HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS Agenda - 2019-06-10Finance & Corporate Services Committee
Agenda
Monday, June 10, 2019
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
1:00 p.m. -3:00 p.m.
Kitchener City Hall
Council Chamber
nd
200 King St.W. -2Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1Chair -Councillor S. DaveyVice-Chair -Councillor P. Singh
PART ONE -10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Consent Items
The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance
with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed
as under this section.
1.DSD-19-136-Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
-Three-Party Agreement with the City of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo
2.DSD-19-137-Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
-Three-year Funding Agreement with the Province of Ontario and City ofKitchener
3.CSD-19-018-Noise Exemption –Holy Trinity Serbian Church
-700 Fischer Hallman Road –June 15 and 16, 2019
Please note: Any recommendation arising from the Committee regarding this matter will be considered at the
special Council meeting scheduled for later this same date.
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five
(5)minutes.
Item 4–Sean Geobey,University of Waterloo
Item 5–Stefan Krzeczunowicz,Hemson Consulting
Discussion Items
4.FIN-19-050-Participatory Budgeting Debrief(60 min)
5.FIN-19-049-2019Development Charges By-law(60 min)
PART TWO -1:00 p.m. -3:00 p.m.
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum
of five (5) minutes.
None at this time
Discussion Items
6.COR-19-024-Payday Loan Establishments(20 min)
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
Finance & Corporate Services
Committee Agenda Page 2June 10, 2019
Discussion Items(Cont’d)
7.COR-19-025-Integrity Commissioner Advice under the Municipal Conflict of Interest(20 min)
Actand Code of Conduct Housekeeping Amendments
8.DSD-19-098-Kitchener Economic Development Strategy –Public Consultation(45min)
(Staff will provide a 10 minute presentation on this matter)
9.DSD-19-143-Disaster Mitigation andAdaptation Fund(DMAF) Supplementary Agreements(10 min)
Information Items
CAO-19-008-Business Plan:Status Update-April 2019
COR-19-019-2018 Election Debrief
FIN-19-051-2018 Development Charge Reserve Fund
Jeff Bunn
Manager, Council & Committee Services/Deputy City Clerk
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Farrell, Manager, Small Business Centre, 519 741 2200 ext. 7294
PREPARED BY: Chris Farrell, Manager, Small Business Centre, 519 741 2200 ext. 7294
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 16, 2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-136
SUBJECT:Three-Party Agreementwith the City of Kitchener, Cambridge, and
Waterloo for Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
_________________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: That the General Manager, Development Services be authorized to
execute a three year funding agreement between the City of Kitchener, City of Cambridge and
Cityof Waterloo to collaborate on delivery of the Waterloo Region Small Business Centre services
and programs funded in part by the Province of Ontario; said agreement to be to the satisfaction
of the City Solicitor;and further,
That the General Manager, Development Services be authorized to execute on behalf of the City
of Kitchener any agreements or documentation pertaining to services and programs provided by
the Waterloo Region Small Business Centre provided said agreements or documentation is to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
BACKGROUND:
The Waterloo Region Small Business Centre (WRSBC) has provided thousands of entrepreneurs
with the training and support necessary to start and grow successful businesses. From concept,
through start-up and early growth stages of business, the Centre(s) area one-stop source for
information, guidance and professional advice on starting and running a successfulbusiness.
Servicing individuals of all ages and educational backgroundsand businesses from all industry
sectors. WRSBC isone of a network of 54 centres in Ontario supportedby the province and
municipalities. The Waterloo Region Small Business Centre operates from three locationswith
Kitchener having4.5 employees and the Cambridge and Waterloosatellite officeseach having one
employee.The three municipalities have collaborated to deliver small business services since 1998 in
Kitchenerand Cambridge and in Waterloo since 2006.
The province provides annual funding to support core services,youth and grant programs. Other funding
sources includemunicipalities, Regionof Waterloo, special projects, private sector sponsors and fees for
services from workshops and events.
The City of Kitchener office acts as the WRSBC headquarters to:
oversee the implementation of a wide range of entrepreneurial servicesand the establishment
of initiatives and programs,
develop and implement marketing and digital media strategies,
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
1 - 1
liaison,communication, collaboration with funders, partners, sponsors, volunteers,
coordinateschedules for workshops, events, staffingin Kitchener, Cambridge, and Waterloo
locations,
ensure provincial programming is delivered along with collection and submission of statistical
data reporting to provincial government,and
responsiblefor fundingagreements, budgets and reports.
The three-party agreement between Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo alignswith WRSBC business
plan for the Provincial Agreement, Ministry of Economic Development Job Creation and Trade2019-
2022.The collaboration between the municipalities ensures our commitment to work together to help
entrepreneurs start and growa business.
REPORT:
WRSBC provides a rangeofentrepreneurial services and supports that benefit local traditional, main
street and lifestyle businessesoperated by self-employed individuals or companies with fewer than 10
employees. In Ontario, 76%of businesses havefewer than 10 employees. In Waterloo Region,this
would account for up to 11,850business not including self-employedindependent operators.Services
include:
one-on-one business consultations,
workshops and events,
access to business professionals, industry experts and mentors,
assistance with market research, business and marketing plans,
on-line business registrations, navigating government departments, agenciesand regulations,
delivery of provincial programs and grants for youth, start-ups and growth companies.
In 2018,the three locations responded to over 43,000 inquiries assisted 625 start-upsand 159 scale-
ups resulting in 1,009 jobs created:
Economic Impact
CambridgeKitchenerWaterlooTotal
Inquiries 1,081 38,9633,32343,367
Business Started 123 375127625
Business Expanded 4 12134159
Jobs 128 6402361,004
On-on-one Consultations 143 1,4164552,014
Workshops 37 30586428
Attended Workshops361 2,8233423,526
Events Hosted & Co-hosted 1 48453
Attended Events 100 2,7651373,002
1 - 2
The three-party funding agreement between Kitchener, CambridgeandWaterloo (2019-2022) outlines
amonetary contribution from the partners based on a per capita model, indexed annually at 1.5%,
based on most current StatisticsCanada Census Population Profile.In addition to thecash
contribution, the municipalities support the WRSBC by providing in-kind contributionssuch as a service
location, utilities, maintenance, marketing, training and administrative support services of HR,
accounting, legal as follows:
Municipal Contributions to WRSBC
20192019 2019
CambridgeKitchener Waterloo
Cash/Grant 13,585114,024 10,978
In-kind contributions
Wages and Benefits 102,50078,892
Facilities/utilities/maintenance 59,400168,000 18,500
Marketing6,500
ITC support 2,500 246
Training/travel2,3004,500
Accounting, Legal, HR, IT, Insurance 31,000
Total In-kind 170,700206,000 97,638
Total Cash and In-kind 184,300320,024 108,616
*Note: Cambridge and Waterloo satellite offices are responsible for employee wagesat their respective
locations. The Kitchener grant is the equivalent of the per capita contribution and one full-time wage.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Strong & Resilient Economy
Strategy: #2.2 Support the attraction, retention and development of existing and
new industries within the regional economy working in collaboration with the
economic development corporation for Waterloo Region.
Strategic Action: # 26Make It Start
# 27 Make It Grow
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Over the three-year term,WRSBC projects abreak-even budget consistent with a good fiscal
managementover the past 10 years.
1 - 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Entrepreneurship and innovation contribute to economic growth in the community. The Centre provides
programs and services that support and complement other community entrepreneurial initiatives
essential to the commercialization of small business within the Waterloo Region ecosystem.
CONSULT - TheWaterloo Region Small Business Centre facilitated four Community Engagement
sessions, “Small Business Matters”, in Cambridge, Kitchener/Waterloo, St Jacobs/Elmira and
Baden/New Hamburg, in 2015. Over 160 small businesses from all industry sector engaged discussion
around five questions.Over 2,000 ideas and opinions collected and analyzed resulting in WRSBC
identifying sevenkey areasof support for small business: Marketing, Mentoring, Education, Advocacy,
Small Business Hub, Collaboration and Funding.These themes inform the ongoing work, programs
and collaborative partnerships of the Small Business Centre.
Annually WRSBC conducts over 20 surveys with small business providing feedbackand suggestions
for small business servicesand programs.
COLLABORATE - Waterloo Region Small Business Centre communicates, consults and collaborates
with a broad range of community groups, organizations, agencies, secondary and post-secondary
institutes, municipal, regional and provincial governments to ensure the entrepreneurial services and
programs address the needs of small business in the community. The volunteers for the Waterloo
Region Small Business Centre and the Board of Advisors are representative of these community
groups.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager DSD
1 - 4
WATERLOO REGION SMALL BUSINESS CENTRE WRSBC WRSBC WRSBC Municipal
BUDGETProjected Projected Projected In-Kind
201920202021Contributions
OPERATING2019
REVENUES
ONTARIO - MEDJCT587,399456,552456,552
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE (2016 pop 129,913,58613,79013,997170,714
CITY OF KITCHENER (2016 pop 233,22114,024115,734117,470206,000
CITY OF WATERLOO (2016 pop 104,910,97811,14311,31097,638
REGION OF WATERLOO 50,00050,00050,000
OW-SEB REGION OF WATERLOO16,00016,00016,000
SPONSORSHIPS20,00020,00020,000
MEMBERSHIP FEES2,0002,5003,000
REGISTRATION FEES20,00018,00018,000
ROOM RENTALS300300300
Other15,000
Total Revenue #849,287704,019706,629474,352
OPERATING
EXPENSES
SALARIES AND WAGES 516,266423,529427,764
Administration47,70644,58044,580
Grants191,000191,000191,000
Professional Services56,0009,5957,970
Events and Publicity36,86533,86533,865
Insurance1,4501,4501,450
TOTAL EXPENSES849,287704,019706,629
SURPLUS /(DEFICIT)000
TOTAL EXPENSES849,287704,019706,629474,352
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)000 0
EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
OPENING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)83,08783,08783,087 0
ENDING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)83,08783,08783,0870
1 - 5
Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
Income Statement for the Year Ended December 31, 2018
(with comparatives for the year ended December 31, 2017)
20182017
REVENUES
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade
and Employment 476,624 723,203
Ministry of Research and Innovation 166,006 184,617
City of Cambridge 13,400 15,900
City of Kitchener 116,580 89,656
City of Waterloo 11,900 12,300
Region of Waterloo 50,000 50,000
Region of Waterloo - Self Employment
Program 10,500
Sponsorships 49,662 127,027
Memberships 1,700 1,995
Registration Fees 15,301 5,235
Room Rentals 339 565
Miscellaneous Revenue 530 375
912,5421,210,873
EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages 515,040 612,065
Administrative Expenses 51,138 129,985
Grants 285,050 118,779
Professional Services 45,865 260,742
Events and Publicity 27,118 78,632
Insurance 1,392 1,392
925,6031,201,595
Net Profit (Loss)(13,061)9,278
ACCUMULATED SURPLUS (DEFICIT)
Opening Balance93,11483,836
Net Profit (Loss)(13,061)9,278
Closing Balance80,05393,114
1 - 6
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate ServicesCommittee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Farrell, Manager, Small Business Centre 519 741 2200 ext 7294
PREPARED BY: Chris Farrell, Manager, Small Business Centre 519 741 2200 ext 7294
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 17, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD-19-137
SUBJECT: Three-year funding agreement with the Province of Ontarioand City of
Kitchener for the Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign a three-year funding agreement with the Province
of Ontario for the Small Business Centre to deliver the core business information services,
Summer Companyand starter company programs. Said agreement to be to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor.
That the General Manager, Development Services be authorized to execute on behalf of the City
of Kitchener any amendments to the three-year funding agreement provided such amendments
are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
That the Manager, Waterloo Region Small Business Centre, and the Executive Director, Economic
Development, be delegated authority to execute recipient grant agreements to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor for the Starter Company Plus and Summer Company programs.
BACKGROUND:
The Waterloo Region Small Business Centre (WRSBC) providesthousands of entrepreneurs with
training and support necessary to start and grow successful businesses. From concept, through start-
up and early growth stages of business, the Centre is a one-stop source for information, guidance and
professional advice on starting and running a successful. Servicing individuals of all ages and
educational background and businesses from all industry sectorsat all stages of business. WRSBC is
one of a network of 54 centres in Ontariosupported by the province.
The Kitchener Waterloo Region Small Business Centreacts as the business headquarters,
coordinating marketing, programs, and funding, Kitchener has 4.5 employees while the Cambridge and
Waterloo satellite offices eachhaveone employeepaid by there respective municipality.
WRSBC sources of funding include:
The Ontario Ministry of Economic Development Job Creation and Trade
Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo
Region of Waterloo
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
2 - 1
Other sources of revenue include: Sponsorships, Projects/Programs and Event Fees
Special Projects
The City of Kitchener (Waterloo Region Small Business Centre) has received funding from the Province
of Ontario since 1998.The three-year agreement 2019– 2022 ensurescollaboration between
provincial and municipal governments’ commitment to working together to help entrepreneurs start and
grow a business.
REPORT:
The provincial funding agreement with the City of Kitchener and the Ministry of Economic Development
Job Creation and Trade will providethe Waterloo Region Small Business Centre with $456,552 annually
for each of the 3 years, $1,369,656 total.The funds support:
Core Business Services:
one-on-one business consultations,
workshops and events,
assistance with market research, business and marketing plans,
information to navigating government departments, agencies and regulations
assistance with registering a provincial master business license
community outreach activities
The funding supports two full-time jobs, promotional and event expenses.
Summer Company Program:
entrepreneurial training, mentoring and grantsfor students age 15-29starting and running a
business over the summer, eligible students must be returning to school.The funding supports
onepart-time job, program expenses and a grant up to $3000 for successful candidates.
Starter Company Program
entrepreneurial training, mentoring and grants for start-ups and growth companies. The funding
supports one part-timejob, program expenses and a grant up to $5,000 for successful candidates.
WRSBChas deliveredthe Summer Company program since 2001 and the Starter Company program
since 2014. Supporting entrepreneurs’results in the establishment of new businesses, the expansion of
existing businesses, leveraged investments and job creation.
Throughout the term of the agreement, WRSBC submits interim performance reports andrequests
incremental disbursementsbi-annually. In the past there have been opportunities toapply foradditional
funding during term of the agreement, it is important to respond to these opportunities in a timely manner.
Thesmall business centreswill collect monthly economic impact data for the province. In 2018, WRSBC
responded to over 43,000 inquiries, assisted 625 business start-ups and 159 businesses to grow,
resulting in 1,004 jobs created:
2 - 2
Economic Impact 2018
Cambridge KitchenerWaterlooTotal
Inquiries 1,081 38,9633,32343,367
Business Started 123 375127625
Business Expanded 4 12134159
Jobs 128 6402361,004
On-on-one Consultations 143 1,4164552,014
Workshops3730586428
Attended Workshops361 2,8233423,526
Events Hosted & Co-hosted 1 48453
Attended Events 100 2,7651373,002
The provincial funding ensures collaborationandcommitment to working together with the
municipalities to help entrepreneurs start and growa business.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Strong & Resilient Economy
Strategy: #2.2 Support the attraction, retention and development of existing and
new industries within the regional economy working in collaboration with the
economic development corporation for Waterloo Region.
Strategic Action: # 26Make It Start
# 27 Make It Grow
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None. The provincial fundingsupports the Small Business Centre core business services, summer
company and starter company programs.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Entrepreneurship and innovation contribute to economic growth in the community. The Centre provides
programs and services that support and complement other community entrepreneurial initiatives
essential to the commercialization of small business within the Waterloo Region ecosystem.
CONSULT: The Waterloo Region Small Business Centre facilitated four Community Engagement
sessions, “Small Business Matters”, in Cambridge, Kitchener/Waterloo, St Jacobs/Elmira and
Baden/New Hamburg, in 2015. Over 160 small businesses from all industry sector engaged discussion
around five questions. Over 2,000 ideas and opinions collected and analyzed resulting in WRSBC
identifying seven key areas of support for small business: Marketing, Mentoring, Education, Advocacy,
Small Business Hub, Collaboration and Funding. These themes inform the ongoing work, programs and
collaborative partnerships of the Small Business Centre.
2 - 3
WRSBC conducts over 20 surveys annually with small business to get feedback and suggestions for
service and programimprovements.
COLLABORATE – Waterloo Region Small Business Centre communicates, consults and collaborates
with a broad range of community groups, organizations, agencies, secondary and post-secondary
institutes, municipal, regional and provincial governments to ensure the entrepreneurial services and
programs address the needs of small business in the community. The volunteers for the Waterloo Region
Small Business Centre and the Board of Advisors are representative of these community groups.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department
2 - 4
Draft budget
To: Ministry of Economic Development Job Creation and Trade
ponent
Applicant Name: Waterloo Region Small Busine
ect Management
each Marketing and Recruitment Recipient Name: City of Kitchener
FUNDING YEAR2019/20202020/20212021/2022TOTAL
BudgetBudget Budget
In CashIn CashIn Cash
PROJECT INITIATIVES EXPENSES
Project Delivery (A)
Project Delivery for SBEC Core Initiative (salaries, consultations, workshops,
172,552172552172552
outreach, events, marketing/advertising, and travel)
Project Delivery for Starter Company Plus Initiative (mentoring, grant
500005000050000
committee, workshops, outreach, events, marketing/advertising, and travel)
Project Delivery for Summer Company Initiative (training, mentoring,
380003800038000
workshops, outreach, events, marketing/advertising, and travel)
Subtotal (A) 260552260552260552781656
Administration (B)
(Max. 10% of total Expenses per Funding Year)
Project Administration (Courier, Phone, Office supplies, Rent, and Audit at the
500050005000
end of the term)
Subtotal (B)50005000500015000
Subtotal Expenses (A+B) 265552265552265552796656
Micro Financing for Approved Participants
Summer Company Initiative (C) 660006600066000
Starter Company Plus Initiative (D)125000125000125000
Subtotal Expenses (C+D)191000191000191000573000
TOTAL EXPENSES (A+B+C+D)4565524565524565521369656
FUNDS
Cash Contribution
Cash Contributions from Municipality and Other Sources - Only consider cash
0
contribution that can be audited (E)
Ministry Funds
456552
Maximum Funds per Funding Year from Ministry (F)456552456552
1369656
TOTAL FUNDS (E+F)4565524565524565521369656
2 - 5
Waterloo Region Small Business Centre
Income Statement for the Year Ended December 31, 2018
(with comparatives for the year ended December 31, 2017)
20182017
REVENUES
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade
and Employment 476,624 723,203
Ministry of Research and Innovation 166,006 184,617
City of Cambridge 13,400 15,900
City of Kitchener 116,580 89,656
City of Waterloo 11,900 12,300
Region of Waterloo 50,000 50,000
Region of Waterloo - Self Employment
Program 10,500
Sponsorships 49,662 127,027
Memberships 1,700 1,995
Registration Fees 15,301 5,235
Room Rentals 339 565
Miscellaneous Revenue 530 375
912,5421,210,873
EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages 515,040 612,065
Administrative Expenses 51,138 129,985
Grants 285,050 118,779
Professional Services 45,865 260,742
Events and Publicity 27,118 78,632
Insurance 1,392 1,392
925,6031,201,595
Net Profit (Loss)(13,061)9,278
ACCUMULATED SURPLUS (DEFICIT)
Opening Balance93,11483,836
Net Profit (Loss)(13,061)9,278
Closing Balance80,05393,114
lo
Note: The 2018 loss was a planned loss to fund the Digital Main Street pilot project.
2 - 6
REPORT TO:Finance and CorporateServices Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Gloria MacNeil, Director of By-law Enforcement, 519-741-2200,
ext. 7952
PREPARED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of By-law Enforcement, 519-741-2200,
ext. 7952
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 6
DATE OF REPORT:May 17, 2019
REPORT NO.: CSD-19-018
SUBJECT: NOISE EXEMPTION - HOLY TRINITY SERBIAN CHURCH – 700
FISCHER HALLMAN ROAD – JUNE 15 AND 16, 2019
___________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That an exemption to Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code be
granted to the Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church at 700 Fischer Hallman Road, for
their annual Food Festival and Bull Roast to be held on June15and June 16, 2019,
between the hours of 11AM and 11 PM.
BACKGROUND:
In 2018, the Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church at 700 Fischer Hallman Road combined their
annual Serbian Food Festival and Bull Roast into one event, they are planning to do the same
this year and it will take place over the same weekend in June.As in past years, they are
requesting a noise exemption.
REPORT:
The Serbian Food Festival and Bull Roast areannualfestivals that have taken placefor the last
several years. The event included traditional Serbian music, dance and food. Both festivals are
being combined into one weekend again this year and the event will be held outdoors in June.
Staffreport that no complaints were received during the Serbian Food Festival/Bull Roast last
year. Over the last few years, there have been minimal complaints however in the event of a
complaint, organizers have workedwith staff to address anyconcerns raised.
Church representatives have workedto address concerns around noise that were raised by
residents in the past. For the past fouryears, the representatives have been distributing a
communications piece in the adjacent residential neighbourhood, to advise of the event and will
do so again this year. It is their desire to engage the neighbourhood to participate in the festivals.
3 - 1
Attached is a copy of the information they intend to distribute throughout the neighbourhood this
year.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
TherecommendationofthisreportsupportstheachievementoftheCity’sstrategicvision
throughthedeliveryofcore service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
The event organizers will be communicating the event to the community in advance of the event.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department
Encl.
3 - 2
SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
HOLY TRINITY DIOCESE OF CANADA
700 Fischer Hallman Rd
Kitchener, ON N2E 1L7
519-570-1230
May 8, 2019
Dear Neighbours,
The Church Board is writing on behalf of the Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church
Community to invite you to our annual Food Festival which will take place this summer.
The Church is planning its annual “Bull Roast”and “Serbian Food Festival” as one event
this year which will take place on June 15 & 16, 2019. This is an outdoor event which
will run from 11:00am to 11:00pm. We have been in contact with the City of Kitchener
and will make efforts mitigate the noise as much as possible.
This event includes traditional Serbian music, dance and food. We will be selling food
such as spit roasted bull, pig and lamb as well as some desserts. There will also be
refreshments and games for all ages.
We are thankful for your ongoing support of our Church and the events that we run.
Please join us this summer for the two days of food and fun!
Gratefully yours,
Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church
3 - 3
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 17, 2019
REPORT NO.:FIN-19-050
SUBJECT:Participatory Budgeting Debrief
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Thatstaffing and funding requirements for a permanent participatory budgeting
solution be brought back to Council through the 2020 budgeting process.
BACKGROUND:
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a novel “democratic process that gives ordinary people direct
control over a portion of a public budget.” Participatory budgeting differs from traditional public
consultations and community grant boards in that participants “both identify priority projects
and decide exactly which of these projects are funded” through a series of open assemblies.
The graphic below, produced by the Participatory Budgeting Project, provides a high-level
overview of a typical participatory budgeting process. Although it should be noted that there is
significant opportunity for customization within each step.
The City of Kitchener partneredwith the University of Waterloo (UW) to test the viability of PB
concepts within Kitchener. Specifically, Council provided direction to conduct PB pilots for the
redesign of Sandhills and Elmsdale parks. With assistance from UW, the consultation periods
have been completed for these two projects and staff are in a position to provide some findings
4 - 1
on the PB process and make recommendations about its future use in Kitchener. The UW
observations are a key part of this discussion, and their report is attached to the staffreport to
provide additional contextand more detailed information.Some portions of the staff report
include content from the UW report.
REPORT:
The Process
In its original form, a traditional PB process would set aside a definedamount of funding and
allow residents to allocate the funds for whatever purposes they deem most important. As noted
in an earlier report, PB has taken different forms as it has been implemented in North America,
with no specific “best practice” emergingas the municipal standard.
Given the lack of a standard PBpractice and this being Kitchener’s first foray into the PB space,
Council decided to take a measured approach and directed thePBengagement be limited to
twopark rehabilitation projects. Having a defined scope for the PB pilots is consistent with other
North American applications of PB, and it still allowedresidents to have confidence in the
process because of a transparent voting process.
Given Council’s directionto focus on the two parks projects,UW and staff developed a Made-
in-Kitchener approach for the PB pilots. The overall processwas similarfor each parkand
included three rounds of voting, which are listed and then described below.
Round 1 – Idea generation
Round 2 – Idea prioritization
Round 3 – Final Vote
Round 1 – Idea generation
Residentswere asked to share theirideas to improve to their neighbourhoodpark. Participants
were asked four open ended questions to prompt their input about what they like/don’t like about
the park and what should be added/removed from the park. City of Kitchener Landscape
Architects then reviewed the submissions to identify specific issues, screen responses for
feasibility, and group similar ideas.This process identified 23 different park elements for
ElmsdalePark and 25 for Sandhills Park (elements are listed in the attached UW report).
Round 2 – Idea prioritization
In Round 2,participants were asked to review the list of ideas that were generated in Round 1
andvote for which ideas they would prioritize.The Landscape Architects attached a cost
estimate to each idea and these were listed on the Round 2 ballots. This approach allowed
participants to consider trade-offs due to the budget constraints. The inclusion of costs hadthe
benefit of educating participants on the difficult decisions that staff and Council must make as
well as helping participants to spend the budget efficiently and effectively. Once the votes were
cast, the University of Waterloo team converted participantrankings into distinct park design
bundlesusing different vote-calculation algorithms.
4 - 2
Round 3 – Final Vote
Residentswere presented with a total of four different bundles, three that were created as a
direct result of their voting in Round 2, andone prepared by the Landscape Architects. To avoid
bias in the final voting, residents were not told which bundles were which. Residents cast their
votes for the bundle(s) they liked best and were then tallied to result in a winner. Copies of the
final ballots for the parks are shown below.
Round 3 – Final Vote Ballots for Elmsdale (left) and Sandhills (right) Parks
The Outcome
The major difference between a traditional park redesign engagement and the PB pilots was
that it moved the citizen engagement model from being a consultation where citizens provide
some input into the end product,to controlling the final outcome of the park. Residents had input
in all stages of the process, and were ultimately responsible for picking the specific elements to
be included in their neighbourhood parkas described in the previous section. In both parks, the
winning bundles were resident-generated bundles and not thestaff prepared bundle.The final
elements chosen by residents are shown in the table below.
4 - 3
Final Park Design Elements
Elmsdale Winning DesignSandhills Winning Design
(Green Bundle)(Red Bundle)
Chess tableChess table
Edible forestCommunity events space
Natural playground (logs,
Ping pong table
timbers, rocks)
Sand play areaPermanent garbage can
Sand volleyball courtSwing set
Site clean-up (dead trees,
Basketball court
overgrowth, weeds, etc.)
More shade treesBenches
Edible plantings / food
Little library
forest
Native perennial and
Benches & picnic tables
shrub plantings
Charcoal grill & picnic area
Original Elmsdale Park Items:Original Sandhills Park Items:
Triple-toss basketball hoopSmall playground
Picnic tableInformal basketball courts
BenchSoccer nets
Scrub ball diamondOpen lawn with mature trees
The Takeaways
As this was the City’s first attempt at a PB process, there were several points of learning, many
of which are covered in the UW report. Below are fiveof staff’s significant takeaways.
1.The PB process resulted in adifferent outcome.
For both Elmsdale and Sandhills Parks, the winning bundles were resident-generated
ideas, and both of the bundles were different. This suggests that what the City would
traditionally install in a neighbourhood park isdifferent than what local residents want to
see in the park, and that there is variation between neighbourhoods. Knowledgeable staff
(in this case Landscape Architects) are still required to achieve a viable park design, but
there appears to be a need to allow specific community input into park rehabilitations of
this magnitude.
4 - 4
2.The PB process required dedicated staffing resources.
In addition to the technical staff managing the specific capital projects (in this case
Landscape Architects), dedicated staffing resources were required to manage the PB
process. The City’s Community Engagement Consultant acted as project manager to
lead all aspects of engagement work. This included integrating corporate requirements
into the PB process, liaising between different departments, and managing the
partnership with UW. PB required a higher standard of care to administer given the
binding nature of votes, which meant adding in protocols to protect the integrity of the
process including secure voting mechanisms and verification of results, as well as
supplemental outreach to ensure that participation options were inclusive. As well, the
need for transparency with the community created additional complexity from a
communications perspective. The additional work required to support residents through
an unfamiliar and technical task aligns with key learnings fromLove My Hood – supporting
resident-led initiatives is resource-intensive.In addition to City staff resources, the City
also relied heavily on UW to help guide the overall PB process and design/analyze the
votes cast in rounds 2 and 3.
3.The PB process tooklonger.
The consultation and voting required by a PB process goes beyond the City’s traditional
engagement processes. PB has multiple iterations of publicinput,which take longer to
plan, schedule, advertise, organize and deliver. All of these steps mean it takes longer
to achieve an outcome, and requires resources knowledgeable in this type of
engagement. Even with a longer than normal consultation timeframe (in this case
February to June), the City received some feedback from participants that the process
seemed rushed. Given this feedbackfuture PB consultations should be spread out over
a longer timeframe, meaning it will take longer than normal to deliver those projects.
4.The final park costs were higher than budgeted.
The original budget for each of the park rehabilitations was $100,000 per park, but the
final budget for each park was $150,000.The original budget for each park did not fully
allow for the extended consultation, additional staff time, design contingency, and other
necessary park improvements beyond the PB scoped items. In addition,through the PB
process the City found that some participants were surprised at the cost of individual
components,especially components that required additional work to ensure they were
accessible.This underscores the need for technical expertise in a PB process, as the
public may have a different perception of what their desired solution may actually cost.
5.Coordination and cooperation between divisions was key.
The PB process drew on staff expertise and community relationships from a multiple
divisions. In addition to the technical expertise provided to parks projects by the
Landscape Architects (Parks & Cemeteries), and the overall process coordination
provided by the Community Engagement Consultant (Communications), one of the key
findings was the leveraging of community relationships by Neighbourhood Liaisons and
Community Centre Facilitators (Neighbourhood Programs & Services) to ensure strong
community participation in the PB process.
4 - 5
The Conclusion
The City’s first venture into the PB process definitely had some hiccups along the way, but
ultimately produced a final product that reflected the desires of the community in a way that a
traditional consultation would not have. Based on the results of these two pilot projects, staff
believe committing permanent resources (both financial and staffing) will further the City’s
commitment towards creating a “Caring Community” that enhances people’s sense of belonging,
and better engages citizens as articulated in the City’s Strategic Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Open Government
Strategy: 1.3 – Create more opportunities for citizen dialogue on community issues and
introduce new ways for people to get involved in decisions that affect them.
Strategic Action: #OG10 Participatory Budgeting
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no specific financial implications stemming directly from this report, but there could be
ongoing financial commitments if Council wants to pursue a PB approach on a go forward basis.
As noted in the report, the coordination of a PB engagement is beyond the normal scope of City
consultation and is best suited for a dedicated resource instead of technical staff who are actually
managing the project.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
The report speaks to the City’s PB process and how it moved community engagement for these
park projects from consult to controlling the final outcome of the park redesign.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
Two previous report about Participatory Budgeting were provided to Committee. These reports
provided context about PB in general, and provided direction to move ahead with two specific
pilot projects.
FCS-17-028Participatory Budgeting
FCS-17-094Participatory Budgeting Follow Up
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
4 - 6
Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener
A summary report of the design and 2018 pilot.
Authors:
Dr. Sean Geobey
Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Sean Campbell
PhD student, University of Waterloo
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Contents
Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener...................................................................... 1
Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 – Piloting Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener............................................. 3
1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks....................................................................................... 4
1.3 - Background on City-University Partnership................................................................. 5
2. Designing a Made-in-Kitchener Participatory Budgeting Pilot............................................. 5
2.1 - Alignment with City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan........................................................ 5
2.2 - Designing a Participatory Budget................................................................................ 7
3. Results..............................................................................................................................12
3.1 - Overview....................................................................................................................12
3.2 – Round 1: Idea Generation.........................................................................................13
3.3 – Round 2: Prioritize Ideas...........................................................................................15
3.4 – Round 3: Final Vote..................................................................................................17
3.5 – Participation..............................................................................................................20
5. Design Options for Future Iterations..................................................................................23
Works Cited...........................................................................................................................25
4 - 7
Executive Summary
From February to June 2018 the City of Kitchener engaged in an innovative participatory budgeting (PB)
pilot project to redesign the features in Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park. PB is a democratic process
that moves beyond community consultation towards empowering the public by giving ordinary people
direct control over a portion of a public budget. In each of these parks $100,000 was allocated by local
residents using a process incorporating PB elements and a team from the University of Waterloo
partnered with the City of Kitchener to design this process as part of the Smart Cities Initiative.
Residents over the age of 12 who lived in the Chandler Mowat (Elmsdale Park) and Cedar Hill (Sandhills
Park) neighbourhoods were invited to participate in the PB pilot process through local neighbourhood
meetings, local community centres, and online. Their participation came about in three rounds. In
Round 1: Idea Generation residents were asked to identify opportunities to improve their parks. Then in
Round 2: Prioritizing Ideas residents voted to prioritize from a list of about two dozen distinct ideas to
create three distinct design bundles for each park. Finally in Round 3: Final Vote residents voted again to
rank four different design bundles – three created from residents’ Round 2 priorities and one designed
by city staff – from which the top-ranked design bundle from each neighbourhood was selected as the
winner.
In each park the winning design bundles were ones that came from those built using their Round 2:
Prioritizing Ideas votes. Both of the winning design bundles differed substantively from the original park
items and overall featured a large number of smaller items. As a percentage of the neighbourhood
populations, for Sandhills Park the participation rates were 2.22% in Round 2 and 2.51% in Round 3, and
for Elmsdale Park the rates were 1.61% in Round 2 and 1.26% in Round 3. These participation rates are
comparable to those seen in other PB process both within Ontario and internationally. Moreover, these
rates are also higher than those found in the City of Kitchener’s standard parks engagement process.
The use of PB by the City of Kitchener marks an important shift in the city’s approach to resident
engagement. Through the partnership with the University of Waterloo this pilot offered a number of key
insights into the PB process including (1) a confirmation that the PB process generates different results
than a traditional engagement process, (2) strong support for design bundles produced using a voting
process, (3) and an increase in resident participation. In addition, if the city expands the use of PB in its
resident engagement processes the process design will have to be adapted for these different purposes
and the use of the two-round voting process used in these pilots is recommended while these PB
designs are being developed.
Finally, there may be other ways of integrating PB processes into decision-making in the City of
Kitchener including but not limited to: priority-setting by city councillors, sharing of resources for
4 - 8
expenses that affect multiple city departments, volunteer-led granting committees, resource-sharing
between existing neighbourhood association, and staff engagement in cross-departmental initiatives.
1.1 – Piloting Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a novel “democratic process that gives ordinary people direct control
1
over a portion of a public budget.”Participatory budgeting differs from traditional public consultations
and community grant boards in that participants “both identify priority projects and decide exactly
2
which of these projects are funded” through a series of open assemblies. Budget allocations are
3
typically limited to expenditures which can be implemented over the course of one budget cycle—such
4
as enhancements to sports facilities and community activities
—however, some jurisdictions permit
multi-year expenditures to deepen engagement. PB is a flexible process which has been used at the city-
56
level, neighbourhood-level, and to allocate budgets within public housing buildings.
The City of Kitchener implemented an innovative participatory budgeting pilot project for the redesign
of Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park (see 1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks for background information).
The pilot was developed in 2017 and conducted from February to April of 2018. Residents of Kitchener
were invited to participate in the direct democratic allocation of a $100,000 budget assigned for the
refurbishment of each park.
In Kitchener, residents over the age of 12 who lived in the Chandler Mowat (Elmsdale Park) and Cedar
Hill (Sandhills Park) neighbourhoods were invited to complete three rounds of surveys—conducted
between February and June of 2018—through three delivery channels: neighbourhood meetings, local
community centres and online. Participants were asked to identify opportunities for improving their
park (Round 1: Idea Generation), vote to prioritize those ideas (Round 2: Prioritize Ideas), and vote for
one of four design bundles of top ranked preferences (Round 3: Final Vote). Figure 1 shows the steps of
the pilot as presented to the participants.
Figure 1. Participant Engagements
Here’s how it will work:
1.You tell us what you want in your park. People living in the neighbourhoods surrounding the
parks are invited to attend a meeting to generate ideas. A survey will be available online
following the first meeting and paper copies will also be available for those who can’t make
the meeting;
2.You rank your favourite ideas for the park. Our experts, including landscape architects and
community centre staff, can advise and help where needed, and provide costing for items
that emerge from the ranking;
3.You vote on the design you like best;
4.We fund the winning park design within the assigned budget.
4 - 9
This document summarizes the pilot and its outcomes, the design process and elements, and
preliminary results of a concurrent research study conducted by a University of Waterloo team led by
Dr. Sean Geobey.
1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks
Figure 2. Map of Sandhills Park
Sandhills Park is a small
neighbourhood park located in the
Cedar Hill neighbourhood, and in a
block bordered by Courtland
Avenue East, Peter Street, St.
George Street and Cedar Street
South (see Figure 2 for map). Prior
to refurbishment, Sandhills Park
had a small playground, informal
basketball courts and soccer nets,
as well as an open lawn with
mature trees. Paved trails crossed
the hills and slopes in the site. The
Imagefrom Google Maps. (2018a). Retrieved November 5, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/maps/y4rk52jjihu
entrance to the park is by: a
laneway off Peter Street; a trail
descending from St. George Street, and a more direct entrance from Cedar Street.
Figure 3. Map of Elmsdale
Elmsdale Park is a medium-sized
park located in the Chandler Mowat
neighbourhood, near the
intersection of Chandler Drive and
Ottawa Street (see Figure 3 for
map). Prior to refurbishment, there
was a triple-toss basketball hoop,
picnic table and bench, and a scrub
ball diamond in the park. The
existing playground was 20 years
old.
As a result of the participatory
budgeting process conducted with
neighbourhood residents, both
Imagefrom Google Maps. (2018b). Retrieved November 5, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/maps/yHA3EA9oSTy
parks saw significant changes in the
winning proposals from what existed prior to the pilot.
4 - 10
1.3 - Background on City-University Partnership
The City of Kitchener entered into a sponsored research agreement with the University of Waterloo in
September 2016 for the purpose of collaborating on a participatory budgeting pilot project. The City of
Kitchener made a $20,000 contribution through the Smart Cities Initiative, matched by a $20,000
contribution from the University of Waterloo, to fund the research team’s involvement. Dr. Sean
Geobey, Assistant Professor of Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation in the University of
Waterloo’s School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), was selected to lead the
University of Waterloo team in accomplishing the following goals:
1.Assess current academic and applied research on participatory budgeting processes
2.Develop options for an implementation plan
3.Assist in managing and developing a formative evaluation of the process with City staff
The agreement additionally described the scholarly research that would be conducted alongside the
broader project. It was noted that participatory budgeting is an emerging process for citizen
engagement in Canada, and that key questions include:
1.Do participatory budgets improve collective decision-making outcomes?
2.How should participant preferences be used to generate design bundles that are right for their
community?
Preliminary conclusions on these questions are included throughout this document and detailed results
will be shared with both the City of Kitchener and the research community (e.g. via academic articles).
This research has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo
Research Ethics Committee (ORE#22501).
2. Designing a Made-in-Kitchener Participatory Budgeting Pilot
This section discusses why the City of Kitchener decided to implement a participatory budgeting pilot,
how the pilot was designed, and how these design choices shaped the outcome.
2.1 -Alignment with City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan
The City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan identifies “Open Government” as a strategic priority, with
participatory budgeting listed as a strategic action for advancing an open government agenda. An
Environics Research survey was commissioned by the City of Kitchener in 2018 to understand the views
7
of residents on “municipal issues and the City’s strategic priorities.”The survey found a high level of
support for both participatory governance in general, and participatory budgeting specifically:
Participatory Governance: When asked if increased citizen participation in decision-making
should be prioritized, 57% of respondents selected “Top Priority”, 34% selected “Secondary
8
Priority”, and 7% selected “Not a Priority.”
Participatory Budgeting: Respondents were asked to select from a list of actions that the City
has taken over the preceding four years to improve the information and involvement of citizens.
4 - 11
Involvement of citizens in budget decisions was reported to have provided the greatest benefit
9
(37%).
th10
At a special meeting of City of Kitchener Council held on February 27, 2017, councillors were asked to
reflect on the following benefits ascribed to participatory budgeting by its advocates, with the purpose
of providing guidance to staff and the University of Waterloo research team on the outcomes that
should be prioritized:
Improved accountability and trust: Open government decision-making and build relationships
11
between councillors and residents.The improved accountability and trust may smooth
relations during periods of austerity by involving those impacted by budgetary cuts in the
12
difficult decision-making process.
Increased effectiveness and engagement: Establish a new channel of communication with
otherwise under-represented groups, and “improve the level and quality of information
13
available” to municipal staff through direct engagement.
Increased community engagement:Encourage active participation in the community. Some
evidence from England suggests that participants of the budgeting process were more likely to
14
join local civil society organizations. Transferring power to communities and grassroots
15
movements can inspire a sense of collective agency and political will.
Education of government processes: PB can act as a “citizenship school” which “empowers
citizens to better understand their rights and duties as citizens as well as the responsibilities of
16
government.” To engage underrepresented groups, however, governments must support their
citizenry through specific training (ex. interpreting financials) and supports (ex. translation,
17
childcare, transportation).
Promotion of cooperation and social justice: PB promotes social cohesiveness and
understanding by bringing together groups from different backgrounds and experiences (ex.
seniors and youth, indigenous and immigrant). PB can resulted in disadvantaged communities
18
receiving a greater share of the budget.
No limit was placed on the number of benefits that a Councillor could prioritize. All five benefits were of
interest to Council, with ‘improved accountability and trust’, and ‘increased effectiveness and
engagement’ receiving the most interest.
Figure 4. PB Benefits Prioritized by Council
PB BenefitsPrioritization by Councillors
Improved accountability and trust 6
Increased effectiveness and engagement6
Increased community engagement4
Education of government processes4
Promotion of cooperation 4
N/a. Does not support this initiative 1
4 - 12
For the purposes of the City of Kitchener’s pilot, the response of Council led to a pilot design that sought
a balanced approach to achieving these objectives within the scope of the selected test sites. For
example, a pilot that prioritized only ‘education of government processes’ may have occurred over a
longer period of time with regular in-person meetings, greater discussion and engagement with experts,
and more in-depth explanatory materials. Such an approach would likely have decreased community
engagement because of the high time cost.
2.2 -Designing a Participatory Budget
Figure 5, produced by the Participatory Budgeting Project, provides a high-level overview of a typical
participatory budgeting process. Within each step there is significant opportunity for customization. This
section considers the decisions that were made in the design of the City of Kitchener participatory
budgeting pilot.
Figure 5. Graphical Overview of How Participatory Budgeting Works
Image from The Participatory Budgeting Project. (n.d.). What is Participatory Budgeting. Retrieved from
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/download/pbp-general-info-sheet/#
2.2.1 - Who Participates?
PB is designed to empower a target community, however, this community can be defined either
geographically (ex. neighbourhood), by sector via shared demographics (ex. youth, arts), or cultural
background (ex. Indigenous). The selection of PB target determines not only the impact but also design
elements of the program. For example, if a geographic approach is taken a municipality can leverage
neighbourhood associations or direct marketing to access participants, whereas if a sector approach is
19
taken then NGOs with a shared focus area would be appropriate partners. It has been noted that the
inclusion of associations and NGOs can result in the exclusion of individual citizens who lack the
20
technical capacity and organization to effectively advocate for a given position.
When deciding between a geographic- and sector-focus, a municipality should consider both the
intended outcomes and the needs of the targeted group. If a high degree of lived-experience or
specialist knowledge is required to inform a vote on proposals, then a sector approach is likely
4 - 13
preferable. If, on the other hand, a key goal is to increase cooperation and a sense of community, then
21
perhaps a neighbourhood approach is preferable.
After receiving direction from Council, City of Kitchener staff considered (1) where there was a budget
available to be allocated, (2) issue areas that would be accessible and interesting to residents, (3) and
where there existed a meaningful amount of choice between potential outcomes. Following several
conversations across departments, the idea of using participatory budgeting to allocate park
refurbishment budgets. The staff report to Council described the advantages of this approach as follows:
“Parks are a valued City asset with a long lifespan and something the local community cares
strongly about, which should encourage input by neighbourhood residents.
“Findings from the PB pilots could potentially be replicated year after year (within the context of
planning parks), meaning there is a higher probability the PB pilot would have a long-standing
impact on City processes rather than just being a one-time exercise.
“A review of consultation around parks rehabilitation projects was already identified through
the Neighbourhood Strategy and had been planned for 2017 through the Parks, Playgrounds
and Trails Community Engagement Review. Findings from the PB pilots will help inform this
22
review.”
The specific parks for inclusion in the PB pilot, Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park, were chose because:
1.They had already been identified for refurbishment which limited the additional workload for
the Parks Department
2.No new funding was required as funds were already allocated through the Neighbourhood Park
Rehabilitation and the Central Area Park Rehabilitation capital accounts
3.The locations represented a downtown and suburban park which allowed for comparison of
results across geographies
As cities become more diverse in Canada, “there is a higher need to accommodate cultural and language
23
differences.” At the very least participants should be representative of the broader community,
however, greater effort and resources may be applied to intentionally attract more involvement from
disadvantaged groups. This engagement should begin early on, with staff sharing decision-making with
24
desired participants for the design of the process itself.The City of Kitchener contributed significant
staff time to the creation of attractive marketing materials, to conduct outreach at community centres,
and to include non-text based materials and visual aids for those with literacy challenges or with English
as a second language.
Future iterations of participatory budgeting in Kitchener can select different communities to participate.
For example, the geographic area could be a neighbourhood, a ward, or the full city. Alternatively, a
participatory budgeting process could allocate resources for youth or seniors, artists or festivals.
4 - 14
2.2.2 – Pilot Budget and Community Support
An initial budget of $100,000 was allocated by the City of Kitchener for the refurbishment of each park,
for a total project budget of $200,000. This amount had been budgeted in advance by the City of
Kitchener’s Parks Department as part of their standard park refurbishment process. While established
participatory budgeting processes are often much larger, for a pilot participatory budgeting process this
amount allowed the University of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener teams the opportunity to test
different designs for this approach.
Beyond municipal budget resources, it has been suggested by PB advocates that interest in participatory
budgeting can leverage investments from senior tiers of government, foundations, community
organizations, and the business community. The Participatory Budgeting Project estimates that "for
every $5 million that is directly allocated through PB, another $1 million is raised through matching
25
funds, in-kind, contributions, and other sources."
Future iterations of participatory budgeting may wish to seek external funds from foundations or other
private donors to further the impact of municipal resources. However, care should be taken to ensure
that doing so does not exacerbate inequalities in the city by, for example, creating disparities in
equipment or service deliveries between wealthier neighbourhoods in which extra fundraising may be
easier and poorer neighbourhoods in which additional fundraising could be more difficult.
2.2.3 - Process Design
In some jurisdictions, the government will design the process and idea requirements for participatory
budgeting, waiting to engage citizens until the item identification stage. For example, the City of Toronto
26
pilot allowed participants to propose capital projects on City-property with a cost of under $250,000.
In contrast, New York and Chicago created steering committees comprised of both civil society
organizations and individual citizens to "map out the PB cycle, decide its rules, and agree on roles and
27
responsibilities.”For the City of Kitchener, a short timeline necessitated a City-led process. This
approach had the benefit of allowing for careful consideration of how the pilot would integrate with
existing park refurbishment processes.
Globally, some participatory budgeting processes are designed with a social justice focus, where the goal
is to provide a venue for marginalized populations to control the distribution of resources. In such a
process the design of the participation may be of equal or greater importance because marginalization
occurs as a result of the inability to exercise power, and a history of negative interactions has created a
culture of distrust. As an example, a reconciliation fund to distribute grants to Indigenous communities
may seek to work with Indigenous communities to develop the structure of the granting program. In
contrast, the City of Kitchener pilot focused on the population at large of the respective
neighbourhoods. While the process was designed by the City, residents could remain confident in the
pilot because of a transparent voting process.
4 - 15
2.2.4 - Integrating with Existing Planning Systems
The participatory budgeting process resulted in several important changes to traditional park
consultations. As seen in Figure 6, PB moves from consultation to control. Participants have multiple
opportunities to vote on the outcome:
Round 1 – Idea Generation: In both the traditional and participatory budgeting processes the
residents are asked to identify opportunities for improving the park.
Round 2 – Prioritize Ideas: The pilot added a unique voting stage where residents were asked to
rank the identified opportunities by preference. The top ranked ideas were incorporated into
the final design bundles.
Round 3 – Final Vote: The defining difference of participatory budgeting is that the participants
vote on the final option and the option with the most votes is implemented by the City. The
two-step voting process of ranked ballot and voting on design bundles allows multiple
opportunities for resident engagement and reduces the likelihood that an outlier will be
approved without support from a majority of residents.
Figure 6.General Comparison of Public Consultation Process with Participatory Budgeting Option
Stage Traditional Park Consultation Participatory Budget Pilot Park
Consultation
1 Landscape architect assigned UW-researcher and staff working group
formed
2 Staff consult with neighbourhood to Round 1: Idea Generation
generate ideas for park improvements
3 Staff develop conceptual plans Staff vet ideas for reasonability and
feasibility (e.g. does an idea fit within the
budget constraints
4 Staff consult neighbourhood on Viable ideas are presented in a ballot form
conceptual plans and neighbours vote for their preferred
park elements
5 Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
6 Round 3: Final Vote
7 Staff develop final design planStaff develop final design plan
8 Staff communicate final design & next Staff communicate final design & next
steps to neighbourhood steps to neighbourhood
9 Staff-led execution Staff-led execution
It is recommended that future iterations of PB in Kitchener experiment with greater public participation
at each stage of this engagement process. Further, it is recommended that in each new domain in which
a PB processes is implemented, that the first iteration be treated as a pilot process. It is likely that each
domain will face a different balance of constraints in terms of how staff and participants can be included
in the process.
4 - 16
2.2.5 - Measuring Success
Limited discussion was found on the measurement of participatory budgeting’s success as a tool for
achieving the policy outcomes identified earlier in this document. An exception was a 2011 national
study of PB programs by the U.K.'s Department for Communities and Local Government which identified
a series of qualitative and quantitative measures to track, including:
Participation Rate: The percentage of eligible residents that participated. The Ontario examples
listed earlier achieved rates of between 2-5%. Jurisdictions may additionally consider the
demographics of this participation and whether it represents target or disenfranchised groups,
and the number of civil society organizations involved in the process.
Civic Engagement: The 2011 study compared factors before and after the implementation of PB,
including the percentage of residents who reported a sense of community belonging, and the
28
rate of civil society participation.
Administrative Cost to the City: Promotional materials, facilities usage, and staff time which
would not otherwise be required.
The City of Kitchener collected data on participation rates and the University of Waterloo research team
collected data on civic engagement. Administrative costs to the City of Kitchener were not tracked as it
was acknowledged that as a pilot initiative the costs would be higher as processes are being developed.
The results are discussed later in this report.
4 - 17
3. Results
3.1 - Overview
Below is an overview of the four step process involved in the two
participatory budgeting pilots at Elmsdale Park and Sandhills Park.
Round 1 – Idea Generation (February 2018)
Participants were asked to generate ideas for what to include in a
park. City of Kitchener landscape architects analyzed the responses to
convert feedback into an idea. For example, “park is dark and
dangerous” may have been recorded as “add additional lighting.” This
step was required to allow for comparison of ideas, and did require
professional judgement on the part of the architects. Submissions that
were outside of the scope (ex. run festivals in the park) or prohibitively
expensive given the idea budget (ex. install a pool) were removed.
Round 2 – Prioritize Ideas (April – May 2018)
Elmsdale used a Range Ballot in which preference for an item was
indicated by scoring each idea from 10 to 0, where 10 points was the
most desired and 0 points was the least desired. All 24 ideas could be
scored, but scoring all ideas was not required and unranked projects
were treated as having a score of 0.
Sandhills used a Ranked Ballot in which ideas that people wanted in
the park were ranked by preference from 1 to n, where 1 was the most
desired and n was the least desired. All 25 ideas could be ranked, but
ranking all ideas was not required.
The University of Waterloo team converted participant rankings into
distinct design bundles using different vote-calculation algorithms.
Round 3 - Final Vote (May 2018)
Residents were provided with distinct design bundles to consider and vote for. The landscape architects
were asked to again exercise professional judgement in creating one of the final design bundles to fit
within both the $100,000 spending cap and site-specific constraints, alongside three design bundles at
each site constructed using priorities set by participant votes. That being noted even with the
participant-voted design bundles, feasibility would have to be screened by staff. For example, a park
may have been able to have either a volleyball court or a soccer field, but not the space to have both.
Round 4 – City funds winning design (Fall 2018)
4 - 18
The City of Kitchener was expected to start construction of the two park designs.
3.2 – Round 1: Idea Generation
In Round 1, participants were asked to “share your ideas to improve to the park.” To structure the
responses received, participants were provided with the following four questions, and asked to provide
a written response (responses were received in bullet point form, and both partial and complete
sentences) of up to 250 words for each:
1.What features would you like the City to remove from the park, and why?
2.What features would you like the City to add to the park, and why?
3.What existing features would you like the City to keep, and why?
4.What existing features would you like the City to change, and why?
The collected responses were analyzed by two City of Kitchener Landscape architects who completed
the following steps:
Idea Identification: Convert each response into a distinct idea for improvement. For example,
“make the park brighter so its safe at night” may have been recorded as “add lighting”.
Screening for Feasibility: Ideas were screened out if they outside of the jurisdiction of the
municipal government or were otherwise not legal, and if they were deemed not feasible
because the cost would the available budget.
Grouping of Similar Ideas: In order to allow for future rounds of voting, similar ideas were
grouped together.
The professional judgement of the Landscape architects was required to perform this analysis as well as
the costing of each idea. Future versions of participatory could also include direct citizen participation or
oversight over this element of the process.
Figure 7 contains the ideas that were identified by participants and vetted by the Landscape architects.
There are both similarities and differences between the lists. Residents in both parks proposed
basketball courts, a micro dog park, ping pong tables, grills, seating, edible forests, chess tables, natural
playgrounds, and a winter ice rink. Elmsdale residents were unique in proposing a baseball diamond,
large traditional playground, and volleyball court. Sandhills residents were unique in proposing an
amphitheatre, entrance improvements, outdoor exercise stations, and public art.
Figure 7. Identified Improvements by Park
Elmsdale ParkSandhills Park
Baseball Diamond Amphitheatre
Basketball CourtBasketball Court
Benches & Picnic Tables BBQ/ Grill w Picnic Area
Charcoal Grill & Picnic Area Benches
Chess Table Big Downhill Slide
Climbing Structure Bocce Ball
Community Garden Cedar & Peter St. Entrance Improvements
Edible Forest Chess Table
4 - 19
Large Traditional Playground w Swings Climbing Structure
Lawn ImprovementsCommunity Event Space
Little LibraryEdible Plantings / Food Forest
Micro Dog Park Exercise Stations
More Shade TreesMicro Dog Park
Multi Court Mini Soccer Field
Natural PlaygroundNative Perennial & Shrub Plantings
Ping Pong Table Natural Playground
Sand Play Area Permanent Garbage Cans
Sand Volleyball Court Ping Pong Table
Shade StructurePublic Art
Small Traditional Playground w Swings Site Clean-up
Soccer Field Small Traditional Playground
Trail Around ParkSt. George St Entrance Improvements
Winter Ice Rink Swing Set
Trail Improvements
Winter Ice Rink
3.2.1 – Additional Takeaways from Round 1
Lessons from the Round 1 experience are generally applicable to PB projects, and provide specific
insights for future parks consultations.
In the context of park refurbishment, items presented only included those which would be added or
refurbished for the updated parks. They did not include the cost of removing items, nor did they include
operational expenses. The design of the PB pilot process here was focused on how participants would
select items to be allocated for the future, but how the costing of the removal of existing items was
unclear. The PB pilot process here built on the park as a “blank slate” and in practice this is not always
going to be the case.
In a general sense, this phase in the process relied extensively on city staff to analyze information
provided by participants and their own expertise to both (a) identify feasible ideas for inclusion in future
rounds and (b) estimate the expense that would be associated with each item. Although time
constraints did not permit a greater degree of public participation in this phase of the process for the PB
pilot, designing this phase with greater public engagement in mind can increase accountability and trust
in government and provide opportunities for greater education of government processes. As a
consequence of having limited time during the pilot it was difficult for the public to understand what
was in scope for this particular process.
4 - 20
3.3 – Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
In Round 2, participants were asked to review the list of ideas that were generated in Round 1 and
express which ideas they would prioritize. Each park used a slightly different approach (the reason for
this difference will be explain later in this section):
Elmsdale Park: Participants scored each idea between 0 and 10, where 10 was the highest and 0
was the lowest. In this approach voters could score as many or as few ideas as they wanted, and
unscored ideas were treated as having a score of 0.
stndrdth
Sandhills Park: Participants ranked items in declining order of preference (ex. 1
, 2, 3, 4….).
st
In this approach, each item had a unique preference (i.e. two items couldn’t both be the 1
priority) and participants could rank as few or as many ideas as they liked. This being noted,
when voters did indicate ties calculations were made to ensure these votes were counted rather
than rendered invalid by splitting the tied votes into two “half-votes” of equal weight to
rdrd
represent the tie. This would turn a tied vote of (3 = Swing and 3 = Slide) to two half-votes of
rdththrd
(3
= Swing and 4 = Slide) and (4= Swing and 3 = Slide).
The Landscape architects attached a cost estimate to each idea and these were listed on the Round 2
ballots. This approach allowed participants to consider trade-offs that are required due to the budget
constraint. The inclusion of costs has the benefit of educating participants on the difficult decisions that
staff and Council must make as well as helping participants to spend the budget efficiently and
effectively. That being noted, participants were not asked to specifically limit their preferences to work
within the $100,000 budget constraint for each park.
The key design question from this pilot is this: how should participant preferences be used to generate
design bundles that are right for their community? For this pilot, a made-in-Kitchener two-step process
was developed to answer this question. For Round 2, four different ways were used to convert the votes
of people into distinct design bundles. Round 3 asked participants to vote again to select which design
bundle out of these for they preferred. These design bundles were different enough in each park that
the participants had a real choice to make when deciding between them.
The following approaches were used to calculate the design bundle:
Design bundle 1 (support ranking): Sort the items in order from highest to lowest of the total
support they received (scores, high rankings), with the idea at the top of the list having received
the highest support and the idea at the bottom having received the lowest support. Starting
from the top and working down, the idea with the most support is funded as long as there is
money available for it from the budget. If the next idea on the list costs more than the budget
available it is excluded then the next item on the list is considered. This continues until the
budget is spent or there are no remaining items on the list.
Design bundle 2 (support/cost ranking): Similar to Design bundle 1 the total support for each
idea from participants is calculated. The support for each idea is then divided by the cost of the
idea and ordered from highest support/cost to lowest. Starting from the top and working down,
the idea with the most support/cost is funded as long as there is money available for it from the
4 - 21
budget. If the next idea on the list costs more than the budget available it is excluded then the
next item on the list is considered. This continues until the budget is spent.
Design bundle 3 (participant mini-budget): Each participant is given an equal share of the total
budget. A participant’s share of the budget is allocated to each individual idea they support,
weighted by their (0-10) score in Elmsdale and or provided to the highest-ranked item in
Sandhills. If a idea has more money allocated to it than the project costs, it is funded. Leftover
money from overfunded projects (for example – participants allocate $20,000 to a project that
only costs $10,000) are returned to participants and reallocated to the remaining unfunded
projects they support. This continues until the budget is spent.
Design bundle 4: The Landscape Architects constructed a design bundle much as they would for
a traditional park refurbishment.
It is important to remember that although each design bundle was different, the prioritizations that the
participants provided did not change, and that these prioritizations were the only inputs. In other words,
the participants were always in charge. All that changed was the calculations used to interpret these
prioritizations.
In Round 3, participants were presented with different options that were created as a direct result of
their voting in Round 2. Round 3 ensured that the testing of alternative voting systems did not diminish
participant control or distort the outcome. Participants could still vote for the status quo design bundle
designed by the Landscape Architects (Design bundle 4) or any of the three developed through their
prioritizations (Design bundle 1, Design bundle 2 and Design bundle 3).
3.3.1 – Additional Takeaways from Round 2
The creation of design bundles using votes provided city staff with a clear sense of the priorities of
participants. Vote tallies can be publicly posted, as they are following municipal elections, allowing
participants and the broader community to validate decisions. Moreover, these preferences can play a
role outside the immediate PB engagement.
First, the votes can inform implementation. While city staff make their best estimates of the feasibility
of different ideas and how much their implementation will cost, during implementation the reality will
likely vary. If these variations are minor then the variations are unlikely to impact the final design
bundles. However, if these variations are major – for example previously unknown site characteristics
render an idea infeasible or final cost estimates are substantially higher than anticipated – the votes cast
for a design bundle can be recalculated using revised cost estimates or after having eliminated infeasible
items. Staff can use these recalculations to estimate what participants would have selected under these
different constraints. While this approach will not fully capture how participants would have voted given
these different options, repeating the full PB engagement process to amend the budget is not feasible,
and instead the revised budget may be sufficient to guide implementation.
4 - 22
Second, votes cast for ideas that remain unfunded can still inform broader decision-making. Notably, if
an idea is found to be popular amongst groups of participants engaged in different PB sites but does not
find sufficient support in any one particular site, then it may make sense to identify ways that the idea
or a similar one could still be implemented. For example, a large amenity could be shared by people in
multiple neighbourhoods, such as a splash pad, that is too costly to receive sufficient support from
neighbours in any one particular location. By monitoring support for ideas that are not implemented
locally, staff can identify opportunities for supporting amenities that may serve a larger catchment area.
3.4 – Round 3: Final Vote
Figure 8. Elmsdale Final Vote Form
In the third and final round, participants were
presented with four distinct design bundles of
items, as seen in Figures 8 and 9. The underlying
voting system that was used to create the design
bundle was not communicated, and neither was
the design bundle which was created by the
Landscape architects. This was done for three
main reasons: (1) to simplify the process by
avoiding a complex discussion on voting systems
that may create a barrier to participation, (2) to
avoid influencing the outcome if a participant
favoured one approach over another, and (3)
because it was expected to have little or no
impact on the choice in front of the participant.
4 - 23
The final design bundle was selected using a ranking of the four design bundles and an Alternative Vote
calculating system. In this system, first preference votes were counted and if a majority of participants
selected a design bundle it won. If a majority of participants did not support a single design bundle, the
design bundle with the lowest number of first
preference votes was dropped and the next
Figure 9. Sandhills Final Vote Form
highest design bundle for each of those voters
was counted instead. This continued until a
design bundle received at least half the vote.
Figure 10 displays the winning design bundles.
The winning design bundles both include a chess
table and edible forest, but otherwise do not
share any of the same features. This strongly
suggests that the PB process was effective at
reflecting the local priorities of participants.
Figure10. Winning Designs
Elmsdale Winning DesignSandhills Winning Design
(Green Design bundle – Participant Mini-(Red Design bundle – Support Ranking)
Budget)
Chess table Chess table
Edible forestCommunity events space
Natural playground (logs,
Ping pong table
timbers, rocks)
Sand play area Permanent garbage can
Sand volleyball court Swing set
Site clean-up (dead trees,
Basketball court
overgrowth, weeds, etc.)
More shade trees Benches
Little library Edible plantings / food forest
4 - 24
Native perennial and shrub
Benches & picnic tables
plantings
Charcoal grill & picnic area
Original Elmsdale Park Items: Original Sandhills Park Items:
Triple-toss basketball hoop Small playground
Picnic table Informal basketball courts
Bench Soccer nets
Scrub ball diamondOpen lawn with mature trees
3.4.1 – Key Lessons from Round 3
Since the two sites used different ballots, there is not sufficient data from this pilot to conclude that one
particular system delivers better results than any other. As a result, it is premature to suggest that a
single PB voting system should be used for all applications in Kitchener. While more experimentation is
recommended, initial findings do suggest strong support for the use of voting in budget allocations as in
both Elmsdale Park and Sandhills Park the design bundles developed using participant votes performed
better in Round 3 voting than the design bundles designed by staff.
There were features of the Range Ballot Participant Mini-Budget approach that ultimately won the final
round vote in Elmsdale Park that are appealing. First, the scoring of each item from 0 – 10 is a relatively
user-friendly design. Second, the calculation method provides an equal weight to each voter in decision-
making more effectively than the Support Ranking or Support/Cost Ranking approaches. Third, the votes
provide enough information that recalculations intended to account for operational realities, as
discussed in 2.3.1, are both straightforward and expected to have a limited impact on the entire design
bundle. Finally, the range ballot calculation methods used in the pilot all reduced the likelihood of highly
unpopular ideas with strong niche support being included in the final design bundle. By contrast, from
the Ranked Ballot methods used at Sandhills Park only the Support Ranking method achieved this result.
The two-round voting process provides a strong basis for ongoing experimentation in PB design and it is
highly recommended that it remain part of City of Kitchener PB processes for the near future. What a
two-round process allows is for two or more parallel decision-making processes to occur simultaneously
because the final round of voting lets participants choose between the different design bundles each
process creates. This allows for continued experimentation in voting processes, but also
experimentation with other methods such as having local residents negotiate to structure one or more
design bundles, use a randomly-selected resident panel to create a design bundle, allow a
neighbourhood association to design their own process, or test different staff-led engagement
approaches. The results from this PB pilot are ambiguous as to the possibility of “engagement fatigue”
dissuading public participation between voting rounds. That being noted, for participants this final
round may provide an opportunity to have more focused conversations about the items that are most
likely to be included in a budget.
4 - 25
In addition to allowing different processes to run in parallel, a two-round voting process also allows for
an additional check on the process that a single-round would not. During Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
participants were indicating support for individual ideas in isolation from each other. However, Round 3:
Final Vote allowed participants to consider whole design bundles of ideas which allowed them to
consider how these individual ideas within each design bundle will interact with each other once
implemented.
3.5 – Participation
The City of Kitchener regularly engages residents for park refurbishment projects. These engagements
typically include an initial survey to gather preferences and needs, an open house where residents can
ask questions, provide feedback directly to staff, and complete a short survey which asks participants for
their input on features they would like to see in the updated park. City staff report that for
neighbourhood parks—such as Elmsdale and Sandhills Parks—a participation rate of approximately of
20 – 25 individuals is expected for an open house (equivalent to Round 1: Idea Generation in this PB
pilot) and 100 individuals are expected for a survey submission (equivalent to Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
and Round 3: Final Vote in this PB pilot). That being noted, during a standard engagement process the
initial survey outreach would occur before and during an open house whereas in this PB pilot the
ordering was reversed.
Figure 11 shows the change in participation over the three rounds for each park. The participatory
budgeting pilot saw an increase in participation for the voting rounds (Round 2 and Round 3) relative to
the idea generation round. As a percentage of the neighbourhood populations, for Sandhills Park the
participation rates were 2.22% in Round 2 and 2.51% in Round 3, and for Elmsdale Park the rates were
1.61% in Round 2 and 1.26% in Round 3. The decline in turnout for Elmsdale Park between Round 2 and
Round 3 is quite similar to the increase in Sandhills Park’s turnout between Round 2 and Round 3, which
given that only two pilots were run makes it difficult to know if engagement fatigue was an issue.
The participation rates for the PB pilot are comparable to the City of Hamilton’s participatory budgeting
5
project which achieved a participation rate of 2.67%, and substantially higher than the City of Toronto’s
6
pilot which achieved rates of 0.5-0.7% across the three participating neighbourhoods. Future iterations
of participatory budgeting will be required to determine if the increased participation will continue or if
it stems from the novelty of the process. However, it is important to note that the round with the lowest
level or participation, Round 1: Idea Generation, is also the round in which engagement process was
closest to a traditional engagement processes.
4 - 26
Figure 11. Number of Participantsby Park
Number of Participants per Voting Round by Park
120
100
80
60
Axis Title
40
20
0
Round 1Round 2Round 3
Elmsdale
509675
Sandhills
4092104
1
Participants were asked in Rounds 1 and 3 to voluntarily disclose the gender with which they identify,
or select ‘Other’. In Round 3 voting, 76% of Elmsdale participants and 59% of Sandhills participants self-
identified as a woman (see Figure 12). Statistics Canada data for the neighbourhoods report near gender
2
balance, with women comprising 51% of Elmsdale and 49% of Sandhills populations.The City of
Kitchener’s online engagement tool was used, and open house times were varied, to reduce barriers for
participation based on work schedules.
1
An effort was made to minimize the time cost to participants by minimizing the number of questions asked. As a
result, gender and other demographic statistics were not collected in Round 2.
2
The researchers selected Statistics Canada Census Tracts that most closely match the park catchment areas used
by the City of Kitchener for pilot promotions, however, the boundaries do not directly align. The following 2016
Census Tract geographic codes were used: Elmsdale (5410002.02), Sandhills (5410011.00).
4 - 27
Figure 12. Participation by Identified Gender by Park
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ElmsdaleSandhilsElmsdaleSandhilsElmsdaleSandhills
Round 1Round 3Census
Men
26%35%23%49%49%51%
Women
70%60%76%51%51%49%
Other
4%5%0000%
Data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016005.
Participants were also asked in Round 1 and Round 3 to identify the highest level of education attained.
For Elmsdale Park during Round 1, 49% of participants had completed a post-secondary education
(certificate, diploma or degree) while during Round 3 the lower rate of 39% of participants had
completed post-secondary educations. For Sandhills Park Round 1, 81% of participants had completed a
post-secondary education while in Round 2 a similar 80% of participants had completed a post-
secondary education.
Figure 13. Participation by Highest Level of Education Attained by Park
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Axis Title
10%
5%
0%
Round 1Round 3Round 1Round 3
ElmsdaleSandhillsCensus (CMA)
High School
41%33%8%15%29%
Trade Certificate
5%3%8%3%6%
College Diploma
21%20%28%16%24%
Undergraduate Degree
13%13%15%26%15%
Professional or Graduate Degree
10%3%30%35%7%
Other
10%28%13%6%19%
Census data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001
4 - 28
City of Kitchener staff determined that residents 12 years of age and older would be eligible to
participate in the process. In Round 3 of Elmsdale voting, 22% of respondents were in the age range of
12 – 17, substantially higher than the 2016 Census population of 7%. In Sandhills, 3% of respondents
were in the 12-17 age range, 1% lower than the 2016 Census population of 4%. Both parks had the
highest turnout from individuals between the ages of 30 – 54. The second highest turnout in Sandhills
was from individuals 55 years of age or older, and in Elmsdale from residents 18-29 (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Population by Age by Park
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Round 1Round 2Round 3CensusRound 1Round 2Round 3Census
ElmsdaleSandhills
12 - 17
32%22%22%7%8%3%3%4%
18 -29
8%22%22%18%14%15%14%23%
30 - 54
44%41%41%32%54%63%61%38%
55+
14%16%16%27%24%23%22%26%
Census data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016005.
5. Design Options for Future Iterations
This participatory budgeting pilot process was an important step for the City of Kitchener to experiment
with a new form of resident engagement. Despite the long history of participatory budgeting projects
around the world, there remains many unanswered questions, and the methodical approach taken by
the City of Kitchener in partnership with the University of Waterloo has offered new insights, including:
Confirmation that the process generates results that are different from the traditional planning
process
Strong support among participants for design bundlesof amenities selected using a vote
Participation rates increase when residents are empowered to make decisions through a
transparent process
Two rounds of voting allow for greater variation in design which can, in turn, support a variety of
applications of participatory budgets
This final piece about using two-round voting processes is particularly important if the City of Kitchener
intends on expanding PB for use in other resident engagements. Much of the design for these pilots was
driven by the nature of city park planning. However, other engagement processes will necessarily have
different features. For example, the visual representation of physical items on the ballot might not work
4 - 29
the same way if PB was used for ideas proposed for a neighbourhood strategy engagement. If PB is
brought to other types of engagements a period of trial-and-error is likely as staff and residents develop
PB processes that make sense in each context, and the two-round voting process during which a first
round of engagement is used to create design bundles and a second round of voting selects between
design bundles is a transparent way to structure this development process.
In addition to its application in direct resident participation in decision-making, PB processes can also be
used in other contexts. The challenge of enabling collaboration between people to share financial
resources is a common one in a municipal government. Other opportunities for using PB processes
outside public engagement could include (but are not limited to):
Priority-setting by elected city councillors
Sharing of resources for expenses that affect multiple city departments
Volunteer-led granting committees
Resource-sharing between existing neighbourhood associations
Staff engagement in innovative cross-department initiatives
Further experimentation by the City of Kitchener can refine the process to increase engagement and
reduce staffing costs, track new data and interview participants on their perceptions of the process, test
the processes in new engagement areas and pilot new design features that engage participants in new
ways, and scale the number of participants. Future iterations can also add additional dimensions, such
as competing social or environmental priorities that must also be maximized along with the budget
allocation.
4 - 30
Works Cited
1.Participatory Budgeting Project. (2016, August). Participatory Budgeting: Next Generation
Democracy. Retrieved from http://community-wealth.org/content/participatory-budgeting-
next-generation-democracy-0
2.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
3.Cabannes, Y. (2004). 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting. UN-
HABITAT. Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org/books/72-frequently-asked-questions-about-
participatory-budgeting/
4.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for Communities
and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
5.Kearney, N. (2015). Participatory Breakthroughs and Reversals: A case study of participatory
budgeting in Hamilton, Canada (Masters thesis).
6.Toronto Community Housing. (2011). 2011 Annual Report: The Road to Excellence. Retrieved
from https://www.torontohousing.ca/about/Documents/TCH_AR2011%20-
%20updated%20Aug%2031Final.pdf
7.Environics Research. (2018). Compass K Community Engagement Research (p. 6). Retrieved from
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/1/CAO-18-014%20-
%20Community%20Priorities%20for%20the%20Next%20Term%20of%20Council.pdf
8.Ibid, 23
9.Ibid, 25
10.City of Kitchener. (2017). Special Council Minutes. Retrieved from City of Kitchener website:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/4/Council%20-%202017-02-
27%20S.pdf
11.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for Communities
and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
12.Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ParticipatoryBudgeting.pdf
13.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
14.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
4 - 31
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
15.Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2014). Beyond the Line: The Particiaptory Budgeting as an
instrument. Retrieved from http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/127562
16.Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ParticipatoryBudgeting.pdf
17.Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a Role for Citizens in the. Public Budgeting &
Finance, 32-49. Retrieved from
http://www.chs.ubc.ca/participatory/docs/Ebdon_Franklin(A).pdf
18.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
19.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
20.Ganuza, E., Nez, H. and Morales, E. (2014), The Struggle for a Voice: Tensions between
Associations and Citizens in Participatory Budgeting. Int J Urban Reg Res, 38: 2274–2291.
doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12059
21.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
22.City of Kitchener. (2017). Special Council Minutes. Retrieved from City of Kitchener website:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/4/Council%20-%202017-02-
27%20S.pdf
23.Limani, M. (2014). Citizen Engagement in Budget Planning in Ontario Municipalities. MPA
Research Report for The University of Western Ontario. {15}
24.Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a Role for Citizens in the. Public Budgeting &
Finance, 32-49. Retrieved from
http://www.chs.ubc.ca/participatory/docs/Ebdon_Franklin(A).pdf
25.Participatory Budgeting Project. (2016). Our Impact. Retrieved from
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/impacts/
26.City of Toronto. (n.d.). What is Participatory Budgeting? Retrieved from 1.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=aa3476539b955510VgnVCM10000
071d60f89RCRD
27.Lerner, J., & Secondo, D. (2012). By the people, for the people: Participatory budgeting from the
bottom up in North America. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2)
4 - 32
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT:May 30, 2019
REPORT NO.: FIN-19-049
SUBJECT: 2019 Development Charges By-law
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Development Charge Background Study as amended in Attachment 1 and the
capital forecasts prepared in conjunction with the Study in accordance with Section 10
of the Development Charges Act, 1997 be adopted; and
That future excess capacity identified in the Development Charge Background Study be
paid for by development charges or other similar charges; and
That where grant funding is provided for a growth related project, to the extent possible,
it be used to fund the non-growth portion of the project; and
That the Local Service Guidelines in the form attached to Report FCS-19-049 be
approved; and
That the Development Charges Bylaw law in the form attached to Report FCS-19-049 be
approved.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Charges Act and its associated regulation allow municipalities to impose
development charges to pay for growth-related capital costs to service new development.
In order to do so, under the terms of the Act, municipalities must prepare a development charge
background study and pass a bylaw to determine the development charges, taking the following
into account:
A forecast of the amount, type and location of development anticipated in the municipality
for which development charges can be imposed.
The average capital service levels provided by the municipality in the 10-year period
immediately preceding the preparation of the background study.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 1
A review of future capital projects, including analysis of gross expenditures, funding
sources and net expenditures incurred or to be incurred by the municipality, to provide
for the expected development.
An examination of the long term capital and operating costs for capital infrastructure for
each service to which the development charges relate.
Development charge (DC) bylaws have a maximum term of five years. Kitchener’s DC bylaw
expires on July 1, 2019. In order to update the bylaw, a background study must be published,
and at least one public meeting must be held.
Council has already provided direction to publish a background study, which was posted to the
th
City’s website on April 25,meeting thelegislated requirement to publish the study 60 days in
advance of the bylaw being passed (the bylaw and all supporting documentation is scheduled
th
to be passed by Council on June 24).
th
Also in accordance with legislation, a statutory public meeting was held on May 13where six
individuals made delegations to Committee on behalf of themselves, their company, client, or
organization. Staff have reviewed the feedback from the public meeting, as well as separate
written submissions, and have made some adjustments to the final document (as noted later in
this report) as a result of the feedback received.
The City’s DC consultant (Hemson) will be in attendance to respond to questions from Council
prior to the final versions of the DC informationbeingforwarded to the Council meeting on June
th
24for approval.
The main purpose of this report is to highlight changes from the draft information posted on April
thth
25and discussed at the May 13public input meetings.Amendments have been made to the
background study, the local service guidelines, and the bylaw as noted in the body of the report.
In addition, the report will also provide a brief update on Bill 108, which will likely impact the
Development Charges Act.
REPORT:
Changes to the DC Background Study& Final Proposed DC Rates(Attachment 1)
The feedback received from stakeholders about the background study focused primarily on
specific capital projects, but also touched on the development forecast. Staff and the City’s DC
consultant have reviewed the submitted comments and have made some adjustments to the
Draft DC Background Study information.
The changes include relatively minor adjustments like name changes to help clarify the purpose
of a specific project, to something more significant like adjusting the budget or timing of a project.
All of the changes to the DC Background Study have been summarized in Attachment1to this
report.Some of the amendments impactedthe proposed DC rates, with a summary of thefinal
proposed rates being shown in the table below.More detailed schedules are provided at the
very end of this report.
5 - 2
Final Proposed Development Charge Rate Changes
Current Calculated
Charge TypeLocation% Change
RateRate
Residential (Single)Suburban$11,572$18,73062%
Residential (Single)Central Neighbourhood$6,030$12,549108%
22
Non-ResidentialSuburban$59.60/m$57.63/m-3%
22
Non-ResidentialCentral Neighbourhood$18.01/m$20.78/m15%
The suburban rates have gone down slightly, mostly due to the removal of a Stormwater project
(i.e. costs have gone down) and an increase to the development forecast for the suburban area
(i.e. costs are spread out over more development). The central neighbourhood rates have gone
up slightly, mostly due to a decrease to the development forecast for the central neighbourhoods
(i.e. costs are spread out over less development).
Changes to the Local Service Guidelines (Attachment 2 & Appendix G to the DC Background
Study)
Local Service Guidelines are being included as an appendix to the DC Background Study to
better clarify what infrastructure is the responsibility of an individual developer versus the
infrastructure that isfunded by DCs. Feedback received from stakeholders was reviewed by the
Director of Engineering and the City’s DC consultant, and some amendments have been made
to the guidelines document. The changes in general are fairly minor, such as removing reference
to arterial roads as a possible direct developer responsibility, or including Transportation Impact
Statements as an eligible document for determining if a project is a local service or DC eligible.
All of the changes to the Local Service Guidelines have been summarized in Attachment 2 to
this report.
Changes to the DC Bylaw (Appendix H to the DC Background Study)
Aside from the DC rates (which are an appendix to the bylaw), the only change to the DC Bylaw
relates to the wording for Redevelopment Allowances (sections 6.8 to 6.11). Feedback received
from the development industry indicated “mixed use” sites that include both residential and non-
residentialusesshould be considered non-residentialfor determining the timeline available for
redevelopment allowances. The bylaw language has been updated to clarify that mixed use
sites would be treated as non-residential sites when considering redevelopment allowances.
Bill 108: More Homes, More Choices Act
th
The May 27, Committee of the Whole agenda included report DSD-19-135(Bill 108, More
Homes, More Choices Act), which provided high level information about the Bill and the impacts
it would have on various pieces of Provincial legislation. One of the areas identified in the report
was the Development Charges Act.
At the time of writing this report, staff are aware of the following timeline for Bill 108:
Friday May 31 – Deadline to provide comments about the Bill
Monday June 3 - Committee will conducta line by line consideration of the Bill
5 - 3
rd
Tuesday June 4 – The Bill will be reported to the Housefor 3reading and could be
called to vote that day
th
Based on this information, Bill 108 could be passed on June 4, but many of the details (e.g.
effective date for the changes, transition rules, what percentage of land value would be used to
calculate the Community Benefit Charge) are still be unknown as they willbe outlined in the
associated Regulation, which has not been published.
Regardless of the direction of Bill 108, it is still imperative that the new DC bylaw is passed on
thst
June 24, since the City’s existing bylaw expires on July 1. If no updated bylaw is passed, the
City will not be permitted to collectdevelopment charges. Staff have tried to anticipate the
changes that will happen to the City’s DC bylaw if Bill 108 passes in its current form, and have
for example, split out the DC rates into Non-Discounted (Schedule B1) and Discounted
(Schedule B2) schedules. This will make it simpler to remove the Discounted service costs,
should they be eliminated from the DC Act as proposed under Bill 108.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Effective and Efficient City Services
Strategy:5.4 – Ensure the responsible stewardship of public funds within a supportive policy
framework.
Strategic Action:#CS41 Development Charges Background Study (2019)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Development charges are used to fund growth related capital infrastructure, with the specific
projects and timing detailed in the DC Study. The proposed rates are summarizedearlier in this
th
report and will be formally set by Council on June 24. Once approved, the 2020-2029 Capital
Budget and Forecast will be updated to reflect the approved capital program to be funded by the
new DC rates.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
As noted in the report, the mandatory public meeting related to development charges happened
on May 13, 2019.In addition to the statutory public meeting required by the Development
Charges Act, staff met twice with the Waterloo Region Homebuilders Association (WRHBA)
Liaison committee. Once in January to provide a general update about the DC process
timelines, and again in April once Council had provided direction about rate increases. At the
April meeting, staff provided draft versions of the DC rate tables, growth projections, historical
service levels, and capital forecasts (two weeks in advance of the statutory 60-day requirement).
As well, staff provided the WRHBA draft versions of the Engineering project sheets in January.
nd
Further, staff organized a meeting with industry stakeholders for the morning of May 2to
provide an overview of the 2019 DC Study and bylaw, clarify the assumptions used in the Study,
5 - 4
answer questions, and solicit their feedback in advance of public meeting and prior to Council
passing the DC bylaw.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
Threeprevious reports about the 2019 Development Charges process have already been
provided to Council. They are:
FIN-19-013, 2019 Development Charges Overview (February 25, 2019)
FIN-19-029, 2019 Development Charges Priorities & Rate Options (April 1, 2019)
FIN-19-038, 2019 DevelopmentCharges Public Input (May 13, 2019)
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
5 - 5
ATTACHMENT 1 - KITCHENER 2019 DC BACKGROUND STUDY SUMMARY
OF CHANGES SINCE PUBLISHING ON APRIL 25,2019
FORECAST
The population in new units in each of the sub-municipal areas has been updated. The
population in the Suburban Area has increased to 52,725 (from 46,857 in Table 9 of the draft
study) and the population forecasted in the Central Neighbourhood has decreased to 20,247
(from 26,115 in Table 10 of the draft study).
INVENTORY (HISTORICAL AVERAGE SERVICE LEVELS)
Parking services updated the committed excess capacity for the Charles & Benton and the Civic
District Garages to 26 spots and 106 spots respectively. The maximum calculated funding
envelope decreased by $174,406 (from $23.15 million to $22.97 million). There was no impact
to the calculated rates as the capital program is below the funding envelope.
“DISCOUNTED” SERVICES
No changes to the costs, benefit to existing or post period benefit shares have been made.
Names of the following capital items have changed to provide more clarity on the purpose
of the line items:
#Name as of April 25, Updated NameComments
2019
2.3.2Fire Technology Development Related Updated to better reflect the nature of the costs to be
UpgradeEquipment and funded.
Technology
4.1.3District Park District Park This line is specifically related to the sports fields required
DevelopmentDevelopment (Sports in City District Parks
Fields)
4.1.4Victoria District Park Victoria Park These parks were referred to as “District Parks” which
RedevelopmentRedevelopmentmay have caused some confusion. That reference has
been removed and they are now referred to as just their
4.1.5McLennan District Park McLennan Park
names.
RedevelopmentRedevelopment
4.1.6Huron Natural Area Huron Natural Area Park
District Park Redevelopment
Redevelopment
4.1.7Kiwinis Park Kiwinis Park
Redevelopment
5 - 6
“NON-DISCOUNTED” SERVICES
Changes made as requested by the development industry and/or review by staff:
Dodge Drive Trunk Sanitary Sewer & Road Restoration: The project cost has
been increased from $4,413,000 to $6,254,000 based on updated design
information. The timing for design/construction remains in 2027/2028 as opposed to
the requested change to 2019/2020 due to the negative impact to the DCReserve
Fund.
Strasburg Road South & Watermain Extension:The project has been increased
by $1,000,000 as requested to allow for the construction of a round-about at New
Dundee Road.
Blair Creek Drive – Road & Watermain Extension:The timing for
design/construction has been moved from 2027/2028 to the requested timeline of
2025/2026 to be compatible with the Strasburg Road project.
Upper Hidden Valley SPS & Forcemain:The Region’s current budget allocation
for the construction of River Road between Wabanaki/Goodrich and King Street is
2023/2024, although that may be changed to a later timeline. On this basis and due
to the negative impact to the DC Reserve Fund, the timing for design/construction
remains in 2026/2027 as opposed to the requested change to 2021/2022.
Hidden Valley Creek Improvements:The funding for the EA will be movedfrom
2026 to the requested timeline of 2020 in order to provide a complete planning
picture for this area. The Region’s current budget allocation for the construction of
River Road between Wabanaki/Goodrich and King Street is 2023/2024, although
that may be changed to a later timeline. On this basis and due to the negative
impact to the DC Reserve Fund, the timing for design/construction remains in
2027/2028 as opposed to the requested change to 2022/2023.
Storm/Watercourse
o Projects 6.1.8, 6.1.9, and 6.1.10 “Watercourse Improvement Program” made up
the majority of the capital program and they have been removed. The remaining
capital expenditures can be paid for using the existing reserve fund balance and
any interest accumulated based on the current timingof the projects. The City may
review this service in the following DC By-law.
5 - 7
ATTACHMENT 2 - KITCHENER 2019 LOCAL SERVICE GUIDELINES
SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PUBLISHING ON APRIL 25, 2019
The table below outlines the amendments made to the Local Service Guidelines as a result of
stakeholder input:
#AmendmentComments
OverviewChange “project must be listed in DC This allows more flexibility if an unanticipated project comes to
Point #1Study” to “project should be listed in DC lightduring the tenure of the City’s Development Charges Study
Study”.and bylaw.
OverviewEntire point deleted.Point deleted to reduce confusion about how the rest of the
Point #3document should be interepreted.
1.5“Roads (collector and arterial)” changed to Arterial roads would be a DC eligible project, so have been
“Collector roads”removed from the local service guidelines.
2.4Added “Transportation Impact Statements” Transportation Impact Statements are another way to determine
to definition.if the project should be a developer responsibility or funded
through DCs.
4.3Added “as a result of the development” to Including this wording to the definition should help clarify when
definition.sidewalk improvements are required to be funded by
developers.
5 - 8
APPENDIX G
LOCAL SERVICE GUIDELINES
5 - 9
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGE FUNDING FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The following guidelines set out the requirements for infrastructure that is included in the City of
Kitchener Development Charge Study and eligible for funding from the Development Charge Fund.
Generally:
1.The project should be listedin the most current City of Kitchener Development Charges Study.
2.Any infrastructure that does not add any additional capacity over and above the capacity
requirement for that development is deemed to be the sole responsibility of the developer.
The following principles are used to identify infrastructure which is wholly or partially eligible for funding
from the Development Charge Fund. All decisions will vest with the Director of Engineering.
These principles are subject to review and amendment by the City which may be independent of an
amendment or update to the City’s development charge by-laws.
The detailed engineering requirements for all infrastructure are governed by the City of Kitchener’s
Official Plan and the Kitchener Growth Management Plan. If not specified in the Official Plan, by the
approved detailed engineering standards.
Collector Roads/Minor Arterials
1.1New local roads constructed internal to the development are the direct
responsibility of the developer.
1.2New collector roads constructed external to the development, but serving
primarily to connect a development to the main road network are a direct
responsibility of the developer.
1.3When a local service road project is deemed to be oversized, to meet non-local
service needs, the oversizing costs may be eligible for development charge
funding. The oversizing cost is considered to be the marginal cost difference in
width, from the local service need (size) to the full oversized width including but
not limited to: Asphalt, Granular A, Granular B, excavation, grading.
1.4Collector and minor arterial roads internal to development - direct developer
responsibility under s.59 of the DCA (as a local service).
1.5Collector roads external to development are a local service if the works are within
the area in proximity to which the plan relates and therefore a direct developer
responsibility under s.59 of the DCA. Otherwise, the works are included in DC
calculation to the extent permitted under s.5(1) of the DCA (dependent on local
circumstances).
1.6Stream crossing road works excluding underground utilities but including all other
works within lands to be dedicated to the City are included in the DC calculation
5 - 10
to the extent permitted under s.5(1) of the DCA (dependent on local
circumstances).
1.7If the developer is required to provide a collector road for Official Plan
requirements but serving primarily to connect a development to the main road
network, the collector road is a direct responsibility of the developer.
1.8Roads required to service only the proposed development or subsequent phases
of the same development will not be eligible for any development charge funding.
1.9New, widened, extended or upgraded collector roads that are external to specific
developments, and not captured by items 1.1 to 1.8, are considered to be eligible
for development charge funding.
Intersection improvements
2.1New roads (collector and arterial) and road improvements to collectors or arterial
roads are included in the DC calculation to the extent permitted under s.5(1) of
the DCA to limits of right of way.
2.2Intersection improvements within specific developments and all works necessary
to connect entrances (private and specific subdivision) to the roadway – direct
developer responsibility under s.59 of DCA (as a local service).
2.3Intersections with Regional roads and Provincial highways will be included in DC
calculation to the extent that they are a City responsibility.
2.4Intersection improvements on other roads due to developmentgrowth increasing
traffic will be included in DC calculation.
For further clarification, all improvements to a road (and road-related infrastructure) to facilitate
development are considered local services to be paid by the developer unless the works fall into one of
the following categories:
The improvement is designated as required for traffic flow improvement for an area greater than
the development, is defined as a road improvement required by the City, and is identified
through the Class Environmental Assessment process or a City Transportation Study or a
Transportation Impact Statement. Such an improvement would be listed in the City’s most
current Development Charges Background Study.
The improvement is designated as required by City staff to serve a greater area than the
development and is identified in the capital forecast and is listed in the City’s most current
Development Charges Background Study.
5 - 11
Streetlights
3.1Streetlights on external roads (collector/arterial) will be included in the DC
calculation.
3.2Streetlights within specific developments - direct developer responsibility under
s.59 of DCA (as a local service).
Sidewalks
4.1Sidewalks on Regional or City roads internal to development –direct developer
responsibility under s.59 of the DCA (as a local service).
4.2Sidewalks on Regional or City roads that are external to the development are
included in the DC calculation.
4.3New sidewalks that are external to a proposed development and which are
required as a result of the development to connect to an existing sidewalk which
is external to the proposed development - direct developer responsibility as a
local service provision (under s.59 of DCA).
BikeRoutes/Bike Lanes/Bike Paths/Multi-Use Trails/Naturalized
Walkways
5.1 Bike lanes, within road allowance, internal to development - direct developer
responsibility under s.50 of the DCA (as a local service).
5.2Bike paths/multi-use trails/naturalized walkways internal to development – direct
developer responsibility under s.50 of the DCA (as a local service).
5.3Bike routes and bike lanes, within road allowance, external to development -
include in DC road costs, consistent with the service standard provisions of the
DCA, s.5(1).
5.4Bike paths/multi-use trails/naturalized walkways external to development -
include in DC consistent with the service standard provisions of the DCA, s.5(1).
5.5Trail Bridges/Underpasses and associated works - include in area municipal DCs
consistent with the service standard provisions of the DCA, s.5(1).
5 - 12
Noise Abatement Measures
6.1Internal or adjacent to Development - direct developer responsibility though local
service provisions (s.59 of DCA).
Traffic Control Systems
7.1Traffic Control Systems within specific developments and all works necessary to
connect entrances (private and specific subdivision) to the roadway – direct
developer responsibility under s.59 of DCA (as a local service).
7.2Traffic Control Systems on roads due to development growth necessitating
revised traffic control - include in DC calculation.
Land Acquisition for Road Allowances
8.1Land acquisition for arterial or collector roads, to the minimum widths required is
achieved through dedications under the Planning Act.
8.2Land acquisition for collector/minor arterial roads - dedication under the Planning
Act subdivision provision (s.51) through development lands (up to 30 metreright-
of-way); in areas with limited or no development, include in area municipal DC (to
the extent eligible).
8.3Land acquisition for arterial roads - dedication under the Planning Act subdivision
provisions (s.51) through development lands;in areas with limited or no
developments include in City DC (to the extent eligible).
8.4Land acquisition for grade separations (beyond normal dedication requirements)
- Include in the DC to the extent eligible.
Storm Water Management
9.1Quality, quantity and water retention works internal to the development or
required due to the development are direct developer responsibility through local
service provisions (s. 59 of DCA).
9.2Storm sewers 1200 mm and under are deemed to be a local service and are a
direct funding responsibility of the developer.
5 - 13
9.3Storm Sewers within the development that are larger than 1200 mm are to be
included in the development charge calculation. The amount of DC cost
contribution for storm sewers within a development shall be calculated using
tendered unit prices and shall be the difference between the cost of the actual
pipe diameter and the cost of a 1200 mm pipe diameter including a 10%
engineering fee.
9.4Volume control measures are required on all linear projects(roads) without
restrictions, that create 0.5 or greater hectares of new and/or fully reconstructed
impervious surface. The first 6.25mm of runoff from the new impervious surface
must be capture. If the new or upgraded road is external to the development
then it will be included in the DC calculation. If the road is internal to the
development then its direct developer responsibility through local service
provisions (s. 59 of DCA).
Water
10.1Watermains 300 mm and under are deemed to be a local serviceand are a direct
funding responsibility of the developer.
10.2Watermains within the development that are larger than 300 mm are to be
included in the development charge calculation. The amount of DC cost
contribution for watermains within a development shall be calculated using
tendered unit prices and shall be the difference between the cost of the actual
pipe diameter and the cost of a 300 mm pipe diameter including a 10%
engineering fee. Only watermain and valves will be included in the calculation.
10.3Connections to trunk mains and pumping stations to service specific areas are to
be a direct developer responsibility.
10.4Trunk watermains, generally outside the development area, identified by a Class
Environmental Assessment, Servicing Study or by City staff will be included in
the development charge calculation. Such works would be listed in the City’s
most current Development Charges Background Study.
Sanitary Sewer
11.1Sanitary sewer collectors less than 375 mm are deemed to be a local service and
are a direct funding responsibility of the developer.
11.2For sanitary sewers 375mm or larger and internal to a development and which
require upsizing to accommodate upstream flows, the amount of DC cost
contribution for sanitary sewers within a development shall be calculated using
5 - 14
tendered unit prices and shall be the difference between the cost of the actual
pipe diameter and the cost ofa 375 mm pipe diameter including a 10%
engineering fee.
11.3Sanitary trunk sewers, 375mm or larger, external to the development will be
included in the development charge calculation. These services will be identified
through a Class Environmental assessment and will be noted as a project in the
DC Background Study.
11.4Private pumping stations servicing a small localized area (potentially one or more
developments) are a local service and a direct developer responsibility under
s.59 of the DCA.
11.5Pumping stations that are municipally owned and service more than one property
shall be included in the DC calculations. Pumping stations are those required by
the City, and is identified through the Class Environmental Assessment process.
The pumping stations will be included in the City’s most current Development
Charges Background Study.
11.6Incremental capacity upgrades for municipal pumping stations are to be included
in the DC calculation and identified in the City’s most current Development
ChargesBackground Study.
Retaining Walls
12.1Retaining walls are not DC eligible and once constructed becomes the
developers’ responsibility for maintenance and upkeep for the life of said
retaining wall.
5 - 15
APPENDIX H
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BYLAW
5 - 16
BY-LAW NUMBER 2019-
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
Being a by-law to establish development charges
for the City of Kitchener and to repeal By-law 2014-068
WHEREAS the City will experience growth through development of land which will increase the
need for services to be provided by the City;
AND WHEREAS section 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27 (the Act")
authorizes the council of a municipality to pass By-laws for the imposition of development charges
against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services
arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies;
AND WHEREAS Council wishes to ensure that the capital cost of meeting growth related demands
for services is met but does not place a financial burden upon the City's existing taxpayers, and
also that new taxpayers bear no more than the net capital cost attributable to providing the current
level of services;
AND WHEREAS the municipal council has direction that a Development Charges Background
Study be undertaken, has reviewed and considered the Development Charges Background Study
and a draft Development Charges By-law, and has performed the actions required by sections 10
and 12 of the Act and by O. Reg. 82/98 (“the Regulation) and has considered all of the
representations made at the public meeting,
NOW THEREFORE the municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
SECTION 1
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
1.1In this by-law:
"accessory use" means a use, including a building, which is commonly incidental, subordinate and
exclusively devoted to the main use or main building situate on the same lot;
"agricultural use" means the use of land and buildings for apiaries, fish farming, animal husbandry
or the cultivation of trees, shrubs, flowers, grains, sod, fruits, vegetables and other crops or
ornamental plants ("agricultural products") but shall not include any building or structure where
5 - 17
agricultural products are displayed for sale in more than twenty-five per cent of the gross floor area
of such building or structure;
"capital cost" has the same meaning it has pursuant to the Act,
"development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more
of the actions referred to in Section 2.3, and includes redevelopment;
"development charge" means a development charge imposed pursuant to this By-law.
"duplex" means a dwelling or residential building divided predominantly horizontally into two
dwelling units;
"dwelling unit" means a room or suite of rooms which:
(a)is located in a building (including a non-residential building),
(b)isoccupied or designed to be occupied by a household as a single, independent and
separate housekeeping establishment,
(c)contains both a kitchen and bathroom for the exclusive common use of the occupants
thereof, and
(d)has a private entrance leading directly from outside the building or from a common
hallway or stairway inside the building;
“excess capacity" means uncommitted excess capacity but excludes uncommitted excess capacity
if, either before or at the time the excess capacity was created, the Council of the City expressed a
clear intention that the excess capacity would be paid for by development charges or other similar
charges;
"existing industrial building" means an industrial building or buildings that existed on July 1, 2019
or the first building or buildings constructed and occupied on a vacant site pursuant to a site plan
approval under section 41 of the Planning Act subsequent to July 1, 2019 for which full development
charges were paid.
"floorarea" means the area of floors of a building or structure measured between the outside
surfaces of exterior walls or between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of
party walls, and in the case of a dwelling unit includes only those floor areas above grade. This
shall not include any area which is specifically designed for parking and is not being used for the
repair or sale of vehicles;
"grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a dwelling unit at all exterior walls;
"gross floor area" means the total floor area of a building or structure;
"growth-related net capital cost" means the portion of the net capital cost of services that is
reasonably attributable to the need for such net capital cost that results or will result from the
5 - 18
anticipated development in all or a defined part of the City less the City's excess capacity and the
extent to which an increase in service to meet the increased need will benefit existing development
within the City;
"home business" means a vocational use, as permitted by the applicable City zoning by-law,
conducted in a dwelling unit which is secondary to the use of the dwelling unit as a private
residence;
“hospital” means a hospital as defined in the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40;
"household" means one or more persons living together as a single non-profit, housekeeping unit,
sharing all areas of the dwelling unit and may, in addition, be designed to accommodate lodging
units containing less than four residents;
“industrial building” means a building used in connection with: (a) manufacturing, producing,
processing, storing (but only where the storage is ancillary to related manufacturing, production,
processing or distribution) or distributing something; (b) research or development in connection
with manufacturing, producing or processing something; (c) retail sales by a manufacturer,
producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales
are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place; or, (d) office
or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing,
processing, storage or distributing of something, and, (ii) in or attached to the building or
structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution.
"local board" means a municipal service board, transportation commission, public library board,
board of health, police services board, planning board or any other board, commission, committee,
body or local authority established or exercising any power under any Act with respect to any of the
affairs or purposes of the City or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region") or any part
or parts thereof, excluding a school board, a conservation authority and any other board excluded
under any general or special Act;
"local services" means services related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan
relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as acondition of approval under section 51 of the
Planning Act, or as a condition of approval under section 53 of the Planning Act;
"lodging house" means a dwelling or residential building containing one or more lodging units
designed to accommodate four or more residents. The residents may share common areas of the
dwelling other than the lodging units, and do not appear to function as a household. This shall not
include a group home, nursing home, hospital or any residential care facility licensed, approved, or
supervised under any general or specific Act, or a hotel or motel. This shall include but not be
limited to student residences, convents, unlicensed nursing homes and tourist homes;
“lodging unit" means a room or set of rooms located in a lodginghouse designed or intended to be
used for sleeping and living accommodation, which:
5 - 19
(a)is designed for the exclusive use of the resident or residents of the unit;
(b)is not normally accessible to persons other than the resident or residents of the unit;
and
(c) may contain either a bathroom or kitchen but does not contain both for the exclusive
use of the resident or residents of the unit,
but does not include a unit or room in a hotel, motel, nursing or retirement home, group home, or
hostel designed for human habitation;
“multiple dwelling" means a dwelling or residential building containing three or more dwelling units,
but shall not include townhouse or row dwellings;
"net capital cost" means the capital cost less capital grants, subsidies andother contributions made
to the City or that the Council of the City anticipates will be made but only to the extent that the
grant, subsidy or other contribution is clearly intended by the person making it to benefit new
development and includes conveyances or payments under sections 42, 51.1 and 53 of the
Planning Act, in respect of the capital cost;
"non-residential use" means the use of land, building or structures for a use other than residential
use, including all commercial, industrial and institutional uses and excluding agricultural uses;
"owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the
development or redevelopment of land upon which a development charge is imposed;
"residential use" means the use of land, buildings or structures for one or more single detached,
semi-detached, townhouse, row dwelling, multiple dwelling or duplex dwelling units and lodging
houses;
"semi-detacheddwelling" means a dwelling or residential building divided predominantly vertically
into two dwelling units;
"services" means services designated in Schedule "A" attached to this by-law;
"single-detached dwelling" means a dwelling or residential building consisting of one dwelling unit
and not attached to another residential structure, and shall include a mobile home located on a
foundation;
"site" means a parcel of land which can be legally conveyed pursuant to section 50 of the Planning
Act and includes a development having two or more lots consolidated under one identical
ownership;
"townhouse or row dwelling" means a dwelling or residential building divided predominantly
vertically into three or more attached dwelling units, each of which has a separate entrance from
the outside; and
5 - 20
Interpretation
1.2This By-law shall be construedin accordance with the Act and the regulations thereunder,
and the definitions in Section 1.1 shall be read with any necessary modifications as may be
required in order to comply with the Act and the Regulation, or any successor legislation, as
amended from time to time. Subject to the foregoing, undefined words in this By-law for
which definitions exist within the applicable Zoning By-law of the City of Kitchener shall be
interpreted and applied in accordance with the said Zoning By-law. The intentionof this
By-law is that it shall be interpreted and applied in a manner so that there is consistency
between the Act, any regulations passed thereunder, and the applicable Zoning By-law of
the City.
Declaration
1.3It is hereby declared by the Council that all development of land within the City will increase
the need for services.
Statutory Contents of By-law
1.4For purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, rules have been developed as follows:
RuleLocation Reference
The rules for determining if a development charge is Section 2.3 and Schedules
payable in any particular case and for determining the “B1” and “B2”
amount of the charge
The rules for determining the exemptions to development Section 2.2
charges
The rules for determining the indexing of development Sections 7.2 and 7.3
charges
The rules respecting the redevelopment of landSection 6.8 and 6.9
The area of the municipality to which this By-law RelatesSection 2.1
SECTION 2
APPLICATION AND EXEMPTIONS
Geographic Application
2.1Subject to section 2.2, this by-law applies to all lands within the City of Kitchener and any
lands outside the City of Kitchener to which services are provided by the City, whether or
not the land or use thereof is exempt fromtaxation under section 3 of the Assessment Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31.
5 - 21
Exceptions
2.2This by-law does not apply to land owned by and used for the purposes of:
(a)a board of education as defined by subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.E.2;
(b)the City of Kitchener or any local board thereof;
(c)the Region or any local board thereof;
(d)any area municipality within the Region; and
(e)the Crown in right of Ontario or the Crown in right of Canada.
Imposition of Development Charges
2.3Subject to sections 2.4 to 2.9 inclusive, development charges shall apply on land to be
developed for residential and non-residential use, where the development or redevelopment
requires one or more of the following approvals:
(a)the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section 34 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13;
(b)the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. P. 13;
(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 applies;
(d)the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13;
(e)a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13;
(f)the approval of a description under section 9 of the Condominium Act, S.O. 1998, c.
19; or
(g)the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 (the
"Building Code"), in relation to a building or structure.
2.4Section 2.3 shall not apply in respect of,
5 - 22
(a)local services; or
(b)localconnections to water mains, sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities
installed at the expense of the owner including amounts imposed under a by-law
passed under section 326 of the Municipal Act, 2001, c. 25, as amended.
2.5Where two or more of the actions described in section 2.3 are required before the land to
which a development charge applies can be developed or redeveloped, only one
development charge shall be imposed, calculated and collected in accordance with the
provisions of this by-law.
2.6Despite section 2.5, if two or more of the actions described in section 2.3 occur at different
times and if the subsequent action or actions has the effect of increasing the need for
services as designated in this by-law, additional development charges shall be imposed,
calculated and collected in accordance with the provisions of this by-law.
2.7Section 2.3 shall not apply to:
(a) a temporary use permitted under a zoning by-law enacted under sections 39
or 39.1of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;
(b)an accessory use to residential uses;
(c)a home business;
(d)an agricultural use;
(e)temporary erection of a building without foundation for a period not exceeding
six consecutive months and not more than six months in any one calendar
year on a site for which development charges or lot levies have previously
been paid; and
(f)the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit or the creation of up to two
additional dwelling units as prescribed by Ontario Regulation 82/98 and set
out in Schedule "D" attached hereto, and as such Regulation may be
amended from time to time, provided that:
(i)the number of dwelling units created in the renovated or enlarged
residential building does not exceed the applicable maximum number of
additional dwelling units set out in Schedule "D" attached hereto, and the total
gross floor area of the additional dwelling units does not exceed the applicable
maximum gross floor area provisions set out in Schedule "D" attached hereto;
and
(ii)no more than one or two additional dwelling units in accordance with
5 - 23
this subsection may ever be created without the imposition of development
charges.
2.8Development charges as set out in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this by-law shall apply to all lands
that are developed or redeveloped for residential and non-residential use in accordance with
this by-law, but only insofar as,
(a)the growth-related net capital costs of services are attributable to residential or non-
residential use, as the case may be; and,
(b)the growth-related net capital cost of each service is attributable to the anticipated
development and at standards no higher than the average level of each such service
provided by the City over the ten year period immediately preceding the preparation
of the Study.
2.9The rates set out in Schedules "B1" and “B2” attached hereto shall be determined so as to
reflect a ten per cent reduction to the growth-related net capital costs, except that there shall
be no percentage reduction for the following growth-related net capital costs:
(a)water supply services, including distribution and treatment services;
(b)waste water services, including sewers and treatment services;
(c)storm water drainage and control services;
(d)services related to a highway as defined in section 26 of the Municipal Act, 2001, c.
25 as amended; and
(e)fire protection services.
SECTION 3
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
3.1Development charges against land to be developed or redeveloped for residential use shall
be based upon the services to be provided by the City which are designated in Schedule
"A" attached hereto.
3.2Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges are hereby imposed against
land to be developed or redeveloped for residential use located within the Suburban Area
the boundary of which is shown on Schedule “C2” attached hereto and shall be calculated
and collected at the rates set out in Schedules "B1" and “B2” attached hereto.
3.3Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges are hereby imposed against
5 - 24
land to be developed or redeveloped for residential use located within the Central
Neighbourhoods the boundary of which is shown on Schedule “C1” attached hereto and
shall be calculated and collected at the rates set out in Schedules “B1” and “B2” attached
hereto.
3.4Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges against landto be developed
or redeveloped for mixed residential use shall be the aggregate of the amount applicable for
each dwelling unit according to its type as set forth in Schedules "B1" and “B2” attached
hereto.
SECTION 4
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
4.1Development charges against land to be developed or redeveloped for non-residential use
shall be based upon the services to be provided by the City which are designated in
Schedule "A" attached hereto.
4.2Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges are hereby imposed against
land to be developed or redeveloped for non-residential use located in the Suburban Area
the boundary of which is shown on Schedule “C2” attached hereto and shall be calculated
and collected at the rateset out in Schedules "B1" and “B2” attached hereto
.
4.3Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges are hereby imposed against
land to be developed or redeveloped for non-residential use in the Central Neighbourhoods
the boundary of which is shown on Schedule “C1”attached hereto and shall be calculated
and collected at the rate set out in Schedules “B1” and “B2” attached hereto.
4.4Despite anything in this by-law, there shall be an exemption from the payment of
development chargesfor one or more enlargements of an existing industrial building on a
site in accordance with the Act and the Regulation.
4.5Despite anything in this by-law, there shall be an exemption from the payment of
development charges in respect of any enlargement of a hospital.
SECTION 5
MIXED USE
5.1Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges against land to be developed
or redeveloped for mixed residential and non-residential use shall be the aggregate of the
amount applicable to the residential component and the amount applicable to the gross floor
area of the non-residential component.
5 - 25
SECTION 6
ADMINISTRATION
Payment
6.1All development charges required to be paidto the City pursuant to this by-law shall be paid
by a method acceptable to the Treasurer of the City.
Calculations
6.2Subject to the provisions of this Section, development charges shall be calculated and
payable in full on the date that a building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure
on land to which a development charge applies.
6.3Where development charges apply to land where a building permit is required, no building
permit shall be issued until the development charge is paid in full.
6.4 Despite section 6.2, the City may require that development charges applicable with respect
to the services described in subsections 2.9 (a) to (d) inclusive of this by-law ("Engineering
Services"), be calculated as set forth in Schedule "B1" hereto and payable immediately upon
the execution of a subdivision agreement under section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. P. 13. or a consent agreement under section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.
13., with respect to the lands to which such agreement, as the case may be, relates.
Credits
6.5The City may by agreement permit the owner of land to which development charges apply
to provide services for development or redevelopment of that land in lieu of the payment of
all or any portion of a development charge, including services additional to or of a greater
size or capacity than is required under this by-law ("services in lieu").
6.6Upon proof of the installation or construction of services in lieu to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineer, a credit, without interest, shall be applied against development charges payable
for an amount equal to the reasonable cost to the owner of providing services in lieu, as
determined by the City's Engineer, not to exceed the total amount of thedevelopment
charges otherwise payable.
6.7Any unused credit may be applied, upon proof satisfactory to the City's Chief Building
Official, to any subsequent development charge payable with respect to the same land as
referred to in section 6.5, or transferred and applied to any development charge payable
with respect to other land owned by the same owner to be developed or redeveloped with
the consent of the City on terms satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
5 - 26
Redevelopment Allowances
6.8Subject to theprovisions of this section, where any redevelopment or re-use of land replaces
or changes a former or existing development and, in the case of demolition upon proof of
issuance of a demolition permit for the land being provided, the development charge
applicable to the redevelopment or re-use shall be reduced by a redevelopment allowance,
without interest, not to exceed an amount equal to the total of:
(a)the number and types of legally established residential units in the former or existing
development; and
(b)the legally established non-residential gross floor area of the former or existing
development,
asdetermined by the Chief Building Official, or his or her designate, at the rates applicable
to such units or gross floor area at the time the first building permit for the re-development
is issued.
6.9No redevelopment allowance shall be made in excess of the development charge payable
for a redevelopment; however, the redevelopment allowance may be carried forward and
applied, upon proof satisfactory to the City's Chief Building Official, to any subsequent
development charge payable with respect to the same land as referred to in section 6.8.
6.10The availability of redevelopment allowances is time-limited, and such availability shall
expire in accordance with the following:
(a)Where a demolition permit was issued after the passing of this By-law:
(i)For the redevelopment of former residential lands, redevelopment
allowances shall not be available later than the fifth anniversary of the date on
which a demolition permit was issued in respect of the applicable buildings or
structures on the lands;and,
(ii)For redevelopment of former non-residential lands, redevelopment
allowances shall not be available later than the tenth anniversary of the date on
which a demolition permit was issued in respect of the applicable buildings; or
structures on the lands; and,
(b)Where a demolition permit was issued prior to the passing of this By-law:
.
(i)For the redevelopment of former residential lands, redevelopment
allowances shall not be available later than the tenth anniversary of the date on
which ademolition permit was issued in respect of the applicable buildings or
structures on the lands; and,
(ii)For redevelopment of former non-residential lands, redevelopment
5 - 27
allowances shall not be available later than the twentieth anniversary of the date
on which a demolition permit was issued in respect of the applicable buildings.
(c)For purposes of (a) and (b) above, mixed-use lands which were used for a
combination of residential and non-residential purposes shall be treated as non-
residential lands.
6.11Despite section 6.10, where the applicable timeframes in section 6.10 have not expired, a
record of site condition is required for the development of lands, and the process to obtain
the record of site condition is underway and is being pursued with all due dispatch, the Chief
Building Official may grant one or more extensions to the expiration dates in section 6.10 to
alleviate the delay occasioned by the necessity of obtaining a record of site condition,
provided that no such extension (or the cumulative effect of multiple extensions) shall result
in a total extension exceeding ten years in relation to any site.
Reserve Funds
6.12Monies received from payment of development charges shall be maintainedin a separate
reserve fund or funds, and shall be used only to meet the growth-related net capital costs
for which the development charge was imposed under this by-law.
6.13 Income received from investment of the development charge reserve fund or funds shall be
credited to the development charge reserve fund or funds in relation to which the investment
income applies.
6.14Where any development charge, or part thereof, remains unpaid after the due date, the
amount unpaid shall be added to the tax rolland shall be collected as taxes.
6.15Where any unpaid development charges are collected as taxes under section 6.14, the
monies so collected shall be credited to the development charge reserve fund or funds
referred to in section 6.12.
SECTION 7
GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1This by-law shall be administered by the City's Chief Building Official and the City’s
Treasurer, and their respective designates.
5 - 28
Annual Adjustment
7.2The development charges imposed pursuant to this By-law shall be adjustedannually,
without amendment to this by-law, as of the 1st day of December in each year, in
accordance with the index prescribed by Ontario Regulation 82/98 and as such Regulation
may be amended from time to time.
7.3The minimum interest rate that the City shall pay under subsection 18(3) and 25(2) of the
Development Charges Act, 1997, c.27 in relation to a development charges by-law shall be
the Bank of Canada interest rate on the day the by-law comes into force and thereafter as
such rate is adjusted on the first business day of every January, April, July and October of
each year.
SECTION 8
REPEAL – ENACTMENT
Term
8.1This by-law shall come into force and effect on July 1, 2019.
8.2This by-law shall continue in force and effect for a term not to exceed five years from the
date of its coming in to force and effect unless it is repealed or replaced at an earlier date
by a subsequent by-law.
8.3Nothing in this by-law shall be construed so as to commit or require the City or its Council
to authorize or proceed with any specific capital project at any specific time.
8.4Each and every provision of this by-law is severable and, if any provision or provisions of
this by-law should, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court, it is the intention of
Council that each and every of the then remaining provisions of this by-law shall remain in
full force and effect.
8.5The Clerk is hereby directed to make this by-law a part of The City of Kitchener Municipal
Code as Chapter 315 by adding it to the Concordance and arranging and numbering it so
as to fit within the scheme of the Code.
8.6By-law No. 2014-068 and the contents of Chapter 315 of The City of Kitchener Municipal
Code, as amended, is hereby repealed effective at midnight on June 30, 2019.
5 - 29
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this 24th day of June, A.D. 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor
____________________________________
Clerk
5 - 30
Schedule ‘A’ to Development Charge By-law
Services - Designations
SERVICES DESIGNATION
NON-DISCOUNTED
Residential/Non-residential
1.Sanitary Servicing
2.Roads and Related
3.Watermains
4.Engineering Studies
5.Intensification Allowance
6.Storm/Watercourse
Residential/Non-residential
7.Public Works
8.Fire Protection
DISCOUNTED
Residential
9.Indoor Recreation
10.Library
11.Outdoor Recreation
12.Cemeteries
Residential/Non-residential
13.Parking
14.Growth-Related Studies
5 - 31
SCHEDULE ‘B1’
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES
NON-DISCOUNTED SERVICES
Residential Charge By Unit Type
Non-
Singles &Multiples & Lodging Residential
Townhouses
SemisDuplexesHousesCharge per m2
$7,975$5,600$4,032$2,266$48.36
Total Suburban (i)
Total Suburban (i) Partial Services -
$5,693$3,997$2,878$1,618$34.44
No Sanitary Sewer
Total Suburban (i) Partial Services -
$5,524$3,879$2,793$1,570$33.41
No Sanitary Sewer or Water
Services
Total Central Neighbourhood (ii)$1,794$1,259$906$509$11.51
5 - 32
SCHEDULE ‘B2’
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES
DISCOUNTED SERVICES
Residential Charge By Unit Type
Non-
Singles &Multiples & Lodging Residential
Townhouses
SemisDuplexesHousesCharge per m2
$10,755$7,552$5,436$3,056$9.27
Total Suburban (i)
Total Suburban (i) Partial Services -
$10,755$7,552$5,436$3,056$9.27
No Sanitary Sewer
Total Suburban (i) Partial Services -
$10,755$7,552$5,436$3,056$9.27
No Sanitary Sewer or Water
Services
Total Central Neighbourhood (ii)$10,755$7,552$5,436$3,056$9.27
5 - 33
5 - 34
5 - 35
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Schedule ‘D’ – Classes of Development
Name of Class ofDescription of Class of Maximum number of Restrictions
Residential Buildingsadditional dwelling units
Residential Building
Single detached Residential buildings, TwoThe total gross floor
dwellingseach of which contains area of the
a single dwelling unit, additional dwelling
thatare not attached to unit or units must be
other buildingsless than or equal to
the gross floor area
of the dwelling unit
already in the
building
Semi-detached dwellings Residential buildings, OneThe gross floor area
or Row dwellings each of which contains of the additional
a single dwelling unit, dwelling unit must
that have one or two be less than or
vertical walls but no equal to the gross
other parts, attached to floor area of the
other buildings dwelling unit already
in the building.
Other residential A residential building OneThe gross floor area
buildings not in another class of of the additional
residential building dwelling unit must
described in this table be less than or
equal to the gross
floor area of the
smallest dwelling
unit already in the
building.
5 - 36
IFNTPO
5 - 37
IFNTPO
5 - 38
IFNTPO
5 - 39
IFNTPO
5 - 40
IFNTPO
5 - 41
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling,Director, Legislated Services & City Clerk,519-741-
2200 ext. 7809
PREPARED BY:Helen Fylactou,Manager, Licensing,519-741-2200 ext. 7854
WARD (S) INVOLVED:ALL
DATE OF REPORT:May 29, 2019
REPORT NO.: COR-19-024
SUBJECT: Payday Loan Establishments
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Business Licensing By-law 2017-139, be amended to add the Payday Loan
EstablishmentSchedule (Schedule 17.1), as attached as Appendix ‘A’ to and outlined in
Corporate Servicesreport COR-19-024; and
That the feesset out in report COR-19-024 related to Payday Loan Establishments be
approved; and further,
That the 2020User Fee Scheduleinclude the Payday Loan Establishment fees.
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 2016, amendments to both the Payday Loans Act, 2008and the Municipal Act,
2001(the “Act”), were introduced allowing municipalities to regulatethe number and location of
payday loan establishments. TheAct does not, however,permit municipalities to prohibit or ban
these businessesentirely. The changes to the Actcame as a direct result of the Minister of
Government and Consumer Services announcingPutting Consumers First Act, 2016(Bill 59).
The purpose of Bill59was to strengthen consumer protectionwhen using lending
establishments.
Paydayloan establishments do not currently have a dedicated schedule within the City of
Kitchener’s BusinessLicensing By-law; rather, they are captured under a general business
licencescheduleas apermanent vendorand theironly requirement is to obtain planning
approval. A permanent vendor licence is a one-time licence thatdoes not requirean annual
renewaland is most often used for general offices and retail stores.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
6 - 1
REPORT:
Staff is recommending that the Business Licensing By-law be amended to take payday loan
establishments out of the Permanent Vendor classification and put theminto theirownschedule
in order toinclude specific regulations for payday loan establishmentsin accordance with what
is now permitted under the Act.These include regulating the location and the number of payday
loan establishments but not prohibiting or banning payday loan establishments entirely since
that is not permitted. As well, the regulations in the City’s proposed schedule do not include
regulating interest rates, percentage of rates and amount of loans, advertising, and marketing
because these are already regulated by the Provincial legislation, which requires that all payday
loan establishments be registered with the Province.
Staff’s goalin adding specific regulationsforpayday loan establishments, is not to prohibit these
businesses but rather to find a balance between protecting consumers and allowing these
businesses to operate for those who need them.Although overall comments received from
public consultation supported limiting or banning payday loan establishments, staff also heard,
there is a need for thesein the community for people whodo not have access to traditional
bankingor other lending institutions.The City of Hamilton was the first municipality to adopt a
limit to the number of payday loan establishments. Staff is proposing a similar model to Hamilton
and will continue to monitor in order to ensure the proposed modelmeets the needs of the
community. With the proposed amendments, staff hopesto better align with provincial
legislation, reduce concentration, disperse locations, and see a reductionin the number of
payday loan establishments over time.
The proposed schedule includes a requirement forpayday loan establishments to submit a
police clearance check, proof of insurance, and proof of valid lender or loan broker registration
with the Province.The business licensing inspector will also annuallyinspect each establishment
to ensure continued compliancewith the requirements previously indicated.In addition, the
schedule proposes to add a minimum distance separationbetween other payday loan
establishments, gambling and addiction treatment centres, and gaming sites (such as bingo
halls).
There are currently 18 licensed payday loan establishments in Kitchener. This schedule
proposes to eventually reduce the total number of establishmentswithin the city by limiting the
number of licences via attrition to a maximum of 10 citywide and with no more than 2
establishments per ward. These18 existing andlicensed payday loan establishments will be
recognized within the new scheduleandbe permitted to remain in operation as long as each
onecontinuesto meet the following criteria:
Apply under the new schedule, pay the new fee, and obtain a licence under the
proposed Payday Loan Establishment schedule;
Continueto operateas a Payday Loan Establishment;
Annually renewtheirlicence;
Do not move locations; and
Continue to be in compliance with all municipal, provincial, and federal legislation.
6 - 2
All licences under the Business Licensing By-law are non-transferable. If the ownership was to
change, the licence would not be permitted to be renewed until the number of establishments
dropsto under 10. Byrecognizing these locations,staff realizesit will take time to see a reduction
tothe number of establishments but limiting the number overall will limit an increase.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The fees below are based on a cost-recoverymodel which includes covering the cost of
administration, inspections, and enforcement, as well as,a cost for havingexclusivity of a
licence. Staff have compared the proposed fees to those of the City of Hamilton, City of Toronto,
and City of London and have alignedthe feesaccordingly.
Staff are recommendingthat Council approve the followingfees for Payday Loan
Establishments:
Old FeeNew FeeRenewal FeeLate Fee
$125$575$375$450
Staff also recommends that the fees take effective immediately. Assuming all 18 existing payday
loan establishments come into compliance with the requirements for a licence, the expected
revenues foryear one will be approximately$10,350and $6750 annually for every subsequent
renewal year.Once the number of licences has been reduced to the maximum of 10, the amount
of revenue collected from renewal fees will be reduced to approximately $3750based on the
currently proposed fees.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Staff usedtheEngageKitchener platform to solicit publicfeedbackon payday loan
establishments with respectto the number of locations, physical locations of establishments,
and general comments. As well, staff reached out to specific groups such asthe Downtown
Kitchener BIA, Belmont BIA, The Working Centre, KW Multicultural Centre,and the Alliance
Against Poverty to promote participation in the survey. All licensed payday loan establishments
werealsocontacted and asked to partake in the survey.
Through the EngageKitchener survey, staff asked the following questions:
What of the following options best describes your experience with payday loan
establishments?
Which statement best describes your attitude towards payday loan establishments?
6 - 3
The City of Kitchener is considering implementing a limit on the number of payday loan
establishments. There are currently 18 establishments registered in Kitchener. Is the
current number of establishments too low? Appropriate? Too high? No opinion/not sure?
Do you support establishinga minimum distance for a payday loan establishment from
gambling and addiction treatment facilities, licensed gaming facilities (bingo halls), other
payday loan establishments, or no minimum distance requirements?
A summary of the results and the general comments from the surveyhavebeen provided as
Appendix “B”.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
6 - 4
Appendix “A”
Amending By-law
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener
Municipal Code with respect to Licensing and Regulation of
Businesses.)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener
Municipal Code as adopted by By-law 88-100;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
1.Article 1 of Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding the following definitions and renumbering the other definitions accordingly:
“ “Gaming Site” means a gaming site as defined under the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation Act, 1999,S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. L.
“Payday Loan” shall have the definitionset out in the Payday Loans Act, 2008, S.O. 2008,
c. 9.
“Payday Loan Establishment” means any premises or any part of them in respect of which
a licensee within the meaning of the Payday Loans Act, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 9 may operate
a business pursuant toa licence issued under that Act.”
2.Schedule 1 of Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended
by adding respectively under the headings “Type of Business”, “Expiry Date”, and
“Regulations” the following in its appropriate numeric order:
“Payday Loan Establishment March 31 Schedule 17.1”.
3.Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended by inserting the
Schedule attached to this by-law as Appendix A as Schedule 17.1 to Chapter 599 of The
City of Kitchener Municipal Code.
4.Schedule 29 of Chapter 599 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code is hereby amended
by adding respectively under the headings “Type of Business”,
6 - 5
“Requirements/Approvals”, and “Due Date” the following in its appropriate alphabetic
order:
“Payday Loan Police Record Check, Insurance, March 31”
EstablishmentProof of current and valid licence
as a lender or loan broker under
the Payday Loans Act, 2008
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchenerthis day
of , A.D. 2019.
_____________________________________
Mayor
_____________________________________
Clerk
6 - 6
APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE 17.1
PAYDAY LOAN ESTABLISHMENTS
1.In addition to the licensing requirements set out in Article 4 of this Chapter, an Applicant
for a Payday Loan Establishment Licence shall supply the following:
a)Planning Approval;
b)Police Record Check;
c) Proof of current and valid licence as a lender or loan broker under the Payday
Loans Act, 2008; and
d)Proof of Insurance.
2.Every Payday Loan Establishment Operator shall have a separate Licence for each
Payday Loan Establishment location.
3.No more than ten (10) Payday Loan Establishment Licences shall be issued in the city
of Kitchener.
4.Nor more than two (2) Payday Loan Establishment Licences shall be issued in any one
ward of the city of Kitchener.
5.No new Licence shall be issued for Payday Loan Establishment if the proposed location
is:
a)located within 150 metres of another Licensed Payday Loan Establishment;
b)Located within 150 metres of any Gaming Establishment; or
c) Located within 150 metres of any addiction or gambling counselling service.
6.Despite sections 3, 4, and 5 of this Schedule, any Payday Loan Establishment existing
onJune 24, 2019may continue to operate in the same location provide:
a)The Operator had a current and valid Permanent Vendor Licence or Old Gold
Licence for the Payday Loan Establishment on June 24, 2019;
b)The Operator obtains a Payday Loan Establishment Licence by March 31, 2020;
c) The Business is operated continuously as a Payday Loan Establishment;
6 - 7
d)The Business is, at all times, operated in compliance with this Chapter and all
applicable municipal, provincial, and federal laws; and
e)The Payday Loan Establishment Licence is renewed annually as required by this
Chapter.
7.The Payday Loan Establishments existing on June 24, 2019 are at the following
locations:
a)500 FairwayRoad South;
b)25 Frederick Street;
c) 215 Highland Road West;
d)370 Highland Road West;
e)465 Highland Road West;
f)525 Highland Road West;
g)625 King Street East;
h)1253 King Street East;
i)2880 King Street East;
j)4396 King Street East;
k) 78 King Street West;
l)648King Street West;
m)670 King Street West;
n)3101 Kingsway Drive;
o)725 Ottawa Street South;
p)12 Water Street North;
q)1087 Weber Street East; and
r)1335 Weber Street East.
6 - 8
Appendix “B”
Summary of Results of Payday Loan Establishment Survey
Thesurvey ran on the Engage Kitchener platform for 2 weeks and received responses from 127
participants.The majority of the comments were in favour of the City adding stricter regulations
regarding the total number of establishments and the location of these establishments. Some of
the highlights from the survey include:
A majority of participants (77.8%) dislike having these establishments in the community.
A majority of participants (81.0%) support implementing a limit on the number of
establishments in the community.
A majority of participants (90.4%) support adding minimum distance requirements.
Summaries of the responses are included below:
Q1: What of the following options best describes your experience with payday loan
establishments:
6 - 9
Q2: Which statementbest describes your attitude towards pay day loan establishments:
Q3 – Comments related to Question 2
Numberof comments to question “Which statement best describes your attitude towards
payday loan establishments?”
Total Number of Comments59
Positive5
Neutral 5
Against49
Summary of Comments:The majority of the comments surrounding payday loan
establishments were negative. The main themes that came out of the comments were that these
establishments perpetuate the cycle of poverty, take advantage of vulnerable persons, and the
fees are exorbitant.
However, there were a few comments that felt neutral towards the establishments but felt that
the City could regulate them further in terms of how many there are and the number that exist
within a radius.
6 - 10
Q4: The City of Kitchener is considering implementing a limit on the number of payday
loan establishments. There are currently 18 establishments registered in Kitchener. Is
the current number of establishments…too low, appropriate, too high, not sure/no
opinion.
Q5 – Comments related to Question 2
Numberof comments to question “The City of Kitchener is considering implementing a limit
on the number of payday loan establishments. There are currently 18 establishments
registered in Kitchener. Is the current number of establishments…too low, appropriate…too
high…not sure/no opinion?”
Total Number of Comments35
Too Low0
Appropriate6
Too High26
Not sure/no opinion3
Summary of Comments:A lot of the comments mirrored the concerns raised in comments
around how people feel about payday loan establishments. The comments received spanned
from indicating that reducing the number won’t have an impact because people will go online for
the same service, to creating a prohibition. Most comments were in support of the City
implementinga limitin the number.
6 - 11
Q6: Do you support establishing minimum distance for payday loan establishments from
(choose all that apply): gambling and addiction facilities, licensed gaming facilities, other
pay day loan establishments, I do not support minimum distance requirements.
Q7 – Comments related to Question 6
Number of comments to question “Do you support establishing minimum distances for a
payday loan establishment from…Gambling and addiction treatment facilities, licensed
gaming facilities, other payday loan establishments, I do not support minimum distance
requirements.”
Total Number of Comments26
Support22
Do not support4
Summary of Comments: Themajority of the comments were in support of a minimum distance
separation. Several comments suggested the inclusion of distance separations from other
locations such as schools, cannabis stores, downtown Kitchener, and other high density zones.
Although most were in support, a couple of comments were submitted stating the eliminationof
these establishments would bea hindrance to the customers that require this service.
6 - 12
Q8 – General comments about Payday Loan Establishments
Included below are the general comments submitted as part of the survey:
Supportive of payday loans (3 comments)
i find them very helpful and the Ontariogovernment has already reduced how much I can
borrow from payday loan places which has already hurt me.Stop it.
I understand that once and a while people need a bit extra in the moment. For rent andwhat
not. But I'm concerned that these establishments if used routinely by the same people
promote bad financial habits.
The number of licensed payday loan establishments in Ontario is shrinking. Recent changes
to the Ontario Payday Loan Act has resulted in the business not expanding (i.e. opening new
locations), Some locations are exiting the business and some locations are restricting their
lending criteria.
They province of Ontario already has strict regulations in place. Adding additional
restriction/regulations, may lead to those seeking additional credit to seek out unlicensed
online lenders if the result of increasing restrictions are that traditional licensed store front
lenders have to close.
Supportive of total prohibition (15 comments)
Please get them outta town -they are scummy, and unnecessary. They play no positive role
in society. They play A role, but it's not positive, so why include them in our city?
They need to be gone.
They are leeches on the more desperate low income
These are horrible businesses and perpetuate a spiral of debt and compound people’s
problems as opposed to helping them.
I'd like to see them eliminated.
At a very minimum, the interest rates and amounts available for loan need to be strictly
capped and comparable to, at absolute worst, credit card rates.
I know someone who was on drugs and thanks to payday loans he couldfeed his habit. Of
course they were not paid back on time. I hate these places. I think they should all be shut
down.
Is there any way to make these organizations stop robbing people?
Payday loan establishments in my opinion should be outlawed -their rates are legal usury.
It would be preferable to regulate the banks to limit credit to those who cannot justify it, and
similarly press them to provide consolidation loans at reasonable rates. Currently, banks
actually refuse this strategy for those that do not have pledged assets (ie are not "preferred"
/ "well off" customers) - this pushes people to unethical lenders, among them payday loan
organizations. I have no qualms about pushing people into negotiated debt settlements
earlier - it might even spur better credit behaviors on the part of both the banks and
individuals!
A BAN. Or in the least, tighter loan testing matched w/ more regulations to protect the youth
and the vulnerable citizens!! Also, a cap on interest payables?
6 - 13
**Is there any current protection for the vulnerable youth that have already invested their
souls in these establishments??
IF there is a Cambridge survey existing please kindly inform me. Thank you in advance.
Get rid of them and establish financial advice establishments instead. Some people are
afraid to go to the banks for advice or have a bad credit rating including bankruptcy. We
need to help not enable our community.
You either ban them outright or you allow them. Limiting them is a bit silly as that doesn't
accomplish much. They are just a bus ride away.
They are rebranding themselves I noticed (see Money Mart 'Financial Services') to appeara
bit above the cheque cashing business. I would rather see better education into why opening
a bank account is better in the long run however. That is outside of the scope of this survey
though.
Interest rates are obscene. Low income have a hard time making ends meet, and these
establishments take advantage of their situation. There’s no societal benefit to taxing the
poor in this manner.
I feel Payday loan establishments have no place in our community.
I don't know why the government allows these establishments that prey upon people with
bad credit (who shouldn't be borrowing in the first place.)
I feel the Payday loan places are like loan sharks. They lure desperate people in to borrow
money with such high interest they have no hope in being able to pay it off. I work with many
clients that are on ODSP or CPP that have used these places and got tied up with several of
them as there is no barrier to them going to 2 or 3 different places and borrowing money they
can never repay. It is heartbreaking to see this happening in our community.
These are almost "criminal" establishments that steal money from the poorest among us.
The interest rates are ridiculous!
Supportive of city-implemented controls (41 comments)
The interest rates these places charge is offensive. They are preying on the vulnerable and
in my opinion it's disturbing that our politicians haven't done anything about it.
Further regulation is needed Federally to reduce fees and interest rates to people in need.
It absolutely should be done, and the people that disagree either don't understand the nature
of these places, are being abused by them, or are working for them.
These institutions need to be much better regulated and the damage they do evaluated.
Support community co-op savings and loan model establishments instead. Support financial
literacy instead - require these establishments to carry literature and connections to
subsidized or free debt-relief and financial counselling.
Please do. They prey on those who cannot manage money, making their situation worse -
legalized loan sharking. Come to think of it, maybe this better than criminal loan sharking.
So, best to get some tight controls in place
I was caught up in the payday loan cycle and it is tough to get out of. I don't think we need
18 establishments for our city
Make a move to restrict the rates for these establishments preying on the poor!
6 - 14
I think regulation of these businesses should be up to the province. But the City should put
limits on where and how many are located in a certain area.
I think there needs to be some education of the community for options on dealing with debt
and using regular bank services.
They should be required tocarry and prominently display pamphlets about proper financial
counseling and financial management toolsand advice and or posters. They should be
required to show and explain the REAL ANNUALIZED rates as well as the three month rate -
people get tricked and don't realize how bad it really is.
These establishments are expressly designed to extract the maximum amount of money
from those least able to afford it. Limiting their presence to an absolute minimum is the only
way to balance what little benefits they provide against their toll in human misery.
Encourage the government to enact regulations to enact the part of the legislation which
puts a fee on pay day lenders to fund education and research
I think the interest they can charge, or the fee for cashing a cheque is predatory.
Payday Loan establishments often use predatory tactics to attract poorer citizens of our
communities. The benefits of payday loans are quite limited, and more often provide an
innocent way for people stuck in a bad financial situation to make it worse. If someone was
short to pay bills and require a payday loan to pay them one month, how could they afford
them next month with the added interest of the loan? It didn't provide them a way out, it just
made everything worse.
They do not provide a benefit to the community and I would like to see them limited.
I'm glad that some regulation is going into place for these establishments. They can
misbehave frequently.
Limit how high interest rates can be. In financial/loan paperwork, require clear language (i.e.
Essential Skills level 2) so people are not taken advantage of due to not understanding the
terms.
Have brochures/information available on supports / social services in the area (i.e.
addictions, debt, counselling)
I believe there is a law (federal or provincial) that limits the amount of interest that can be
charged, and as best as I can figure out, these places are WAY over that on an annual
basis.
If possible reduce their costs to customers and make more reasonable offerings.
Regulating payday loan establishments is treating the symptom, not the cause. Why are
people going to payday loan establishments in the first place? Provide more free community
services and low-cost services. Support a living wage. Do more.
they need more regulation of their predatory policies and high interest rates. maybe limit
how they can advertise bonuses etc. that lure desperate people into their establishments
The more they are restricted the better, they do nothing to build our community up and only
serve to hurt and drag down those who are already in a tough spot.
Too much high rate , need to change that to be low
Regulations on their marketing practices? They can't target where vulnerable individuals
frequent, i.e. food bank, downtown/uptowns, student ghettos.
6 - 15
As I said before I think some kind of payday loan ought to be available through the bank at a
reasonable rate. They take advantage of us in every possible way already. Our fees and our
high interest rates already line the pockets of people who don't need the money. They
benefit from the money to do special things that we could never afford to. I have not had a
vacation in 10 years. I am so desperate for money that I take the small amount of pay in lieu
of vacation. 69 years of age I have a right to protest this. Most especially I protest this
because the banks foreclosed on small businesses almost 30 years ago because they have
to recover their losses when canary wharf went bankrupt. We just not invest in canary wharf.
The banks invested in canary wharf. Because they lost money on that they recouped it on
the backs of the small business people. that was so that the rich business people would not
experience a temporary loss of more expensive vacations and cars. Yes I am very angry.
You can reach me at XXXX@XXXX.com. I am more than willing to talk about this. the
auditor that they sent to our company was in tears when she told us that the bank was
foreclosing. In fact the audit was just for show. She learned that the banks had already
planned to close us down. Us and many other small companies. I still feel that the banks
ought to have been investigated for that. Please please someone look into this
Regulation of such establishments should include the fees that they apply. These should be
in keeping with other loan rates.
As I mentioned in comment #1, the interest rates they charge is what needs to be regulated.
At present, their fees are just usury. Very sad.
I do think we have way to many payday loan place in Kitchener and thus cause people
hardship and they charge way to much interest.Thenumber of place should cut in half
I don't like them, pray on the ones that can least afford it. Fees are high and I know they
have to pay employees. I just feel you never can stop once you start borrowing, seen that
first hand with my mom.
There shouldbe limits on the amount of interest/service fees they can charge. These payday
loan places take advantage of vulnerable people.
Regulate the interest rate they can charge to the same as regular credit cards
They prey on low income people in the community and should be regulated as strictly as
possible, if not banned.
I'm hopeful the city with limit/eliminate these predatory establishments
Payday loans as a support system for helping with being close to poverty lines do not make
money. This should be a government offered and regulated service if we want it to be helpful
to people. High interest loans when you are not making enough money to cover your bills
when they come in rarely do much to help people in trouble. There should be a limit to the
number of loans that you can give to one person and limits on the amount of interest that
can be charged (and the amount of time they can charge interest for) because you can
easily find yourself with loans you will never be able to pay in these situations.
I would support less restrictions on the establishments in exchange for tighter regulations on
their operation.
Much more regulation is needed to protect vulnerable clients of payday loan establishments
I think regional regulation won't solve their issues. Itrequires a regulation as to how they
finance and provide money and an educational component
6 - 16
Our approach shouldn't be to prevent access to these services. It should be to bring people
to a point where they themselves have tools/methods for either avoiding these services
altogether or at least limiting their use to a "healthy" amount.
Perhaps our three levels of government could begin (each in their own way) to take some
responsibility for establishing compassionate, sustainable ways of assisting low-income folks
who are in pressing financial short-term need. If we consider ourselves to be at all decent,
we really should not be enabling organizations that gouge the poor with high interest rates
and offer no alternative. Can't we do better?
I think the answers to your questions say it all.
I'm not sure that this is a problem that we can not fix with government regulation. This is a
social problem and even if we were to close all of them across the province I would not solve
the problem. The solution is education
I believe that banks are shirking the responsibilities and should be offering payday loans for
anyone who needs it. banksare wealthy enough that they can afford this. I was shocked to
find out that payday establishments can now offer lines of credit, etc.
END OF SURVEY
6 - 17
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10,2019
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director, Legislated Services / City Clerk, 519-741-
2200, ext. 7809
PREPARED BY:Jeff Bunn, Manager, Council/Committee Services / Deputy City Clerk,
519-741-2200, ext. 7278
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 21, 2019
REPORT NO.: COR-19-025
SUBJECT: Integrity Commissioner Advice under the Municipal Conflict of Interest
ActandCode of ConductHousekeeping Amendments
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That ADR Chambers, Toronto Ontario, be retained to provide the provisional functions
(1-5) as outlined in Corporate Services report COR-19-025at their quoted hourly rate; and,
That costs incurred to access the additional provisional functions of the Integrity
Commissioner, if any, be tracked for a one year period from 2019 to 2020 to inform a
recommendation for an appropriate budget, if required, as part of the 2021 budget
process; and further,
That the CouncilPolicy GOV-COU-005, Code of Conductfor Members of Council, Local
Boards and Advisory Committees, be amended to reflect the proposed changes as
outlined in COR-19-025.
BACKGROUND:
Subsection 223.2 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, (“the Act”) provides that a municipality shall
establish codes of conduct for members of the Councilof the municipality and of its local boards.
Subsection 223.3 of the Act authorizes the municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner
who shall perform various functions under the Act as authorized by the municipality.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
7 - 1
In 2008, Counciladopted a Code of Conduct (“the Code”) for members of Counciland local
boards, and in 2009, appointed itsfirst Integrity Commissioner(IC)to provide independent
investigative services in response to complaints against members of Councilwhere there is a
perceived contravention of the Code.
In 2016, Counciljoined the Cities ofWaterloo and Cambridge in a joint Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Integrity Commissioner Services and awarded the IC appointment to ADR Chambers,
for a term of three (3) years with the option to renew for two (2) additional years with the same
terms and pricing. At that time, Council, through the budget process, declined the following
“optional services” to be provided by ADR Chambers:
Option #1 – Formal Advice: including written advicefrom the Integrity Commissioner to
members of Councilwith respect to ethical behaviour under the Code or any other
policy/procedure; and,
Option #2 – Consultation: including informal oral advice to members of Councilthat could
not be relied upon in the event of a complaint relating to the Code.
In 2017, the Ontario government passed Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation
Act, 2017, which amended the Municipal Act, 2001 (the Act),to provide additional scope to the
role and powers of the local IC.
Effective March 1, 2019, Bill 68 authorizes the ICto perform a number of additional functions
(outlined in detail below) assigned by the municipality. Also in 2019, the City exercised the option
to renew for two (2) additional years with the same terms and pricing with ADR Chambers for
the provision of Code of Conductinvestigation and educational services and have confirmed
with ADR Chambers that it is willing and able to provide the Additional Functions as outlined in
this report.
REPORT:
Requests for Advice from the Integrity Commissioner
It is important for members of councilsto understand their obligations under theirmunicipality’s
Code of Conduct,the MCIA, and other rules or policiesof the municipality in order to effectively
represent their constituents. Members are personally liablefor their own compliance with the
MCIAand may be removed from office if they are found by a court to be in breach of their
obligations under the Act.
The City Clerk, staff in the Legislated Services Division, and the City Solicitor are not permitted
to provide members with advice relating to the Code or the MCIA; thus, in the past members
have had to seek their own independent legal advice at their own expense.
In 2017, the Ontario government passed Bill 68, Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation
Act, 2017, which amended the Municipal Act, 2001(the Act),to provide additional scope to the
7 - 2
role and powers of the local IC.Effective March 1, 2019, Bill 68 authorizes the ICto perform any
of the following functions assigned by the municipality relating to:
AdditionalRequests from members of Counciland local boards for advice respecting their
Function#1 obligations under the Code of Conduct;
Requests from members of Counciland local boards for advice respecting their
Additionalobligations under a procedure, rule or policy of the municipalityor the local
Function #2 board, as the case may be, governing the ethical behaviour of members;
AdditionalRequests from members of Counciland local boards for advice respecting their
Function #3 obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act(MCIA);
AdditionalThe provision of educational informationto members of Council, members of
Function#4local boards, the municipality and the public about the municipality’s code of
conduct for members of Counciland members of local boards and about the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Additional
Function #5The ability to launch its own proceedings to a judge against a member with
respect to sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
While Sections223.3(1.1/1.2) of the Act specifically statethe City shall appoint a Commissioner
to conduct theabove-notedlegislated functions, there is no requirement that the appointed IC
for advice be the same Commissioner who will conductCode of Conductcomplaint
investigations.In cases where the IC is a sole practitioner, there could be a conflict of interest if
the IC were to perform both functions. The City’s IC is a multi-practitioner firm which has the
ability to assign different Commissioners for providing advice and conducting investigations.
Staff hasconfirmed with ADR Chambers that internal controls are in placetoensure a Code of
Conduct investigation is not conducted by the same Commissioner who has provided advice to
that council member.
In terms of covering the costs associated with the Provisional Functions, the Actdoes not specify
who, whether the City or individual members of Council, is responsible.By virtue of appointing
an IC, it could be argued thatthe City has fulfilled its statutory obligation of providing access to
aCommissionerand as a result is not required to provide funding for access to the services.
Without City-funding,however, each member of council would be responsible for covering their
own costs associated with contacting the ICfor advice either under the Code of Conduct or the
MCIA, which could be perceived as a barrier to access.
In trying to determine the best recommendation to make to Council regarding funding, staff
performeda scan oflocal municipalities in theRegion of Waterloo that permit access to an IC
for members of Council to seek advice as well as their respective funding model(s). Save and
except for the Region of Waterloo, no other municipality has allocated a specific budget amount
for IC advice. Without an upper budget limit, there could be concerns of overuse. However, it is
While concerns of overuse may exist, ultimately it is up to the individual member’s discretion to
7 - 3
use the services as they deem appropriate.Staff believes a financial cap imposed by the City
could jeopardize the intent of the legislation by creating a barrier to accessing the services of the
IC. Therefore, staff recommends that Council not set a financial limit for each member of council
until a reasonable period of time has elapsed to allow staff to monitor how frequently IC services
are accessed. If Council decides the City should fund the costs associated with accessing IC
advice, staff recommends annual reporting that will disclose the total expenditurerelated to the
IC.
Further, should Council approve the recommendations in this report, staff will prepare guidelines
and a process for members of council to ensure clarity and cost effectiveness. Given the
question of funding is not explicit within the legislation, staffalsorecommends thateach newly-
elected Council makes that decision at the beginning of their term. To that end, staff anticipates
bringingforward a report at the beginning of each new term of Council.
With respect to Additional Function #4, staff recommends aninformation session held at the
beginning of each term of councilwhere the public and members of council may learn about the
municipality’s Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.Information about the
Code is already available on the City’s website and the City Clerk also provides information to
citizens upon request.
Housekeeping Amendments to the Code of Conduct
Since changes are required to the Code in support of recent changes to the Act, there is an
opportunity to make additional housekeeping amendments to the Code. As well the recent 2018
municipal electionhighlightednecessary amendments to the Codeto clarify use of City
resources during election periods. The recommendedamendments below support the City’s
commitment toaccountability and transparency, andprovide members of Council, staff and the
public with a clearer understanding of the rulesgoverning the use of City-funded resources as
well as thecomplaint processas prescribed bythe Code and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Below is a table of the proposed housekeeping amendmentsfor Council’s approval:
Code HeadingProposed AdditionsItalicizedExplanation
1Use of City No member shall use for personal The objective of this
Property, purposes any City property, amendmentis not to limit or
Services and equipment, services, supplies or impedeCouncil members’
Other services of consequence other than rightful duty to connect with
Resourcesfor purposes connected with the their constituents regarding
discharge of City duties or City business. Rather the
associated community activities of objective is intended to avoid
which City Council has been the improper use of the
advised. No member shall use influence of their office. By
information gained in the execution including election-specific
of his or her duties that is not use of City-funded resources
available to the general public for in the Code, there will be
any purpose other than his or her greater clarity formembers of
7 - 4
official duties. No member shall Council, staff and electors,
obtain financial gain from the use of and will support public
City developed intellectual property,
confidence inincumbent
computer programs, technological candidates.
innovations or other patentable
items, while an elected official or
thereafter. All such property remains
the exclusive property of the City of
Kitchener. “No members shalluse
city property, services or other city-
funded / city-sponsored / city-
supported resources(e.g.,
councillor columns, social media
accounts) for the purposes of
election campaigning, as outlined in
the Elections – Use of Corporate
Resources for Political Campaign
PurposesThis does not include the
use of personal social
media/networking accounts
egistered publicly in the member’s
name.”
2Complaint The complaint protocol shall not This amendment is a result of
Protocolretroactively apply to any alleged legislated changesand is
transgressions occurring prior to the necessary to provide
date on which the Code of Conduct additional clarity surrounding
was formally adopted by Council. the process for IC complaints
during an electioncampaign
“In accordance with Section period.
223.4.1(3) of the Municipal Act,
2001, no application for an inquiry
under this section shall be made to
the Commissioner during the period
of time starting on nomination day
for a regular election, as set out in
section 31 ofthe Municipal Act,
1996, and ending on voting day in a
regular election, as set out in section
5 of that Act.
In accordance with Section 223.4.1
(4) of the Municipal Act, an
application may only be made within
six weeks after the applicant
7 - 5
became aware of the alleged
contravention.
In accordance with Section 223.4.1
(5) of the Municipal Act, despite
subsection (4), an application may
be made more than six weeks after
the applicant became aware of the
alleged contravention if both of the
following are satisfied:
1. The applicant became aware of
the alleged contravention within the
period of time starting six weeks
before nomination day for a regular
election, as set out in section 31 of
the Municipal Elections Act, 1996,
and ending on voting day in a
regular election, as set out in section
5 of that Act.
2. The applicant applies to the
Commissioner under subsection (2)
within six weeks after the day after
voting day in a regular election, as
set out in section 5 of the Municipal
Elections Act, 1996.
3Confidential Paragraph 2 –Particular care This amendment is a result of
Informationshould be exercised in ensuring the legislated changes and
confidentiality ofthe following types updatesthe list of confidential
of information: information shared with
members of Council in an in-
Information supplied in
camera meeting as outlined in
confidence to the municipality by
subsection 239.2 of the Act.
another level of government;
Third-party information supplied
in confidence to the municipality
(e.g., a trade secret or scientific,
technical, commercial, financial or
labour relations information);
Information (e.g., a trade secret or
scientific, technical, commercial,
or financial information) that
belongs to the municipality and
has monetary value; or,
7 - 6
A position, plan, procedure,
criteria or instruction to be applied
to negotiations.
A request by a member of Councilor
4*Requests for This amendment is
Adviceof a local board for advice from the necessary asCouncil must
Commissioner shall be made in authorize the Additionall
writing.
functionsto be performed by
the City’s IC. The process for
If the Commissioner provides advice
requesting and receiving
to a member of Councilor of a local advice in writing is a statutory
board the advice shall be in writing.
requirement and cannot be
amended by Council.
If the commissioner provides
Similarly, the protection of
educational information to the confidentiality of educational
public, the Commissioner may information to members of
summarize advice he or she has public is also a statutory
provided but shall not disclose
requirement that cannot be
confidential information that could amended.
identify a person concerned.
*New heading (if required)
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The budget for the Office of Mayor and Council (OMC) currently contains $2000.00 for the
retained services of the ICforCode of Conductcomplaint investigations. The hourly rate for
ADRChambers’ services is $250.00,which equates to only 8 hours of serviceper year. While
the level of use of the ICfor adviceby members of Councilis unknown, there is likely not
sufficient funding available for each member of Councilto access the Additional functions.
Furthermore, assigning a funding limit to advice given by the IC may be perceived as removing
the right of access once the limit has been exceeded.
Any cost incurred to access the provisional functions, if any, in 2019 and 2020 will be charged
to the Office of the Mayor and Council, with any over expenditure being covered by the tax
stabilization reserve fund. While staff expects costs to be nominal, it is premature to set a budget
for the provisional functions until we have a clear understanding of Council’s access orusage of
the services.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
Council/ committee meeting.
7 - 7
CONSULT – Staff conducteda municipal scan of the municipalities within the Region of
Waterloo.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
June 15, 2015: FCS-15-078– Integrity Commissioner
June 13, 2016: FCS-16-092– Appointment of Integrity Commissioner
October 3, 2016: FCS-16-150 – Integrity Commissioner– Optional Services Follow-up
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services Department
7 - 8
Appendix A – Municipal Scan
MunicipalityIC AdditionalFunctionsBudget Allocated to IC Advice
Region of WaterlooMCIA advice via Currently under review. $5,000
independent legal counselper Council member per year
for legal advice related to
municipal conflict of interests
City of CambridgeReviewing provisional NA.
functions; report in spring
2019
City of WaterlooNo additional functionsNo budget amount.
Township of North DumfriesNo additionalfunctionsNo budget amount.
Township of WellesleyUnable to confirm at the time NA.
of writing this report.
Township of WilmotMCIA advice via Integrity No budget amount.
Commissioner
Township of WoolwichMCIA advice via Integrity Will monitor the cost through
Commissioner2019 and set a budget for 2020.
7 - 9
REPORT TO:Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Cory Bluhm, Executive Director, Economic Development,
519-741-2200 ext. 7065
PREPARED BY:Lauren Chlumsky,Economic Development Analyst,
519-741-2200 ext. 7072
Leah Connor, Economic Researcher, 519-741-2200 ext. 7048
WARD (S) INVOLVED:ALL
DATE OF REPORT:May 22, 2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-098
SUBJECT:Kitchener Economic Development Strategy Public Consultation
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to undertake a comprehensive community and stakeholder
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Make it Kitchener, is a
forward-
and provides direction on key initiatives the City intends to carry out, often in partnership with
stakeholders. Make it Kitcheneracts as a platform for our business community, development
community, community leaders and community stakeholders to rally around a shared purpose.
With the current strategy expiring at the end of 2019, i
Make it Kitchener2.0.
In order for Make it Kitchener2.0to truly become a platform for partnerships and a rallying point
ring
consultation process which invites feedback and ideas from a wide cross-section of interests.
The following report provides the overall structure of this proposed public consultation.
BACKGROUND:
In the early 2000s, Kitchener was faced with majoreconomic shifts including a decline in the
manufacturing sector resulting from a rising Canadian dollar, and a downtown core lacking
vibrancy, investmentand development activity. Our community needed a bold, ambitious and
inspirationalplan to kick-startthe revitalization of downtown Kitchener, while stimulating
employment growth in emerging sectors such asthe knowledge economy, health, technology,
etc. twoconcurrent and overlapping goals. The approach developed in 2003/2004, known as
***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
8 - 1
the Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF), was to invest tax-generated revenue into
catalytic investments over ten years that would:
Result in new capital construction;
Leverage partnerships (e.g. private sector, universities, other levels of government, etc);
and,
Demonstrate through detailed business cases that projects had the ability to be catalytic
and lead to spin-off growthbeyond the project itself.
Following key investments, such asthe University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy, Wilfred
Laurier Faculty of Social Work, King Street Master Planand the Communitech Hub, Downtown
Kitchener is now home to 200+ technology companies,and has seen$1.6 billion in cumulative
construction since 2004. Including planned construction, 2019 values areexpected to reach $1.1
billion city wide.
-
commitment to these two key goals, the following aspects were key in creating what has been
one of the most profound movements in ou
Identifying clear areas of focus (downtown revitalization and knowledge creation);
Developing a strategy that could become a platform and invitation for others to be active
participants in change;
Taking a partnership-based approach; and,
Focusing on catalytic investments that would stimulate further momentum.
Reflecting on the success of EDIF, it is not one single business or organization that reshaped
downtown, but an entire community that cametogether (residents, businesses, developers,
educational institutions, community organizations, festival organizers, etc.) under a unified,
focused vision to createreal, buildable opportunities.
In 2012, Council approved the 2012-2015 Economic Development Strategywhich expanded the
focus to 5 key areas: Start-Up City, Leading-Edge Cluster Building, Talent Magnet, Dynamic
Downtown and Innovation District.
In 2016, Council approved the award-winningMake it Kitchener 2015-2019 strategy.This
strategy identified abroadnetworkof initiatives, including City-led, City-supported and
partnerships initiatives with numerous stakeholders. To date, all 54 actions established through
the strategy have resulted in 102different outcomes all of which have been either completed,
are in progress, or are ongoing.Key initiatives includedsupportforthe expansion of the Velocity
Garage, the creation of the Creative Hub, and redevelopment of key downtown properties.
Reflecting on the first Make it Kitchenerstrategy, its greatest success was that it created astrong
sense of intangible qualities that make Kitchener an inspiring place to be.Ultimately, itevoked
aspirit of empowerment:
8 - 2
Reflecting on the entire journey since 2003, this is clearly a community success story. What
started as a focused City-lead strategy, became a platform for our community to rally around.
That platform grew intoa broader network of residents, businesses, community leaders and
partners engaged in building a great city.
REPORT:
Today our community is faced with change and the need to adapt to changing local and global
forces and new technology like never before. This change is leading to major shifts in industry,
our labour force, talent attraction,affordability, mobility, consumer trends, etc. Industries, like
retail, are experiencing complete transformation, while new industries, like artificial intelligence,
smart cities/IOT and cannabis production are rapidly emerging. Traditional industries, like
automotive, are beginning to adapt to a future that will be centred oninternet-connected vehicles
and autonomous navigation. With 3,000 new residential units to be constructed downtown over
the next few years and the opening of ION, our urban landscape is transforming. But rather than
simply respondingor reactingto change, Make it Kitchener 2.0will provide our community with
an opportunity to determine the change it wants to shape and lead.
The Opportunity
Throughout 2019, the Economic Development team will leadCouncil, stakeholders,business
leaders and the community through extensive consultation to identify the change our community
wants to focus on. This will ultimately inform Make itKitchener 2.0that will be presented to
Council for approval in late 2019.Like 2003, staff intend tochallengethecommunity and
stakeholders to identify opportunities for our community to collectively lead transformational
change that results inmulti-generational positive impacts.
Community ConsultationProcess
In anystrategic planning process, community engagement is important not just to support idea
generation, but as a community building toolthat invites and mobilizes stakeholders. Our
mandate is to inspire, challenge,enableand supportour community tohelp grow our workforce,
bring our cityto life, and help make Kitchener a city for everyone. Thus,the strategy and the
process leading to the strategy are key vehicles for inspiringour stakeholders to action.
In developing Make it Kitchener 2.0, staff are planning the following threekeycomponents:
1.Stakeholder Engagement (July September) undertaken through an extensive series
of round table discussions and 1-on-1 meetings including, butnot limited to, the following:
Community partners;
Business leaders;
City advisory committees;
Economic development partners such as Waterloo EDC, Waterloo Region Tourism
and Marketing Corporation, Business Improvement Associations, etc.
8 - 3
Service based agencies such as Working Centre, Lutherwood, House of Friendship,
andKW Multicultural Centre;
Academic and institutional partners;
Cultural associations;
Tourism partners and festival/event organizers;
Art and creative industry leaders and organizations;
Innovation leaders like Communitech, Velocity and the Accelerator Centre;and,
The development community(urban, suburban, and industrial).
2.Community Engagement (July September) using a variety of public engagement
approaches, staff will ensure all community members have an opportunity to participate
and provide ideas. Over the summer months, community consultation will be conducted
through methods such as:
Digital surveys using Engage Kitchener;
Social media engagement;
Workshops/focus group discussions; and,
Pop-up engagement booths at festivals and key community facilities.
3.Community & Stakeholder Symposium: Ideas of the Brave (September) as has become
staff are
planning a large community forum which will act as the culmination of the initial phases
of consultation. At this symposium, staff will share the key challenges, opportunities and
ideas generated through business and community engagement. The forum provides an
opportunity for our community, stakeholders and leaders to weigh in on where the City(in
partnership with our many stakeholders)should focus its attention in Make it Kitchener
2.0.
Ultimately, the goal of the community consultationis tounderstand a diversity of perspectives
and generate diverse ideas. Ensuring the inclusion of stakeholders that reflect the vibrancy of
our community will strengthen this strategy.Staff are developing a community engagement
plan to address potential barriers to participation.Consideration will be given tophysical and
social accessibility, timing,and atmosphere of engagement activitiesto ensure inclusive
participationfrom across the city.
Post-Engagement Steps
Following the community consultation, staff will develop a draft strategy that establishesclear
and transformative areas offocus with marquee initiatives that the City would either lead or work
with community stakeholders and partners to implement.This would include establishinga clear,
long-term investment and implementation strategy.Where significant opportunities or
challenges are identified, staff will undertake and provide extensive research to understand best-
practices in ensuring informed decision making.
8 - 4
The draft strategy would betabled in October with an opportunity for additional community
feedback in October-November, with a final strategy presented to Council in December. While
historically the economic development strategy has been developed on four year intervals, it is
clear that for Make it Kitchener 2.0to stimulate and support long-term, multi-generational
change, the proposed strategy may involve a longer-term outlook.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The development of the Make it Kitchener 2.0strategy is a key action to implement the Vibrant
Economy goal of the recommended 2019 -2022 Strategic Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Costs associated with the consultation process and strategy development have been allocated
and approved within the Economic Development Reserve.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
council / committee meeting.
This project will use the consult, collaborate and entrustmethodsthroughout the many
stakeholder engagement opportunities identified in the community consultation section of the
report.Community members will have opportunities to provide feedback, identify preferences
and community values, connect with other citizens to understand issuesfrom different
perspectives,anddevelop creative solutions. Ultimately, the strategy is a vehicle to empower
the local community to lead change andinnovation within their own community.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
8 - 5
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Hans Gross, Director,Engineering, 519-741-2200 Ext. 2410
PREPARED BY: Nick Gollan,Manager, Stormwater Utility, 519-741-2200 Ext. 7422
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 27, 2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-143
SUBJECT:DMAF Supplementary Agreements
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That theMayor, Chief Administrative Officer or a General Manager is hereby authorized
toexecutethe Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) ultimate receiver
agreement with the Grand River Conservation Authority; said agreement and other
relateddocumentation tobe tothe satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and
Further that theMayor, Chief Administrative Officer or a General Manager is hereby
authorized to execute a contract with Reep Green Solutions for the provision of
community engagement services throughout the duration of the agreement with
Infrastructure Canada under the DMAF project; said agreement and other related
documentation to be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
BACKGROUND:
On May 22, 2019 a funding announcement was made by the Government of Canada to grant
the City of Kitchener $49.990M through March of2028 to implement the Stormwater Network
Adaptation Project. This is an historic investment in stormwater infrastructure in the City of
Kitchener that is to be carried out in partnership with the GRCA and supported by Reep Green
Solutions.
REPORT:
The StormwaterNetwork Adaptation Project is a fundamental component of the Corporate
Climate Action Plan to build resilience into the stormwater network in anticipation of more intense
and more frequent storm events.There are three (3) key project components that form the
project, with 95 discrete capital projects within the broad headings of:
Stormwater for Capital Roads (WIP),
Watercourse and Erosion Restoration, and
Stormwater Management Facilities.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994forassistance.
9 - 1
One of those projects is the Bridgeport Dike restoration project. This project will be entirely
funded by the GRCA and the Government of Canada. As such, it is necessary to establish an
agreement between the City of Kitchener and the GRCA to transfer DMAF funds to the GRCA
as work is completed on the dike.
Another project element includes community engagement which will be delivered by Reep Green
Solutions and builds on the work started in 2012 with the development of the RAIN program as
well as the Rain Smart Neighborhoodscommunity engagement that Reep has been delivering.
This is an integral component of DMAF funding agreement and connects with the Enhanced
Market Incentive program to be developed by the Corporate Sustainability Office and rolled out
to the public in 2020.
Additionally,once all agreements are executed and work plans are finalized, a staff resourcing
strategy will be developedto provide project management and administrative support for the
additional work funded by DMAF. Further information will be provided at a later date.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Bridgeport Dike component of the DMAF project is estimatedto cost $5M, with a 60/40
funding split between the GRCA and Infrastructure Canada, respectively.
The community engagement to be provided by Reep Green Solutions is estimated to cost a total
of $1.2M throughout the duration of the project until the year 2028.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
See report DSD-18-168 authorizing the execution of the Agreement with Infrastructure Canada.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department
9 - 2
REPORT TO: Financeand Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Kathryn Dever,Director Strategy & Corporate Performance,
519-741-2200 ext. 7370
PREPARED BY:Jennifer MacLean,Corporate Planning Analyst,519-741-2200 ext. 7263
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All Ward(s)
DATE OF REPORT:May 17, 2019
REPORT NO.:CAO-19-008
SUBJECT:Business Plan: Status Update – April 2019
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information
BACKGROUND:
The majority of the corporation’s work is dedicated to core services and ongoing operations. The
remaining is allocated to strategic projects and initiatives. Annually the City of Kitchenerprepares
a Business Plan that sets out the projects and initiatives that the Citywill be working on for the
current year to deliver core services and to make progress on the implementation of the Strategic
Plan.
The 2019 Business Plan was developed under the guidance of the Corporate Leadership Team,
with input from the Corporate Management Team and staff from all City departments and with
direction from Council. It includes a total of 75 items, 57 projects and 18 ongoing initiatives.
The status of projects on the Business Planis reported to Council three times per year, and
progress for ongoing initiatives is reported annually at year-end.The intention of sharing this
information regularly with Council and the public is to demonstrate transparency and
accountabilityfor this work. This report providesCouncil with an update on the status of the
business plan projects as of April 30, 2019.A full listing of all active projects and their status as
of April 30, 2019 can be found in Appendix A: Business Plan Status Update – April 2019
Thegoal for the 2019 Business Plan was to develop a plan that meets community expectations
and responds to emerging issues in a sustainable and affordable way into the future in addition
to realistically representing what can be achieved in 2019 and delivering on more strategic
priorities.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
IF1 - 1
REPORT:
A great deal of progress has been made on the 2019 Business Plan in the first four months of
this year. Significant achievementsinclude:
1.Corporate Climate Action Plan (Strategic Ongoing Initiative):
The City of KitchenerCorporate Climate Action Plan is a detailed strategy for reducing our
corporate level GHG (greenhouse gas) emissionswith a goal ofan absolute reduction of
GHG emissions of 8 per cent by 2026. It was introduced by the Mayor at the annual State of
the City address and city council approved the city’s first corporate climate action planin April
2019. The plan covers both mitigation —the ways the city can cut its own greenhouse gas
emissions that contribute to a changing climate —and adaptation —ways it can adapt to
reduce the impacts of more extreme weather that climate change is bringing. Itaims to
reduce the city's carbon footprint in four main areas; improving the efficiency of heating and
cooling city buildings, reducing the energy consumption of its fleet, managing lighting and
reducing waste.
2.Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy(Strategic Project):
Council approved Kitchener's first sustainable urban forest strategy and implementation plan
(Staff Report INS-19-008)in April 2019.This was done after an extensive community
engagement and planning process including feedback from more than 1,800 citizens.The
strategy, which can be seen at kitchener.ca/trees, views the city's trees as a key part of its
infrastructure, just like roads and sewer pipes.The plan provides a community vision for a
sustainable urban forest as well as a framework (Plan, Engage, Protect, Maintain and Plant)
for what actions are required to achieve a sustainable urbanforest. The plan also includes
delivering a pilot tree planting program in City parks as part of the Love My Hood Greening
initiative as well as additional actions to support tree planting and maintenance of trees on
private properties.
3.Sustainable Development Feasibility Study(Strategic Project):
In March 2019, Council endorsed the FCM/GMF Feasibility Study staff report. Through
continuous improvement, this will allow the City to refine its development review process to
allow for ease of implementation of net-zero energy development. It will also allow the results
of the “FCM/GMF Feasibility Study: Municipal Tools for Catalyzing NetZero Energy
Development” to be used to conduct specific business cases, establish targets and engage
with landowners for one or more pilot projects.
4.Replacement of Fire Department Dispatch System:
An Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)systemhas been implemented with the City
of Kitchener andWaterloo Regional Police Services to enhance interoperability between the
two public safety agencies.
IF1 - 2
5.Development of a Water Leak Policy:
AWater LeakAdjustment policy was approved by Council in March 2019, allowingKitchener
Utility residential customers’ limited financial relief for highwater consumption due to leaks.
This policy also supports waterconservation as it encourages customers to fix leaks due to
plumbing failures.
6.Leisure Facilities Master Plan:
After ten months of research, consultations, and careful analysis, the Leisure Facilities
Master planhas been completed and wasapproved by Council in April 2019. This is an
important document that will guide recreation priorities for the next 10 years.
7.Development of Public Internet Access Standard:
A Public Access to Technology (PAT) measurement standard has been developed and is
pending review and approval from Council in June 2019. The standard sets benchmarks for
service and defines metrics that will be used to measure our impact and improvements over
time.
8.Utility Meter Mobile Workforce Management System (MWMS):
A workforce management solution (Clevest) has been developed to facilitate in field
management of gas and water related activities replacing current paper based systems. The
solution has been deployed to staff for water meter installations and is operational in the field.
9.2019-2022 Strategic Plan (Strategic Project):
The Compass Kitchener Advisory Committee and staff engaged representatives of all of the
Advisory Committees to solicit input on the preliminary goal statements and example actions.
Input and direction was also sought from Council. An on-line Engage Kitchener survey was
conducted to provide the public with opportunities to let us know how well the draftgoals and
actions respondedto thecommunity needs/interestsraised. The response to the draft goals
and actions was very positive.
The Compass Kitchener Advisory Committee madethe following recommendations for
improvements to the strategic and business planning processes that have been incorporated
into the 2019 Business Planand will help us monitor progress more effectively.
Utilizing the emerging themes for the new strategicplan to guide the development of the
business plan
Highlighting in yellow strategic business plan items to easily identify and draw focus to them
Having an achievable number of overall projects to improve our completion rate
Co-ordinated resourcing between departments to ensure progress on projects will be made
Moving towards a balanced distribution of projects amongst the strategic goals
IF1 - 3
The status of all57 projects in 2019 Business Plan as of April 30, 2019 is illustrated in Chart 1.
Overall, seven projects have been completed and 43 projects are on track.
Chart 1–Status of all ProjectsList of Completed Projects
1.Leisure Facilities Master Plan
Delayed, On
Completed,7,
Hold, Not
2.Replacement of Fire Department
12%
Started,7,12%
Dispatch System
3.Development of Public Internet
Access Standard
4.Sustainable Development
Feasibility Study
5.Development of a Water Leak
Policy
On Track,
6.Sustainable Urban Forest
43,76%
Strategy
7.Utility Meter Mobile Workforce
CompletedOn TrackDelayed, On Hold, Not Started
Management System (MWMS)
Four projectshave new expected completion dates and two projectshavea completion date to
bedetermined. All of these are listed below and are expected to be “On Track” by the next
reporting period.
List of projects with new expected completion dates
1.Research Best Practiceson Cat Licensing/Microchipping
2.AMANDA 7 and Public Portal Review
3.Complete Streets Policy
4.Cycling and Trails Master Plan Update
List of projects onhold
5.Online Business Licensing
6. E-Tendering
This year, strategic projects and strategic ongoing initiatives were identified in the 2019 Business
Plantomake progress on implementing the current 2015-2018 Strategic Plan, and align withthe
goals in the 2019-2022 Strategic Plan recommended forCouncil approval in June. There are 12
strategic projects on the plan and from these, eight are on track and two have already been
completed. The remaining two projects, Complete Streets Policy and Cycling and Trails Master
Plan Update, have been delayed due to consultant onboarding and other constraints.An
overview is illustrated in Chart 2 below.
IF1 - 4
Chart 2Twelve Strategic Projects
Completed
1.Sustainable Development Feasibility Study
16.5%,
16.5%,Delayed,
2.Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy
Completed,2
On Hold, Not
Started,2
On Track
3.2019-2022 Strategic Plan
4.Mayor’s Task Force on Equity, Diversity
and Inclusion
5.Municipal Response to Truth and
Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action
6.Development Services Review
7.Review of the Make It Kitchener Strategy
8.Affordable Housing Strategy
67%,On
9.Long Term Financial Plan
Track,8
10.Participatory Budgeting
Delayed/On Hold
11.Complete Streets Policy
CompletedOn TrackDelayed, On Hold, Not Started
12.Cycling and Trails Master Plan Update
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through
implementation of the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan and for the 12 strategic items, the proposed
2019-2022 Strategic Plan to guide this term of Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A: Business Plan Status Update – April 2019
Separate attachment
IF1 - 5
Appendix A
Business Plan Status Update – April 2019
IF1 - 6
Contents
April 2019 Accomplishments .................................................................................................................................................. 3
OFFICE OF THE CAO – Projects and Programs ........................................................................................................................ 1
Strategy and Corporate Performance ................................................................................................................................. 1
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs ........................................................................................... 2
Administration - Community Services ............................................................................................................................. 2
By-Law Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Corporate Customer Service ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Fire ......................................................................................................................................................................................
4
Neighbourhood Programs & Services ................................................................................................................................. 4
Sport ....................................................................................................................................................................................
5
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs ............................................................................................. 6
Corporate Communications & Marketing ........................................................................................................................... 7
Legislated Services .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Technology Innovation & Services ...................................................................................................................................... 8
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs ...................................................................................... 10
Administration - Development Services ........................................................................................................................... 10
Economic Development .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Engineering ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Planning.............................................................................................................................................................................
11
Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs ............................................................................................. 15
Administration - Financial Services ................................................................................................................................... 15
Accounting ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Financial Planning ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Procurement ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs ................................................................................. 18
Facilities Management ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Parks & Cemeteries ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Utilities ..............................................................................................................................................................................
19
2
IF1 - 7
April 2019 Accomplishments
1.Corporate Sustainability Program (Strategic Ongoing Initiative):
COMPLETED – Corporate Climate Action Plan
The City of Kitchener Corporate Climate Action Plan is a detailed strategy for reducing our corporate level
GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions with a goal of an absolute reduction of GHG emissions of 8 per cent by
2026. It was introduced by the Mayor at the annual State of the City address and city council approved the
city’s first corporate climate action plan in April 2019. The plan covers both mitigation — the ways the city
can cut its own greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to a changing climate — and adaptation — ways
it can adapt to reduce the impacts of more extreme weather that climate change is bringing. It aims to
reduce the city's carbon footprint in four main areas; improving the efficiency of heating and cooling city
buildings, reducing the energy consumption of its fleet, managing lighting and reducing waste.
2.Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy (Strategic Project):
COMPLETED
Council approved Kitchener's first sustainable urban forest strategy and implementation plan (Staff Report
INS-19-008) in April 2019. This was done after an extensive community engagement and planning process
including feedback from more than 1,800citizens. The strategy, which can be seen at kitchener.ca/trees,
views the city's trees as a key part of its infrastructure, just like roads and sewer pipes. The plan provides a
community vision for a sustainable urban forest as well as a framework (Plan, Engage, Protect, Maintain
and Plant) for what actions are required to achieve a sustainable urban forest. The plan also includes
delivering a pilot tree planting program in City parks as part of the Love My Hood Greening initiative as
well as additional actions to support tree planting and maintenance of trees on private properties.
3.Sustainable Development Feasibility Study (Strategic Project):
COMPLETED
In March 2019, Council endorsed the FCM/GMF Feasibility Study staff report. Through continuous
improvement, this will allow the City to refine its development review process to allow for ease of
implementation of net-zero energy development. It will also allow the results of the “FCM/GMF Feasibility
Study: Municipal Tools for Catalyzing NetZero Energy Development” to be used to conduct specific
business cases, establish targets and engage with landowners for one or more pilot projects.
4.Replacement of Fire Department Dispatch System:
COMPLETED
An Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system has been implemented with the City of Kitchener
and Waterloo Regional Police Services to enhance interoperability between the two public safety agencies.
5.Development of a Water Leak Policy:
COMPLETED
A Water Leak Adjustment policy was approved by Council in March 2019, allowing Kitchener Utility
residential customers’ limited financial relief for highwater consumption due to leaks. This policy also
supports water conservation as it encourages customers to fix leaks due to plumbing failures.
3
IF1 - 8
6.Leisure Facilities Master Plan:
COMPLETED
After ten months of research, consultations, and careful analysis, the Leisure Facilities Master plan has
been completed and was approved by Council in April 2019. This is an important document that will guide
recreation priorities for the next 10 years.
7.Development of Public Internet Access Standard:
COMPLETED
A Public Access to Technology (PAT) measurement standard has been developed and is pending review
and approval from Council in June 2019. The standard sets benchmarks for service and defines metrics
that will be used to measure our impact and improvements over time.
8.Utility Meter Mobile Workforce Management System (MWMS):
COMPLETED
A workforce management solution (Clevest) has been developed to facilitate in field management of gas
and water related activities replacing current paper based systems. The solution has been deployed to
staff for water meter installations and is operational in the field.
9.2019-2022 Strategic Plan (Strategic Project):
ON TRACK
The Compass Kitchener Advisory Committee and staff engaged representatives of all of the Advisory
Committees to solicit input on the preliminary goal statements and example actions. Input and direction
was also sought from Council. An on-line Engage Kitchener survey was conducted to provide the public
with opportunities to let us know how well the draft goals and actions responded to the community
needs/interests raised. The response to the draft goals and actions was very positive.
4
IF1 - 9
OFFICE OF THE CAO – Projects and Programs
Strategy and Corporate Performance Kathryn Dever (519)741-2200 ext. 7370
th
OG27 2019-2022 Strategic Plan (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
Develop clear, measurable goals and actions in collaboration with Council, the community and staff for the 2019-
2022 term of Council that are valued by the community, relevant to Council and achievable by the organization. The
plan will be used to guide resource allocations, business plans and performance targets.
Recent Progress
Compass Kitchener and staff engaged representatives of all of the Advisory Committees on January 24, 2019 to
solicit input on the preliminary goal statements and example actions. Input and direction was sought from Council
on January 29, 2019. Draft goals and actions were further developed based on the comments received. An on-line
Engage Kitchener survey was conducted from April 9-30, 2019 to provide the public with opportunities to let us
know if we had captured what we heard from them and had accurately developed goals and actions to respond to
the issues they raised. We reached out to key stakeholders to ask for their comments and to ask for input on how
we could work together to implement the strategic plan. The response to the draft goals and actions was very
positive.
Next Steps
Staff will prepare a report and recommend a 2019-2022 City of Kitchener Strategic Plan to Council in June.
th
CS75 Business Plan Alignment Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Align the planning, priority setting and decision making of the strategic planning, budget preparation and business
planning processes for the preparation of the 2020 business plan, ensuring clear connections between all three.
Recent Progress
Meetings have taken place with financial services and Service Co-ordination and Improvement Managers to identify
timing and process improvements to ensure alignment.
Next Steps
Draft work program.
th
CS73 Corporate Project Management Needs Assessment Status as of Apr 302019: NOT STARTED
Expected Completion: Dec-2020
Description
Conduct a needs assessment and develop recommendations on how the City can benefit from using project
management corporately to effectively deliver on its priorities.
Recent Progress
Next Steps
IF1 - 10
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projectsand Programs
Administration - Community Services Michael May (519)741-2200 ext. 7079
th
NB63 Mayor’s T ask Force on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2020
Description
The Mayor’s Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will create a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategy for
the City of Kitchener focused on better engaging and serving marginalized and under-represented people, as well as
creating a more inclusive City workplace.
Recent Progress
Recruitment of Task Force Project Manager completed. Co-chairs (staff and community) and staff members for
the Task Force identified.
Next Steps
Confirm task force membership from community organizations. Develop/launch application process for community
members at large.
th
NB64 Comprehensive Grants Review Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2020
Description
Review the City’s current grants program to identify opportunities for improvements.
Recent Progress
Initial meetings have occurred to discuss/determine the scope of the project.
Next Steps
Confirm the scope of the project and create the project charter.
By-Law Enforcement Gloria MacNeil (519)741-2200 ext. 7952
th
CS03 Research Best Practices on Cat Licensing/Microchipping Status as of Apr 302019: DELAYED
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Research a variety of options and best practices to better control the cat population and encourage responsible cat
ownership.
Recent Progress
Staff have contacted several municipalities and received responses to a list of questions relating to licensing,
microchipping and best practices.
Next Steps
Staff plan to report back to Council with the results of the best practices research. Final report to Council is
expected in Q3 2019. End date moved from April 2019 to December 2019.
2
IF1 - 11
By-Law Enforcement GloriaMacNeil (519)741-2200ext. 7952
th
CS56 Administrative Monetary Penalties System (AMPS)Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
Research and develop removal of the parking ticket process from the Regional Court House and implement an
internal process that could be shared with Waterloo, resulting in a more efficient and customer-focused process.
Recent Progress
The AMPS program was approved at Committee and Special Council in April including a Procedural by-law,
Screening and Hearing Officer by-law and a by-law to amend all existing parking by-laws.
Staff are currently finalizing the background work to support the AMPS program and a new contract with the
Ministry of Transportation. Progress has included ordering of new tickets, testing the software that supports the
ticket process and finalizing the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
Next Steps
Staff will report to Committee in May regarding all of the required policies to support the AMPS program per the
legislation. City of Kitchener and Waterloo staff are actively recruiting for the Hearing Officer positions. The
AMPS program will go live in June 2019.
Corporate Customer Service Jana Miller (519)741-2200 ext. 7231
th
OG23 Close the Loop with Citizens Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Expand the 2018 auto-notification (Close the Loop) pilot to enable citizens to receive email notifications for all
parking complaints.
Recent Progress
Timeline for the project has been developed.
Next Steps
Work continues with By-law and IT to address technology needs of the project, determine any staff training needs,
and begin development of content for case opening and closure emails for various complaint types.
th
OG19 Development of the Online Customer Service Portal Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2020
Description
Develop and launch a centralized online service portal where citizens can access their e-services in one place
through a personalized, single sign on account.
Recent Progress
Internal staff team confirmed; weekly project meetings are occurring. High-level project plan has been developed.
Budget approval received from Council in January. Discovery work leading to inventory of required system
integrations is complete; investigation of single sign-on options is underway. User consultation for portal's first
phase services has been completed.
Next Steps
Council to confirm portal vendor selection in mid-May 2019. The Knowledge Management Associate position which
will create portal content and document business processes will be hired in June 2019.
3
IF1 - 12
Fire JonRehill (519)741-2200ext. 5500
th
CS67 Direct Detect Business Case Analysis Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Conduct a business analysis to reassess current business practices, analyze technology systems, determine future
needs and implement the necessary steps to improve the direct detect program.
Recent Progress
The Direct Detect project team continues to advance the project. The project framework consists of three
significant areas of focus: 1) product review 2) financial analysis and 3) next steps/solutions. Product review and
financial analysis are complete.
Next Steps
Over the next quarter, the project team will meet to advance the final area of focus: developing growth projections,
a technology plan, marketing and advertising campaign and future resources study.
th
CS61 Replacement of Fire Department Dispatch System Status as of Apr302019:COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
Implement the Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system with Waterloo Regional Police Services to
enhance interoperability between the two public safety agencies. The current CAD system is approaching the end of
its life cycle and must be replaced.
Recent Progress
The implementation team met all the project milestones and successfully implemented the Intergraph CAD on April
24, 2019. Staff will monitor day to day operations to ensure the functionality of the CAD system between the two
agencies.
Neighbourhood Programs & Services Mark Hildebrand (519)741-2200 ext. 7687
th
NB29 Business Case for Mill Courtland Community Centre Expansion Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Engage community residents/stakeholders in a needs assessment and business case to determine the requirements
for an addition to the community centre.
Recent Progress
Internal staff team continues to discuss project limitations and scope.
Next Steps
Terms of reference for business case will be developed in Q4 2019.
NB42 Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre Expansion-Design & Construction
th
2019: ON TRACK
Status as of Apr 30
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Commence the design and construction of expanded space at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre, including a
gymnasium and other program and partner spaces to meet the needs of the growing community.
Recent Progress
Since the winter thaw construction has started up again. Project is meeting revised timelines and is on budget.
Next Steps
Construction planned to continue through to fall 2019.
4
IF1 - 13
Neighbourhood Programs & Services Mark Hildebrand (519)741-2200ext. 7687
NB58 Review of Community Centre Use of Space and the Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy
th
Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
This action comes from the Community Centre Audit and as an action of the love my hood strategy. There is a desire
in the community to review and consider expanding the existing policy on community use of space at our
community centres. Also connected to this is the Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy. There is a
recommendation to develop a clearer and comprehensive affiliation policy including well defined expectations, roles
and responsibilities for the City and our Neighbourhood Associations.
Recent Progress
An extensive internal engagement process with staff from across the Neighbourhood Programs and Services division
and beyond is complete. Individual meetings conducted with Neighbourhood Associations to gain perspective on
their work and how staff can support them.
Next Steps
Continue to engage with Neighbourhood Associations, reporting back to them on key themes and learnings from
individual meetings and their written submissions. A series of workshops are planned with staff and community
groups plan for the future of our community centres.
th
NB59 Huron Brigadoon Area School / Community Centre Construction Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2021
Description
Partner with the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) in the construction of a joint school/community
centre in the Huron Brigadoon area.
Recent Progress
Architect has been hired by the WRDSB and project team has been developed, including representation from the
City of Kitchener Neighbourhood Programs and Services and Facilities Management divisions.
Next Steps
Facility design has started in conjunction with the WRDSB.
Sport Kim Kugler (519)741-2200 ext. 7544
th
NB55 Neighbourhood Use of Schools and Faith Based Facilities Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
This action is a recommendation from the City’s ‘lovemyhood’ strategy and supports positive change in
neighbourhoods through exploring and starting conversations with school boards and faith based facilities for
greater access to their indoor and outdoor facilities.
Recent Progress
An inventory list with contacts for schools and faith based facilities with rental space availability for the community
has been developed.
Next Steps
Develop a communication strategy to inform neighbourhood and sport groups of the availability of school, church or
unique rental spaces in the community and how to access them.
5
IF1 - 14
Sport KimKugler (519)741-2200ext. 7544
th
CS66 Leisure Facilities Master Plan Status as of Apr 302019:COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Apr-2019
Description
Complete the Leisure Facilities Master Plan (LFMP) to provide the foundation for investment in existing leisure and
recreation facilities and services and determine future facilities and services within the City of Kitchener. The plan
will provide recommendations on new facilities to be incorporated into the development charges by-law.
Recent Progress
The Leisure Facilities Master Plan, along with the list of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities eligible for development
charge funding, was approved by Council on April 1, 2019. Recommendations from the 2019 Leisure Facilities Master
Plan will be prioritized and captured through the business planning process. Funding for the prioritized list of indoor
and outdoor recreation facilities eligible for development charge funding will allocated through the development
charge process, which is expected to be complete in June 2019. The next Leisure Facilities Master Plan will be
complete in 2023.
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs
Office of the Mayor & Council Paul Grivicic (519)741-2200 ext.7795
th
EC11 Intergovernmental Relations - Passenger Rail Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Work in collaboration with partners in the Toronto/Waterloo Region corridor to advocate for improved GO
passenger rail service including high speed rail as a priority infrastructure investment for the provincial
government.
Recent Progress
In late 2018 and early 2019, the provincial government and Metrolinx announced their plans for Two-Way All-
Day GO (TWADGO) Rail service on the Kitchener Line. Metrolinx is studying TWADGO and plans to release their
report later in 2019. In the April 11, 2019 provincial budget, the province announced a pause for High Speed
Rail.
Next Steps
City staff will continue to work with Connect The Corridor partners to advocate for Two-Way All-Day GO (TWADGO)
rail service along the Kitchener Line, and support Metrolinx's 2019 study as much as possible by providing data to
support TWADGO. High Speed Rail, although continuing with the Environmental Assessment but now on pause,
needs further clarity from the provincial government moving forward (i.e. move forward or formally cancel).
th
SE15 Intergovernmental Relations - Municipal Infrastructure Funding Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Advocate for greater infrastructure funding for municipalities from the federal and provincial governments.
Recent Progress
In March 2019, the provincial government announced that it is opening the application intake and moving
forward with two of the four federal funding streams: Rural & Northern Infrastructure Fund, and Public Transit
Infrastructure fund. It was also announced that they intend to commence all four funding streams in 2019.
Next Steps
The remaining two federal funding streams (Green Infrastructure Fund, and Community, Culture, and Recreation
Infrastructure Fund), are expected to move forward later this year. All four funding streams are on track to
commence during 2019.
6
IF1 - 15
Corporate Communications & Marketing Nicole Amaral (519)741-2200ext. 7861
OG24MunicipalResponsetotheTruthandReconciliationCommissionCallstoAction(StrategicItem)
th
Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
This project will result in a potential municipal response for Council consideration to the 2015 Truth and
Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report, including its Calls to Action, and identify and make recommendations for
other ways the City can support Indigenous peoples in Kitchener. Deliverables will include a staff report detailing the
full scope of work and a report with recommendations on our approach to key issues defined through the initial
project scope.
Recent Progress
New community relationships are being developed which is helping to further understanding on the scope for
reconciliation.
Next Steps
A draft land acknowledgement is under review and a report is being prepared for Council's consideration which will
outline relevant calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and make recommendations on next
steps to advance reconciliation work by the corporation.
th
OG20 Parks, Playgrounds and Trails Community Engagement Review Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
This action is a recommendation from the City’s lovemyhood strategy and supports the implementation of
improvements to public spaces in the city by prioritizing the way the City engages with residents in the development
or redevelopment of neighbourhood parks, playgrounds and trails. There will be a focus on serving the specific
needs of residents in terms of ages, interests, abilities and cultural backgrounds.
Recent Progress
Internal discussions have identified the scope and goals for the project, as well as staff stakeholders.
Next Steps
Staff are currently developing a project plan.
Legislated Services Christine Tarling (519)741-2200ext. 7809
CS68 Electronic Records Management Strategy Status as of Apr 30th 2019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Implement the necessary and appropriate strategies, tools, processes and skills to systematically control the
creation, distribution, use and disposition of the City’s electronic records/information maintained as evidence of
business activities and transactions.
Recent Progress
Conducted research on strategies on how to apply the City’s Records Retention Schedule to records stored in
. Identified different
databases, City’s official web-based records and, City’s official social media records
approaches/options for applying retention to official records and identified stakeholders that need to be involved in the
project implementation.
Next Steps
Identify resource requirements. Engage stakeholders and gather information to solidify approaches/options
identified and further research tools to aid in managing official records in City’s webpages (internet andintranet)
and social media records.
7
IF1 - 16
Legislated Services Christine Tarling (519)741-2200ext. 7809
th
CS37 Online Business Licensing Status as of Apr 302019: ON HOLD
Expected Completion: TBD
Description
Implement the first phase of online business licensing (e.g. pilot with business license renewals).
Recent Progress
Staff have completed the folders required for implementation and taken this project as far as possible within its
control; further progress requires the AMANDA 7 upgrade to be completed.
Next Steps
th
CS18 Electronic Agenda Management Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2020
Description
Create, prepare, approve and publish meeting agendas in a more efficient, collaborative, streamlined manner.
Recent Progress
Completed a needs assessment through one-on-one interviews and group workshops with internal stakeholders
(including staff and Council) aimed at identifying "pain points" with the current agenda management process.
Completed a municipal scan of best practices in the field of meeting management. Met with vendors to discuss and
learn about third-party software. Currently evaluating the results of the needs assessment to finalize a
recommendation to the Corporate Leadership Team.
Next Steps
Conduct a comprehensive review of the agenda preparation process for standing committees and Council meetings
through a LEAN perspective to identify and implement efficiencies. Continue investigating potential implementation
of a third-party application that leverages existing technology owned by the City. Report back to Corporate
Leadership Team on findings and recommendations.
Technology Innovation & Services Dan Murray (519)741-2200 ext. 7825
th
EC07 Broadband & Fibre Optic Infrastructure Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Work collaboratively with stakeholders to explore options to either encourage third party fibre optic investment in
Kitchener or partner with others to provide improved high-speed broadband infrastructure for Kitchener. High
speed internet access is increasingly viewed as essential infrastructure for a globally competitive economy.
Recent Progress
More information on the major carrier’s plans have been obtained allowing further refinement of the City’s
approach. Information on 5G implementations and approaches from the US will also be incorporated and influence
recommendations.
Next Steps
Further stakeholder consultation with the new information still needs to be completed before reporting back to
Council. A report outlining suggestions to prepare the City for Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT),
5G implementations including both small cell and macro cell sites fibre will then be prepared for Committee.
8
IF1 - 17
Technology Innovation & Services Dan Murray (519)741-2200ext. 7825
th
CS62 Development of Public Internet Access Standard Status as of Apr 302019: COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Apr-2019
Description
Digital Kitchener outlined the development of a Public Internet Access Standard as part of the Inclusive theme. This
project will include working with community partners to define what attributes would constitute public access and
then using that definition, developing a minimum standard of free public Internet access to be adopted by the City.
This minimum standard can then be used to direct future investments for public access terminals or free Wi-Fi in
future projects.
Recent Progress
A Public Access to Technology (PATs) measurement standard has been developed and reviewed with stakeholders.
The standard sets benchmarks for service and defines metrics that will be used to measure our impact and
improvements over time. A number of initiatives that support public access to technology were included in the
SmartWR Smart Cities Challenge proposal as well. A Public Access to Technology (PATs) measurement standard is
complete, pending review and approval from Council in June 2019.
th
CS64 Civic Innovation Lab at Communitech Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2020
Description
The establishment of a Civic Innovation Lab is a significant initiative in support of the Digital Kitchener strategy. The
lab is fully operational and is half way through a pilot project which concludes after 3 years. The focus is on
developing innovative solutions where Internet of Things (IoT) can help solve municipal challenges, work continues
on IoT projects in 2019.
Recent Progress
In 2018, the Lab developed an Internet of Things (IoT) data platform tool called CLARA. Several pilot projects are
underway including smart garbage receptacle monitoring, smart parking, asset tracking and research into smart
metering for gas and water. We just recently welcomed our next cohort of co-ops to the lab and development work
will continue through 2019 on these pilots.
Next Steps
Several pilots will continue through 2019 with new co-ops starting at the end of April. Work is underway for
pedestrian/bicycle counting, environmental sensing as well as some augmented reality videos and machine learning
exploration.
th
CS65 Implementation of the Digital Kitchener Strategy Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2021
Description
Digital Kitchener, a four year digital strategy approved by Council in 2017, is a vision to make Kitchener more
Connected, Innovative, On-Demand and Inclusive. An annual work plan will be developed which includes a number
of initiatives that fulfill the action steps outlined in Digital Kitchener and help realize the vision. Staff will report back
to Council on the progress of the plan annually.
Recent Progress
An update was provided to Council in April on progress thus far for Digital Kitchener and the 2019 work plan. The
plan was endorsed by Council.
Next Steps
An update will come back to Committee for the Public Access Standard as well as 5G research and recommendations
over the next few months. Work will begin on the 2019 action plan items shared with Council over 2019.
9
IF1 - 18
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – ProjectsandPrograms
Administration - Development Services JustinReadman (519)741-2200ext. 7646
th
CS74 Development Services Review (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion:Aug-2020
Description
Kitchener is going through an extraordinary transformation that can be seen happening all around us. To ensure we
are in the best position possible to respond to exciting changes to the community we serve, the City is undergoing a
review of our development services to bring greater focus, coordination and accountability to our development
functions.
Recent Progress
A variety of engagement activities took place in the first quarter of 2019, including strategic sessions, focus groups,
and drop-in sessions to better understand participant's past experience with development-related services,
priorities for the review, and to articulate a shared vision for all development services stakeholders (i.e. Council,
Staff, community members, the development community) for what it means to work together to build a great city.
A staff report and presentation were prepared for May Committee/Council.
Next Steps
A project update will be presented to Council in May 2019 which will include the proposed shared vision for
development services stakeholders as well as the project scope and schedule for the first year of the development
services review. Preliminary feedback will be solicited from stakeholders until May 31, 2019 on how to improve the
site plan process and public engagement processes across development services, at which point a detailed review of
these processes will begin.
Building Mike Seiling (519)741-2200 ext. 7669
th
CS55 AMANDA 7 and Public Portal Review Status as of Apr 302019: DELAYED
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
The AMANDA software system requires a significant upgrade; AMANDA 7. Prior to implementation, testing of scripts
and set-up of security groups and reporting tools is necessary. The existing public portal is integral to the core
business. The project will include reviewing the existing public portal and other software options.
Recent Progress
Staff have worked with the vendor to identify required amendments to the software in advance of testing, which
has resulted in a delay in completing the project. The final product will be available for full testing at the end of May.
Next Steps
Staff will test and approve the public portal recently delivered by the vendor. Once tested and approved,
Technology, Innovation & Services (TIS) will complete a security scan prior to full implementation. The anticipated
completion of the project has moved from April to August 2019.
10
IF1 - 19
Economic Development CoryBluhm (519)741-2200ext. 7065
th
EC29 Review of the Make It Kitchener Strategy (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Conduct a review of the Make It Kitchener strategy.
Recent Progress
Staff have started developing a public consultation plan.
Next Steps
Stakeholder consultation is planned to occur between July and September 2019, with a major public consultation
event in September. Based on community input, a draft strategy will be presented to Council in Fall 2019.
Engineering Hans Gross (519)741-2200 ext. 7410
th
SE05 Low Impact Development Design Guidelines - Stormwater Utility Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach to storm water management that mimics a site's natural hydrology as
the landscape is developed. Using the Low Impact Development approach, storm water is managed on-site and the
rate and volume of storm water reaching receiving waters is unchanged from predevelopment levels. These
guidelines will be integrated into the existing Development Manual.
Recent Progress
As of last fall there have been 5 full road reconstruction projects tendered and constructed with LID incorporated
into the design (permeable concrete parking laybys, exfiltration systems in the storm sewer, bioretention and oil
and grit separation units). The incremental cost of including LID to mitigate extreme weather events is 3-5% of the
total project cost. LID continues to be incorporated into all construction works across the municipality to meet the
criteria established in the City's stormwater management policy (MUN-UTI-2003) and the Integrated Stormwater
Management Master Plan (2016).
Next Steps
An update to the Development Manual will incorporate changes to MUN-UTI-2003 as well as the design guidelines
and resources developed by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation Authority
for LID implementation. A report to Council is expected in the Fall of 2019 outlining the newly updated Development
Manual. Internal engineering standards will continue to be refined as experience is gained in design and
construction projects being led by the Engineering Division and Stormwater Utility.
Planning Alain Pinard (519)741-2200 ext. 7319
th
NB13 Sustainable Development Feasibility Study (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Apr-2019
Description
Working with partner organizations, under the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Funds
program, undertake a feasibility study to help inform sustainable development practices at a site or neighbourhood
scale. The emphasis is to be on energy sustainability.
Recent Progress
Report endorsed by Committee and Council in March 2019.
11
IF1 - 20
Planning Alain Pinard (519)741-2200 ext. 7319
th
NB65 Affordable Housing Strategy (Strategic Item)Status as of Apr 302019: ONTRACK
Expected Completion:Dec-2020
Description
Create an affordable housing strategy for Kitchener in collaboration with the Region of Waterloo, community groups
and the development industry.
Recent Progress
A new, temporary staff position was created and recruitment is underway. This individual will be tasked with project
management responsibilities related to the creation of an affordable housing strategy for Kitchener.
Next Steps
A work plan is being developed and staff report being prepared for June 2019.
th
NB43 Heritage Best Practices Implementation Status as of Apr 302019: ONTRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
In follow up to Report CSD-15-08 which recommended the development of a variety of best practices regarding the
conservation of cultural heritage resources. The focus for 2019 will be on updates to delegated approval authority
and requirements for proposed demolition of listed properties.
Recent Progress
Staff have conducted municipal best practices research regarding delegated approval and submission requirements
for the demolition of listed properties on the heritage registry. There has been sufficient discussion with Heritage
Kitchener to proceed in drafting an update to the delegated approval by-law and supporting staff report.
Next Steps
Staff will work with the City's Legal Services to draft a new delegated approval by-law and supporting staff report for
consideration by Heritage Kitchener and Council.
Staff will prepare a discussion paper regarding submission requirements for the demolition of listed property, for
discussion at Heritage Kitchener.
th
NB11 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Undertake a multi-phase, comprehensive review of the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 to implement the new Official Plan
and other required changes. The focus for 2019 will be on completing Stage 1 of the new Zoning By-law (Non-
Residential) and working on Stage 2 (Residential).
Recent Progress
Meetings with landowners/representatives regarding public comments were undertaken and issues resolved. The
final by-law for non-residential zones (stage 1) was approved by Committee and Council in April with some deferrals.
Work on residential zones (stage 2) has been re-initiated.
Next Steps
Staff will work to resolve several matters that were deferred from Council's April approval of stage 1 and return for
a decision on these in the spring. The next focus for 2019 will be on stage 2 – residential zones. Public and
development industry consultation on the residential base zones will occur in the spring and summer. Staff will
work with stakeholders to resolve issues and bring a by-law for Council and Committee to consider for approval in
the fall.
12
IF1 - 21
Planning Alain Pinard (519)741-2200ext. 7319
th
NB21 Hidden Valley Land Use Study Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
Develop a master/community plan for the Hidden Valley area. This project will identify any public interest in the
Hidden Valley lands including opportunities to protect and/or acquire natural features and sensitive lands.
Implementation will be through Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments.
Recent Progress
A draft land use master plan document was prepared and circulated to stakeholders for comment.
Next Steps
Staff to present the land use master plan document to Committee and Council in June.
th
NB26 Urban Design Manual Status as of Apr 302019: ONTRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Create a new urban design manual to implement the new Official Plan, make the document more efficient and
effective, complement specific design briefs and provide guidance on City building and design expectations to
ensure vibrant new development in Kitchener.
Recent Progress
Consideration of stakeholder feedback and preparation of a final draft of the manual has been undertaken over the
last several months.
Next Steps
Industry and community consultation will continue through the spring and summer. Staff will present manual for
Council approval in the fall.
th
NB36 Incentives for Design/Architectural Innovation and Excellence Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Evaluate potential incentives for the development of landmark building design and architecture at strategic
locations within the City.
Recent Progress
Design and Architectural excellence has been included as a community benefit within the Downtown Bonusing
provisions in the City's new zoning by-law (CRoZBy). This means that landmark building design and architecture is
incentivized through the development approval process. It is one of the pre-defined community benefits that
qualifies a developer to obtain additional density.
Next Steps
The Kitchener Great Places award nominations are underway, and the award ceremony has been scheduled for early
November. This award program has been reviewed/amended in part to support this project. Staff will continue to
review other potential incentive possibilities.
13
IF1 - 22
Transportation Barry Cronkite (519)741-2200ext. 7738
th
NB18 Complete Streets Policy (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: DELAYED
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
The City of Kitchener has a number of policies and practices that promote complete streets. The development of a
complete street policy would review best practices and combine elements into a coordinated policy document that
ensures planning, design and implementation of an element of the City’s transportation network considers and aims
to meet the needs of all users regardless of age, ability and travel choice.
Recent Progress
Community engagement has been conducted. Staff have been working on identifying key principles and cross-
sectional street designs; however, due to several constraints, the project has experienced a delay. Approximately
half of the policy has been drafted to-date.
Next Steps
Staff will complete the draft policy and circulate the document for comment. It is anticipated that staff will present
the policy to Council in September. Project end date has been moved from Aug to Dec 2019.
th
SE12 Cycling and Trails Master Plan Update (Strategic Item)
2019: DELAYED
Status as of Apr 30
Expected Completion: Apr-2020
Description
Updating the 2010 Cycling Master Plan will include on-road cycling facilities, as well as incorporate off-road trails
cycling infrastructure. Cycling related education and programming will be addressed.
Recent Progress
A consultant was hired and the project was initiated, however, the project has been delayed as a result of this
process. Community working groups were developed and are scheduled monthly throughout the project. Branding
has been established. A community engagement plan has been finalized.
Next Steps
A strategy session will be held with Council on May 27th. A launch event is planned for June at Stanley Park on
Neighbours day. Community engagement will continue through the summer. The end-date for the project is
anticipated to be April 2020, moved from December 2019.
th
NB34 Community Traffic Safety Advisory Committee Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Consider options to revise the mandate of an existing advisory committee to create a co-operative partnership
between City staff, community groups and other agencies that seek to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety in
Kitchener. The committee will provide input and feedback on traffic safety issues such as school zone concerns,
traffic calming requests and traffic-related education initiatives.
Recent Progress
Other regional municipalities were contacted and have confirmed that there is no interest in forming a new
committee. As such, the existing cycling and trails advisory committee supports maintaining the existing committee
structure, and has agreed to redefine and broaden their scope.
Next Steps
A report and new terms of reference will be written that recommends changing the existing cycling and trails
advisory committee to a committee that includes all aspects of transportation and trail safety.
14
IF1 - 23
Transportation Barry Cronkite (519)741-2200ext. 7738
th
NB46 Automated Speed Camera Program for Traffic Calming Status as of Apr 302019: ONTRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Subject to the passing of new Provincial legislation related to speed cameras, staff will investigate the potential use
of this technology to address speeding concerns in school zones.
Recent Progress
A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been issued by the City of Toronto on behalf of most communities in southern
Ontario, including Waterloo Region. The Region has agreed to lead the initiative. One camera is proposed to be
rotated amongst 32 locations throughout the Region (four in Kitchener). The Region is intending to forward a report
to Regional Council following the awarding of the RFP recommending adoption of an Automated Speed Enforcement
(ASE) program in the Region of Waterloo.
NextSteps
The four schools that will receive the ASE unit will be identified and a staff report will be prepared for Councils
consideration. The City of Kitchener will work with the Region to develop a public communications plan.
th
NB61 Review Municipal Roadway Speed Limit Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
Review and/or establish a new uniform posted speed limit for municipal roadways.
Recent Progress
Research has been completed and it has been determined that a holistic change in uniform speed limit is not
feasible. However, the Highway Traffic Act allows the City to establish “neighbourhood safety zones” where speed
limits can be reduced. Staff have determined that the preferred approach is to establish a pilot project in one or
two neighbourhoods in the City to measure the effectiveness of this approach. This is a joint initiative with the City
of Waterloo, who will be recommending a similar approach.
Next Steps
Staff will work to identify an appropriate neighbourhood for the pilot project. Staff will prepare a report to Council
recommending the location of the pilot project installation, which is anticipated to be installed in the fall.
FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs
Administration - Financial Services Jonathan Lautenbach (519)741-2200 ext. 7334
th
CS09 Long Term Financial Plan (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Prepare a consolidated long term financial plan that will be the financial framework for the City going forward. The
framework will incorporate policy work pertaining to reserves, debt, and enterprise investments.
Recent Progress
Council approved the project scope and timeline in April. The draft long term financial plan will be brought forward
to council this fall.
Next Steps
A Council strategic session is planned in May focusing on two specific issues: Infrastructure Funding and Operating
Budget Room (Expiring Debt)
15
IF1 - 24
Accounting Brenda Johnson (519)741-2200 ext. 7647
th
CS69 Automation of Payment Processing Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Multi-phase project including investigation and automation of corporate credit card processing, online travel and
expense claims, and electronic storage in SAP of payment documentation such as invoices and cheque remittances
in an effort to reduce paper and streamline processes.
Recent Progress
Analyzed feedback from administration and management stakeholders, and from SAP Collaborative Value
Assessment and proposing that an electronic purchasing solution is recommended to best meet the procurement
needs for low-dollar high volume purchases. This is being investigated by SAP Business Solutions, Procurement, and
Accounting. Staff are moving to next phase of the project – automation of corporate credit card automation. Staff
have met with TIS to have current corporate credit card processing mapping completed.
Next Steps
Investigate credit card automation solutions. Different options include SAP, Concur, US bank, and investigate what
other municipalities are currently using.
Financial Planning Ryan Hagey (519)741-2200 ext. 7353
th
OG10 Participatory Budgeting (Strategic Item) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Report on pilot project that enables community members to directly decide how to spend part of the City'sbudget,
allowing them to make budget decisions that affect their lives.
Recent Progress
As part of the participatory budgeting pilot project, the City identified a budget to invest in two neighbourhood
parks and staff worked with neighbours to make decisions around what they wanted to see included. Each
community voted over multiple stages to select the final park design for construction. Sandhills Park is
currently with procurement services and it is anticipated that work will commence in spring and be completed
through the summer. Plans are finalized and site work has commenced using internal resources. Works
identified through the Participatory Budgeting (PB) process for Elmsdale have been relocated to the Chandler
Mowat Community Center (CMCC) after site works identified that the previous use of the site as a landfill
made implementing the elements unwise. Engagement and consultation on the final design of the PB elements
at CMCC has been completed and a final plan is being developed. It is anticipated work will be undertaken
through summer on implementing improvements.
Next Steps
Staff are preparing final report evaluating the participatory budgeting process in conjunction with the
University of Waterloo. It is anticipated that all works being implemented at Sandhills Park and CMCC will be
completed in 2019, though minor elements may need to be addressed in early 2020.
th
CS41 Development Charges Background Study (2019) Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
5-year update to the City’s Development Charges Background Study and By-law as required by legislation.
Recent Progress
Background work completed, and draft Development Charge (DC) Study and Bylaw published. Stakeholder input
session in early May, with public input meeting in mid-May.
Next Steps
Final Council approval of DC Study and Bylaw in June.
16
IF1 - 25
Revenue Saleh Saleh (519)741-2200 ext. 7334
th
OG26 Development of a Water Leak Policy Status as of Apr 302019: COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
The purpose of this policy is to provide customers defined relief from water leaks which may occur as a result of
malfunctioning toilets, water softeners, leaking taps inside or outside, reverse osmosis units, irrigation systems and
ruptured pipes on the customer’s side of the water meter.
Recent Progress
A Water Leak Adjustment policy was completed ahead of schedule and approved by Council in March 2019,
allowing Kitchener Utility residential customers’ limited financial relief for highwater consumption due to leaks.
This policy also supports water conservation as it encourages customers to fix leaks due to plumbing failures.
The Leak Adjustment policy and the application forms have been posted on the Kitchener Utilities website.
Procurement Margaret Fisher (519)741-2200 ext. 7241
th
OG08 E-Tendering Status as of Apr 302019: ON HOLD
Expected Completion: TBD
Description
Implement an e-tendering module to enable vendors to self-identify for interested commodities, access bid
documents and drawings and submit tenders, proposals and quotations electronically.
Recent Progress
No further work has been done in 2019.
Next Steps
The final stage of receiving vendor proposals (RFP documents) and using on-line evaluations on bids and tenders
system will be implemented once the procurement project with the consultant has been completed.
th
CS71 Purchasing Procedures to Support New By-law Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Develop purchasing procedures that support by-law and complete an analysis of current Procurement templates.
RecentProgress
A consultant recently completed and presented their summary of findings and recommendations in the Snapshot
Review and RADAR (Risk Assessment, Diagnostic and Recommendation) Report. This included results from their
review of on-line survey results, procurement templates, policies, procedures, protocols, by-law as well as
interviews with selected representatives across the city.
Next Steps
Present summary of consultant's findings, recommendations and next steps of project to the Corporate
Leadership Team. Working with the consultant and internal legal representative, draft policies, procedures,
protocols and updated solicitation document templates.
17
IF1 - 26
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICESDEPARTMENT – Projects and Programs
Facilities Management Asad Qureshi (519)741-2600 ext. 4424
th
EC28 Rehabilitation of City Hall Outdoor Spaces Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Apr-2020
Description
Final design of City Hall outdoor critical infrastructure.
Recent Progress
A Request For Proposal (RFP) for professional services to complete the final design and contract administration was
completed by staff and posted to the City's website. RFP was closed on May 1st and will be awarded by June 2019.
Next Steps
Once the current Request For Proposal is awarded, work will begin on final construction specifications with
tendering for construction works anticipated Q4 2019.
Parks & Cemeteries Niall Lobley (519)741-2600 ext. 4518
th
Status as of Apr 302019: COMPLETED
SE06 Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy (Strategic Item)
Expected Completion: Apr-2019
Description
This project will include the delivery of a Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy which will set the course of action for a
socially desirable urban forest that can be achieved and maintained based on the true capacity of the City to
manage resources. Work will also include recommendations regarding how the City can create a citywide public-
private program which is a recommendation from the City’s ‘lovemyhood’ strategy.
Recent Progress
In April Council approved Kitchener's first sustainable urban forest strategy and implementation plan. Council's
approval occurred after a comprehensive planning exercise and community engagement process. Staff will now
focus on implementing the plan based on approved priorities and funding.
th
SE29 Complete Winter Maintenance Pilots – Sidewalks and Trails Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Aug-2019
Description
This work includes completing two pilot projects for the winter sidewalk maintenance (proactive by-law; assisted
services; neighbourhood snowblower initiative) and the year-round maintenance of trails in school zones.
Recent Progress
Staff completed the implementation and evaluation of three pilot programs for winter sidewalk maintenance:
Proactive Inspection, Assisted Services for Sidewalks and Windrow Clearing and Neighbourhood Shared Snow
Blower. A staff report has been prepared for the May 13, 2019 Committee and May 27, 2019 Council meeting
that reviews past efforts regarding improvements to the City’s winter sidewalk maintenance practices,
presents the analysis and results of the pilot programs evaluation, and provides recommendations and
options for the 2019/2020 winter season and beyond. Staff also completed the year-round maintenance of
trails in school zones pilot and are preparing a staff report for June Committee/Council, which includes the
evaluation of that pilot and community engagement completed around the project.
Next Steps
Following direction from Council in May, staff will prepare for the implementation of the program for the winter
2019/2020 by selecting and coordinating routes, developing engagement materials, and developing an evaluation
system. The Year-round Maintenance of Trails in School Zones report is scheduled for June 10, 2019 Committee
and June 24, 2019 Council.
18
IF1 - 27
Parks & Cemeteries Niall Lobley (519)741-2600 ext. 4518
th
CS59 Parkland Dedication Policy Update Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Apr-2020
Description
Comprehensive review and update of the current Parkland Dedication Policy related to acquiring parkland (or cash-
in-lieu payment) through development applications.
Recent Progress
Long Range Planning will be undertaking stakeholder engagement as the primary stakeholders involve the
development community. Announcements within Bill 108 may impact scope/delivery.
Next Steps
An internal staff review of the draft policy, by-law and discussion paper is planned. Consultation with affected user
groups to be scheduled in Q3 2019.
th
NB56 Reduce Municipal Barriers – Review Permitted Uses in Parks Status as of Apr 302019: ON TRACK
Expected Completion: Apr-2020
Description
This action is a recommendation from the city’s lovemyhood strategy and supports positive change in
neighbourhoods through a review of permitted uses in parks to provide clarity on a range of uses that are
acceptable and outline a streamlined process to review requests for park use. This review will be done in
collaboration with the City’s Neighbourhood Development Office and By-law Enforcement.
Recent Progress
Staff have reviewed the existing status around campfires and have begun to look for specific locations where it
would be pre-approved as well as preparing a public guide on where this work can occur. Staff completed a review
to confirm where and what types of BBQs can occur in parks.
Next Steps
Continue to deliver 'pilot' support materials - campfires and BBQs are two areas which have been reviewed early
and for which program support materials are in development. Q3/Q4 2019 will see initial engagement around
Open Space Strategy within which this work will be included.
Utilities Greg St. Louis (519)741-2600 ext. 4538
th
CS60 Utility Meter Mobile Workforce Management System(MWMS)Status as of Apr 302019:COMPLETED
Expected Completion: Dec-2019
Description
Source a highly configurable and flexible mobile workforce management solution to facilitate in field management
of a variety of gas and water related legislated activities. The proposed solution will replace the current paper based
systems, integrate through SAP service orders and Cityworks work orders allowing dispatchers to input into a queue
of work plans delivered to staff by mobile devices through the MWMS.
Recent Progress
The chosen Clevest application has been fully developed and deployed to staff for Water Meters installations and is
in operation in the field. The more fulsome application of this program will continue to be rolled out to various
work areas within gas and water utilities as deemed appropriate and is now considered part of core service
delivery.
19
IF1 - 28
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING:April 1, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk, 519-741-
2200, ext. 7809
PREPARED BY:Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk, 519-741-
2200, ext. 7809
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:March22, 2019
REPORT NO.:COR-19-019
SUBJECT:2018 Election Debrief
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is toprovide Council with an overview of the Kitchener Municipal and School
Board Election held on October 22, 2018.While the election is a statutory function over which Council
does not exercise decision-making authorityas stipulated by the Municipal Elections Act(MEA), this
report serves as a transparent public assessment of the 2018election. The reportprovides information
on new initiatives undertaken for the2018election as well as possible improvements for 2022and is
grouped by the key themesof:
1.Accessibility;
2.Voters’ List;
3.Voter Notification Cards;
4.Voting Locations;
5.Voting Equipment, Ballots and Process;
6.Election Workers and Training; and,
7.Services for Candidates.
REPORT:
The Election Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) was comprised of a cross-functional team of
City staff who wereresponsible for planning and executing the 2018municipal electionwith the
involvement of multiple divisions acrossthe Corporation.The Steering Committeespent 18 months
preparing for the election. This included reviewing the results from the 2014 election as well as reviewing
andidentifying changes in the MEA as a result the Municipal Elections Modernization Act(MEMA)to
ensure those changes were reflected within the City’s policies, processes and forms accordingly.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
IF2 - 1
The Steering Committee re-adopted the 2014 vision statement – to facilitatean open, fair and impartial
process that encouragesparticipation and inspiresconfidence in the municipal election.In support of
that vision, the Steering Committee relied on the following principles to guide decision-making:
Ensurealegally-bindingelection by adhering to all legislated requirements and applying these
requirements in a consistent and impartial manner;
Balancefiscal responsibilitywith service delivery;
Beas fair and equitableas possible for all eligible electorsand candidates;
Facilitateaccessibilityfor voters, candidates and elections workers;
Communicateinformation in an open and transparentmanner;
Encouragebroad participationin the election in a variety of ways;
Provideour election workers with enhanced training and tools;and,
Lookfor and employcontinuous improvementmeasures as appropriate.
Looking for and employing continuous improvement measures was key to supporting the other principles
to which the Steering Committee adhered. In many cases, this involved completely de-constructing
procedures and processesas well as reaching out to various municipal colleaguesregarding their best
practices. This approach exemplifies the Steering Committee’s commitment to delivering service
excellence for the election, andresulted in the implementation of improvements that supported the
principles as described above. A number of these improvements are highlighted in this report.
1.Accessibility
Both the MEA and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act(AODA)govern the election with
respect to promoting accessibility for all voters, candidates and election workers. Staff were committed
to providing an accessible election not onlybecause of the legislative requirements but also because of
their high regard for the principle of being fair and equitable to all. The 2018 City of Kitchener Municipal
Election Accessibility Report (Appendix ‘A’) goes into more detail regarding the actions taken to address
barriers but an overviewof the seven (7) categories from the Accessibility Report is highlighted below:
Consultation – Consultedwith individuals and community groups to betterprovide an accessible
election for persons with a disability and to receive feedback on the Election Accessibility Plan.
Communication – Provided election information in an accessible format and utilized multiple
broadcast mediums to maximize access.
Candidates – Provided candidates with information on how to make their campaigns accessible
and provided election information that is accessible and in alternative formats upon request.
Voting locations – Ensured voting locations met accessibility requirementsand were easy to
navigate.
Voting process – Ensuredthe voting process was accessible to persons with a disability.
Election workers – Focused training for election workers on accessibility to increase familiarity
with accessible options.
Additional initiatives – Worked very closely with St. John’s Kitchen and Ray of Hope to bring
voting to voters who are precariously housed and those who are homeless.
IF2 - 2
2.Voters’ List
The lack of an up-to-date, accurateand comprehensive Voters’ List remains a perennial problemfor all
Ontario municipal clerks. Dialogue betweenthe Province and the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporate (MPAC), which supplies the municipal Preliminary List of Electors(PLE), has thus far not been
effective in resolvingthis issuebut the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario
(AMCTO) continues to lobby the Province for change. Requiring Elections Ontario to provide their
information to MPAC or to municipalities directly to populate the municipal Voters’ Listis one possible
solution.Anticipating no substantial improvementsby the Province/MPAC in populating the municipal
Voters’ List since 2014, staff proactively:
Increased messaging on our website, via social media and media releases regarding the need
for eligible voters to check to see if they were on the Voters’ List;
Onthe City’s election website, added the link to MPAC’s voterlookup.ca earlier and made that
link more prominentalong with information to guide voters on how to contact MPAC with any
concerns they might have regarding their information;
Made the Amendment to the Voters’ List form available online to increase convenience for voters;
Created and distributed 5,000 door hangers to approximately 40 multi-residential rental apartment
buildingsto encourage those residents to add themselves to the Voters’ List or amend their
information as appropriate;
Facilitated quick, real-time voter amendments at the voting locations using laptop computers.
3.Voter Notification Cards
Only those on the Voters’List can receive a Voter Notification Card (VNC), and whilethere is no statutory
requirement under the MEAto produce VNCs, staff does so as a service to voters in order to help facilitate
themin knowing where and when to vote, and to expedite voting.It follows, then, that an incomplete and
inaccurate Voters’ List will result in some voters not receiving a VNC but despite the flaws in the PLE
provided to us by MPAC, the City’s accuracy rate in producing the VNCs based on the information we
had in VoterView was 98%. This allowed the City to meet Canada Post’s address accuracy requirements,
which avoided mail handling surcharges, enabled us to obtain the best postage rates possible, and
allowed for quick delivery of the VNCs.In addition to the initiatives involving the Voters’ List specifically,
staff also worked to improve the VNC process as follows:
Selected a VNC vendor withmore election experience and was located closer to the main sorting
facility in Mississauga to reduce the delivery time and thechances for VNCs to go missing;
Moved the delivery time for VNCs to an earlier date;
Closely monitored the Canada Post contract negotiations, which enabled the VNCs to be
delivered in advance of the Canada Post strike;
Made the postcard-size VNCs larger so they would be more noticeable by voters;and
Increased the size of the barcodes to make it quicker for election workers to scan.
4.Voting Locations
The MEA gives the Clerk the statutory authority to establish the number and location of voting locations
as s/he considers most convenient for the electors. Almost always this involves having the voting location
withinthevoting subdivisionit serves but the MEA recognizes this is not always possible soallows voting
locations to be placed outside of the voting subdivision and even outside of municipality where warranted.
IF2 - 3
Doing sois not preferred but is necessary as a last resort where there areno suitable voting locations
within the voting subdivision. In establishing voting subdivisions and specific voting locations, staff
considers a number of selection criteriaas indicated below:
Accessibility (as required by the AODA); Adequate free parking;
Availability of the location for dates/times Size and location of the room within the location;
needed;
Ability to secure equipment/supplies at the
Population concentrations/density and optimal location (Advanced Polls);
thresholds for voting locations;
General comfort level for voters and election
Fairness and equity for all voters;workers at the location;
Previous voter turnout;Whether the location was used in 2014 and
2010;
Recognized as the neighbourhood school,
library or community centre;Previous problems with the location (e.g., lack of
heat, poor lighting, etc.); and,
Travel distance/walkability;
Cost.
Proximity to transit and major roads/highways;
Staff in Legislated Services and GeoSpatial Data and Analytics spent overfour (4) months reviewing the
voting subdivisions and locations used in 2014 using a variety of tools in order to meet all legislative
requirements under the MEA and the AODA, and implementingmany of thesuggested improvements
from 2014. Staff from both areasworked closely together to map the voting subdivisions andlocations
trying to obtain the optimal balance of the selectioncriteria above, and to seek strategies for uniquely
challenging subdivisions and locations (e.g., southwest Ward 5, the Hidden Valley area, Alpine Public
Schoollocation, etc.). In some instances, this included looking beyond traditional voting subdivision lines
for voting locations to try toensure voters had access to a voting location nearest to them andno further
away than where it is anticipated voters typically shop, do their banking, or send their children to school.
With respect to institutions, the MEA requires municipalities to have a separate voting locationfor those
residentsand only those residents.The MEAis also prescriptive in what constitutes an “institution”. This
representsanother limitation to having voting locations close to their voting population.
Throughout the process of determining voting subdivisions and locations, staff’s recommendations were
rigorously vetted and approved by the Clerkwitha variety of improvements implemented as indicated
below.
Advanced Poll Voting Locations and Dates
Locatedat community centreswhich are well-known within the community and easy to find using
the election website;
Ensuredthe hours were consistent across all weekdaysand the opening hour wasnot earlier
than on Election Day;
Testeda location at SportsWorld to see if that would facilitate voters who live in that area or
regularly travel to/work in that area;and,
Establishedvoting locations at St. John’s Kitchen and Ray of Hope to facilitate voters who
frequent those locations and/or do not have a permanent home, and advertisedthese voting
locations inshelters and at other social agencies.
Election Day Voting Locations
Reviewed the 2014 voting subdivision boundariesand all 2014 feedback regarding specific voting
locations to ensure suitability of locations in conjunction withselection criteria;
IF2 - 4
Usedlocations well-known inthe community such as public and separate schools, community
centres, and libraries;
Highlighted voting location changes from 2014 on the election website and informed voters who
called in;
Reviewedvoting locations used in the provincial and federal elections to see if those locations
couldbe used by the City;
Re-inspected all 2014 voting locations and worked with facility staff, principals and school board
administrators to resolve location-specific issues identified by voters and election workers in 2014;
Ensured election workers were clear about the accessible entrances to voting locations and
trained them to place signage strategically to assistvoters;
Increased signage outside and insidevoting locations;
Investigated the possibility of using local malls as voting locations – unsuccessful;
Increased Election Assistants atthose voting locations where identified as needed in 2014;
Double-checkedtransit routes for voting locations to ensure convenience of accessand addeda
link on the City’s election website to Grand River Transit to better assist voters who neededto
take public transit to vote;
Lobbied both the Waterloo Region District School Board and the Waterloo Catholic District School
Board to declare Election Day as a PD/PA day – unsuccessful;and,
Increased the number of Legislated Services staff on the telephones from 5-9pm on Election Day
to better assist with voter inquiries.
Institutions
Workedwith GIS and the institutionsin advance of establishing voting locations to confirm all the
facilities/addresses that form part of their complexincluding life lease units; and,
Communicatedwith institutions in advance of the election to ensure they knew the hours when
the pollswouldbe open in their institution and workedwith them to communicate this information
to their residents.
5.Voting Equipment, Ballotsand Process
Muchconsideration goes into making the voter’s experience at the voting locations a good one. It is
important to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote hasthe opportunity to do so. Equipment, ballots
and the voting process were reviewed and enhanced to expedite voting and to better facilitate voters.
Staff closely scrutinized feedback from 2014 to address issues that hindered or discouraged voters from
voting.Improvements in 2018 included:
Updatingthe analysis of internet voting – determined circumstances had not changed sufficiently
to warrant potential adoption in 2018;
Procuringan upgraded model of tabulator that is proven reliable, easy to use and able to withstand
scrutiny in the event of a challenge including accessible tabulators with Audio Tactile Interface
(ATI), headphones and accessible ballot marking devices at all the Advanced Polls;
Arrangingfor two on-site technical support representatives from Dominion on Election Day to
assist with technical issuesthat election workers were unable to resolve themselves;
IF2 - 5
Utilizinglaptops at all voting locations at Advanced Polls and on Election Day for full electronic
voter strike-off with barcode scanning technology to expedite voting and adding voters/changing
voter information;
Designingballots that were correct, easy to understand, and easy to be markedby voters;
Providingextra training to election workers on how to communicate voting instructionsbetter;
Extendingthe acceptance of proxy votes for all Advanced Poll dates;
Providing information about the proxy process in plain language on the election website and to
voters who came in personor called;
Making the proxy form available on-line; and,
CreatingExpress and General Lines at the voting locations to expedite voterswith VNCs and
dedicatedresources to voters who need to be added to the Voters’ List or change their
information.
6.Election Workers & Training
The City, like other municipalities and levels of government, relies on citizens to work theelection. Their
participation is critical to dispersingvoting locations across thecityand facilitatingvoters. The City also
gives opportunities to staff to be involved at voting locations andin other capacities. Feedback from
citizens and stafffrom 2018 indicates it is an enjoyable, interesting and valuable experienceso it is
desirable to continue to try to provide election employment opportunities for citizens and staff.
Theincrease in the use of technology, the visibility of elections, and other sociological factors, has made
it more challenging to find qualified election workers. Hiring over 450 election workers precludes
interviewing each person and makes it difficult to matchperfectlyeach person with the right position.
Ensuring election workers receive the proper training and tools is paramount to their success in fulfilling
their functions ably and confidently.To improve in 2018, we:
Created a Tabulator Assistant position ateach voting location to operate the tabulator equipment
which allowedthe Managing Deputy Returning Officers (MDROs) to better focus on the overall
management of the voting locations and to address problems;
Evaluated each election worker position and developed better position descriptions and
qualifications for each to aid in recruitment;
Began the recruitment process earlier in the election planning process;
Created an Election 101 e-training module for election workers so that in-person training could
focus more on position-specific functions and responsibilities;
Improved the in-person training and allowed for more hands-on training;
Increased accessibility training including how to facilitate voters without a permanent residence
and/or identification;
Updated the procedure manuals for each positionand improved the tools to make it easier to find
information in order to facilitate voters more quickly;
Re-evaluated and adjusted thestaffing needs at each voting location as per feedback from 2014
and projected increases in voters;
Increased theelection worker pay to keep on par with neighbouring municipalitiesand current
legislation; and,
Used an online Ticket Management System for MDROs to manage and prioritize voting location
issues on Election Day.
IF2 - 6
7.Services for Candidates
As part of the City’s Strategic Plan for the Environment, the SteeringCommittee wascommittedto playing
their part by going more “green” in how information was provided to candidatesin addition to providing
more information to candidates.Specific improvements included:
Creating election webpages for candidates which provided links to various electronic resources
such as candidate guides, interactive maps, legislation, etc.;
Linking to candidate websites from the City’s election website as now permitted by the MEA;
Makingthe Voters’ List available in a downloadable format via ShareFile;
Implementing an email address for candidates to contact staff to answer questions or resolve
issues;
Employing a staff resource as a first point-of-contact for candidates; and,
Making resources available in hardcopy format for those candidates who did not wish to use
electronic resources.
Possible Improvements for 2022
The Steering Committee met its objective to deliver a legally-binding(non-controverted), accessible and
democratic election but continuous improvement is a hallmark of this team. Looking ahead to 2022, the
Steering Committee has once again solicited, received and compiled feedback from various stakeholders
in order to obtain a wide perspective on the election concerning what went well and what potentially could
be improved upon for the next election. While it is impossible to know exactly what the landscape will
look like in 2022, staff have amassed improvements they will evaluate and possibly implement, budget
permitting.
1.Accessibility
Provide flash cards for election workers to use at all voting locations for voters who are deaf,
deafened, or hard of hearing.
Continue to advocate with our vendor to enlarge the check boxes on the ballot for2022 to better
facilitate voters.
Meet with the Mayors Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors (MACKS)regarding accessibility
concerns for seniors.
2. Voters’ ListandVoter Notification Cards(VNCs)
Make it even cleareron the election website that voters do not need aVNC to vote, just the
required identificationas prescribed by the Province.
Investigate other meansto communicate with voters earlierregarding the Voters’ List, VNCs, etc..
Ensure voters can find information more easily on the City’s election website on how to contact
MPAC with any concerns they might have regarding their informationor lack thereof on the Voters’
List.
Ensure all voters at an address are listed in the window of the VNC envelope and the envelope
indicates there are multiple VNCs contained inside.
Add accessibility information to VNCs.
IF2 - 7
3.Voting Locations
Continue advocacy efforts with the school boards to declare Election Day as a PA/PD day to help
address location concerns (e.g., Student safety, parking issues).
Assess voting location criteria to ensure relevancy.
Consider super polls and increase communication to votersif this results in fewer locations.
Ensure the locations are safe and accommodating after darkfor both voters and election workers.
Review how to improve access to those schools where entrances are locked all day (e.g.,
Increase the number of Election Assistants, improve signage directing voters as to what to do).
4.Voting Equipment, Supplies and Process
Investigate various voting options for voters with mobility challenges and/or are unable to leave
their home and do nothave anyone to appoint as a proxy but donot reside in an “institution”.
Have accessible tabulators at more than the advanced polls only.
Enable use of City WiFi to access VoterView, especially where LTE signal is weak or connectivity
is unreliableand consider a hybrid solution where city polling locations use a wired connection
and non-city polling locations use LTE modems.
Enhance testing of barcode scanners.
Re-evaluate the apportioning of French Public, French Separate and NST ballotsto decrease
delays at voting locations.
5.Election Workers
Increase amount of time for training for election workers to ensure sufficient time for hands-on
training and pay for training (would require an increase in the budget).
Give VoterView login information to MDROs to hold in case DROs forget it to reduce logindelays
at the start of Advanced Polls and Election Day.
Analyze the data from the Ticket Management System to identify the most common requests from
MDROs and put strategies in place to proactively address.
6.Servicesto Candidates
Update the Corporate Resources Policy to address issues that arose during this election (e.g.,
Neighbourhood Associations holding all candidate debates, clearer indication of what constitutes
City facilities) to provide greater clarity to candidates as to what is and what is not permitted.
Improve communication with candidates regarding the form of names on the ballot.
7.Additional Improvements
Have two(2) telephone extensions – one(1)for the public and one (1) for staff andelection
workers.
Advertise the Electionsign@kitchener.ca reporting method moretoexpedite complaints and
inquiries regarding election campaign signage.
IF2 - 8
Post election-related videos sooner in the campaign as they were popular, andlaunch an
educational campaign in advance of the election.
Review a means to obtain more voter input into the planning of the 2022 election.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through the
delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Total Budget for the 2018 Election$558,000.00
$559,444.35
Total Cost of the 2018 Election
Deficit-$1444.35
This translates as follows:
$6,660per location on average;
$7,664per candidate on average;
$13.33per elector who voted; and,
$3.67per eligible elector.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the council
/ committee meeting. In addition, acommunication strategy was developed and executed for the 2018
Municipal Election ensuring information about the election was actively promoted onthe City’s Election
website as well as through thesocial media and thelocal media.
CONSULT – The following groups were consulted with respect to possible improvements for 2022:
Stakeholder GroupMethods Used
VotersOngoing before, during and after the election via
telephone, email, in person, social media, and
election workers at the voting locations.
CandidatesOngoing before, during and after the election via
email, telephone, in person and via survey.
Managing Deputy Returning Officers (MDROs)One surveyemailed to 66 MDROs in addition to
feedback obtained from individual election workers.
The Election Steering CommitteeTwo (2) debriefing sessions.
Major vendors (Dominion Voting and DataFix)Debriefmeetings.
Waterloo Catholic Region District School BoardMetwith representativesin advance of the election.
Waterloo Region District School BoardMet with representativesin advance of the election.
Waterloo Region Area ClerksDebrief meeting.
IF2 - 9
COLLABORATE – Legislated Services staff presented its accessibility plan to the Grand River
Accessibility Action Committee for feedback. Members of GRAAC were pleased with the breadth of the
plan and their suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the plan. As well, members of the
Steering Committee continually collaborated with their colleagues across the Region of Waterloo on joint
messaging concerning the election via the website, WRVotes, and with petitioning the school boards to
have Election Day declared a PD/PA day. In addition, Legislated Services worked with administration
staff from each of the school boards and with school principals directly to overcome issues experienced
in 2014. Finally, staff worked very closely with thestaff from St. John’s Kitchenand Ray of Hope to bring
voting to those locationsfor voters who have precarious housing or are homeless.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services Department
IF2 - 10
APPENDIX ‘A’
2018 City of Kitchener
Municipal Election
Accessibility Report
FOR INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT:
Christine Tarling, City Clerk 519-741-2200 x7809
Jeff Bunn, Deputy City Clerk 519-741-2200 x7278
Email AccessibleElection@kitchener.ca
Website: www.Kitchener.ca/elections
IF2 - 11
1. Consultation Barriers:
Consult with individuals and groups in the community to gain an increased understanding into
providing an accessible election for persons with a disability and to receive feedback on this Plan.
Consultation InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Review comments from electors, candidates, Comments from electors, candidates, and election
and election workers regarding 2014 election. workers were reviewed and taken into consideration
when making election-related decisions for the 2018
election.
Consult with Grand River Accessibility City staff presented the Accessibility report to
Advisory Committee (GRAAC) early in the GRAAC on Thursday October 26, 2017 where
process to obtain Committee feedback on valuable feedback was provided. Adjustments to the
potential barriers and methods to overcome Plan were made based on this feedback to overcome
these barriers.potential accessibility barriers.
Collaborate with disability groups and networks Ray of Hope, St. John’s Kitchen, the Multi-Cultural
to help disseminate election information Centre and many of the institutions used as voting
through the City's website, social media, etc. locations allowed us to place posters there prior to
Election Day which advertised election information.
Additionally, election information was disseminated
via the City’s website and social media in order to
reach a wider audience.
Conduct apost-election survey to receive A post-election survey has been distributed to
additional feedback including follow up with candidates and the Manager Deputy Returning
disability groupsOfficers to gather feedback. Additionally, any
feedback from electors at voting locations,
especially regarding accessibility concerns, have
been collected for review and consideration for the
2022 municipal election.
Attend any meetings or events that promote City staff attended GRAAC to bring attention to
accessibility to bring attention to accessibility-possible accessibility-related election barriers and to
related barriers for elections.also receive feedback regarding the City’s proposed
accessible election initiatives.
Consider having a preview day for accessible The delivery date of the voting equipment did not
voting equipment to increase comfort level for allow sufficient time to prepare for a preview day to
voters with disability.view the accessible voting equipment.
IF2 - 12
2. CommunicationBarriers:
Provide election information in an accessible format and utilize multiple broadcast mediums to
maximize access.
Communications InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Focus on presenting election information in aAll election information was written using plain
clear and easy to understandmanner. language and election jargon was eliminated where
possible. Where needed, jargon was
explained/defined. Additionally, all election
information on the election website was written to
comply with AODA standards.
Dedicate asection of the City of Kitchener Sections of the City’s election website were
election website to accessibility.dedicated to accessibility. These pages included:
“How to Vote” and “What’s New”.
Publish updates continuously on the City's The City’s election website was continuously
election website throughout the 2018 election. updated during the 2018 election to ensure new
information and data was released in a timely
manner.
Ensureelection web pages are W3C All election pages are W3C Consortium WCAG 2.0
Consortium WCAG 2.0 Level AA Compliant.Level AA Compliant.
Create a dedicated e-mail address regarding The email AccessibileElection@kitchener.cawas
accessibility created and published on the City’s website as a
method of corresponding with candidates, electors
and the media. Staff monitored the email account
closely to respond to inquiries or comments
promptly.
Provideequipment to facilitate communication The City’s TTY phone line was available to
for elections staff and members of the public communicate with any deaf, deafened and hard of
who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing.hearing candidates, electors and potential election
workers.
An ASL interpreter was provided to facilitate
training an election worker who has a hearing
disability. He was also provided with flash cards
(made by staff) for easy/clear communication with
electors at the voting location. Staff have discussed
supplying all locations with the flash cards for
electors who have a hearing disability at all locations
in the 2022 election.
Additionally, 5 Advanced Poll locations were
provided with accessible vote tabulators to facilitate
voting for those who had a hearing/vision/mobility
impairment.
IF2 - 13
3. Candidate CampaignBarriers:
Provide candidates with election information on how to make their campaigns accessible and election
information that is accessible and available in alternative formats uponrequest.
Assistance to Candidates InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Provide candidateswith AMCTO guide for All candidates were provided with the AMCTO
running an accessible campaign. guide via the City of Kitchener's website.
Provide candidateswith list of locations and A list of locations was published on the City’s
services to connect with electors without a website. Outreach to agencies serving people
permanent residence.without a permanent residence was done which
included a poster campaign.
Provide information regarding accessibility to The AMCTO guide for running an accessible
candidates in an information package and alsocampaign was posted on the City’s website which
post on the City website. included various topics concerning accessibility.
Hold candidate information sessions atThere were no candidate information sessions held.
accessible location(s).Candidates who had questions were welcomed to
come to City Hall, 2nd floor, Legislated Services (an
accessible location) to have them answered.
Candidates were also welcomed to contact City staff
via any other communication method (phone, email,
mail etc.)
Make information available inalternative All election-related information was posted to the
formats upon request. City's website where electors, candidates etc. could
download the appropriate document or view the
information online. Those that did not have access to
the electronic versions were provided with hard
copies when requested. City Staff also prepared
documents in both English and French which were
available upon request.
IF2 - 14
4. Voting LocationBarriers:
Ensure voting locations are accessible and easy to navigate.
Voting Locations InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Perform a site visit to inspect all potential All election voting locations were assessed on their
voting locations for accessibility.accessibility and those that were accessible and met
other criteria wereselected as 2018 voting locations.
Ensure voting locations have adequate signage All voting locations were supplied with numerous
for easy navigation. signs to be placed on both inside and outside of the
location. Election workers were instructed during
training that it was their responsibility to place the
signs in areas with high visibility to ensure ease in
accessing the voting location. Change of copy signs
at locations were used where available. Locations
that were challenging to navigate internally were
assigned additional election workers to assist voters.
Ensure there is an accessible entrance to the All voting locations were inspected to ensure the
voting location. entrances were compliant withour accessibility
standards. Those that developed an issue after the
inspections were rectified. For example, Alpine
Public School had to change their main entrance
from theaccessible entrance to a side door – to
compensate City staff built and delivereda ramp on
Election Day so that electors with accessibility
needs would be able to enter the location with ease.
Enhance walkability from parking lotsto voting City staff increased the number of city facilities used
locations to reduce any arduous distances. as voting locations from 2014 to help increase
walkability. Additionally, City staff worked with
schools to maximize the number of available
parking spots (e.g., covering “Staff Only” parking
signs in school lots) for use by voters. Additionally,
whenpossible, the most accessible entrance was
used at each voting location
Establish voting locations at St. John’s St. John’s Kitchen and Ray of Hope were used as
Community Kitchen and Ray of Hope that are Advanced Poll locations on Thursday October 11th
accessible to electors without a permanent for electors who were without a permanent
residence.residence.
Establish voting locationsat retirement homes Voting locations were implementedat 16 institutions
and institutions to assist electors.(including Long-Term Care facilities) across the
City.
IF2 - 15
5. Voting Process Barriers:
Ensure the voting process is accessible to persons with a disability.
Voting Process InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Ensure accessible voting equipment is available5 Advanced Polllocations were supplied with
at polling locations.accessible voting equipment for electors who had
hearing/vision or mobility impairments.
Train election workerto assist voters when All election workers were provided training on
requested. This includes accommodating AODA standards and assisting voters with
bedside voters. disabilities. They were also trained on how to assist
voters with voting including accommodating
bedside voters.
Produce aclear guide to using accessible voting Each Manager Deputy Returning Officer (MDRO)
equipment. and Tabulator Assistant (TA) was provided clear,
hands-on instructions on how to use the accessible
voting equipment in order to be able to guide/assist
electors at the Advanced Poll locations.
Design ballots with ballot vendor and City staff met withDominion Voting, the ballot
accessibility groups to make them easier to vendor, to discuss increasing the size of the target
mark voting selections. box. Unfortunately, the vendor was unable to
increasethe size as it would interfere with coding
but City staff has emphasized the need to do
something for the 2022 election.
Additionally, City staff ensured the correct
pronunciation for each candidate’s names for the
audio ballots.
Provide Affidavitsof Residence and Oaths of These forms were supplied to all voting locations
Identification to facilitate voters with no including St. John's Kitchen and Ray of Hope to
permanent residence and/or identification. enable such voters to receive a ballot and vote.
Provide text magnifiers to assist electors who All voting locationswere supplied with magnifiers
have limited vision. at Advanced Polls and on Election Day.
Supply notepads to facilitatecommunication All voting location were supplied with notepads at
withelectors who are hard of hearing or Advanced Polls and on Election Day.
deafened.
Have chairs or stools available for electors who All voting location were supplied with chairs/stools
cannot stand for a prolonged period. at Advanced Polls and on Election Day.
Create a process to notify electors in the case of Emergency procedures were created and
an emergency or disruption to services. Communications staff were prepared to
publish/distribute a notification in the case of an
emergency.
Assess the state of alternative voting options for Alternative voting options will be assessed for the
next election. 2022 election after reviewing feedback from City
staff, electors, election workers and candidates
including the feasibility of offering more accessible
voting locations on Election Day.
IF2 - 16
6. Training for Election Workers to Overcome Barriers:
Training for election workers will include a focus on accessibility to increase familiarity with
accessible options.
Voting Process InitiativesPost-election Action Analysis
Train all election workerson accessible election All Advanced Poll Manager Deputy Returning
equipment and assisting electors with a Officers(MDRO) were trained on how to set up and
disability.use the accessibility voting equipment as well as
how to appropriately assist electors during the
process. All election workers were trained on how
to respectfully assist voters with disabilities.
Train election workers on not restrictingservice All election workers received training material
persons or animals who are assisting a person regarding the appropriate actions to take when in the
with a disability.presence of a service person/animal who are
assisting a person with a disability. The training
material included situational accessibility dos and
don’ts.
Hire additional election workerso assist at Certain voting locations in larger subdivisions were
certain voting locations to enhance provided with additional election worker to enhance
accessibility.accessibility. Locations that had additional election
workers included Alpine Public School and the
Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex.
Provide election workers withaccommodation An election worker with a hearing disability was
upon request to ensure training is accessible to provided with an ASL interpreter for the Election
all election workers.Worker training. City staff also prepared flash cards
to use at the voting location for easy communication
between the electionworker andvoters.
Hire election workers forSt. John’s Community City staff reached out to St. John’s Kitchen and Ray
Kitchen and Ray of Hope who understand the of Hope and were able to hire election workers who
needs of the voters at these locations. were volunteers at those organizations and
understand the needs of that community. Staff also
worked with these organizations to ensure a balance
between meeting the legislative requirements of the
Municipal Elections Act and reducing barriers for
their community.
Include information on processing forms in the The Manager Deputy Returning Officer and Deputy
election worker training guide. Returning Officers received training material with
instructions on processing forms to enable voters
without a permanent residence or identification to
vote.
Review Accessibility Course to familiarize Highlights and key points from Accessibility for
election workers with providing an accessible Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) literature as
election to all voters.wellas other accessibility organizations were
included in election worker training.
IF2 - 17
7.Additional Initiatives:
Additional initiatives not included in the initial Accessibility plan that were carried out.
SubjectInitiative
TrainingAn election worker with a hearing disability was
hired and provided with an ASL interpreter in order
to complete the mandatory Election Worker training.
City staff also prepared flash cards to use at the
voting location for easy communication between the
election worker and the voter. Correspondence with
this worker took place via video relay service. City
staff facilitated this election worker’s return to City
Hall as per the requirements of the election position.
Voting locationsCity staff allowedvoters to park on the street near
voting locations without receiving a ticket if parking
at the location was limited providing fire routes were
not blocked and accessible parking spots were not
used by those who did not have a disability.
Voting ProcessAn elector with a mobility disability mistakenly
came to Kitchener City Hall on Election Day
thinking it was open for voting as it was for
Advanced Polls. The elector did not have enough
time to take the bus to their correct location before
the close of polls and so a City staff member drove
the elector to their correct location, providing the
elector with the ability to successfully cast their
vote.
IF2 - 18
APPENDIX ‘B’
City of Kitchener
2018 Election Stats & Facts
Voting Locations:
Type of Voting Date Hours Location
Advanced Voting (Vote Wed. October 10 to Fri. 2pm to 8pm 4 City facilities and City Hall
anywhere) October 12, 2018
Advanced Voting Thurs. October 11, 2018 10am to 2pmSt. John’s Kitchen
4pm to 8pm Ray of Hope
Advanced Voting (Vote Sat. October 13, 2018 10am to 2pm4 City facilities and City Hall
anywhere)
Election DayMon. Oct. 22, 201810am to 8pm77 voting locations including 16
institutions
Poll Turnout Location Number of voters/%
Highest Advance Poll Stanley Park Community Centre 1,083voters
Lowest Advance PollSportsworld Arena 275 voters
Highest Election Day Poll 8-30 St. Paul Catholic School 36.89%
Lowest Election Day Poll3-30 Activa Sportsplex14.49%
Candidates:
73candidatesand 1 third party advertiser
Voters:
Over 152,000 eligible electors in Kitchener on the Voters’ Listas of the end of Election Day;
o 4,442 electors added to the Voters’ List
o 6,441 electors updated their information in VoterView for the Voters’ List
Over 41,000 eligible electors facilitated in voting
o 28% voter turnout – 2%lower than in 2014buton parwith the 50-year average;
Turnout by Age:
Age % of Turnout
18-21 1.76%
22-29 5.74%
30-39 13.54%
40-49 15.49%
50-59 19.52%
60-69 21.43%
70-79 15.42%
80-89 5.78%
Over 90 0.64%
IF2 - 19
Election Workers
Approximately 500 election workers trained over approximately 50 hours
Marketing
Digital marketing played a large role in promoting and creating awareness about the 2018
election. The marketing campaign used various media channels from May 1 to October 23, 2018
and included working in collaboration with other local municipalities as well as WRVotes:
Social Media AnalyticsWhat Does it Mean?
Total clicks20,911How many people clicked on our content and were
redirected to additional information on our website
Facebook video views 3,130How many times users viewed the videos we shared
Facebook reactions 40028 “love”; 314 “like” + 301 for Twitter; 3 “Angry” –
Signifies the overall media campaign was well-received by
the public
Kitchener.ca/election What Does it Mean?
Page views 42,464How many people viewed the election page on the City’s
website
Visitors for first time 12,373How many people had not visited this website previously
Most popular page Am I on the Signifies the success of our outreach campaign to
within the Election Voters’ List encourage voters to check if they are on the Voters’ List
section
nd
2 most popular page Where to Signifies the success of our outreach campaign to
within the Election Vote encourage voters to find out where to vote
section
Avg time spent on a 3 minutes How long, on average, a user spent viewing the content on
webpage and 21 any given webpage
seconds
Live Results page10,838How many people viewed this page
Avg time spent on the 6 minutes How long, on average, a user spent viewing this content
Live Results page and 15
seconds
Digital marketing proved to be an effective tool forboth awareness and engagement, as
evidenced by click-through rates, with 20,000+ clicks driving visitors to content on the city’s
website.
In 2018, election-related content took up two spots in terms of the city’s top-10 most visited pages.
The Information on Candidates page was the 4th most-viewed page with 61,570 page views; the
th
Election Landing Pagewas the 9most viewed page on Kitchener.ca with 42,464 page views.
Comparatively, the number one-viewed page year over year Career & Employment Opportunities
garners ~190,000 page views annually.
IF2 - 20
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach,CFO Financial Services,519-741-2200 ext 7334
PREPARED BY: Ruth-Anne Goetz,Senior Financial Analyst,519-741-2200 ext 7335
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: April 11, 2019
REPORT NO.: FIN-19-051
SUBJECT: 2018 Development Charge Reserve Fund
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information.
BACKGROUND:
The Development Charges Act
Treasurer submit to Council an annual statement of the Development Charge Reserve Fund.
REPORT:
Summary of Development Charges Legislation:
The Act provides the authority and process for the imposition and collection of development
charges.
Development charges (DCs) are generally paid as a part of the building permit process, and
are collected to fund growth-related capital costs for services as allowed by provincial
legislation. Services are grouped into two categories discounted services and non-
discounted services. The Act requires that a discount of 10% be applied to the growth-related
capital costs for discounted services when calculating development charge rates. Non-
discounted services refer to services for which the legislation does not require a reduction.
The following table shows which services within the City of Kitchener fit into the discounted
and non-discounted categories:
CategoryServices within Category
Discounted ServicesGeneral Government Studies
Parking
Indoor Recreation
Outdoor Recreation
Cemeteries
Library
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
IF3 - 1
Non-DiscountedRoads and Related
ServicesSanitary Servicing
Watermains
Storm/Watercourse
Intensification Allowance
Engineering Studies
Public Works
Fire
A summary of the DC Reserve Fund by Category of Service is found in Table A.
Determination of Development Charges:
A Development Charges Background Study is required to be completed when updating a
Development Charges by-law. The by-law is then valid for a period of up to 5 years. The Act
stipulates that the DC rates may be indexed each year that the by-law remains in effect. As
such, the City of Kitchener indexes the DC rates based on the non-residential construction
price index, as provided by Statistics Canada.The 2018 DC rates are set out in Table B.
Revenue
DC collections in 2018 total $7.7M, which is a decrease from the 2017 collections of $8.2M. Of
the total revenue, $6.8M was attributable to residential development and $0.9Mwas for non-
residential development.
When the 2014 by-law was passed, Council determined that industrial developments would be
subject to a 50% reduction in their development charge fees, from July 1, 2014 to March 1,
2019. This reduction is subsidized by contributions from the tax base, as well as the Water,
Sanitary and Storm Water Utilities, as per report FCS-14-088. In 2018, $0.2M was been
provided to the DC reserve to fund this exemption.
Expenses
Net DC expenses to December 31, 2018 total $7.6M. Detailed lists are included in the DC
Reserve Fund Transactions in Tables C, D and E. Since 2004, different rates have been
charged for the Central Neighbourhoods as compared to the Suburban Areas of the City (as
defined in the DC by-law). Related revenues and expenses broken down by service are
shown for both of these areas in Table E.
Expenses are allocated to either the Central Neighbourhood or the Suburban Area based on
whether the service is considered to be city wide, or related only to a specific area. If a
service is considered city wide, the expense is allocated based on estimated population growth
in each area as provided in the background study.
Reserve Fund Balances
The DC Reserve Fund at December 31, 2018 was in a deficit position of $5.3M compared to a
$5.6Mdeficit at the end of 2017. The overall reserve balance is broken out into further detail
inTable E. The detail provided shows the balances in the Suburban Areas and the Central
IF3 - 2
Neighbourhoods, which is then divided intoResidential and Non-Residential services. These
services are further divided into the Discounted and Non-Discounted categories, and then split
into balances by service. Some services may reflect a deficit while others reflect a surplus.
When the background study was completed, the reserve balances in each service were
included in the development charge rate calculation, therefore over time, it is anticipated that
the deficits will be recovered and the surpluses utilized.
Exemptions
DC exemptions in 2018 total $3.2M compared to $2.1M in 2017. A summary of major
exemptions is included in Table F.Of the total exemptions, $2.5M was attributable to
residential development and $0.7M was for non-residential development. Major exemptions
are downtown core exemption, additional dwelling units in existing buildings, redevelopment
allowance*, 50% industrial enlargements, public school board use and municipal use.
*If a redevelopment occurs and proof of demolition is provided, the development charge
applicable shall be reduced by an allowance that equals the number and types of residential
units and the non-residential gross floor area of the former development, at the rates
applicable at the time the first building permit for the re-development is issued.
Credit for Service Agreements
The City may, by agreement, permit a developer to provide services for development of land in
lieu of payment of the development charge. At December 31, 2018, credits of $10.8M were
outstanding compared to $11.3M at the end of 2017. Refer to Table G for more details.
By-law
A new DC by-law came into effect July 1, 2014 for a term of no longer than five years.The
2019 DC Background Study is in the final stages of completion and is expected to be passed
by Council and enacted by June 30, 2019 with the new by-law to take effect July 1, 2019.
No Additional levies
The City of Kitchener has not imposed, directly or indirectly, a charge related to a
development or a requirement to construct a service related to a development, except as
permitted by the Act or another Act.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Financial implications are discussed above and detailed in the attached appendices.
IF3 - 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
council / committee meeting. In addition, a copy of this report will be provided to the Waterloo
Association.
ATTACHMENTS:
Table A: Development Charges Reserve Fund Summary by Category of Services
Table B: Development Charge Rates
Table C: 2018 Transactions
Table D: 2018 Expenses
Table E: Reserve Fund Transactions by Service
Table F: 2018 Exemptions
Table G: Credit for Service Agreements
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
IF3 - 4
Total
228,326
(36,288)
7,745,310
(5,624,254)(7,583,700)(5,270,606)
Total
29,320
413,536
3,011,1603,226,2643,791,602
(2,888,678)
29,320
121,017
(97,070)
Non-Res
(172,305)
(1,479,522)(1,598,560)
Discounted
Res-
510,606
4,490,6823,105,2475,390,162
(2,716,373)
Total
199,006
(449,824)
4,519,046
(8,635,414)(4,695,022)(9,062,208)
TABLE A
801,078199,006
Non-Res
(413,553)(930,685)
(6,816,888)(7,161,042)
SUMMARY BY CATEGORY OF SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE FUND
Non-Discounted
Res-
(36,271)
3,717,968
(1,818,526)(3,764,337)(1,901,166)
Balance December 31, 2017DC Act RevenueIndustrial Exemption FundingInterest Income (Expense)ExpensesBalance December 31, 2018
IF3 - 5
TABLE B
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES
CentralSuburban
Residential DevelopmentNeighbourhoodsAreas
Single detached or semi-detached dwelling$5,781$11,096/ dwelling unit
Townhouse or street townhouse dwelling$4,096$7,861/ dwelling unit
Multiple or duplex dwelling$3,190$6,124/ dwelling unit
Lodging House$1,758$3,374/ dwelling unit
Non-Residential Development**
Gross floor area of building$17.27$57.14/ square metre
$1.60$5.31/ square foot
**The rates as shown above represent the full non-residential DC rate. For the period of July 1, 2014 to
March 1, 2019, Council approved a 50% reduction of the Non-Residential rate for industrial development.
IF3 - 6
TABLE C
CITY OF KITCHENER
SUBURBAN AREA
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE 7012002
2018 TRANSACTIONS
Surplus (Deficit) Balance December 31, 2017(5,992,922)
Revenues
DC Act Revenue7,202,637
Industrial Exemption Funding
228,326
Interest Income (Expense)(141,659)
Total Revenues 7,289,304
City Share of Subdivisions844,297
Freeport SPS Upgrades and Forcemain980,279
Middle Strasburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer892,748
Pioneer Tower SPS Upgrades311,740
SCADA31,174
Miscellaneous Creek Rehab108,243
Mid/South Strasburg Watercourse(182,744)
Engineering Studies179,324
Monitor Upper Blair Creek120,000
Master Plan/Feasibility Studies72,523
Fire Technology from Master Plan108,242
Equipment Acquisitions and Upgrades454,790
Equipment Acquisitions Recovery97,000
KOF Recovery497,000
Planning Studies102,874
Development Process Review80,884
Heritage Impact Assessments1,822
Library Technology Upgrade19,888
Library Customer Needs Survey6,610
Community Centre - South End219,014
Community Trails373,757
Neighbourhood Park Development315,373
District Park Development103,022
Neighbourhood Park Rehabilitation15,503
Victoria Park Redevelopment11,313
Huron Natural Area Redevelopment2,028
McLennan Park Redevelopment957
Library Recovery820,787
Civic District Parking Garage Recovery356,903
Charles and Benton Parking Garage Recovery195,083
Total Expenditures7,140,434
Surplus (Deficit) Balance December 31, 2018(5,844,052)
IF3 - 7
TABLE C
CITY OF KITCHENER
CENTRAL NEIGHBOURHOODS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE 7012006
2018 TRANSACTIONS
Surplus (Deficit) Balance December 31, 2017368,668
Revenues
DC Act Revenue542,673
Industrial Exemption Funding
-
Interest Income (Expense)105,371
Total Revenues648,044
Expenditures
Intensification Allowance180,406
Planning Studies11,593
Development Process Review9,116
Heritage Impact Assessments206
Library Technology Upgrade1,895
Library Customer Needs Survey630
Community Centre - South End20,870
Community Trails35,615
Neighbourhood Park Development30,052
District Park Development9,817
Neighbourhood Park Rehabilitation1,477
Victoria Park Redevelopment1,078
Huron Natural Area Redevelopment193
McLennan Park Redevelopment91
Library Recovery78,213
Civic District Parking Garage Recovery40,097
Charles and Benton Parking Garage Recovery21,917
Total Expenditures443,266
Surplus (Deficit) Balance December 31, 2018573,446
IF3 - 8
---------------
373
74,95810,00043,63454,35380,954
551,406585,733230,424247,210170,799473,388109,520216,464118,952
Funding
4,115,479
1,147,311
Total Other
130,942
130,942
Gas Utility
113,698
113,698
Water Utility
Utility
113,698
113,698
Storm Water
Utility
Sanitary 551,406113,698
1,812,415
1,147,311
Non-Growth Related Funding in 2018
Grants
81,250
276,135
194,885
1,800
1,800
Donations
373
Capital
74,95810,00043,63489,54954,35380,95419,779
113,697230,424247,210473,388109,520118,952
1,666,791
Tax Based
TABLE D
2018 EXPENSES
CITY OF KITCHENER
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE
2,0287,2402,2211,048
31,17472,52397,00090,00021,78316,98012,391
844,297980,279892,748311,740108,243179,324120,000108,242454,790497,000180,406114,467239,884409,372345,425112,839899,000397,000217,000
Funding
Total DC
(182,744)
7,583,700
91
206630193
9,1161,8959,8171,4771,078
11,59320,87035,61530,05278,21340,09721,917
Central
443,266
180,406
DC Reserve
Neighbourhoods
-
957
Growth Related Funding in 2018
1,8226,6102,028
31,17472,52397,00080,88419,88815,50311,313
844,297980,279892,748311,740108,243179,324120,000108,242454,790497,000102,874219,014373,757315,373103,022820,787356,903195,083
(182,744)
7,140,434
DC Reserve
Suburban Area
City Share of SubdivisionsFreeport SPS Upgrades and ForcemainMiddle Strasburg Sanitary Trunk SewerPioneer Tower SPS UpgradesSCADAMiscellaneous Creek RehabMid/South Strasburg WatercourseEngineering
StudiesMonitor Upper Blair CreekMaster Plan/Feasibility StudiesFire Technology from Master PlanEquipment Acquisitions and UpgradesEquipment Acquisitions RecoveryKOF RecoveryIntensification
AllowancePlanning StudiesDevelopment Process ReviewHeritage Impact AssessmentsLibrary Technology UpgradeLibrary Customer Needs SurveyCommunity Centre - South EndCommunity TrailsNeighbourhood
Park DevelopmentDistrict Park DevelopmentNeighbourhood Park RehabilitationVictoria Park RedevelopmentHuron Natural Area RedevelopmentMcLennan Park RedevelopmentLibrary RecoveryCivic
District Parking Garage RecoveryCharles and Benton Parking Garage Recovery
IF3 - 9
-
957
Total
1,4396,6102,028
25,18925,25187,67797,20058,74486,59477,60081,27063,89819,88815,50311,313
973,445683,881794,026723,126252,509145,252363,832397,600219,014373,757315,373103,022820,787281,953154,116198,492
(148,023)
6,289,5006,314,6896,116,1971,171,937
---------------
957
Total
1,4396,6102,028
69,73081,27063,89819,88815,50311,313
219,014373,757315,373103,022820,787281,953154,116269,119
2,834,9502,670,3172,740,0472,470,9283,104,069
Discounted
6,610
19,888
Library
(34,692)
473,867439,175820,787847,285
(408,110)
(1,273,313)(1,681,423)
957
2,028
15,50311,313
(23,440)
Outdoor672,822649,382373,757315,373103,022821,953
(911,937)(172,571)
(1,084,508)
Recreation
Indoor
152,334219,014219,014995,552
5,989,5281,062,2321,214,5666,985,080
Recreation
-
DISCOUNTED SERVICES
8,5022,150
86,21610,65210,65296,868
Cemeteries
Parking
(13,434)(68,029)
381,474368,040281,953154,116436,069
(538,096)(606,125)
1,439
71,42058,23281,27063,898
Studies
(13,188)(88,375)
146,607
(517,448)(605,823)
-----------------
Total
25,25187,67797,20058,74486,59477,600
(44,541)(70,627)
683,881794,026723,126252,509145,252363,832397,600
(148,023)
3,619,1833,574,6423,645,269
(1,861,505)(1,932,132)
Non-Discounted
TABLE EFire
591
3,555
23,37089,55890,14986,59486,59426,925
SUBURBAN AREAS
Public
Works
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE FUND
77,600
(67,356)
507,309439,953363,832397,600839,032
RESERVE FUND TRANSACTIONS BY SERVICE
(399,079)
(2,668,879)(3,067,958)
97,20058,744
Studies
(24,103)
149,642125,539145,252301,196
(938,622)(175,657)
(1,114,279)
Engineering
------
Intens'n
Allowance
NON-DISCOUNTED SERVICES
StormSewer
85,59183,91587,677
(60,346)
169,506229,852
(148,023)
3,458,6723,688,524
-
Water
42,762
126,402169,164169,164
1,736,4571,905,621
Sewer
26,20325,251
Sanitary875,746901,949794,026723,126252,509669,388
(892,963)
1,562,3511,794,912
Roads
683,881683,881994,501
(106,553)
1,784,9351,678,382
(5,034,854)(4,040,353)
RESIDENTIALOpening Reserve:DC Act RevenueIndustrial Exemption FundingInterest Income (Expense)Total RevenueCity Share of SubdivisionsFreeport SPS Upgrades and ForcemainMiddle Strasburg
Sanitary Trunk SewerPioneer Tower SPS UpgradesSCADAMiscellaneous Creek RehabMid/South Strasburg WatercourseEngineering StudiesMonitor Upper Blair CreekMaster Plan/Feasibility StudiesFire
Technology from Master PlanEquipment Acquisitions and UpgradesEquipment Acquisitions RecoveryKOF RecoveryPlanning StudiesDevelopment Process ReviewHeritage Impact AssessmentsLibrary
Technology UpgradeLibrary Customer Needs SurveyCommunity Centre - South EndCommunity TrailsNeighbourhood Park DevelopmentDistrict Park DevelopmentNeighbourhood Park RehabilitationVictoria
Park RedevelopmentHuron Natural Area RedevelopmentMcLennan Park RedevelopmentLibrary RecoveryCivic District Parking Garage RecoveryCharles and Benton Parking Garage RecoveryTotal ExpensesNet
Change for the YearClosing Reserve Balance
IF3 - 10
-----------
383
Total
5,923
59,23120,56634,07222,80013,77921,64890,95819,40099,40021,60416,98674,95040,967
(34,721)(49,622)
913,137228,326974,615160,416186,253169,622
(166,848)
1,024,237
(6,966,367)(7,015,989)(5,844,052)
-------------------------
383
Total
29,32021,60416,98674,95040,967
(29,378)(37,733)
117,215117,157154,890
1,848,773
(1,217,563)(1,255,296)
Discounted
-------
Library
(1,681,423)
-------
Outdoor
(1,084,508)
Recreation
-------
Indoor
6,985,080
Recreation
------
DISCOUNTED SERVICES
96,868
Cemeteries
97,14124,28798,39874,95040,967
Parking
(23,030)(17,519)
115,917
(960,491)(978,010)
(1,584,135)
383
5,033
(6,348)
20,07418,75921,60416,98638,973
Studies
(20,214)
(257,072)(277,286)(883,109)
----------------
Total
5,923
59,23120,56634,07222,80013,77921,64890,95819,40099,400
(34,721)(11,889)
795,922199,006857,458160,416186,253169,622869,347
(137,470)
(5,748,804)(5,760,693)(7,692,825)
Non-Discounted
TABLE EFire
4,154
(1,420)(2,184)
16,73019,46421,64821,648
(58,370)(60,554)(33,629)
SUBURBAN AREAS
Public
Works
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE FUND
26,36490,95819,40099,400
(28,996)
105,392102,760209,758
RESERVE FUND TRANSACTIONS BY SERVICE
(106,998)
(1,160,320)(1,267,318)(4,335,276)
7,190
(8,834)
28,75927,11534,07222,80013,77970,651
Studies
(43,536)
(348,059)(391,595)
(1,505,874)
Engineering
-------
Intens'n
Allowance
NON-DISCOUNTED SERVICES
StormSewer
48,89012,22323,70984,82220,56698,977
(34,721)(14,155)
943,022
1,041,9994,730,523
-
Water
6,0717,929
24,22838,22838,228
312,795351,023
2,256,644
5,923
Sewer
44,49959,231
(23,986)
Sanitary177,928198,441186,253169,622421,029
(892,796)(222,588)(445,996)
(1,115,384)
Roads
98,505
393,995386,628160,416160,416226,212
(105,872)
(4,545,076)(4,318,864)(8,359,217)
NON-RESIDENTIALOpening Reserve:DC Act RevenueIndustrial Exemption FundingInterest Income (Expense)Total RevenueCity Share of SubdivisionsFreeport SPS Upgrades and ForcemainMiddle Strasburg
Sanitary Trunk SewerPioneer Tower SPS UpgradesSCADAMiscellaneous Creek RehabMid/South Strasburg WatercourseEngineering StudiesMonitor Upper Blair CreekMaster Plan/Feasibility StudiesFire
Technology from Master PlanEquipment Acquisitions and UpgradesEquipment Acquisitions RecoveryKOF RecoveryPlanning StudiesDevelopment Process ReviewHeritage Impact AssessmentsLibrary
Technology UpgradeLibrary Customer Needs SurveyCommunity Centre - South EndCommunity TrailsNeighbourhood Park DevelopmentDistrict Park DevelopmentNeighbourhood Park RehabilitationVictoria
Park RedevelopmentHuron Natural Area RedevelopmentMcLennan Park RedevelopmentLibrary RecoveryCivic District Parking Garage RecoveryCharles and Benton Parking Garage RecoveryTotal ExpensesNet
Change for the YearClosing Reserve BalanceTotal Suburban Areas Reserve
IF3 - 11
-------------
9143
163630193
Total
9,1587,2021,8959,8171,4771,0788,9582,4351,9148,4204,603
20,87035,61530,05278,21331,67717,31461,33878,753
533,715449,146982,861119,068364,513618,348573,446
(343,775)(334,817)(413,570)
1,698,7122,317,060
(1,330,044)(1,743,614)(5,270,606)
---------------
9143
163630193
Total
9,1587,2021,8959,8171,4771,0783,8022,4351,9148,4204,603
20,87035,61530,05278,21331,67717,31417,415
(67,692)(63,890)(81,305)
434,930440,876875,806245,445630,361
(261,959)(343,264)
1,655,7352,286,0961,942,8323,791,605
Discounted
-------
630
1,895
77,18130,49578,21380,73826,938
Library
122,856107,676149,794149,794
(1,531,629)
-------
91
193
9,8171,4771,078
61,17735,61530,05278,32392,440
Outdoor
227,269109,586170,763319,709319,709
(764,799)
Recreation
-------
Indoor
20,87020,870
173,012328,790501,802480,932
1,229,3761,710,3081,710,3088,695,388
Recreation
-------
DISCOUNTED SERVICES
1,3854,4095,7945,794
16,81222,60622,606
119,474
Cemeteries
3,1548,4204,603
94,56262,13325,47187,60431,67717,31448,99138,61313,023
Parking
(50,663)(47,509)(60,532)
133,175
(196,219)(256,751)(123,576)
(1,707,711)
43
163648
2,1679,1587,2022,4351,9144,392
(9,466)
11,63316,523
Studies
(35,140)(14,356)(49,496)(65,740)(17,029)(16,381)(20,773)(86,513)
(136,009)
(1,019,118)
----------------------------------
Total
8,2705,156
42,97798,78530,96461,33861,338
(12,013)
107,055119,068119,068
(276,083)(270,927)(332,265)
(1,068,085)(1,400,350)(1,369,386)(9,062,211)
Non-Discounted
-------------
Fire
TABLE E
(33,629)
CENTRAL NEIGHBOURHOODS
---------
PublicWorks
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE FUND
RESERVE FUND TRANSACTIONS BY SERVICE
(4,335,276)
--------------
Studies
(1,505,874)
Engineering
8,2705,156
42,97798,78530,96461,33861,338
(12,013)
Intens'n
107,055119,068119,068
(276,083)(270,927)(332,265)
Allowance
(1,068,085)(1,400,350)(1,369,386)(1,369,386)
-------------
NON-DISCOUNTED SERVICES
Storm
Sewer
4,730,523
-------------
Water
2,256,644
-------------
Sewer
Sanitary
(445,996)
----------------
Roads
(8,359,217)
RESIDENTIALOpening Reserve:DC Act RevenueIndustrial Exemption FundingInterest Income (Expense)Total RevenueIntensification AllowancePlanning StudiesDevelopment Process ReviewHeritage
Impact AssessmentsLibrary Technology UpgradeLibrary Customer Needs SurveyCommunity Centre - South EndCommunity TrailsNeighbourhood Park DevelopmentDistrict Park DevelopmentNeighbourhood
Park RehabilitationVictoria Park RedevelopmentHuron Natural Area RedevelopmentMcLennan Park RedevelopmentLibrary RecoveryCivic District Parking Garage RecoveryCharles and Benton Parking
Garage RecoveryTotal ExpensesNet Change for the YearClosing Reserve BalanceNON-RESIDENTIALOpening Reserve:DC Act RevenueIndustrial Exemption FundingInterest Income (Expense)Total RevenueIntensificat
ion AllowancePlanning StudiesDevelopment Process ReviewHeritage Impact AssessmentsLibrary Technology UpgradeLibrary Customer Needs SurveyCommunity Centre - South EndCommunity TrailsNeighbourhood
Park DevelopmentDistrict Park DevelopmentNeighbourhood Park RehabilitationVictoria Park RedevelopmentHuron Natural Area RedevelopmentMcLennan Park RedevelopmentLibrary RecoveryCivic
District Parking Garage RecoveryCharles and Benton Parking Garage RecoveryTotal ExpensesNet Change for the YearClosing Reserve BalanceTotal Central Neighbourhoods ReserveTotal Development
Charges Reserve
IF3 - 12
TABLE F
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
2018 EXEMPTIONS
50% Industrial Enlargement207,433
Additional Dwelling Unit(s) in Existing680,811
Downtown Exemption1,759,971
Municipal Use39,861
Public School Board157,213
Redevelopment Allowance382,325
3,227,614
IF3 - 13
75,576
593,242517,666
$593,242
30-Jun-20
(2003) Limited
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
58M-607 (30T-98201)
Primeland Developments
Activa
30-Jun-23
1,578,1061,578,106
30T-08204
$1,578,106$5,402,156
Holdings Inc.
May 31, 2016
Station and works
Ottawa Trussler Pumping
Activa
204,442
$876,861
30-Jun-22
2,577,1392,372,697
30T-08203
$2,729,075
Holdings Inc.
Bridge works
Blair Creek Drive
February 18, 2014
87,452
Monarch
307,783220,331
$545,363
30-Jun-19
30T-07204
$7,097,889
Corporation
Station and works
December 10, 2013
Doon South Pumping
58M-528, 30T-07202 &
TABLE G
Activa
295,772295,772
$302,776
30T-08204
CREDIT FOR SERVICE
Laurentian
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
Holdings Inc.
March 5, 2013
EA/Design Work
Activa
2,4032,403
427, 428
$1,642,555
Trunk Sewer
Holdings Inc.
Strasburg Creek
December 8, 2008
Plan 58M-471, 472, 473
Plan 58M-338, 374, 426,
East Forest/Decora Lands
6,0036,003
$1,400,000
Plan 58M-422
November 15, 2006
Peter Dietrich Kruse
Lower Hidden Valley
PS and appurtenances
Balance December 31, 2017New creditsCredits UsedRefund givenBalance December 31, 2018ServiceRegistered PlanDate of ServiceOriginal CreditEstimated RefundRefund to be given at earliest
IF3 - 14
--
Total
500,349
11,325,94410,825,595
TBD
Becker
30-Jun-20
1,756,5371,756,537
$1,756,537
Estates Inc.
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
TBD
Activa
30-Jun-20
1,756,5371,756,537
$1,756,537
Holdings Inc.
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
TBD
TABLE G
(continued)
Limited
670,392670,392
$670,392
30-Jun-20
CREDIT FOR SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
Freure Developments
TBD
Limited
30-Jun-20
1,089,4991,089,499
$1,089,499
Sunvest Reid
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
TBD
Limited
692,531692,531
$692,531
30-Jun-20
associated works
Strasburg Rd and
September 14, 2017
Hallman Construction
Balance December 31, 2017New creditsCredits UsedRefund givenBalance December 31, 2018ServiceRegistered PlanDate of ServiceOriginal CreditEstimated RefundRefund to be given at earliest
IF3 - 15