CITY OF WINDSOR AGENDA 4/1/2019

Supplementary Agenda Items 11.14 through 11.21 for the Special Meeting of Council Meeting – 2019 Operating & Capital Budget

Date: Monday, April 01, 2019 Time: 1:00 o’clock p.m. Location: Council Chambers, 1st Floor, Windsor City Hall

MEMBERS:

Mayor Drew Dilkens

Ward 1 - Councillor Fred Francis

Ward 2 - Councillor Fabio Costante

Ward 3 - Councillor Rino Bortolin

Ward 4 - Councillor Chris Holt

Ward 5 - Councillor Ed Sleiman

Ward 6 - Councillor Jo-Anne Gignac

Ward 7 - Councillor Irek Kusmierczyk

Ward 8 - Councillor Gary Kaschak

Ward 9 - Councillor Kieran McKenzie

Ward 10 - Councillor Jim Morrison

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 1 of 124 ORDER OF BUSINESS

Item # Item Description 1. ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.1. In the event of the absence of the Mayor, Councillor Sleiman has been appointed Acting Mayor for the month of April, 2019 in accordance with By-Law176-2018.

2. CALL TO ORDER

3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

7. COMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION PACKAGE (This includes both Correspondence and Communication Reports)

7.1. CORRESPONDENCE

7.2. Funding for Riverside Drive Vista Project, Phase 2A from Ford Boulevard to St. Rose Avenue and Phase 3A from Strabane Avenue to Ford Boulevard (S 6/2019)

7.3. 2019 Annual Reserve Fund Expenditure Plan & List of Donations and Bequests Received in 2018 - Windsor Public Library Board -City Wide (CM 8/2019)

7.4. Bicycle Road Safety Audits - Short-Term Items - WARDS 3, 4, 5 & 8 (C 186/2018)

7.5. Transportation Planning Items Referred to Budget - WARDS 7 & 9 (C 37/2019)

7.6. Succession Planning: 2018 Initiative & Reserve Account Expenditures Update (CM 10/2019)

7.7. Educational Assistance Reserve Account - Expenditures for 2018 (CM 11/2019)

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 2 of 124 8. CONSENT AGENDA

Nil.

9. REQUESTS FOR DEFERRALS, REFERRALS OR WITHDRAWALS

10. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS

10.1. 2019 Operating Budget Report – City Wide (C 33/2019)

10.2. 2019 Capital Budget 7-Year Plan - City Wide (C 226/2018)

11. REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS

11.1. Homelessness Street Outreach Services - City Wide (C 4/2019)

11.2. Staffing Issues (CM 14/2019)

11.3. Increased Demand for Emergency Shelter Services and Projected Budget Deficit - City Wide (C 5/2019)

11.4. Top 20 Collision Locations - Short Term Countermeasures - CITY-WIDE (S 187/2018)

11.5. Windsor Fire & Rescue Over Complement Staffing: 2 year pilot project result - City Wide (C 34/2019)

11.6. Public Shore Wall Policy (C 188/2018)

AND

11.7. Response to CQ25-2017 about the Riverside Breakwall - Ward 7 (C 81/2018) Clerk’s Note: P & C memo enclosed for Mayor & Council only.

11.8. High Level Detail of Recycling Silos in Parks (C 36/2019)

11.9. Review of Winter Maintenance - CQ53-2017(SW2017), CQ3-2018 (SW2018), CQ4- 2018 (SWQ2018) and 120. WAAC Report - City Wide (SCM 330/2018) (C 92/2018) Clerk’s Note: Additional information memo dated November 30, 2018 attached.

11.10. CQ6-2018 - Winter Control for Residential Alleys - CITY-WIDE (SCM 366/2018) (S 135/2018)

11.11. 2017 Road Safety Report - CITY-WIDE (SCM 232/2018) (S 70/2018)

11.12. Transit Windsor 2019 OPERATING BUDGET – Citywide (SCM 432/2018) (S 184/2018)

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 3 of 124 11.13. Pedestrian Crossovers - CITY-WIDE (SCM 78/2019) (S 90/2018)

11.14 Pedestrian Crossovers – Priority List and Education Campaign (City Wide) (C 49/2019) (enclosed)

11.15 CQ20-2018 – Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions Policy (City Wide) (CM 41/2018) (enclosed)

11.16 Vacancy Rebate Program Review (C 32/2019) (enclosed)

11.17 Alley Lighting and Related Measures – Policy Direction (S 129/2018) (enclosed)

11.18 Future Options for the Alley Closing Subsidy program (ACSP) (City Wide) (C 39/2019) (enclosed)

11.19 Investment in Affordable Housing – Meadowbrook Project Update (C 19/2019) (enclosed)

11.20 Forest Glade Arena Dehumidification Replacement (Ward 7) (C 46/2019) (enclosed)

11.21 2019 Sewer Surcharge Update (City Wide) (C 35/2019) (enclosed)

10.1. 2019 Operating Budget Report – City Wide (C 33/2019)

10.2. 2019 Capital Budget 7-Year Plan - City Wide (C 226/2018)

12. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS

12.1 (i) Report of the Special In-Camera meeting or other Committee as may be held prior to Council (if scheduled)

13. BY-LAWS (First and Second Readings)

14. MOVE BACK INTO FORMAL SESSION

15. THIRD AND FINAL READING OF THE BY-LAWS

16. ADJOURNMENT

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 4 of 124 Item 11.14

Council Report: C 49/2019

Subject: Pedestrian Crossovers - Priority List and Education Campaign - City-Wide

Reference: Date to Council: March 25, 2019 Author: Jeff Hagan Transportation Planning Engineer 519-255-6247 ext 6003 [email protected]

Report Date: March 8, 2019 Clerk’s File #: ST2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: 1. That report C 49/2019 Pedestrian Crossover Priority List BE RECEIVED for information. 2. That $10,000 BE ALLOCATED for a pedestrian crossover educational program.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

At its February 20, 2019 meeting, the Environment, Transportation and Public Safety Standing Committee made the following recommendation in response to report S 90/2018 Pedestrian Crossovers:

1. THAT a prioritized list of pedestrian crossover locations, along with a campaign to educate Windsor road users on pedestrian crossovers, BE REFERRED to 2019 capital budget deliberations.

2. THAT Traffic By law 9148 BE AMENDED as listed and attached in Appendix 3 of this report, and,

3. THAT the City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to prepare the necessary documents to amend the by law.

This report provides the requested prioritized list of pedestrian crossover locations and details of an educational campaign for Windsor road users.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 5 of 124 Discussion:

Prioritized List of Pedestrian Crossover Locations

Report S 90/2019 Pedestrian Crossovers presented a list of pedestrian crossover requests that have been received to date. At two of these locations (Wyandotte Street East at Chilver Road and Prince Road at Barrymore Lane), pedestrian crossovers have been installed.

To prioritize among the remaining locations that meet warrant, Administration sorted those that meet warrant for a pedestrian crossover based on the following criteria, in order:

1. Pedestrian collisions in a five-year period (locations with more collisions are ranked higher)

2. Whether there are other nearby controlled crossing opportunities (locations with no other nearby opportunities are ranked higher)

3. Pedestrian and vehicle volumes (locations with higher combined pedestrian and vehicle volumes are ranked higher)

The prioritized list of locations reviewed to date is provided as Table 1. A summary of pedestrian crossover levels and types is provided in Appendix 1.

Table 1: Prioritized List of Pedestrian Crossing Locations

Minimum Pedestrian Rank Location Crossover Level & Type Warranted 1 Drouillard Rd. at Richmond St. Level 2 Type B 2 Goyeau St. south of Elliot St. (Food Basics) Level 2 Type B 3 College Ave. W west of California Ave. Level 2 Type B 4 University Ave. W at Patricia Rd. Level 2 Type B 5 Lauzon Rd. at Clairview Ave. (Ganatchio Trail) Level 2 Type B 6 Riverside Dr. at Peace Fountain (Coventry Gardens) Level 2 Type B 7 Calderwood Ave. east of Caribou Cres. (Walkerville Homesite Trail) Level 2 Type D 8 McNorton St. at Radcliff Ave. Level 2 Type B 9 Grand Marais Rd W at Longfellow Ave. (Christ the King C.E.S.) Level 2 Type C 10 Huron Church Rd. at Peter St. Level 2 Type B

The list above is prioritized based on criteria that were focused around need for the crossing; however, other concerns may justify the crossing being constructed out of sequence, including:

 Coordination with a larger project (e.g. where a pedestrian crossover is installed as part of a road reconstruction)

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 6 of 124  Coordination with development (e.g. where a new development necessitates a new pedestrian crossing, which is constructed as an off-site improvement paid for by the developer)

 Where funds are available from other sources (e.g. ward funds, or where a pedestrian crossover is paid for by a BIA or local business)

Education Campaign

The safety and effectiveness of pedestrian crossovers is dependent on drivers and pedestrians knowing how to use them properly. In order to reach these audiences, communication tactics must be easily understandable and able to motivate behavioural change, as well as incorporate mass, niche and interpersonal communication tactics aimed at increasing public awareness. An education campaign will be key in instilling this understanding.

Because “Level 2” pedestrian crossovers were legalized by the Province of Ontario only recently in 2016, they are a relatively new form of traffic control throughout the province. Other municipalities and the Ministry of Transportation have developed – and continue to develop – a range of approaches for educational campaigns about these devices. While some educational elements are common across jurisdictions, Administration recommends adopting a flexible approach that can adapt as the performance and results of educational campaigns in other jurisdictions as well as Windsor are better known.

Administration recommends that $10,000 of the funds budgeted to the Pedestrian Crossover project be allocated to an education campaign. Anticipated uses of these funds include:

Suggested communication methods and tools include:

 Create a compelling campaign theme and messaging that resonates with target group

 Launch education campaign with support of local media

 Create webpage for the project on the City of Windsor’s website

 Create rack cards to be distributed at community centres, libraries and in school kids’ backpacks (rack cards in backpacks to reach more than 50,000 students)

 Use City of Windsor’s Facebook, Instagram and Twitter channels to reach community through organic posts and paid advertisements.

 Develop printable handouts and posters that can be used by organizations involved in educating the public, especially children, on road safety, such as:

o The Windsor-Essex Community Health Unit,

o The Windsor Police Service,

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 7 of 124 o The Safety Village,

o School boards, and

o Transit Windsor

 Create online instructional videos (or adapting material created by other jurisdictions) for drivers and pedestrians on what to do at a pedestrian crossing.

Administration will continue to liaise with other jurisdictions on the performance of their educational campaigns with the goal of applying those lessons here.

Risk Analysis:

Risks were identified in report S 90/2018. No additional risks have been identified.

Financial Matters:

Report S 90/2018 referred the list of pedestrian crossover requests that meet warrant for a pedestrian crossover to deliberations for the 2019 Capital Budget.

Administration recommends that $10,000 of the funds budgeted to the new Pedestrian Crossover budget project be used for an educational campaign.

Consultations:

Mary Rodgers, Marketing and Communications Officer, Corporate Communications

Conclusion:

A prioritized list of pedestrian crossing locations and information about an educational campaign have been provided as directed. Administration recommends that $10,000 from the proposed Pedestrian Crossovers budget project be used for the educational campaign.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title Josette Eugeni Manager of Transportation Planning Don Nantais Financial Planning Administrator Shelby Askin-Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader, Economic Development and Public Safety Joe Mancina City Treasurer Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 8 of 124 Notifications: Name Address Email Windsor Bicycling Committee Shauna Boghean 200-4900 Wyandotte St E Orientation and Mobility Windsor ON N8Y 1H7 CNIB Pedestrian crossover requestors (list provided to Clerks)

Appendices: 1 Pedestrian Crossover Levels and Types

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 9 of 124 Pedestrian Crossover Levels and Types Level and Type Description / Illustration Typical Use (Illustration source: MTO) Level 2 Type D Static roadside signs, no flashing Low-volume 1- and 2- beacons lane roads

Level 2 Type C Roadside signs with flashing Low-volume 3-lane beacons roads or higher volume 4-lane roads with a refuge median

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 10 of 124 Level and Type Description / Illustration Typical Use (Illustration source: MTO) Level 2 Type B Overhead and roadside signs with Higher-volume 2- and roadside flashing beacons 3- lane roads, or moderate-volume 4- lane roads

Level 1 Type A Overhead flashing beacons and Higher-volume 4-lane illuminated signs with roadside signs roads

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 11 of 124 Item 11.15

Council Report: CM 41/2018

Subject: CQ20-2018 – Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions Policy - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: April 1, 2019 Author: Frank Scarfone Manager of Real Estate Services 519-255-6100 ext 6855 [email protected] Legal Services, Real Estate & Risk Management Report Date: 11/2/2018 Clerk’s File #: SR2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the attached Policy titled “Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions Policy” BE RECEIVED for Council’s consideration and direction.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: Decision Number: CR518/2018

That the following Council Question by Councillor Gignac BE APPROVED, and that Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with the necessary actions to respond to the Council Question in the form of a written report, consistent with Council’s instructions, and in accordance with Section 17.1 of the Procedure By-law 98-2011:

CQ 20-2018: Assigned to City Solicitor Asks that Administration bring a draft policy to Council outlining a process for waterfront property acquisitions to add to our park inventory. It should contain the establishment of a reserve account and suggest an appropriate contribution level for the 2019 Budget Process.

It has been the desire of the community and practice of many previous councils to acquire waterfront lands for parkland. The particulars of this are set out in Appendix B, in the report prepared by Kevin Alexander, Planner III, presented to Council on August 9, 2010. This report provides background information related to past waterfront property acquisitions, waterfront policies and past council resolutions.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 12 of 124 On August 10, 2010, Windsor City Council directed Administration to amend the Official Plan in order to have a formalized policy for acquiring riverfront parkland. At the time the Official Plan review was also underway and a complete review of the section related to Parkland acquisition was being conducted. Those changes including a policy related to acquiring waterfront lands form part of Amendment No. 86 to the City of Windsor Official Plan. The City Planner is currently waiting to receive approval of the Province regarding Amendment No. 86. The wording of the policy is as follows:

Acquire City Council will seek to acquire waterfront lands (i.e. abutting Waterfront the Detroit River/Lake St. Clair) for public purposes and/or lands public uses as deemed appropriate.

This report provides a draft implementation policy and procedure for the acquisition of waterfront parkland for Council’s consideration and direction.

Discussion: Over the past several decades, the City has obtained lands along the waterfront for parks purposes. The largest parcel of municipally owned waterfront land assembled over several years extends from the Ambassador Bridge to the westerly limit of Hiram Walkers property. Several other waterfront parks of varying sizes have also been established over time.

The majority of waterfront lands in the City are privately owned. Generally the lands lying west (or south) of Huron Church Road are industrial with minor pockets of residential and waterfront parkland. Lands east of the Hiram Walker property are generally residential with several stretches of waterfront parkland and a few isolated pockets of industrial lands. Almost all of the privately owned parcels have been improved with residential homes or industrial buildings. A recent review of waterfront properties listed for sale indicated that there were only three residential properties for sale. There are a very limited number of vacant parcels of land along the waterfront and none appears to be for sale at this time.

Waterfront land commands a significant premium compared to similar sized parcels of land that are not on the waterfront. This applies to both vacant lands and those that contain improvements.

For waterfront properties that have a current or past industrial use or where there is suspected contamination, Administration is recommending that an environmental assessment be completed prior to acquisition, unless Council directs otherwise. As a park is considered a sensitive use this means that a Record of Site Condition will need to be completed and filed with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

With the foregoing factors in mind, administration has prepared the attached draft policy, in Appendix A titled Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions for Council’s consideration.

Risk Analysis: The Windsor real estate market is currently a sellers market and it is not unusual to see multiple offers on a property offered for sale. This means that when a waterfront property is listed for sale a quick response will typically be required. This also means

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 13 of 124 that there may not always be enough time to obtain an independent market value appraisal for the property prior to bringing this property to the attention of council.

Should industrial related land be acquired it is imperative that a Phase I environmental assessment be completed and depending the findings of the Phase I assessment a Phase II environmental assessment may need to be completed. As the land would be used for a park, a Record of Site Condition would need to be completed and approved the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Remediation of the land may be required before it could be used as a park. These would be additional costs that could be expensive depending on the extent of the assessment and remediation required.

Financial Matters: The Parkland Acquisition reserve fund (Fund 151) is funded primarily through developer contributions for payments in lieu of parkland. The balance of this reserve (net of encumbrances) as at December 31st, 2018 is $606,499. This reserve allows for the purchase of parkland, as well as development of parks, and as such could also be used to acquire waterfront parkland.

Establishment of an appropriate contribution level for potential future land acquisitions is difficult to determine as sale price is influenced by several factors including but not limited to market conditions, which parcels might become available, size of land, what if any remediation work is needed and / or other factors which would influence the price. As such, administration has not put forth a specific recommendation as to an ongoing funding amount at this time.

Administration will proceed based on Council’s direction as to what, if any, funding level they wish to approve to fund a separate Waterfront Acquisition Reserve fund. Subject to Council’s direction on this matter, administration can then provide possible funding options, however it is important to note that given the finite level of funding available within the operating and capital budgets that funding options may include such difficult choices as the reduction of funding for other projects in the capital budget or alternatively increased funding requirements within the operating budget in order to accommodate establishing and funding a waterfront acquisition reserve fund.

Consultations: Wira Vendrasco, Deputy City Solicitor Mike Clement, Manager of Parks Development Tony Ardovini, Deputy Treasurer Melissa Osborne, Senior Manager of Asset Planning Kevin Alexander, Planner III – Special Projects Mark Spizzirri, Manager Operating Budget Control & Financial Administration Trevor Kezwer, Executive Initiatives Co-ordinator

Conclusion: Administration will follow Council’s direction as it relates to the policy.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 14 of 124 Should Council approve the policy and direct Administration to set up a separate Waterfront Acquisition Reserve Fund, Council should also direct Administration to amend the policy where applicable to indicate Waterfront Acquisition Reserve Fund instead of Parkland Acquisition Fund.

Planning Act Matters:

N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Frank Scarfone Manager of Real Estate Services

Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor and Corporate Leader Economic Development and Public Safety

Thom Hunt City Planner

Jan Wilson Corporate Leader of Parks, Recreation, Culture and Facilities

Joe Mancina Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer and Corporate Leader Finance and Technology

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

Appendix A - Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions Policy Appendix B - LiveLink Report 14829

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 15 of 124 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR POLICY (Appendix A)

Service Area: Office of the City Solicitor Policy No.: Department: Legal, Real Estate & Risk Management Approval Date: Division: Real Estate Services Approved By: DRAFT Effective Date: Subject: Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions Procedure Ref.: Review Date: Pages: Replaces: Prepared By: Frank Scarfone Date:

1. POLICY

1.1 This policy sets out the requirements and processes for future Waterfront Parkland Acquisitions for the City.

2. PURPOSE

2.1 This Policy makes it mandatory for the Manager of Real Estate Services to engage in a process to acquire waterfront property for parkland purposes where there is a willing seller.

2.2 This Policy outlines the steps, which Administration will need to follow when dealing with potential waterfront property for parkland acquisitions, including but not limited to: obtaining independent market value appraisals, ensuring consistency with adjacent Community Improvement Plans, and obtaining environmental assessment reports.

3. SCOPE

3.1 This policy applies to the Corporate-wide acquisition of waterfront property for parkland purposes, as guided by the Manager of Real Estate Services, and the Manager of Parks Development.

4. RESPONSIBILITY

4.1 City Council is responsible for:

4.1.1 Approving the acquisition of waterfront properties for parkland.

4.1.2 Providing Administration with direction in specific circumstances where the process for waterfront property acquisitions for parkland may need to be modified. Examples include directions on whether to obtain an independent market value appraisal when there are time constraints, or how to proceed if the costs of a potential parkland acquisition exceeds the amount available in the Parkland Acquisition Fund.

4.2 The Manager of Real Estate Services is responsible for:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 16 of 124 4.2.1 The Waterfront Parkland Acquisition process.

4.2.2 Reporting to Council on potential waterfront property acquisitions for parkland, including recommendations for Council’s consideration.

4.2.3 Ensuring that any potential acquisition of waterfront property for parkland is consistent with adjacent Community Improvement Plans.

4.2.4 Informing Council if the costs of acquiring a waterfront property for parkland exceeds the funds available in the Parkland Acquisition Fund and seeking Council’s further direction on the matter.

4.2.5 Determining whether a potential waterfront property for parkland has a current or previous industrial use, or for other reasons may be suspected to be contaminated, and include in any offer to purchase a condition that the City obtain an environmental assessment report. In the event of known or suspected contamination, seek further direction from Council.

4.2.6 Undertaking in partnership with the Manager of Parks Development, periodic reviews of waterfront properties that may be suitable for parks purposes, and the subsequent preparation of a report for Council’s consideration and direction as to whether the properties should be purchased.

4.2.7 Ongoing monitoring and administration of waterfront property acquisitions for parkland.

4.2.8 Supporting the Parks Department in the research of waterfront properties that may be suitable for parkland purposes.

4.3 The Manager of Parks Development is responsible for:

4.3.1 Monitoring and ensuring that all potential waterfront property acquisitions for parkland are consistent with the Central Riverfront Implementation Plan, Rediscover our Parks – Parks & Outdoor Recreation Master Plan any Community Improvement Plans (CIP’s), the City of Windsor Official Plan and any other relevant council policy.

4.3.2 Determining whether potential waterfront parkland acquisitions are in the vicinity of existing waterfront parkland.

4.3.3 Overseeing in partnership with the Manager of Real Estate Services, periodic reviews of waterfront properties that may be suitable for parks purposes, and the subsequent preparation of a report for Council’s consideration and direction as to whether the properties should be purchased.

4.4 The Corporate Leader of Parks, Recreation, Culture and Facilities is responsible for:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 17 of 124 4.4.1 The overall direction for waterfront parkland acquisition, and ensuring that all potential waterfront property acquisitions align with the existing network of waterfront parklands, and is consistent with relevant City Plans.

4.4.2 Ensuring that the proposed waterfront property being acquired will be able to meet all the necessary technical requirements (i.e. completion of a Record of Site Condition) in order to be used as municipal parkland.

4.5 The City Planner is responsible for:

4.5.1 Participating in the periodic reviews of waterfront properties that may be suitable for parks purposes.

4.5.2 Ensuring that any waterfront land acquisitions can be utilized as municipal parklands under the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, or engage in a process to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws as necessary.

4.5.3 Ensuring that any acquisition of waterfront property is consistent with adjacent Community Improvement Plans.

5. DEFINITIONS

5.1 Acquisition means the transfer of ownership of lands to the City whether by means of a purchase, donation, gift or as a result of estate planning.

5.2 City means The Corporation of The City of Windsor and includes any of its designated employees, officials or agents who are engaged to represent the City in its capacity to acquire waterfront properties.

5.3 Existing Waterfront Parkland means existing waterfront properties that are designated as and operating as municipal parklands.

5.4 Waterfront Property means waterfront properties within the geographic limits of the City of Windsor and bordering on the Detroit River or Lake St. Clair.

6. GOVERNING RULES AND REGULATIONS

6.1 Type of Acquisition

6.1.1 Waterfront property may be acquired for parkland when there is a willing seller.

6.1.2 All waterfront property offered to the City to purchase is to be brought before Council with a recommendation for its consideration as parkland.

6.1.3 All waterfront property offered to the City by donation, gifting or estate planning is to be brought before Council with a recommendation for its consideration as parkland. All waterfront property offered to the City for

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 18 of 124 parkland by donation, gifting or estate planning shall comply with Council’s Donation Policy.

6.2 Location of Waterfront Property

6.2.1 Waterfront property to be acquired for parkland should be contiguous to existing waterfront parkland.

6.2.2 Waterfront property that is not contiguous to existing waterfront parkland will be brought to Council for Council’s consideration and direction.

6.3 Acquisition Conditions

6.3.1 The acquisition of waterfront property for parkland by means of a market- value purchase is to be supported by an independent market value appraisal where time allows for obtaining an appraisal or unless otherwise directed by Council.

6.3.2 The acquisition of waterfront property for parkland is to be consistent with adjacent Community Improvement Plans.

6.3.3 In the event a potential waterfront property for parkland has a current or previous industrial use or may be suspected to be contaminated, any agreement to purchase the waterfront property (i.e. by market-value purchase, donation, etc.) will include a condition that the City obtain an environmental assessment report, unless Council directs otherwise.

6.3.4 In the event that an environmental assessment report is required, a Phase I environmental assessment will be completed, and depending on the findings of the Phase I assessment, a Phase II environmental assessment may need to be completed.

6.3.5 In the event that a Record of Site Condition is required to be filed with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, due diligence will be completed to ensure that this requirement can be fulfilled to the standard required for parkland use.

6.4 Parkland Acquisition Account

6.4.1 In the event that a waterfront property for parkland becomes available for purchase, and the purchase price exceeds the amount available in the Parkland Acquisition Fund, Administration will inform Council that a property is available at a dollar amount which exceeds available funds and seek Council’s further direction.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 19 of 124 6.5 Review of Potential Lands to Acquire for Waterfront Parkland

6.5.1 Administration from Real Estate Services, Parks Development, and Planning & Development Services will periodically review parcels of waterfront property that may be suitable for waterfront parkland and prepare a report for Council’s consideration and direction.

7. RECORDS, FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS

7.1 Records for this Policy shall be prepared and retained in accordance with Records Retention By-Law 21-2013, as amended or superseded.

7.2 There are no relevant forms and form numbers associated with this Policy.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 20 of 124 Appendix B

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR Office of the City Solicitor - Planning Department

MISSION STATEMENT: “The City of Windsor, with the involvement of its citizens, will deliver effective and responsive municipal services, and will mobilize innovative community partnerships”

LiveLink REPORT #: 14829 Report Date: July 26, 2010 Author’s Name: Kevin Alexander, MCIP RPP Date to Council: August 9, 2010 Author’s Phone: 519 255-6543 ext. 6732 Classification #: Author’s E-mail: [email protected]

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Subject: CQ79-2009 – Policy For Riverfront Property Acquisitions PD10-20 City Wide: X Ward(s): 1. RECOMMENDATION: That the reply to CQ79-2009 BE RECEIVED by Council for information.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A

2. BACKGROUND: At Council’s regular meeting of September 14, 2009, Councillor Gignac asks: “if there is still a policy to acquire riverfront property as it becomes available. If there is, are there funds in a reserve account to fund?”

3. DISCUSSION: Regarding the first part of Councillor Gignac’s question, no official policy exists for acquiring riverfront lands, however acquiring riverfront property for parkland purposes has been a common practice of Council since 1963 when a Council Resolution (CR734/63) was adopted to acquire, when available, waterfront property on the north side of Riverside Drive between the Ambassador Bridge and the Peabody Bridge for Parks purposes (See Appendix “A”). In fact City Council first recorded its intent to acquire and develop riverfront parkland as a long-term objective in 1948 when it established a policy to retain for public use all riverfront lands reverting to the City through tax arrears. As outlined in the 1994 Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Downtown Windsor Marina report, over the years Council has re-confirmed the community’s desire to obtain riverfront property for the purpose of creating a continuous ribbon of parkland along the north side of Riverside Drive (See Appendix “B”). The most recent resolution re-confirming Council’s direction dates back to 1986 (See Appendix “A”). Although Council Resolutions are not considered “policy” per se, this particular resolution is often regarded to as a standing policy by Windsor City Council and the public.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 21 of 124 Regarding the second part of Councillor Gignac’s question about the availability of funds in a reserve account to fund such acquisitions, there is no specific reserve fund set aside to fund riverfront property acquisitions, only a general Parkland Acquisition reserve account which is normally used to fund all citywide parkland acquisitions from within the capital budget. In the 2010 5-year capital budget plan, there is a 2,000,000.00 placeholder earmarked for the purpose of acquiring riverfront property. This is recommended to be deferred to 2015. Administration deferred the request from 2014 to 2015 but to date Council has not yet approved the 5 year Capital Plan.

If Council would like a policy on acquiring riverfront parkland it may be beneficial to include such a policy in the Official Plan, which would transcend Council terms.

4. FINANCIAL MATTERS: N/A

5. CONSULTATIONS: Parks, Legal and Council Services Departments were contacted to identify the existence of past Council Resolutions and to determine if a policy exists. The Finance Department was also contacted to identify the existence of a reserve fund for riverfront parkland acquisition purposes. All staff who contributed are identified in the DEPARTMENT/OTHERS CONSULTED section of this report.

6. CONCLUSION: Although a number of Council Resolutions dating back to 1963 exist regarding Council’s intention to acquire riverfront property when it becomes available there is no specific policy that can be found in public documents today like the City’s Official Plan. In addition there is no specific reserve fund set aside to fund riverfront property acquisitions. It has certainly been a long-held desire to create a continuous public waterfront and open space network; one that this and former Councils have committed itself to as cited in this report. This commitment can be reconfirmed by way of a policy amendment to the City’s Official Plan should it be the desire of Council to do so.

Kevin Alexander Thom Hunt Planner III – Special Projects Executive Director/City Planner

Don Sadler George Wilkki Executive Director, Parks & Facilities City Solicitor

KA/pc

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 22 of 124

APPENDICES: APPENDIX “A” CR’s regarding acquisition of riverfront property. APPENDIX “B” Historical Background from 1994 Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Downtown Windsor Marina report

DEPARTMENTS/OTHERS CONSULTED: Name: Mike Stamp, Property Supervisor Phone #: 519 519-255-6100 ext. 6403

Name: Victor Ferranti, Manager of Capital Budget & Corporate Reserves Phone #: 519 519-255-6100 ext. 1732

Name: Mike Clement, Manager, Parks Development Phone #: 519 519-253-2300 ext. 6856

Name: Gary Cian, Manager of Council/Community Services/Deputy Clerk Phone #: 519 519-255-6100 ext. 6329

Name: Wira Vendrasco, Senior Legal Counsel Phone #: 519 519-255-6100 ext. 6375

NOTIFICATION : Name Address Email Address Telephone FAX

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 23 of 124 Appendix “A”

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 24 of 124 Appendix “A” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 25 of 124 Appendix “A” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 26 of 124 Appendix “B”

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 27 of 124 Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 28 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 29 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 30 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 31 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 32 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 33 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 34 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 35 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 36 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 37 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 38 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 39 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 40 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 41 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 42 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 43 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 44 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 45 of 124

Appendix “B” continued

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 46 of 124 Item 11.16

Council Report: C 32/2019

Subject: Vacancy Rebate Program Review

Reference: Date to Council: April 1, 2019 Author: Janice Guthrie Deputy Treasurer, Taxation & Financial Projects 519-255-6100 Ext 6271 [email protected] Taxation & Financial Projects Report Date: 2/20/2019 Clerk’s File #: AF2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation:

THAT City Council RECEIVE the Vacancy Rebate Program Review report; and,

THAT City Council DIRECT Administration, as part of the 2019 Tax Policy review, to model scenarios that would eliminate the discount factor on vacant and excess land for further discussion; and, THAT City Council ACCEPT Administration’s recommendation to reduce the budget for Net Tax Additions Dept ID 0224140 by $500,000 (budget issue 2019-0367) as a result of the economic trend towards lower vacancy rebates being paid to property owners in the City; and, THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to direct the annual savings, as identified from actual vacancy rebates that would have otherwise been paid to property owners in the Downtown Business Improvement Area, to the City Centre Community Development Planning Fund (Project #7011022) as a one time funding source in 2019 and 2020; and, THAT City Council DIRECT Administration as to any further changes to the municipal vacancy rebate program as outlined in this report.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

On November 16, 2016, Bill 70 Building Ontario Up for Everyone Act was introduced for first reading. The Bill provided flexibility for municipalities to review their vacancy rebate

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 47 of 124 program and discounts for vacant/excess land sub-classes in order to tailor the rebate and reduction programs to reflect community needs and circumstances. Any such changes in the program requires Ministerial consent.

On June 5, 2017, Administration reported the results of the city’s vacancy rebate program review (C83/2017). In summary, City Council approved changes in the program as it related to the Downtown Business Improvement Area as follows:

Rebate for Main Street, Ground level Commercial Properties (non-office towers): Year One – 100 % of the 30% eligible rebate

Year Two – 50% of the 30% eligible rebate

Year Three – 0% of the 30% eligible rebate

As part of the approval, City Council also directed Administration CR 348/2017 as follows;

That Administration report back in 2018 as to the feasibility and potential impacts of limitations to the city-wide vacancy rebate program including:

 Application within the other 8 City Business Improvement Area’s  Other properties located throughout the City where there are multi-year applications

That Administration bring forward, for consideration any savings as attributed to changes in the vacancy rebate program, as part of the 2019 Operating Budget process for discussion; and further CR 451/2017

That the specific savings from the Vacancy Rebate Program (currently within te DWBIA) BE REPORTED BACK to Council with explicit options (within the DWBIA boundaries) for projects and/or possibilities for programs that would contribute to combating the empty storefronts, such as CP’s or mechanisms like facade grant programs; and further that in future years as this is rolled out in other BIA’s that the same or similar explicit options within the respective BIA’s be explored and reported back to Council.

This report addresses the direction as provided by City Council and seeks further direction as City Council may wish to make.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 48 of 124 Discussion:

Discounts on Sub-Classes of Land (Vacant & Excess Land)

Prior to 2017, Municipalities were required to establish a policy to reduce the tax burden on vacant and excess commercial and industrial land (i.e. land that does not contain a building or other similar structure or surrounding land that is considered excess to what would be needed for the operations of a commercial or industrial business). The requirement was put into place to maintain the tax differences between occupied and non-occupied land in the business classes which existed prior to 1998. Residential and multi residential properties are not eligible for a vacancy rebate.

Section 313 of the Municipal Act, set out default reductions rates of tax that are required to be applied to the vacant classes of land of 30% for the commercial classes and 35% for the industrial classes, however, a municipality may adopt a uniform rate at any level between 30% and 35%. For the 2017 tax year, Council elected to treat both sub- classes of land equally setting a uniform discount rate of 30%. In other words, tax rates applied to unoccupied commercial and industrial vacant and excess land are 30% less than that of properties which are fully occupied for commercial and industrial purposes. The same reduction of 30% was approved for the 2018 tax year.

As outlined above, in 2017, the Province announced changes to legislation that would allow municipalities to request changes to this program as part of the vacancy program rebate review. Council therefore has the ability to phase out or eliminate reductions granted to vacant and excess commercial and industrial land.

Generally, by eliminating the discount on the land classes, there will be an increase in tax paid by owners of vacant land. As such, there are also some qualitative considerations that would need to be researched further such as:

 Impact on property owners who are in the process of development or in the process of rezoning for purposes of redevelopment

 Impact of land value per acre and tax rate differences between the commercial and industrial classes

 Difference in tax treatment between vacant commercial land (due to the existence of the parking lot class) and excess commercial land

As of the writing of this report, there are sixteen (16) municipalities that have adopted different discount factors, are phasing out the discount factors or received approval to eliminate the discount factors altogether. These municipalities are summarized on Appendix A.

The change to the discount factor will not result in any savings of expenditures. The process is completed as part of the setting of annual tax rates which allocates the overall tax levy amongst property classes and property owners. A change to the program would result in a shifting of property taxes within the commercial and industrial

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 49 of 124 classes causing owners of vacant land to pick up a greater share of the overall property tax levy.

Should City Council want to explore this option, it will be modelled as part of the 2019 tax policy report presented following the completion of the 2019 Budget process. However, since Ministerial consent will be required any change would not take effect as part of the setting of the 2019 tax rates. The submission of an application to the Minister needs to include a supported business case and consent following a thorough Ministerial staff review and consultation process can take several months to obtain. This would delay the issuance of the 2019 Final tax bills. Should Council decide that a change to the discount rates are warranted, Administration would work towards a submission and approval for the 2020 tax year.

Vacancy Rebate Program Update

Following City Council’s direction in June 2017, Administration, in conjunction with the City’s tax policy consultants Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Ltd., prepared a change of program submission to the Minister of Finance for review and approval. Materially our submission was accepted save and except for the request for City Council to be able to, by by-law, expand the program restrictions to other Business Improvement Areas. Ministry staff did not support this request based upon broad parameters and therefore should additional changes be recommended, a new submission would need to be put forward for consideration. The program specific requirements for the City of Windsor are defined in Ontario Regulation 352/01. As of the writing of this report, there are seven (7) municipalities that, effective the 2017 taxation year, fully eliminated the vacancy rebate program. An additional twenty-one (21) municipalities including the Lower-Tier municipalities in the County of Essex, regions and united townships, effective the 2018 taxation year, have fully eliminated the program. Three (3) municipalities will eliminate the program in 2019 and one (1) municipality will eliminate the program in 2021. There are a further twenty (20) municipalities, regions and townships that have opted to phase out the rebate by 2020. These municipalities are summarized on Appendix B.

Further to this, there are eight (8) municipalities that have retained the vacancy rebate program however have restricted the eligibility criteria. Five (5) municipalities that are phasing out the program also established additional eligibility criteria during the term on the phase out. These municipalities are summarized in Appendix C. It should be noted that both Appendix B & Appendix C contain information as summarized and interpreted by Administration. Full details, in particular with regards to changes in eligibility criteria, can be found in Ontario Regulation 352/01.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 50 of 124

Risk Analysis:

Unless otherwise approved through the Minister of Finance, municipalities are required to provide a vacancy rebate program as prescribed by Section 364 of the Municipal Act. There has been no further information made available to municipalities in terms of the current Minister’s direction with regards to the continued flexibility afforded to municipalities under the former Liberal government. There is a risk that further applications will not be approved.

Application for a vacancy rebate is voluntary to the property owner. The number of applications can be directly attributable to economic conditions and availability of usable space. Over the past ten years, the number and amount of rebate being provided to property owners has been declining and therefore a recommendation is being made to lower the annual operating budget attributed to this program. There is a high and likely risk that should economic conditions decline, an increase to the budget will be required in future years. This risk can be mitigated through additional restrictions or elimination of the program.

Currently the vacancy rebate program is administered through the Taxation & Financial projects area of Finance. The deadline for submitting an application is the last day of February of the year following the year to which the application relates. A decision as to an application must be made by June 30th of the year following the year to which the application relates. There are limited resources assigned to the review and approval of the several hundred applications. Changing the program to affect eligibility criteria could increase the amount of work required to review and validate applications.

Financial Matters:

Vacant Rebate Program Relief – City wide As previously report to City Council (Table 1), the number of applications and dollar value related to rebates provided has been declining. That trend has continued through to 2018 (Table 2) wherein there were 310 applications which, totalled $1,259,000 in municipal property tax relief.

Table 1 Number of Applications Received on an Annual Basis and $ Value of Rebate Provided Tax Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of 516 538 473 486 370 392 407 Applications

$ Value $3,130,802 $3,259,251 $2,277,845 $2,543,016 $1,594,684 $1,678,621 $1,750,229 approved

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 51 of 124 Table 2 Number of Applications Received on an Annual Basis and $ Value of Rebate Provided

Tax Year 2016 2017 2018

Number of Applications 456 434 310

$ Value approved $1,546,074 $2,566,506 $1,259,440

The municipal share of the vacancy rebate is charged to the annual provision for property tax write-offs Dept ID 0224140, the education share is recovered by way of a charge back to the Province. Administration is recommending that as part of the 2019 Operating Budget development that a reduction to this provision in the amount of $500,000 be accepted (see budget issue 2019-0367).

Vacancy Rebate Program Relief – DWBIA

The restricted vacancy program within the DWBIA was completed for the first year (being 2018 for taxes paid in 2017). In total 53 applications were received and a total of $202,699 was provided in tax relief to property owners in the designated area. Many of the applicants would be considered chronic in nature in that some level of tax relief has been provided in each of the previous ten years.

Should the same applicants come forward as part of this year’s program (2019 for taxes paid in 2018) and for those property owners who are considered to be in the commercial tax class and therefore subject to the lower percent being 15% of taxes paid, it is estimated that a total of $127,394 would be refunded to property owners this year for 2018 taxes. This amount is lower than the 2017 rebate paid by $75,305. Beginning in the 2020 tax year, those property owners would receive no rebate resulting in a savings of $150,610.

The remaining difference between what was paid for 2017 and what is expected to be paid in 2018 of $52,089 relate to property owners that have applied for areas within commercial office buildings. These properties are not subject to the reduced rate in a subsequent year. It is expected that these vacancies would diminish over time on their own as the overall vibrancy within the downtown area increases.

Council will recall that on September 29, 2017 the Downtown Community Improvement Plan was adopted which included financial incentives such as facade improvement and residential grants and which are funded from the City Centre Community Development Planning Fund (Project #7011022). The original fund balance started at $725,000 and has been reduced through the approval of various grants. As of the writing of this report, there is a balance of $155,633 in uncommitted funding. There is currently no identified source of funding for this fund once the current balance has been exhausted.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 52 of 124 Council may want to consider a transfer of the savings (tax refunds which would have otherwise been paid) to the reserves. This would then allow these programs to be continued beyond what would have otherwise been supported. It should be noted that beyond the 2020 taxation year, the amount of savings as a result of the restricted rebate can not be reasonably calculated and therefore the savings for 2019 & 2020 should be considered one-time in nature. Property owners would not likely be submitting an application and therefore, without conducting further reviews such as site visits, Administration would not know for sure if the property remained vacant. Application to Other BIA’s.

Included in the amounts identified above (Table 2) are rebates paid to business owners within the other 8 BIA’s.

Name of BIA Number of Number of Value of Rebate Properties applications

Erie Street (Via Italia) 93 7 $17,910

Wyandotte Towne 130 6 $10,714 Centre

Pillette Village 42 4 $4,603

Olde Riverside 34 0 $ - Towne Centre

Olde Sandwich 31 1 $1,471 Towne

Ford City 75 2 $463

Walkerville 52 0 $ -

Ottawa Street 75 6 $15,068

Based upon the information in the chart, there are very few applications received within the other eight BIA’s and in comparison to the number of properties within the designated areas, the majority are occupied. As such, Administration would not recommend that a restrictive program be expanded to include these BIA’s at this time. Other City-wide Considerations

As indicated in the discussion section, as of the writing of this report, there are 52 municipalities, regions and townships that have adopted different rebate percentages, are phasing out the rebate or received approval to eliminate the rebate program altogether including the Lower-tier municipalities in the County of Essex, City of Guelph, City of Ottawa, City of St. Thomas, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, City of Hamilton, City of London (Appendix B). Further to this, there are eight (8) municipalities that have retained the vacancy rebate program however have restricted the eligibility criteria.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 53 of 124 Administration has conducted an analysis of the properties that received a rebate in 2018. Of the remaining 231 applications (i.e. non-BIA), approximately 48% (111) had received tax relief in each of the prior three years (i.e. 2016, 2015 & 2014) suggesting signs of chronic vacancy. There were nine-teen (19) new applications. That is, applications for those properties had not been received in the past ten years. Eleven (11) payments which covered applications for three (3) property owners, for a total of $611,356 related to years 2016 and prior and were as a result of applications being held in abeyance until such time as assessment appeal matters had been finalized and assessment values attributed to vacant space could be quantified. No further applications were noted for these three properties.

In summary, there are still a few properties located within the City that could be considered as reliant upon the vacancy rebate program. Through the use of incentive offered through the various Community Improvement Plans and other local redevelopment initiative, the number of vacancies reported through the program is declining.

There are pros and cons to the complete elimination of a vacancy rebate program which extend beyond the financial savings for municipalities or tax savings to property owners as originally outlined in the below noted table.

Municipalities Business Community

No limitation on number of years a Assistance needed during economic property can be considered eligible leading hardship to chronic vacancies

Increased municipal cost from loss of tax Program does not allow for “pop-up” revenue temporary/seasonal business due to the 90 consecutive day requirement

Although municipally administered, Tax rebates are not an incentive to leave property owners can appeal decisions to vacant space that could otherwise be Assessment Review Board – recent occupied decisions have extended the interpretation of eligibility

Vacancy allowances are provided within Prioritizes the financial concerns of property assessment values which lead to Landlords over the growth of a perceived “double counting” entrepreneurs and everyday needs of neighbourhoods

Provides assistance when a viable tenant is not available

Should City Council want to consider additional changes to the program that direction would need to be provided to Administration for further study.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 54 of 124 Consultations:

N/A

Conclusion:

In 2017 the Province announced flexibility for municipalities to adopt a vacancy rebate program that would reflect community needs and circumstances. This report advises Council as to the result of the changes that were submitted and approved by the Minister of Finance for the 2017 and subsequent taxation years and seeks direction as to further changes that should be studied.

Approvals: Name Title

Joe Mancina CFO & City Treasurer, Corporate Leader Finance & Technology

Onorio Colucci CAO

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices: Appendix A – Municipalities that have adopted different discount percentages on vacant lands

Appendix B – Municipalities that no longer have or are phasing out the vacancy rebate program

Appendix C – Municipalities still offering vacancy rebate programs with varying stipulations

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 55 of 124 Appendix A - Municipalities who have adopted differing discount factors on sub-classes of vacant land

2017 Taxation Year 2018 Taxation Year

313 (1) para 2 313 (1) para 3 313 (1) para 4 313 (1) para 5 313 (1) para 2 313 (1) para 3 313 (1) para 4 313 (1) para 5 Vacant Comm Vacant Indust Excess Comm Excess Indust Vacant Comm Vacant Indust Excess Comm Excess Indust Ppty Ppty Land Land Ppty Ppty Land Land Municipality

Haldimand County 22.5 - 35 26.25 - 35 22.5 - 35 26.5 - 35

Town of St Mary's 20 - 35 20 - 35 20 - 35 20 - 35

Twshp Nairn and Hyman 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35

Reg Mun of Durham 20 - 35 23.33 - 35 20 - 35 23.33 - 35

City of Greater Sudbury after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply Twshp of Baldwin 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35

City of Kenora

Town of Espanola 15-35 15-35 15-35 15-35 after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply Town of Thessalon after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply City of St. Thomas after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction in para 2 or 3 does not apply County of Elgin after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply Village of Hilton Beach after 2017 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge

County of Perth

County of Renfrew Reg Mun of Waterloo

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 56 of 124 2019 Taxation Year 2020 Taxation Year

313 (1) para 2 313 (1) para 3 313 (1) para 4 313 (1) para 5 313 (1) para 2 313 (1) para 3 313 (1) para 4 313 (1) para 5 Vacant Comm Vacant Indust Excess Comm Excess Indust Vacant Comm Vacant Indust Excess Comm Excess Indust Ppty Ppty Land Land Ppty Ppty Land Land Municipality

after 2020 - can pass a by-law that the Haldimand County 15 - 35 17.5 - 35 15 - 35 17.5 - 35 7.5 - 35 8.75 - 35 7.5 - 35 8.75 - 35 tax rate reduction does not apply after 2019 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not Town of St Mary's 10 - 35 10 - 35 10 - 35 10 - 35 apply after 2018 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not Twshp Nairn and Hyman apply

Reg Mun of Durham 10 - 35 11.67 - 35 10 - 35 11.67 - 35 after 2019 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply City of Greater Sudbury

after 2018 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not Twshp of Baldwin apply after 2020 - can pass a by-law that the City of Kenora 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 5 - 35 5 - 35 5 - 35 5 - 35 tax rate reduction does not apply

Town of Espanola

Town of Thessalon

City of St. Thomas

County of Elgin

Village of Hilton Beach

Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge after 2018 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not apply after 2018 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not County of Perth apply after 2018 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate reduction does not County of Renfrew apply after 2019 - can pass a by-law that the tax rate Reg Mun of Waterloo 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 35 reduction does not apply

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 57 of 124 Appendix B

Municipalities That No Longer Have a Vacancy Rebate Program, Or Are Phasing Out The Vacancy Rebate Program

For the 2017 taxation year and subsequent taxation years , the following municipalities have discontinued a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions:

City of Brantford Town of Parry Sound City of Peterborough Town of Thessalon County of Prince Edward Village of Burk's Falls Municipality of Charlton & Dack

For the 2018 taxation year and subsequent taxation years , the following municipalities have discontinued a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions:

City of Barrie Lower-tier Municipalities in the County of Northumberland County of Brant Lower-tier Municipalities in the County of Simcoe City of Guelph Lower-tier Municipalities in the Regional Municipality of York City of Kawartha Lakes Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge City of Orillia Town of Espanola City of Ottawa Town of Prescott City of St Thomas Twshp of Ear Falls Lower-tier municipalities in the Twshp of Puslinch County of Essex

Lower-tier municipalities in the United Twshps Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, County of Elgin Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde

Lower-tier municipalities in the Village of Hilton Beach County of Middlesex Lower-tier Municipalities in the District Municipality of Muskoka

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 58 of 124 For the 2019 taxation year and subsequent taxation years , the following municipalities have discontinued a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions:

Lower-tier municipality in the Regional Municipality Lower-tier municipality in the County of Perth of Waterloo Lower-tier municipality in the County of Renfrew

For the 2021 taxation year and subsequent taxation years , the following municipalities have discontinued a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions:

County of Peterborough

Municipalities that are Phasing Out the Vacancy Rebate Program

2018 2019 2020 Comm Indust Comm Indust Comm Indust Rebate % Rebate % Rebate % Rebate % Rebate % Rebate % Lower-tier Municipalities in the County of Perth 30 30 Program Eliminated

Lower-tier Municipalities in the County of Renfrew 30 30 Program Eliminated Lower-tier Municipalities in Regional Municipality 30 30 Program Eliminated of Waterloo Town of Gananoque 15 17.5 Program Eliminated

Reg Mun of Halton 15 20 Program Eliminated

City of Hamilton 15 15 Program Eliminated

Haldimand County 15 0 Program Eliminated

City of London 15 15 Program Eliminated

Norfolk County 16.5 16.5 Program Eliminated

Township of Nairn and Hyman 15 15 Program Eliminated

City of Thunder Bay * 15 15 Program Eliminated

Township of Baldwin 15 15 Program Eliminated

Regional Municipality of Durham 15 17.5 Program Eliminated

City of Greater Sudbury * 20 23 10 12 Program Eliminated

City of Cornwall * 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

Regional Municipality of Peel * 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

Municipality of Chatham-Kent 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

Municipality of Red Lake 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

Town of St Mary's 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

Township of Plummer Additional 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

City of Belleville * 30 30 15 15 Program Eliminated

County of Huron 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

City of Pembroke 30 30 20 20 10 10 Program Eliminated

* Municipalities also have varying stipulations that apply until program is eliminated Appendix C

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 59 of 124 Appendix C - Other Municipalities Still Offering the Vacancy Rebate with Varying Stipulations

Municipality Administrative Interpretation - Full version Ontario Regulation 325/01

2018 & subsequent years; 30% vacancy rebate offered unless it was received in County of Oxford any five (5) previous taxation years

Town of Fort Frances 2017 & subsequent years; 30% vacancy rebate for industrial property

Effective 2018 and subsequent years: no rebate will be paid if the vacant building, structure or portion was vacant for 100% of the two preceding tax years and a rebate was paid in both those years (unless ownership change occurred in City of Brockville the tax year or any of the two preceding tax years). If a property was vacant for 100% of the tax year, and it received vacancy rebate in the preceding year, the rebate rate for the tax year will be half of the prescribed rate.

Effective July 1 2017 and subsequent years; vacancy rebate can be claimed for three taxation years in a 10 year period with respect to the same property, City of Sault Ste. Marie property cannot be classified in the shopping centre or industrial classes, or seasonal commercial.

2017 & subsequent years; No rebate is payable for a property if that property received the rebate for each of the three preceding tax years (commercial) or each of the five preceding tax years (industrial). In addition, must be vacant for Town of Smiths Falls 90 days within calendar year, area must by physically separated, there can be no orders against property and area must be available for leased and advertised as such.

2017 & subsequent years; exclusions to the program are properties with vacant portions if the property is within a community improvement project area or the Town of Erin Town of Erin has made a grant or loan with respect to the property under subsection 28(7) of the Planning Act.

Effective 2018 and subsequent years; no portion of the building will be City of Kenora considered eligible

2017 & subsequent years; No vacancy rebate if the property is in a Community Improvement Plan area, in receipt of a grant or loan, in arrears, if the vacant Town of Minto & Twshp of Wellington North portion was not advertised for lease or sale, if it is used seasonally, or if it has received the rebate for two years in the previous 5 year period.

2017 to 2019; must be vacant for 90 days in calendar year, vacancy not due to City of Cornwall strike or lock out, there are no orders to repair, must be physically separated, capable of being leased and advertised as such

2017 to 2019; no rebate if in receipt of rebate in three (3) consecutive prior Regional Municipality of Peel years, eligible property excludes non-permanent structures, storage units, hotels, fuel storage tanks, gravel pits.

2018 & 2019; eligible property does not include large industrial, property must be City of Greater Sudbury available for lease and advertised as such.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 60 of 124 Appendix C - Other Municipalities Still Offering the Vacancy Rebate with Varying Stipulations

Municipality Administrative Interpretation - Full version Ontario Regulation 325/01

City of Thunder Bay 2018; eligible property does not inlcude storage or fuel tanks

2018 & 2019; eligible propeties must be available for lease and do not include City of Belleville properties where there are orders or landfills

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 61 of 124 Item 11.17

Council Report: S 129/2018

Subject: Alley Lighting and Related Measures- Policy Direction

Reference: Date to Council: 4/1/2019 Author: Andrew Dowie Executive Initiatives Coordinator [email protected] (519) 255-6247 ext. 6005 City Engineer Report Date: 8/3/2018 Clerk’s File #: AFB/13207

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: That the Report to City Council detailing an Alley Safety and Related Measures Policy Direction BE RECEIVED; and,

That should City Council wish to approve moving forward with the development of a policy supporting alley enhancements, that Administration BE DIRECTED as follows:

a. That a draft policy BE DEVELOPED in which residents may petition for alley lighting, with all associated costs to be assessed to benefitting property owners through charges authorized by the Municipal Act, AND

b. That City Council IDENTIFY the level of funding that it wishes to have dedicated to alley enhancements which would be established in future Capital Budgets, AND

c. That City Council DESIGNATE the Environment, Transportation & Public Safety Standing Committee to receive requests for funding for alley enhancement projects and that the Committee recommend to City Council the requests that it wishes to support with available funds.

Executive Summary:

N/A

Background: City Council approved the 2018 Capital Budget at its meeting of January 16, 2018. The budget included $22.8M in enhanced funds set aside for various projects. Enhanced

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 62 of 124 funds are first charges to near-term future years’ capital budgets. As part of this funding, $250,000 was earmarked for “Alley Funding.” The original list of projects is attached as Appendix #2.

On March 5, 2018, City Council amended the 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget (CR123/2018), this amendment reading in part:

“That City Council AUTHORIZE Administration to proceed with the 2018 Enhanced Capital Projects identified in Appendix A as amended to include safety and security features including lighting to Operations Project #8 (alley funding) [...].”

The amended resolution supplied greater clarity with respect to the intent of City Council for implementation by Administration. The intent of Council was understood to have made use of Enhanced Capital Project funds for alley improvements inclusive of safety and security measures.

Discussion: Given the above-noted resolution which authorized one-time funding, development of an appropriate policy to guide further ongoing requests of City Council for consideration of alley improvement measures is warranted. Current Practice Relative to Funding Right-of-Way Amenities

Past recommendations of Administration surrounding how to best fund public infrastructure have been based on a recognized principle:

 Property owners will pay for the initial cost of construction for the public infrastructure adjacent to their properties by way of purchasing a serviced lot from a developer or builder.

 Municipal property taxes shall fund the required maintenance of the infrastructure.

 If a property owners wishes to add or upgrade their local infrastructure (i.e. streetlights, sidewalks, sewers, etc.), they may petition City Council through the City’s Local Improvement policy; thus, agreeing to contribute their share of the cost of the requested work.

Ontario Regulation 586/06 grants municipalities the ability to assess the cost of capital works, in full or in part, to benefitting property owners.

Section 326 of the Municipal Act grants municipalities the ability to levy special charges to operate an enhanced level of service for particular properties to receive a higher level of service than what is otherwise granted to residents, however use of this section of the legislation is not recommended for use to distribute resident-petitioned costs.

Section 391 of the Municipal Act authorizes the municipality to impose fees or charges for services.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 63 of 124 For public alleys, the City aims, subject to funding availability, to maintain them to the state of repair necessary for their intended use; funding comes from the general property tax levy. Maintenance includes the electricity costs for current alley lighting. Very limited lighting is currently installed within alleys by the City. Alley lighting in residential areas has not been widely approved by Council in the past. Currently, any street constructed in the city is required meet the City’s standard lighting level. Accordingly, there is no existing policy to light alleys. Where alley lighting exists, it is typically found at junctions and intersections. At its meeting of August 4, 2015, City Council adopted a new standard of illumination for streets through CR149/2015, requiring:

“That the lighting levels for roadways outlined in ANSI/IESNA RP-8-14 BE APPROVED as the new lighting standard for the City in any new construction or installation of the street lighting fixtures and poles. Lighting levels for all roadways with existing poles that are less than the lighting levels for ANSI/IESNA RP-8-14 will BE GRANDFATHERED to existing lighting levels, until replaced.”

Over time, the City’s typical road cross-section has changed. A new municipal development is required to have a paved street with curbs and gutters, sanitary and storm sewers, a sidewalk on at least one side and streetlights constructed to City’s standards. Roads not meeting this standard were constructed when requirements of land developers were fewer. Accordingly, there were reduced costs passed down to subsequent property owners. Whether street lighting or other municipal services, property owners wishing to have their street meet today’s built environment standard can petition for their street to be upgraded through the City’s Local Improvement Process. The degree of subsidy for these services by the City varies depending on the work being requested.

In the past, City Council has approved certain alley lighting installations through funding of one-time allocations. These were funded through a special Capital Budget item1, or had been installed as part of a Councillor’s Ward Funds. Requests for alley lighting are typically related to addressing safety concerns, including discouraging vandalism and other unwanted activities or for parking.

Capital repairs/improvements to alleys have typically been funded from funds specifically earmarked by Council for alley purposes. Alleys are generally not considered for capital investment at the time of nearby street repairs and other nearby projects. There is no set standard of municipal service for an alley, as each location sees a varying level of adjacent development and municipal use.

1 Wyandotte Town Centre BIA request as part of CR517/98, May 11, 1998

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 64 of 124 Expenditures Related to the $250,000 Approved in the Enhanced Budget

With respect to the 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget allocation of $250,000 previously noted in the Background section of this report, these funds have now been invested into alley repairs. The majority of work performed improved the surface conditions for several alleys. Safety and security features were also introduced to select alleys where municipal service delivery had been compromised. These features included vegetation removal, visibility improvements for existing lighting and removal of physical barriers to service. The locations addressed for safety improvements were:

Alley Location Limits

Argyle – Monmouth Wyandotte to Niagara; Richmond to Ottawa Bruce – Church Caroline to Newbury Campbell – McEwen Riverside to University Caron – Janette Park to Wyandotte Chilver – Kildare Tuscarora to Niagara; Richmond to Ottawa Cross Alley Hall to Pierre South of Giles Devonshire – Kildare U-Shaped Alley Devonshire – Monmouth Adjacent to Walkerville Secondary School Dougall – Victoria Elliott to Erie; Hanna to Montrose Dougall- Church Hanna to Shepherd Gladstone - Lincoln Riverside to Assumption Gladstone – Moy Wyandotte to Cataraqui; Richmond to Giles Howard – Highland Erie to Giles Langlois – Marion Erie to Giles Lillian – Marentette Shepherd to Hanna Lincoln – Windermere Assumption to Wyandotte; Richmond to Ottawa Marentette – Louis Niagara to Elliott Monmouth – Walker Wyandotte to Tuscarora; Niagara to Richmond Moy – Hall Riverside to Assumption Parent – Langlois Erie to Giles Pelissier – Victoria Tecumseh to Jackson Pierre – Hall Essex Terminal Railway to Tecumseh Victoria – Pelissier2 Elliott to Erie; Pine to Giles; Hanna to Ellis Windermere – Chilver Assumption to Cataraqui; Niagara to Ottawa Windsor – McDougall Erie to Giles

The Experience from Other Jurisdictions

Because of City Council’s budget direction, Administration has investigated municipal trends with respect to alley safety and security concerns. Other municipalities’ policies have been varied, although requests are almost universally made in response to concerns for crime and security.

2 This location was funded through the Councillor’s Ward Fund and not as part of the Enhanced Capital Budget.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 65 of 124 One of the earliest known study regarding the effectiveness of street lighting was undertaken in the London, England borough of Wandsworth, where the municipality installed 3,500 new streetlights in the mid-1980s as part of its overall crime reduction plan. In 1991, researchers at the University of Southampton published a report comparing reported crimes before and after installation.3 Researchers found "no evidence ... to support the hypothesis that improved street lighting reduces reported crime.” A 1997 National Institute of Justice study concluded, “We can have very little confidence that improved lighting prevents crime. [...] The effectiveness of lighting is unknown.”4

An alley-specific lighting project in Chicago determined correlation between brightly lit alleyways and an increased reporting of crime. Over a study period of six months, the area considered in the study reported 205 incidents in the pre-period and 287 in the post-period. The major crime categories measured were violent crimes (homicide, criminal sexual assault, robbery, assault), property crimes (burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson) and "non-Index crimes," (prostitution, damage and trespass to property and vehicles, gambling, and drug/liquor/weapons violations).5

A 2008 review of various studies found mixed evidence with respect to whether lighting deterred crime but on balance did indicate its effectiveness6. Four U.S.-based studies found that improved street lighting (not specific to alleys) was effective in reducing crime, while four others found that it was not effective. Five British evaluation studies showed that improved lighting led to decreases in crime. In two studies, the financial savings from reduced crimes greatly exceeded the financial costs of the improved street lighting. Taken together, the authors concluded that improved lighting led to a 20% reduction in crime rate.

One notable conclusion of the study, however, is that the reductions noted were not specific to the nighttime hours. The study suggests that community pride resulting from the improvement had the greatest impact on reducing crime versus an improved ability for surveillance.

Most recently, in 2014 a study conducted by Data Science for Social Good for the Chicago Department of Transportation found a 7% rise in crime because of streetlight outages.7

The Chicago study is considered by the Windsor Police Service to be flawed in part because it is inconsistent with the findings surrounding general street lighting.

3 Atkins, Husain, Storey, The influence of street lighting on crime and fear of crime, 1991. http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/07-Atkins_Husain_Storey.pdf 4 Eck, Preventing Crime at Places, 1997. https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter7.htm 5 Morrow & Hutton, 2000. The Chicago Alley Lighting Project: Final Evaluation Report http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/130-Morrow_Hutton.pdf 6 Walsh & Farrington, 2008. Effects of improved street lighting on crime https://www.politieacademie.nl/kennisenonderzoek/kennis/mediatheek/PDF/76003.pdf 7 https://github.com/dssg/streetlights-crime

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 66 of 124 Surrounding environmental conditions, especially within alleys, are known to influence the comfort of and perception of safety by users. The condition of the surface (asphalt, gravel), brush and vegetation, manufactured obstructions and the general cleanliness of an alley area can all influence the perception of safety in an area.

The attached Appendix shows a summary of what various cities have incorporated as alley safety and security policies. None of the cities has established capital funds for alley lighting policies. However, in summary, the following trends were observed with some exceptions: 1) Many municipalities offer only a coordination role that facilitates the installation of alley lighting. Alley lighting is considered as a service provided over and above the typical municipal service responsibility. 2) Municipalities do not generally take on the electricity cost of new alley lighting. Rather, appropriate shares of the costs are assessed to private property owner accounts. 3) Some municipalities have inherited the capital cost of installing lighting.

A Recommended Approach Going Forward

Through the Local Improvement process, property owners have an opportunity to install street lighting, if streetlights do not currently exist or to upgrade to a decorative lighting style. In principle, an alley lighting program to recover the initial capital costs could be coordinated in a similar manner by the City.

Administration does not currently have an established metric that systematically determines what measures might be effective and for which locations. Measures to improve the alley environment have generally been ad-hoc in nature rather than sustained programs aimed at meeting a pre-determined service level goal.

ENWIN Utilities Ltd. offers to property owners a sentinel light program which installs, at the owner’s cost, a High Pressure Sodium (HPS) fixture on an ENWIN-owned pole. The requestor is required to pay a monthly rate, which includes cost for fixture rental and energy. As this program is not widely promoted by ENWIN, requests for new sentinel lighting have been declining.

In addition, sentinel lighting requests do not necessarily adhere to the RP-8-14 City standard. There is some inherent policy conflict with use of the ENWIN program, in that CR149/2015 recommended the conversion of all City-owned street lighting to LED fixtures. ENWIN continues to operate the sentinel lighting program using HPS lighting.

Similarly to the City’s previous experience with street lighting, use of a LED fixture would carry a higher initial capital cost but a lower operating cost, and would save money for those requesting the lighting. Should City Council wish to request that ENWIN implement the program using LED fixtures, ENWIN must first accept the request. It must subsequently secure permission from the Ontario Energy Board for a change to the sentinel lighting rate.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 67 of 124

While ENWIN can administer the sentinel lighting program for a single account, we have been informed that it is not currently able to administer it on a neighbourhood basis given the design of their current enterprise software. This is due to the design of their current system which does not have the functional ability to distribute the monthly cost of a sentinel fixture among multiple account holders.

In order to implement an alley lighting program where the adjacent or benefitting property owners would be responsible for lighting infrastructure and the energy costs, the use of charges authorized by the Municipal Act may be the best mechanism. For such a system, the City would become the customer that is assessed any capital and operating costs incurred by ENWIN and in turn the contributing property owners would be assessed a charge for the overall installation. This allows the program to remain self-funding, viable, consistent and offering of an equitable level of service between neighbourhoods.

General program guidelines for this program would work as follows:

1. Single customers would be directed to ENWIN on their own account without involvement of the municipality to set up a sentinel light. This is primarily geared towards commercial properties. 2. An alley sentinel light service benefitting multiple requestors would be offered only: a. where there is existing ENWIN electrical infrastructure in the alley that can supply power to the sentinel lights, b. the alley is paved and accessible by a bucket truck, and c. there are poles upon which to place the lights. 3. Costs incurred relevant to any tree trimming needed in the alley to ensure leaves do not shroud the light from the sentinel fixture would be distributed as a cost to the requestors. 4. Maintenance obligations would be levied through an ongoing special service charge or fee while local improvement charges would address capital costs inherent in the installation. An allowance for replacement due to vandalism would be estimated as part of the development of annual charges. 5. The City would need to accept and deal with any potential complaints from citizens that the light is annoying or intruding on their property. 6. Lighting requests would not be entertained for locations where there is an active application for alley closure.

Of course, Council could chose to subsidize some or theoretically all of the costs in lieu of passing those costs to benefiting homeowners. Though it is noted that that would generally be a departure from the practice detailed previously and require very

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 68 of 124 significant additional funds to be allocated for that purpose by Council. For these reasons, this option has not been recommended.

The current average annual cost for a HPS sentinel light is $1,056 in 2018 dollars inclusive of electricity costs. Administration would investigate the use of LED fixtures with ENWIN in order to seek more efficient and cost-effective service delivery as part of the development of rates.

It is recommended that should City Council be agreeable, Administration will return to City Council with an Alley Lighting Policy and By-law establishing the petition process and the means in which costs are to be recovered.

With respect to the funding of general safety measures, there is no science available in which to determine what measures would be effective, where, and for how much of an investment would be required.

It is further recommended that where non-lighting measures are proposed, a cost assessment for alley safety and security would be developed through a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design study. This study would supply the background analysis and recommendations for implementation. Measurement of societal and environmental factors can often be subjective and consultative rather than strictly science-based. Parameters and costs for such an implementation would be destined to vary significantly between locations. Project funds would be necessarily withdrawn from a dedicated amount of funding that City Council would choose to allocate to such measures. Of course, it goes without saying that if additional funds are not earmarked for this service enhancement, other existing programs will see lower funding levels.

Risk Analysis:

There is a minor amount of resource risk inherent in bringing forward an alley lighting program that leverages the existing ENWIN sentinel lighting program. ENWIN would supply pricing and costs incurred can be transferred as-is to proponents. Action on these requests would be prioritized according to needs of the day unless otherwise directed. The assignment of operating costs is distributed to benefitting property owners in order to keep the program operating on a sustainable basis.

There is minor financial risk inherent with the potential for assigning a fee that is too low to reflect the cost of installing the alley lighting fixture rather than assigning actual costs. This risk would be mitigated by regular review of the fees on an annual basis to verify cost recovery however would increase the Administrative resources needed to assess annually.

Further Administrative resources would need to be dedicated the to on-going program requirements should Council accept a cost recovery model as each petition would need to be evaluated and monitored through the life of the lighting project.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 69 of 124 Revenue collection shortfalls compromising operation of such a service, such as property owner’s refusal to pay one’s share of charges following implementation, may materialize. A means to address these circumstances will be identified as part of policy development. As with any new initiative, full alley lighting could result in some potential complaints from residents relative to glare in bedrooms and or back yards.

Overall, associated risks to the Corporation are considered moderate.

Financial Matters:

The 2018 budget figure set aside by City Council was $250,000. These funds were used for alley maintenance and resurfacing. No further funding for alley safety measures has been identified in the current 2019 Capital Budget and 7 year-plan.

The recommendation for alley lighting funding is to be self-funded on cost-neutral basis wherein participating properties could be charged back the costs of the service enhancement. It is proposed that fees would be reviewed annually to ensure that they are reflective of the actual costs incurred.

Should Council wish to provide capital funding to defray or completely offset the new program costs of this initiative, a reprioritization of current funds would be necessary or additional funding would need to be approved.

The funding of further initiatives relevant to safety and security improvements that may be recommended by the Windsor Police Service or through Crime Prevention through Environmental Design is recommended to be separate and distinct from alley infrastructure maintenance, such that ongoing work plans may be completed. The funding of enhancements would be dedicated to a separate capital project in an amount to be set by City Council as part of future budgets. This funding amount would be dependent on identifying what can be achieved based on approved funding levels.

Consultations: James Brown of ENWIN Utilities

Barry Horrobin of the Windsor Police Service

Laura Diotte of the Planning Department

Tiffany Pocock of the Engineering Department

Janice Guthrie of the Finance Department

Wira Vendrasco of the Legal Department

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 70 of 124 Conclusion:

Administration is recommending concurrence with the proposed direction of this report to address requests for alley lighting to promote alley maintenance, safety and security.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Michael Dennis Financial Planning Administrator

Janice Guthrie Deputy Treasurer, Taxation and Financial Projects

Joe Mancina Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer

Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

James F. Brown, P. Eng. 787 Ouellette Ave. [email protected] Vice President, Hydro Windsor, ON N9A 4J4 Operations, EnWin Utilities Ltd.

Appendices: 1 Municipal Alley Lighting Policies 2 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 71 of 124 Appendix A: Municipal Lighting Policies

City Financing Method Description of Program

City operates a voluntary user-pay program (subject to eligibility) to install a bright, energy-efficient light on an existing wooden power pole in an alley. A sensor turns Calgary, the light on at dusk and off at dawn. Assessed to property owners AB A 12 month contract for service is required. Cost can be shared between up to six neighbours. Billing applied to monthly utility accounts. All electrical and maintenance costs are included in the monthly fee.

Requests for new alley lights are received from block Chicago, IL clubs and other community organizations. Assessed to General Rate Request must be made through Alderman and approved by them.

City operates a voluntary user-pay program (subject to eligibility) to install a bright, shielded energy-efficient Corvallis, 50% General Rate per fixture light. City Council had set aside $20,000 to be used OR (excludes permit fees) as matching funds for the downtown alley lighting program. Program operates on a first-come, first- served basis until the funds are expended.

Full responsibility of property Dallas, TX The City does not install lights in alleys. owners

City operates a voluntary user-pay program (subject to eligibility) to install a bright, energy-efficient light on an existing wooden power pole in an alley. A sensor turns the light on at dusk and off at dawn. Edmonton, Local Improvement - Alley lighting must be installed along the entire length AB Assessed to property owners of alley. All adjacent property owners must agree to have the work completed and share the construction, maintenance and energy consumption costs.

Municipality is responsible for installation and costs, with consideration given to the following priorities:  Road safety Hackney, General Rate  Crime prevention UK  Environmental issues  Condition of existing equipment  Capital and maintenance costs  Commercial/ economic regeneration.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 72 of 124 City Financing Method Description of Program

Alleyways (residential and commercial) are not provided with lighting unless they are the only route of access/egress or the application for lighting has been reviewed and approved based upon consultation with Hamilton, Assessed to property owners City Traffic Engineering staff, Hamilton Police Service ON and the governing BIA Management board (if applicable). The installation of owner installed and operated security lighting is advocated for.

Mixture Three options: 1) Local Improvement,  petitioning process (35% of affected area, Capital and Operating costs divided among property owners) Costs 100%  self installation (cost absorbed by requester) Mankato, assessed to property MN  pedestrian safety (city expense) owners. Program will install an Automatic Protective 2) Alleys of City-Wide Light/Night Watch light semi-cutoff 100 watt H.P.S. Benefit are assessed lamp mounted on a wood pole, conforming to city to general rate. standards.

Alleyways benefitting from program are selected 1) Capital costs covered based on criteria including crime trends, level of by City Olympia, usage, and complexity of lighting installation. The City 2) Operating costs WA will pay for the lighting fixtures and installation, while assessed to property monthly electricity costs will be covered by the building owners. owner/tenant.

1) Capital costs covered Dusk-to-dawn alley lights are installed on house or by City garage. Funding for the program is limited to the Peoria, IL 2) Operating costs installation of 40 lights hardwired to an existing assessed to property electrical system from a house or garage. owners.

Program is initiated on a pilot basis and includes both Pilot - City funded to limit of 3 capital and operating expenditures during this period. Regina, SK alleys for first year Protocol is being set up to investigate external funding sources.

Alley lights are installed and maintained by Xcel Energy at the request of adjacent property owners. It St Paul, Assessed to property owners is up to the adjacent owners to arrange for alley lights MN directly with Xcel Energy and to pay the cost of installation, maintenance and operation of alley lights.

Annual charge of $95 to install, maintain and provide electricity for a street lamp in the alley behind a Skokie, IL Assessed to property owners resident’s home or business establishment added to the applicant’s water bill annually.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 73 of 124 City Financing Method Description of Program

All lights must be placed on existing poles or structures.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 74 of 124 2018 Enhanced Capital Budget

PROJECTS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR 2018 Total Amount to Fund 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Walking Path - Daytona to California $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Wigle Park - Phase 2 funding $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Electrical Box Installation Maiden Lane - Support DWFM $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Crawford - Wyandotte to Tecumseh - Engineering $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Victoria Ave - Tecumseh to Jackson Park - Mill and Pave $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Lillian - Grand Marais to South Pacific - Reconstruction $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Capitol Theatre Improvements $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Pedestrian Street Lighting on Ottawa Street $ 158,000 $ 158,000 $ 158,000 Windermere - Engineering for Storm Sewer Reconstruction $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 Ypres - Forest to Marentette - Mill and Pave $ 247,000 $ 247,000 $ 247,000 Rubber Base for Gary Dugal Playground $ 124,000 $ 124,000 $ 124,000 St. Julien - George to Tourangeau - Reconstruction $ 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 Milloy - Chandler to Meldrum - Mill and Pave $ 108,000 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 Tranby Park - Relocate Kiwanis Equipment - to be timed with Tranby $ 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 roadwork this Spring Realtor Park - Path $ 475,000 $ 475,000 $ 475,000 Accessible Washroom and Changeroom - Riverside Park (match for $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Candian Tire grant) Briarbank Drive - Mill and Pave $ 340,000 $ 7,000 $ 143,000 $ 190,000 $ 340,000 Improvements to Peche Island and boat access $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 Riverside Drive Vista Roundabout - Devonshire and Riverside $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Northwood - Cleary to Daytona - Reconstruction $ 750,000 $ 675,000 $ 75,000 $ 750,000 Alley Funding $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 WIFF $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Reserve for Basement Flooding Mitigation - Sewer Master Plan $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Theme Districting - (Downtown, Sandwich, Walkerville, Riverside, $ 1,405,000 $ 175,000 $ 234,000 $ 696,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,405,000 Ford City, Asian Town) Recreation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Financing Charges $ 84,000 $ 20,000 $ 64,000 $ 84,000 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING REQUESTS $ 8,966,000 $ 1,119,000 $ 2,295,000 $ 3,211,000 $ 1,041,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 8,966,000 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT Ward Funds (B74/2018) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 TOTAL ENHANCED PROJECTS PROCEEDING IN 2018 $ 9,466,000 $ 1,119,000 $ 2,795,000 $ 3,211,000 $ 1,041,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 9,466,000

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 75 of 124 Item 11.18

Council Report: C 39/2019

Subject: Future Options for the Alley Closing Subsidy Program (ACSP) - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: April 1, 2019 Author: Neil Robertson Deputy City Planner/Manager of Urban Design 519-255-6543 ext. 6461 [email protected]

Planning & Building Services Report Date: 2/27/2019 Clerk’s File #: SAA2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: The recommendations below correspond with the different options presented to Council: OPTION 1 – DISCONTINUE THE ALLEY CLOSING SUBSIDY PROGRAM (ACSP)

I. That the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE DISCONTINUED as a pilot project upon approval of 2019 Capital Budget;

II. That all Alley Closing Subsidy Program applications currently being processed BE COMPLETED in a timely manner; and,

III. That the remaining balance from the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE REALLOCATED to the Pay as You Go Capital reserve to fund Council’s future priorities.

OPTION 2 – CONTINUE THE ALLEY CLOSING SUBSIDY PROGRAM IN ITS CURRENT FORM

I. That the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE CONTINUED as a permanent program upon approval of 2019 Capital Budget;

II. That the non-staff related costs of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE FUNDED for the next two years by the balance remaining in the Alley Closing Subsidy Program capital account (Project ID 7145002);

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 76 of 124 III. That an annual budget of $60,000 BE INCLUDED in future Capital Budgets starting in 2021 to fund the non-staff related costs of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program; and,

IV. That up to a maximum of $100,000 in one–time funding from the Budget Stabilization Reserve BE APPROVED to fund the staffing costs of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in the Planning and Building Department’s 2019 Operations Budget and that the staffing costs BE ANNUALIZED in the 2020 Operating Budget.

OPTION 3 – INCORPORATE A SUBSIDIZED COMPONENT INTO THE REGULAR ALLEY CLOSING PROGRAM

I. That the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE DISCONTINUED as a pilot project upon approval of 2019 Capital Budget;

II. That all Alley Closing Subsidy Program applications currently being processed BE COMPLETED in a timely manner;

III. That the Regular Alley Closing Program BE AMENDED to include a subsidized component for residential alleys to offset the costs of making an application, legal surveys and land purchase;

IV. That the process and prioritization (first come, first served) from the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE INCORPORATED into the subsidized component of the Regular Alley Closing Program;

V. That the remaining balance from the Alley Closing Subsidy Program BE APPROVED for transfer into the fund used to administer the subsidized component of the Regular Alley Closing Program; and That the non-staff related costs of the subsidized component of the Regular Alley Closing Program BE FUNDED for the next three years by the balance remaining in the Alley Closing Subsidy Program capital account (Project ID 7145002); and,

VI. That an annual budget of $40,000 BE INCLUDED in future Capital Budgets starting in 2022 to fund the non-staff related costs of the subsidized component of the Regular Alley Closing Program.

Executive Summary:

NA

Background: At its meeting on October 1, 2012, Councillor Payne asked the following question:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 77 of 124 CQ24-2012 “Asks for a report on the feasibility of a proactive program to offer certain alleys for sale, possibly for a nominal payment to abutting property owners so as to relieve the City of the cost of maintaining such alleys in perpetuity.”

On December 2, 2013 City Council adopted B38/2013 which approved a Capital Budget for 2014 that included operating the Alley Closing Subsidy Program (ACSP) as a Pilot Project.

On April 7, 2014 (CR88/2014) City Council authorized the implementation of the ACSP, the recruitment of a temporary Planner II and temporary Street and Alley Legal Clerk, and the process by which the program is to be administered, and requested that a project update be provided prior to 2016 Budget deliberations.

On November 9, 2015 (B28-2015) City Council reviewed the ACSP project update report and authorized the continuation of the ACSP, and requested that another project update be provided prior to 2018 Budget deliberations.

On January 15, 2017 (B15/2018), City Council once again approved the continuation of the program. As part of the approval, Council directed that the Planning Department report back as part of the 2019 budget deliberations with recommendations about the ongoing existence of the subsidy program, specifically answering the question of if the program should become permanent. Further to this, this report will address recommendations about the alley closing process, ongoing staffing levels and budget.

Discussion:

The Alley Closing Subsidy Program has two process distinct components: 1) the closure of currently open alleys in predominantly residential areas based on requests received from abutting property owners; and, 2) conveying remnant parcels of previously closed alleys to abutting residential property owners.

Since the commencement of the program, the majority of time and effort has been dedicated to the closure of currently open alleys (the first component of the program). because the public interest in this part of the program has been much more significant. To date, approximately 200+ property owners have expressed interest in taking advantage of the subsidy program. There are often more than one property owner expressing interest in closing the same alley. This duplication means that there are actually fewer than 200 alleys being requested for closure. It is estimated that around 50 of the alleys are duplicates. A waiting list based on a first come, first served basis was created for those interested individuals. Interest in the program has remained consistent over the years with more residents asking to be put on the Alley Closing Subsidy Program waiting list as a result of further promotion (e.g. advertising in City Activity Guides.)

Furthermore, not all of the alleys added to the waiting list qualify to take advantage of the subsidy program. Staff review and evaluate all of the alleys to determine their eligibility for closure under the program before proceeding with the alley closing.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 78 of 124 The following table provides some pertinent statistics since the inception of the program:

Summary of Statistics for the Alley Closing Subsidy Program

Records of contact 203 Duplicate alleys 52 Disqualified or Withdrawn 75 Alleys Closed 33 Remaining on wait list 43

The demand has far exceeded the number of alleys that can be closed annually. As noted in the original report from the City Engineer, dated October 28, 2013, it was anticipated that five alleys could be closed per year through the program. To date, the program has achieved these annual targets, averaging around 5 to 7 alleys closed annually. A total of 33 residential alleys have been closed since the commencement of the program.

Many of the residential alleys closed may not have been closed had it not been for the pilot project because of the reduced costs associated with the Alley Closing Subsidy Program. The fee of $100 covers all of the administrative, survey and legal costs associated with the closing of the alley is one the biggest benefits of the program. It also includes the purchase of the alley portion adjacent to their property. Additional unwanted alley portions are also available for $100 provided that they are contiguous with the property that they will be merged with. This relatively inexpensive program makes it financially accessible to almost every property owner in the city.

One of the biggest benefits to the City is that it closes unused residential alleys that are often inaccessible and covered by encroachments (e.g. fences, sheds, etc). This in turn reduces the municipal liability associated with having publicly owned alleys that are not regularly maintained by the City used by adjacent private property owners. To a lesser degree, some of the other benefits include decreases in requests for alley maintenance, and reduction of vandalism or the perception of a reduction of vandalism. This often one of the items cited by residents in their request for alley closures. A number of people also ask for alley closures because they want to legalize the alley encroachments that they have. Usually as a result of enforcement efforts by the City to have encroachments removed from municipally owned alleys.

The Alley Closing Subsidy Program experienced some challenges over the duration of the pilot project, including:

 Many of the original primary contacts on the waiting list withdrawn their names from the waiting list when it comes to the time when they have to go door to door circulating the petition to collecting the required signatures and $100 cheques from their neighbours;

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 79 of 124  Keeping track of the adjacent property owners interest in their portion of the alley has proven challenging as time passes. People move, or it becomes less important to them. This requires staff to circle back a number of times to gauge their interest in purchasing their alley portion;  The high per alley cost of closing the alleys is concerning. The average cost of closing a residential alley, when staff costs are factored in, ranges from approximately $30,000 to 40,000 depending on the number of alleys closed that year;  The legal surveys and registered plans were taking on average 8 to 10 months to complete, extended the length of time it took to complete the closure and sale of the alley. Administration worked with the private sector consultants (i.e. Ontario Land Surveyors) to shorten the time it was taking to prepare the survey; and,  The specialized nature of the qualifications for the Street and Alley Legal Clerk coupled with the temporary nature of the position created some challenges in recruiting and keeping the position properly staffed. This has since been addressed.

Applying for a Residential Alley Closure

A high-level summary of the process divided into three distinct phases for the purposes of understanding the Alley Closing Subsidy Program, and how it differs from the Regular Street and Alley Closing Program. The three phases associated with closing a residential alley are: 1) Applying for an Alley Closure; 2) Closing the Alley; and, 3) Selling the Alley.

Alley Closing Subsidy Program

The property owner contacts the Planning Department to be added to the wait list for the Alley Closing Subsidy Program. The Planning Department processes the applications on a first come first serve basis. Once an alley is next in line for closure, the Planning Department screens it for suitable to be closed. The main criteria for this evaluation is:

a) The alley is located in a predominately residential area; b) The alley abuts residential properties; and, c) The alley is be deemed “Dispensable” using the additional criterion outlined in the Alley Closing Process Policy.

Following this initial screening, the property owner that originally added the alley to the wait list becomes the “applicant” for the closure of the alley and is invited to circulate a petition to close the alley to the other residential property owners adjacent to the alley.

The applicant has 30 days to return a “successful” petition to the Planning Department. A successful petition consists of 50%+1 of property owners representing 50% of the assessed value of the properties abutting the alley agreeing to purchase at least the portion of the alley abutting their property, and a $100.00 payment for each alley

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 80 of 124 parcel being purchased. This fee is intended to recover a small portion of the administrative and survey costs associated with the closing of an alley. The actual purchase price for the alley portion is $1.00 per alley portion. Regular Alley Closing Program

Unlike the Residential Alley Closing Subsidy Program, the regular alley closing program does not operate with a wait list; therefore, the processing of the applications begins immediately upon receipt of the application. This can be accommodated by the fact that both programs have separate dedicated staff and the regular program averages around 20 applications a year.

The applicant is responsible for submitting the application fee of $1,380.00 under the regular alley closing program. It is encouraged that all of the abutting property owners contribute to the application costs but it is not a requirement of the program. The work begins on closing the alley once a completed application form and the application fee have been submitted Closing the Alley

The Planning Department will then initiate the process of closing the alley. The first step is to circulate the application to other internal departments and utility companies to collect their comments and/or concerns about the potential closures. Provided that all of the concerns can adequately be addressed, the Planning Department prepares a report to the Planning, Heritage and Economic Development Standing Committee (PHEDSC). The report includes a recommendation for closure and includes any mitigation measures (e.g. utility easements) necessary to address the original departmental/utility concerns.

Following Council’s approval, the Planning Department orders a survey of the alley and reference plan from an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS). Following the preparation of the reference plan (known as a 12R plan), a notice is published in the Windsor Star about a month before the bylaw that closes the alley is passed. Additionally, abutting property owners are notified directly to apprise them of the status of the application and how the alley is proposed to be divided. Closed alleys are customarily divided into parcels along the centreline of the alley in order to convey half of the alley to each abutting property owner. However, where encroachments or other obstructions are present, the alley may be divided either partially or entirely in other ways to address such situations in a manner deemed appropriate by the City Planner.

The Legal Department then prepares and sends the bylaw to Council to for approval. The alley is legally closed once the bylaw is passed.

Regular Alley Closing Program

The process for closing the alley is the same for both programs with the main difference being that the applicant and abutting property owners are required to pay the costs associated with the preparation of the Reference Plan (i.e. the legal survey). The City arranges for and coordinates the preparation of the Reference Plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor. Each property owner that is purchasing their portion of the alley is responsible for paying their proportionate share of the cost of the Reference Plan and

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 81 of 124 the cost associated with the preparation and registration of the deed that transfers ownership from the City to the purchaser. The estimated average cost per property owner is approximately $600 to $3,000 for the depending on the size of the alley and number of adjacent residential properties (i.e. their proportionate share of the Reference Plan).

Selling the Alley Parcels

The City can begin the process of selling the alley to adjacent property owners once the alley is officially closed. The surrounding property owners are notified of the closure, including a reminder to those that did not respond or sign the original petition for closure that they still have the option to purchase the alley parcel adjacent to their property. This is their final opportunity to purchase their part of the alley for $100. Any unwanted alley parcels are then offered to the property owner behind to see if they want to purchase the entire width of the closed alley. Once all of the alley parcels have been allocated, the deeds are prepared and the property owners execute all forms necessary to legally transfer the alley. Following this, the deeds are registered on title and the alley parcels come under the ownership of the purchasing property owner(s).

Regular Alley Closing Program

With a few exceptions based on specific circumstances, the portions of the alley that abut residential lands are offered to the adjacent property owner for $1.00. Other non- residential property owners are sold the alley at current market value.

Similar to the Residential Alley Closing Subsidy Program the properties that have been purchased (i.e. paid for) are transferred to the purchaser. Any unwanted alley parcels are offered to the property owner behind to see if they want to purchase the entire width of the closed alley.

In summary, both of the alley closing programs administered by the City are similar in how the alley is legally closed. The main differences are who pays and how applications are prioritized. Under the regular alley closing program that full application fee and survey costs are borne by the property owners purchasing the alley, while these costs under the Residential Alley Closing Subsidy Program are subsidized by the City, resulting in significantly lower costs to the individual property owners.

Staffing the Alley Closing Programs

Both of the alley closing programs have their own dedicated staff with some overlap in responsibilities. The following highlights these positions and their responsibilities. Alley Closing Subsidy Program (ACSP)

The Alley Closing Subsidy Program has two dedicated staff assigned to it. Both were approved and funded through the pilot project. The Alley Closing Subsidy Program is staffed as following:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 82 of 124  Street and Alley Legal Clerk (0.5 FTE) – the Street and Alley Legal Clerk for the Alley Closing Subsidy Program is responsible for most of the coordination of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program. They are responsible for the application intake, circulate the application and coordinating the final sale of the alleys.

 Planner II - Development Review – The Planner II - Development Review is a position that was hired under the pilot project and is dedicated to the functions associated with closing alleys under the Alley Closing Subsidy Program. Their primary function is to prepare the Council reports, and order and check the legal surveys.

Regular Street and Alley Closing Program

The Regular Street and Alley Closing Program has one dedicated staff person assigned to it, with assistance given from the Planning Department’s regular staff complement. The program is staffed as following:

 Street and Alley Legal Clerk – The Street and Alley Legal Clerk is responsible for most of the coordination of the Regular Street and Alley Closing Program. They are responsible for the application intake, circulate the application and coordinating the final sale of the alleys.

In lieu of having a dedicated staff person responsible for preparing the Council reports, a Planner from the Planning Department’s regular staff complement is assigned on a file-by-file basis to prepare the report to Council regarding the alley closure. This is often the Planner II – Development Review that is part of the staff dedicated to the Alley Closing Subsidy Program. Selling Previously Closed Alleys

The second component to the Alley Closing Subsidy Program is selling the remnant parcels from alleys closed at least 15 years prior. Currently, there is a significant number of remnant parcels that still exist under municipal ownership. Administration receives numerous complaints from abutting residents regarding the lack of maintenance for these land parcels, as many of them are landlocked by private properties and the City has no access to these lands to maintain them. While it is beneficial to sell these remnant parcels to abutting property owners, it is acknowledged that there is little the City can do if abutting owners do not wish to acquire the properties.

In 2015 administration proactively reached out to property owners abutting City owned alley parcels which were closed prior to 1980. This proactive approach for sale of the remnant parcels of alleys proved to be more complex and time consuming than originally anticipated, and didn’t achieve the desired results. The majority of property owners contacted were not interested in purchasing the remnant alley parcels.

Also, in many cases, the City’s information on ownership of these old remnant parcels of land was not consistent with actual ownership records at the Land Registry Office. It was also often discovered that there was no registered plan/survey available for many

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 83 of 124 of these alleys. This resulted in the City incurring the significant cost of obtaining a registered plan for the sole purpose of conveying only a small remnant parcel of land for the nominal fee of $100. The City decided that it will not proactively approach property owners to acquire these alleys under the subsidy program, rather it would only process applications where the abutting property owners expressed interest in acquiring their remnant portion of the alley.

MOVING FORWARD – PROGRAM OPTIONS

On January 15, 2017 (B15/2018), Council directed that the Planning Department report back as part of the 2019 budget deliberations with recommendations about the ongoing existence of the subsidy program, specifically answering the question of if the program should become permanent. This report presents Council with three options for moving forward on subsidizing residential alley closures. All three will be explained in detail, including the risks and financial implications of each option. OPTION 1 – DISCONTINUE THE ALLEY CLOSING SUBSIDY PROGRAM (ACSP)

This option is to discontinue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program entirely and go back to closing all residential alleys through the Regular Alley Closing Program. The Regular Alley Closing Program is based on a cost-recovery funding model with the applicant and property owners paying their portion of the application, reference plan and disbursement costs. These average costs are around $600 to $3,000 per alley portion purchased.

Moving back to the cost-recovery approach will likely result in fewer residential alleys being closed, and it may make the program inaccessible to some because of the financial costs associated with it.

The two staff currently dedicated to Alley Closing Subsidy Program (Planner II- Development Review and Street & Alley Legal Clerk) will return to their permanent positions within the Corporation.

The Street & Alley Legal Clerk for the Regular Alley Closing Program will handle all of the residential alley closures with assistance from other staff from the Planning Department, mainly the Planners who will write the Council reports. This is manageable because of the lower number of residential alley closure applications received by the regular program.

Additional risks and financial implications of this option are outlined below in the appropriate section of the report.

OPTION 2 – CONTINUE THE ALLEY CLOSING SUBSIDY PROGRAM IN ITS CURRENT FORM

This option is to continue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in its current format with existing staff. It will run parallel to the Regular Alley Closing Program and continue to follow the alley closing process outlined above.

It is anticipated that the public interest will remain high for the program because of the significant cost savings. However, the heavily administrative and legal process will

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 84 of 124 continue to limit the number of residential alleys closed under this program. There are usually between 5 to 7 residential alleys closed annually as part of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program.

The main advantage to this approach is that there are a couple of options available to applicants depending on their timing constraints and financial resources. The subsidy program is longer and less expensive, while the regular program is quicker but more expensive.

The Alley Closing Subsidy Program has exhausted most of the capital funding that established the pilot project in 2014. Moving forward, the Alley Closing Subsidy Program will require annual capital and operational budget contributions in order to subsidize the majority of the costs associated with closing a residential alley and staffing.

The two staff positions (Planner II- Development Review and Street & Alley Legal Clerk) will become permanent and will have to be funded as part of the department’s annual operating budget (they are currently funded through the pilot project’s capital budget). The estimated annual operating amount for these two positions is $150,000. Funding for these permanent positions is not currently included in the 2019 Operating Budget. The Regular Alley Closing Program will continue to be staffed by the existing Street & Alley Legal Clerk position. The risks and financial implications of this option are outlined below in the appropriate section of the report. OPTION 3 – INCORPORATE A SUBSIDIZED COMPONENT INTO THE REGULAR ALLEY CLOSING PROGRAM

The third option is to incorporate a subsidized component into the Regular Alley Closing Program.

This option would continue to see the lower costs associated with the current Alley Closing Subsidy Program (i.e. $100 per alley portion) but be administered by the regular program’s existing Street & Alley Legal Clerk position. The primary focus for the Street & Alley Legal Clerk position would be on the residential alley closing proceeding through the regular program. Subsidized residential alley closures will be considered secondary and would proceed in times of lower regular program applications. This prioritization of alley closing applications will likely result in a decrease in the number of residential alleys closed through the subsidized route. It is estimated that 1 to 2 subsidized residential alleys could be closed annually, down from 5 to 7 being processed under the Alley Closing Subsidy Program.

The two staff currently dedicated to Alley Closing Subsidy Program (Planner II- Development Review and Street & Alley Legal Clerk) will return to their permanent positions within the Corporation resulting in an annual savings of $208,000 for staffing and other program related costs.

The Street & Alley Legal Clerk for the Regular Alley Closing Program will handle all of the residential alley closures with assistance from other staff from the Planning Department, mainly the Planners who will write the Council reports. There is not a

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 85 of 124 Planner dedicated to alley closings under this model. Planners will be assigned alley closing files on an as needed basis. This approach makes alleys closings more susceptible to being deferred to Planning Act applications as the department’s workload increases. This in turn could result in fewer residential alleys being closed. The risks and financial implications of this option are outlined below in the appropriate section of the report.

Risk Analysis: Option 1 – Discontinue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program

Residential alleys that are no longer used and/or regularly maintained by the City increase the City’s liability risk. Furthermore, many of these alleys are full of encroachments (e.g. garages, fences, etc) from the adjacent private property owners. This risk will continue as long as the alleys remain open and in municipal ownership.

The risk of not continuing a subsidized program in some form is that fewer residential alleys may be closed because of the higher costs associated with closing an alley under the regular program.

Option 2 – Continue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in its Current Form

Closing residential alleys that are no longer used and/or regularly maintained by the City decreases the City’s liability risk, particularly when the alley is full of encroachments (e.g. garages, fences, etc) from the adjacent private property owners.

Since the City cannot require purchase or other acquisition of closed alleys, there is the risk that the remnant parcels not purchased by the abutting property owners remain in City ownership. This is a calculated risk that must be tolerated.

Option 3 – Incorporate a Subsidized Component into the Regular Alley Closing Program

Closing residential alleys that are no longer used and/or regularly maintained by the City decreases the City’s liability risk, particularly when the alley is full of encroachments (e.g. garages, fences, etc) from the adjacent private property owners.

Since the City cannot require purchase or other acquisition of closed alleys, there is the risk that the remnant parcels not purchased by the abutting property owners remain in City ownership. This is a calculated risk that must be tolerated.

Proceeding with no dedicated staff resources will result in fewer residential alleys being closed, thus magnifying the risks outlined above. It is quite possible that in times of higher numbers of Planning Act applications that no subsidized residential alleys will be closed because staff have to focus their efforts on meeting the legislated timelines of the Planning Act applications.

Financial Matters: The Alley Closing Subsidy Program pilot project started with funding totalling $790,000 ($737,999 (original request) + $52,001 (temporary financing related costs)) that was approved in the 2014 as part of the five year enhanced capital budget plan (project ID 7145002). To date, the project has incurred expenses of approximately $703,974, less

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 86 of 124 user fee recoveries of $39,026, resulting in net expense of $664,948. The balance of $125,052 remains available to ACSP. It is important to note that this amount is the end of the 2018 budget year balance and that there have been costs incurred to date in 2019. The annual budget to operate the Alley Closing Subsidy Program is approximately $208,000 broken down into non-staff related costs (surveys, registration, etc) of +/- $58,000 and staff costs (Planner II- Development Review and Street & Alley Legal Clerk) of +/- $150,000. Option 1 – Discontinue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program

The estimated annual savings of $208,000 will be realized with the elimination of the program. $150,000 will be saved in staffing costs; and, $58,000 for the other operational costs (e.g surveys, legal registration, etc) associated with operating the program.

The remaining balance from the Alley Closing Subsidy Program can made available for other Council priorities under the 2019 Capital Budget.

Option 2 – Continue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in its Current Form

The annual budget to operate the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in its current form is approximately $208,000 broken down into non-staff related costs (surveys, registration, etc) of +/- $58,000 and staff costs (Planner II - Development Review and Street & Alley Legal Clerk) of +/- $150,000.

An average operating cost of +/- $208,000 divided by 5 to 7 alleys closed amounts to an average cost of $29,714 to $41,600 to close a residential alley under the Alley Closing Subsidy Program.

These costs are presented in 2019 dollars and will need to be adjusted as the input costs (staff and operational) change over time.

Option 3 – Incorporate a Subsidized Component into the Regular Alley Closing Program

It is estimated that $45,000 for the other operational costs (e.g surveys, legal registration, etc) will allow for at least three residential alleys to be closed annually.

The estimated annual savings of $150,000 will be realized through this option. This $150,000 represents only the staffing costs of operating the program. The staffing costs will be eliminated as the smaller workload (i.e. fewer residential alleys) is shifted to the Street and Alley Clerk for the Regular Alley Closing Program.

The remaining balance from the Alley Closing Subsidy Program should continue to be made available to fund the non-staffing costs associated with having a subsidized component to the Regular Alley Closing Program.

These costs are presented in 2019 dollars and will need to be adjusted as the input costs (staff and operational) change over time.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 87 of 124 SUMMARY

The table below summarizes the annual costs for each option:

Option 3 – Option 1 – Option 2 – Continue Incorporate A Discontinue the the Alley Closing Subsidized Annual Costs Alley Closing Subsidy Program in Component Into Subsidy Program Its Current Form The Regular Alley Closing Program

Staff Cost $0 $150,000 $0 (Operating Budget) Non-Staff Cost (Capital Costs) $0 $58,000 $45,000 Total Annual Cost $0 $208,000 $45,000

There is currently no operating or capital funding in the 2019 recommended budgets for Alley Closing Subsidy Program.

At the end of 2018, the balance in the Alley Closing Subsidy Program was approximately $125,000. If City Councils approves Option #2 – To Continue the Alley Closing Subsidy Program in its Current Form, one-time funding from the Budget Stabilization Reserve up to a maximum of $100,000 is recommended for 2019. The ongoing operational budget for the two new permanent staff will be annualized as part of the 2020 budget. Capital funding will need to be identified in future capital budgets as required for Options #2 and #3. It is important to note that the 7-Year Capital Budget is balanced and projects may need to be reprioritized in future years to accommodate this program.

Consultations: Don Nantais, Financial Planning Administrator

Thom Hunt, City Planner

Michael Cooke, Manager of Planning Policy

Wira Vendrasco, Deputy City Solicitor

Conclusion: The capital funding used for the Alley Closing Subsidy Program pilot project is nearly depleted. Therefore, Council directed that staff prepare a report prior to the 2019 budget deliberations with options and details for the future of the Alley Closing Subsidy Program.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 88 of 124 This report presents Council with three options for the future of the program. Each option provided for Council’s consideration outlines the staffing and administrative considerations and costs, as well as some of the potential benefits and risks.

The table below summarizes the annual costs, number of alleys closed, and the cost to the applicant for each option presented to Council:

Option 2 – Option 3 – Option 1 – Incorporate A Continue the Alley Discontinue the Subsidized Alley Closing Closing Subsidy Component Into Subsidy Program Program in Its The Regular Alley Current Form Closing Program

Annual Cost

Staff Cost $0 $150,000 $0 (Operating Budget) Non-Staff Cost $0 $58,000 $45,000 (Capital Budget) Total Annual Cost $0 $208,000 $45,000

Subsidized Residential Alleys Closed (per year)

0 5 to 7 1 to 2

Average Cost of Property Owners (per alley portion)

Alley Purchase $1 $1 $1 Other Cost $600 to $3,000 $99 $99

Total Alley Cost $600 to $3,000 $100 $100

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Thom Hunt City Planner

Wira Vendrasco Deputy City Solicitor

Shelby Askin Hager City Solicitor

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 89 of 124 Name Title

Don Nantais Financial Planning

Tony Ardovini for Joe Mancina City Treasurer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 90 of 124 Item 11.19

Council Report: C 19/2019

Subject: Investment in Affordable Housing - Meadowbrook Project Update

Reference: Date to Council: Author: Janice Guthrie Deputy Treasurer, Taxation & Financial Projects 519-255-6100 Ext 6271 [email protected] Taxation & Financial Projects Report Date: 2/4/2019 Clerk’s File #: GH/6905

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: THAT the Investment in Affordable Housing – Meadowbrook Project Update report BE RECEIVED; and,

THAT City Council APPROVE the recommended funding in the 2019 7-year Capital Budget of $12,000,000 for the Meadowbrook project (HCS-001-19) and pre-commit the 2020 funding of $3,729,384 for immediate use on the Meadowbrook project; and,

THAT the Community Development and Health Services Commissioner or their authorized designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute any such agreements as may be required by the Province of Ontario and/or the Government of Canada subject to review for legal content by the City Solicitor, financial content by the CFO/City Treasurer and technical content by the Executive Director of Housing and Children’s Services; and,

THAT City Council AUTHORIZE Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC) to increase the mortgage financing previously estimated at $12 million through CMHC’s Co-Investment Fund to a maximum of $15,523,000; debt servicing (principal and interest payments) for this mortgage still to be fully funded from the rental and other revenues of CHC; and,

THAT City Council AUTHORIZE Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC) to execute an agreement for the mortgage and grant funding with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 91 of 124 Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

On July 23, 2018, City Council provided authorization for Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC) to proceed with the building of a new mixed income, multi- residential community in East Windsor (Meadowbrook Project). The proposed mixed income build will create 145 new affordable housing units for the community as well as strengthen community supports through partnerships with Hiatus House and Community Living Windsor.

As part of this report CR 437/2018 directed Administration as follows:

That City Council DIRECT Administration to explore and report back, in conjunction with the 2019 capital budget, all appropriate funding strategies relative to the required City of Windsor capital contribution for this project (estimated, based upon maximum 150 units) to be between approximately $12 - $16 million plus applicable interim financing costs

That Administration’s report back to Council INCLUDE funding options aimed at avoiding/reducing this new initiative’s impart on projects previously approved by Council in principle within the 2018 six-year capital plan.

This report serves to update City Council as to progress with the development and more specifically seek approval for the various funding sources which will be required to support the project build.

Discussion:

Design & Construction Update A joint Executive Committee comprised of City of Windsor Housing & Children Services staff, Finance staff and Engineering Development Projects as well as CHC project staff has been implemented to provide oversight for the project. The project is moving through the design phase with the project team working towards obtaining the first available permit prior to March 20, 2019. Various site investigations are in process and/or have been completed including geotechnical investigations, site servicing, species at risk, traffic impact studies and storm water management.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Co-Investment Update

The National Housing Strategy has several initiatives including but not limited to:

 Affordable Housing Innovation Fund which includes funding for unique ideas and new building techniques that will reform the affordable housing sector;  Rental Construction Financing which will include low-cost loans to encourage the construction of sustainable rental apartments across Canada;

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 92 of 124  Federal Lands Initiative which will use surplus federal lands and buildings to create affordable, sustainable, accessible and socially inclusive developments;  National Housing Co-Investment Fund – New Construction Stream and Repair and Renewal Stream.

The National Housing Co-Investment Fund has two streams; the New Construction Stream which is for new construction and the Housing Repair and Renewal Stream which is for the preservation and renewal of the existing community and affordable housing. For the purpose of this report, the focus will be on the initiative referred to as the National Housing Co-Investment Fund more specifically the New Construction Stream.

As previously advised, CHC resubmitted its application under the Co-Investment New Construction Stream whereby funding may be provided under a low-interest loan with favourable terms and/or a capital contribution. Discussions still remain open as the project moves through the application process. CMHC has indicated, by a Letter of Intent, that they will be recommending that this project receive a total of $22 million comprised of a grant in the amount of $6.5 million and a low-interest loan (mortgage) of $15,523,000.

At the appropriate time in the future, CHC will be required to execute the financial agreement with CMHC. As part of the July 23, 2018 report, CR 437/2018 authorized CHC to obtain mortgage financing estimated at a maximum of $12.3 million as offered through CMHC’s Co-Investment Fund. With this updated information, City Council is being asked to provide CHC with approval for the higher debt amount (maximum $15,523,000). Debt servicing (principal and interest payments) for this mortgage will continue to be fully funded from the rental and other revenues of CHC.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) Update

The Meadowbrook Development has been recommended by the City as Service Manager to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the full IAH funding amount of $4,012,445. After receiving the City’s recommendation MMAH provided their approval to the Meadowbrook development of the IAH funding on November 20, 2018 subject among other conditions, to the execution of the required funding agreements within program timelines. The agreement was executed in December of 2018. As part of the MMAH program requirements, first available permit must be secured within 90 days of the signing of the contribution agreement (March 20, 2019) with the construction completion on or before December 21, 2020. Funding for the development would flow to CHC based on prescribed project milestones as outlined in the contribution agreement with the City as Service Manager.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 93 of 124 Risk Analysis:

Many of the site surveys and investigations must be shared with other government agencies such as ERCA and Ministry of Natural Resources. Dependant upon the results of those reviews there is the risk that additional site work may be required in order to receive approval to proceed. At this point there is no indication that this will be the case.

As previously indicated, this project is still under consideration by CMHC. The formal approval process requires several milestones to be met before a final decision as to the funding will be announced. It is unlikely that the funding allocations as indicated in this report will materially change given the Letter of Intent.

As indicated in the Financial Matters, the project contingency is currently set at $298,000 or 0.8% of the overall project budget. Typical contingencies for City capital projects are at least 10%. The project budget has been developed based upon the most current available information however the project construction tender has not been released. Until such time as the tender is awarded, the actual costs will not be known with any certainty. With a much smaller than normal contingency set aside (due to funding constraints), there is higher risk that additional funding may be required. As is further noted in the Financial Matters section, project consultants have advised that the cost per square foot of hard construction is expected to increase. The primary reasons for the increase are steel and aluminum tariffs enacted by the US and an increased demand for skilled labour. Though the exact amount of the increase is not known with certainty, the impact to the project of such items could be as high as $3 million. Administration has identified a potential source of funds for an additional contingency of $1,000,000 to help decrease the risk of a project deficit.

This is the first new construction of affordable housing of this size undertaken by CHC. A joint Executive Committee of both City and CHC staff has been established so as to provide oversight and direction to the project utilizing best practices for City projects.

In addition, this is the first affordable housing portfolio that CHC will administer without the need for ongoing subsidy from the City. The business model is built upon rent revenues being sufficient to cover operating costs, inclusive of interest on mortgage financing as well as a small annual contribution to a reserve to be used for future capital expenditures. There is a risk that should rental revenue targets not be achieved, or more likely, that there be a need for a significant capital repair beyond the funds available that funding would be required from the City. Since this project falls under the Affordable Housing program, it is discretionary and therefore no cost sharing would take place with the County of Essex.

As indicated in the financial matters section several approvals in the 2019 Operational and Capital Budget were required to ensure the funding used for the Meadowbrook project is confirmed. Should any, or all, of the 2019 capital funding sources which were leveraged to fund this project not be approved by City Council this project will not have sufficient funding available to proceed. In such a case City Council would need to make

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 94 of 124 decisions during Capital Budget deliberations as to what projects are to be cancelled and or pushed out in order to ensure sufficient funding for any shortfall on this project.

With the project approval moving along in phases, and given said phases will result in expenditures being incurred, cashflow to CHC for the project may soon become an issue. Staff are working closely with CHC to ensure that project milestones required for project funding will continue to be met.

Financial Matters:

The total estimated project cost as provided by CHC is $38.7 million. Funding for the project has been identified to come from the following sources:

Source Amount Comments

Land $525,000 Previously conveyed to CHC from the City

IAH – 2014 Ext $2,100,000 Approved

IAH – 2016 SIF $1,912,445 Approved

CMHC – Seed Grant $150,000 Received

CMHC Co-Investment $6,500,000 Pending final approval Grant

CMHC Co-Investment Loan $15,523,000 Pending final approval

City of Windsor Equity (see $12,000,000 Pending final approval discussion below)

Total $38,710,445

As indicated via CR 437/2018, Administration was directed to bring funding strategies that would include the required City contribution of $12 - $16 million as part of the 2019 7-year Capital Budget. As part of the ongoing discussions with the University of Windsor to convert the Paul Martin Building to a new law school, City Council had approved funding of $15 million (CAO-001-16) as a placeholder. Those expenditures are not expected to be realized in full within the next five years and as such, Administration has recommended in the 2019 7 year Capital Budget a reallocation of the funding of up to $12 million in support of the Meadowbrook project as follows:

2019 - $8,270,616

2020 - $3,729,384

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 95 of 124 It is further noted that the recommended 2019 7-year Capital Budget was able to accommodate this project based on the assumption of the following recommendations being approved during the 2019 Operational and Capital budget deliberations:

1. A recommended increase to Windsor Police Services reserve in the amount of $1,025,000 is approved. As a result, this would remove the funding of a significant number of WPS Capital Projects allowing those funds to be redirected to other priority projects.

2. That YQG will fund the balance of their Capital needs through their revenues, resulting in a reduction of the need for City funding, allowing those funds to be redirected to other priority projects.

3. A recommendation within the recommended 2019 operating budget to increase the operational contribution to capital of $1.5M bringing new funding to the capital budget and thereby allowing for allocation to priority projects

Portions of the above items were used to help fund several projects, including Meadowbrook. These funds however are spread out across 2019 to 2025. The Meadowbrook project will commence in 2019 with plans for completion by 2020. To ensure any financing costs impacting the project’s budget is reduced Administration identified that pushing out the placeholder funding for Paul Martin would allow for the funding for Meadowbrook to be consistent with their construction requirements. Given the funding for Paul Martin was approved as placeholder funding in 2019 and 2020 of $7,500,000 in each year, a separate resolution is required to redistribute these funds to other years. Additional Cost Considerations

CHC has engaged Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. (KMAI), who in conjunction with BTY Group (quantity surveyors) has advised that the cost per square foot of hard construction is expected to increase. The primary reasons for the increase are steel and aluminum tariffs enacted by the US and an increased demand for skilled labour. Based upon revised estimates, the impact to the project is estimated at $3 million. As part of cost reduction and revenue generation strategies adopted by CHC, operating subsidy surpluses of $2.3 million ($1.2 million in 2017 and $1.1 million for 2018) were realized within the public housing portfolio. This surplus funding has been returned to the City and $1.0 million of the City’s share, has been set aside in a City reserve fund. These funds, at City Council’s discretion, could be made available to CHC to assist in additional construction costs should this eventuality occur. Additional Revenue Considerations

Notwithstanding the considerable equity investment required by the City to support this project, as previously reported, the City will receive one-time revenue in the form of development and permitting fees estimated at $2.4 million. In addition, the development would be subject to total annual property taxes estimated at $304,000. Both of these revenue sources will be available to support future City related growth initiatives.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 96 of 124 Consultations:

Tina Moore, Co-ordinator of Housing Administration and Development

Debbie Cercone, Executive Director, Housing & Children Services

Mike Deimling, Social Housing Analyst

Hans Kogel, CHC Chief Development and Regeneration Office

Ami Patel, CHC CFO & Director of Finance

Conclusion:

The Meadowbrook project continues to move forward in accordance with projected timelines. The report is being brought forward in order to secure the funding required from the City and to seek necessary approvals so that CHC may proceed to secure funding from CMHC.

Approvals: Name Title

Joe Mancina CFO & City Treasurer, Corporate Leader Finance & Technology

Jelena Payne Community Development & Health Commissioner

Onorio Colucci CAO

Notifications: Name Address Email

Hans Kogel, Windsor Essex [email protected] Community Housing Corporation

Judith Binder [email protected]

Appendices:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 97 of 124 Item 11.20

Council Report: C 46/2019

Subject: Forest Glade Arena Dehumidification Replacement - Ward 7

Reference: Date to Council: April 1, 2019 Author: Mel Douglas Manager, Parks and Facilities, Assets and Projects 519-253-2300 ext 2749 [email protected] Facilities Report Date: March 7, 2019 Clerk’s File #: SR2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: I. THAT City Council APPROVE the following funding sources in order to fund the $690,000 required for the Forest Glade Arena dehumidification replacement:  $130,000 from unallocated and surplus funding in the Corporate Arena Refurbishments capital project (REC-005-07);

 $220,000 of the 2019 funding for the Corporate Arena Refurbishments capital project (REC-005-07) which is included in the recommended 2019 7-year Capital Budget;

 A transfer of $340,000 in surplus funds from the Municipal Pools Refurbishment project (REC-003-07) to the Corporate Arena Refurbishment project (REC-005- 07); and, II. THAT Council APPROVE the purchase of RFT 99-18, Dehumidification (HVAC) - Forest Glade Arena to Vollmer Inc., to an upset limit of $690,000 (excluding HST), satisfactory, in financial content to City Treasurer, and in technical content to the Corporate Leader-Parks, Corporate Facilities, Recreation & Culture; and, III. THAT the CAO and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with Vollmer Inc., for the provision of the Forest Glade Arena dehumidification system replacement and services to an upset limit of $690,000 (excluding HST), satisfactory in form to the City Solicitor, in financial content to City Treasurer, and in technical content to the Corporate Leader-Parks, Corporate Facilities, Recreation & Culture.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 98 of 124 Executive Summary:

N/A

Background:

Forest Glade Arena is located at 3205 Forest Glade Dr. The dehumidification system is approximately 30 years old and has reached the end of its useful life. It is currently functioning at a decreased capacity. Typically, dehumidification systems have a predicted lifespan of 20-25 years.

A tender, #99-18, was issued last year to replace dehumidification systems at Capri Pizzeria Recreation Complex and Forest Glade Arena. There was only sufficient funding to complete the dehumification replacement at Capri Pizzeria Recreation Complex. A legal agreement was signed to complete the work, as per CAO #4642.

The contractor that was the lowest bidder and received the work agreed to hold the quoted price of $626,000 plus HST for the Forest Glade Dehumidification system until April 30, 2019 in order to determine if City Council would approve the funding for this project.

Discussion:

The current dehumidification system at Forest Glade Arena consists of three units on each of the arena pads (A and B). Some of the current dehumidification units are original to 1975 when the arena was constructed. The dehumidification system has been identified as needing replacement since it has lasted longer than its typical service life. Due to their age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find replacement parts leading to costly repairs.

The dehumidifiers remove the moisture from the air and bring in fresh air from outside leading to better air quality and circulation within the building. Removing the moisture from the building will also help with the ice making process. The moisture gathers on the wooden beams in the roof and then the condensation drips onto the ice causing bumps that are required to be removed during ice maintenance. However, there is brown staining caused by the drips that cannot be removed once the ice has been built and leads to the ice being aesthetically unpleasing. The moisture also gathers on the glass as fog and makes it difficult for spectators to see onto the ice.

Risk Analysis:

The current dehumidifiers lead to moisture levels in the building that promote the growth of mould in the dressing rooms. The mould is required to be removed as soon as it appears to mitigate the risk.

Due to the high humidity and moisture levels within both ice pads, the paint has begun to peel and those areas need to be repainted. As well, the metal support structures of

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 99 of 124 the rink boards have begun to rust from the moisture levels. These have been identified as moderate risks that will impact the operating and/or capital budget.

Financial Matters:

The proposed cost to replace the dehumidification system at Forest Glade Arena is estimated to be as follows (all amounts are net of HST as a full 100% input tax credit is applicable):

Description Estimate

Quoted work for Forest Glade Arena Dehumidification from $626,000 Contractor

Engineering $10,000

Project Management & Contingency $54,000

TOTAL $690,000

In order to fund the proposed dehumidification unit replacement, the following funding sources have been identified:

Funding Source Amount

Approval of the 2019 Corporate Arena Refurbishment Capital $220,000 Project (REC-005-07)

Unallocated Corporate Arena Refurbishment Capital Project (REC- $130,000 005-07) surplus from previous years

Transfer of funds within the Municipal Pools Refurbishment Capital $340,000 Project (REC-003-07) from previous years

TOTAL $690,000

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 100 of 124 It should be noted that due to the priority of replacing the dehumidification system at Forest Glade Arena, a detailed analysis was undertaken to identify surplus funding from completed projects as well as existing projects that did not require the full budgeted amount within the Municipal Pools Refurbishment capital project (REC-003-07). In addition, the seven-year capital budget plan identifies funding for future priorities in the years 2019-2025, which should mitigate any concerns with transferring the funds to the dehumidification project at Forest Glade Arena.

Consultations: Ray Mensour, Executive Director, Recreation & Culture Katie Coughlin, Manager, WFCU & Arenas Tom Graziano, Senior Manager, Facilities Alex Vucinic, Purchasing Manager Melissa Osborne, Senior Manager of Asset Planning Mark Spizzirri, Manager, Operating Budget & Financial Administration Val Clifford, Financial Planning Administrator, Recreation & Culture Alex Passa, Financial Planning Administrator, Facilities

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Forest Glade dehumidification replacement be approved and funded as detailed.

Planning Act Matters: N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Tom Graziano Senior Manager of Facilities

Ray Mensour Executive Director, Recreation & Culture

Jan Wilson Corporate Leader of Parks, Recreation, Culture and Facilities

Joe Mancina City Treasurer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Notifications: Name Address Email

Appendices:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 101 of 124 Item 11.21

Council Report: C 35/2019

Subject: 2019 Sewer Surcharge Update - City Wide

Reference: Date to Council: April 1, 2019 Author: Michael Dennis Financial Planning Administrator 519-255-6100 x6343 [email protected] Financial Planning Report Date: 2/21/2019 Clerk’s File #: SW2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Recommendation: I. THAT City Council RECEIVE the updated 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget and 4- Year Sewer Surcharge Forecasts (2020-2023) as presented in Appendix A of the report; and,

II. THAT the following wastewater rates BE APPROVED as soon as practicable:

A. Fixed Charge - To be based on the meter size as detailed in Appendix B ($17.38 for residential customers)

B. Water Consumption Charge - To be based on a rate per cubic metre of water ($2.90 per m3 of water for residential users and $1.20 per m3 for commercial customers); and,

III. THAT in order to avoid charging a surcharge on the water that is estimated to not have been returned to the sewer system, water consumption for the purpose of calculating the sewer surcharge bills for the extended summer months (May through October) continue to BE BASED on the lower of actual consumption or average winter usage (November through April) and that WUC continue to use the appropriate billing methodology to achieve this goal; and,

IV. THAT Council DIRECT the City Solicitor to update the Sewer Surcharge Bylaw to reflect the new rates,

V. THAT City Council ENDORSE the ‘Windsor / Essex Stormwater Management Standards Manual’ completed by Stantec Consulting and published December 6, 2018.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 102 of 124 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As part of the annual budget process, Sewer Surcharge funded operations are reviewed in detail. Both inflationary pressures and capital requirements are examined with an effort to reduce costs and identify operating efficiencies where possible, while maintaining appropriate service levels.

A large part of the budget review also includes a review of projected water consumption trends, which is completed annually in conjunction with the Windsor Utilities Commission. Water consumption trends are important in developing the annual Sewer Surcharge Budget as the City’s sewer surcharge revenues are largely based on water usage. While this model represents a true usage-based fee, it also leaves a large portion of the sewer surcharge revenue vulnerable to changes in consumption patterns. Over the past number of years, conservation has impacted consumption, and as a result, revenues have been trending lower. While some variable costs are related to consumption and therefore would also tend to decline along with consumption, other costs are relatively fixed (and/or impacted by inflation) and therefore revenues tend to decrease by more than the related expenditure decreases. While conservation is laudable and welcomed from an environmental point of view, it counter-intuitively does put pressure on the user rates.

A critical aspect that has been considered as part of this year’s review is the proportion of these costs assigned to residential and commercial customers. Historically, water consumption has typically been split 48% and 52%, respectively, between residential and commercial customers based on actual usage. The City’s model, however, currently allocates these costs at a 68% to 32% split. This allocation has been in place for several years now and has been essentially left status quo over the past number of years as a means to assist the business community during the economic downturn experienced a decade ago. Given the recent changing economic conditions in the City and the fact that based on the BMA studies Windsor’s commercial and industrial waste water charges fall significantly below our peers, Administration is recommending that, effective 2019, allocation of these costs begin to move to be more reflective of actual consumption patterns and that these changes be phased in over an extended period of perhaps five years. This change, starting in 2019, will result in some of the burden being shifted from residential to commercial customers, bringing commercial costs more in line with the provincial average as per the 2018 BMA Study.

Additionally, in light of the commitment that the City has made to the very successful Basement Flooding Subsidy Program, additional ongoing Capital funding of $2.6M is being proposed as part of the 2019 Sewer Surcharge budget. The budget also recommends $6M in additional capital funding for work expected to be required as part of the upcoming Sewer Master Plan as well as an additional $1M to account for inflationary pressures which continue to erode the purchasing power for the capital program. It is noted that this significant increase proposed for 2019 in sewer and flooding mitigation related investments represents a “first step” towards achieving a long term sustainable funding level to address the major investments that will be forthcoming from the Sewer Master Plan. The Storm Water financing study which is also currently underway will provide further funding options for council to consider going forward to

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 103 of 124 assist in addressing the continued and increasing investments required by the City to mitigate the storm and flooding effects of climate change on a longer term basis.

As a result of these substantial increases to the capital funding of the sewer program aimed at mitigating basement flooding, Administration is recommending an adjustment to the variable component of the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Rates. The proposed adjustment in rates (from $2.48 to $2.90 per cubic metre of water used by residential customers, and from $0.85 to $1.20 per cubic metre for commercial customers) will generate an estimated additional $10.5 M in sewer surcharge revenue in 2019 as compared to 2018. This is required in order to offset the noted net cost impact caused by lower consumption, inflationary pressures, and most importantly, the significant additional capital needs for storm and flooding mitigation works. If the rates are not adjusted, much needed capital expenditures related to rehabilitation and improvements to the sewer system would need be foregone in order to balance the budget.

The recommended adjustment for the combined fixed and consumption portions of the wastewater bill may translate into a monthly increase of $8.54 in costs for the average residential customer, assuming that the homeowner’s consumption remains unchanged in comparison to 2018. It should be noted that there is an ongoing trend across the province towards reduced consumption and that the average increase will likely be lower than this figure.

BACKGROUND:

The sewer surcharge on the water bill has been in place since January 1, 1994. Until that date, sewer and sewage treatment costs were funded from the property tax levy. The intent of the surcharge is to charge a user fee on the estimated amount of water that is discharged into the sewer system and has to be treated prior to being released back into the environment. The change in methodology from a tax-based charge to the levying of a surcharge is consistent with a user pay model that allows a measure of control over the costs by proactively managing water consumption.

This report provides an update on the 2019 sewer surcharge rates and expected revenues based on meter and water consumption projections received from Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC). Additionally, the update takes into account the very significant capital expenditures that are projected to be required in the coming years due to significant climate change impacts on the sewer system. The Sewer Surcharge budget is updated annually and a 5 year projection, inclusive of the sewer surcharge rates, is submitted as part of the annual City budget.

DISCUSSION:

City of Windsor Sewer Network Overview

The City’s sewer network consists of approximately 1,756.03 kilometres of the following four types of sewers:

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 104 of 124 1) Storm Sewers carry storm water runoff only. Storm sewers eventually drain to the Detroit River, untreated. There are 805.33 kilometres of storm sewers within the City of Windsor (including force mains).

2) Sanitary Sewers are designed to convey human domestic and industrial waste to the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. The City of Windsor maintains approximately 742.04 kilometres of sanitary sewers.

3) Combined Sewers were constructed throughout the City until the 1950s. Combined sewers carry both storm water and sanitary waste in a single pipe. Storm water and sanitary water flow together to the City’s wastewater treatment plants through 208.65 kilometres of combined sewers (including force mains).

4) Over-and-Under Sewers consist of a dedicated sanitary sewer pipe with a larger, separate storm pipe installed directly over it. There are 35.47 kilometres (included in storm and sanitary totals) of over-and-under sewers in Windsor which flow to the City’s wastewater treatment plants.

Together, combined and over-and-under sewers represent approximately 13.9% of the entire sewer system.

The City of Windsor has two wastewater treatment plants, the Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant (LRWRP) and the Little River Pollution Control Plant (LRPCP). The Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant serves approximately two-thirds of Windsor and accepts sanitary flow from the Town of LaSalle. The Little River Pollution Control Plant serves east Windsor and accepts sanitary flows from the Town of Tecumseh.

In addition to the two pollution control plants, the City has forty-three pumping stations (6 sanitary, 5 combined and 32 storm) and numerous storm water retention ponds. Pumping stations are a major component of the sewer network as they pump sanitary and storm water to the appropriate locations for either treatment or discharge. All sanitary pump stations have back-up power. All storm water pump stations, with few exceptions, have either back-up power, overflows or excess storage capacity i.e. storm water retention ponds.

In 2011, the City constructed the Mario Sonego Retention Treatment Basin (RTB) on the riverfront. The RTB (construction cost of approximately $67 million) captures, stores and treats combined sewer overflows that, prior to its construction, would otherwise have discharged directly to the Detroit River. Following a wet weather event, the solids retained by the RTB are conveyed by the river front sewer network to the LRWRP for further treatment.

All pump stations are monitored remotely from the LRWRP. A crew of five wastewater collection operators, licensed by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, perform regular onsite station checks and preventative maintenance to ensure that the stations operate efficiently.

The Sewer Master Plan and the Storm Water Funding Plan are both currently under way and are expected to be completed in late 2019 / early 2020. These plans will

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 105 of 124 identify the needs of our sewer and storm water systems and what corrective actions will be required over the short and long-term time horizons to address these items. These plans will also estimate the additional funding that will be required to undertake the significant work required under the plan as well as potential funding options, including such options as the introduction of a Storm Water based Utility fee which would be similar to what many other municipalities have already implemented to address the same concerns. A full comprehensive plan that includes the current sewer surcharge and the storm water operations would be brought forward to City Council for their consideration once these studies are completed.

Operating Expenditures

Although the City of Windsor makes improvements annually to the complex system of underground pipes, sewers and catch basins, given the volume of sewers to separate and/or repair it will take many years to completely accomplish. This requires an operating budget to not only maintain the operation of the Pollution Control plants and Pumping Stations, but also for the maintenance of the sewer system on an ongoing basis.

There are seventeen employees in the sewer maintenance area who perform sewer maintenance on the City’s 1,756.03 kilometre sewer network. The Sewer Maintenance Division has a preventative maintenance cleaning program wherein they routinely:

 Maintain sanitary sewers  Clean storm sewers  Clean catch basins  Clean and grade municipal drains and roadside ditches  Perform sewer locates

This work is supported by the following equipment or crews:

 4 flushers  1 rodder  1 set of sewer bucket machines  1 interceptor inspection crew  1 eel crew  2 sewer location crews

Due to volume and complexity (heavy sedimentation, roots, etc.), it takes more time to clean the City’s 950.69 kilometres of sanitary/combined sewer network (approximately 5 years for one cleaning cycle, subject to resource availability) than it does to clean the storm water sewers. Storm water sewers which carry clear rain water are not as complicated as sanitary sewers to clean and therefore it normally takes only 3 years to complete a cycle of cleaning the City’s storm water sewer network. Rodding of sewers in areas of the City known for root infiltration occurs continuously and takes approximately 2.75 years to complete one cleaning cycle.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 106 of 124 The City has a program in place to video sewers to assess their condition. Contractors are used for this function as well as with all sewer repair and installations. Additionally, a system is in place to alert staff of upcoming forecasted rain events, which then proactively monitors the sewer system to address as many issues that arise as possible.

Other operating expenditures are incurred for various other sewer related activities, street sweeping, repayment of debt charges (for the Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant upgrade and expansion) as well as administrative and support services.

Capital Expenditures

Over the last several years, the sewer surcharge has contributed $21.6 million annually to fund sewer related projects in the capital budget (compared to approximately $5 million in the early 2000’s). These expenditures fund sewer rehabilitation projects which reconstruct deteriorating sewers and support the installation of new sewers, as well as the replacement of old sewers. In addition, the downspout disconnection and backwater valve installation program, aimed at reducing basement flooding, are some of the worthwhile projects funded from the sewer surcharge. These ongoing capital expenditures are crucial in order to reduce the risk of basement flooding and to protect the environment.

In addition to the detailed analysis of Sewer Surcharge-funded Operations conducted as part of the Sewer Surcharge Budget, Administration has conducted a similar analysis on capital expenditures and identified three areas that will require additional funding, beginning in 2019:

 Inflation impacts on purchasing power – Keeping the capital expenditure budget fixed at $21.6 million per year for a number of years has made completing the same amount of work every year a challenge. Administration recommends that an additional $1 million be added to the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget to address these inflationary impacts, and that this amount be considered for a possible increase of $1 million each year thereafter, until 2023. In 2023, the additional contribution to capital expenditures would reach $5 million.

 Sewer Master Plan projects – The City is currently finalizing the Sewer Master Plan, which will assist in identifying future capital projects which will require Sewer Surcharge funding. In anticipation of these significant funding needs, Administration is recommending that as a first step towards ensuring a sustainable funding level for these works that an initial $6 million in additional capital funding be included in this year’s Sewer Surcharge Budget. Administration further recommends that this additional base funding be continued for the foreseeable future. This additional capital funding is also being recommended to mitigate the risk that the City not be successful in receiving the approximate $32M Disaster Mitigation Funding grant, which was recently applied for to address storm water flooding. The proposed $6M in annual funding, over 5 years, would total

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 107 of 124 $30M and could be used to fund any shortfall in grant funding thereby ensuring that all of the works contemplated can be completed by the City. Even if the City is successful in receiving the DMAF grant the expected capital investments coming out of the Sewer Master Plan are expected to far exceed the funding that will be available from this annual $6M increase and further options will need to considered to further increase the funding levels on an ongoing basis for basement flooding prevention measures.

 Basement Flooding Subsidy Program – The Basement Flooding Subsidy Program, which was introduced in 2016, has been extremely popular with residents and demand has far exceeded expectations. As a result and notwithstanding the additional $3.5 million recently allocated to the Program, Administration projects that the Program will fall into a deficit position in the near future. To fully fund the Program, and ensure the future sustainability of the Program, Administration estimates that an average of $2.6 million per year in additional funding will be required. Administration recommends that this amount be allocated to the Program as part of the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget.

Additionally, the sewer surcharge currently funds approximately $4.4 million of equipment purchases and replacements at the two water reclamation plants, as well as the pumping stations through transfers to the Pollution Control Reserve. As part of the 2018 Sewer Surcharge Budget, an increase to the annual transfer of $919,865, to be phased in over four years, was contemplated. Taking into consideration the balance of the reserve, and in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Reserve, the entire increase was taken in 2018. Additionally, as part of the 2019 Budget, a budget issue recommending an increase in the contribution to the Pollution Control Reserve of an additional $450,000 is also recommended.

Windsor / Essex Stormwater Management Standards Manual

Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) retained Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec) to develop a consistent Stormwater Management standard for the Windsor and Essex Region. A technical committee was established with local consulting engineers experienced in stormwater management. Various consultations were had with municipalities and the technical committee throughout the process. The manual, ‘Windsor/Essex Stormwater Management Standards Manual’, was completed December 2018.

The manual does not replace sound engineering practices, but rather provides guidance to practitioners with respect to methodologies and design criteria related to stormwater management, specifically related to the local challenges of this region. This manual also accounts for current best efforts to increase stormwater management infrastructure resilience with respect to Climate Change and the contents of the manual will be reviewed and updated as required.

It is recommended that the ‘Windsor/Essex Stormwater Management Standards Manual’ completed by Stantec Consulting published December 6th, 2018 be endorsed by City Council.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 108 of 124 RISK ANALYSIS:

As in prior years, there are a number of risks to be considered in conjunction with developing the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget and rates, some of which are summarized briefly below:

Operating Expenditure Risks - The projections put forth are based on current estimates of the required expenditures relative to Pollution Control and Sewer Maintenance and Repair, etc. These estimates are expected to be reflective of final actual costs, however there is the risk given that these costs will be incurred throughout the year that some fluctuations in the expenditures as compared to budget may occur. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as possible; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as moderate. Therefore this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk comes from the Quarterly Variance monitoring and the Sewer Surcharge reserve fund.

Water Consumption Risk - Budget pressure on the sewer surcharge rate can result from any sewer surcharge revenue decrease related to the reduced consumption of water (an ongoing trend). Essentially, the decreased water consumption reduces the City’s revenues from the sewer surcharge. At this point the water consumption is an estimate and is subject to considerable variability. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as possible; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as moderate. Therefore this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk comes from the Quarterly Variance reports and the Sewer Surcharge Reserve Fund. Additionally, it should be noted that the City’s consumption projections differ from those provided by WUC. The City’s consumption projections are based on the consumption trends (net of the excess summer usage) of the last few years and are reflective of moderate consumption decreases. The WUC consumption estimates are much more conservative and continue to reflect much greater projected consumption decreases for 2019.

Capital Project Risks - The capital budget items put forth reflect the best estimate of the capital costs required to complete the various projects under the capital plan. As with all budgets, these represent management’s best estimates of the expected capital costs; however as with all capital projects there is always the risk that costs may increase due to unforeseen issues that could not have been reasonably predicted. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as possible; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as moderate. Therefore this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk comes from the Capital Variance reports and from other sewer projects in a surplus position that can be used to fund projects in a deficit. In addition, there is Sewer Surcharge reserve fund, if necessary.

Risks from Possible Reduction in Capital Program – Consideration may be given to the possibility of reducing the Capital Budget component of the Sewer Surcharge. Any consideration to such options should take into account the significant negative impacts on the infrastructure and could result in an inability to further combat basement flooding. There could also be a resultant impact on the ability to maintain the existing sewers, thereby reducing the pace of eliminating combined or leaky sewers. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as unlikely; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as high. Therefore, this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 109 of 124 comes from the development of the Asset Management Plan that will, on an ongoing basis, assist with the prioritization of capital projects.

Risks from Depleting the Sewer Surcharge Reserve – Options may be considered to reduce / deplete the sewer surcharge reserve in order to maintain, or even reduce, the sewer surcharge rates. This would leave the Corporation without an adequate dedicated reserve to fund any shortfalls. This is especially risky given the historical trend of declining revenues due to decreasing water consumption. As well, this would compromise the Corporation’s ability to fund the City’s share of projects funded by provincial grants that are announced periodically for sewer/wastewater purposes. It is important to note that $3.5 million from the Sewer Surcharge Reserve was used in 2017 to help fund the Basement Flooding Prevention Subsidy Program. This would not have been possible without an appropriate reserve fund. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as possible; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as moderate. Therefore this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk comes from the development of a five year forecast to anticipate future pressures.

Climate Change Risks - Changes in precipitation as a result of climate change may increase or decrease water infiltration into the sewer system. This would impact treatment costs. Severity of the storms may also increase the risk that additional flooding may occur in our area. The likelihood of this risk materializing is rated as possible; the likely impact of the consequences is rated as moderate. Therefore, this should be considered a moderate risk. Mitigation for this risk comes from the establishment of a budget that is based on historical averages and trends and monitoring through the quarterly variance reporting. In addition, there is the Sewer Surcharge reserve fund, if necessary. It should also be noted that, as the City converts more of the existing combined sewers to separated storm and sanitary sewers, less storm water will be directed to the treatment plants for processing, which will reduce treatment costs.

Negative Public Response Risk- As has been noted in this report, administration is proposing a significant increase of $9.6M (approximately 42%) in capital investments from the 2019 Sewer Surcharge to address flood mitigation. Additionally administration is further proposing a plan to begin shifting the allocation of costs from residential to commercial/industrial users to be more reflective of actual consumption patterns and to be more consistent with the fee structures generally found in other municipalities across the province relative to the split between residential and commercial/industrial users. The proposed changes would result in significant increases in wastewater charges for 2019. However, it is noteworthy that of the total recommended increase in the sewer surcharge of $9.7 million, fully $9.6 million (or 99%) is for capital funding increases to deal with enhanced basement flooding measures; only approximately $100,000 of the increase (or 1%) is for operating budget issues. The large scale nature of investments to address flood mitigation measures (including future costs to be identified in the upcoming Sewer Master Plan) is such that an increase in capital funding is essential. . Continuing communication efforts will be critical in order to educate the public relative to these significant needs as well as the successes already achieved through the basement subsidy program and other sewer projects. Administration will be continuing to actively pursue senior level grant funding such as DMAF, as well as undertaking a

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 110 of 124 Storm Water Financing Study in order to provide further options to City Council to consider to fund Storm Water and Flood mitigation initiatives going forward.

FINANCIAL MATTERS:

2018 Year-End Results

The City is reporting a 2018 budget surplus for its’ Sewer Surcharge Operating Fund of $862,696, or 1.42% of the total budget. The actual transfer from the Sewer Surcharge Operating Fund was $67,731, due to a budgeted draw from the reserve of $794,965. This was largely due to the one time increase in the transfer to the Equipment Reserve made all in 2018 as opposed to spreading it out over 4 years. As has been past practice, any surplus realized at year end was transferred to the Sewer Surcharge Reserve Fund. The current balance in this reserve fund is approximately $2.9 million and is used as both a rate stabilization fund and a capital expenditure fund. The latter use is of particular importance as without it, matching provincial grants and the $3.5 million in funding for the Basement Flooding Prevention Subsidy Program in 2017 would not have been possible.

Recommended 2019 Expenditures

As shown in the table below, the majority of the expenditure increases are not due to Sewer Surcharge-funded Operations, but are instead a result of much needed capital investments in the City’s sewer infrastructure as detailed earlier in this report.

Year-Over-Year Breakdown of Sewer Surcharge-Funded Expenditures

2018 2019 Change ($)

Operating $39,156,991 $39,297,145 $140,154

Capital

- Base 21,600,000 21,600,000 -

- Inflation adjustment to protect - 1,000,000 1,000,000 purchasing power of base funding

- Sewer Master Plan funding - 6,000,000 6,000,000 requirements to address basement flooding prevention measures

- Basement Flooding Subsidy - 2,587,751 2,587,751 Program

Total Capital 21,600,000 31,187,751 9,587,751

Total Operating & Capital $60,756,991 $70,484,896 $9,727,905

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 111 of 124

Operating Expenditures

Sewer Surcharge-funded operating costs are very challenging to reduce in the short term. Many of the processes in the Pollution Control plants are provincially legislated and must meet ever increasing environmental standards. The maintenance of the sewer system is also driven by required repairs, with most being reactionary in nature due to the age of the City’s sewer infrastructure. Failing to provide ongoing maintenance will result in more expensive future replacement costs.

It is also important to note that sewer maintenance and repair, drain maintenance, capital budget construction of sanitary, storm, storm relief and combined sewer replacement, and the support required for the above are all traditionally funded by the Sewer Surcharge.

The Sewer Surcharge-funded Operating Budget was reviewed in detail as part of the 2019 Operating Budget process in an effort to reduce costs and identify operating efficiencies wherever possible. The main inflationary budget pressure is related to increased costs for salary/wages and benefits, which is partially offset by reductions in expected utility costs and EnWin administrative costs.

Capital Expenditures

In addition to the operating expenditures, the Sewer Surcharge budget has, in recent years, included $21.6 million in annual capital funding that is used to fund sewer-related capital projects. As mentioned previously, this amount has remained at this level and has not increased to offset inflationary pressures over a number of years. Administration cannot complete the same amount of sewer work with the same level of funding in the face of rising tender prices. Given this ongoing challenge, Administration recommends that the capital expenditures be increased by $1 million in 2019 and by an incremental $1 million per year thereafter, to continue to address the erosion of purchasing power resulting from ongoing inflationary forces.

Additionally, the City is undertaking a comprehensive study of its’ sewer system as part of the Sewer Master Plan, It is expected that the sewer and flood mitigation investments that will be identified in the Sewer Master Plan will be significant and therefore in anticipation of this a substantial increase in necessary funding, Administration recommends than an additional $6 million be included as part of the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget. Administration further recommends that this increase continue until 2023, which covers the current projection period. Any additional increases would need to be considered in conjunction with the results of the Storm Water Financing Study which will be forthcoming.

To further address the City’s commitment to funding the highly successful Basement Flooding Subsidy Program, Administration recommends that $2.6 million per year in funding be allocated to this Program. These contributions will address a projected short term deficit and ensure the future sustainability of the Program. These estimates are conservative and take into account that demand for the Program is heavily reliant upon

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 112 of 124 significant weather events, which are unpredictable. The funding for this Program will be re-assessed on an annual basis. Surplus funds, should they become available, can be redirected to other Flooding Abatement programs, such as Small Sewer Repairs or the Closed Circuit Television initiative, which have been underfunded in recent years due to the redirecting of funds to the Basement Flooding Subsidy Program.

Based on the budget issues provided to Council in the budget documents, Administration is recommending an increase to the Sewer Surcharge expenditures for 2019 of $9,727,905 ($70,484,896 less $60,756,991). As indicated, 99% of the increase is for enhanced funding for capital projects and initiatives aimed at mitigating basement flooding issues largely caused by climate change impacts.

2019 Sewer Surcharge Levy Impact

Due to a 2018 budgeted draw from the Sewer Surcharge Reserve of $794,965, the current Sewer Surcharge Levy is budgeted at $59,962,026, which is slightly lower than the budgeted expenditure amount as noted above. In order to fully fund the above noted pressures and increases for 2019, the levy amount would need to increase to $70,484,896. This represents a 17.55% increase to the Sewer Surcharge Levy. The updated Sewer Surcharge Budget and Forecast (2019-2023) is attached as Appendix A to this report.

Recommended Change in Rates

Generally, one would assume that with the decreasing water consumption trend, the City’s expenses should also decrease. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the City’s projected Sewer Surcharge-related expenditures are not tied to consumption but are rather the necessary cost of operating and maintaining the sewer system assets.

Facing reduced water consumption, inflationary increases, and the need to fund replacement of aging equipment, the Sewer Surcharge water consumption rates for 2019 are recommended to be increased to $2.90 per cubic metre of water for residential customers and to $1.20 per cubic meter for commercial customers. The fixed charge component of the surcharge is recommended to be increased per the amounts shown in Appendix B from $15.84 in 2018 to $17.38 in 2019 for residential customers). This increase is required to accommodate the increased capital funding requirements of the City as detailed throughout this report.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 113 of 124 Typical Residential Customer

(using 200 M3 of water per year)

Sewer Rates 2018 Current Monthly 2019 Proposed Monthly Rates Rates

Fixed Sewer Charge $15.84 $17.38

Variable Sewer Charge $2.48 per cubic metre of $2.90 per cubic metre of water used (reduced for water used (reduced for excess summer excess summer consumption) consumption)

If the recommended rates are approved, the City is projected to collect $10.5 million more in Sewer Surcharge revenues than in 2018. The impact of the increased rates to the average residential consumer is as follows:

Average Monthly Residential Rate

2018 2019 Change ($)

Fixed $15.84 $17.38 $1.54

Variable* $41.34 $48.34 $7.00

Total $57.18 $65.72 $8.54

* Assumed average monthly consumption of 16.67m3

Given the proposed increase in rates, consumers using the same quantity of water in 2019 as in 2018 will see an overall increase of 14.94% to their sewer surcharge bills, which would equate to approximately $8.54 per month for the average residential customer, or $102.48 per year. Although general trends experienced by WUC indicate decreased consumption and continues to be highly encouraged, any savings seen through reduced consumption are unlikely to offset the rate increases recommended by Administration.

Given that consumption for commercial customers varies significantly, analysis for the average commercial customer has not been provided. However, the rates for a typical 1” service are provided below.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 114 of 124

Typical Commercial Customer

Sewer Rates 2018 Current Rates 2019 Proposed Rates

Fixed Sewer Charge $80.46 for typical 1” service $108.11 for typical 1” service

Variable Sewer Charge $0.85 per cubic metre of $1.20 per cubic metre of water used (reduced for water used (reduced for excess summer excess summer consumption) consumption)

Although the increase to commercial rates is higher than the residential rates, the majority of the increase is due to the realigning of the burden from residential to commercial customers to reflect the actual consumption patterns. After many years of being below the provincial average, the increase to the typical commercial customer will be 34.4 % for the Fixed Charge and 41.2% for the Variable Charge. The total costs of the new recommended commercial rates will still remain below the provincial average as per the 2018 BMA Study.

Impact of WUC’s “Winter Average Daily Usage” Calculation

This calculation will continue to be completed for each customer with the sewer surcharge rates to be applied to the lower of actual water usage or winter average, whichever is lower, for each customer. This ensures that excess summer water usage (for watering lawns, washing cars, etc) is not used in calculating the sewer surcharge.

Sewer Surcharge Revenue

Below is a table that details the projected 2019 sewer surcharge revenues as compared to 2018. The allocation between residential & commercial customers has changed to more accurately reflect actual consumption patterns, which have typically remained static at 48% residential, 52% commercial. This change is planned to be implemented over an extended period of perhaps five-year period, from 2019 to 2023, and will be reassessed on an annual basis. The allocation between fixed and variable costs remains at approximately 30/70 (fixed vs. variable) for residential customers.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 115 of 124 Budgeted 2018 Sewer Revenues ($) Projected 2019 Sewer Revenues ($) Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total

Fixed 8,079,556 8,079,556 10,762,403 10,762,403 Component 12,452,923 12,452,923 13,728,658 13,728,658 20,532,478 24,491,062

Variable 10,996,677 10,996,677 14,648,166 14,648,166 Component 28,432,871 28,432,871 31,345,668 31,345,668 39,429,548 45,993,834 Total 40,885,794 19,076,232 59,962,026 45,074,327 25,410,569 70,484,896

Residential vs 68% 32% 64% 36% Commercial Fixed/Variable 30% 42% 30% 42% Allocation 70% 58% 70% 58%

Note: The percentages above have been rounded for presentation purposes however; the dollar values are reflective of the actual calculated amounts.

Allocation of Costs

As previously mentioned, the residential/commercial revenue ratio of 68%/32% has been used for many years. Actual consumption, however, has historically been allocated between residential and commercial customers at a 48%/52% allocation. As part of the 2019 Sewer Surcharge Budget, Administration is proposing to begin the process of adjusting the split of revenues received to more accurately reflect historical consumption patterns. This change will be reassessed annually, with the plan to implement the transition over a five-year period that will end in 2023. Analysis would be required each year to assess the impacts of the change and determine an appropriate period for moving the allocations.

Other Factors Impacting the Sewer Surcharge Revenue

In recent years, the City experienced a trend of stable to lower water consumption similar to other municipalities in the province. The trend of lower water consumption appears to be continuing for 2019. This trend is likely related to water conservation measures and technology. It is difficult to predict if this trend will stabilize or continue in future years.

It should be noted that, in addition to the previously discussed capital expenditures increases recommended by Administration, the declining consumption puts upward pressure on the surcharge rate. The reason for this is that a significant portion of the costs related to wastewater are largely fixed and therefore reduced revenues from consumption cannot generally be offset by equal decreases in operating costs. Therefore, the impact of water consumption on sewer surcharge revenues remains a significant risk to the sewer surcharge model.

Stormwater Financing Study

The City is currently undertaking a study to research alternative options to fund the City’s stormwater infrastructure. One objective of this study is to establish a seperate

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 116 of 124 funding mechanism for the City’s stormwater infrastructure that would assess costs based on a more accurate measure of a customers’ burden, whether residential or commercial, on the stormwater system. Depending on the results of the study, this may result in substantial changes to the current Sewer Surcharge model. A comprehensive model factoring in sanitary and storm water costs and associated revenue requirements will be brought forward to City Council once the sewer master plan and storm water funding studies are complete.

Several other Ontario municipalities have already implemented some form of stormwater financing fee, as detailed in the table below:

Municipalities with Stormwater Utility Charges

(Source: 2018 BMA)

 London  Richmond Hill

 Middlesex Centre  Aurora

 Kitchener  Guelph

 Waterloo  Markham

 St. Thomas  Newmarket

 Mississauga  Vaughan

Windsor / Essex Stormwater Management Standards Manual

There are no direct costs associated with Council endorsing the Manual. The manual will be used to provide guidance for design and methodologies to be considered with respect to stormwater management with specific consideration given to the challenges experienced in the local region.

Comparison of Charges

Windsor’s sewer surcharge fees are higher than the provincial average in the residential category, though they are significantly lower than average for high usage commercial accounts. The table below illustrates the annual wastewater differences.

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 117 of 124 Residential Commercial Industrial Wastewater Costs Wastewater Costs Wastewater Costs

Annual Usage 200 m3 10,000 m3 30,000 m3

Provincial Average $557 $18,790 $53,414

Windsor $686 $12,281 $32,296

Difference $129 ($6,509) ($21,118)

Source: 2018 BMA Study

This higher residential rate however, is not due to inefficiencies (see attached Appendix C – MBNCanada - Total Cost of Wastewater Treatment/Disposal and Collection/Conveyance per Mega litre that shows Windsor’s operating costs are among the lowest in the country); rather, the main reason for the higher cost is the amount of sewer capital projects that are funded by the sewer surcharge. Windsor’s share of the sewer surcharge revenues that go to fund capital projects ranks highest in the province. In other words, as an older municipality with older infrastructure the funds are being put to good use to fund projects aimed at maintaining and updating the valuable wastewater management assets. Other factors to consider which make comparing Windsor’s sewer surcharge fees to other municipalities difficult is the ability of other municipalities to generate revenues from stormwater fees, as mentioned above, and development charges in faster growing municipalities, such as in the Greater Toronto Area. Additionally, some municipalities may use revenues collected through property taxes to pay for their sewer infrastructure and therefore, their sewer surcharge fees may not be entirely reflective of the costs to operate and maintain the municipalities’ respective sewer infrastructure systems.

Additionally, as shown in Appendix D – MBNCanada – Mega litres of Treated Water per 100,000 population, Windsor treats, on a per capita basis, more water than the majority of municipalities across the country.

Based on the 2018 BMA Study, when comparing the combined costs of property taxes, water, and the sewer surcharge, the average Windsor property owner pays less in total charges ($4,397) than the provincial average ($5,045).

Contributions to the Pollution Control Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund

Annually, contributions are made from the Sewer Surcharge Operating Fund to the Pollution Control Reserve. The Reserve is used to fund capital expenditures related to equipment refurbishment & replacement at the Pollution Control facilities. Additionally, the Reserve, and the contributions to it, have been in place for some time and are monitored and adjusted periodically as capital needs change.

Presently, the annual contributions to the Pollution Control Reserve total $4,417,745. Given current contribution levels and capital spending projections, the Reserve is projected to be in a deficit position by 2021 and is projected to be in a $1.5 million deficit

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 118 of 124 position by 2023. An increase of $450,000 to the transfer is being recommended in the 2019 budget to keep the reserve fund in a positive position.

Options to Achieve 0% Overall Sewer Surcharge Levy Increase

There are limited options available, should Council wish to keep the total Sewer Surcharge-funded expenses unchanged for 2019. As previously mentioned, Administration, as with any budget, reviews both revenues and expenses in great detail annually to ensure cost effective and efficient operations.

As indicated many of the costs are driven by provincial environmental regulations, plus much needed capital expenditures for the City’s sewer infrastructure. Significant cost reductions could only come from reducing contributions for equipment replacement, capital projects or sewer maintenance. None of these are recommended as they would increase flooding risks.

The 2019 Sewer Surcharge Operating Fund Budget includes $9.6M in additional capital investments to the sewer infrastructure. Only $3.6M (i.e. $1M for inflation and $2.6M for the Basement Flooding Subsidy Program) of the funding has been allocated to fund projects in the capital budget. While strongly recommended by administration that the $6M increase in capital funding proceed, City Council may choose to reduce or eliminate the $6M in additional annual funding. Reducing this funding increases the corporate risk if the Disaster Mitigation Grant Funding of approximately $32M is not approved in its entirety. Any shortfall in funding would then result in the required sewer infrastructure work contemplated under the grant not being completed as planned.

It is important to note however that even it the DMAF grant is ultimately approved that the funding requirements for Sewer and Flood mitigation works that will be identified in the upcoming Sewer Master Plan will most likely be very significant and therefore this initial increased investment of $6M will enable City Council to action any further items coming from the plan in a timely manner. In the absence of this additional funding City Council would have limited options to action important priority works without other sources of funding such as grants which often times require matching funds to be provided in any event.

It normally takes a couple of months for Enwin to update their billing system with the new sewer surcharge rates and to complete all the required testing. This will result in an early summer implementation timeframe for the new sewer surcharge rates to become effective. This will, in turn, result in the 2019 sewer surcharge revenue increase to be prorated for only the remaining months of 2019, resulting in approximately $5.5M in less revenue for this year. Given the $6M in additional funding has not yet been allocated in the capital budget, this does not present a concern for 2019. The revenue will be annualized in 2020 when a full year of billing will be available.

CONSULTATIONS:

Windsor Utilities Commission

Public Works Operations

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 119 of 124 CONCLUSION:

Given recent trend of lower water consumption projections provided by WUC staff, increasing costs in the sewer surcharge operating fund, and the need to continue to fund much needed investments in the City’s sewer infrastructure, it is recommended that sewer surcharge consumption rates be increased for 2019. It is also expected that significant additional funding will be required in the future as sewer infrastructure requirements are identified and prioritized for implementation to address basement flooding within the City.

PLANNING ACT MATTERS:

N/A

Approvals: Name Title

Tony Ardovini Deputy Treasurer, Financial Planning

Mark Winterton City Engineer

Joe Mancina Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer

Onorio Colucci Chief Administrative Officer

Appendices:

Appendix A – Sewer Surcharge Budget Forecast

Appendix B – Fixed Sewer Surcharge Rates

Appendix C – Total Cost of Wastewater of Collection/Conveyance and Treatment/Disposal per Megalitre (2018 BMA Study)

Appendix D – Megalitres of Treated Wastewater per 100,000 Population (2018 BMA Study)

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 120 of 124 Appendix A Sewer Surcharge - 2019 Budget and Four Year Forecast (2020 - 2023) Forecast Based on Amended Rates @ January 1, 2019

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES Budget ($) Forecast ($) Forecast ($) Forecast ($) Forecast ($) Forecast ($) POLLUTION CONTROL Treatment Plants & Pump Stations 16,724,822 15,904,866 16,382,012 16,873,472 17,379,677 17,901,067 Depreciation (Transfer To Reserves for Equipment Replacement) 4,417,745 4,867,745 4,867,745 4,867,745 4,867,745 4,867,745 21,142,567 20,772,611 21,249,757 21,741,217 22,247,422 22,768,812

SEWER MAINTENANCE & REPAIR PW - Operations 5,947,177 6,129,773 6,313,666 6,503,076 6,698,168 6,899,114 PW - Environmental Services 1,757,874 1,709,220 1,760,497 1,813,311 1,867,711 1,923,742 PW - Engineering & Corporate Projects 251,191 255,363 263,024 270,915 279,042 287,413 PW - Administration 170,256 183,281 188,779 194,443 200,276 206,284 8,126,498 8,277,637 8,525,966 8,781,745 9,045,197 9,316,553

Total Public Works Operating Budget Expenditures 29,269,065 29,050,248 29,775,723 30,522,962 31,292,619 32,085,365

Total Public Works Capital Expenditures 21,600,000 21,600,000 21,600,000 21,600,000 21,600,000 21,600,000 Baseline Funding Inflation - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 Basement Flooding Subsidy - 2,587,751 2,587,751 2,587,751 2,587,751 2,587,751 Enhanced Sewer Master Plan Projects - 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES 50,869,065 60,237,999 61,963,474 63,710,713 65,480,370 67,273,116

OTHER EXPENDITURES

Debt Servicing Costs - LRWRP 20 Year Debenture 2,565,079 2,565,079 2,565,079 2,565,079 2,565,079 2,565,079 ENWIN Administration Fee / WRAP Funding 3,217,660 2,865,158 2,951,113 3,039,646 3,130,836 3,224,761 Overhead Allocation (Transfer to Current) 3,505,187 4,216,660 4,337,443 4,459,750 4,583,626 4,709,118 Appeal Refunds & General Expenses 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES 9,887,926 10,246,897 10,453,635 10,664,475 10,879,540 11,098,958

TOTAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES 60,756,991 70,484,896 72,417,109 74,375,189 76,359,910 78,372,074

SURCHARGE REVENUES 59,962,026 70,484,896 72,417,109 74,375,189 76,359,910 78,372,074

NET CHANGE IN SEWER SURCHARGE (794,965) - - - - - OPERATING FUND #28

PROJECTED CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF SEWER SURCHARGE RESERVE FUND #153, NET OF ENCUMBRANCES 3,793,452 2,926,440 2,926,440 2,926,440 2,926,440 2,926,440

NOTES: A - Assumes general expenditures increase at a rate of 3.0% per annum (2020-2023) for inflation. B - Overhead expenditure allocation based on 7% of total Public Works expenditures for 2019-2023. C - Revenues are based on 2019 water meter and consumption projections received from WUC staff. It should be noted that the City is spreading out WUC's projected volume decline for 2019 over a five-year period, from 2019 to 2023. D - The typical residential customer will see a 14.94% increase to their monthly bill for 2019 when compared to 2018. E - The chart above is meant to reflect the net wastewater expenditures funded by the sewer surcharge. Therefore, expenditures and revenues in the chart exclude approximately $2.5 million in expenses funded directly by billings to the towns of Lasalle & Tecumseh.

It should be stressed that both the Windsor Utility Commission's water consumption and Public Works' expenditure figures are projections. As with all projections, they are based on a number of variables and assumptions that, if not achieved, may materially impact the results of this model. This is especially true for longer term projections such as this.

Supplementary Agenda - SpecialPage 1Meeting of 1 of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 121 of 124 Appendix B

Fixed Sewer Surcharge Rates

Residential Accounts

Stand Alone Fixed Sewer Surcharge: $ 17.38

Commercial Accounts

Stand Alone Meter Size Fixed Sewer Surcharge 1" 25mm $ 108.11 1 1/2" 40mm $ 253.26 2" 51mm $ 422.76 3" 75mm $ 759.81 4" 100mm $ 1,345.45 6" 150mm $ 2,456.70 8" 200mm $ 4,093.34 10" 250mm $ 6,743.23

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 122 of 124 Appendix C

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 123 of 124 Appendix D

Supplementary Agenda - Special Meeting of Council - April 1, 2019 2019 Operating & Captial Budget Page 124 of 124