expense obtain and maintain third party general liability insurance including personal liability, personal injury, broad form property damage, contractual liability, owners' and contractor's protective products and completed operations, contingent employers liability, cross liability and severability of interest clauses on City form no. 0788 in an amount not less than Five Million ($5,000,000.) dollars and shall include the City as an additional insured with respect to the Licensee's operations and obligations under this Lease;
(b) The Licensee will deliver evidence of such insurance to the City at inception of this License and thereafter promptly on each insurance renewal date for the duration of the License.
(c) The City reserves the right to request such higher limits of insurance or other types policies appropriate to this Agreement as the City may reasonably require;
(d) Failure to satisfactorily meet these conditions relating to insurance shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This report was prepared with assistance from Joy Jackson, Manager of Risk Management, and the City Solicitors office.
PREPARED BY:
LOU POMPILII MANAGER, CUSTOMER RELATIONS & COMPLIANCE
PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT SERVICES Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 08 Rocks - 965 westdel bourne.lp.revised lp/LP
132 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 1
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT MUNICIPAL PARTNER AGREEMENTS FOR BLUE BOX PROCESSING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
That on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to providing Blue Box processing services to other municipalities:
(a) the attached proposed By-Law (Appendix A) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of August 29, 2011 for the purpose of approving the standard Municipal Partner Blue Box Recyclables Processing Agreement between the City and Municipalities wanting to process recyclables at the City’s new regional Material Recovery Facility;
(b) the Executive Director of Planning, Environmental and Engineering Services BE DELEGATED the authority to establish the pricing in Schedule C of the standard Municipal Partner Blue Box Recyclables Processing Agreement for each agreement with a partner municipality;
(c) the Mayor and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute all agreements employing the standard form with no further approval required from Council;
(d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter;
(e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on any agreements signed; and
(f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop principles that would be used to establish pricing when responding to Request for Proposals or Tenders from municipalities seeking Blue Box processing services and report back to the Community and Neigbourhoods Committee at a future meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (meetings) include:
Additional Information on RFP 08-03 Design, Construction And Operation of a Material Recovery Facility, Special Committee of the Whole Meeting on February 26, 2010 Additional Information on RFP 08-03 Design, Construction And Operation of a Material Recovery Facility, Special Board of Control (BoC) Meeting on February 22, 2010 Update On RFP 08-03 Design, Construction And Operation of a Material Recovery Facility, BoC Meeting on February 10, 2010, Agenda Item #16 Design, Construction and Operation of a Material Recovery Facility and Related Program Changes, Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC) Meeting on February 8, 2010, Agenda Item # 9 Update on RFP 08-03 Initial Design of a Material Recovery Facility, BoC Meeting on November 18, 2009, Agenda Item #9 RFP 08-03 Design, Construction and Operation of a Material Recovery Facility, BoC Meeting on June 3, 2009, Agenda Item #6
133 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 2
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE & CONTEXT
In the operating agreement for the new regional Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) with Miller Waste Systems the price to process a tonne of recyclables decreases, at specified intervals, as the quantity of material increases. This provides an opportunity for the City and partner municipalities to save money by having other municipalities use the facility.
The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the Mayor and Clerk to sign agreements for the City to provide Blue Box processing services to other municipalities.
DISCUSSION
Unit Processing Price Lowers as Quantity Processed Increases The operating agreement for the new regional MRF contains 168 different price points for processing recyclables depending on:
the quantity of material, the quality of material, and whether or not plastics bags are allowed to be used as a recycling container.
Pricing varies from less than $50 per tonne to approximately $100 per tonne within the 168 different price points.
A significant reduction occurs in the per tonne processing fee between 28,000 tonnes (quantity currently collected by the City) and 36,000 tonnes per year. There is approximately a $20 per tonne drop in the unit processing price. Therefore the City could lower its recycling costs by $20 per tonne or more than $500,000 annually if other municipalities with a combined amount of 8,000 tonnes of recyclables also used the regional MRF.
Area Municipalities Interested in Using the Regional MRF Staff have provided information and had discussions with a number of area municipalities (staff level) about using the new regional MRF. Most of these municipalities have aligned their contracts to end within the first year of operation of the new regional MRF opening. These municipalities are listed in Table 2 (next page) and represent approximately 14,000 tonnes per year of recyclables.
Table 2 – Potential Municipal Partners in First Year of Operation
Municipality Contract Quantity (tonnes/yr)
Expiry Date
Aylmer Spring, 2012 400
Bayham Spring, 2012 300
Central Elgin Spring, 2012 1,000
Malahide Spring, 2012 300
Oxford June, 2012 3,600
Sarnia June, 2012 4,000 South-West Middlesex June, 2012 500
Stratford January, 2012 2,800 Thames Centre Spring, 2012 1,100
Total 14,000
134 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 3
Some of these municipalities are willing to enter into direct negotiations with the City to sign an agreement to provide Blue Box processing services (Arrangement #1). Other municipalities are obligated by their purchasing policy to seek competitive pricing through a tender or request for proposal process (Arrangement #2)
Arrangement #1 - Negotiated Agreement Attached to Appendix A is the proposed standard agreement between the City and municipalities wanting to use the new regional MRF to process their recyclables. This agreement has been reviewed by several of the municipalities in Table 2 and the City’s Legal Services and Risk Management Divisions.
Key features of the agreement are:
municipality pays a processing fee and receives revenue from the sale of their recyclables processing fee covers direct operating costs (e.g., Miller Waste Systems’ processing fee), payment towards a reserve fund for future capital costs and administration costs processing fee is based on the quality of material and quantity being processed (same as City’s contract with Miller Waste Systems) and therefore is reduced, at specific intervals, as the quantity increases revenue is based on a guaranteed capture rate (97.2%) less a 2.5% marketing fee (same as City’s contract with Miller Waste Systems) the City has the right to revise the processing fee with 120 days notice either party has the right to terminate the contact on June 30 of each year by providing six months notice
It should be noted that the Town of Aylmer has already passed the following resolution and it is expected will sign the attached agreement;
That Council endorses “Option 2”, the London/Regional MRF; and furthermore Council forgoes the provisions as per the Town’s Procurement By-law and authorizes Staff to negotiate a contract agreement with the City of London to provide material processing services; it being noted that upon completion, Staff will bring back the agreement for Council’s review and endorsement
Arrangement #2 - Competitive Pricing As noted above, some area municipalities will want to seek competitive pricing for processing Blue Box recyclables. In some cases the municipality may get pricing for processing and for collection/hauling separately (Option One) and in other cases the municipality will be seeking pricing for collection, hauling and processing from one organization (Option Two).
Option One: Obtain Pricing for Processing and Collection/Hauling Separately In this option, a tender or request for proposals (RFP) is issued for processing Blue Box recyclables. Once the decision has been made on which facility is processing the recyclables, a second tender or RFP is issued for the collection and hauling of Blue Box recyclables.
It will generally be to the City’s and partner municipality’s financial benefit to respond to these tenders or RFPs in order to lower the City’s processing cost. Bidding on Blue Box processing contracts has been done by other municipalities. For example, the Region of Niagara bid and won the contract to process the paper fiber stream for the Region of Waterloo.
Responding to tenders or RFPs will require that the City supply the necessary documents asked for in the tender/RFP (e.g., bid bonds) and submit pricing based on the requirements in the tender/RFP. Tenders/RFPs sometimes have relatively short time periods between when they are issued and when they close. This may preclude getting Council approval to respond a tenders/RFP.
Consequently, it is recommended that a set of principles be developed for approval by Council that would be used to establish pricing when responding to Request for Proposals or Tenders for municipalities seeking Blue Box processing services.
135 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 4
Option Two: Obtain Pricing for Collection, Hauling and Processing from one Contractor In this option the municipality seeks pricing for collection, hauling and processing from one organization. It is not practical or appropriate for the City to respond directly to these types of tenders/RFPs however it may be to the City’s financial benefit to provide pricing to contractors wishing to bid on these types of tenders/RFPs. Contractors may or may not mark up this price.
Similar to option one, it is recommended that a set of principles be developed for approval by Council that would be used to establish pricing to provide private contractors for processing services.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with assistance from Joy Jackson, Manager – Risk Management; David Mounteer, Solicitor; Anne Boyd, Waste Diversion Coordinator and Mike Losee, Manager – Solid Waste Engineering.
PREPARED BY:
WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES y:\shared\administration\committee reports\cnc 2011 07 mrf partner agreements.doc c John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer
Appendix ”A” – By-law for Blue Box Recyclables Processing Agreement
136 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 5
APPENDIX A
By-law No.
A By-law to approve the standard form for Blue Box Recyclables Processing Agreements between The Corporation of the City of London and other municipalities to provide Blue Box recyclables processing capacity and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreements which employ this form.
WHEREAS subsection 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that a municipal power shall be exercised by by-law;
AND WHEREAS section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS section 10 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that the City may provide any service or thing that the City considers necessary or desirable for the public, and may pass by- laws respecting the same, and respecting economic, social and environmental well-being of the City, and the health, safety and well-being of persons.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:
1. The standard form for the Bule Box Recyclables Processing Agreement to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and other municipalities, attached hereto as Schedule A to this By-law, is hereby approved as the standard form for all such agreements.
2. The Mayor and the City Clerk be hereby authorized to execute all agreements employing the standard form with no further approval required from Council.
3. This by-law shall come into force and effect on the day it is passed.
PASSED in Open Council on August 29, 2011
Joe Fontana Mayor
Catharine Saunders City Clerk
First reading – Second reading – Third reading –
137 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 6
Schedule A: Blue Box Recyclables Processing Agreement
This Agreement made the ______day of ______, 2011.
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON hereinafter referred to as the "City"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE ______hereinafter referred to as the "Partner Municipality"
OF THE SECOND PART
Whereas the City owns as part of its recycling program a Material Recovery Facility, the purpose of which is to sort, process and prepare recyclable materials for sale in the marketplace;
And Whereas the Partner Municipality wishes to purchase for the benefit of its ratepayers certain recyclable materials processing services and marketing services from the City and the City has agreed to provide these services on the terms and conditions set forth herein;
Now Therefore Witnesseth that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions
As used in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply unless otherwise indicated:
1.1 “Acceptable Recyclable Materials” means those categories of Recyclable Materials designated on Schedule “A” as being acceptable for the purposes of this Agreement.
1.2 “Applicable Fees” means the fees payable by the Partner Municipality for the provision of services under this agreement by the City.
1.3 “City” means the Corporation of the City of London.
1.4 “Commencement Date” means (to be determined).
1.5 “Contamination” means materials that are Non-Recyclable Materials and Acceptable Recyclable Materials that are in the wrong Contract Stream.
1.6 “Contract Stream” means the following two categories of Acceptable Recyclable Materials as sorted by the Partner Municipality as more particularly described in Schedule “A” into Mixed Paper Fibres and Mixed Containers.
1.7 “Facility” means the building, equipment and machinery located at 3290 Manning Drive, London, Ontario, to be used for the receipt, processing and storage of Acceptable Recyclable Materials in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
138 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 7
1.8 “Marketing Services” means the marketing of Acceptable Recyclable Materials after they have been processed and made into market ready materials.
1.9 “Non-Recyclable Materials” means materials not listed in Schedule “A”.
1.10 “Processing Services” means the acceptance and processing of any Acceptable Recyclable Materials and Contamination whether accepted at or delivered to the Facility, and includes sorting, baling and storage.
1.11 “Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover” means glass less than 64 mm (2 ½") in length and width at its longest/widest points, fibre products less than 150 mm (6”) in length and width at their longest/widest points, containers less than 64 mm ( 2 ½”) in length and width at their longest/widest points, individual materials compounded together (i.e., separate recyclable materials that have become entwined/bound together and as a result causes them to act as one physical object), “spiral wound” containers (e.g., cardboard cans such as: frozen juice cans, Pringles containers, refrigerated dough containers, powder drink mixes, baby formula containers), waxed boxes (e.g. frozen food boxes) or paper, foil coated boxes (e.g., dishwasher detergent boxes) or paper, dark coloured or construction paper, metallic foil wrapping paper and containers containing product (i.e., bottles, tubs and jugs that contain at least 10% (by volume of the container) retained product)
1.12 “Split Weighing” means weighing trucks that deliver recyclables after unloading each Contract Stream.
1.13 “Partner Municipality” means the Corporation of the ______.
1.14 “Waste Audit” means a study, the purpose of which is to determine the typical composition by weight of the Acceptable Recyclable Materials, Non-Recyclable Materials and Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover collected by the Partner Municipality and delivered to the Facility and the results of any Waste Audits shall be accepted by the parties for the purpose of calculating the Applicable Fees.
2. Provision of Services by the City
2.1 The City agrees to provide Blue Box material Processing Services and Marketing Services to the Partner Municipality over the course of the Term (Section 11), for the fees and in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this agreement.
2.2 The Acceptable Recyclable Materials that may be delivered to the facility are listed in Schedule A. The Partner Municipality is not required to collect all the Acceptable Recyclable Materials listed in Schedule A. The Partner Municipality shall deliver to the Facility all Acceptable Recyclable Materials collected by or on behalf of the Partner Municipality in separate Contract Streams.
2.4 In providing Processing Services and Marketing Services hereunder, the City shall retain the sole and exclusive right to redefine and revise, in its sole discretion and exercisable from time to time, the materials included as Acceptable Recyclable Materials and the nature, type or content of the Contract Streams provided at least one hundred twenty (120) days’ notice of its intention to revise or redefine is delivered to the Partner Municipality, together with a copy of all such proposed revisions or redefinitions. The City will consult with the Partner Municipality prior to issuing the notice of intention to redefine or revise the list of acceptable materials.
3. Facility Operation Requirements
3.1 The Partner Municipality shall deliver Acceptable Recyclable Materials to the Facility on days and during hours as designated by the City, initially as set out in Schedule “B” attached hereto, subject to revision by the City in its sole discretion exercisable from time to time provided at least one hundred twenty (120) days’ notice of its intention to revise the hours of operation is delivered to the Partner Municipality. The City will
139 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 8
consult with the Partner Municipality prior to issuing the notice of intention to revise the hours and days of operation.
3.2 The Partner Municipality shall ensure all vehicles under their ownership and / or control and engaged in the transportation of Acceptable Recyclable Materials to the Facility shall possess all necessary licenses, permits and approvals as required by law.
3.3 The Partner Municipality, prior to commencing work, shall obtain and maintain or ensure that its agents, officers, employees or other persons delivering materials to the Materials Recycling Facility obtain and maintain, the insurance coverage described below:
a) Comprehensive general liability insurance on an occurrence basis for an amount not less than five million ($5,000,000) dollars, excepting that only the Partner Municipality’s insurance shall include the City as an additional insured with respect to the Partner Municipality’s operations, acts and omissions relating to its obligations under this Agreement, such policy to include non-owned automobile liability, personal injury, broad form property damage, contractual liability, owners’ and contractors’ protective, products and completed operations, contingent employers liability, cross liability and severability of interest clauses; and
b) Automobile liability insurance for an amount not less than five million ($5,000,000) dollars on forms meeting statutory requirements covering all vehicles used in any manner in connection with the delivery of material to the Facility; and
c) Environmental impairment liability insurance covering its obligations under this contract and those of its agents, officers, employees or other persons acting on its behalf including loss or claims arising from contamination to third party property or bodily injury during transit. Such policy shall provide coverage for an amount not less than one million ($1,000,000.) dollars and shall remain in force for twelve (12) months following the final delivery to the Material Recycling Facility.
d) The policies shown above will not be cancelled or permitted to lapse unless the insurer notifies the City in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiry. The City reserves the right to request such higher limits of insurance or other types of policies appropriate to the work as the City may reasonable require.
e) The Partner Municipality shall not commence work until such time as satisfactory evidence of insurance has been filed with and approved by the City Solicitor. The Partner Municipality shall further provide that evidence of the continuance of said insurance is filed at each policy renewal date of the duration of the contract.
f) Mutual Indemnification
(i) The Partner Municipality shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all liability, loss, claims, demands, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, occasioned wholly or in part by: any negligence or acts or omissions by the Partner Municipality, its officers, agents, employees and persons for whom it is at law responsible; or out of a breach of the Partner Municipality’s delivery of materials under this Agreement; and
(ii) The City shall indemnify and hold the Partner Municipality harmless from and against all liability, loss, claims, demands, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, occasioned wholly or in part by: any negligence or acts or omissions by the City, its officers, agents, employees and persons for whom it is at law responsible; or, out of ownership of the Material Recycling Facility or a breach of the City’s obligations under this Agreement.
3.4 The City may require Split Weighing of any load in order to establish quantities in each Contract Stream.
140 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 9
3.5 All vehicles under the ownership and/or control of the Partner Municipality and using the Facility shall have the driver inspect each load after it is dumped and remove all visible Non-Recyclable Materials.
3.6 All vehicles under the ownership and/or control of the Partner Municipality shall follow all Facility operational protocols (e.g. unloading) and health & safety procedures while at the Facility. The City shall retain the sole and exclusive right to redefine and revise any operational protocol and health & safety procedure, in its sole discretion and exercisable from time to time.
4. Acceptable Recyclable Material Requirements
4.1 The maximum allowable compaction of Mixed Containers stream received at the Facility is a ratio of 2 or a density of 100 kg/m3, whichever is lower. The maximum allowable compaction of Mixed Paper Fibres stream received at the Facility is a ratio of 2.5 or a density of 375 kg/m3, whichever is lower. Failure to deliver loads that meet this requirement may result in future loads being rejected until the situation is rectified to the satisfaction of the City.
4.2 The Partner Municipality agrees to take all reasonable measures to delivery only Acceptable Recyclable Materials and to deliver these materials in the correct Contract Stream. The Acceptable Recyclables Materials shall be delivered loose (not in plastic bags).
Material with more than three percent (3%) Contamination, by weight may be subject to increased processing fees, as per Schedule C, and the Partner Municipality may be responsible for the cost of any Waste Audits performed by the City on the incoming material from the Partner Municipality, the cost of which shall be charged as a Waste Audit Fee.
Audits to determine the level of Contamination in the Partner Municipality’s incoming material will be performed according to Schedule D.
Loads with more than eight percent (8%) Contamination, by weight, may be rejected and may result in future loads being rejected until the situation is rectified to the satisfaction of the City.
5. Processing Service Fee
5.1 The Partner Municipality shall pay the following fees for Processing Services under this agreement as calculated below:
Facility Fee a) A facility fee shall be assessed on a monthly basis.
b) The unit rate (per tonne fee) for the facility fee will be determined from Schedule “C” according to the total incoming tonnage of material received at the Facility from all sources and the Contamination in the material received.
c) Schedule “C” may be adjusted, redefined or revised, and from time to time reflect changes to operating or capital costs due to changing composition of the Acceptable Recyclable Materials (e.g., more containers and less paper fibers), changes to the materials listed in Schedule “A”, new processing technology and other unforeseen events. All changes are at the City’s sole discretion provided at least sixty (60) day’s notice of its intention to adjust, revise or redefine Schedule “C” is delivered to the Partner Municipality, together with a copy of all such proposed adjustments, revisions or redefinitions.
When practical, the City will provide at least one hundred twenty (120) days’ notice of its intention to adjust, revise or redefine Schedule “C” is delivered to the Partner Municipality, together with a copy of all such proposed adjustments, revisions or redefinitions.
141 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 10
The City will consult with the Partner Municipality prior to issuing the notice of intention to adjust, redefine or revise Schedule “C”. This clause does not apply to changes in Schedule “C” for the cost of living as outlined in clause 5.1 e).
d) The unit rate for a month shall be multiplied by the marketed (outgoing) tonnes of the Partner Municipality for the month. The marketed (outgoing) tonnes of the Partner Municipality shall be equal to the ratio of the incoming tonnage accepted from the Partner Municipality during the month, to the total incoming tonnage accepted at the Facility from all sources during the month multiplied by the total marketed (outgoing) tonnes.
e) The facility fees in Schedule “C” will be adjusted each year on October 1st, for the cost of living as follows:
Step 1: Applicable percentage change in CPI = (current year for October – previous year CPI)/(previous year CPI) x 100% Step 2: Current year per-tonne processing fee = previous year per-tonne processing fee x (1 + (applicable percentage change in CPI/100)).
Where CPI is the Consumer Price Index for Ontario – All Items.
Waste Audit Fee The Partner Municipality shall pay the full cost incurred by the City for performing any Waste Audit on the Partner Municipality’s incoming material if the level of Contamination, as determined by the Waste Audit, is greater than three per cent by weight and greater than the average level of Contamination in incoming material from all sources. The City in its sole discretion will determine when and if Waste Audits on incoming material are required. The Partner Municipality will be given at least three (3) days’ notice of any audit of their material.
Late Payment Fee The City reserves the right to charge the Partner Municipality a fee for late payments at the rate established by the City, currently 1.5% per month on overdue amounts.
6. Reserve Fund
6.1 Any fees, as detailed in Section 5, in excess of the direct operating costs, capital costs and overhead costs (maximum of 8% of direct operating costs and capital costs) shall be placed in a reserve fund to pay for future capital costs of the Material Recovery Facility.
7. Revenue Sharing
7.1 The City will perform Waste Audits on the residue from the Facility on a monthly basis to determine capture rates of the Acceptable Recyclable Materials. The Waste Audit procedures will be performed according to Schedule E.
7.2 The contract with the City’s operator guarantees a capture rate of 98% of Mixed Paper Fibres, 95% of glass and 94% of Mixed Containers excluding glass. The City’s contractor will pay the City 100% of the lost revenue (net after transportation to Market) based on the CSR Price Sheet for the applicable month if the aforementioned capture rates not be achieved. The City’s contractor will retain all revenue above the aforementioned capture rates.
7.3 The City shall retain 2.5% of the revenue to pay for Marketing Services.
142 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 11
7.4 The Partner Municipality will receive revenue from the sale of Acceptable Recyclable Materials, for the guaranteed capture rate of materials, according to the following:
Partner % of Material Received at Revenue (Actual Revenue – Municipality = 97.5% X the Facility Belonging to X Based on + Revenue Based on Revenue the Partner Municipality CSR Price CSR Price Sheet)/2 Sheet Where;
% of Material Received Total incoming tonnage Total incoming tonnage of at the Facility Belonging = material received at the / material received at the X 100 to the Partner Facility from the Partner Facility from all sources Municipality Municipality for the month during the same month
Revenue Based on Mixed Paper Fiber, by Unit price for Mixed Paper CSR Price Sheet = material type, marketed X Fiber, by material type, from the from all sources for the CSR Price Sheet during the month based on a 98% same month capture rate plus Glass, by material type, Unit price for Glass, by material marketed from all sources X type, from the CSR Price Sheet for the month based on a during the same month 95% capture rate plus Mixed Containers Unit price for Mixed Containers excluding Glass, by X excluding Glass, by material material type, marketed type, from the CSR Price Sheet from all sources for the during the same month month based on a 94% capture rate
Actual Revenue = Revenue from the sale of Mixed Paper Fiber from all sources for the month based on a 98% capture rate plus Revenue from the sale of Glass from all sources for the month based on a 95% capture rate plus Revenue from the sale of Mixed Containers excluding Glass from all sources for the month based on a 94% capture rate
An example of the calculation of revenue to be retained by the Partner Municipality is presented in Schedule F.
7.5 Revenue in the form of Stewardship Ontario payments made under the Blue Box Program Plan administered by the Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) shall be retained by each municipality and not shared.
7.6 The Partner Municipality’s share of revenue determined in accordance with Section 7.4 above shall be used to offset the Partner Municipality’s share of expenses in the calculation of the Partner Municipality’s Applicable Fees.
143 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 12
8. Invoicing
8.1 The City shall calculate all Applicable Fees owed to the City and all revenues owed to the Partner Municipality on a quarterly basis. Calculation of the Applicable Fees and revenues shall be completed within sixty (60) days after the end of the quarter.
8.2 The City will invoice the Partner Municipality when the Applicable Fees exceed revenues within sixty (60) days after the end of the quarter. The invoice will include supporting calculations of all Applicable Fees and revenues. Any invoice shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days.
8.3 The City will provide the Partner Municipality supporting calculations of all Applicable Fees and revenues within sixty (60) days after the end of the quarter when the Applicable Fees are less than revenues. The City will pay the Partner Municipality any money owed, in accordance with this Section, within thirty (30) days of sending a Partner Municipality supporting calculations showing Applicable Fees are less than revenues.
9. City’s Reporting Requirements
9.1 The City shall provide to the Partner Municipality on a quarterly basis copies of data collected with respect to quantity of material delivered by the Partner Municipality, quantity of material delivered from all sources, quantity of material delivered to each market and price paid by each market.
9.2 The City shall provide to the Partner Municipality data with respect to the Acceptable Recyclable Materials received at the Facility required for the Waste Diversion Ontario, or any successor, Blue Box Datacall submission when it becomes available.
10. Facility Advisory Committee
10.1 A Facility Advisory Committee will be established and be comprised of representatives from the City of London and each Partner Municipality. The purpose of the Facility Advisory Committee is to provide input and transparency to the management and operation of the Facility. The Facility Advisory Committee may review and provide input on; operating records and procedures for the facility, potential changes and revisions to the materials included as Acceptable Recyclable Materials, planned capital expenditures, hours of operation and other matters as appropriate.
10.2 As the contracting authority, the City of London will retain responsibility for all final decisions related to the management and operation of the facility.
11. Term of Agreement
11.1 This agreement shall continue from the Commencement Date until terminated in accordance with Section 12.
12. Default and Termination
12.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party effective midnight on the 30th day of June of any year provided that written notice setting out the intention to so terminate is served on the non-terminating party prior to the 1st day of January of the same year.
12.2 Notwithstanding Section 12.1 above, in the event that the City assigns its obligations under this Agreement in accordance with Section 13, either party may terminate this Agreement upon the giving of six (6) month’s written notice delivered to the other party at any time within the six (6) months following the effective date of assignment.
12.3 Failure by either party to pay any sum due under this Agreement on the day or dates appointed for the payment thereof, or to perform or observe any other provision of this Agreement to be observed or performed by it, shall entitle the other party to terminate this Agreement in the event that such default has continued for a period of thirty (30) days after the defaulting party has been advised of such default in writing.
144 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 13
13. Assignment
13.1 Only the City may assign its rights and obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
13.2 In the event that the City exercises its right of assignment as set forth above, the City shall provide written notice to the Partner Municipality of its intention to assign at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of assignment.
14. Dispute Resolution
14.1 All disputes, claims, controversies or questions arising out of, under, or in connection with, or in relation to this Agreement or its interpretation, performance or non-performance, or any breach of it, shall be submitted to binding arbitration as follows:
A. the Partner Municipality and the City may agree to appoint a single arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding; or
B. in the event that the Partner Municipality and the City cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, then the Partner Municipality shall select one individual and the City shall select one individual and the resulting two individuals shall select a third individual who shall be the sole arbitrator. If either the Partner Municipality or the City fails to appoint a nominee within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a written notice from the other of them requiring that such appointment be made, then the individual chosen by either the Partner Municipality or the City, as the case may be, shall be the sole arbitrator.
14.2 In all other respects, the rules and procedures to be used by the arbitrator shall be as set out in the Arbitrations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.24 and every statutory provision that may be substituted for it or for any provision in it. The parties agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and that there shall be no appeal from it; that the arbitrator shall have the discretion to award the non-offending party his or its costs and expenses incurred in connection with or as a result of such arbitration and on a solicitor and his client basis; and, further, that the decision and award of the arbitrator may be entered and enforced in the relevant courts having jurisdiction.
15. Governing Law
15.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario.
16. Notices
16.1 Any written notice given pursuant to this agreement must be addressed to: In the case of the Partner Municipality, at:
______
Attention:…
In the case of the City, at: City of London 300 Dufferin Avenve P.O. Box 5035 London, Ontario N6A 4L9 Attention: Mr. Wesley Abbott, Division Manager - Solid Waste Management or designate
16.2 If hand delivered, the notice is effective on the date of delivery; if faxed, the notice is effective on the date and time the fax is sent; if sent by registered mail, the notice is deemed to be effective on the fifth business day following the day of mailing.
145 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 14
17. Entire Agreement
17.1 The parties agree that this Agreement and any Schedules attached hereto constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof, and that this Agreement supersedes all proposals, oral or written, all previous negotiations and all other communications between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof.
17.2 No amendment to this agreement shall be effective unless it is made in writing with the mutual consent of both parties.
18. Binding Effect
18.1 This agreement will ensure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties and their respective successors, administrators and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this agreement, which shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors of the respective parties, to be signed and entered as of the date first mentioned above.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: The Corporation of the City of London Per:
______Joe Fontana, Mayor
______Catharine Saunders, City Clerk
The Corporation of the Partner Municipality Per:
______- Mayor
______- Clerk
146 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 15
Schedule “A” Acceptable Recyclable Materials
For the purposes of this agreement the following are Acceptable Recyclable Materials and accepted by the Facility
MATERIAL DEFINITION IF ANY
Mixed Paper Fibres Newsprint Including all newspaper flyers, magazines and telephone directories Mixed Household Paper Including envelopes and writing paper Cardboard Including pizza and other corrugated cardboard boxes Boxboard Including molded pulp and excluding waxed paperboard
Mixed Containers Aluminium Liquid, food or beverage containers Aluminium Foil Items made from aluminum foil including pie plates #1 PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers #2 HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers #3 PVC (Vinyl) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers #4 LDPE (Low Density Polyethylene) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers #5 PP (Polypropylene) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers #6 PS (Polystyrene) Rigid household liquid, food or beverage containers excluding expanded polystyrene (e.g., foam cups and meat trays) #7 Other Plastics Rigid liquid, food or beverage containers Glass Liquid, food or beverage containers (clear, green and amber) Polycoated Paperboard Containers Containers made primarily of paperboard and coated with low density polyethylene and/or aluminum, and used for food and beverages. Includes gabletop (e.g., milk and juice containers) and drinking boxes. Spiral Wound (Cardboard) Cans Composite (cardboard) can with a single wrap rigid body involving several layers of materials (including paper, foil and plastics) with at least one steel end (e.g., frozen juice containers). Steel Liquid, food or beverage containers; empty paint cans; empty aerosol cans
147 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 16
Schedule “B” Facility Hours of Operation
The Material Recovery Facility, for the acceptance of Acceptable Recyclable Materials is open year round to accept materials Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. except for days which are recognized as a legal holiday by the City which are:
1. New Year’s Day 2. Family Day 3. Good Friday 4. Easter Monday 5. Victoria Day 6. Canada Day 7. Ontario Civic Holiday 8. Labour Day 9. Thanksgiving Day 10. Christmas Day 11. Boxing
The facility will be open such additional hours and/or days (i.e., Saturdays) as may be required to accommodate closures on holidays.
148 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 17
Schedule “C” Facility Fee
Received Materialsa Per-Tonne Processing Fee (excluding HST)c (tonnes per month) ($/tonne)
b >3% >4% >5% >6% >7% up to 3% Level of Contamination --> up to 4% up to 5% up to 6% up to 7% up to 8%
2,100 - 2,399 2,400 - 2,699 2,700 - 2,999 3,000 - 3,299
3,300 - 3,599 Schedule C to be completed for 3,600 - 3,899 each partner municipality at the 3,900 - 4,199 time of contract execution 4,200 - 4,499 4,500 - 4,799 4,800 - 5,099 5,100 - 5,399 5,400 - 5,699 5,700 - 5,999 6,000 - 6,299
a) Quantity Received at Facility for the determination of the unit rate shall be total tonnage accepted at the Facility from all sources during the month (incoming tonnes).
b) The Level of Contamination for the determination of the unit rate shall be the higher of the average Level of Contamination in the material accepted at the Facility from all sources during the month or the Level of Contamination in the material accepted at the Facility from the Partner Municipality.
c) Facility Fee is paid on Partner Municipality share of tonnes made market ready (outgoing tonnes).
149 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 18
Schedule “D” Residue Auditing Protocol for Partner Municipality Overview and Objectives 1. The City, with assistance from the Facility Operator, will conduct periodic audits of the residue from the materials collected by the Partner Municipality and delivered to the Facility. The Partner Municipality is encouraged to have a representative attend the audits. Initially there will be one (1) audit per month for at least the first two months to establish baseline information. Audits will be conducted after the first two months only if there is reason to believe the percent Non-Recyclable Material level (including Cross Contamination) of the incoming materials from the Partner Municipality exceeds the average percent Non-Recyclable Material level (including Cross Contamination) of the incoming materials from all sources. The determination as to whether an audit is required will be made by the City and will be based on a number of factors including the data from previous audits and visual inspections of the incoming material.
2. The fundamental objective of the residue audits is to determine the % Non-Recyclable Material level (including Cross Contamination) applicable to the materials collected by the Partner Municipality and delivered to the Facility.
3. The City will randomly select the truck(s) to be audited and the audit date each month, giving the Partner Municipality agreed upon notice of the audit date. The audit dates will be chosen during relatively “dry” times so as to not introduce moisture issues.
4. The City and the Partner Municipality warrant that the trucks chosen for the audits and the residue samples from those trucks shall be accepted as representative, in both nature and composition, of the materials delivered to the Facility by the Partner Municipality. Residue Auditing Methodology Audit Sample Size and Source 5. The City will randomly select one (1) or two (2) of the Partner Municipality’s trucks to be audited each month. The trucks identified for auditing will be instructed to deposit their contents on a clean, isolated area of the Facility tip floor. This material set aside for auditing will be processed separately through the MRF (i.e., without other materials from other sources) so that a residue sample for auditing from only the Partner Municipality’s trucks can be obtained. Because the weights of the individual material streams (fibres and containers) in the trucks are required for this auditing protocol and for determination of the % Non-Recyclable Material level, the trucks will be instructed to deposit one material stream first then be reweighed on the main weighscales prior to depositing the second material stream.
6. It is proposed that the Facility will operate the fibre and container lines independently during an audit of the Partner Municipality’s materials. Thus a fibre stream residue audit and a separate container stream residue audit will be conducted, both such audits constituting a complete residue audit.
7. In the case of the fibres stream, since all fibre products are negative sorted into bunkers the residue from the fibre stream will be limited to positive sorted items only. These positive sorted residue items will be collected by sorting staff in large pails (lined with clear plastic bags) and other containers (emptied and tared prior to the audit) suitable for the materials captured. Following the processing of the Partner Municipality’s fibre materials, the bags/containers of positive sorted material will be taken to the audit area for identification and weighing.
150 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 19
8. In the case of the container stream, container line residue will be a combination of positive sorted items (which will be collected/weighed in the same manner as described above for fibre line residue) and negative sorted material. During the processing of the Partner Municipality’s container materials, the negative sorted material will accumulate in a dedicated compactor bin (tared and empty at the start of the audit). A representative sample of the total negative sorted residue will be isolated for auditing using a “V” shaped plow that is temporarily positioned on the residue conveyor and that temporarily directs all residue on the conveyor into containers for auditing. The plow will be left on the conveyor for sufficient time to generate an approximately 100 kg audit sample. Following the processing of the Partner Municipality’s container materials, the residue accumulated in the compactor bin will be weighed on the main weighscales and the representative audit sample will be audited as discussed below. Determination of Residue Component Weights 9. All weighscales intended to be used for the audits will be checked prior to the audit to confirm accuracy.
10. As discussed above, auditing of the fibre line residue will be confined to confirmation and weighing of the positive sorted items. This will include the following components: Non-Recyclable Material Cross Contamination (containers in the fibre stream) Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover (see definition for this item below)
11. The containers line representative audit sample will be spread out onto a clean, open floor area at the Facility and separated into the following components: Missed Recyclables Non-Recyclable Material Cross Contamination (fibre in the containers stream) Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover (see definition for this item below) Note: During processing of the Partner Municipality’s containers materials, positively sorted items (for example, oversize residue collected at the pre-sort stations) will be collected in pails or other suitable containers and then incorporated into the audit spreadsheet and calculations.
12. The City, with assistance from the Facility Operator, will provide audit sort staff to sort the residue into the above components.
13. Each of the above components will be collected in clear plastic bags then weighed (using a 1.5m x 1.5m weighscale available in the audit area) and recorded directly into an audit details spreadsheet. The clear plastic bags containing materials will be set aside until the audit spreadsheet is confirmed to have correct/accurate entries. The clear plastic bags makes for easy identification of materials by those doing spreadsheet weight entries and also easy re-weighing if necessary. Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover (RMNPR) 14. It is expected that there will be recyclable materials delivered to the Facility that are not practical to recover as a product due to their nature (size, physical condition and characteristics, composition, etc.). 15. The following items are considered (defined as) Recyclable Materials Not Practical to Recover (RMNPR): glass less than 64 mm (2 ½") in length and width at its longest/widest points fibre products less than 150 mm (6”) in length and width at their longest/widest points containers less than 64 mm ( 2 ½”) in length and width at their longest/widest points
151 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 20
individual materials compounded together (i.e., separate recyclable materials that have become entwined/bound together and as a result causes them to act as one physical object) “spiral wound” containers (e.g., cardboard cans such as: frozen juice cans, Pringles containers, refrigerated dough containers, powder drink mixes, baby formula containers) waxed boxes (e.g. frozen food boxes) or paper foil coated boxes (e.g., dishwasher detergent boxes) or paper dark coloured or construction paper metalic foil wrapping paper Containers containing product (i.e., bottles, tubs and jugs that contain at least 10% (by volume of the container) retained product)
16. A determination of the % RMNPR in the residue is important to the City as these items will not be included in the determination of the % Non-Recyclable Material or in the % Cross-Contamination in the Partner Municipality’s material. Determination of MRF Products Weights 17. The audits proposed by the City of the Partner Municipality’s material are intended only to determine the % Non-Recyclable Material level in the residue and are not intended to determine the composition of the fibre and container streams. Consequently products from either stream will not be isolated and product weights will not be determined during the audits. Determination of % Non-Recyclable & Cross Contamination Material Level 18. In the case of the container stream residue audit, the findings from auditing the 100 kg +/- representative sample shall be considered representative of the total weight of residue.
19. The Non-Recyclable Material level (including Cross Contamination) in the materials collected by the Partner Municipality and delivered to the Facility will be determined based on the % of Non-Recyclable Material level (including Cross Contamination) in the residue and the % of residue in the overall mix of materials in the trucks identified for auditing. The weights of the individual streams (fibres and containers) in the trucks will be required to complete this calculation.
20. By way of example, assume the following is determined from a particular month’s audit:
Stream Weights Total weight of fibre stream in truck(s) audited (from main weighscales): 4,000 kg Total weight of containers stream in truck(s) audited (from main weighscales): 1,000 kg Calculated Fibre Stream / Containers Stream mix: 80% / 20% Fibre Line Residue Audit Non-Recyclable Material (from positive sort during audit): 40 kg Cross Contamination (from positive sort during audit): 10 kg RMNPR (from positive sort during audit): 5 kg Containers Line Residue Audit Weight of representative audit sample (plowed off of residue conveyor): 100 kg Weight of remaining residue in compactor bin (from main weighscales): 150 kg Missed Recyclables (in representative audit sample): 20 kg Non-Recyclable Material (in representative audit sample): 60 kg Cross Contamination (in representative audit sample): 10 kg RMNPR (in representative audit sample): 10 kg
152 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 21
Non-Recyclable Material (from positive sort during audit): 50 kg
Calculations Fibres Stream Weight of Non-Recyclable Material in residue: 40 kg Weight of Cross Contamination in residue: 10 kg Total weight of Non-Recyclable & Cross Contamination Material in residue: 50 kg
Total Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination Level of Fibre Stream: 1.25% (50 kg / 4,000 kg) Containers Stream Non-Recyclable Material level in representative audit sample: 60% (60 kg / 100 kg) Cross Contamination level in representative audit sample: 10% (10 kg / 100 kg) Total Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination Level in representative audit sample: 70% (60% + 10%) RMNPR level in representative audit sample: 10% (10 kg / 100 kg) Missed Recyclables level in representative audit sample: 20% (20 kg / 100 kg)
Total weight of residue in representative audit sample and in bin: 250 kg (100 kg + 150 kg) Weight of missed recyclables in above: 50 kg (250 kg x 20%) Weight of RMNPR in above: 25 kg (250 kg x 10%) Weight of Non-Recyclable Material in above: 175 kg (250 kg x 70%) Weight of Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination from positive sort during audit: 50 kg Total weight of Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination in Containers Stream: 225 kg (175 kg + 50 kg)
Total Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination Level of Containers Stream: 22.5% (225 kg / 1,000 kg)
Both Streams Combined Non-Recyclable Material & Cross Contamination Level in both streams combined: 5.5% [(1.25% x 80%) + (22.5% x 20%)]
Reporting 21. The City will prepare a monthly Audit Summary Report outlining the results of the audits conducted and with all spreadsheets and other supporting material (e.g., weigh tickets) appended.
22. The City or the Partner Municipality may ask for a new audit to replace an audit if the audit findings are significantly different than normal. Each additional audit will be at the expense of the party that requested the additional audit.
153 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 22
Schedule “E” Residue Auditing Protocol for Material Recovery Facility
Overview 1. Miller Waste Systems Limited (“Miller Waste”) will conduct and the City will witness monthly audits. There will be two (2) audits per month; one conducted on a Monday or Tuesday in the first two weeks of the month and one conducted on a Thursday or Friday in the third or fourth weeks of the month. If both parties agree, the number of audits per month can be reduced to one (1). The City will request the audit dates each month giving sufficient notice for Miller Waste to prepare.
2. The audit dates will be chosen during relatively “dry” times so as to not introduce moisture issues.
3. It is assumed herein that the fibre and container lines are operated independently. Thus separate audits can be conducted of the Fibre Material Processing line and the Container Material Processing line. It is envisaged that the two separate audits will be conducted on the same day.
4. If the Fibre Material Processing line and Container Material Processing Line are operated concurrently, the two parties will work together to develop a modified auditing protocol that addresses matters related to the mixed nature (partly from the Container Material Processing line and partly from the Fibre Material Processing line; proportions of each not definitively known) of the Residue.
5. Miller Waste and the City warrant that the Residue samples chosen for the monthly audits shall be accepted as representative, in both nature and composition, of the Residue generated at the Materials Recovery Facility that month.
6. Miller Waste or the City may ask for an additional audit to replace one of the mandatory audits if the percentage of Residue on the audit day(s) or during the collection of the sample is significantly higher or lower than normal. A new audit would likely be required if the difference in the Residue between the audit sample and normal operations is more than 15%. For example, if the Residue rate over the preceding two weeks was 8 % and the Residue rate during the audit was 10%, a new audit may be required. Each additional audit will be at the expense of the party that requested the additional audit.
7. The City may conduct audits in addition to those required in the Request for Proposal 08-03 (RFP), at their expense. Audits may be undertaken to confirm the composition of the Residue. Residue Audit Objectives 8. Confirm: the Recoverable Fibre Materials Required Recovery Rate of 98% is met; the Recoverable Container Materials Required Recovery Rate of 94% is met; and the Recoverable Glass Materials Required Recovery Rate of 95% is met. See the Agreement for the list of materials making up each of the three (3) material categories identified above.
9. Confirm the MRF is operated during the audit at the RFP-specified throughput of 23 tonnes/hr. Note: Required throughput for each Processing line will be apportioned in accordance with the determined mix of fibres/containers. At the time of preparing this audit protocol it is estimated that a 78% fibres / 22% containers mix exists, thus the Fibre
154 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 23
Processing line minimum throughput to be 18 tonnes/hr and the Container Processing line minimum throughput to be 5 tonnes/hr.
10. Determine the % Non-Recyclable Material (including Cross-Contamination) and % Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover level applicable for the month. Residue Auditing Methodology Audit Sample Size and Source 11. With the plant running theFibre and Container Processing lines independently, generally each audit day the morning shift will be dedicated to one of the Processing streams and the afternoon shift will be dedicated to the other Processing stream.
12. In the case of Fibres, since all products are negative sorted into bunkers the Residue will be limited to positive sorted items. These positive sorted Residue items will be collected in both large pails (lined with clear plastic bags) and other containers suitable for the Residue materials captured. When a pail becomes full, the bag of Residue material will be removed from the pail and taken to the audit area for identification and weighing. Spare pails/bags should be available at each positive Residue sort station to minimize disruption to processing. Other containers will be moved to the audit area for identification and weighing after the Fibre line Processing is completed. These positive sorted Residue items will be accumulated throughout the audit day’s shift devoted to the Fibre Materials and thus the audit sample size each audit day will be the accumulated positive sorted Residue items.
13. Container Processing line Residue will be a combination of positive sorted items (which are to be collected/weighed in the same manner as described above for Fibre Processing line Residue) and negative sorted material. The negative sorted material will accumulate in a dedicated compactor bin, which is to be empty at the start of the audit day. After the audit day’s Container line Processing is complete, the Residue bin is to be weighed (the bin is to be tared so that the total Residue sample weight is determined). The contents of the bin are then discharged onto a suitable, clean floor area and, using a loader, a representative sample of the total Residue is isolated for auditing. The size of this representative sample shall be such that the total Residue sample for auditing, including positive sorted items, is approximately 500 kg.
14. The exact run time for each Processing stream’s audit is to be recorded so that a calculation of the tonnes/hr throughput can be made each audit day. It is proposed that the run time clock starts with the start of the main feed conveyor for each line (P-1 for the Fibre Processing line, C-1 for the Container Processing line). After the required run time for each line the main feed conveyors are stopped (and the run time clock stopped) and material is allowed to run through the system until all downstream conveyors are cleared of material. Determination of Residue Component Weights 15. All weighscales intended to be used for the audits will be checked prior to the audit to confirm accuracy.
16. As discussed above, auditing of the Fibre Processing line Residue will be confined to confirmation and weighing of the positive sorted items. This is to include the following components: Missed Recyclables (there may not be any due to the negative sorting of all fibre products) Non-Recyclable Material Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover Cross Contamination (Containers in the Fibre Residue)
155 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 24
17. Each Containers Processing line audit sample will be spread out onto a clean, open floor area at the MRF and separated into the following components: Missed Recyclables (each individual material separately identified) Non-Recyclable Material Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover Cross Contamination (Fibrein the Containers Residue) Note: As discussed earlier, some materials will be positively sorted during the audit (for example, Cross Contamination on the Fibre Processing line and oversize Residue collected at the pre-sort on either Processing line) and such material is to be collected in pails or other suitable containers during the audit and then incorporated into the audit spreadsheet and calculations.
18. Miller Waste Systems is to provide audit sort staff to sort the Residue into the above components.
19. Each of the above components will be collected in clear plastic bags then weighed (using the 1.5m x 1.5m weighscale) and recorded directly into an audit details spreadsheet. The clear plastic bags containing materials should be set aside until the audit spreadsheet is confirmed to have correct/accurate entries. The clear plastic bags makes for easy identification of materials by those doing spreadsheet weight entries and also easy re-weighing if necessary.
20. Ultimately with each audit the following information will be recorded into the audit details spreadsheet: the weight of all Residue; the weight of missed Recoverable Fibre, Containers and glass in the Residue; the weight of Cross Contamination in the Residue; the weight of Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover in the Residue; and the weight of Non-Recyclable Material in the Residue.
Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover 21. The following items are considered Recyclable Materials Not Practical to Recover: program bags used to contain recyclables (e.g., clear plastic bags, translucent plastic bags and grocery sacs) glass less than 64 mm (2 ½") in length and width at its longest/widest points fibre products less than 150 mm (6”) in length and width at their longest/widest points containers less than 64 mm ( 2 ½”) in length and width at their longest/widest points individual materials compounded together (i.e., separate recyclable materials that have become entwined/bound together and as a result causes them to act as one physical object) “spiral wound” containers (e.g., cardboard cans such as: frozen juice cans, Pringles containers, refrigerated dough containers, powder drink mixes, baby formula containers) waxed boxes (e.g. frozen food boxes) or paper foil coated boxes (e.g., dishwasher detergent boxes) or paper dark coloured or construction paper metalic foil wrapping paper Containers containing product (i.e., bottles, tubs and jugs that contain at least 10% (by volume of the container) retained product)
156 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 25
22. Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover shall not be included in the determination of the % Recyclable or % Non-Recyclable Material each month. The weight of these items is to be included in any throughput calculations.
Determination of Products Weights 23. All weighscales intended to be used for the audits will be checked prior to the audit to confirm accuracy.
24. Prior to the start of the audit (i.e., the night before) all bunkers, cages and containers that are used to store Recovered Materials are to be emptied so that the weights of each Recovered Material accumulated during the audit can be determined.
25. Each baleable Recovered Material will be separately baled and weighed using the forklift scales and recoded directly in the audit details spreadsheet.
26. In the case of glass, for convenience of weighing on the main truck scales, clear and coloured glass shall be accumulated in separate roll-off containers in the glass bunker. In the case of loose-loaded ONP, bales of this material will be accumulated.
27. In the case of plastic film, bales of this material will be accumulated.
Determination of Throughput and Recovery Rates 28. Throughput requirements (tonnes/hr) will be assessed based on the calculated throughput achieved during the audits only. Throughput achieved during each audit will be the total weight of material processed during the audit (i.e., sum of all products plus the residue sample) divided by the total audit run time for the audit.
29. Required Recovery Rates will be assessed based on the recovery rates achieved during the audits only. Each material category’s recovery rate achieved will be determined based on the following formula (expressed as a percentage): Quantity of Recovered Material captured for the category / (Sum of quantity of Recovered Material captured for the category + quantity of missed Recoverable Recyclable Material for the category)
30. The recovery rates for the month are determined based on a weighted average of the month’s two audits. Determination of % Non-Recyclable Material Level 31. The Non-Recyclable Material level in the Residue will be determined for each audit based on the following formula (expressed as a percentage): (Quantity of Non Recyclable Material +Cross Contamination) / Total Weight of Residue Audit Sample
32. The Non-Recyclable Material level in the Residue for the month is determined based on a weighted average of the month’s two audits. Determination of % Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover Level 33. The Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover level in the Residue will be determined for each audit based on the following formula (expressed as a percentage): (Quantity of Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover) / Total Weight of Residue Audit Sample
34. The Recyclable Material Not Practical to Recover level in the Residue for the month is determined based on a weighted average of the month’s two audits.
157 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 26
Reporting 35. Miller Waste Systems is to prepare a monthly Audit Summary Report outlining the weighted average results of the month’s two audits audit and with all spreadsheets and other supporting material appended.
158 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 27
Schedule “F” Sample Calculation of Revenue Sharing with Partner Municipality
Example Revenue Calculation #1 - Selling Price Exceeds CSR Price
Calculation of Total Municipal Revenue From All Sources Mixed Paper Fibers 100% 98% Containers 95% 94% Glass 98% 95% Revenue Quantity Marketed Contract Revenue Goal Selling Price Adjustment Total Actual Contracta CSR Selling Per Tonne Revenue Municipal Revenue (tonnes) (tonnes) Pricesheetb Price Adjustmentc Adjustment Revenue Total Mixed Paper Fibers Shipped to Market ONP 1,200 1,176 149 175,224 169 10 11,760 186,984 Cardboard 240 235 174 40,925 190 8 1,882 42,806 Hardpack 360 353 94 33,163 94 0 0 33,163 Mixed Residential Paper 0 0 ------Boxboard 120 118 75 8,820 75 0 0 8,820 Subtotal 1,920 1,882 $137 $258,132 $152 $7.25 $13,642 $271,774
Total Containers (excluding glass) Shipped to Market Aluminium 0 24 1,954 46,402 1,954 0 0 46,402 #1 Pet 0 95 697 66,208 697 0 0 66,208 #2 HDPE 0 47 688 32,676 688 0 0 32,676 #3 to #7 Mixed Plastics 0 24 59 1,401 59 0 0 1,401 Polycoat 0 24 124 2,945 140 8 190 3,135 Steel 0 95 343 32,581 343 0 0 32,581 Subtotal 0 309 $584 $182,214 $591 $0.62 $190 $182,404
Total Glass Shipped to Market Clear 96 93 27 2,513 27 0 0 2,513 Mixed 72 70 -10 -698 -10 0 0 -698 Subtotal 168 163 $11 $1,815 $11 $0.00 $0 $1,815
Total 2,400 184 $442,160 $13,832 $455,992 Less Marketing Fees (2.5% of Revenue Goal in Contract) $11,054 Total Municipal Revenue $444,938 Notes a) Contract guarantees a specified capture rate of recyclables for which municipalities are to receive revenue for regardless of the actual quantity captured. b) Revenue paid for materials marketed is based on pricing in the CSR price sheet (http://www.stewardedge.ca/pricesheet/) plus a price adjustment. c) Price adjustment for market materials is 50% of the difference between the actual revenue less revenue based on CSR pricing.
Calculation of Revenue Belonging to Partner Municipality Total Material Received from all Sources 2,500 tonnes Total Material Received from Partner Municipality 25 tonnes Portion of Material belonging to Partner Municipality 1% Portion of Total Municipal Revenue belonging to Partner Municipality $4,449
Calculation of Partner Municipality's Processing Fees Total Material Marketed from all Sources 2,400 tonnes Portion of Material belonging to Partner Municipality 1% Marketed Material belonging to Partner Municipality 24 tonnes Processing Fees ($86/tonne based on < 3% non-recyclables) $2,064 NET PAYMENT TO PARTNER MUNICIPALITY $2,385
159 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # 28
Example Revenue Calculation #2 - Selling Price is less than CSR Price
Calculation of Total Municipal Revenue From All Sources Actual Guaranteed Capture Rate Based on Monthly Audits Capture Rate Capture Rate Mixed Paper Fibers 100% 98% Containers 95% 94% Glass 98% 95%
Revenue Quantity Marketed Revenue Goal in Contract Selling Price Adjustment Total Actual Contract CSR Selling Per Tonne Revenue Municipal Revenue (tonnes) (tonnes) Pricesheet Price Adjustment Adjustment Revenue Total Mixed Paper Fibers Shipped to Market ONP 1,200 1,176 149 175,224 129 -10 -11,760 163,464 Cardboard 240 235 174 40,925 158 -8 -1,882 39,043 Hardpack 360 353 94 33,163 94 0 0 33,163 Mixed Residential Paper 0 0 ------Boxboard 120 118 75 8,820 75 0 0 8,820 Subtotal 1,920 1,882 $137 $258,132 $123 -$7.25 -$13,642 $244,490
Total Containers (excluding glass) Shipped to Market Aluminium 0 24 1,954 46,402 1,954 0 0 46,402 #1 Pet 0 95 697 66,208 697 0 0 66,208 #2 HDPE 0 47 688 32,676 688 0 0 32,676 #3 to #7 Mixed Plastics 0 24 59 1,401 59 0 0 1,401 Polycoat 0 24 124 2,945 108 -8 -190 2,755 Steel 0 95 343 32,581 343 0 0 32,581 Subtotal 0 309 $584 $182,214 $589 -$0.62 -$190 $182,024
Total Glass Shipped to Market Clear 96 93 27 2,513 27 0 0 2,513 Mixed 72 70 -10 -698 -10 0 0 -698 Subtotal 168 163 $11 $1,815 $11 $0.00 $0 $1,815
Total 2,400 184 $442,160 -$13,832 $428,329 Less Marketing Fees (2.5% of Revenue Goal in Contract) $11,054 Total Municipal Revenue $417,275
Calculation of Revenue Belonging to Partner Municipality Total Material Received from all Sources 2,500 tonnes Total Material Received from Partner Muncipality 25 tonnes Portion of Material belonging to Partner Municipality 1% Portion of Total Municipal Revenue belonging to Partner Municipality $4,173
Calculation of Partner Municipality's Processing Fees Total Material Marketed from all Sources 2,400 tonnes Portion of Material belonging to Partner Municipality 1% Marketed Material belonging to Partner Municipality 24 tonnes Processing Fees ($86/tonne based on < 3% non-recyclables) $2,064
NET PAYMENT TO PARTNER MUNICIPALITY $2,109
160 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 1
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE
SUBJECT: UPDATES ON GREEN BIN PROGRAM AND ZERO WASTE STRATEGIES
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the following actions BE TAKEN:
(a) All activities dealing with a Green Bin (collection and processing) Program BE PLACED ON HOLD, including the proposed pilot project, until March 2013 it being noted that the current and anticipated tax targets do not allow for new projects of this magnitude at this time;
(b) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update the appropriate Standing Committee on developments that may alter the Green Bin Program costs such as advancements in the extended producer responsibility (EPR) program originally proposed by the Provincial Government or economic development opportunities as they come available; and
(c) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to focus existing resources on other elements from the Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (January, 2010) that relate to the optimization of existing programs such as the Blue Box Program, Yard Material and Leaf Collection and Processing, EnviroDepot and Outreach/Awareness programs as opposed to new initiatives.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca include:
Update - Green Bin And Modified Garbage Collection Pilot Project (February 15, 2011 meeting of the Community and Neighborhood Committee (CNC), Agenda Item #13) Green Bin Processing for Pilot Project – Legal and Operational Requirements from Delaying Project (September 20, 2010 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC), Agenda Item #1) Green Bin Processing for Pilot Project (September 13, 2010 meeting of the ETC, Agenda Item #2) Update: Composting Facilities in Ontario and Impact on London‟s Green Bin Pilot Project (July 19, 2010 meeting of ETC, Added Agenda Item #30) Update: Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (May 10, 2010 meeting of ETC, Agenda Item #13) Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (January 11, 2010 meeting of the ETC, Agenda Item #11) Guidance Document for Waste Diversion Decisions including the Green Bin Program (November 10, 2008 meeting of the ETC, Agenda Item #7) Waste Diversion Strategy Public Consultation Document and Recent Waste Diversion Initiatives – Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London (December 10, 2007 meeting of ETC, Agenda Item # 9)
161 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 2
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to:
place on hold all activities associated with Green Bin Program including the Green Bin Pilot Project until March 2013, and
focus existing resources on other elements from the Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies (January, 2010) that relate to the optimization of existing programs such as the Blue Box Program, Yard Material and Leaf Collection and Processing, EnviroDepot and Outreach/Awareness programs as opposed to new initiatives.
CONTEXT:
In January 2010, Council approved a Green Bin Program pilot project to begin in the fall 2010 as part of the Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies. In the fall 2010, Council decided to delay implementation of the Green Bin Program pilot project by six months until the spring 2011and requested additional information on processing options.
In the spring 2011, Council decided to delay implementation of the Green Bin Program pilot project a further six months until the fall 2011 and directed staff to:
implement a garbage cart pilot project, conduct further research on resource recovery technologies and home composting, and investigate and report back on neighbourhood concerns and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) progress related to the remaining operating challenges at the Orgaworld Canada Ltd. composting facility.
DISCUSSION:
Addressing Council’s Recommendations
Item Status Garbage cart pilot project Currently under way. Started with 100 homes, north of Fanshawe Park Road in B Zone. Research on resource recovery technologies, Under way home composting Neighbourhood concerns and the Ministry of City staff will be attending the next Zero Odours the Environment progress related to the Advisory Group (ZOAG) meeting in early remaining operating challenges at the September. At that meeting updates will be Orgaworld Canada Ltd. composting facility. received by Orgaworld and the MOE
Next Steps for the Green Bin Program
It is recommended that the Green Bin Program including the pilot project be delayed a further 18 months primarily because of financial constraints facing the City, and to focus staff and financial resources on Zero Waste Strategies that optimize existing programs. These items are discussed in further detail below, highlighted on Table 1 (next page) and with additional detail in Appendix A. a) Financial Constraints The Green Bin program (including weekly recycling collection and seasonal garbage collection) will increase operating costs by approximately $5,500,000 per year and require a one time capital investment of $7,600,000. The increased operating cost per household for full rollout is approximately $35 per household per year (in 2011 dollars). The current and anticipated tax targets do not allow for new projects of this magnitude without substantial additional outside funding.
It was previously thought that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives being proposed by the MOE had the potential to significantly decrease the amount of new funding required to pay for the Green Bin program. Potentially about 50% of the annual operating cost of a Green Bin program could be covered if full EPR for recycling was introduced. Industry currently pays
162 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 3
between 40% and 50% of the cost the Blue Box program. There is currently no timetable proposed for the implementation of full EFR for recycling. b) Changing Technology Staff are currently reviewing resource recovery facilities and strategies including aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatment (MBT) processes, advanced thermal treatment (ATT) and other technologies (including new, next generation and emerging technologies) to assist in optimizing materials recovery and moving from the current diversion rate of 40% towards the Provincial goal of 60%.
It would be prudent to complete this review of alternative technologies prior to beginning the Green Bin Program pilot project and advancing further thinking on only one resource recovery technology. c) Need to Optimize Zero Waste Strategies In January 2010, Council adopted the Interim Business Plan for the Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies. The Interim Business Plan for Zero Waste Strategies included a number of initiatives to enhance or optimize the existing recycling, yard material and depot programs. Detailed information on the individual initiatives is required to be provided to Council for final approval prior to implementation. Information on the status of each of these initiatives as well as other initiatives requested by Council is provided in Appendix A. As of August 2011, 12 Zero Waste strategies have either been completed or are in progress (Table 1).
Table 1 – Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program & Zero Waste Strategies Initiative Details Initiatives Fully Implemented Add Depot materials Electronics Fluorescent tubes/bulbs, propane tanks, batteries Blue Box recycling at W12A Landfill Yard Material Collection Eliminate plastic bags HSW Depot Provide service to small business Expand hours Initiatives in Progress Increase Blue Box container Over 1,000 of 2,200 additional carts delivered to multi- capacity residential buildings; Three month roll-out of reusable recycling bags to 20,000 units in multi-residential buildings; Six week roll-out of new large capacity blue boxes to 117,000 curbside households Add materials to curbside/ Thermoform PET (i.e., plastic clamshell containers) multi- residential collection Aerosols Cardboard cans (e.g., frozen juice cans) #3, #6 & #7 plastic bottles, tubs and jugs Add Depot materials Freon appliances Enhanced Promotion/Awareness Multi-residential promotion campaign underway Initiatives in Planning Stage EnviroDepot upgrades North End depot Clarke Road depot Additional materials (e.g., paint, antifreeze, etc.) Enhanced Promotion/Awareness Campaigns being developed for 1) proper set out at curb, 2) new materials being collected and 3) materials with low capture rates. Initiatives Being Explored/Under Consideration by Staff Recycling/garbage/yard material Examination of weekly recycling collection and collection frequency seasonal garbage collection plus other strategies Reduce garbage container limits Review impact of new recycling initiatives User fees Fees for bulky items or extra garbage
163 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 4
Initiative Details New Initiatives to add to Interim Business Plan Maximize opportunities at new Lower costs through regional partners MRF Coordination of regional promotion Garbage Cart Pilot Requested by Council spring 2011 Review of Resource Recovery Requested by Council spring 2011 Facilities and Strategies Home Composting Review Requested by Council spring 2011
Staff resources are stretched to the limit given the number of waste diversion initiatives currently underway or that need to be examined. Delaying the Green Bin Program pilot project will allow staff time to focus more on optimization projects remaining on the Table 1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared with assistance from Anne Boyd, Waste Diversion Coordinator and Mike Losee, Manager – Solid Waste Engineering.
PREPARED BY:
WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:
JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A. PAT McNALLY, P. ENG. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING, & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES July 28, 2011 Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 08 Green Bin Processing Update.docx
Appendix A - Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program & Zero Waste Strategies c. John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer
164 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 5
Appendix A Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies
Abbreviations used on Table A-1:
CIF Continuous Improvement Fund EPR Extended Producer Responsibility MHSW Municipal Hazardous & Special Waste MOE Ministry of the Environment (Provincial) MRF Material Recovery Facility SSO Source separated organics WDO Waste Diversion Ontario
Table A - 1 Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies Interim Business Plan – January, 2010 Update as of August 1, 2011 Program Program Change Proposed Date Curbside Programs Green Bin - Weekly collection of Green - 3 year phase Green Bin Pilot Program Bin and Blue Box beginning - Recommend delay of Pilot Project and - Food waste & soiled with pilot related activities until March 2013 paper/tissues (Spring Backyard Composting Pilot - Can top up bin with yard 2010) materials - Phase one completed - Collection in a rollout cart (50 - Phase two underway litre, 85 litre cart or 120 litre) Green Bin Processing; New, Emerging - Liners must be certified Next Generation Technologies compostable - Ongoing - Seasonal Garbage: Seasonal Garbage Collection Weekly collection of garbage from April 1 to September - Research ongoing 30; every two week pickup from November 1 to March 31. Recycling - Provide Blue Boxes at no - Spring 2011 - Blue Box distribution to begin mid- Program cost August 2011 - Granted 50% funding of new Blue Boxes and distribution from CIF - Add aerosols containers - Spring 2011 - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, August 2, 2011 - Promotion to be included with new Blue Box delivery - New - Add cardboard cans - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, (i.e. „spiral wound‟ August 2, 2011 containers) - Promotion to be included with new Blue Box delivery - Add remaining plastic - 2011 to 2013 - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, bottles, tubs, jugs and August 2, 2011 clamshells (including other - Promotion to be included with new thermoformed #1 plastic) Blue Box delivery - Weekly collection - Fall 2011 - Will be part of future budget discussions - Frequency of recycling collection traditionally matches garbage collection (table continued)
165 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 6
Table A - 1 Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies Interim Business Plan – January, 2010 Update as of August 1, 2011 Program Program Change Proposed Date Garbage - Add fluorescent tubes, - Spring 2010 - Completed summer 2010 Collection electronics (including TVs/ - Implement interim collection monitors) to list of non- arrangements until September 30, collectables 2010 - Stop curbside collection of - October - Completed October 2010 fluorescent tubes, electronics 2010 (including TVs/ monitors) - Switch to seasonal garbage - Fall 2011 - Report to Council Fall, 2011 collection; weekly collection - Will be part of future budget of garbage during summer discussions and bi-weekly collection of garbage during winter (decision to be made if 50% or 100% of the City) - New – Garbage cart pilot - - Requested by Council spring 2011 - Underway with 100 homes in Zone B Yard - Eliminate the use of non- - January - Implemented 2010 Materials compostable plastic bags 2010 (including fall leaves) - Collection every 5 weeks - Spring 2012 - Report to Council Fall, 2011 during spring & summer - Will be part of future budget - Collection every 3 weeks discussions during fall Multi-Residential Programs Green Bin - Food waste & soiled - Defer - Recommend delay of Pilot Project and Program paper/tissues decision until related activities until March 2013 curbside - Continue reviewing implementation of Green Bin is programs in Waterloo, Hamilton, fully Ottawa, etc. implemented Recycling - Increase capacity by - Spring 2010 - In progress, 1,100 of 2,200 roll out Program providing recycling carts and carts have been sold bins at subsidized cost - Pilot project underway with subsidized large (4 yd3) bins for cardboard - New - Increase capacity by - Three month roll out of reusable bags providing reusable blue bags to 20,000 multi-residential units - Add aerosols containers - Spring 2011 - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, August 2, 2011 - Promotion started
- New - Add cardboard cans - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, (i.e. „spiral wound‟ August 2, 2011 containers) - Promotion started - Add remaining plastic - 2011 to 2013 - Accepted with start-up of new MRF, bottles, tubs, jugs and August 2, 2011 clamshells (including other - Promotion started thermoformed #1 plastic)
Garbage - Increase fees for 2nd weekly - March 2010 - Implemented Collection garbage collection (table continued)
166 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 7
Table A - 1 Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies Interim Business Plan – January, 2010 Update as of August 1, 2011 Program Program Change Proposed Date Community EnviroDepots W12A Landfill - Add yard materials, Blue Box - Summer - Implemented summer 2010 Small Vehicle recyclables, TVs and 2010 Drop-off monitors - New - Add Freon appliances - - Program launch scheduled for September 2011 W12A Landfill - Open facility to small - Summer - Implemented Fall 2010 HSW Depot quantity (e.g., business) 2010 generators - New - Expand facility hours - - Implemented Fall 2010 - Expanded from 4 days per week to 5 days per week Oxford Street - Add fluorescent tubes and - Spring 2010 - Implemented spring 2010 and Clarke bulbs, TVs and monitors for Road collection EnviroDepots - New - Add Freon appliances - - Program launch scheduled for September 2011 - Establish building for - Summer - Part of EPR discussions with industry collection of select MHSW 2011 on MHSW; discussion on hold will materials (including new EPR arrangements for MHSW unwanted paint), electronics finalized and reuse centre (e.g., - Discussions underway with Habitat for Goodwill) Humanity to establish reuse centre for - Building may not be building materials at Oxford necessary if industry
provides service New - New EnviroDepot to handle - Fall 2011 - Preliminary design work suggests EnviroDepot same materials as existing Adelaide Works Yard may not be a at Adelaide depots except for brush suitable location Works Yard - Strong (and growing) need for facility exists - Alternative locations being investigated - Establish building for - Fall 2011 - Part of EPR discussions with industry collection of full range of on MHSW; discussion on hold will MHSW materials, electronics new EPR arrangements for MHSW and reuse centre (e.g., finalized Goodwill) - Building may not be necessary if industry provides service Waste Reduction and Education/Awareness Programs User Fees - Provide residents an - Fall 2010 - Research on-going opportunity to buy tags for - To be addressed in CNC report in the containers in excess of future container limits - Fee for bulky items - Fall 2011 - Research on-going - To be addressed in CNC report in the future
(table continued)
167 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Agenda Item # Page # 8
Table A - 1 Update on Interim Business Plan for Green Bin Program and Zero Waste Strategies Interim Business Plan – January, 2010 Update as of August 1, 2011 Program Program Change Proposed Date Enhanced - New education and - Phased in - Enhanced education and awareness Education awareness programs to over two program underway for new Boxes and and encourage wiser purchasing years new materials underway; program to Awareness practices, minimize beginning include printed material, radio, social Program environmental (ecological) Spring 2011 media, etc. impacts and secondary - Enhanced education and awareness resources conservations program underway for multi- - Additional education and residential buildings; program awareness programs includes promotional material, lobby required to inform residents displays and education of of new programs and to superintendents increase participation and/or - Enhanced education and awareness capture rate in existing program being developed for programs materials with low capture rates - Additional education and awareness programs to be part of future budget discussions Reduce - Reduction of container limit - Fall 2011 - Research underway including Container to 3 containers for weekly curbside monitoring (complete) and Limits collection and 6 containers impact of new recyclable materials for bi-weekly collection - To be addressed in CNC report in the future - Reduction of container limit - Defer - Further review in 2011 and 2012 to 2 containers for weekly decision until - To be addressed in CNC report in the collection and 4 containers curbside future for bi-weekly collection Green Bin is
fully implemented
Other - Mandatory recycling or - Defer - Further review in 2011 and 2012 Initiatives composting by-laws, clear decisions - To be addressed in CNC report in the bags for garbage, “garage until curbside future sale” at the curb, etc. Green Bin is fully implemented
168 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ CHAIR AND MEMBERS TO: COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 16, 2011
WILLIAM COXHEAD, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTRODUCTION TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN AND 2009-2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
That, on the recommendation of the Director of Parks and Recreation, with the concurrence of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.
PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Community Led Park Projects – 2010 Update (June 13, 2011)
Charter for Recreation and Parks in Ontario (August 23, 2010)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan Update (November 23, 2009)
BACKGROUND
PARKS AND RECREATION IN LONDON
In 2009 the City updated its Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan. This Plan provides overall direction and guidance for making decisions about parks and recreation programming, public-use facilities and infrastructure (parks and recreation facilities) and investment in the community. It identifies what the City provides and sets out how we contribute to strengthening neighbourhoods and improving community and personal benefits by creating opportunities for residents to lead healthy, socially-active lives. The Plan guides the work of Parks and Recreation, Neighbourhood and Children’s Services, Parks Planning and Design and Facility Design and Construction divisions.
In 2010 Council endorsed the Ontario Charter for Recreation and Parks that sets out a common vision and community goals to help strengthen community vitality. London is committed to this vision as it reinforces the primary principles of our own Master plan. The Charter states that:
“Everyone in Ontario has a right to quality accessible and inclusive recreation and parks services in their communities – services that are essential for the health of Ontarians, the quality of life in our communities and the sustainability of our environment.”
This vision reinforces the primary principle of our Master Plan that the system affords all Londoners, regardless of age, ability, culture, income or neighbourhood, the opportunity to participate in, and share in the benefits of the City’s parks, facilities and recreational opportunities.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with an overview of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan and to share many of the projects and initiatives that have been undertaken to enhance the value of parks and recreation in our community since the Plan update in 2009.
Following is a brief overview of the System Wide Recommendations (initiatives that cut across all service categories) and the Service Level Recommendations including highlights of key accomplishments. A full list of accomplishments can be found in Appendix A.
169 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ It is the intention that future activities and accomplishments of the Master Plan will be shared in yearly reports to Council.
2009-2010 HIGHLIGHTS
SYSTEM WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Service Excellence The Master Plan commits the City of London to service excellence. Civic administration strives to provide and enable programs and services that are meaningful, produce benefit to participants and the community and are delivered effectively with a commitment to continuously improve the level of service.
Highlights
In 2010 Neighbourhood and Children’s Services conducted a program operation and business process review of community centres and senior’s centres in order to improve service delivery and better meet the needs of the community.
Implementation of the new Pricing Framework for Facility Rentals began in January 2009 with a simplified pricing structure which allowed for consistency in setting rental pricing for gymnasiums and meetings rooms.
Communications / Engagement The Master Plan recognizes that meaningful programs and services cannot be provided without accurate, relevant and accessible information as well as open, regular dialogue with the people in the City. The Plan recommends improvements in ways information is shared, the community is engaged and collaborative opportunities encouraged.
Highlights
Implemented the Minimum Public Notification Requirements and Public Participation Framework for Recreation Facilities and Parks Projects in January 2009. This policy provides clear direction to civic administration on how best to keep the public informed and provide opportunities for participation of stakeholders and residents who may be affected by, or have a vested interest in, a recreation facility or parks project. Since then notification practices have been enhanced and public engagement has improved.
Several City of London website improvements have been made over the past few years: online booking of tee times, checking of arena availability, new Aquatics webpage, new Neighbourhoods webpage and updated Storybook Gardens webpage. As well a skateboard facebook page was successfully launched in 2009 and is now used as a way to engage users in discussions of design and upgrades of skate parks.
Access and Equity (Services for All) A guiding principle of the Master Plan is Accessibility and Affordability. The City therefore seeks to provide programs, services, facilities and opportunities that are accessible, affordable and inclusive of all residents. The Plan directs staff to address barriers to participation by providing financial subsidies, staff training on inclusion, developing programs that meet the needs of underserved groups.
Highlights
Camps on TRACKS was created by Thames Valley Children’s Centre (TVCC) as a classroom-based peer mediated social skills program and introduced to one City of London day camp in 2010. The program was redeveloped by staff from the City, TVCC, and Fanshawe College, with a recreation program focus. TRACKS teaches peers to successfully interact with campers with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and other disabilities, along with other social challenges (shyness, children whose first language is not English, etc.) It is essentially a program that teaches children how to be a good friend and improves the social interactions for all campers. Due to the program's success in 2010, all 2011 City summer camp staff and staff from many other camp providers in London were trained on how to run Camps on TRACKS. Fanshawe College is partnering with the City and TVCC to evaluate this program through the summer of 2011.
170 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ The City continues to implement new Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) in all upgrades and new development projects at facilities. For example, entry ramps installed in outdoor pool upgrades, updates to change and shower facilities as buildings upgraded, spray pads include pathways for ease of access and fully accessible features.
Social Marketing and Promotion The Master Plan places high priority on promoting healthy and active lifestyles and communicating the full breadth of parks and recreation opportunities available to residents to engage in active lifestyles.
Highlights
Middlesex-London in motion® is a community-based initiative to promote healthy and active living through communications/social marketing (www.healthylivinginfo.ca), targeted community strategies, building community partnerships and measurement through research and evaluation. The City of London is a key partner in this initiative along with 52 other community organizations. A media campaign in 2010 was launched to promote healthy and active living.
Interpretive signage was installed in Victoria Park to celebrate the long history of the park, from the British Garrison to the first school for children of the underground railway to the Victorian-era development of the park.
Partnerships The Master Plan reaffirms the City’s holistic approach to service delivery that relies on the abilities and resources of countless community partners and volunteers. The Plan recommends the city continue to encourage partnerships in the future delivery of municipal parks and recreation facilities and services.
Highlights
In 2010, 76 parks projects were successfully completed due to outstanding community support. The total value of cash donations, in-kind donations and volunteer time was over $700,000 with a city investment of only $219,000. A few examples include: The Ed Blake Park community raised $38,500 for construction of multi-purpose sports pad as part of Ed Blake Park redevelopment. The Kiwanis Club of Forest City-London contributed $92,000 to the Kiwanis Skate Park as well as $33,000 to add additional features to the Medway District Park skateboard park.
Stoney Creek Community City, YMCA and Library is a very successful partnership project that provides an indoor pool, gymnasium, fitness centre, community centre and library.
The City continues to partner with sport organizations to deliver quality venues and services for programming provided by others.
Environmental Stewardship The City is committed to taking a leadership role in addressing the environmental impact of its operations. Green technologies and design principles should be considered in all projects.
Highlights
Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Library was designed to achieve a LEED Gold certified green building standard.
Significant energy and water savings are being realized as new construction and lifecycle renewal projects include many “green” technologies – green roof technologies, arena LED lighting replacements, spray pads with water conserving features, self cleaning pool filters in outdoor pools, energy efficient refrigeration and heating systems in arenas, pools and community centres etc.
171 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ SERVICE LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Investment and Planning Through investment and community development, the City provides opportunities to build social infrastructure and strengthen London’s neighbourhoods. The city believes strongly in liveable and inclusive communities and recommendations that improve quality of life and strengthen London’s neighbourhoods are found throughout the Master Plan. Continued investment in community development that encourages resident participation and builds strong community leaders and supports families is recommended.
Highlights
The Kipps Lane Strengthening Neighbourhood Strategy is an asset based community development approach undertaken to empower the community to enhance their neighbourhood’s capacity and vibrancy. By giving residents the tools and resources they need by focussing on community development, improved recreation programming and youth mentorship, a strong and focused resident-led group is now undertaking action to improve the Kipps Lane and community area. In Kipps Lane residents are the heart of change.
The Community Services Department and the Child and Youth Network (140 community agencies), have adopted the Active Creative Engaged (ACE) Community Development Tookit to guide the way we work in the community. This toolkit is a practical guide to community development that recognizes the strength and ability of the community (residents and stakeholders) to create and implement effective, relevant and meaningful initiatives. Training modules have been developed and community partners and City staff from a many departments have participated.
In 2010 the City of London was recognized as an Age Friendly City by the World Health Organization. Further work will continue on this initiative in 2011.
Community Programs / Spectrum Community programs provide individuals, neighbourhoods and the broader community with the opportunity to benefit from recreation participation through delivery of accessible, diverse and affordable physical, arts/culture and special interest recreation and leisure programming. Continual review of interest in programs and new trends is recommended.
Highlights
New recreation and leisure programs were developed for target groups identified in the Master Plan – children, teens, older adults, new immigrants as well as new introductory programs. In 2009 and 2010 new programs included: Grey matters memory program for older adults; Exercise program for older adults developed in partnership with Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging at UWO; Summer Community Connections program begin in 2010 and provides youth (12-15) opportunities to volunteer at community agencies and programs (Food Bank, London Public Library, City of London summer programs) we well as participate in typical camp activities; Summer Surprise, in partnership with Lifeskills Centre Inc. provides a day camp for individuals with varying disabilities; and, Stride and Glide ice skate program in partnership with LIHC for newcomers.
The City continues to provide over 2,600 registered Spectrum recreation and leisure programs each year at 90 locations, including schools, community centres and through business partnerships. In 2010 registered program and drop-in visits increased. There were a total of 365,000 registered program visits and 481,000 drop-in visits.
Targeted Leader- in-Training (LIT) programs were offered in 10 neighbourhoods typically not represented at teen camps. In 2010, 393 youth participated in LIT programs. Typically 50 to 75% of these youth go on to employment with the City of London.
172 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Community Facilities and Gathering Places (Indoor) The Master Plan directs the City to continue to build and maintain a clean, safe, usable system of parks and recreation facilities that supports healthy and socially active lifestyles and that contribute to neighbourhoods that are strong, liveable and inclusive. Many facilities projects are identified for construction and/or redevelopment in the Master Plan and as a results of the Infrastructure Stimulus funds 20 parks and recreation projects were able to be advanced.
Highlights
The Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Public Library opened in the Fall of 2010. A successful partnership project between the City of London, YMCA of Western Ontario and London Public Library provides an indoor pool, gymnasium, fitness centre, community centre and library. Use of the centre has exceeded expectations and the centre is truly functioning as a neighbourhood gathering place.
In June 2009 the Government of Canada, Province of Ontario and City of London announced an economic stimulus fund for infrastructure projects in London. This cost sharing Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) and Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Fund allowed several community and recreation facility projects to be advanced in 2009 and 2010: o Redevelopment of an existing structure into the new Springbank Gardens Community Centre which opened in 2010. o Redevelopment of the Byron Optimist Community Centre, Medway Community Centre and Boyle Memorial Community Centre o Supported the London Optimist in the new BMO Centre for indoor soccer/sports complex converting a former Brownfield site to a vital recreational use in the heart of the city.
Aquatics Aquatic services provide London families and individuals of all ages with opportunities to participate in unstructured activities and structured swimming programs at indoor and outdoor pools, wading pools and spray pads. The Master Plan recommends the continued provision of these services and further construction of 2 more indoor pools and 5 new spray pads. As well, the Plan recommends investment in educational outreach programs for drowning prevention and water safety.
Highlights
A customer service satisfaction survey was completed and indicated that 97% of users were satisfied with the programs and service. Programs were updated to reflect comments.
Thames Pool redevelopment was completed in 2010. The renovated pool includes a 50 meter pool plus a beach entry area, with a number of water play features and 5 meter waterslide. Feed back from users has been incredible and use has been high.
Three new spray pads were constructed in Medway District Park, Ed Blake Park and Oakridge Park as part of larger park redevelopment projects.
Drowning prevention and water safety continue to be a program priority in aquatics. Over 2,200 Grade 3 students participated in Swim to Survive in 2010. This initiative teaches basic swimming skills. A grant was acquired from Canadian Tire Jump Start program to teach newcomers to London how to swim. Water Smart campaign continues to educate Londoners in and around water through a wide range of programs and school visits.
Parks Planning and Design The parks and natural areas planning and design service area is part of the City’s Planning and Development Division. Recommendations include policy direction for the Official Plan and for council with respect to the provision of parkland and land acquisition priorities. Many lifecycle renewal and growth capital projects and initiatives are recommended in the Plan relating to the Thames Valley Parkway, Open Space Development, District Parks, Neighbourhood parks, Sports parks and specialty parks. Several design related recommendations are also contained in this Master Plan, including the need to incorporate amenities that increase the usability of parks. The majority of the projects are captured in the Community Facilities section below.
173 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
Community Facilities (Outdoor) The Master Plan identifies facility and amenity provision targets for parks and outdoor amenities. In striving to maintain or improve the provision of these amenities a number of projects are recommended. In June 2009, the Government of Canada, Province of Ontario and City of London announced an economic stimulus fund for infrastructure projects in London. The cost sharing Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) and Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) fund allowed 11 parks and recreation projects to be advanced.
Highlights
Infrastructure Stimulus Funding contributed to 11 parks projects in 2009/2010 including: City-wide Sport Complex – 2 artificial soccer/football fields including landscaping, planting, fencing etc. Meredith Park – multi-usage sports pad, pathways, trees, tennis court rehabilitation Basil Grover Park fieldhouse Ed Blake Park – spraypad, soccer field, playground, fieldhouse, Kiwanis Skateboard Plaza and fieldhouse McMahon Park – baseball diamond, field house, pathways, significant enhancement to Wolseley skate park Middlesex) Medway District Park– new skateboard park, spray pad, playground equipment Oakridge Optimist Park – conversion of wading pool to spraypad Piccadilly Park play structure was replaced and urban plaza constructed Thames Valley Parkway projects on the Main and North branches Veterans Memorial Parkway enhancement project - 8 new commemorative features and substantial landscape planting have been completed
Thames Valley Parkway system improvements: Two major links were completed in the Thames Valley Parkway Trail system in 2009 in the new Uplands Community and along the Pincomb Drain. In 2010, 12,000 meters of new multiuse pathway was constructed (+3 new pedestrian bridges over Pottersburg Creek) and 1,200 meters of existing TVP was rebuilt.
Special Events The Master Plan recommends continued support of special events which create opportunities for residents and visitors to participate in a variety of cultural, sporting and community events.
Highlights
136 special events were held in 2009 and 149 in 2010 with a total participation of over a million individuals. Of special significance was: The Olympic Torch Relay Celebration on December 24, 2009 at Victoria Park; Inspiring a Dream, a Celebration of London’s Olympic and Paralympic Athletes on June 21, 2010 at the John Labatt Centre; and, The Special Olympics competition in July 2010 where more than 1,400 athletes and 1,000 volunteers participated.
A number of large events in city-wide parks and smaller neighbourhood celebrations continue to be supported by City of London.
Golf The Master Plan recognizes the provision of 60 years of providing high quality, accessible, affordable golf experiences for Londoners.
Highlights
The City continues to enhance the experience of players and encourages the year-round use of clubhouse and/or course facilities.
The golf business was the subject of a new business plan which focussed on improving the customer experience, increasing participation, revenue generation and marketing.
174 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Storybook Gardens The Master Plan recognizes Storybook Garden’s vital role in enhancing opportunities for children and families to learn through play and programming.
Highlights
Five new amusement rides were added in 2010, bringing the total to seven. Approximately 150,000 riders used the rides in 2010.
Storybook Gardens published its own storybook in 2009, entitled “A Home for Magic”. The storybook serves to anchor Storybook Gardens’ commitment to providing an environment that is supportive of emergent and family literacy. New book-based outdoor education programs were also launched in 2009. Developed by Ontario board-certified teachers, the programs tie together storybooks read aloud in the classroom with multiple intelligence activities delivered at the park.
The City will continue to implement the 2007-2010 business plan.
LOOKING FORWARD
The Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan continues to guide decision making and remains relevant to the ongoing operation and capital planning of the Parks and Recreation and Neighbourhood and Children’s Services Divisions as well as Parks Planning and Design. Upcoming projects and initiatives that will advance recommendations of the plan and include:
The development of an Age Friendly London Plan will inform usability of parks and facilities as London’s population ages. The Spectrum Program Guide Review which is considering efficiencies in use of technology in the registration process, communications/marketing in the community and integration with the Play Your Way marketing and branding. Completion of infrastructure projects and grand openings of many projects listed above. The East-Southeast Recreation Facility siting project to be completed using a deliberative community engagement approach in soliciting input from residents. Continued linkages to other initiatives including: the London Strengthening Neighbourhoods, Strategy, Child and Youth Agenda and Community Engagement policy development. Continued development of business plans in specific areas including golf and Storybook Gardens.
CONCLUSION
The Master Plan, endorsed by Council, recognizes that recreation and parks are essential to the quality of life of our community and are committed to the Vision of the Charter for Recreation and Parks in Ontario. Guided by this Plan, the City will continue to provide opportunities for Londoners to not only lead healthy, socially active lives, but to have Amazing Experiences in our safe, high quality, programs, facilities, parks and trails.
175 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □
SUBMITTED BY: RECOMMENDED BY:
Donna Baxter William Coxhead, Manager, Policy & Research Director Neighbourhood & Children’s Services Parks and Recreation
RECOMMENDED BY: RECOMMENDED BY:
Lynne Livingstone Andrew Macpherson Director Manager Neighbourhood & Children’s Services Parks Planning & Design
CONCURRED BY:
Ross L. Fair Executive Director Department of Community Services
C. Lynn Loubert, Division Manager, Aquatics, Arenas & Attractions Scott Stafford, Division Manager, Parks and Community Sports Paul D’Hollander, Manager, East Area Recreation Tony Kyle, Manager, West Area Recreation Andrew Macpherson, Manager, Parks Planning & Design
176 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan – Key Accomplishments 2009 and 2010 (*Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) and Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Funded Projects)
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS Service Excellence Conducted a program operations and business process review of community centers and seniors centers. Improvements to registration processes: Memberships (Golf, Storybook, Community and Senior’s Centres) can now be renewed online, modified the Spectrum registration process to spread first day registrations across 2 days Implementation of Pricing Framework for Facility Rentals (Jan. 2009) Policy Regarding Alcoholic Beverages at Private Rentals of Recreation and Community Centres (May 2009) Initial investigations to develop a City Sport Strategy Continue to participate in Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative and Municipal Performance Management Program Communications / Implementation of the Minimum Public Notification Requirements and Public Participation Framework for recreation facilities and parks projects, Engagement initiatives and developments (Jan. 2009). Parks and Recreation Website updates 2010 and continuing in 2011. New Neighbourhoods web site Access and Equity (Services London was recognized as an Age Friendly City by the World Health Organization in 2010. for All) Seniors Neighbourhood Advisory Committees established in Glen Cairn, Argyle and Central London. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities (AODA) policies were developed to comply with Provincial regulations. All have been provided training in practices. The City continues to implement new Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) in all upgrades and new development projects at its facilities To improve accessibility to recreation and leisure opportunities the City provided financial support for almost 8,900 programs and memberships per year. Advances in inclusion of persons with disabilities by offering such programs as Camps on TRACK and further training for summer camp staff on inclusion. Developed a recreation module for the Healthy Homes program in partnership with Salvation Army, Fanshawe College, London Housing and others. The City dedicates a percentage of time at community centres for low fee/no fee programs or drop-ins and for community use. The City of London continues to increase availability of free programming with community partners in targeted neighbourhood community centres, parks etc Starting in 2011 the City of London will build into its budget dedicated time at community centres where the community can access space free of charge
177 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Almost 400 youth participated in the Leader in Training courses in 2010. Targeted LIT programs were introduced in 9 neighbourhoods in 2010. Tennis and Skatepark monitoring took place in the summer of 2009 to inform usage of sites and priorities for upgrades. City Council endorsed a Free Access to Space Policy in 2010 that waives rental fees in community centres for eligible community groups. The City of London has undertaken a review of the steps that can be taken to have a community centres act as neighbourhood gathering places. The City of London has a number of free access to space agreements for affiliate groups at several city facilities. Policy for Waiving Fees for Use of City-Owned Recreation and Community Centres (Sept 2009) Social Marketing & Promotion Middlesex-London in motion® is a community-based initiative to promote healthy and active living through communications/social marketing (www.healthylivinginfo.ca), targeted community strategies, building community partnerships and measurement through research and evaluation. The City of London is a key partner in this initiative along with 52 other community organizations. A media campaign in 2010 was launched to promote healthy and active living. First Spectrum Open House held in 2010. The City of London has developed a successful Skateboard Facebook page to promote local neighbourhood skate parks Recreation services successfully improve promotion of summer, Christmas and March break camps through the use of sign boards in strategic locations around the city. A review of the Spectrum program guide in 2011. Review will include consultation with customers, stakeholders and advertisers as well as a review of the distribution. Interpretive signage was installed in Victoria Park to celebrate the long history of the park, from the British Garrison to the first school for children of the underground railway to the Victorian-era development of the park. Partnerships The City of London currently maintains Purchase of Service Agreements with community partners that deliver programs and services. The City of London, Recreation Services has a joint use agreement with the 2 local school boards in an effort for the community to access space at local schools for community programming Through the Child and Youth Network, City staff and community partners are working with local school boards to improve access to school spaces and ensure schools are open to the public. The Stony Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Public Library opened in the Fall of 2010. A successful partnership project between the City of London, YMCA of Western Ontario and London Public Library provides an indoor pool, gymnasium, fitness centre, community centre and library. In 2009 community projects included: Piccadilly Park addition of play equipment and benches, the Bereaved Families of Ontario “secret garden” in Springbank Park and improvements in Carriage Hill Park. In total $759,411 in donations were made under this program. In 2009, community planting projects were continued with Scout Trees and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority community planting program, Friends of Stoney Creek and ReForest London. Close to 8,000 volunteers across the city came out to make a difference, planting a total of 10,507 native trees and shrubs.
178 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ In 2010, 76 parks projects were successfully completed due to outstanding community support. The total value of cash donations, in-kind donations and volunteer time was over $700,000 with a city investment of only $219,000 representing at least a 3:1 return on capital investment. Environmental Stewardship Lifecycle renewal projects for city facilties include many “green” technologies – arena lighting replacements, spray pad water conservation systems, energy efficient refrigeration and heating systems in arenas, pools and community centres Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Library was designed to achieve a LEED Gold certified green building Promoted the use of tap water via “The Clear Choice - London's Tap Water” promotion and installed water bottle refill stations at many facilities (arenas, community centres) and at Victoria Park Piloting the use of sustainable technologies and programs in City facilities, such as LED lighting and ground-sourced heat pumps for heating & air conditioning Green Roof technology was installed at the new Ed Blake Park fieldhouse and Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Library. Two new self cleaning pool filters were installed at Northeast and Gibbons pools – a significant water savings will be realized Ed Blake Park spraypad was designed with water conserving features - run times were shorted on all spray pads to reduce water use The City Parks Planning reported on Trail Planning for ESAs to Council in 2010, this report will be finalized in 2011 Parks Planning recommended to Council in 2010 that ESAs be removed from the Parks category in the Official Plan and be located under Natural Heritage. An Official Plan Amendment will be brought forward in 2011. Results from the Urban Forest Model project were made available in 2009/2010 and is expanding awareness of the environmental benefits of forested areas and tree cover. The city purchased the East Cove Woods property (14 Ha) in the Coves ESA/subwatershed in response to community concern over lack of access to the ESA and historic interest and use. Environmental Programs staff are working with Friends of the Coves to promote the Coves ESA, its environment and community values and the wise stewardship options available to residents. This is a model that could be followed for other parks and ESAs. Coves sub-watershed pilot project promotes the Coves ESA through a variety of educational and awareness programs sponsored by the City. An updated trail Master Plan was initiated for Medway Valley ESA North SERVICE LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS Community Investment & Development of the London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Strategy. A dedicated group of residents continue to implement the plan. Many projects Planning overlap with recommendations in the Master Plan. The Child and Youth Network continues to implement its 3 year plan with concentration in the areas of Ending Poverty, Improving Literacy and Healthy Eating/Healthy Physical Activity. London System Reengineering began to examine how to improve services for children, youth and families at the neighbourhood level.
179 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ The Community Services Department and the Child and Youth Network (140 community agencies), have adopted the Active Creative Engaged (ACE) Community Development Tookit to guide the way we work in the community. This toolkit is a practical guide to community development that recognizes the strength and ability of the community (residents and stakeholders) to create and implement effective, relevant and meaningful initiatives. Training modules have been developed and community partners and City staff from a many departments have participated. Community Gardens Review in Spring 2010 contains recommendations related to management of the gardens. The Kipps Lane Strengthening Neighbourhood Strategy is an asset based community development approach undertaken to empower the community to enhance their neighbourhood’s capacity and vibrancy. By giving residents the tools and resources they need by focussing on community development, improved recreation programming and youth mentorship, a strong and focused resident-led group is now undertaking action to improve the Kipps Lane and community area. In Kipps Lane residents are the heart of change. In 2010 the City of London was recognized as an Age Friendly City by the World Health Organization. Further work will continue on this initiative in 2011. Community Programs / Provide over 2,600 registered Spectrum recreation and leisure programs each year at 90 locations, including schools, community centres and through Spectrum business partnerships. In 2010 registered program and drop-in visits increased. There were a total of 365,000 registered program visits and 481,000 drop-in visits. Overall Spectrum program customer satisfaction increased in 2010 to 97% from 87% in 2009 New recreation programs were developed for target groups identified in the Master Plan - children, teens, older adults, new immigrants as well as new introductory programs. Program examples include: o Grey matters memory program; o Exercise for older adults; o Summer Community Connections program for youth; o Skating program for newcomers; and, o Introductory program focus in yoga and martial arts o Stride and Glide ice skate program in partnership with London Intercommunity Health Centre for newcomers Community Facilities & The Stoney Creek Community Centre, YMCA and Public Library opened in the Fall of 2010. A successful partnership project between the City of London, Gathering Places (Indoor) YMCA of Western Ontario and London Public Library provides an indoor pool, gymnasium, fitness centre, community centre and library. *Redevelopment of an existing structure into the new Springbank Gardens Community Centre which opened in 2010. Provided much needed community space in an underserved area of the city. *Redevelopment of the Byron Optimist Community Centre, Medway Community Centre and Boyle Memorial Community Centre vastly improved community space in all three neighbourhoods.
180 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ *Supported the London Optimist in the new BMO Centre for indoor soccer/sports complex converting a former Brownfield site to a vital recreational use in the heart of the city. It is estimated that the new facility will be used by over 500 teams, playing in kids, men's, women's and mixed soccer leagues, with more than 600,000 people passing through its doors each year. An elevated walking track will broaden the usage of the facility giving parents and seniors a year round venue for activity. Aquatics Thames Pool redevelopment was completed in 2010. The renovated pool includes a 50 meter pool plus a beach entry area, with a number of water play features and a 17’ waterslide. Feed back from users has been incredible and use has been high. Gibbons (reopened in 2010), Northeast (reopening in 2011) and Southcrest outdoor pool lifecycle renewal projects. In keeping with the Master Plan recommendation that wading pools be eliminated in favour of other park amenities the wading pools at Doidge Park and Kiwanis park were removed. Oakridge Optimist Park wading pool was replaced with a spray pad. The recommendation to build at least 5 more spray pads in underserved parts of the community allowed 3-new spray pads to be constructed in Medway District Park, Ed Blake Park and Oakridge Park. A customer service satisfaction survey was completed and indicated 97% of users were satisfied. Programs were updated to reflect comments where possible. Over 2,200 Grade 3 students participated in Swim to Survive in 2010. This initiative teaches basic swimming skills. A grant was acquired from Canadian Tire Jump Start program to teach newcomers to London how to swim. Water Smart campaign continues to educate Londoners in and around water through a wide range of programs and school visits. SUMMARY Parks Pl & Design Parks Planning & Design A total of 52 hectares of new parkland was assumed in 2010 and includes Paul Haggis and Beaverbrook Neighbourhood Parks and Riverbend District Park 10 new Woodlots/Open Spaces were assumed ( 6<39 acres and 4 >40 acres) The City of London assessed the concept that more popular trails have separate pedestrian and cycling trails (as long as the Environmentally Significant Areas are not jeopardized) and implement in high volume areas where there is room to allow for 2 trails The City parks planning design standards are being reviewed to permit smaller urban parks; several are being planned in new subdivisions (Talbot Village, Richmond North). Two new urban plazas were constructed at Doidge Park and Piccadilly Park The City of London maintains an inventories of available park space (available on CityMap) and identifies gaps based on 3 hectares/1,000 people New parkland dedication policies were developed that ensure adequate amounts of parkland are set aside in all new subdivisions The Thames Valley Corridor Plan is soon to be finalized and there are many recommendations related to signage, connectivity, development standards, development of a River Stewardship program etc.
181 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ The City has launched an updated Commemorative Program in 2010 to encourage donations towards naturalization projects, trees, benches or large-scale park features. Donors to the Graham Arboretum are recognized on the memory wall located in Springbank Park Community Facilities *City-wide Sport Complex – 2 artificial soccer/football fields including landscaping, planting, fencing etc. (Outdoor) *Meredith Park – multi-usage sports pad, pathways, trees, tennis court rehabilitation *Basil Grover - fieldhouse *Ed Blake Park – spraypad, soccer field, playground and fieldhouse. The Ed Blake Park community raised $38,500 for construction of multi-purpose sports pad as part of Ed Blake Park redevelopment. *Kiwanis Skateboard Plaza and fieldhouse. *McMahon Park – baseball diamond, field house, pathways, significant enhancement to Wolseley skate park (received funding from Kiwanis Club of London and Middlesex) *Medway District Park– new skateboard park, spray pad, playground equipment. The Kiwanis Club of Forest City-London contributed $33,000 to add additional features to the skateboard park *Oakridge Optimist Park – conversion of wading pool to spraypad *Piccadilly Park play structure was replaced and urban plaza constructed *Thames Valley Parkway projects on the Main and North branches *Veterans Memorial Parkway enhancement project - 8 new commemorative features and substantial landscape planting have been completed New playgrounds were built in 14 parks in the past 2 years Two new neighbourhood parks were built in 2009: Capulet Park with a playground, basketball court, adult exercise stations and a loop pathway around the park Stephens Farm Park has a playground, mini-soccer pitches and pathway. Six new field houses constructed. New sports fields built in 5-parks. Redevelopment of Doidge Park and construction of urban plaza. St. Julien Park skate park was constructed improving the current supply to 10 skate parks In 2009 Springbank Park saw numerous improvements including a new all-season washroom replacing two smaller out-dated facilities. Internal roadways and pathways were realigned to eliminate cars from the Thames Valley Parkway along the river near the dam. The construction of the Memory Wall in the Graham Arboretum was completed. In Victoria Park a new stone gateway was installed through partnership with the London Home Builders Association and upgrades to the skate plaza and bandshell were completed The grand opening of the Walter Blackburn Memorial Fountain at the Forks of the Thames occurred in May 2009. In 2009 there were 5 new Community Gardens developed in City parks.
182 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Agenda Item # Page # □ □ Two major links were completed in the Thames Valley Parkway Trail system in 2009 in the new Uplands Community and along the Pincomb Drain. In 2010, 12,000 meters of new multiuse pathway was constructed (+3 new pedestrian bridges over Pottersburg Creek) and 1,200 meters of existing TVP was rebuilt. Sports Services Gender Analysis of Parks and Recreation Facility Allocation and Program Participation (July 2010). *Supported the London Optimist in the new BMO Centre for indoor soccer/sports complex converting a former Brownfield site to a vital recreational use in the heart of the city. Online arena availability can now be done online. Baseball and football communities were brought together to discuss field needs in 2010. Several upgrades were made to Labatt Park including an upgraded infield and scoreboard. Special Events 136 special events were held in 2009 and 149 in 2010 with a total participation of over a million individuals. Of special significance was: o The Olympic Torch Relay Celebration on December 24, 2009 at Victoria Park; o Inspiring a Dream, a Celebration of London’s Olympic and Paralympic Athletes on June 21, 2010 at the John Labatt Centre; and, o The Special Olympics competition in July 2010 where more than 1,400 athletes and 1,000 volunteers participated. A number of large events in city-wide parks and smaller neighbourhood celebrations continue to be supported by City of London. Golf The City continues to enhance the experience of players and encourages the year-round use of clubhouse and/or course facilities. The golf business was the subject of a new business plan which focussed on improving the customer experience, increasing participation, revenue generation and marketing. To encourage the year round use of the clubhouse, virtual golf was installed in the Thames Clubhouse in 2009. Storybook Gardens In accordance with the Storybook Gardens business plan task force recommendations, twenty-six wildlife and large domestic animals have been transferred to other facilities, reducing the size of the Storybook Gardens zoo to a total of 18 animals representing 9 wildlife species. Five new amusement rides were added in 2010, bringing the total to seven. Approximately 150,000 riders used the rides in 2010. Storybook Gardens published its own storybook in 2009, entitled “A Home for Magic”. The storybook serves to anchor Storybook Gardens’ commitment to providing an environment that is supportive of emergent and family literacy. New book-based outdoor education programs were launched in 2009. Developed by Ontario board-certified teachers, the programs tie together storybooks read aloud in the classroom with multiple intelligence activities delivered at the park. Professional storytellers are booked for storytelling presentations on a weekly basis throughout the summer season to support the growth of literacy through oral storytelling for the entire family. New raised bed teaching gardens were planted in 2010 to provide children with hands-on learning opportunities to connect with locally grown food and to learn the story of where food comes from, in support of the CYA Healthy Eating and Healthy Physical Activity Initiative.
183 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Mercier, Betty
From: Lysynski, Heather Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 8:46 AM To: Mercier, Betty Gc: Orser, Stephen Subject: FW: Kingston CityCouncil Decision regarding Hens
From: Orser, Stephen Sent: Sunday, May29,2011 3:17 PM To: Lysynski, l-leather Subject Fw: Kingston City Council Decision regarding Hens
Could you please ad this to the agenda for Backyard Chickens. Thanks Ward 4 Councillor Stephen Orser Cell. 519-851-4968 Hom5L9-204-6040
Thanks
From: Thompson, James Sent: Thursdaç May 19, 2011 10:07 AM To: Orser, Stephen Subject: RE: Kingston City Council Decision regarding Hens
Mr. Orser,
The following resolution is from the May, 17th,2011 Gouncil minutes. Please note that these minutes have yet to be confirmed.
1. Amendment of By-Laws to Allow Backyard Hens THAT Solid Waste Department staff prepare an amendment to By-Law No. 36-95, being "A By-Law To Regulate And Maintain A System For The Collection, Removal And Disposal Of Ashes, Garbage And Other Refuse'to allow for collection of hen manure with garbage pickup and for disposal at the City East landfill site for approval by Council; - and further -
THAT Planning and Development Department staff include the issue of backyard hens for review during the future Zoning By-Law harmonization and comprehensive updates, based on the results of the Animal By-Law changes to be implemented now in order to provide the opportunity for this initiative to be evaluated over the interim period; - and further - THAT Council approve By-Law 2011-65, attached as Exhibit "Bn to Report No. ARCP-11-010, to amend By-Law No. 2004-144,"A By-Law To Regulate Animals"; - and further - THAT By-Law No. 2005-10, being 'A By-Law To Set Rates And Fees For TheCity Of Kingston' be uC" amended to add a $10.00 fee for annual registration of a hen coop, attached as Exhibit to Report No. ARCP-1 1-010; - and further -
184 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
THAT Henners contact their neighbours with abutting properties and get a signed document stating that their neighbours with abutting properties are aware that the Henners would like to keep up to 6 hens (the Henner will present the signed letter with their application for a coop permit); - and further - THAT the amendments of by-laws to allow backyard hens be considered a Pilot Study for a period of two years untilthe matter has been reviewed by Council; - and further - THAT backyard hens-related data collected during the Pilot period by staff be assembled into a report and delivered back to ARC for evaluation of the Backyard Hen Pilot Project, by October 1,2013. CARRIED AS AMENDED (10:3) lnformation regarding the regulations can be found at this website. http://www. citvoftinoston.calcitvhall/council/archive/
Please let me know if you reguire further information.
James Thompson Committee Clerk City Clerk's Department City of Kingston Phone: 613-5464291 Ext. 1268
From: Powley,Susan Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 20113:59 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Thompson,James Subject: Kingston City Council Decision regarding Hens
Dear Mr. Orser- I received your voicemail today as a Councillor from the City of London, and your request for a copy of the regulations regarding hens which were discussed last evening, as well as a copy of the resolution so that you can provide this information to members of your Council. I have copied this email to my colleague James Thompson who attended the meeting last evening, and who can assist you with your query. Please let us know if there is any further information you require. Susan
Susan Powley, Committee Clerk
Clerk's Department City of Kingston
185 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
LARISSA GEROW 172 WEST RIVERTRACE WALK LONDON, ONTARIO N6G 5J9
16 August 2011
Dear Chair and councillors,
Thank-you to those who voted last year to allow me to keep my chickens. The entire experience was extremely rewarding, thought provoking and unfortunately much too controversial.
Please consider me a great reason to allow a pilot project. In 1½ years the only complaint occurred the day I informed the city I had hens.
Thanks for your consideration,
Larissa Gerow
.
186 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office date: Sunday, August 7, 2011 from: Maureen Temme to: Community and Neighbourhoods Committee, via Lauren Kucera secretary to the committee for: inclusion on the agenda of the Public Participation Meeting of August 16/11 concerning: Raising Chickens in Poultry Pens Within Residential Zones [aka backyard chickens]
Councillors,
Thank you for the opportunity to address the matter of backyard chickens. My comments below are given in a short and an expanded version. I'm also including a resource list.
In short
Chickens can be raised in an urban back yard without disturbing neighbours by noise or odoursi, and without anyone getting sick.ii
Raising chickens has a traditional place in household economic and food security that continues today.
Raising chickens in urban yards can be a normal part of city living and an accepted part of a city's urban agriculture spectrum.iii iv
Varied societal and economic factors will require more food to be produced within London's urban boundaries, probably beginning within the next ten years. We need to be ready by developing varied models of urban agriculture in London. The people who learn now about caring for chickens will be the people who will teach others how to raise chickens, confidently; also, their purchases of hens for egg-laying supports established breeders of healthy stock within our region.
Other cities in Canada and the United States have done the reports, set the standards, examined and been satisfied about health concerns, and had some experience with chickens raised within their urban boundaries. London could easily get on with amending bylaws to allow people to raise a few chickens in their yards, now.
I look forward to a bylaw that begins: "London wants to lead the way in creative, environmentally sound, economically and socially inclusive styles of urban agriculture. We are open to individual households where raising chickens is part of a household's food plan. As London evolves its urban agriculture spectrum the guidelines in this bylaw/report are a starting point...."
Expanding the ideas
Existing London bylaws handle noise and property standard issues of many sorts, and also handle animal care or neglect situations. These can be applied to properties with chickens, if need be.
Chickens raised in urban yards will not bring about avian flu. When studying whether or not to allow chickens in residential areas, municipal councils have asked their local or provincial health authorities to determine whether avian flu and other avian diseases are of concern in backyard flock and household situations.
London, Ontario's report London Council recently received a report: Overview of Policies and By-laws from Other Municipalities that Deal with Backyard Chickensv. In regards to health concerns, cities seem satisfied that these can be handled. In regards to waste management the London Overview says: "To control odour and the risk of disease, cities regulate the proper storage and disposal of feces. It should be noted that once dried, feces can be used as a quality fertilizer with no risk of disease and minimal odour." 1 187 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Going on to Chicken Coop Maintenance, the Overview says:
"Maintenance regulations are used to ensure the health and safety of the hens, their owners and neighbours. If properly adhered to, risk of disease and vermin can be effectively mitigated."
Vancouver, B.C.'s health reports that led to allowing chickens As of June, 2010, Vancouver changed bylaws to allow chickens within city limitsvi, as long as certain guidelines were followed. Along with citizens' submissions to Vancouver Council before the new bylaw was put in place, Vancouver municipal staff brought in a detailed, 32 page reportvii.
The report's preamble mentions that on July 8/03 Vancouver council "approved a motion supporting development of a just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver that fosters equitable food production, distribution and consumption, nutrition, community development and environmental health" ... and that "Enthusiasm for urban chickens has grown throughout North America in the last few years, as increasing attention is paid to issues of sustainability, food security, and consumption of locally grown food." It also addressed the social implications of raising chickens: "Backyard hens contribute to the local and affordable production of nutritious food, and thus support the goal of creating a just and sustainable food system for our City."
viii Avian flu was addressed and, along with technical information, the report says:
The British Columbia Center for Disease Control (BCCDC) conducted a literature review on the risks of infectious disease from backyard hens and found that: Overall, the risk of pathogen transmission associated with backyard chicken keeping appears to be mild and does not present a greater threat to population health compared to other animals allowed by similar bylaws (reptiles, dogs, etc). Public adherence to proper hygiene will significantly mitigate the risk of any disease acquisition including pathogens commonly found in chickens.
It goes on to say that "Vancouver Coastal Health has worked with staff on developing the recommended guidelines and considers them to be protective of public health."
The City of Vancouver's Animal Control department now oversees matters to do with chickens, and its website has useful and interesting informationix to do with keeping hens, as well as links to animal control bylaws.
Vancouver's confidence in the work it did preparatory to allowing chickens, and its confidence in its health departments, are evidenced by the brevity of this question and answer on its Animal Control chicken page:
Question: How is the City going to ensure that people‘s health will not be put at risk (e.g., noise, smell, avian flu and other health concerns)? Answer: The City has worked closely with Vancouver Coastal Health to ensure that the regulations satisfy concerns around health and safety. The local Health Authority concurs with the City's regulations and supports the City's efforts to increase local food options.
Note that the Health Authority takes the opportunity to mention here that it agrees with the City's efforts to increase local food options.
Vancouver accepts that keeping chickens is a legitimate part of its urban food web.
Kingston Ontario and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Kingston's 18 month initial trial period for keeping backyard hens began on June 8/11x. Regulations apply to numbers of hens, coop size and registration with the municipality. Kingston's approval of backyard chickens came after much input, including from its health unit. The main reference page on the Kingston site (endnote ix) links to a Canadian Food Health Inspection Agency page, Bird Health Basics: How to Prevent and Detect Disease in Backyard Flocks and Pet Birdsxi. This federal page is a one page summary of chicken/coop health practices, with a cartoon poster and an animated 5-minute video which has an old, country rooster telling us gruffly and slowly about the 5 points to good health
2 188 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office practices with our backyard chickens ... with background fiddle music. It is a useful introduction to the topic, something crafted purposely to give people confidence and not be intimidated.
Most people keeping backyard hens will have learned far more about hen keeping than is in this video. They will have a reference copy of Storey‘s Guide to Raising Chickens: Care, Feeding, Facilitiesxii or The Idiot‘s Guide to Raising Chickensxiii, or be using information sites like Mother Earth‘s Chicken and Egg Pagexiv or have taken a workshop. The video underscores that even the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is not concerned with the spread of Avian flu or Newcastle's disease via backyard chickens.
Waterloo, Ontario Waterloo's Public Health Department (WPHD) stated that potential health problems stemming from chickens could be taken care of by regulation and adherence to "sound biosecurity measures' (cleaning up poo on a regular basis). The WPHD's overriding statement referred to benefits of keeping chickens for citizens and community:
After a review of health risks, peer-reviewed literature and experiences from other health units on backyard urban chicken farming, Public Health has determined that raising chickens in urban areas contributes to enhanced urban agriculture, increased food security and greater access to local food for households who wish to engage in this activity.xv
On the empowerment of raising a few chickens - traditionally in western culture and currently in other countries
Ontario Past It is likely that many of us who grew up in Ontario have heard snippets of stories such as these:
"Grandma bought the Christmas gifts with the egg money" or "During the Depression when Great Grandpa was out of work, the egg money the oldest boy got from selling extra eggs bought shoes for the children."
And whether Grandma and big brother lived in the country or a small town (and sometimes a large city) income from this basic foodstuff - the egg - brought money into a household. Eggs also fed people directly and got made into treats like cake. And, when the hens weren't laying eggs any more, they became the stock and meat for a large stew.
The World Today Mali In many countries, raising chickens is a small, home business and a way for women to make an income from home. How much does an average Canadian spend on a Timmy's coffee? In Mali, where the average daily income is less than $2.00 a day, some women have been put on a path toward equality and financial independence through a project of the University of Georgiaxvi, which is training them in raising chickens and in producing biogas from the manure.
World Vision Catalogue The Gifts Catalogue page of World Visionxvii, groups its gifts in several categories: Giving Cards, Gifts for Survival and Gifts that Empower.
Gifts having to do with agriculture and with animals are considered to be Gifts that Empower. As the website says:
From chickens to cows – animals mean survival. An animal is a novel gift for your friend. For a hungry child, it's a lifesaver. Your gift of animals can help bring children and families protein: through meat, cheese, eggs, or milk. It can provide wool for clothing, or products to sell at market. And an animal is a gift that keeps on giving, as families breed their stock and become self-sufficient."xviii
At $50.00, the gift of 2 hens and a rooster (with education and support), is the most popular World Vision gift::
3 189 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Chickens are tremendous blessings for a family in need. Two hens and a rooster can produce up to 150 eggs a year. The eggs can produce more chickens — great for food, hatching and sale at market. Raising flocks of chickens is an easy and profitable small business that's ideal for single moms and children. * In countries where chickens are not appropriate or available, World Vision will provide poultry such as turkeys, ducks, doves or other fowl that can be raised and bred to help a family achieve self-reliance. https://catalogue.worldvision.ca/Gifts/Forms/Gift.aspx?giftId=1552
UNICEF's education of girls projects: Count Your Chickensxix Towards the end of this 1990s UNICEF video - one of a series to encourage education of girls - a woman who went to school mentions that she has a small business raising chickens because she went to school.
One Hen: How One Small Loan Made a Big Difference. Katie Milway Smith. Kids Can Press, published February 2008.
An excerpt from a 2009 Globe and Mail articlexx says:
One Hen ... explains the concept of microfinance in the developing world to children aged 8 to 12. It tells the story of Kojo, a boy in Ghana, West Africa, who receives a small loan to buy a hen. He and his widowed mother eat some of the hen's eggs. The rest they sell for profit, which he spends to buy more hens. He also uses the money to get an education. After college, he uses all the money he and his mother have saved to buy a poultry farm, which eventually becomes the largest in West Africa, employing many people. The book is inspired by the true story of Kwabena Darko, a major poultry farmer in Ghana who lost his father when he was a child.
An associated website, onehen.org, is a virtual marketplace for easy-to-understand microfinancing. Participants play interactive games that earn them beads, which they "lend" to various Third World entrepreneurs, whose stories are also featured. It's far more than just child's play, however. The site leads to real financial investment. For each bead lent, the site makes a donation to real entrepreneurs through Opportunity International, a global microfinance organization."
Urban Agriculture Innovations Creative urban agriculture projects are underway.
Wasatch Community Gardens By coincidence, when researching this report, the writer met a girl of about ten years of age who was visiting a relative in London. The girl was from the Wasatch area of Salt Lake City, and was surprised that the writer knew about her hometown, chickens and the Wasatch Community Gardensxxi, a community-based nonprofit. The WCC's mission is to "empower people of all ages and incomes to grow and eat healthy, organic, local food." It also provides educational opportunities to youth and adults. With the help of volunteers and donors, WCG holds garden education programs, and maintains 5 community gardens. They run chicken keeping workshops, and, this past June, held their sixth annual two-part Tour de Coops - self-guided walking tours of backyard chicken coop. During the week long celebration of chickens, there were also events to do with urban agriculture and home-grown food, and a showing of the documentary Mad City Chickensxxii, about chickens in Madison, Wisconsin.xxiii In Wasatch, bylaws have been brought in make it easier to raise food, including chickens, "to improve the quality of life in the city." xxiv
City Chicken Project, New York New York City - population 8,000,000 - allows chickens to be kept in urban yards. Since 1995, through varied innovative projects, The Just Foodxxv Project in New York City brings together "local farms and city residents of all economic backgrounds with fresh, seasonal, sustainably grown food." For several years now, Just Food has worked with community or school garden programs to teach them how to raise chickens within their garden program; chickens and start up supplies for a coop, feed, and sundries are supplied. As part of the application process, the garden organization must show that it has an appropriate space for chickens, enough volunteers to care for them, and approval from the community. (www.justfood.org/) 4 190 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Growing Power An exceptional model of forward thinking urban agriculture, The Growing Powerxxvi xxvii national nonprofit organization and land trust based in Milwaukee (a city of almost 600,000) has several successful models of urban agriculture and job training programs. It began with two acres and 6 greenhouses right in the middle of the city, teaching young people to grow food and selling the healthy produce to the surrounding community. Growing Power also has a 40 acre farm on the outskirts of the city; it holds educations programs on gardens and chickens, develops markets for its goods, and does job training. In April 2011 Growing Power was awarded $450,000 to build 150 hoop houses (a type of plastic tent greenhouse) on vacant land within the city xxviii and 150 people will be trained and employed to work in these neighbourhood farms over the next three years.
Urban agriculture feeds people and creates jobs.
London's commitment to being a food secure community There are citizens in London who - every day - simply do not have enough food, or access to nutritious food. There are people in London who go hungry. Despite the efforts of the London Food Banks, which gave to 2,500xxix families a month in 2010 and the network of meals available to people in needxxx, people in London go hungry.
Newscasts and media inform us of economic struggles, rising food prices, environment problems, fossil fuel crisis, and lags in alternative energy on a worldwide scale. Climate change and less reliable weather patterns are intersecting with these factors. As this submission was written, the London Free Press carried the Reuters article Drought Worsens in American Midwestxxxi which reports that major agricultural areas of the United States are being affected by drought. About 38% of the American Midwest overall is "abnormally dry." There is "exceptional drought" in 68% of Oklahoma. The "exceptional drought" throughout Texas is described by its agriculture commissioner as an historic drought that has "depleted water resources, leaving our state's farmers and ranchers in a state of dire need. The damage to our economy is already measured in billions of dollars and continues to mount."
Even if a reader does not see such events as indicative of serious consequences of climate change, there are economic and food availability hardships for people: reduced crop yields leads to market speculation; grocers and manufacturers pay more for goods; consumers pay more for food.
If London bylaws change to allow backyard chickens right now, and ten, or twenty, or even one hundred households in London have 3 chickens in their backyards, the eggs from those chickens will probably not get to any of the Londoners who go hungry most days. There will be no effect on exceptional climate events in Texas or commodities markets.
The best that will happen in the next year is that those ten, or twenty or one hundred households keeping chickens will have good eggs to eat, chicken manure to compost for healthier soil, and some learning about animal care and the effort it takes to raise food.
For the future, however, if London begins now to allow people to raise chickens - beginning with flexible guidelines on the numbers of hens and coop set-ups - in twenty, or ten or even five years when Londoners face the economic need and fossil fuel reduction that will require London to grow and produce more of its food within our boundaries, we will have experienced, knowledgeable people to help other people raise good food. Also, Londoners' purchases of hens for egg-laying will support established breeders of healthy stock in our local area.
The City of London has already stated its commitment to citizens' well-being. The City of London's Vision statement begins: "We are a caring, responsive community committed to the health and well- being of all Londoners."
In 2010, the Ending Poverty Action Group, a part of the Child and Youth Network, brought together people from diverse organizations to develop a Food Charter for the City of Londonxxxii. London's Food Charter, accepted at London City Council on April 4, 2011, supports London's vision by committing to another vision, that "London is a food secure community."
5 191 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office When a community writes a food charter it tries to reflect its basic principles in regards to a just and sustainable food system ... tries to show that it supports the idea that "all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life"xxxiii .
London's Food Charter has five commitments. "In order to support a healthy community, the London community will work together to:
- Assess existing food-related policies, programs and Services and develop new ones as required. - Develop strategies to eliminate food deserts in London. - Support an ecological and economically viable food system which includes local farmers, producers, businesses, and consumers and is in balance with global food systems. - Develop education and awareness strategies to encourage all members of the community to expand and integrate nutritious food options into daily activities - Bring people together through food in celebration of culture and diversity"
These commitments complement London's Vision statement, which continues: "The actions we take will be socially, environmentally and fiscally responsible so that our quality of life is enhanced and sustained for future generations."
The final statement in London's Vision - "Our people, heritage, diverse economy, strategic location, land and resources are our strengths" - affirms that people are a London resource.
Given the amount of knowledge there is about how to raise chickens in urban settings, that London states that its people are capable, that London's food charter encourages nutritious food options in daily activities and the elimination of food deserts, that other cities have done the studies and the monitoring, and that economic and resource crises are at our doorstep, now is a good time for London Council to trust that Londoners can keep chickens in a clean, safe, humane, non-disruptive way.
Food related projects and City partnerships occurring now There are already underway in London projects that could possibly evolve over the years to incorporate neighbourhood chicken enterprises as a part of London's urban and peri-urban food production, or become educational tools supporting that food production.
The Veggie City Projectxxxiv is an innovative urban agriculture project in Northeast London's Kipps Lane community. The goal is to distribute fresh produce to local residents in the community. The Veggie City project incorporates aspects of Community Shared Agriculture (CSA), with a garden- share-on-unused-backyard-space program, and a work training program for young people. It is a really important pilot project on local food production.
The Westminster Park Neighbourhood's Farmers' Marketxxxv is a first step to changing Westminster Park's designation as a "food desert", a neighbourhood where there is a "disadvantaged population" and no access to affordable groceries. Weather permitting, an outdoor market is being held several times through the summer and into the fall. This is a joint project of the Child and Youth Network, Investing in Children, residents of Westminster Park and David Cook, owner of Fire Roasted Coffee (and the force behind the Western Fair and Masonville farmers' markets. The Westminster area also has a community garden located nearby.
EcoVox TV seriesxxxvi on Rogers Cable This 13 part series through Rogers Cable TV has brought stories of inspiring Londoners who have taken action to reduce their impact on the earth. Host Maryanne MacDonald interviewed Londoners who are passionate about protecting the environment and are willing to share their knowledge. Several episodes dealt with food topics, including the desire for locally produced food, backyard and community gardens, organic food at the markets.
City endorsement of a strengthened community gardens program - a basis for the future London's Community Gardens Program Reviewxxxvii was accepted at City Council, Monday, April 4, 2011. It states that the Municipality of London wants to support community gardens in London and it makes 14 recommendations toward the practical development of a "Potential Vision" for London's 6 192 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office Community Gardens Program. This vision is stated as: "To create a city-wide sustainable community gardens program that nurtures neighbourhoods and the people of London."
This review is a positive statement of the City's commitment to community gardening. The City wants community gardens - and the people gardening there - to become more connected to the people, organizations, businesses, and agencies in their neighbourhoods. It wants the agency overseeing community gardens to connect with community partners and look for not just financial support but to come up with innovations in garden styles. Recommendation 14 begins the look at London's future urban agriculture:
There is a rising appreciation of the need for cities to counteract issues of food security and climate change through improved self-sufficiency. Allotment gardens and urban agriculture is a response to these issues and also to food price inflation and a desire to lessen food miles. Although available land is not plentiful in London, allotment gardens are still a valuable opportunity to address, in collaboration with advocates, developers and key stakeholder groups. Accordingly, the City should identify Allotment Gardens as an opportunity for future consideration and initiate a project team, inclusive of community stakeholders, to review and make recommendations for future development.
The writers of the review may well discover that more urban land than expected exists where community gardens and other styles of urban food production can grow. Looking to the future - say five years ahead - with management of urban agriculture more in the hands of the gardeners, volunteers and neighbourhood partners, there are possibilities for projects like community chicken coops to become incorporated at some larger garden sites and for community gardens to run education programs for individuals keeping chickens in their yards.
This is not just about "backyard" chickens Other cities in Canada and the United States have done the reports, set the standards, examined and satisfied health concerns, and had some experience with chickens raised within their urban boundaries.
London could easily get on with amending bylaws to allow people to raise a few chickens in their yards, now.
A few chickens in the backyards of a relatively small number are an easy fit into a broad, long-term vision of London's food security.
I would like to see, soon, a bylaw that begins:
"London wants to lead the way in creative, environmentally sound, economically and socially inclusive styles of urban agriculture. We are open to individual households where raising chickens is part of a household's food plan. As London evolves its urban agriculture spectrum the guidelines in this bylaw/report are only a starting point...."
Sincerely and respectfully submitted,
Maureen Temme 66 Palmer Street London N6H 1P7 [email protected]
i a.) The resource list refers to articles, websites and books on how to raise healthy chickens, well. b) Municipalities, including London, do have bylaws in place to act if any sort of noise is excessive, if property is not maintained, or if animals are not cared for. ii Footnote viii refers to Avian Flu, dismissed as a problem by City of Vancouver's health unit. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100408/documents/penv3.pdf Avian Influenza iii Salt Lake City Will Be Full of Fowl Language By Paul Rolly, Utah Tribune Columnist, June 19, 2011 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52028173-90/tour-state-community-coops.html.csp - referring to the Wasatch Community Gardens' annual tour of chicken coops in residential yards.
7 193 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office iv New York, largest U.S. city at 8,000,000 people, allows chickens. Just Food and the New York City Chicken Project http://www.justfood.org/about-us works with community gardening projects to connect them with mentors and workshops on raising chickens within their gardens. v The Report Overview of Policies and By-laws from Other Municipalities that Deal with Backyard Chickens notes features of cleanliness that are monitored in backyard chicken situations in various municipalities. J. Stanford, Director, Environmental Programs and Solid Waste. Submitted to Community and Neighbourhoods Committee on June 14/11. http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/meetings/CNC%20Agendas/2011-06- 14%20Agenda/MeetingPackages.htm click on the second line, which has agenda item 26. vi excerpt from ‘Vancouver Council Approves Backyard Chicken Plan’ CTV news article, May 2/10. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100409/bc_backyard_chickens_100409/20100410?hub= BritishColumbia
‗Vancouver City Council has approved a controversial proposal to allow residents to keep up to four chickens in their backyard for home-fresh eggs. ... The report cites increasing attention to issues of "sustainability, food security, and consumption of locally grown food" as the source of enthusiasm for urban chickens. Chicken keepers would be required to register with the city, and provide chickens – hens only, roosters will not be allowed -- with adequate food, water, light and veterinary care.‘ vii Vancouver's chicken report: The staff report referred to is a 32 page report (found at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100408/documents/penv3.pdf). viii In regards to Avian Flu, the following is taken directly from the City of Vancouver's staff report http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100408/documents/penv3.pdf Avian Influenza
Chickens, like other birds, are susceptible to forms of Type A influenza that are collectively known as ―avian influenza‖ (AI). The AI virus is widespread, particularly among wild birds, but most forms produce relatively mild or no symptoms. AI can mutate, after circulation in a concentrated poultry population, into highly pathogenic forms (HPAI) that produce severe symptoms but this is less common.(2) AI is not an airborne disease, but is transmitted from infected to healthy birds via direct contact with birds and their droppings, feathers, and body fluids.3 AI has spread to humans in rare instances. Transmission from birds to human remains difficult, usually involving prolonged and close contact, and human-to-human transmission has been suspected in only a handful of cases.4 The greatest risk of infection for humans appears to be through the handling and slaughtering of live infected poultry. Public health concerns centre on the potential for the virus to mutate or combine with other influenza viruses to produce a form that could easily spread from person to person. A high pathogenic H5N1 subtype of AI has caused virulent disease among birds in parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and rare but serious disease in humans. An outbreak of high pathogenic H7N3 AI occurred among poultry in the Fraser Valley in 2004, resulting in the deaths of 17 million birds (through disease and culling) but only two mild cases of flu among humans. A more detailed review of these outbreaks is provided in Appendix H. Health authorities in Canada consider the risk of H5N1 reaching North America, or other HPAI subtypes spreading among backyard hens, to be extremely limited, particularly if biosecurity measures, such as those recommended by the CFIA, are followed. The British Columbia Center for Disease Control (BCCDC) conducted a literature review on the risks of infectious disease from backyard hens and found that: Overall, the risk of pathogen transmission associated with backyard chicken keeping appears to be mild and does not present a greater threat to population health compared to other animals allowed by similar bylaws (reptiles, dogs, etc). Public adherence to proper hygiene will significantly mitigate the risk of any disease acquisition including pathogens commonly found in chickens. Vancouver Coastal Health has worked with staff on developing the recommended guidelines and considers them to be protective of public health. Dr. Victoria Bowes, a board-certified Poultry Veterinarian in the Fraser Valley and an authority on the Fraser Valley outbreak, considers the risk of HPAI among backyard hens to be minimal, stating that: 8 194 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
As long as Asian HPAI-H5N1 remains foreign to Canada AND the birds don't move out of the backyard once they are placed, then the avian influenza disease risks are extremely low (almost negligible). Similarly, Interior Health recently released a document entitled ―Backyard Chickens in the Urban Environment,‖ which is intended as a guide for municipalities considering the health implications of backyard chicken keeping. The document states: he risk of avian influenza development is not appreciably increased by backyard hens. Urban hen keepers should be encouraged to follow the advice of CFIA: Bird Health Basics - How to Prevent and Detect Disease in Backyard Flocks and Pet Birds. The staff recommendation requires hen keepers to follow the CFIA biosecurity standards, and includes the standards as a required reading on the on-line registry. These measures are intended to limit introduction of diseases from other domestic poultry and crosscontamination between humans and hens. Staff further recommends that owners be required to provide veterinary care for hens sufficient to maintain them in good health. A number of other recommendations also will serve to minimize any potential for AI in backyard hens. Limiting the number of hens to four per lot (including multi-family lots) will ensure that the densities required for LPAI to develop into HPAI are not found in the city, especially given the expected low percentage of residents who will keep hens. The potential for spread of any form of AI is further reduced by the recommended requirement that hens be kept continuously enclosed in a roofed, secure structure. Under these conditions, introduction of any viruses from wild birds or other backyard hens would be extremely limited. A third recommendation that will reduce risks in the unlikely event of an outbreak, or in the event that HPAI is found among North American wild bird populations, is the requirement for all hen keepers to enrol in an on-line registry, and to update their registration in a timely manner. The registry database will allow health officials to pinpoint the locations of backyard hens should a health emergency arise. Other recommendations that will limit the potential for the spread of disease include a prohibition on backyard slaughtering, which will reduce exposure to blood and other body fluids from diseased birds; a prohibition on sale of hen products, which will limit transfer of disease; and requirements to keep enclosures sanitary and free from accumulated manure and waste.
from: the City of Vancouver‘s report http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100408/documents/penv3.pdf Notes for the above: 2 World Health Organization (WHO). Avian Influenza Fact Sheet. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_influenza/en/. 3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Questions and Answers – The Facts of Bird Flu. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/qanda.html . 4 World Health Organization (WHO). H5N1 Avian Influenza: Timeline of Major Events. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/Timeline_10_01_04.pdf . ix Backyard Hens page, City of Vancouver Animal Control website. http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/LICANDINSP/animalcontrol/chicken/index.htm x New Bylaw Allows Residents To Keep Backyard Hens - press release from City of Kingston. http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/press/release.asp?mode=show&id=3168 xi Bird Health Basic: How to Prevent and Detect Disease in Backyard Flocks and Pet Bird http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/avflu/bacdoc/floelee.shtml xii Storey’s Guide to Raising Chickens: Care, Feeding, Facilities by Gail Damerow. xiii The Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens. Jerome D. Belanger. Alpha Press - a member of Penguin Group USA) Inc. 2010. xiv Mother Earth’s Chicken and Egg Page. Numerous chicken-related articles, complete details on Mother Earth’s egg nutrition tests, a comprehensive hatcheries directory and other essential tools. http://www.motherearthnews.com/eggs.aspx xv City Farmer. Lorraine Johnson. Greystone Press. 2010. p. 186.
9 195 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office xvi University of Georgia helps women in Mali help themselves Georgia Farm Bureau website. http://www.gfb.org/gfbnews/GFBNewsMoreInfo.asp?RecordID=1183 By: Sarah Lupis, Colorado State University, and April Reese Sorrow, University of Georgia. 03/11/11
In February, University of Georgia poultry experts traveled to the West African country of Mali to establish a poultry and biogas program to improve food security and expand economic opportunities for Mali's rural poor population, especially its women. Michael Lacy, professor and head of the UGA poultry science department, and Jack Houston, a professor with the UGA department of agricultural and applied economics, joined Catherine Keske, an economist from Colorado State University's department of soil and crop science on the two-week trip. "Women in Mali have so few resources. Establishing small-scale, women-run poultry and energy enterprises in Mali will have a huge impact on the livelihoods, nutrition and health of these women and their children," Lacy said. Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development bilateral mission in Mali through Colorado State's Adapting Livestock Systems to Climate Change Collaborative Research Support Program, the team will work with Malian collaborators to build a model poultry hatchery in a rural Malian village. The hatchery will be a hub for research on improved poultry genetics, vaccines for diseases like Newcastle Disease and exploring the feasibility of biogas production from manure and other wastes. Extension educational programs on poultry husbandry, good nutrition and business practices will be offered through the hatchery. While in Mali, the team visited several villages outside Bamako, the country's capital. They met with local leaders, non-government organizations and women's groups to determine the best location for the hatchery and training complex. They also discussed local micro-credit loans for women that would help kick-start the program. "The Mali people are very excited about this project and are interested in receiving training, education, advise and support," Lacy said. Poultry production in the U.S. during the 1800s was largely the domain of the farm wife. A backyard flock was tended at nearly every home. The extra eggs or meat that could be sold to stores would earn the family "egg money" to be used for new shoes or material for clothing. "That was the first time women in America had any economic independence and was the first step to equality," Lacy said. "It is the same for other cultures, including Mali, where we can empower these women and ultimately help their families and communities." Healthier chicks and skills to raise them productively will ultimately increase the amount of eggs and poultry meat available for local consumption and for selling to local markets, Lacy said. In a country where 90 percent of the population earns less than $2 a day and many children are malnourished, this could have a big impact. "One or two eggs per week would have a tremendous impact on the nutritional status of children," Lacy said. The hatchery will be complete by next winter. Until the hatchery is complete, the group will train women's groups and get housing ready for the chicks. For more information: http://georgiafaces.caes.uga.edu/index.cfm?public=viewStory&pk_id=4066 xvii World Vision Gifts page: https://catalogue.worldvision.ca/Gifts/Forms/Home.aspx?mc=4237251&lang=en xviii World Vision Gifts that Empower: https://catalogue.worldvision.ca/Gifts/Forms/Category.aspx?name=animals xix Count Your Chickens is a video from the Meena series on how girls need to go to school http://globalclassroom.unicef.ca/en/resources/video.htm The Meena series was conceived in the early 1990s with the help and guidance of Hanna-Barbera Cartoons. The project came out of a need to confront the extreme discrimination against girls in the South Asia region of the world. The goal of the Meena initiative was to create a girl character that would represent little girls in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Nepal, dealing with serious issues in the region such as education, early marriage, unequal food and work load, while entertaining at the same time. xx See Dick Microfinance Globe and Mail, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/see-dick-microfinance/article1191619/ 10 196 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Over view of the book One Hen: How One Small Loan Made a Big Difference, with information about the author Katie Milway Smith and the One Hen organization. One Hen - published by Kids Can Press, 2008. xxi Wasatch Community Gardens, http://wasatchgardens.org/ Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2924, Salt Lake City, UT 84110-2924 Main Office: 824 S 400 W, Suite 127, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City Will Be Full of Fowl Language By Paul Rolly, Utah Tribune Columnist June 19, 2011 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52028173-90/tour-state-community-coops.html.csp xxii Documentary - Mad City Chickens. Tarazod Films http://www.tarazod.com/filmsmadchicks.html xxiii Mad City Chickens website: http://www.madcitychickens.com/index.html The website has advice on raising chickens and also on how to educate yourself about chickens so you can explain things to other people and approach city hall. xxiv Salt Lake City Will Be Full of Fowl Language By Paul Rolly, Utah Tribune, June 19, 2011. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52028173-90/tour-state-community-coops.html.csp xxv Just Food http://www.justfood.org/about-us Since 1995, Just Food has worked to: "tackle[s] deficiencies in food access and security by increasing the production, marketing and distribution of fresh food from community gardens and urban agriculture sites, on the one hand, and promoting Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiatives (food-buying clubs), on the other. Our aim is to turn 'food deserts' (i.e., neighborhoods underserved by supermarkets and other food retailers) into 'islands of sustainability.' " .... "In the countryside, we are addressing the rapid decline of family farms and the loss of agricultural land by linking small and medium-scale producers to new markets in New York City. In both town and country, Just Food fosters new marketing and food-growing opportunities that address the needs of small and medium family farms, urban gardeners, and NYC neighborhoods. Through training, leadership development and organizing efforts, we build diverse partnerships to advance dialogue and action on farming, hunger and nutrition." xxvi Growing Power http://growingpower.org/livestock.htm xxvii Growing Power projects page: http://www.growingpower.org/milwaukee_projects.htm xxviii Growing Power Initiative to create 150 new jobs aimed at African American males Milwaukee Courier newspaper, 16 April 2011 http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2011/04/16/growing-power-initiative-to-create-150-new-jobs- aimed-at-african-american-males/ xxix London Food Bank website. http://web.ca/~londonfb/ xxx Meal Calendar, Middlesex London Health Unit. http://www.healthunit.com/article.aspx?ID=14209 xxxi Drought Worsens in American Midwest. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/usa-drought- idUKN1E7731GE20110804?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews xxxii London's Food Charter, submitted by Ross Fair (then) General Manager of Community Services to the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee Meeting, March 29/11, Agenda Item 20. Passed by London City Council, April 4/11. http://council.london.ca/meetings/CNC%20Agendas/2011-03-29%20Agenda/Item%2020.pdf .
11 197 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office xxxiii Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life." Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, Rome, 16 - 18 November, 2009. A PDF file of this document can be accessed through: http://www.partnership-africa.org/content/declaration-world-summit-food-security xxxiv Veggie City - Northeast London contact Tosha Densky, Youth Co-ordinator with Neighbourhood and Children's Services at [email protected] There's a blog at http://londonveggiecity.blogspot.com The Veggie City project is an innovative urban agriculture project taking place in the summer of 2011 in Northeast London's Kipps Lane community. The goal is to distribute fresh produce to local residents in the community. The Veggie City project incorporates aspects of Community Shared Agriculture (CSA), with a garden-share-on-unused-backyard-space program, and a work training program for young people. Area residents who have space for a vegetable garden and also want fresh produce, register to allow their space be gardened and also pay $125 for a share in the produce grown through the season at the various gardens involved in the project. The $125 CSA share is less than a share would be on a farm-based CSA because the resident/shareholder's own land is being used. Garden work is being done by young people who live in the community. They learn real world work skills like marketing and contracting, as well as physical gardening skills, to help them find jobs in future. Experienced neighbourhood gardeners are helping teach organic gardening skills to the young gardeners, and neighbours lending their yards are meeting each other too. Produce grown is brought to a central location for pick-up by shareholders once a week. Extra will be sent to a local foodbank operating out of the Life Resource Centre on Huron Street. Once a month Veggie City will participate at the Northeast Community Market on Kipps Lane and sell produce there. Local organizations and businessesxxxiv are pitching in enthusiastically in quite varied ways. Everyone involved is learning that there are links between simple neighbourhood gardens, urban agriculture on a scale to feed cities, and economic and environmental sustainability. xxxv Healthy Eating to get Easier in Westminster Park June 6/11 London Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/06/06/18246341.html May 26/11 The Londoner: Westminster Park won't be a "food desert" any longer, at least for this summer. http://www.thelondoner.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3137108 The Westminster Park Neighbourhood has organized farmers' markets in a parking lot on the corner of southdale and Adelaide Streets. Weather permitting, the outdoor market will be held weekly until around Thanksgiving. This is a joint project of the Child and Youth Network, Investing in Children and residents of the Westminster Park area, helped by David Cook, owner of Fire Roasted Coffee and the force behind the Western Fair and Masonville farmers' markets. Westminster Park does not have a store that sells fresh fruit or fresh vegetables, keys to healthy eating and - it is hoped - reduction of childhood obesity and diabetes. This project will be a first step to changing Westminster Park's designation in as a "food desert", a neighbourhood where there is a "disadvantaged population" and no access to affordable groceries. Westminster area does have a community garden located at Westminster Optimist Park. The garden is a partnership of the City of London through LCRC, the Southdale Caplaincy, UWO, Neighbourhood Resource Assn of Westminster Park, Wilton Grove Senior Public School and St. Francis Catholic School. This garden began in 2009. For information about plot availability, call the London Community Resource Centre at 519- 432-1801 or email [email protected] xxxvi Ecovox TV series. Rogers Cable Schedule: http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=1&rid=9 EcoVox London: www.ecovoxlondon.com xxxvii London's Community Gardens Program Review is attached to the Community and Neighbourhood's Committee report of its Tues. March 29/11 meeting. The report can be found at: http://council.london.ca/meetings/CNC%20Agendas/2011-03-29%20Agenda/Item%209.pdf
12 198 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Chicken Resources August 2011 revision Notes: - this is an ongoing resource list prepared by M. Temme - sometimes websites change - there's always some sort of mistake on it or something gets out of order :-) Thanks to: Ron Berezen of River City Chickens for resources which he put together for an article in Canadian Organic Grower, published in 2010, and which have been incorporated in this list. (Ron's person/business website http://theurbanfarmer.ca/ ) ; Toronto Chickens website, for other on-line resources which are incorporated here; Jacqueline Jolliffe for her useful paper, Balking at Bawking; Joan Dye Gussow and Barbara Kingsolver.
Books Living with Chickens: Everything You Need to Know to Raise Your Own Backyard Flock. Jay Rossie. City Farmer. Lorraine Johnson. Greystone Books, 2010. - for the chapter titled What the Cluck: urban chickens. "reason rarely enters into chicken bylaw battles" Encyclopedia of Country Living, 10th edition. Carla Emery. Sasquatch Books. 2008. This 922 page book is about more than raising chickens! Keep Chickens! Tending Small Flocks in Cities, Suburbs, and Other Small Spaces. Barbara Kilarski The Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens. Jerome D. Belanger. Alpha Press - a member of Penguin Group USA) Inc. 2010. One Hen. Katie Milway Smith. Kids Can Press, Feb. 2008. Pastured Poultry Profit$: Net $25,000 in 6 Months on 20 Acre. Joel Salatin for small, rural business Raising Poultry on Pasture: Ten Years of Success. edited by Jody Padgham for small, rural business Storey’s Guide to Raising Chickens: Care, Feeding, Facilities. Gail Damerow This Organic Life: confessions of a suburban homesteader. Joan Dye Gussow. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2001. - not specific to chickens, but a wonderful chapter "Varmints" which includes thoughts on raising and harvesting one's own animals ... looking one's food int he face.
Articles in magazines, papers, and on-line Anyone Can Raise Chickens. Harvey Ussery. Mother Earth News, Dec. 2008/Jan. 2009. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Modern-Homesteading/Raising- Chicks.aspx?utm_content=Purina+Poultry&utm_campaign=Misc.+Mailings&utm_source=iPost&utm_me dium=email Ussery’s website: www.themodernhomestead.us Balking at Bocking: urban chicken policy in Canada. Jacqueline Jolliffe, member of Transition Ottawa. Paper for a course taken with Andrew McCann, St. Laurence College and for JustFood Ottawa. found at: www.livingcitiescompany.ca/food/resources/BalkingatBocking.pdf Best Chicken Breeds for Backyard Flocks. Troy Griepentrog. Mother Earth News, April/May 2010. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Best-Chicken-Breeds-For-Backyard-Flocks.aspx Chicken Keeper’s Library. Laura Sayre. Mother Earch News. April/May 2007. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/2007-04-01/The-Chicken-Keepers-Library.aspx this list has been incorporated into this Chicken Rsources list Count Your Chickens ... video from UNICEF'S Meena series on educating girls http://globalclassroom.unicef.ca/en/resources/video.htm- Grow Your Own Poultry Feed. Harvey Ussery. Mother Earth News. Feb/Mar 2010. Ussery’s website is: www.themodernhomestead.us. Health Authorities not concerned with health problems in urban areas if chickens are kept doc title: Rachel Engler Stringer of U of Saskatchewan July 2011 Assistant Professor of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan speaks about backyard hens http://www.altlondon.org/article.php?story=20110707130815278 Maureen's note: this was in September 2010 - pilot project did not go through How Do Your Eggs Stack up? Laura Sayre. Mother Earch News. April/May 2007. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-04-01/Best-Eggs-Comparison.aspx In Urban Centres More People Keeping Chickens at Home http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110716/urban-chickens-backyards-canada-110716/ The Canadian Press Date: Saturday Jul. 16, 2011 6:52 PM ET On a Wing and a Prayer: the urban chicken-keeping movement takes flight. Ron Berezen. Canadian Organic Grower, Spring, 2010. Portable Chicken Mini-coop Plan. Cheryl Long. Mother Earth News, April/May 2007 See Dick Microfinance. Globe and Mail, June 22/09, by Sarah Hampson
199 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
- how the children's book One Hen explains to children aspects of microfinance and the importance of chickens in small economies and food security. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/see-dick-microfinance/article1191619/ Urban agriculture: Seeds of self-sufficiency By MONIQUE BEAUDIN, Gazette Environment Reporter May 21, 2011 http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Urban+agriculture+Seeds+self+sufficiency/4819522/story.html Vancouver Council Approves Backyard Chicken Plan. CTV news article, May 2/10. (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100409/bc_backyard_chickens_100409/20100410? hub=BritishColumbia) Vancouver - Guidelines for Keeping of Backyard Hens Supports Item No. 3, Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, April 8, 2010 http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100408/documents/penv3.pdf Vancouver, animal control - oversees chickens http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/LICANDINSP/animalcontrol/chicken/index.htm World Vision Catalogue - 2 hens and a rooster - WV's most popular gift https://catalogue.worldvision.ca/Gifts/Forms/Gift.aspx?giftId=1552
Information about chickens and keeping chickens and activist groups These resources are for both people raising backyard chickens and for people living in rural areas where they are able to raise chickens as part of their livelihood, ie for small farming operations. Backyard Chickens: http://backyardchickens.com/ Backyard Chickens in Toronto: http://torontochickens.com Backyard Chickens Canada: www.backyardchickenscanada.com http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com Chicken Feed: the world of chickens. http://www.lionsgrip.com/chickens.html - chockfull of technical information, feeding formulas, care etc. Chickens in Vancouver: www.chickensinvancouver.com
200 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office are Mother Earth’s Chicken and Egg Page: Numerous chicken-related articles, complete details on Mother Earth’s egg nutrition tests, a comprehensive hatcheries directory and other essential tools. http://www.motherearthnews.com/eggs.aspx The Modern Homestead: Virginia homesteader Harvey Ussery has tons of advice for getting started with poultry, including a question and answer section. www.themodernhomestead.us The Poultry section specifically: http://www.themodernhomestead.us/article/Livestock.html My Urban Chickens: http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ River City Chickens (Edmonton): http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/rivercitychickens Robert Plamondon’s Poultry Pages: Chock-full of useful information on raising baby chicks, making your own feed and earning a living with your eggs. http://www.plamondon.com/freerange.html SBCS (Saskatoon): http://ko-kr.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&viewas=0&gid=74697580927 Seattle Tilth:. http://seattletilth.org/learn/resources-1/city-chickens/citychickensfaqs This nonprofit organic gardening group was one of the first to support chicken keeping as an element of sustainable local food systems. Learn about managing chickens in your garden, including tips for composting chicken manure Toronto Chickens: http://torontochickens.com/Toronto_Chickens/Wonderful_Websites_Blogs.html Urban Chickens: http://www.urbanchickens.net/ Waterloo Hen Association: http://sites.google.com/site/waterloohenassociation
Heritage Breed Information from Barbara Kingsolver's book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, p. 331 in the hardcover:
Our purpose for keeping heritage animals is food-system security, but also something else that is less self-serving: the dignity of each breed's true and specific nature. A Gloucester Old Spots hog in the pasture, descended from her own ancient line, making choices, minute by minute, about rooting for grubs and nursing her young, contains in her life a sensate and intelligent "pigness." It's a state of animal grace that never even touches the sausages -on- hooves in an industrial pig lot. One can only hope they've lost any sense of the porcine dignities stolen from them.
American Livestock Breeds Conservancy: Pioneer organization working to conserve historic breeds and genetic diversity in livestock. http://www.albc-usa.org/ Cherry Creek Canadians. with information about the Chantecler Chicken. http://www.cherrycreekcanadians.ca/chanteclers.htm Rare Breeds Canada Rare Breeds Canada's mission is to make Canadians more aware of their agricultural heritage and, through education and niche marketing, involve them in conserving endangered breeds of farm livestock and poultry. http://www.rarebreedscanada.ca/priority-poultry.htm Sand Hill Preservation Center: This small family farm in Iowa sells heirloom garden seeds and rare poultry. Their Web site features firsthand descriptions of many unusual breeds; they also offer a “tasty chicken treats” seed mix to encourage your birds to forage. http://www.sandhillpreservation.com/index.html Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities: Works to perpetuate and improve rare breeds of poultry. http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/SPPA/SPPA.html
Respectful Chicken Harvest On-line information is an incredible thing for people who haven't a workshop to attend. There are various on- line resources for harvesting chickens. Backyard Butchering Workshop. Jenna Woginrich's Blog Cold Antler Farm http://coldantlerfarm.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html from the website Permies (short for permaculture) http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums/8690_0/critter-care/respectful-harvest-of-chickens 1. Two videos with Alexia Allen of Hawthorn Farm, Woodinville, Washington - one on how to kill and pluck a chicken, the other shows how to remove the innards. Alexia is a wildcrafting skills instructor who lives on a small farm. In Alexia's words: " .... I have come to this process of killing animals with this sense of being almost a midwife... Or at least when I teach people about butchering chickens I want to emphasize It's not about being brutal or macho, it's really about 'hey, you kill things and eat them.' That's part of how the world seems to work. I didn't make up how the world works" http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums/8690_0/critter-care/respectful-harvest-of-chickens 2 Farther down the page, two much shorter videos, showing basic evisceration
201 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
From: Pamela Reid, BA, MES 1639 Scott St. London ON N5W 2J4
Laying hens are classified as a Class 2 animal in the City of London's Animal Control By-law and are banned, while homing pigeons are a Class 3 animal and are presently kept by Londoners throughout the City. I would like to draw attention to the minor differences and to provide arguments for a by-law amendment and possibly, solutions for keeping backyard laying hens.
I am assuming that there would be a reasonable set limit to the number of chickens a person could keep, as would be outlined in a new by-law. This could include the required land dimensions for the number of chickens, ie., a yard 30' by 30' could hold only 2 chickens, and would increase to a modest limit of no more than 6 (and no roosters, obviously), regardless of the size of the property. This would ensure the proper attention could be paid to care for these birds.
Chickens that would kept for personal backyard use would generate no revenue, but would be kept for personal use and enjoyment. Homing pigeons are in fact entered in competitions for cash and prizes, as well as for companionship and as a hobby. Chickens would need to be kept by those in dwellings that would meet the requirements, similar to those set out for Class 3 animals as mentioned in Section 6 of the before mentioned by-law. In Section 6.2 of the existing by-law, those persons who already possessed Class 2 animals at the time of the passing of the by-law (1993) would be exempt providing they adhere to the by-laws in Section 6.3 to 6.8. This seems discriminatory to residents who would now like to keep a few chickens. It is not clear as to whether this provision would end for those residents when the birds died, or whether these specific owners were continuously allowed to replace such birds. Obviously, there would need to be debate and clarifications made to distinguish between other types of fowl mentioned in Class 2. Turkeys and ducks have different needs and should be placed in another Class or Sub-Class with the proper distinctions.
It has been stated that backyard chickens would attract more undesirable animals or vector species. Wouldn't homing pigeons that already live within the City of London attract similar creatures? These species are already present within the City of London, and residents manage to co-exist with them. Many by-laws separating typical rural animals from urban animals were adopted to create a boundary in order to protect people living in high density settings from coming in contact from various diseases and vector species due to unsanitary living quarters for animals (and in the past, unsanitary living conditions of people). Since science and public health education have increased our awareness of these matters, people who would keep chickens would be more educated and informed regarding health and sanitation matters (more on this point later). Also, the separation of rural animals from acceptable urban animals has much to do with protecting the financial interests of large scale food producers. Chickens kept for personal use and enjoyment would likely not infringe on the generation of profit for our large scale food producers and sellers. In fact, as a possible backyard laying hen owner, I would contribute to the local economy by continually purchasing various goods and services for the care of the birds such as: feed, straw, housing, vet services, and in the end, the services of an abattoir. This would modestly increase demand for these goods and services, thus creating or sustaining existing jobs.
202 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
The mention that by keeping chickens in the backyard would create "farms" in an urban setting is unfounded because certain residents already keep up to 60 homing pigeons within the City of London and the term "farm' is not applied to them. Secondly, the common use of the term "farm" suggests the management and production of animals and other food stuffs for the generation of revenue, even modestly. This would not be the case for backyard chickens. As I mentioned above, the education for the proper keeping of chickens could be provided by the Humane Society or other recognized organization. This could include the collection of fees for such classes. Residents should be required to purchase a license for each bird to financially support the various organizations who would be responsible for servicing them as any other animal in the city. The license could also mandate that each bird by tagged for identification should the bird escape. Random inspections would help prevent any animal abuses. Should backyard laying hens be reported to the authorities to not be well cared for, local farms could become the recipient for the confiscated birds.
The concerns raised in the past regarding bird flu, exposed the officials to the facts that it is the living conditions of factory farmed birds, the overuse of antibiotics, and ill treatment that create the opportunity for diseases to emerge and spread. Owners would need to sign a waiver to agree that in the case that a contagious strain of bacteria or virus threatens human life or other life forms' well being, that euthanasia of the birds would be required for the public good. The responsibility of backyard laying hens must be taken seriously by those interested and these owners would have to have the means to continuously provide for their birds. The amendments to the by-law would need to reflect such responsibilities while ensuring clarity for all those interested in owning a few birds. By highly regulating a pilot project, and by issuing a set number of chicken licenses in the beginning in order to create best practices examples and potentially a support network for urban chicken keepers, London could become a leader for other municipalities who may be exploring similar by-law amendments.
Lastly, backyard chickens is an argument for personal freedoms, with reasonable protections in place for the public good. By-laws are created to protect the majority of people and our various interests, and accordingly, may be challenged when the people see that they may no longer require such protections or may not serve our interests. Not all residents of London will be interested in owning backyard laying hens (or homing pigeons), and would be considered a novelty, or a nusance by some (some residents could certainly testify that some neighbourhood dogs or cats already qualify as such). I believe those residents who are seeking this amendment would care for these birds quite well and the birds would enhance many aspects of their lives while supporting our economy.
Thank you for your time and attention. Any questions or feedback, please feel free to comment by email or regular post. Sincerely, Pamela Reid, BA, MES (Master's Environment & Sustainability) 1639 Scott St. London ON N5W 2J4 519-675-1636
203 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
From: Adrienne Berchtold Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 11:14 PM To: Usher, Harold; Fontana, Joseph; Armstrong, Bill; Brown, Matt; Orser, Stephen; Van Meerbergen, Paul Cc: Mercier, Betty Subject: Backyard Hens in London
As a resident and community member in London, Ontario, I would like to encourage you, my representatives, to support motions to legalize the raising of hens within the city. They provide affordable, healthy food and allow people to engage in a more direct connection with the source of what they see on their plate at meal time. They are also a great way for people to adopt the lifestyle of eating locally; if more of the London community has this mindset, it will be beneficial to our local farmers and other local food suppliers.
On June 14, at the Community and Neighbourhoods Taskforce committee meeting, city staff will suggest a public input meeting on the subject of backyard hens. Please accept their advice and support this meeting. There are many London residents who can provide valuable insight into the proposition of back yard hens. As a democratic community, it is our duty to provide spaces where members can dialogue and become informed; as our representatives, it is your duty to provide a space where you can hear your constituency's desires.
Regards,
Adrienne Berchtold
Note: I request that this correspondence be included in the agenda.
204 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Usher, Harold Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:59 AM , : I , . i. ;--; '--.Fontana, Joseph; Armstrong, Bill; Brown, MatÇ'[email protected]'; Van Meerbeçgen, paul Cc: Mercier, Betty; Stanford, Jay; Morris, Silvana Subject: Re: Betty for inclusion in the agenda
2011 08:59 AM To: Usher, Harold; Joseph; Armstrong, Bill; Brown, Matt; sors
Please have apublic July l9th 201 I regarding back yard hens.
Let's think ofthe of our bodies and environment first for a change. Think of our futu¡e generations! Chickens food scra.p,s and bugs that eat our plants, they produce healthy eggs for usto eat.the strawand ings are comt'osted and all at a relatively low cost! Itb a win, win situation.
I understand concenm noise and smell. If looked after properly there will be no smell. Can the smell really be worse vehicle exhaust? How loud can four chickens be? Not louder than little that yappy little youknow.
I understand there will þe concenrs about people who will mistreat and neglect chickens. There
towards acts like this, the only way to rid owsociety. {s
I The concems are reasoþable, but surely this is worth a try! I a mother of three children, I
Amy Redmond
205 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Friday, August 5, 2011 Chair and Members Community and Neighbourhoods Committee The Corporation of the City of London
Re: Regulating the keeping of backyard laying hens.
POINTS OF INFORMATION:
The Animal Care and Control bylaw was changed under former Mayor Tom Gosnell in 1992/93 as part of the land annexation process.
Banning poultry that produce fresh eggs does nothing to promote ideas of self-reliance in uncertain economic times.
Rare Breeds Canada has expressed interest in working with parties in satisfaction of their mandate to inform and educate.
Randy Corey of the Trails End Small Animal Auction has expressed willingness to fulfill the role of a poultry supplier whom one can return poultry too if necessary.
REQUESTED ACTION
That London City Council give authentic consideration to the following items when either changing the bylaws to allow for keeping backyard laying hens within city limits or establishing a 'pilot project' within city limits.
1. Approval for keeping laying hens from a majority of property owners who abut a subject property. Property owners giving permission should be in residence at ground level and the party requesting approval should be counted as one vote 'for'.
2. No Roosters.
3. Laying hens should be purchased from local Canadian suppliers at an age (usually 5 months) when the gender of the animal can be easily determined by a person competent to do so.
4. Coops, runs and animal husbandry practices should be appropriate for the humane and sanitary housing of laying hens and the health of the guardian while respecting the rights of neighbours to enjoyment of private property.
5. Laying hens be limited to 6 in number where space allows with eggs being used for personal consumption.
6. Any immediate change to bylaws or the implementation of a pilot program should be scheduled for an autumn/fall season.
7. Suspend 'anonymous' complaints to bylaw enforcement for a period of 12 months in case of immediate change of bylaw or for the duration of any pilot study.
206 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
8. Establish license fees for laying hens at the same level as for dogs and cats while sharing the aim of achieving revenue neutrality in any future animal support programs as implemented by the City.
9. Encourage guardians of laying hens to take part in a return to supplier program as a matter of course. It being noted that the London Humane Society currently returns poultry to farms when they are in receipt of them.
10. Direct staff to Ensure there is clear representation on the topic of laying hens in the staff report currently being produced by Jay Stanford for the September 13th 2011 Community and Neighbourhoods Committee meeting relating to: "Expanding the scope of animal welfare initiatives as part of the city's animal services program".
11. Encourage the adoption of Canadian Rare Breed Poultry for the purpose of helping preserve breeds through use such as The Chantecler and The Albertan. London would be the first city in Canada to help safeguard that shared Canadian heritage.
Some members of the Community and Neighbourhoods Task Force on Community Engagement have observed the handling of this issue so far.
Unfortunately it has brought into question the credibility of a few councillors who have recorded public statements on matters to do with authentic and meaningful engagement with the community.
I encourage you to respect those people who have taken the time to sign petitions indicating a wish to change the bylaw through making appropriate adjustments in a manner that honours the spirit of their wishes while accommodating informed, rational and evidence based concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Oliver Hobson 45 Evergreen Avenue London Ontario. N6J 1A6
207 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office RARE BREEDS CANADA 2495 boul. Perrot. N.D. de L’Ile Perrot. QC., J7V 8P4. Tel: 514 901 0999 Fax: 515 453 1062 [email protected] www.rarebreedscanada.ca Business No. 11897 5812 RR0
Mayor Joe Fontana and members of Council,
Rare Breeds Canada supports whole heartedly the keeping of backyard poultry in urban locations; preferably heritage breeds with historical significance such as the Canadian bred ’Chantecler’.
Our mandate states in part that our organization is to ‘actively encourage the preservation of… domestic poultry… that are now in danger of extinction’ hence our letter to you today.
Rare Breeds Canada would be willing to work with interested parties in your municipality on a pilot project back yard chicken keeping (laying hens only), while helping inform the public about poultry husbandry and maintenance.
In conjunction with Agriculture Canada, the University of Guelph or through appropriate partnerships with the University of Western Ontario, we hope to provide useful and accurate knowledge for those who wish to keep rare breed laying hens in the city.
We understand that you are one of seven test markets for product in Canada and because we understand you are considering the issue of allowing back yard chickens in the municipality, we’d like to develop our workshops and educational materials in such a market.
Thanks so much for your consideration of this matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact our office (noted above) if we can offer any further assistance to you.
Yours Sincerely,
Glorianne Bjerland Elwood Quinn Heather Morrissey RBC Chair RBC Livestock Chair RBC Poultry Coordinator
208 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Written submission for the August 16, 2011 public participation meeting with regards to backyard chickens in London, Ontario
By Susan Price
Introduction
As a property owner in London I would like to be able to raise backyard chickens for eggs for my family’s personal consumption. I have years of experience raising chickens in a suburban setting so I am very knowledgeable about what this involves. What puzzles me is how most of the members of Council and a number of other Londoners seem either outraged by or simply don’t want to entertain the idea of backyard chickens in London. I have to ask myself, does the negative attitude towards backyard chickens stem simply from a lack of knowledge or is it because we live in a medium-sized southwestern Ontario city surrounded by agricultural land that leads some Londoners to be concerned about the city’s image? One member of Council stated “chickens belong in the country and people belong in the city”. Tell that to the citizens of Vancouver, B.C., New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, and Chicago, Illinois to mention only of few of the decidedly urban North American cities that permit the keeping of backyard chickens. A member of the Board of Control said about the issue that in London “we strive to be a high tech urban centre”. The underlying assumption being that raising backyard chickens would preclude the possibility of London being seen as an urban centre. Are people here so insecure about their sense of “citihood” that some Londoners feel it is necessary to deny others the choice of raising a few chickens in their own backyards? Raising backyard chickens is part of a growing and progressive urban garden movement. Just Google “backyard chickens” and you will discover the amazing number of innovative backyard chicken initiatives taking place in cities across North America. If London doesn’t get on board this movement soon then we really will have a reason to be concerned about our image.
Proposed By-law of Backyard Chickens in London
I propose that the current Animal Control By-law be rewritten so that chickens are no longer considered Class 2 animals but are a separate class onto themselves and that the by-law would be based on the best practices of by-laws pertaining to backyard chickens from cities that permit backyard chickens. I also propose that sections 6.3-6.8 that had been “grandfathered” will still stand but with minor alterations. Other by-laws more than adequately address issues such as noise levels. The by-law needs to be written so it will offer Londoners protection in the unlikely case that a neighbour raises chickens in an irresponsible manner, but will still allow the greatest possible freedom for members of the community who choose to raise chickens.
In brief:
Single family homes can keep chickens
Roosters are prohibited
Housing must be completely enclosed
209 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
Coops must not be visible from the street and must be kept attractive and well maintained
Coops must be at least 10 feet from property lines
Rationale for Backyard Chickens in London
Healthy food source from chickens living in humane conditions-eggs from backyard hens are natural, delicious and nutritiously superior to eggs produced by the egg industry. By raising our own hens we will know they have not ingested hormones. We will also know the chickens have been kept in humane conditions unlike the chickens in industrial farms where the practice is to keep hens in small cages; typically confining five hens for up to two years in a space about the size of a standard filing cabinet drawer.
Good for the environment- keeping backyard chickens reduces the amount of municipal waste going to landfill sites. Hens turn kitchen scraps into eggs. In addition, their droppings provide free nitrogen rich fertilizer. Unlike dog and cat feces, which carry pathogens, chicken droppings can be composted and represent a source of free organic fertilizer. Natural chicken fertilizer reduces the need for petrochemical fertilizers. Chickens eat insects so the need for pesticides is also reduced. In addition allowing backyard chickens would supply the qualitative environmental benefit of reducing the demand for high impact foods (Local Food – RethinkEnergy London).
Backyard Chickens are not farm animals-for centuries chickens, like dogs and cats, have lived alongside people in cities and towns. Chickens are friendly, social, intelligent and affectionate. They are small, gentle, quiet animals (the noise level of an alarmed hen is 60-70 decibels, the same level as human conversation. At a distance of 15 feet most normal chicken noises are barely audible). A small flock is easily managed and takes a minimum amount of time and energy on the part of the owners. They are also very inexpensive to keep. Chickens offer us the opportunity to produce a little of our own food. Backyard chickens tend to be kept in attractive well maintained enclosures and they are treated like pets. Appendix A contains examples of backyard coops on suburban lots.
Chickens will not attract predators to the area -if left unprotected chickens are vulnerable to predators. They have the same predators as wild rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, small birds and other wild animals found in London. Racoons, skunks, and possums prey on chickens. These predators are already present and since the chickens will be kept in completely enclosed coops they will not attract additional predators.
Chickens don’t pose a public health risk-people are rightlfully concerned about Avian flu. Avian Flu is spread by contact with contaminated feces of wild waterfowl. Since backyard chickens are completely enclosed contact is unlikely. When it comes to Avian Flu small diverse backyard flocks are seen to be the solution not the cause of the problem. Also, unlike cats and dogs which are prone to rabies, parasite and tick- borne diseases chickens actually keep yards healthier for humans because they eat ticks and other insects.
Living sustainably-nowadays people are interested in living more sustainably and many communities are encouraging citizens to reduce waste and the consumption of resources. Backyard chickens allow us to reduce our carbon footprint by producing some of our own food. Any food that we produce organically in our own
210 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
backyards is one less item that must be shipped to us and shopped for. Every item we raise ourselves presents a step towards living a greener more sustainable lifestyle.
Burden on the Government-no inspection is proposed or permits required so backyard chickens represent a minimal burden on the government. On the other hand, in a document on Local Food put out by RethinkEnergy London it was proposed that if the current Animal Control By-law was modified to permit and regulate the use of new chicken coops on residential property, as per the requirements outlined for the existing “grandfathered” coops allowed in the by-law, then a licensing fee could be charged which would mean this initiative would be cost neutral.
Chickens are educational-what better way to provide an opportunity for children to learn where food comes from and about healthy, sustainable nutritious food. By raising backyard chickens children will see first hand how chickens turn kitchen scraps, grass clippings and insects into eggs and fertilizer. The fertilizer in turn when composted and spread on backyard gardens will produce beautiful vegetables: a living example of the adage “reduce, reuse, recycle”.
Chickens are not smelly-five chickens produce less manure than one medium-sized dog. Large scale commercial egg operations often smell because of the numbers of chickens and the resulting build up of ammonia. This is not the case with small backyard flocks.
Not so very long ago Londoners had the right to raise backyard chickens if they chose too. But the current law takes that choice away from us. With the growing concerns about the environment and the sustainability of our lifestyles now is the time to follow the lead of the progressive cities in North America that are embracing the urban garden movement. I urge all Council members to vote to put in place a new by-law that permits the keeping of backyard chickens. Individual members of the commnity will then be able decide for themselves whether or not they want to keep chickens in their own backyards.
211 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
212 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
213 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
August 3, 2011
City Clerk’s Office
300 Dufferin Avenue, Box 5035, Room 308
London, Ontario N6A 4L9
Dear Sir:
RE: Raising Chickens in Poultry Pens Within Residential Zones
I have several concerns regarding this issue which are as follows:
1. Who will police these residences with respect to abuse and neglect of the birds? Will they be penned outside in the shade or sun in the summer? Where will they be kept in winter—still outside? 2. What about the smell of manure emanating from this with the heat of summer and the neighbours who have to put up with this? 3. What will happen when the birds become prey and attract rats, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, owls, hawks, dogs, etc.? 4. What about the potential for diseases from the birds if proper disposal of manure and carcasses is not carried out? 5. When it comes to killing, what process will be used and how will this be enforced? Letting it run around the yard after the head is cut off until it drops doesn’t seem right especially if neighbours can hear and view the situation.
Consideration of the sensitivity to families with/without children needs to be given when there is potential to improper care and killing procedures. Most properties are very close together, it would be difficult to ensure all parties would be happy with this proposal.
I feel that this would open up a whole new concept of those wanting to have goats, turkeys, guinea hens, ducks, geese, maybe a sheep or cow. Best to leave chicken raising to those living in the country where neighbours are less likely to complain and the chickens would be happier!
Jo-Ann Dunn
London
Email to [email protected]
214 of 217 Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
"I'd like to address the issue of back yard chickens. Most of the recent argument against chickens has come from the idea that "most" Londoner's don't want chickens. When are"leaders" become merely followers it is indeed a sad state of affairs. I would like to point out that there are already by laws regarding a whole host of things that "most" Londoners don't want. I hope that council will come to this meeting with an open mind and willingness to at least listen, so that a decision can be made based on facts and not just jump off the bridge because all you friends are doing it.
No one is saying that people who don't want chickens should have them. Just as no one is saying that people who do not want reptiles of up to 20 pigeons should have them just because there is a law saying you can, I also doubt that "most" Londoners were desperate to have that one on the books. Nor do I think that a majority of Londoners where highly concerned with having the right to discharge a rifle or use a bow and arrow inside city limits simply because we have a by law for it. More over I believe that when council looked at those issues they realized it would be advantageous to regulate these activities to allow those who wanted to do these things the right to, while at the same time keeping other Londoners interest in mind.
I have heard the argument that counsel is too busy to think about this now, that the city is in an economic crisis. I do not pretend to think other wise but, at a time of even greater crisis, during the second world war, Canadians in urban centers everywhere were actually encouraged to keep their own chickens as a stop gap to help alleviate hunger due to rationing of food and goods at that time. If council is really concerned about the economy I am sure they have taken the time to look into this and would have some research on the effectiveness of this action. If it was found that initiative during the wars was negative then, yes, you should use the economy as a reason to not allow chickens but if not, it seems a little bit of an excuse. I believe that being able to sustain yourself should be a basic human right. Even currently in Afghanistan there is an ongoing effort to provide widows in that country the tools to be self-sufficient and one of the projects there is teaching women to raise their own chickens to be able to feed themselves.
The last excuse I have heard is that chickens would be to noisy and this really is just laughable. There is no way that two or three chickens would ever produce the volume that is produce by cars, children, festivals, especially since chickens go to bed at sundown. Although I have heard many intellectual arguments for the allowance of back yard chickens I am still waiting to hear one against. Council you have the floor."
Sincerely
Colleen Leanne Murphy 269 Taylor St London ON
215 of 217 ct Signed Copies are availale in the City Clerk's Office
May 1 4,2011
Dear Mayor City Co
I am writing to e into the possible impact of chickens ih urbañ areas oñ potential predator .t a Professor Emeritus of Ecology with more than 4 decades of experience in this have particular interest in population dynafnics of ecosystems.
One question ts asked is whether chickens kept in urban backyards will attract dangerous to the n area of towns and cities. The answer is essentially 'ño'. Most cities (including ) a population of raccoons, skunks, weasels and foxes. Such predators will chicken food, but being noctumal and not able to break through chicken wire fencing, is not affected by the presence of fencedìn chickens. The same holds for the . These lanimals are attracted to any potential food, such as pets, srnaller predators, ced-in chickens are rtot going to 'make any difference.
I have kept chi hat is now the city, and we have a resident pack of our'backt' 40' and they have nêver been a problem.
I I believe the rl ecologic and enviroñmental benefits of backyard hens far outweigh any pÖtential risk coyote of' other predator populations.
I
Sincerely,
Dr Rudolph Harmsen Professor Emeritus of Queen's Univercity at
PREPARIN EADER AND CITIZENS FOR A GLOBAL 216SOCIETY of 217 Signed Copies are availale in cr\' ':¡-[:trr.nt-" the City Clerk's Office çrtit-*-,-L h$¿f Fondatlon canadlenne des maladies inflammatolres de l'intestin
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada
July 13,2011
Mayor Joe Fontana iEOtrYED 214- 30O Dufferin Avenue JUL19?011 London, ON N6B 122
Dear Mayor Joe Fontana:
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 , M&M Meat Shops, Canada's largest retail chain of specialty frozen foods, is encouraging families coast-to-coast to enjoy a meal together in celebration of the seventh annual National Family Dinner Night.
Family expens and researchers confirm that one of the most valuable gifts parents can give their children is time spent together as a family. Taking this advice, M&M Meat Shops successfully launched National Family Dinner Night six years ago and have encouraged thousands of families to sit down and have dinner together. This annual event has contributed to the more than 21 ,5 million dollars M&M Meat Shops has raised for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada (CCFC). This year, M&M Meat Shops is hoping to bring even more families across the country together at mealtime.
Last year's program received the support of community leaders from coast-to-coast including the Prime Minister, the Governor General, Premiers and many Mayors of Canada's largest and smallest cities. We would be most honoured if you, as a leader in the community, would provide a letter of support for this community-based initiative and, if possible, formally proclaim September 15,2011 as National Family Dinner Night. We would truly love to hear your own memories about your family dinners growing up and what getting together for a family meal means to you.
M&M Meat Shops will be asking families to register their participation in National Family Dinner Night on the website: as of Augusl1,2011. For every person who registers, M&M Meat Shops willdonate $1 to the CCFC.
Of course, we also hope that you will enjoy a family dinner on September 15, 2O11 , and register your participation in National Family Dinner Night at
We thank you in advance for your consideration. We will follow up with your office in the next few weeks. ln the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (416) 366-7735 x247.
Yours truly,
Kristi Bejczak Strategic Objectives 184 Front St. E.,4th Floor Toronto, ON Canada MsA 4N3 416.366.7735 x247
217 of 217