Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS Agenda - 2020-08-31Finance & Corporate Services Committee Agenda Monday, August 31, 2020 12:00 p.m. –2:30 p.m. Office of the City Clerk Electronic Meeting Kitchener City Hall nd 200 King St.W. -2Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Page 1Chair -Councillor S. DaveyVice-Chair -Councillor J. Gazzola Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical distancing, City Hall is closed to the public. Members of public are invited to participate in this meeting electronically by accessing the meeting live-stream video at kitchener.ca/watchnow. While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting Jeff Bunn, Manager, Council and Committee Services/Deputy City Clerk at jeff.bunn@kitchener.ca. Delegates must register by 10:30 a.m. on August 31, 2020 in order to participate electronically. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. 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. None Delegations Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5)minutes. None Discussion Items 1.INS-20-009-Winter Sidewalk Maintenance Review(120min) (Staff will provide a 10-minute presentation on this matter.) 2.FIN-20-054-Development Charge(DC)& Community Benefit Charge(CBC)Update(30min) (Staff will provide a 5-minute presentation on this matter.) Information Items FIN-20-055-2020 June Operating Variance Report 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: Services DATE OF MEETING:August 31,2020 SUBMITTED BY:Niall Lobley,Director, Parks and Cemeteries, 519-741-2600 ext.4518 PREPARED BY:Faranak Hosseini,Transportation Planning Project Manager, 519-741-2200 ext.7665 WARD (S) INVOLVED:All Wards DATE OF REPORT:August 20,2020 REPORT NO.:INS-20-009 SUBJECT:Winter Sidewalk MaintenanceReview ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATIONS: That, based on the results of the comprehensive Winter Sidewalk Pilot program from winter 2019/20, staff be directed to implement option 1 of Report INS-20-009 which includes: Deployingthe assisted services for sidewalk and windrow clearing program as of winter 2020/21;and Deployingthe proactive bylaw enforcement program as of winter 2020/21; That the above recommendations be funded from an annualisedcost of $230,000 be referredto the 2021 operating budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report presents theevaluationresults of the winter sidewalk maintenance pilots conducted in winter 2019/20and provides winter sidewalk maintenance options and recommendations for the winter 2020/21and beyond.The study concludes that: City-led sidewalk snow clearing options do not significantly increase sidewalk passability in a cost-effective way. A city-led winter sidewalk maintenance would increase the municipal portion of the property tax by 7.8% if implemented on a city-wide scale and by 4.6% if implemented on priority routes. City-led winter sidewalk maintenance options would increasecorporate-based Green House Gas (GHG)emissionssignificantly.However, it is hoped that city-led programs wouldreduce community-based GHGemissionsas a result of ashift from vehicle centric modes to more active transportation during winter months. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 1 The statistically valid survey showed that Status Quo withno changes to the current practice and no additional taximpact,is the most preferred scenario (54%). engagement staff recommends implementation of the assisted services for sidewalk snow clearing and proactive bylaw enforcement programs as of winter 2020/21.This recommendationwouldadda 0.2% increase on the municipal portion of property tax.Staff believe that this recommendation willachieve the best results, in the most cost effective and timely manner, and with the greatest amount of public support.This recommendation: Providesassistance toproperty owners who have difficulty clearing their sidewalks due to age or medical conditions; and, Is expected to contribute to enhancing the sidewalk conditions by reminding the residents of the importance of sidewalk clearing and compliance to bylaw. A summary oftheevaluation results ofthe alternative (pilot) programs implemented over the winters of 2018/19 and2019/20are outlined below. By-law Review(Completed in fall 2019, Report CSD-19-032) This programrevieweda potential change in the expected level of service from bare pavement to a safe, passable and consistent level of service throughout the entire city. Staff presented the results of this review to Council in October2019. The report recommended continuing the usage of bare pavement as the standard for winter sidewalk maintenance. The research results showed that the currentstandard is consistent with other municipalitiesand it accounts for accessibility challenges and the necessity required for mobility devices and strollers. Initial Clearing for Snow EventsPilot(Piloted during winter 2019/20) This pilot providedsidewalk clearing services after snow occurrences of 8cm or more on approximately 40km of representative sidewalkswithin 24 hours.Clearing was provided by an external contractor, retained by the City. The estimated cost of implementing this program on a city-wide level would include a $3Mone-time upfront capital cost along with a$6.1Mannual operating cost. This would beequal to a 4.7% additional increaseon the municipal portion ofproperty tax.The average associated tax increase would be$54based on an average home assessed by MPAC at $330,000. Findings: The pilot increased sidewalk passabilityby 6%in the pilot zonecompared to the no-service zone. The before/after resident survey results showed anoverall 40%satisfaction with the service in the pilot zone. 12% ofthe recipientswere willing to pay the extra tax to receive this service. pg. 2 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 2 FullServiceWinter SidewalkMaintenance Pilot(Piloted during winter 2019/20) This pilot providedCity-led sidewalk clearing services after all snow occurrences on approximately 40km of representative sidewalkswithin 24 hours. The estimated cost of implementingthis program on a city-wide level would includea $4.4Mone-time upfront capital cost along with a $10.1Mannual operating cost. This would beequal to a 7.8% additional increase on the municipal portion of property tax. The average associated tax increasewould be$89 based on an average home assessed by MPAC at $330,000. Findings: This pilot increased sidewalk passability by 9% in the pilot zone compared to the no-service zone. The before/after resident survey results showed an overall 80% satisfaction with the service in the pilot zone. 57% of the recipients were willing to pay the extra tax to receive this service. Priority Route Options(Initial model developed during winter 2019/20) The purpose of thisstudywas to define priority sidewalk routesfor city-led winter sidewalk maintenanceusing a data driven approach. Staff concludedthat at-least 50% of the sidewalks within the City should be coveredto provide benefit to the sidewalk users whileremainingfinancially and operationally viable. Using the data collected in the Full Winter Maintenance Service pilot program staff have estimated the cost of this program which wouldinclude a$3.75Mone-time upfront capital cost along witha$5.9M annual operating cost. This would be equal to a 4.6% increase on the municipal portion ofproperty tax. The average associated tax increase would be $52 based on an average home assessed by MPAC at $330,000. Proactive Bylaw EnforcementPilot(Piloted in winter 2018/19,revised and extendedin winter 2019/20) In this pilot the winter sidewalk maintenance bylaw wasproactivelyenforcedto increase bylaw compliance and sidewalkpassability. The estimated cost of implementing this programis$130,000per year (four officers). Findings: This pilot showedthat proactivebylawenforcementwould beeffective in increasing compliance once a notice is given.Data shows that receiving a notice in response to not meeting bylaw standards is sufficient to improve compliance for the remainder of the season. However,the data also shows that this program is not expected to reduce thenumber of complaints received from residents in respect to sidewalks being cleared. It is also not expected to sustainably address the chronic problem areas. pg. 3 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 3 Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow ClearingPilot(Piloted in 2018/19, expanded in winter2019/20) This pilotprovidedsnow clearing services to eligible(income tested)seniors and persons living with a disability. The estimated cost of implementing this program is $100,000 forapproximately 150 properties. Findings: The survey results show that the program was supported strongly by those that received the service. It was run successfully via the Working Centre and was fully subscribed. Neighbourhood Shared Snow BlowerPilot (Piloted in 2018/19 and reviewed in 2019/20) In winter 2019/20staffmonitoredthe continued effectiveness of the winter 2018/19 neighbourhood shared snow blower pilot and exploredthe feasibility of requiring the neighbourhood shared snow blower participants to contributetothe assisted services program. Findings: The data indicates that approximately 80% of the sidewalksin the study areaare still being cleared by the shared snow blowersto a passable level. The survey results showedthat80% of the respondentswould be willing to utilize the sharedsnow blower to assist up to five neighbours within walking distance (500m) of their property. The data shows that the demand for this program is limited.Staff do not expect that the program remains successful in long term. Snow Clearing Application(Pilot discontinued in late 2019) The purpose of this study was to develop a technology application to connect residents in need of snow clearing with residents willing to assist. Given the significant challenges identified during the process, staffdid not pursue further work on developing the application. Public and Stakeholder Engagement Results sentto all addresses within the two 40km pilot (Full Service and Snow Event) areas. Residents received a survey (online, over the phone or paper based on preference by residents) to complete before and after receiving the service to learn about expectations and willingness to pay for services. A statisticallyvalid survey wasconductedto gauge the different winter sidewalk maintenance options. The survey showed that the Status Quo Scenario(i.e. no changes to the current practice and no additional tax impact)is the most preferred scenario(54%). 39% of respondents stated that the City should do more to clear sidewalks in winter with no clear consensus as to how this should be achieved; 17%, 13% and 9% preferred the Full Service City-Wide Service, Full Service Priority Routes and Snow Event Service respectively. 7% did not have any preference. The survey showed no bias by age, medical condition, household income or location towards their preference. pg. 4 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 4 AFocus Groups study wasalso conductedto understand the lived experience and the winter sidewalk maintenance options. The results of the Focus Groups study aligned with the outcome of the statistically valid survey and showed that most participants were reluctant to pay the extra tax for city-led winter sidewalk maintenance options identifying them as a nice to haveas opposed to a need to have. Recommendations Based onthepilot evaluationresults, stakeholder interviews, and public engagement staff make the following recommendation: Implementation of the assisted services for sidewalk snow clearing program on a city- wide scale as of winter 2020/21. The capacity for winter 2020/21 will be approximately 150 spaces. The capacity to be increased annually byup to50 spaces (approximately $35,000 per year)until the demand is met. Implementation of the proactive bylaw enforcement program as of winter 2020/21 with four officers. the upcoming winter season and an annualised cost of $230,000 will be referred to the 2021 operating budget.This would be equal to a 0.2% additional increase on the municipal portion of property tax. The average associated tax increase would be$2based on an average home assessed by MPAC at $330,000. pg. 5 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 5 BACKGROUND: Supporting avision of abalanced transportation network that accommodatesallroadusers regardless of age, ability or mode of transportationandin response tocommunityfeedback during approved and initiated in 2015.A summary of the studies conducted since then is provided below. 2016 Staff Report INS-16-087:This report evaluated the impacts of a city-ledsidewalk snow clearingprogramand reviewed the maintenance practices used in other municipalities. Based on this report,Council approved that existing winter sidewalk maintenance practices be maintained untilchanges to the Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards were adopted and impacts of these changes be evaluated. 2018 Staff Report INS-18-023:This report recommended five pilot programs tobe evaluated during the 2018/19 winter season. Council approved twoprograms of Proactive Inspection and Partnership Grant (Assisted Services) to be piloted and evaluated during the 2018/19 winter seasonand deferred the decision regarding the rest of the recommendations to spring 2019.In addition to these pilot programs, Council introduced and approvedthe Neighbourhood Shared Snow Blower pilot programto be evaluated in winter 2018/19. 2019 Staff Report INS-19-009:This report presented the evaluation results of the pilot programs approvedby Councilin 2018and recommended the following: The two pilotsof Proactive Bylaw Enforcementand Assisted Servicesfor Sidewalk and Windrow Clearingbe extended for the winter 2019/20. The Neighbourhood Shared Snow Blower pilot to be continued to be monitored in winter 2019/20. The following studies be conducted and evaluated in the winter 2019/20: Bylaw Review, Initial Clearing for 8cm Snow Events pilot, Develop Priority Route Options, and Representative Valid Survey. Council approved all the recommendationsaboveand added two additional programs of Full Service WinterSidewalkMaintenance and Snow Removal Application tobe evaluatedduring the 2019/20 winter season. 2019 Staff Report CSD-19-032:The report recommended continuing the usage of bare pavement as the standard for winter sidewalk maintenance. The research results showed that this standard is consistent with other municipalities in terms of the required timelines and level of service. This standard also accounts for accessibility challenges thatmaybe required for use of mobility devices and strollers. pg. 6 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 6 REPORT Based on the Council directions in May 2019, staff have developed, implemented and evaluated alternative winter sidewalk maintenance programs during winter 2019/20.This report presents the findings of each of the programsandprovides options and recommendations for winter 2020/21 and beyond. Existing Winter Sidewalk Maintenance Practices (Status Quo) season for all City owned properties andwithin the municipality right-of-way adjacent toback- lotted properties.These sidewalks cover 235 kmout of 1,202 km of total sidewalks (19.5%) across the city. These sidewalks areusuallyplowed within 24 hours after cessation of snow.In an average winter the City uses approximately 723 tons of salt (3.35 tons/km) to treat these sidewalks.The 2020 budget to maintain these sidewalks is $1,583,605 ($6,740 per km). It should be noted that this cost does not include any one-time cost, overhead cost, snow loading cost and sidewalk/property/turf damage cost. Sidewalks in the downtown areas arealsomaintained by the City and funded through special by-law taxation to downtown properties.Sidewalks in the downtown area are consistently maintained to bare concrete through multiple visits during a 24-hour period. There is approximately 12 km of sidewalks in the downtown area. In an average winter the City uses 110 tons of salt (9.17 tons/km) to treat downtownsidewalks. All other sidewalks within the city are to be maintained throughout the winter by property owners -law Chapter 687 (Snow and Ice). Chapter 687 requires property owners to clear snow and ice from sidewalk(s) adjacent to their property within 24 hours after cessation of snow. The City of Kitchener is also responsible for clearing a growing network of Multi-Use Trails(MUT). MUTs are found in increasing lengths along Region roads and City streets and a growing network connects through parks and open spaces throughout the City. Approximately 35.1kmof MUT were cleared during winter 2019/20; this number has been growing at around 10% a year and is forecastedto continue to expand by at least 10% a year for the next 5 years. MUTs are not covered by Chapter 687 (Snow and Ice Bylaw), but in most instances are cleared of snow and ice within 24 hours of the cessation of snowby City crews.This is an extensive network of non-vehicle based active transportation routes that connects many areas of the City. This report does not address or propose any changes to the way in which the City operates its MUT network. Winter 2019/20Weather Conditions Review Weatherisa contributing factor to the pilot evaluation, and to sidewalk passability in any given winter. Analysis of winter weather 2019/20 versus the average of the preceding five winters shows that the number of snow occurrences and the average temperature of the 2019/20 winter season were similar to the past five-year trend. However, it is prudent to note that there were fewer prolonged freezing temperatures and more days with above zero temperatures were experienced this year which resulted in natural clearing of snow within a few days of most snow falls; we did not experience the accumulation of snow and ice in winter 2019/20 for example, as we did in pg. 7 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 7 winter 2018/19.Figures comparing the weather conditions of the 2019/20 winter season to the past five winter seasons are provided in Appendix A. By-Law Review This studyrevieweda potential change in the expected level of service from bare pavement to a safe, passable and consistent level of service throughout the entire city.Staff presented the Community Services Department report CSD-19-032 to the October2019 Committee meeting. The report recommended continuing the usage of bare pavement as the standard for winter sidewalk maintenance. The research results showed that this standard is consistent with other municipalities in terms of the requiredtimelinesand level of service. This standard also accounts for accessibility challenges as may berequired for use of mobility devices and strollers.Based on discussion at Council it was confirmed that bylawofficerswill continue to use discretion and judgmentwhen enforcing the bylaw,and that the bylaw will not be enforced until City crews have responded to all City-maintained sidewalks or 24 hours has passed whichever is the latter. The staff recommendations outlined above were approved by Council in the October 2019 Council Meeting. wasrepealed and replaced with a new Winter Maintenance By-law as outlined in the Community Services Department report CSD-19-032.As a result of the Committee meeting discussions, staff have added the following to the enforcement process. Staff have prepared an information pamphlet which outlines the sidewalk winter maintenance expectations, bylaw process, and reasons why residents are required to clear sidewalks. This information pamphlet ishanded out along with the notification letter that is issued for sidewalk clearing. The information pamphlet is provided in Appendix B. Staff have added the winter maintenance bylaw suspension event in the bylaw. According to this bylaw, at the Byl suspended in some extreme weather circumstances, for example, such as prolonged the bylaw may be suspended.This was not triggered during the 2019/20 winter season. Staff have set up an internal process where the operations division would notify the bylaw divisionwhen they have cleared the city-maintained sidewalks to bare pavement. This would create an unofficial delay in enforcement if the City takes more than 24 hours to reach bare pavement on city-maintained sidewalks.The Citydelayed the inspection processfor one dayon one occasion during winter 2019/20as the City-maintained sidewalks were not fully cleared within the required 24 hours. pg. 8 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 8 Initial Clearing for 8cm SnowEvents Pilot A Snow Event is declared by the City on a credible forecast and expectation of a snow fall of 8cm or more in a 24-hour period. It can also be declared when, irrespective of the forecast, the City receives more than 8cm of snow in a 24-hour period. A Snow Event is declared by the Director, Operations Roads and Traffic or their designate. Snow Event declaration is shared widely via The Initial Clearing forSnow Events pilot provided contractor delivered sidewalk snow clearing services. This service was providedwithin 24 hoursof cessation of snow aftera snow event was declaredon approximately 40km of representative sidewalks.The pilot area was selected as a representative example of sidewalks across Kitchenerand included a high number of pedestrian destinations such as schools, transit routes, churches, community centres and senior facilities. The area included a variety of sidewalk types(eg. curb facedsidewalk, sidewalks with boulevard, etc.) toprovide insight on maintenancechallengesin a variety of conditions. The pilot area map is provided in Appendix C.The aim of the pilot was as follows: To understand resident expectations and the ability of the contractor to meet those expectations of service delivery To evaluate contracted services To undertake accumulates For the purpose of this pilot project, staff hired a contractor (Snow Tech) for the winter season of 2019/20.The contractor took an averageof12hoursto clear the pilot route.In most casesthe contactor was able to clear sidewalks consistently to a walkable/passable standard. In instances wheresidewalks were not clearedby property ownersto bare pavement from previous snow falls before the declaration of snow event,the contractor was unable to reach bare pavementdue to the significant amount of packed snow. To evaluate the performance of this pilot program, sidewalk condition data was collected 24 hours after snow events (8cm or more snowfall)from the pilot area and a non-pilot area (status quo). The sidewalk conditions werecategorized into three categories of good, fair and poor as illustrated inFigure 1. Good sidewalk condition representeda sidewalk that meets the requirements of the bylaw which is bare dry/wet pavement for the full width of sidewalk. Fair sidewalk condition representeda sidewalk thatis not fully cleared of snow but is passable such as a thin and even layer of snow, without ice build up. Poor category represented asidewalk that is not passable such as uneven layer of snow, thick layer of snow or ice. pg. 9 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 9 Good Sidewalk ConditionFairSidewalk ConditionPoorSidewalk Condition Figure 1Sidewalk Condition Examples Based on the data collected, as illustrated in Figure 2,on average thepilot zoneoutperformed theno-service zone(cleared by property owners) by 6%. In other words, on average the length of sidewalks in the good and fair (passable)categoryin the pilot zone was 6% (2.4km out of 40km) higher compared to the no-service zone.The lengthof thesidewalksingoodcondition(completely bare sidewalks)in the pilot zonewas 10% (4km) higherthan theno-servicezone. 100% 13% ЊВі 90% 80% 33% 70% 37% 60% Poor 50% Fair 40% Good 30% 54% Sidewalk Length 44% 20% 10% 0% No ServiceSnow Event Figure 2Sidewalk Condition Evaluation Snow Event Pilot In this pilot program,a total of 79 complaints werereceived. Out of 79, 45 complaints were mainly regardingthe timingof the service. Residents indicated that they had already cleared their sidewalks before the contractor arrived. This was mainly due to: The time it took the contractor to complete the route; Some residents clearedsidewalks during and right after heavy snow events especially during the weekends;and Not all the residents were aware that a snow event had been declared by the City. The rest of the complaints wereregardingproperty damages including turf and hardscape damages caused by the snow removal equipment. To address the property damages,repair work has begunin May and is expected to be completed by end of summer. pg. 10 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 10 mail-outsseeking participation in before/after resident surveys weresent out to all properties within the pilot area. The first mail-out was sent in late November2019 to inform the residents about the pilot program. The mail-out included a short survey assessing the expectations and willingness of the residents to receive this service. The second mail-out was sent out in late March 2020(the end of the winter season)and askedabout the experience and willingness of the residents to receive this service given the expected cost and level of service. A before-after study is conducted to evaluate the results of these studies and the results are summarized below. Approximately 40% of the respondents were satisfied with the quality of the service both in terms of level of service and response time; Before the implementation of the program, 33% of the respondents were in favor of a tax increase to fund this service (50% were opposed). The level of support dropped to 15% after experiencing the service (opposition increased to 78%). 12% of the respondents were willing to pay the defined tax increase to implement this service on a city-wide level. 7% were indifferent and 81% were opposed. In summary, the program delivered a marginal improvement (6%) to sidewalk passabilitywithin 24 hours of a snow event over property owner cleared areas. The met the expectations of service of approximately 40% of residents in the pilot area. Before the pilot, a third of residents would have been willing to pay additional tax to support this service level and after receiving the service, this support decreased significantly; further declining after true costs were understood. FullService WinterSidewalkMaintenance Pilot The Full Service Winter Maintenance pilot provided sidewalk snow and ice clearing services after all snow occurrences on approximately 40km of representative sidewalks within 24 hours. The pilot area was selected to represent a variety of sidewalk conditions across the city. The pilot area map is provided in Appendix D. City staff undertook this work with the objective of maintaining sidewalks to the bylaw standard, free from ice and snow, to bare pavement within 24 hours of all snow falls, regardless of the amount of snow. Work was undertaken using machinery (approximately 30km of 40km) and hand equipment (shovels/snow blowers, 10km of 40km) and chemical treatment (salt application). It is noted that mechanical equipment alone didnot achieve bare pavement and so salt was applied alongside mechanical clearing. The aim of the pilot was to: Understand resident expectations and the ability of the cityto meet those expectations of service delivery Determine the length of continuous route that could be cleared consistentlyby city staff within an 8-hour shift Determine the ability of the city to consistently maintain sidewalks to bylaw conditions The snow clearing servicewas in effect from December 2019 toend of April 2020. Originally, 40km of sidewalk was selected asasingleroute but thepilot proved that only 30km of sidewalk pg. 11 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 11 can be covered in a single route. To address this,additional operatorswere added to the pilot route.A total of 20 areas were identified within the route where hand clearing was required. An additional staff member was addedto supportthis work.The operators were on route for a total of 52 days(out of 90 days).The run time(total time to complete the route)was on average 6 hr 42 min.The nature of the route demonstrated more obstacles to equipment than were initially envisioned. To evaluate the performance of this pilot program, sidewalk condition data was collected two times per week during the entire winter season. The sidewalk conditions werecategorized into three categories of good, fair and poor as showninFigure 1.As illustrated in Figure 3the data showed that on average this pilot zone outperformed the no-servicezone (cleared by property owners) by 9%. In other words, on average the length of the sidewalks in the good and fair (passable) categoryin the pilot zone was 9%(3.6km out of 40km)highercompared to theno-servicezone. The lengthof the sidewalks in good (completely bare)conditionin the pilot zonewas 18%(7.2km) higherthan theno-servicezone. ЊЉЉі 6% 15% ВЉі 15% БЉі 24% АЉі ЏЉі Poor ЎЉі Fair ЍЉі 79% Good 61% ЌЉі Sidewalk Length ЋЉі ЊЉі Љі No ServiceFull Service Figure 3Sidewalk Condition Evaluation Full ServicePilot In this pilot program a total of80 complaints were received. Out of 80 complaints, 42of them were regardingconcerns around quality of the service,salt usageand the program in general.The rest of the complaints wereregardingturf and hardscapedamages caused by the equipment.To address the property damages the repair workhas begunin May and is expected to be completed by end of summer. similar to the previous program,two mail-outs(first mailout in November 2019 and the second mailout in March 2020)weresent out to all properties within the pilot area. A before-after study is conducted,and the resultsare summarized below. pg. 12 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 12 Approximately 80% of the respondents were satisfied with the service quality both in terms of level of service and response time; Prior to the implementation of the program 52% of the respondents were in favor of a tax increase to fund this service (33% were opposed). The support increased to 61% after the implementation of the program (opposition decreased to 26%); 59% of the respondents were willing to pay the defined tax increase to implement this program on a city-wide level. 8% were indifferent and 33% were opposed. In summary, the pilot demonstrated that City staff are able to maintain approximately 30km of continuous sidewalk using a single operator and equipment consistently in an 8-hour shift, and that the majority of residents were satisfied with the level of service received. There was an e. Over half the residents were willing to pay more tax to receive the level of service, and this increased to just over 60% after the service had been delivered; this was only marginally diminished (to 59%) on understanding the full costs of delivery. Priority Route Options Thepurpose of this programwas to identify priority sidewalks for city-led sidewalk snow clearing. Priority sidewalks are sidewalkswith expected high usagethat provide the most benefit to frequent sidewalk users. Staff have utilized the sidewalk infill policy to guide and identifythe criteriafor selecting the priority sidewalks. The criteria include roadway volume and distance from major traffic hubs including LRT stations, bus stops, downtowncore, major employers, mixed use corridors, high schools, elementary schools, post-secondary schools, commercial zones, community program facilities, parks, special needs facilities, places of worship, and trails. A scoring system wasthenused to identify the priority routes according to these criteria. Staff exploredseveral options and concluded that at-least 50% of the sidewalks within the city should be included in the priority route for the program to be operationally andfinancially viable and to provide benefits to the community. The50% coverageis to avoid a largely disconnected priority route that would have to be driven alongby sidewalk maintenance vehiclesbutnot cleared. Through the Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance pilot, staff have identified that the optimal length o route map that includes sections of sidewalk that are in continuous 30km sections or routes to maximize efficiency. Routes less than 30km will involve time for clearing equipment to drive without clearing, between sections of sidewalk. A concept illustrating how the priority route would look like is provided in Appendix E. If council directsstaff to pursue this program, the priority route would be revisited to maximize thebenefit to the community while being operationally and financially viable. pg. 13 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 13 Proactive Bylaw EnforcementPilot The purpose of this program was to proactively enforce the sidewalk snow clearing bylaw(i.e. to inspect for compliance to the bylaw standard in addition to the reactive response)to increase bylaw compliance and sidewalks passability. This was an extension of winter 2018/19 pilot program. Four proactive officers were temporarily hired to each inspect the sidewalk conditions in selected areaswithin the city. The areas were selected based on theirproximity to schools and senior facilities.The pilot was in place for a duration of five months from November 10, 2020to April 10, 2020. During the inspection process, the officer would visually inspect sidewalks, and in cases where sidewalks were not adequately cleared to the by-law maintenance standard, the officer would issue a one-time notice. An information pamphlet outlining the winter sidewalk maintenance expectations, the bylaw process and importance of keeping sidewalks clear was alsohanded out along with the notification letter.The officer would then return after 24 hours and if the sidewalk was still not adequately cleared, it would be sent for clearing contractor retained by the City is engaged to clear the sidewalk identified as not meeting the bylaw). At the time of arrival for clearing, if the sidewalk had still not been cleared, thecontractor would clear the sidewalk and the property owner would be invoicedfor the cost of clearing.For evaluation purposes, these events were logged by the officers. Where possible,the officers would identify residents who required assistance and provided contact information for supportincluding the assisted services program.Places werereserved in both pilot years onAssisted Servicesfor Sidewalk and Windrow Clearingto ensure that when such individuals are identified, and assuming they are eligible, support will be provided. A new approach was taken this year where staff have set up an internal process where operations (Parks & Cemeteries)notifies bylaw when they have cleared sidewalks to bare pavement. This created a delay in enforcement if the City would take more than 24 hours to reach bare pavement on city-maintained sidewalks. CityBylawdelayed the inspection process on one occasion during winter 2019/20 as the City-maintained sidewalks were not fully cleared within the required 24 hours. Staff have also added the winter maintenance bylaw suspension event in the bylaw which at the Bylaw Directorbe suspended in some extreme weather circumstances.This was not triggered during the 2019/20 winter season. As a result of the proactive bylaw enforcementpilot,a total of approximately 458km (approximately 23,000 properties) of sidewalks were inspected three times and 1,663 notices were issued. Out of 1,663 notices issued, 64 addresses were sent for clearing, which is 3.8% of the notices issued and 0.27% of the properties inspected. The data also shows that less than 1% of the properties that received notices during the first round of inspections, were not in compliance with the by-law in the second and third round of inspections. This data is summarized inthe tableon the following page.This data is also compared to that of last year in this table. pg. 14 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 14 Proactive Inspection Results Winter Length of sidewalk Number of Number Sent for Cleared by the seasoninspectedNoticesClearingcontractor (# properties Inspected) 2019/20458km of sidewalks1,6636449 (23,000 properties) 2018/1940km of sidewalks48033 (2,350 properties) The complaint-triggered (reactive enforcement)data was also analyzed to evaluate the effectof the proactive inspectiononthe reactive enforcement. The number of complaint-triggered (reactive enforcement) notices issued, addresses sent for clearing and sidewalks cleared by the contractor is summarized inthe tablebelow. These numbers are compared to that of last year and the average of the past five years without the proactive enforcementprogramin place. Reactive Inspection Results Winter seasonNumber ofNoticesNumber Sent for Cleared by the Clearingcontractor 2019/201,042219137 2018/191,233156139 Average 2014-20181,00220678 The key outcomes of this pilot program aresummarized below: The results showed that this program is effective in increasing compliance once a notice is received. This aligns with the results of the winter 2018/19 pilot. The cost of this program is estimated to be approximately $130,000 per year for four officers. The data analysis does not indicate a significant reduction in the reactive driven complaints or thechronic problem areas. Compared to an average winter season, without the proactive enforcement in place, the bylaw staff received a higher number of complaints. The majority of these complaints were in regards to cases where residentshad received a notice but believedthattheir efforts in clearing snow and ice off sidewalks were sufficient. These are typically the complaints that escalate to Council and management. In summary, the majority of properties inspected are cleared by owners to bylaw standards.Only 1,663notices were issued after inspection approximately69,000(23,000 properties three times). and, where notices are issued,they are effective inencouraging compliance promptly, with a lasting impact through the season. After two seasons of pilots, it does not appear that proactive bylaw enforcement is able to reduce the number of complaints or address chronic problem areas. It is reasonable, though at this pointspeculative,to assume that over successive years this may change with increased targeting of enforcement. pg. 15 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 15 Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow ClearingPilot The purpose of this pilot was toevaluateprovidingassisted sidewalk and windrow snow clearing services,free of charge,toresidentsliving with a disability and/or over 65 years of age, andunable to afford private snow clearing services.This program was an extension of the pilot program in winter 2018/19. The capacity of the programfor winter 2019/20 was increased from50to105 properties. Considering the limited number of spaces this program wasnot heavily promoted. Word of mouth, limited media and community engagement via community centreswerethe primary avenues for promotion. Staff expect that, should Council direct continuation of this program thatthe capacity should be further increased to meet theanticipateddemandgenerated through higher promotion and repeat utilizationsand recommend that the capacity of the program be increased by 50 spaces per year until the demand is met. This pilotwascarried out in collaboration with the Working Centre and was fullyfunded by the City of Kitchener.Out of the 105vacancies, 20 of them were reserved forthe householdswho received aninfraction notice-law program and were eligible.Considering the close involvement of the Working Centre in this pilotthey were also interviewed to receive feedback. It was identified that the Working Centre is generally happy with continuing to collaborate with the City on this program. The Working Centre can support up to a maximum of 150 properties for the winter season of 2020/21.The estimated cost for 150 properties is $100,000 for theseason. To evaluate theprogramperformance, participants were surveyedinlate March2020.The survey inquired about their experience with the program andareas of potential improvement. As illustrated inFigure 4,98% of the respondentswere generally satisfied with the program. Program in General 2% 56%31%11% 2%2% Quality of Work 44%43%9% Response Time Џі 31%36%20%7% Application Process 2% 42%36%20% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% ExcellentVery GoodGoodFairPoor Figure 4: User Survey Assisted Services Pilot Program In summary, the program has been well received and has generally met the expectations and needs of participants. Refined eligibility criteria have helped clarify access to the program and the program has been successful working in partnership with the Working Center. The program has not made significant impact to overall connected networks of cleared sidewalks, but does provide support for a community, that may be otherwise unable, in meeting the bylaw standards expected of a property owner. pg. 16 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 16 Neighbourhood Shared Snow BlowerPilot This pilot program was conductedin the winter season of 2018/19 when the City offered 10grants of $500towards the purchase ofshared snow blowers. Groups of residents,with a minimum of four group members,living in the same neighbourhood were eligibletoapply for the program. Despite the extensivecommunication around the pilot program, only eight eligible applications were received for the 2018/2019 winter season.In accordance withthe council direction (INS-19-009): Staff continued monitoring this program in the 2019/20 winter season to evaluate the effectiveness of this program in the secondyear of operation; and, Staff explored the feasibility of requiring the neighbourhood shared snow blower participants to participate in the assisted services program. To evaluate the effectiveness of this program in the second year of the operation, staff conducted inspections on a bi-weekly basis on the properties using the shared snow blowers. Staff also conducted a short survey in late March 2020 to capture the experience of the people enrolled in this program in the second year of operation.The inspections showed that on average about 80% of the sidewalks were cleared using the sharedsnow blowers. In about 88% of the cases the sidewalks were cleared to a passable level. In 48% of the cases the sidewalk was cleared down to bare pavement.This result is in line with the results of the last year and no significant change wasobserved in the second year of operation.80% of the survey respondents were generally satisfied withthe program. To explore the feasibility of requiring the neighbourhood shared snow blower participants to participate in the assisted services program, staff conducteda feasibility studyinNovember 2019. The eight program participants were asked about their willingness to use their shared snow blowers to helpresidents in need of snow clearing services. Five households responded. Staff caution that this is a very limited sample, but feedback indicated that 4 out5 (80%) would be willing to utilizethe snow blower to assist a neighbour in need of assistance within walking distance (500m) of their property. Despite of heavy promotion in winter 2018/19, staff was able to give out eight grants out of ten which indicates that the demand for this program is very low. Also due to complications around ownership and maintenance issues in the long term such as logistics of the owners moving to another location and repair costs staff do not expect that this program remains successful in the long term.Therefore,staff do not recommend this program. pg. 17 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 17 Snow Clearing Application The main objective of this program was to develop an applicationto connect residents in need of snow clearing with residents willing tovolunteer toassist.Staff worked with the Innovation Lab andidentified anumber of potential solutions but none of the solutions matched the desired state. Staff also reached out to other municipalitieswhichshows that similar applications have been developed over the years,but none have continued past the pilot phase. Most municipalities andother organizations that provide a matching service manually facilitate the matching process. In addition to the lack of internal capacity to manage a matching service and the lack of a suitable technological solution at this time, staff identified several key risks associated with such anapplication.Given the followingrisks, staff did not pursue further work on developing the application. Matching vulnerable community members with strangers and potential safety concerns. Resources will be required for administering/moderating the application. Solutions are required in the event a volunteer does not show up or does not perform the work in conformance with the by-law requirements. using technology. Therefore, staff may have challenges providing an inclusive service. Personal information security solutions are required to ensure the privacy of both the volunteers and participants in the program. Health/Safety of volunteers solutions are required to address incidents/injuries resulting from clearing snow. As part of the Love My Hood program, an action to assess the feasibility of expanding the Snow Angels program was completed in 2018. Similar risks were identified, and it was determined not to expand the Snow Angels program and instead to focus on a more comprehensive approach to encouraging neighbours helping one another. This includes the development of a guidebook for Snow Angels, the launch of the Good Neighbour recognition program in January 2020, and awareness campaigns encouraging residents to help their neighbours with snow shoveling and other identified needs. Winter Sidewalk MaintenanceAlternativeOptionsand Recommendations According to theanalysis and results illustrated in the previous sections,four different sidewalk winter maintenance optionshave been identified.Staff are recommending that Option 1 best addresses the objectives of the City, enhances the range of winter sidewalk services that the City provides and is most closely aligned with community expectations and needs. Options 2, 3 and 4 offer alternatives, in a preferential order against these criteria in the event that Council wish to consider alternatives. The four optionsare listed on the following pages, and further described in terms of objectives, scope, cost, resources, environmental impacts, social/community impactsand risks. Funding sources of the recommendation components are identified in the Financial Implications section. pg. 18 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 18 Option 1Existing Program + Assisted Services + Proactive Bylaw Enforcement 1Programsa)Implementation of the Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow Snow Clearing program on a city-wide scale as of winter 2020/21. b)Implementation of the Proactive Bylaw Enforcement program as of winter 2020/21. 2ObjectivesProvide sidewalk and windrow snow clearing services for eligible seniors 65+ and residents living witha disability who cannot afford private snow clearing services. Proactively enforce the bylaw through winter seasons to increase bylaw compliance and sidewalk passability. 3Scopea)Assisted Services The program would be available city-wide. Proof of eligibility would be required. The capacity of the program would be 150 properties in winter 2020/21. The capacity would increase by 50 properties by year until the demand is met. b)Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Four part-time temporary staff would be hired for each winter season. The program would be applicable city-wide. 4Estimated CostAnnual operating cost: $230,000. This would be increased by $35,000 per year until the demand is met in the assisted services program. % tax levy impact of operating costs: 0.2% Average operating impact to homeowner: $2 (based onan average home assessed at $330,000 by MPAC) 5Resourcesa)Assisted Services City staff to manage the contract City staff to administer and manage the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints b)Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Funding for part time by-law officers (4-month temp position grade7, step4) City staff to supervise the project City staff to administer and manage the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints 6Environmental This option would not impact current corporate COemissions. 2 Impacts 7Social/Community Assists eligible seniors and residents living with a disability to clear their Impactssidewalks. Helps increase consistency in sidewalk access during winter months and promotes more equity in the movement of people. 8Snow and Ice No impact on the Snow and Ice Bylaw. Bylaw Impacts 9Risks Assisted Services: Contractor/Working Centre performance may not be up to the City standards Proactive Bylaw Enforcement: Public perception and complaints pg. 19 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 19 Option 2City-wide City-led Full ServiceWinter Sidewalk Maintenance 1Programsa)City-wide City-led Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance to be implemented over three phases -Phase 1 Winter 2020/21 route planning, equipment purchase, tendering for rental equipment, tree elevating and modifying the sidewalk repair program -Phase 2 Winter 2021/22 implementation of full service sidewalk snow clearing on approximately 50% of the sidewalks within the City -Phase 3 Winter 2022/23: This phase would include the implementation of full service sidewalk snow clearing on a city-wide scale b)Extension of the Assisted Servicesfor Sidewalk and Windrow Clearing program with the current capacity of 105 spaces during Phase 1 and 2. Discontinue the services in Phase 3 (winter 2022/23) 2ObjectivesProvide sidewalk clearing services for all sidewalks after all snow occurrencesto eliminate snow covered or icy conditions to bare pavement within 24 hours. Provide sidewalk and windrow snow clearing services for eligible seniors 65+ and residents living with a disability who cannot afford private snow clearing servicesin winter 2020/21 and winter 2021/22. 3Scopea)City-wide City-led Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance Approximately 50% of the sidewalks will be serviced in winter 2021/22. All sidewalks within the City will be serviced in winter 2022/23. The service will be triggered after any snowfall, ice event or thaw/freeze event. This service will also be triggered to prevent and treat icy conditions as per the Minimum Maintenance Standard (MMS). stth The program will be in place from October 1to April 30of each year as of winter 2021/22. Turf and hardscape damage as a result of this service will be repaired by the City. b)Assisted Services The program would be available city-widefor winters2020/21and 2021/22. Proof of eligibility would be required. The capacity of the program would be 105properties in winters2020/21and 2021/22. 4Estimated CostOne-timeupfront capital cost: $4,400,000 Annual operating cost: $10,175,000. % tax levy impact of operating costs: 7.9% Average operating impact to homeowner: $89 (based on anaverage home assessed at $330,000 by MPAC) 5Resourcesa)City-wide City-led Winter Sidewalk Maintenance City staff to operate, supervise and manage the program. City staff to intake and resolve complaints. b)Assisted Services City staff to manage the contract and the project. City staff to intake and resolve complaints. 6Environmental This option would have the highest emission impact and will add significantly Impacts. pg. 20 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 20 7Social/Community Provides a highly consistent and connected sidewalk network during winter Impactsmonths and promotes equity in the movement of peopleof various demographics and abilities. Encourages active modes of transportation reducing the usage of vehicles therefore reducing green house gas emissions in the community. 8Snow and Ice The Snow and Ice Bylaw will not be applicableas of winter 2022/23. Bylaw Impacts 9RisksAsignificantnumber of turf and hardscape damage is expected especially in areas with turf or hardscape encroachments. Hardscape encroachments could pose a hazard to equipment and operators. Risk to operators and equipment mainly due to hardscape encroachments. Incidents could result in injury, equipment damage and suspension of operator permits. The unknowns not encountered in the pilot area could introduce complications; Prior reviews of development and engineering plans did not account for sidewalk winter maintenance and as a result challenges are expected considering the location of infrastructure such as Bell, Rogers, Hydro, Fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc where they arelocated adjacent to sidewalk. The greenhouse gas emission of this option would significantly increase the GHG reduction target. Experiencing an abnormal winter season with consistentwinter weather could impact the ability and quality of clearing sidewalks. Assisted Services: Contractor/Working Centre performance may not be up to the City standards pg. 21 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 21 Option 3Priority Routes City-led Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance + Assisted Services+ Proactive Bylaw Enforcement 1Programsa)Priority Routes City-led Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance to be implemented over twophases: -Phase 1 Winter 2020/21 route planning, equipment purchase, tendering for rental equipment, tree elevating and modifying the sidewalk repair program -Phase 2 Winter 2021/22 implementation of full service sidewalk snow clearing on approximately 50% of the sidewalks within the City b)Implementation of the Assisted Services for Sidewalk andWindrowSnow Clearing program as of winter 2020/21. c)Implementation of the Proactive Bylaw Enforcement program as of winter 2020/21. 2ObjectivesProvide sidewalk clearing services for priority routes (approximately 50% of sidewalks)after all snow occurrencesto eliminate snow covered or icy conditions to bare pavement within 24 hours. Provide the sidewalk and windrow snow clearing services for eligible seniors 65+ and residents livingwith a disability who cannot afford private snow clearing services. Proactively enforce the bylaw through winter seasons to increase bylaw compliance and sidewalk passability. 3Scopea)Priority Routes City-LedFull ServiceWinter Sidewalk Maintenance Sidewalks within the priority routes will be included in this service as of winter 2021/22. If council direct staff to pursue city-led sidewalk clearing on priority routes, thecurrent map will be further revised to capture a priority route which would deliver most benefits to the community while operationally and financially viable. The service will be triggered after any snowfall, ice event or thaw/freeze event. This service will also be triggered to prevent and treat icy conditions as per the Minimum Maintenance Standard (MMS). stth The program will be in place from October1to April 30of each year as of winter 2021/22. The turf and hardscape damage as a result of this program will be repaired by the City. b)Assisted Services The program would be available city-widein winter 2020/21 and on priority routes in winter 2021/22 and beyond. Proof of eligibility would be required. The capacity of the program would be 150 properties in winter 2020/21. The capacity would increase by 50properties by year until the demand is met. c)Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Twopart-time temporary staffwould be hired for each winter season. The program would be applicable city-wide in winter 2020/21 andonnon- priority routes in winter 2021/22 and beyond. 4Estimated CostOne-time upfront capital cost: $3,750,000 Annual operating cost: $6,065,000. This would be increased by $35,000 per year until the demand is met in the assisted services program. % tax levy impact of operating costs: 4.8% pg. 22 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 22 Average operating impact to homeowner: $54(based on an average home assessed at $330,000 by MPAC) 5Resourcesa)Priority-Routes City-led Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance City staff to operate, supervise and manage the program. City staff to intake and resolve complaints. b)Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow Snow Clearing Contract management Administration and project management Complaint intake and resolution c)Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Funding for part time by-law officers (4-month temp position grade7 step4) City staff to supervise the project City staff to administer and manage the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints 6Environmental . Impacts 7Social/Community Provides a highly consistent and connected sidewalk network on priority Impactsroutes during winter months and promotes equity in the movement of people of various demographics and abilities. Encourages active modes of transportation reducing the usage of vehicles therefore reducing green house gas emissions in the community Assists eligible seniors and residents living with a disability to clear their sidewalks on non-priority routes. 8Snow and Ice The Snow and Ice Bylaw will not be applicable on priority routesas of winter Bylaw Impacts2021/22. The bylaw will be applicable on non-priority routes. 9RisksCost estimates for the priority routes are not based on any pilot programs. The total capacity of the programcouldchange slightly depending on the priority route selection. The current prioritization aligns with the sidewalk infill policy. The cost of this program is estimated based on the three-year phased implementation of the city-wide winter sidewalk maintenance service. It is calculated for a maximum of 400 km in addition to the existing program (200km). Asignificantnumber of turf and hardscape damage is expected especially in areas with turf or hardscape encroachments. Hardscape encroachments could pose a hazard to equipment and operators. Risk to operators and equipment mainly due to hardscape encroachments. Incidents could result in injury,equipment damage,and suspension of operator permits. The unknowns not encountered in the full service pilot area could impact the ability to clear sidewalks; Prior reviews of development and engineering plans did not account for sidewalk winter maintenance and as a resultchallenges are expected considering the location of infrastructure such as Bell, Rogers, Hydro, Fire hydrants, Mail boxes, etc where they are located adjacent to sidewalk. The greenhouse gas emission of this option would significantly increase the corporate GHG emissions, impacting progress in achieving the 2026 GHG reduction target. pg. 23 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 23 Experiencing an abnormal winter season with consistent winter weather could impact the ability and quality of clearing sidewalks. Assisted Services: Contractor/WorkingCentre performance may not be up to the City standards Proactive Bylaw Enforcement: Public perception and complaints Option 4Contractor-Led Snow Event Winter Sidewalk Maintenance + Assisted Services + Proactive Bylaw Enforcement 1Programsa)Contractor-led Snow Event Winter Sidewalk Maintenance over two phases: i)Phase 1 planning in winter 2020/21 ii)Phase 2 priority routes implementation as of winter 2021/22 b)Implementation of the Assisted Services for Sidewalkand WindrowSnow Clearing program as of winter 2020/21 with the capacity of 150 spaces. The capacity to be increased by 50 spaces per year until the demand is met. This service will not be provided after snow events. c)Implementation of the Proactive Bylaw Enforcement program as of winter 2020/21 with four officers. This program will not be enforced after snow events. 2ObjectivesProvide sidewalk clearing services for all sidewalks after snow events (snow occurrences of 8cm or more) within 24 hours. Provide sidewalk and windrow snow clearing services for eligible seniors 65+ and residents living with a disability who cannot affordprivate snow clearing services Proactively enforce the bylaw through winter seasons to increase bylaw compliance and sidewalk passability. 3Scopea)Contractor-led Snow Event Winter Sidewalk Maintenance All sidewalks within the City will be included in this serviceas of winter 2021/22. The service will be triggered after snow events (i.e. snow falls more than 8cm within a 24-hours period)as of winter 2021/22. stth The program will be in place from October1to April 30of each yearas of winter 2021/22. Property damages as a result of this program will be repaired by the City. b)Assisted Services The program would be available city-wide. Proof of eligibility would be required. The capacity of the program would be 150 properties in winter 2020/21. The capacity would increase by 50 properties by year until the demand is met. Service will not be provided after snow events. c)Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Four part-time temporary staff would be hired for each winter season. The program would be applicable city-wide. Inspections will not take place after snow events. 4Estimated CostOne-time upfront capital cost: $3,000,000 Annual operating cost: $6,330,000. This would be increased by $35,000 per year until the demand is met in the assisted services program. % tax levy impact of operating costs: 4.9% pg. 24 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 24 Average operating impact to homeowner: $56 (based on an average home assessed at $330,000 by MPAC) 5ResourcesContractor-led Snow Event Winter SidewalkMaintenance This work will be fully contracted out City staff to supervise, administer and manage the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow Snow Clearing City staff to manage the contact and the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Funding for part time by-law officers (4-month temp position grade 7 step 4) City staff to supervise the project City staff to administer and manage the project City staff to intake and resolve complaints 6Environmental Impactsemissions. 7Social/Community Reduces the burden of heavy snow lifting from residents. ImpactsAssists eligible seniors and residents living with a disability to clear their sidewalks. The assisted services and proactive bylaw enforcement programs help increase consistency in sidewalk access during winter months and promotes more equity in the movement of people 8Snow and IceThe Snow and Ice Bylaw will not be applicable within 24 hours of the end of BylawImpactsSnow Events (i.e. snowfall equal or more than 8cm). 9RisksAsignificantnumber of turf damage and property damage is expected especially in areas where there areturf and/or hardscape encroachments. Staffmay not be able to find a suitable contractor for this job.Interviews with contractors have shown there is little appetite to perform this type of work. Only two contractors bid on the work and the contractor awarded would not return for another year. According to the results of the surveys conducted in the pilot zone, public dissatisfaction is expected due to the infrequent and unpredictable nature of the program. Assisted Services: Contractor/Working Centre performance may not be up to the City standards Proactive Bylaw Enforcement: Public perception and complaints pg. 25 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 25 Staff Recommendation In developing a recommendation, staff reflected thatthe objective of Council was to investigate alternative means of winter sidewalk maintenance to enhance the sidewalk usage experience and to provide a passable, safe and connected sidewalk network during winter seasons. Considering that the City-led and contractor-led winter sidewalk maintenance programs only slightly increased the sidewalk passability it is concluded that these optionsdo not significantly contribute to the mentioned objective in a meaningful and cost-effective way. The statistical valid survey results showed that the majority of the Kitchener residents are not willing to pay the defined extra tax to fund these programs. Based on the performance results and the public engagement feedback staff recommends Option1. This option provides assistance to property owners who have difficulty clearing their sidewalks due to age or medical conditions which could also contribute to sidewalk network passability in general. The proactive inspection program is expected to contribute to enhancing the sidewalk conditions by reminding the residents of the importance of sidewalk clearing and compliance to bylaw. Staff believes that Option 1 willachieve the best results, in the most cost effective and timely manner, and with the greatest amount of public support. Emission Impact Emission impact is an important factor to consider in evaluating winter sidewalk maintenance rporate climate action goals. For this purpose, the emission impact of each of the winter sidewalk maintenance options above are estimated and summarized in the table below. Emission Impact Analysis OptionTotal Emission Additional Emission% Additional Impact per YearImpact to Status QuoEmission Impact Option 1 Existing Program170 tons-- Option 2 City-wide City-led Full 570 tons400 tons4% Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance Option 3 Priority Routes City-394 tons224 tons2% ledFull ServiceWinter Sidewalk Maintenance Option 4 Contractor-led Snow 210 tons40 tons0.4% EventWinter Sidewalk Maintenance contribution significantly. As per the City of Kitchener Corporate Climate Action Plan the total amount of green house gas emission as of 2016 is 10,397 tons (total amount generating from Fleet is 3,584 tons), withthe goal to reduce this amount by 8% by 2026. To reachthis target the total emission impact should be decreased by approximately 250 tons per year. Option 2 and Option 3 would increase the total amount of greenhouse emission by approximately 400 tons/year and 224 tons/year respectively, impacting GHG reduction progress. pg. 26 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 26 It is important to note that though Option 2 and Option 3 will increase corporate emissions, it is expected these options will reduce community-based GHG emissions as the City works to achieve its Council approved 80% GHG reduction by 2050 community reduction target. Community GHG reductions will happen through a shift from vehicle centric modes to more active transportation during winter months.It is also expected that the usage of private gas operated snow blowers in the community be reduced which would also reduce green house gas emissions. The impact of this reduction is unknown due to inability to track emissions impacts at this level. Further, these ity. Salt Management The City of Kitchener recognizes the importance of effective salt management andis committed to best practices andcontinuous improvementin salt management.This approach isreviewed annually and revised as necessary to achieve effective salt management.All city winter maintenance staff are trained in this regard.A salt usage comparison of the options identified in this report is not feasible at this time. This is because r to staff at this time and therefore the salt usage of city-led winter sidewalk maintenance options cannot be compared to scenarios where the residents are responsible for clearing all sidewalks or a portion of thesidewalks. Internal Winter Maintenance Comparisons The City is involved with multiple winter control activitiesincluding road clearingand sidewalks clearing. Each of these winter control activities are unique, demanding different operational approaches, equipment, staffing and resources. Sidewalks are cleared as per the Winter Sidewalk bylaw to bare pavement within 24 hours. This is generally delivered using a specialised piece of equipment (trackless units, narrow,1.5m wide clearing width, slow, 2 between sidewalks to be plowed) and hand shoveling(with shovels and/or snow blowers). In most cases, most weather responses will require multiple passes (up to 3 or more) to fully treat sidewalks. Sidewalksin the downtown area are cleared to a higher service level, with the objective being to respond immediately to any winter weather. Road clearing is undertaken to internal service standards defined by Council that meet or exceed provincially established Minimum Maintenance Standards(MMS).Higher priority (Priority 1) routes are cleared initially, with lower priority (Priority 2 and 3) routes only being attended to when all work has been completed on higher priority routes. Large equipment with 3m or wider blades are used travelling at between 20-35km an hour, with large salt capacity and generally continuous blade down routes. In addition to the speed and efficiency with which surfaces can be cleared, there are key differences in the tools available to help clearing of surfaces during winter: Salt is used in all circumstances to provide de-icing. On roads, the presence of traffic effective pre-treatment, aiding the mechanical removal of snow by plows after winter pg. 27 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 27 weather occurs. Salt is not an effective pre-treatment onsidewalks due to lower surface temperatures and lack of heavy traffic volumes generating heat. Salt is applied in all operations during snow removal to help melt snow and ice, prevent build ups from occurring and to aid in traction. Vehicles passing over a roadway generate heatwhich, once snow has stopped and initial clearing has occurred, help to keep roadways clear of further build up snow and ice; the lower volume and lighter nature of users on sidewalks do not generate heat and so ice build up and accumulations (from the material pushed out of the roadway, or blowing snow) need to be re-treated and removed through multiple visits over the days following winter weather. As a result, generally speaking, sidewalks are the least efficient of the areas that the City provides winter services to, while roads are the most efficient. This is because the speedandefficiency of vehicles (in respect to rapidly moving and treating snow and ice),efficacy of network(wide, generally straight and consistent roads) and treatment options (pre-treatment efficacy of salt are higher on roads, than on sidewalks). As a result, roadways are less than half the cost of sidewalks to maintain in winter per lane kilometer (to a similar level of passability). These activities have evolved over time and are supported by a wide number of staff across the organisation, from communications, to customer services, from finance to operations. As such, many of the costs of providing these services are interwoven withindepartmental budgets across the corporation. In providing costs for all the options outlined in this report, the full cost has been accounted for in projections. This would ensure that all departments that will see an impact from an increased service delivery to winter sidewalks, would receive budget support to support these new activities. Next Steps & Implementation If approved by Council, Option 1 will be deployed as of winter2020/21.Detailed development of the programs will take place in fall 2020whichincludes obtaining resources such as staff and equipment, selecting and coordinating routes, developing engagementand communication materials, administration, and developing an evaluation systemto continuously evaluate and improve the programs. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This section summarizes the results of the public and stakeholder engagement regarding current winter sidewalk maintenance practices and alternative options. Statistical Valid Survey The purpose of the statistical valid survey was to gauge the current winter sidewalk maintenance practices and alternative options. Advaniswas retainedto conductthe survey. A total of 1000 telephone surveys from both landline and wireless subscribers were completed. The survey was conducted between March 20 and April 7. To ensure statistically valid results the data was weighted to reflect the Kitchener population based on age, gender, region and phone type ownership. Advanis confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact the pg. 28 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 28 For the purpose of the survey four scenarios were defined including: Status Quo with noadditional tax impact, Full Service City-Wide with 8.5% additional municipal tax increase, Full Service Priority Routes with 5.2% additional municipal tax increaseand Snow Event Service with 7% additional municipal tax increase. The survey respondents were asked to rank the scenarios from their most favorable to the least favorable. It should be noted that due to a change in the tax impact calculation method the final tax impact numbers are lower than the numbers used in this survey. As illustrated in Figure 5, the survey showed that the Status Quo Scenario is the most preferred option (54%).17% of the respondents selected the Full Service City-Wide Scenario as their most preferred option. The Full Service Priority Routes Scenario and the Snow Event Scenariowere the third (13%)andfourth(9%)preferredscenarios.7% did not have any preference. The survey showed that there was no bias by age, medical condition, household income or location towards selecting any of the options. The full report of the survey is provided in Appendix F. Most Desirable Scenario Status Quo 54% Full Service City-Wide Scenario 17% selected a Full Service Priority Routes Scenario 13% scenario with involvement from Snow Event City-Wide Scenario the City of Kitchener 9% None of the Scenarios 7% Figure 5: Most Desirable Scenario Statistical Valid Survey Results Focus Groups The purpose of the Focus Groups study was to understand the lived experienceof the residents within the pilot areasandto understand maintenance matter. Results from focus group discussions are considered directional and are not intended to be a statistically significant representation of the target population. Environicswas retained to conduct this study.Environics designed, recruited andexecuted a series of four focus groups with Kitchener residents. The four groups included: Full Service Pilot Residents, Snow Event Pilot Residents, Residents Residing Outside of the Pilot Areas and Mixed Group (including residents from full service, snowevent and outside of pilot areas). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, focus group discussions were conducted online using a digital platform. The topic of the pandemic was raised by the moderator at the beginning of each discussion but was not mentioned again during the discussionsby either the moderator or the participants. The results of the Focus Groups study aligned with the outcome of the statistically valid survey and showed that most participants were reluctant to pay the extra tax for city-led wintersidewalk maintenance options identifying them as a nice to have as opposed to a need to have. In comparison of the Full Service versus Snow Event Service, regardless of the pilot service experienced over the past winter, participants generally preferred the Full Service snow removal pg. 29 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 29 model and were less enthusiastic about the Snow Event service. By comparison those who experienced the Snow Event service felt it was infrequent and unpredictable. As a result people evaluated the snow event service through a lens of uncertainty. When presented the details on cost implications, a majority of participants felt that the Full Service model offered the greatest value of the two, although the preference was extremely sensitive to cost. The full report of this study is provided in Appendix G. Advisory Committees and Advocacy Groups Consultation CONSULT In 2018/2019 staff met with advisory committees and advocacy groups including Mayor's Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors, Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee, Kitchener Youth Action Council, Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee, and Tri-CitiesTransportActionGroup. Through these sessions staff received valuable feedback regarding winter sidewalk maintenance practices including pilot options, data collection, and evaluation. INFORM In 2020 staff met with advisory committees and advocacy groups including Mayor's Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors, Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee, Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee, and Tri-CitiesTransportActionGroup. In these meetings staffsharedthewinter 2019/20 pilot findings and staff recommendations.The purpose of the meetingswas toraise awareness in case the committees/groups wished to make adelegationto council in respect of theirposition on this issue. committee meeting. A copy of this report has been provided to the Mayor's Advisory Council for Kitchener Seniors, Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee, Kitchener Youth Action Council, Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee, Tri-CitiesTransportActionGroup, and previous delegates where contact information is available. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: the delivery of core service by: Improvingthe design and delivery of city services so that they provide what citizens want in the most reliable, convenient and cost-efficient way; Developing a network of safe, comfortable and linked pedestrian facilities; Strengtheningthe capability and capacity within the organization to manage all of the city's assets; Creating more opportunities for citizen dialogue on community issues and introducingnew ways for people to getinvolvedin decisions that affect them; Strengtheningcommunication on issues of interest to the public and proactively publishing related documents in an accessible format to give citizens the information they needto . pg. 30 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 30 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The tables below summarize the financial impact of each option. Although some options will have a phased approach, the costs below are the annual impact once fully implemented. The costs have been broken into two buckets. 1)Upfront Capital Cost which include the following: Purchase of all equipment Shelter with hookups to store trackless units Tree trimming contract Furniture/equipment for additional staff Communications program 2)Annual Operating Costs (labour, material and equipment) which include the following: Crews to replace sidewalk trip lip asphalt ramping withgrinding Crews for plowing and sidewalk treatment, loading salt for trackless units on route, snowloading Blower crews to clear inaccessible areas with either shovels or snowblowers Crewsto repair both turf damage and hardscape damage on cityproperties Annual contract for tree elevating oversidewalks Program Administrative Overhead including; Supervision, program coordination, routing, Admin, Communications, Corporate call centre, HumanResources and Fleet All tax levy and homeowner impactbelow are based on the annual operating costs. Most of the options also require a one-time upfront capital cost which is not part of the current ten-year capital forecast. Council would need to make decisions on how to reprioritize other projects withinthe forecast to fund this cost. Otherwise there would be additional tax levy impacts. Option 1Financial Impacts Option 1One-Time Annual % Tax Levy Average Upfront Operating Impact of Operating Capital CostOperating Impact to CostCostsHomeowner *Assisted Services for Sidewalk -$100,0000.1%$1 and Windrow Snow Clearing (150 spaces) Proactive Bylaw Enforcement-$130,0000.1%$1 (4 officers) Total-$230,0000.2%$2 *Staff recommends that the capacity be increased by 50 spaces per year until demand is met. This would be equal to a $35k cost increase per year until the demand is met pg. 31 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 31 Option2 Financial Impacts Option2One-Time Annual % Tax Levy Average Upfront Operating Impact of Operating Capital CostOperating Impact to CostCostsHomeowner City-wide City-led Full Service $4,400,000$10,100,0007.8%$89 Winter Sidewalk Maintenance *Assisted Services for Sidewalk -$75,0000.1%$1 and Windrow Clearing (100 spaces) Total$4,400,000$10,175,0007.9%$89 *This program will be discontinued in winter 2022/23 once the city-led winter sidewalk maintenance is implemented on a city-wide scale Option3 Financial Impacts Option3One-Time Annual % Tax Levy Average Upfront Operating Impact of Operating Capital CostOperating Impact to CostCostsHomeowner Priority-Routes City-ledFull $3,750,000$5,900,0004.6%$52 Service WinterSidewalk Maintenance *Assisted Services for Sidewalk -$100,0000.1%$1 and Windrow Clearing (150 spaces) Proactive Bylaw Enforcement-$65,0000.1%$1 (2officers) Total$3,750,000$6,065,0004.8%$54 *Staff recommends that the capacity be increased by 50 spaces per year until demand is met. This would be equal to a $35k cost increase per year until the demand is met Option4 Financial Impacts Option4One-Time Annual % Tax Levy Average Upfront Operating Impact of Operating Capital CostOperating Impact to CostCostsHomeowner Contractor-led Snow Event Winter $3,000,000$6,100,0004.7%$54 Sidewalk Maintenance *Assisted Services for Sidewalk -$100,0000.1%$1 and Windrow Clearing (150 spaces) Proactive Bylaw Enforcement -$130,0000.1%$1 (4 officers) Total$3,000,000$6,330,0004.9%$56 *Staff recommends that the capacity be increased by 50 spaces per year until demand is met. This would be equal to a $35k cost increase per year until the demand is met pg. 32 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 32 PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER: In November 2016, reportnumber INS-16-087was submitted to City Council which identified the impact of city-wide sidewalk snow clearing practices, including order of magnitude costs. This report recommended that existing winter sidewalk maintenance practices be maintained until the changes to the provincial minimum maintenance standards were adopted. In June 2018, report number INS-18-023 was submitted to City Council which identified pilot programs to be implemented and evaluated in the 2018/2019 winter season. Two of the pilot programs including the proactive by-law inspection and theassisted services for sidewalk and windrow clearingwere approved by Council to be implemented and evaluated during the 2018/2019 winter season. In addition to these pilot programs,Council introduced and approved program to be implemented and evaluated during the 2018/2019 winter season. In May 2019, report numberINS-19-009was submitted to City Councilwhichpresented the evaluation results of the pilotprograms approved by Council in 2018 and recommended that the two pilots of ProactiveBylaw Enforcement and Assisted Services for Sidewalk and Windrow Clearing be extended for the winter 2019/20, the Neighbourhood Shared Snow Blower pilot to be continued to be monitored in winter 2019/20, andBylaw Review, Initial Clearing for 8cm Snow Events pilot, Develop Priority Route Options, and Representative Valid Surveybe piloted and studied during winter 2019/20.Council approved all the recommendations above and added two additional programs of Full Service Winter Sidewalk Maintenance and Snow Removal Application to be evaluated during the 2019/20 winter season. In October 2019, report numberCSD-19-032was submitted to City Council whichrecommended continuing the usage of bare pavement as the standard for winter sidewalk maintenance. The research results showed that this standard is consistent with other municipalities in terms of the required timelines and level of service. This standard also accounts for accessibility challenges as may be required for use of mobility devices and strollers. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Denise McGoldrick, General Manager, Infrastructure Services Appendix A Winter 2019/20 Weather Conditions Appendix B Proactive Bylaw Enforcement Information Pamphlet Appendix C Snow Event Winter Maintenance Pilot Map Appendix D Full Service Winter Maintenance Pilot Map Appendix E Priority Routes Concept Map Appendix F Statistical Valid Survey Report Appendix G Focus Groups Report pg. 33 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 33 1 - 34 The figure below compares the average temperature of the 2019/20 winter season with that of the past five years. Avg Mean Temp (2015-2019) \[°C\]Mean Temp (2019/2020) \[°C\] 15.00 10.00 ) C 5.00 o 0.00 -5.00 -10.00 Temperature ( -15.00 -20.00 Dec 1Dec 4Dec 7Dec 10Dec 13Dec 16Dec 19Dec 22Dec 25Dec 28Dec 31Jan 3Jan 6Jan 9Jan 12Jan 15Jan 18Jan 21Jan 24Jan 27Jan 30Feb 2Feb 5Feb 8Feb 11Feb 14Feb 17Feb 20Feb 23Feb 26Feb 29Mar 3Mar 6Mar 9Mar 12Mar 15Mar 18Mar 21Mar 24Mar 27Mar 30 Average Temperature The figure below compares the number of snowfalls of the 2019/20 winter season with that of the past five years. 2019/20202015-2019 25 20 20 15 ЊЋ 10 Number of Days Ѝ 4 5 0 Snow >2Snow >8 Snow Falls 1 - 35 1 - 36 1 - 37 1 - 38 O E V A E M O R E J T S A V E S H A N T Z L A N E L P T H G U A N N O C CRAIG DR HICKSON DR C O R N E L L A V E D O O N R D 1 - 39 1 - 40 O ATT S AW S T E OL NR E S RIT NIL G VA S E E V A N E D R A G 1 - 41 1 - 42 1 - 43 1 - 44 for April 14, 2020 Public Poll Results Winter Sidewalk Maintenance 1 - 45 2 to conduct a statistical valid survey to measure clearing bylaw. - Advanis the City cleared snow and ice on 40 km of sidewalks after snow events. the City cleared snow and ice down to bare pavement on 40 km of Snow event pilot: Snow events are defined as at least 8 cm of snow. There are an average of 5 snow events each winter.Full service pilot: sidewalk. In March 2020 the City of Kitchener retained Residents of Kitchener are required to clear snow and ice from sidewalks around their property within 24 hours after it stops snowing to be compliant with local bylaws. Each winter the City fields complaints from residents regarding sidewalks that have not been cleared, as well as from residents who do not like bylaw officers enforcing the snowTo address the contentiousness of sidewalk winter maintenance, the City piloted two snow removal projects during the 2019/2020 winter:opinions on the sidewalk winter maintenance options given their corresponding cost (which would be passed onto residents via a tax increase). Background 1 - 46 3 Northeast (N2A, N2B, N2K) South (N2C, N2E, N2P, N2R) Northwest (N2G, N2H, N2M, N2N) 2% 15%39%46%48%50%40%28%33%28%62%11% Survey 0%9% 31%36%33%49%51%38%29%33%38%53% Population minute telephone survey was conducted among the Kitchener public. A dual - cutters could be included in the sample. Overall, a total of 1,000 completes were - binary/Refused - 19 pandemic made it easier to reach residents by telephone, it did not impact their views on Segment Age 18 to 3435 to 5455 and older Gender MaleFemaleNon Region NorthwestNortheastSouth Phone Type Wireless onlyBothLandline only - Throughout the report, results that are statistically different between segments are shown with up/down arrows ( ). wĻƭǒƌƷƭ ƒğǤ ƓƚƷ ƭǒƒ Ʒƚ ЊЉЉі ķǒĻ Ʒƚ ƩƚǒƓķźƓŭ͵ A statistically valid 13sampling frame was employed in order to collect surveys from both landline and wireless subscribers, ensuring that cordcollected (576 landline and 424 wireless). Surveying was done between March 20 and April 7. Although the COVIDthe topic. The data was weighted to reflect the Kitchener population based on age, gender, region, and phone type ownership. For analysis purposes the city was divided into three regions by FSA. Methodology 1 - 47 4 , everyone maintaining sidewalks in wintertime. Cost Noneof the property tax bill which is $100 on a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC)of the property tax bill which is $60 on a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC). Property taxes would increase for regardless of whether their property is on a priority route or not. of the property tax bill which is $80 on a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC) all priority - are declared. . Priority routes priority routes only after snow events Description Residents would be expected to clear all of the snow and ice off sidewalks within 24 hours after it stops snowing. The City would clear the snow and ice off sidewalks. The City would clear the snow and ice off sidewalks along represent about 50% of the sidewalks in residential areas. Residents along nonroutes would still be responsible for clearing their own sidewalks.The City would clear the snow and ice off sidewalks Snow events are declared when at least 8 cm of snow falls within a 24 hour period. Residents would remain responsible for clearing their sidewalks for any snowfall that is less than 8 cm. wide - Residents were asked to examine four different scenarios for The full descriptions used in the survey can be found in the Appendix.Scenario Status QuoCityPriority RoutesSnow Events Summary of Four Scenarios Tested 1 - 48 5 Scenario is the most wide - the most (vs. 9% to 17% for the City Status Quo is the most preferred scenario tested. because residents believe the City is responsible to clear the among those with a medical condition/limitation (it is the most led Scenarios examined, the Scenario - favoured led scenarios). - quarters using them at least weekly. - Status Quo Of the four scenarios tested, 54% prefer the three CityThe Status Quo Scenario is preferred as residents believe they are responsible for clearing the sidewalks.17% of residents ranked this scenario as one of their most preferred scenario. This scenario is particularly preferred scenario for 25% of residents with a medical condition/limitation). This scenario is preferred sidewalks, it is a cost effective strategy, and having accessible sidewalks that are safe to use is important to them. Sidewalks are commonly used by residents with half using them daily, and threeThe Among the Citypreferred. Summary 1 - 49 6 led Scenario (86%) - Support for a tax increase is very strong among those preferring a Citywhile only 12% who prefer the Status Quo Scenario support a tax increase. Residents are split as to whether they support a tax increase so the City can be more involved in winter sidewalk clearing (43% were in agreement, and 46% disagreed). Summary 1 - 50 7 DETAILED FINDINGS 1 - 51 8 84% 82% 81% 70% 69% o not have Age & Condition Daily/Weekly Usage by hronic illness/medical condition, 55+ 18 to 3435 to 54 Do not have a condition/limitation 54: 390; 55+: 457; Have condition: 273; D - : 78% Have condition/limitation* *Condition/limitation defined as cmobile/dexterity limitation, vision impairment, or other condition. 34: 152; 35 - NET Daily/ Weekly 52% 26% 12% 8% 2% Sidewalk Usage Never Rarely Never Rarely Everyday a week Everyday a month A few timesA few times quarters use sidewalks at least weekly. Sidewalk usage is lower among those who are 55+ and - Threethose who have a medical condition or limitation. Half of residents use sidewalks daily A few times a week How often do you use sidewalks around the City? Base: (Total: 999, 18 A few times a month q1 a condition: 719) 1 - 52 9 10 - in - hronic 19% 28% 23% 16% led Scenario - he overall 25% atus Quo 32% St 18 to 34, no condition/limitation35 to 54, no condition/limitation55+, no condition/limitationHave condition/limitation Prefer City Distribution of Residents Prefer Status Quo Scenario 31% 26% by Type of Scenario Preferred 2 residents) *Condition/limitation defined as cillness/medical condition, mobile/dexterity limitation, vision impairment, or other condition. - in - selected a 54% 39% scenario with involvement from the City of Kitchener 17% 13% 9% 7% Most Desirable Scenario led Scenario (378) - Status Quo led scenarios are either 18 to 34 or have a condition/limitation (59%). - wide Scenario 10 residents most prefer one of the three scenarios with City involvement. Nearly 1 - - in - City Snow Event Scenario None of the scenarios Priority Route Scenario Only 4do not have a preference among the tested scenarios.Among those preferring the Status Quo scenario, 55% are 35+ with no condition/limitation that would impact their ability to clear their sidewalks. A similar proportion of residents who prefer one of the city When asked to rank the four scenarios, the Status Quo is the most preferred scenario (preferred by 1 You just heard four scenarios for winter sidewalk maintenance in Kitchener. Thinking about what would be best for you and t q6 community please rank the following four scenarios from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most desirable. Base: Total (1000); SelectedScenario (541); Selected a City 1 - 53 10 38% None 5%9% 38% 14%15%57% limitation No condition/ 54: - 45% he 2; 35 34: 15 9%- 11%11%25%43% 45% limitation Snow Event Scenario Have condition/ 36% led scenarios (47% vs. 36% among those 35 to - 8%9% 55+ 36%12%19%52% 36% Priority Route Scenario 5% 36% 10%10%16%58% 35 to 54 Most Desirable Scenario 47% City-wide Scenario 2%9% 47% 21%17%51% 18 to 34 39% Status Quo 7%9% 39% 13%17%54% led scenarios than those without a condition/liability (45% vs. 38%). - Aggregate Among the four scenarios tested, the Status Quo Scenario is the most preferred by each age group and among whose with or without a condition/limitation. However, those who are 18 to 34 are more likely than their older counterparts to prefer one of the three city54 and 36% among those 55+). Similarly, those with a condition/liability are more likely to prefer one of the city The Status Quo Scenario is the most preferred among each of the age group and condition/limitation segments You just heard four scenarios for winter sidewalk maintenance in Kitchener. Thinking about what would be best for you and t NET City q6 overall community please rank the following four scenarios from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most desirable. (Total: 1000, 18390; 55+: 458; Have condition: 274; Do not have a condition: 719) Involvement 1 - 54 11 64% 45% 21% 14% 11% Base: Most abcde property difficulty cleaning snow prefer things to remain as they current are It is my responsibility to clean the snow on our It is not difficult to clean the snow on our property The cost of a tax increase is not worth the outcome Residents can/should help their neighbours who have Top 54% Scenario led scenarios. - Residents preferring the Status Quo Scenario do so because they believe clearing their sidewalk city Reasons for Preferring the Status Quo Scenario Why is this your most preferred scenario? Responses coded into multiple categories. (Based on highest ranked level in Q6). q7 prefer the Status Quo (527) 1 - 55 12 49% 39% 35% 28% 24% Base: Most abcde that I like wide Scenario - City clean our sidewalks. to clean the snow ourselves comes to cleaning sidewalks Accessibility and safety are important when it wide Scenario do so because they believe the City is responsible to - It is the responsibility of the City to clear sidewalks I/Others have mobility issues that effect our ability It is cost effective to have taxes raised and have the Top 17% Scenario wide Scenario (175) - Residents preferring the Cityclear the sidewalks, it is a cost effective strategy, and having accessible sidewalks that are safe to use is important to them. Reasons for Preferring the City Why is this your most preferred scenario? Responses coded into multiple categories. (Based on highest ranked level in Q6). q7 prefer the City 1 - 56 13 own 66% eir 39% 28% 17% 12% 11% a bcdef property that I like to cleaning sidewalks City clean our sidewalks primarily because it focuses on making the most used It is my responsibility to clean the snow on our I/Others use priority routes and they should be It is the responsibility of the City to clear sidewalks It is cost effective to have taxes raised and have the properly cleaned and/or cleaned in a timely fashion favoured Accessibility and safety are important when it comes Top 13% Scenario The Priority Route Scenario is sidewalks accessible and safe in a timely manner. Reasons for Preferring the Priority Route Scenario Why is this your most preferred scenario? Responses coded into multiple categories. (Based on highest ranked level in Q6). q7 Base: Most prefer the Priority Route Scenario (110) 1 - 57 14 ld w event, 51% uld be very sno wo 25% 18% 17% 17% abcde I like property clean our sidewalks clean the snow ourselves It is my responsibility to clean the snow on our It is the responsibility of the City to clear sidewalks I/Others have mobility issues that effect our ability to It is cost effective to have taxes raised and have the City 9% Top Scenario responsibility to clear sidewalks. Reasons for Preferring the Snow Event Scenario Why is this your most preferred scenario? Responses coded into multiple categories. (Based on highest ranked level in Q6). q7 Base: Most prefer the Snow Event Scenario (83) 1 - 58 15 NET 43% Agree led Scenarios - 19% Strongly Agree in 87% 24% 51% Somewhat Agree 46% 46% 44% 42% 40%40% 12% 11% Neither 55+ 18 to 3435 to 54 21% led Scenario Support for Tax Increase - HH income <$75kHH income $75k+ Somewhat Disagree Prefer City No condition/limitation Have condition/limitation Prefer Status Quo Scenario led Scenarios). Few who prefer the Status Quo scenario support a tax - 26% Strongly Disagree NET 46% Disagree Support for a tax increase is very strong among residents who prefer one of the City(87%). Support is also strong (51%) among those with a condition/limitation (who are also more likely to favour the Cityincrease (12%). Support for a tax increase is split but consistent with scenario preference Based on the information provided in the scenarios, I am supportive of a tax increase so that the City can be more involved q9 winter sidewalk clearing. Base: (989) 1 - 59 16 32% 22% 21% 17% 6% 2% Total Annual Income Less than $25,000 $250,000 and over $25,000 to less than $50,000$50,000 to less than $75,000 $75,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 to less than $250,000 48% Male Residents binary/Refused 2% - 50% Gender of Non Female 22% 19% 19% 17% 14% 9% Age of Residents 18 to 2425 to 3435 to 4445 to 5455 to 64 65 and older Do you identify yourself as...? Base: All residents (1000) The results have been weighted to reflect the age and gender distribution of Kitchener. Which of the categories best describe the total annual income, before taxes, of all members of your household? Base: (912) Profile of Participants What age are you? Base: All residents (1000) gender age q10 1 - 60 17 53% 38% 9% Phone Type Both Wireless Only Landline Only Chronic illness/medical condition 20% Mobile/dexterity limitation 29% Vision impairment Northeast Other 7% 5% 33% South 1% 39% Regional Location Northwest Yes 24% 4 residents have a medical condition or limitation. Type of phones available to respondent. Base: All respondents (1000) - - Medical Condition or Limitation What region of Kitchener are you from? Base: All respondents (1000) in - - The results have been weighted to reflect the region and phone type distribution of the population.1 Are you affected by a medical condition or limitation? Multiple selections allowed. Base: All respondents (992) Profile of Participants q11 phone_typeregion_r 1 - 61 18 APPENDIX 1 - 62 19 , material, and labour offs between: - are responsible for winter sidewalk maintenance: snow is removed, how residents and is responsible for winter sidewalk maintenance: when the city the cost to taxpayers,environmental impacts such as salt use, the use of gasoline powered equipment, and noise,the ability of the city to provide winter sidewalk maintenance service, and,the standards residents expect when it comes to maintaining sidewalks. residents can decide residents must clear their sidewalks to bare pavement within 24 hours after it snows,some residents may choose to not clear their sidewalks at all, or may not clear their sidewalks to bare pavement, and the quality of sidewalk clearing may vary making it difficult for people of all abilities to use the sidewalks. the city would aim to clear sidewalks within 24 hours after it stops snowing,the quality of sidewalk clearing would be consistent so that people of all abilities could use the sidewalks,motorized equipment would be used,sidewalk clearing could happen at any time of the day or night,there may be damage to grass and gardens near sidewalks, andequipment. This would be in addition to any other tax impacts in any given year such as base municipal tax increases and Regional or School Board increases. This would also be in addition to any utility related rate increases including water, sanitary, storm and natural gas. When it comes to maintaining sidewalks in wintertime, there are often tradeyou some information.Just like today, in scenarios where In scenarios where As I read each scenario, please think about what would be best for you and the overall community. Scenario Introduction 1 - 63 20 , are . everyone priority routes only after snow events sidewalks. Residents would no longer be all priority routes would still be responsible for clearing their own - the City of Kitchener would clear the snow and ice off sidewalks along the City of Kitchener would clear the snow and ice off sidewalks Residents would be expected to clear all of the snow and ice off sidewalks within 24 hours after the City of Kitchener would clear the snow and ice off wide Scenario: - Status Quo Scenario: it stops snowing or could be charged for the cost of snow clearing. Residents would decide when and how snow is removed. There would be no additional impact on property taxes in this scenario. City responsible for this. The cost of implementing this service would be $11 million which is equal to an 8.5 percent $100 on the average tax bill for a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC. Residences assessed at more than $330,000 would pay more, while residences assessed at less than $330,000 would pay less. This would be a recurring annual charge.Priority routes scenario:Priority routes represent about 50% of the sidewalks in residential areas and would include sidewalks along main streets, schools, and businesses. Residents along nonsidewalks. The cost of implementing this service would be $7 million which is equal to a 5.2 percent increase in the average tax bill for a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC. Residences assessed at more than $330,000 would pay more, while residences assessed at less than $330,000 would pay less. Property taxes would increase for regardless of whether their property is on a priority route or not. This would be a recurring annual charge.Snow events scenario: declared. Snow events are declared when at least 8 cm of snow falls within a 24 hour period. Residents would remain responsible for clearing their sidewalks for any snowfall that is less than 8 cm. The cost of implementing this service normal annual tax increase. This is about an extra $80 on the average tax bill for a residence assessed at $330,000 by MPAC. Residences assessed at more than $330,000 would pay more, while residences assessed at less than $330,000 would pay less. This would be a recurring annual charge. 1.2.3.4. Four Scenarios Examined 1 - 64 21 ards including nd . 0124 - 3.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level - City of KitchenerAdvanisKitchener Residentsn=1000Telephone surveyASDE Listed & Unlisted phone number, RDD wireless phone numbersTelephone numbersAll sample contactedMar. 19, 2020 to Apr. 7, 2020Request permission on the phone+/Yes, by age, gender, region and phone typeMary Ann Charters, maryannm@advanis.netAdvanis(519) 340Provided in footnotes in the report is a member of the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC) and confirms that this research fully complies with all CRIC Sta CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements Research sponsor (including all financial sponsors)Research/data collection supplierPopulation representedSample sizeMode of data collectionSource of sampleType of sampleSample designStart and end dates of data collectionStrategies used to gain cooperationMargin of sampling error for total sampleIs data weighted?Contact for more informationSurvey text Methodology Advanisthe 1 - 65 ǞǞǞ͵ğķǝğƓźƭ͵ƓĻƷ 1 - 66 1 - 67 s w u o c t n o o S l i F g P s n i s e g t s d d n c r i p , 2020. u r ae u t j th a i g o o t e r el r t ARCPG Final Report for the City of Kitchener April 27 1 - 68 toof or as Ћ City hours cm 8 the : 24 residents of as experience services, by consisted Research fall within where lived pilot . defined of the costing Groups . Environics service) significant sidewalks areas, a related responsibility understand and after observations project to maintenance residential salt pilot levels all commissioned lay resident two as of residents sidewalk and to the ) clears service 2 ( gather City are of Kitchener City to snow winter cm with of referred to the 8 clear proposed outside City to than . (also the where groups convened : and : regards the to less , areas were areas focus with areas . within 2020 pilot contractors four of reactions Event Snowfalls living . as sessions Service snowfall - March residents a Inconductofthose Full of Snow employsmoreThewelloutside Introduction 1 - 69 a not the Ќ with on small incite to digital raised during are a to members was and groups again using . whereby germane discussion group focus designed led not - online ) pandemic is 4 directional ( among mentioned populationwas collection the asit not of four data as moderator target well of conducted was a topic moderatoras the considered in but of were The the are series . qualitative a participants by of engage members, groups to by format discussion, or used method focus groupdiscussions representation executed a personeach - recruited is and guide in of and group are moderator group pandemic, significant the focus . 19 - traditional moderator beginning by recruited discussion focus from A the the the participants . at The COVID either statistically of . than discussion a the Results of be designed, to between . topic residents to groups rather topic moderator Due : discussions, the EnvironicsKitchenertargetedparticulardiscussionthemselvesintendedNoteplatformbythecentral 1 - 70 a as full Ѝ and with able using with service were defined event, online groups received living and was provided snow focus . heavy which days ) were 4 of ( conducted service, streets voluntary composition four received were full numberon of was a participants which Group from winter) for groups . living areas seriesand 2020 a / streets pilot each (Those isolating on - computerthe . 2019 pandemic, aparticipants of self 19 living hours - executed winter) during using been two Residents outside and 2020 contribution (Those COVID including / had Pilot homes clearing the and pilot 2019 . to residing group theirtime recruited snow Event Due areas Service approximately during . Participants their from . Full pilot for Snow Residents :: :: of sidewalk lasted 14 23 designed, clearing residents virtually platform : Group service Group snow GroupGroup outsideincentive digital 100 EnvironicsKitcheneraconvenefollowsDiscussions$ Methodology 1 - 71 in of who their both Ў those houses service implied servicesinvolved quality Those participants their sidewalks . event clearing both often of evaluating service theto for none) comparison, snow front serviceconsistent and ByEvent Service in the . like Full Event . received hesitations Participants Snow snow . service responsibility evaluate taxes the benefits Snow out) clear having roads/streetsthe related - to that regarding the (or find timely with people cost clear to offered resident and on about winter only result, tomodel Concerns a mention concerned . past resource homeowners model As satisfaction to a personal . the as snow were (or service likely great enthusiastic take over service clear responsibility either less more to they residentseither obligations that unpredictable of were were expressed ability theirfelt whilea experiencedand the reported of and and of less areas was hours, groups it service with aware implications pilot model helpful all 24 infrequent felt of it residents pilot conditions cost were those was the withinthe the it across Most found for removal of . outside felt generally with Executive Summary help about residents snow living clearing all Clearing Residents service completed Groups familiar . . Regardless be Those . snow . concerns Service . residents, -was Snow almost Event - ; on Full fall couldearly Concerns Projects Snow Service the- properties and Towards accumulation everyone uncertainty snowthe Full burden Pilot of a service of not of on the expressed owned as the - after lens preferred Benefits hours Attitudes relief a also City . that 24 of experienced General sidewalkswithinfront Perspectives generallyexperiencedwhothroughoffered Weighing service,doubtuncertaintymodels 1 - 72 . of their both cost Џ radio,future to multiple for identifying majority about use online, a communicate although ; to to sensitive service, and taxes, need preferences models, the mediums the for of mail) extremely communications tax property service was felt to direct variety expressing extra a both and theemphasized areas of When . pay increases preference through pilot to website in the City participants frequency implications Kitchener the reluctant percentage and although of cost Residentson . service, were onCity two, using . the the friends of information thoseemphasis removal details of and about an chosen participants than value with snow . terms (with most in service have intuitive of greatest information neighbours to presented regarding the level more audiences Ultimately, need adequate . a the receive through When Executive Summary wereto of . offered and decisions and different , expensive details model Analysis about amounts opposed be reach effective Participants the . centres to as to City Cost Service dollarwere about the Full service using channels Service Preferences from the service consideredcommunity have at felt accurately to and mail, Removal nice evaluations ultimately a the as Snow participantsCostwereit Communication inneighbourhoodcommunicationcommunicationsclearly 1 - 73 А UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: ON SNOW CLEARING GENERAL ATTITUDES 1 - 74 thethe are Б shift later in during on utilizing take following events thing neighbours meant are first returned who with reported often these or sidewalks who that favour which and clearing the residence) schedules of responsibility . reported sidewalk having driveways the to area days -opportunity, most and their their first work but with of sharing from attending theirtheir sidewalks have at . snow clearing, frustration who reported (regardless mentioned beginning clearing clearing snowfalls) sidewalk to . beforeto mentioned their residents participants day reported participants participants the of . approach MostmorningMany(doingsubsequentSomeworkin . residentsapproach majority timely snowfall Approach to Snow Clearing AaaSomesamelimited UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 75 В Resident, Group 3 - We try and make before we go to work and it gets packed down that big of a challenge. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 1 - I typically get my son out right away to help me; the snow gets cleared first thing in the morning before we all go in to work. 1 - 76 of . . as theirtheir ЊЉ of home clearing clear community, residents front their obligations transit or in ) of . the responsibility sidewalk etc these for publicfront their whoin or their with sidewalkbuildings of walkers, slips the fulfill walkway strollers) aware familiar to in transport and apartment clear less and homeowners were someone in active and (wheelchairs, were on residents lived event driveways groups (walking for safe the assumed who issues alla their relying in : in in contractors children liable create important Renters snow withgroups . vehicles to small participants accessibility residents was hours clear it with order withwithout to personally part, 24 most following felt elderly in complexes are the s ParentsThoseTheThose most k within owners - the ForhomehomestownhouseParticipantsobligationsincludingAnecdotally,sidewal Resident Obligations UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 77 ЊЊ knit - Resident, Group 1 - a closecommunity, generally you do yours and the neighbours close to you. This way, it always gets done. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 2 - To my understanding you have 24 hours to clear the sidewalk in front of your house after a snowfall. 1 - 78 is the law feel - ЊЋ from dealt clear some in this by not be question snow was only did not the send aware to to to sidewalks clear they There were . would City and came that few it the . who property (very call responsibility concerns when . footpaths reported fall their ownedcould - obligations clearmost neighbors that residentssnow to City homeowner they a the for for . the that Regional other afterhowever was mind of it obligation concerned manner of aware versus assistance front and top were clearing), sidewalks City in City were not the assumedor snow Most clear snow anonymous . some werethe to . or so for area, regarding accessing do bill clear residents mentioned of timely to a to a walkways, obligations in Mostroads/streetsSomedowntownconfusion terms responsibility City Obligations CityofIntheirofficersactuallyinclinedwith CITY HALL IMAGE CREDIT: KPMB, KITCHENER 1 - 79 ЊЌ - Resident, Group 2 - If you call the bylaw officer, the time they actually get there conditions have usually changed. enjoy calling on our neighbours. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 2 - I assume the to just clear the downtown core, so businesses can stay open? Any City owned property would be cleared by them. 1 - 80 UNSPLASH ЊЍ IMAGE CREDIT: PILOT PROJECTS PERSPECTIVES ON 1 - 81 in (asthe Full with who ЊЎ their of the thoseresided tested offering descriptions than question, as who . given valueinto service seen observations (including those fell value were pilot . was their lesser It option of for among . other be . services service greatest impacts to asked Service (even the the each pilot season) both of first Full on no of taxation thus, the winter with were questions value and, participants city 2020 thoughts / the areas regarding perceptions manymost the preferred for service 2019 of by pilot their costs, the raised for the to groups asked areas of clarification all in predictable during asked from service were turned considered either and and in was then Event additional service and . full participants Participants residing services Snow . conversation seeking of area) most option pilot the experience, comprehensive received pilot both Evaluation of Services Overview Participantspilotdescribed)ofOverall,hadmostAnalysistheServiceWhenresidents UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 82 the by) was very ЊЏ heart same a camethere or the properties during months day) experienced a to in time back generally plows place colder theonce every were years the actually day damage than taken : occur and the pulling during in more had as previous by resident would years causing early included pilot to (such one come how the ; community plows removal by previous the would injuries in snow aware snow service satisfaction (compared from that for surprised related were walking sidewalks machines about during often service and the their area knowing in clearing Reasons - were that . communities clear boxes) pilot activity concerns snow to of service (pleased through appreciated difference (residents of risk Service physical - . a electrical residents of Full expressed level service for lawn service reduce of walking the the of(residents to noticed duty their of of of with to pavement, had residents ReliefEfficiencyFrequencyEaseneighbourhoods)Potentialattack)EncouragementReliabilityaccumulation) few Residentswinter,satisfiedA(lawns,damage Evaluation of Services: Full Service Pilot UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 83 ЊА Resident, Group 1 - I was very happy this winter. My husband has health issues and he would have been the one out there. We found it very helpful. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 1 - Not only did they would come by more than once to ensure it was always cleared! Sometimes three times a day! 1 - 84 to thethe ЊБ were snow many others . operated the - contractor They leaving while .residents satisfied ; City that the inspired service few to plow, event a event arrived . from the a This . led by topic snow plows elaborated lawn about a particularthis resulting compared the of a service their on cleared if out before service Participants enthusiastic before removal . find neighbours of damaged to this notifications determination pass and for sidewalks badly City the quality where areawould pedestriansfor their friends over the up by knew service pilot plows contractor from fewthe . a clearing down signed Event - that confusion withregarding others stories when/if had Snow for definition, packed reported few the reported similar cm get in 8 engaging expressedVery unsafe regarding . skepticism . of the . often living residents of resident act contribute ManyuncertainwouldsidewalksResidentsknewdefinitionOnetoserviceTheexpressmachines Residents Evaluation of Services: Snow Event Pilot UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 85 ЊВ more Click here to listen to Resident, Group 2 - We definitely knew it was a snow event and chose to shovel our sidewalk anyways because we knew how long it would take the City to get there. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 2 - If we have to wait going to be a snow event.. People have already walked all over the snow and packed it down. It makes it harder for us. 1 - 86 all ЋЉ was of when areas, voiced property know pilotto service preferences descriptions I many clearing to the the do in felt . (how however, increases Service clearing, living some Full delivery pilot - while clearing, groups ; Service significant to service delivering provideFull . service toService misunderstanding implied City costthe Similar uneven . Full Event the asked and the of about Snow clearing were for regarding widespread expensive of service the of to areas Event feasibility . enthusiastic questions soundedthe preference Snow concerns service a hours with reactions timeliness were and 24 service doubted outside mixed the within expressed also groups tempered expressed Service living that Full shared many most Some quickly . sidewalks a both is ResidentsofparticipantswereWhileconcernstaxescityGroupshelpful,it Evaluation of Services: Non UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 87 ЋЊ Resident, Group 2 - If everyone took an approach of waiting for the get done; and leaving it for longer can be problematic depending on how bad the snowfall is. UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: Resident, Group 4 - all the streets within 24 hours The likelihood of getting to all the sidewalks seems next to impossible. 1 - 88 UNSPLASH ЋЋ IMAGE CREDIT: AND CONCERNS WEIGHING BENEFITS 1 - 89 - the Full ЋЌ relief as removal discretion service, snow service . any of of sidewalks City use Event the their to quality timing . , it Snow clear cover do need to theto to consistent always implications hurry unable a will cited in cost . City compared on those residents plows groups for the offering that by all that help focused snow Service and acrossimplies - damage service Full clearing the the acknowledged to removal of residents,property Residents . also onabout snow comes it benefits potential Service burden Benefits and Concerns (Full Service)Fullof mainResidentsServicewhenConcernsand UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 90 ЋЍ The following is a synthesized list of results Concerns Damage from plow Timeliness of service Service pilot. - Additional costs/tax implications Waste of resources if it is a small snowfall What is appropriate accumulation of snow? Note: Benefits and concerns did not vary significantly between groups who had experienced pilot service and those who had not. Money better spent on targeting service to those who need it traffic areas - clear) Reliable Benefits Walkability improved Avoids health problems Consistent quality of service Relieves burden from residents Regular upkeep of high (including seniors, those with mobility issues) Takes discretion away from residents (when to Fills gaps for rental properties not fulfilling duties Benefits and Concerns (Full Service)During the focus groups, the moderator asked participants to list the benefits of and concerns regarding the Fullfrom all four focus groups. (Note: the list includes multiple mentions and is presented in order of frequency). 1 - 91 not Benefit: Full Service Resident, Group 1 It will probably make people happierstress free and makes it easier for people: whether its someone pushing a stroller, someone older, someone walking a dog.Concern: Full Service Resident, Group 4 Where I grew up, often they are on day three would we be so reassured the sidewalks are cleared faster? GETTY IMAGES IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 92 to to . as as thethe lead those ЋЏ of in be deliver react includedsnow, to ultimately and concern not to would of a quality contribute prevalent may the service also seniors service contractor morning properties, would was a more about Event the of Event accumulations own in (including were contractors service Snow service Snow their of large own concerns the home that of thethe of clear damage be engagement their felt that . felt on express not . Timeliness removal few to . benefits should city A property may the shovel .staff particular, sidewalks the they main residents concerned in and with if ; (who City residents the cannot as were and across delivered Some felt service many uncleared . who property assisting work be shiftwork when this to and clearing to residents their those issues) with might Residents as for about . prompted snow related unsafe that those to helping Event accumulation), mobility as service comparison, confusion Benefits and Concerns (Snow Event)Snowhelping snowwellwithconsistentBytoleadingConcernsdiscussionsthisserviceaccountable UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 93 ЋА residents do a better job The following is a synthesized list of results . Concerns Damage from plow Inconsistent service Timeliness concerns Reduced quality of service Note: Benefits and concerns did not vary significantly between Contractors not as accountable as the City or homeowners groups who had experienced pilot service and those who had not. Timeliness of service: residents will still have to shovel sidewalks Confusing (What is 8cm? How to know when there is a snow event?) Benefits with City Better than nothing Avoids heart attacks Walkability improved Consistent quality of clearing Relieves burden from residents Helps shift workers (more timely clearing) Helps those who cannot shovel on their own (including seniors/those with mobility issues) Helps people keep up with large accumulation Faster service form contractor than City service More equipment/resources with contractor than Benefits and Concerns (Snow Event)During the focus groups, the moderator asked participants to list the benefits of and concerns regarding the Snow Event pilotfrom all four focus groups. (Note: the list includes multiple mentions and is presented in order of frequency). 1 - 94 get in and Benefit: Snow Event Resident, Group 3 I live in an area densely populated seniors so a challenge to get it all cleaned up after a Concern: Snow Event Resident, Group 4 Contractors are there to do a job get out. I would take better care of my property than they will GETTY IMAGES IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 95 UNSPLASH ЋВ IMAGE CREDIT: ANALYSIS SERVICE COST SNOW REMOVAL 1 - 96 ЌЉ were each service with information costs the that reassess with to note associated to began asked Snow Event concerns were important always and is assessed by MPAC at $330,000) It 7% increase on municipal property taxes . although $80 average increase (based on an average home benefits participants costs pilot groups, group details, the the related increases. focus - of regarding across tested, analysis ways information projects Full Service : different qualitative pilot more in a assessed by MPAC at $330,000) below two with 8.5% increase on municipal property taxes the $100 average increase (based on an average home Reactions to Proposed Service Costs addition to other utility and service Followingofvaluediscussedoutlined UNSPLASHUNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 97 on ЌЊ they many higher almost ; following that based who was and range), the a amounts past anticipating models by model the group,impression - dollar participants in to ; in - the . therefore increases service implied Service left done value, group service value both range, Full had and the of expressed variance from for . the percentage greatest end they . the greatest rejected as the : than varied the service appetite (and increases participants of offer the increases, to participants at to typically than type offering to sidewalks received ranges be reducing cost discussions clear seen implications of winter and either model better would intuitive was less amount for the maintain bills cost the (expensive) they were more tax as throughout were dollar model costs could during about expression weretheir the to noted assumed more they the significant increases Service - perceived of felt increases service using were amounts added incur Full more to the information be amount Many the DollarWhenparticipantscosts . the DollarPercentagewouldRegardlessunanimouslyWhilereceivecostinclined Reactions to Proposed Service Costs Whileconsistencies UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 98 on felt get ЌЋ hire these not we they will if opinion and for per How an even this which 50 $ a for that? fees pay of forming my responsible there . paying Youto Is cost be me participants to to? before the we twice? go added dinged for from Will it sense get this will comes tois residents : make budget? as what questions responsible event going of well complex, above are snow (verbatim) as It change, . every go who and variety City can like they a follow it the townhouse to property, included look people and winter that a by of my or hard mild to lot solved? is both snowya prompted about a increase nervous be this Questions condo done . the have extra me a What is on costs . in we issues ififdoes of math considered live makes think about I damage anything be for Ifsorts to 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8. Questions: Costs of Service Discussionsneededthe UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 99 ЌЌ Resident, Group 1 - weighing the costs vs. benefits\] is disingenuous. A presentation of $100 assessment of costs nor a fair question to ask people because representative of the actual costs to UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 100 ЌЍ Resident, Group 3 - different ways of solving this problem that is lower in cost and will end up with the same result to help those who need it most UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 101 ЌЎ service. If the city was going to come every definitely not for the service we got this winter. Snow Event Resident, Group 2 If it was for the same service we received this Snow Event Resident, Group 3 more Click here to listen to Views on Costs of Services There are many people who live on fixed incomes and slight increases in costs will people. Full Service Resident, Group 3 Having it in effect and seeing how it actually Both Services Resident, Group 4 1 - 102 UNSPLASH ЌЏ IMAGE CREDIT: PREFERENCES COMMUNICATION 1 - 103 - a toof of the - that ЌА (City some offuture wordservices about in online while the ; reported necessary number of a communications mail, through be responsibilitiesbroadly . areas feltimportant the channels and and details in , of would includes thesemedia) the it of programs slide centres service, variety social considered a of communicating the notifications outside clearing, of they online, costs following about through communicating community snow getting the mail, what to ; at of Residents on the service, . of (inof mail, idea Kitchener responsibility information services of . the the approach decision the times in frequency City . channel. liked on City participants clearing the receiving and services a one radio, pronged friends service, - take people snow of thanmediums about detail group to and about multi recalled in clearing a outlets), more Many social . who focus asked snow regarding and informed information media by adequate neighbours qualifications areas through then about be web residents and this to social pilot decision recommended receive family, were offered in online and including versus were from effective City they Communication Preferences Overview ParticipantswebsitemouthResidentswereifcommunicateParticipantsoffered,thepreferredResidentshypotheticalexamplescommunications UNSPLASH UNSPLASH IMAGE CREDIT: IMAGE CREDIT: 1 - 104 ЌБ Service - Example Resident from Group 4 -communication; Resident from Group 4 - , 2cm of snow, when/ how Eg Service Snow Removal means that - Changes to Snow removal in the City of Kitchener are coming your way! The City of Kitchener is launch FullSnow Removal as of November 1, 2021. Fullall sidewalks in the City of Kitchener will be cleared by City of Kitchener Employees 24 hours after a 2cm accumulation. Your responsibilities Clear communication about the logistics. will it be cleared. What happens if the road plow blocks an intersection after the sidewalk plow has cleared the sidewalk. How will grass repair be managed? Resident from Group 3 - Example -communication; Resident from Group 2 Great news...! The City of Kitchener will now be clearing the sidewalks in all of our neighbourhoods starting in the winter of 2020. No need to worry about snowfall amounts, or the safety of pedestrians. Time frame expectations (when it will be done) expectations of residents (keep sidewalks clear) (Let people know is it going to be done in 24 hours or how long so people know if they have to do it) Resident from Group 4 - Resident from Group 1 - for helping fund this program. worry about after a snowfall. what work they no longer have to do. onboard is to start off by telling them them that they have one less thing to Then be specific with what, when, how, and how much it will cost them. Assure The most important thing to get people I know there are folks who will be unhappy about a raise in taxes to pay for their desire to be seen as a good neighbourAnd write how other neighbours are very glad for it. And provide testimonials of residents who are benefiting from the service such as folks who have mobility issues and seniors. 1 - 105 UNSPLASH ЌВ IMAGE CREDIT: CONCLUSIONS 1 - 106 . . on be the this The City to . ЍЉ activity through service burdenwith the a impact the predictable service as receiving . around of andfrequency of actual frame familiarity and the communicated getting timing and result many to be on a articulated of preferences and detail as and of barrier should recall rarely comprehensive a City description, dependingterms and damage ; snowfall) habitual the in a resident of dependability communications by cost as service both hrs to area represents not property 24 it resident but pilot decisions as responsibility, of existing contractor . about within sensitive adequate the from service interest inclusive were General annoyance, highly sidewalksUsing be - . an is homeowner pavement ofmost concerned to clearing detracted a as areas the bare as also mail) a quickly snow have pilot to is clearing however, in any were direct may enjoyed (clear (when characterized and dissipate about shared pilot service, are model residents can acknowledged residents this to Event website) through in conditions obligations Most Conclusions Service widely(City service . Snow is their communications Full this Interest the neighbourhoods weather online in . with in the neighbours residents future with communications Kitchener that interest familiar (including of regarding compliers - explored, connects project Kitchener bills, City . strongly non associated responsibilities to tax channels pilot which the feel generally of questions projects in one are clearing service optionprogram 2020 / pilot as many property variety the homeowner SnowResidentsa . 2019of two too clearing of attractive the SnowHomeownersfavourablyOfreliefindividualraisesanserviceWinterdetails 1 - 107 . . or as vs can reject ЍЊ impact dollars study Kitchener residents service percentage annually (in of a for . 100 taxation by $ . neighbours ( City removal sensitivity Ranges with on service impact . service amount price snow tax transparent the creates service appetite see it .accompanied dollar municipal for total and of be the advanced many actual service ; type of resident clearing may an an appetite relatable connection on the this as to snow the interest amount resident . Ultimately, intuitive articulation consider feedback This consistent, . as a . resident down they appreciate objections enhanced actual not on of is reliable who costsit a amounts when raise articulate minimum) as Costs transparent to and a impact - impact obtain determine . and topic keeping (at to to serve residents the this high snowfall and for secondary will clear a is on is than a amount significant a after cost routine express to to palatable dollar impacts has percentages is require residents a accurate recommended information current clearing in is just that will with of and this groups costing their not services sensitivity point impact Conclusions so and focus helpful about research services tax sensitivity althoughprice obligation in and a of removal maintaining more price amounts of taxes, used have, removal snow on quantitative to regarding homeowner for dollar favour articulation any of snow property in the considered communications . an need on for research that are articulations direction terms from than service accept of taxpayers in prefer of costs increase) to clear further who % rather 5 . imperative level variety 8 cost resulting is taxes, ThoseanyResidentsincrease/impactanItpreferablypercentages)provide have the to to actual The nice CommunicatingConfusionDueproperty 1 - 108 REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: August31, 2020 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:July 24, 2020 REPORT NO.: FIN-20-054 SUBJECT: Development Charge(DC) & Community Benefit Charge (CBC) Update ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That financial policy FIN-PLA-XXXX “Development Charge Interest” be approved, including an annual interest rate of Prime + 2% for: Development Charge Rate Freezes Development Charge Deferrals related to institutional and rental housing development; and That no interest be charged for Development Charge Deferrals related to non-profit housing development. BACKGROUND: As part of the More Homes More Choices Act(Bill 108),the Plan to Build Ontario Together Act (Bill 138),and the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act(Bill 197),the Provincial government enactedchanges to existing development legislation including the Development Charges Act, and introduced new development legislation by creating a Community Benefits Charge. Amongst other changes, the new legislation included two new provisions allowingdevelopers tomodify their typicaldevelopment charges. The new provisions allow qualifying developments to: Freeze development chargeratesthrough the development process(section 26.2) Defer development chargepaymentsover multiple years (section 26.1) The new legislation also allows municipalities to charge interest when either of these provisions is employed. The purpose of this reportis to briefly outline the changes to the Development Charges Act and introduce the proposed policy related to development charge interest. REPORT: 1)Overview of Development Charges Act Changes The end result of the multiple pieces of development legislation appears to be generally positivefor municipalities.Changes proposed in earlier Bills would have been very costly to municipalities and stifled growth, but the results of Bill 197 should allow municipalities to continue growing and providing services to new residents. Some highlights of Bill 197 are provided below. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2 - 1 Two-Year Transition Any of the changes noted in the report below have a two-year transition windowfrom the point of proclamation (Bill 197 has not yet been proclaimed). This is longer than the original one-year window included in aprevious Bill, which is good news for municipalities since the number of consultants that do this sort of work is very limited (Hemson Consulting Ltd. and Watson & Associates account for the vast majority of DC studies completed by consultants). Removal of the 10% Discount for “Soft” Services Under previous legislation, “soft” services like recreation and parks had a mandatory 10% reduction, meaning at least 10% of a new recreation facility had to be funded by the municipality instead of development charges. Bill 197 removes this mandatory reduction and says that if a service is DC eligible, the growth-related costs can be 100% funded by DCs. That means that a new $30M recreation facility could be fully funded by DCs, instead of $3M (10% of the total cost) needing to be funded by the municipality (typically through property taxes). List of DC Eligible Services The list of DC eligible services has changed multiple times through the different Provincial Bills. The DC eligible services approvedin Bill 197 includes: Services EmployedServices Not Employed by Kitchenerby Kitchener WaterElectrical Power SanitaryToronto-York Subway StormwaterTransit Roads & RelatedWaste Diversion Fire ProtectionPolicing LibrariesAmbulance Parks & RecreationLong-Term Care Other Services (e.g. Studies)Public Health Child Care & Early Years Housing Provincial Offences Act Emergency Preparedness Airports It should be noted that Parking and Cemeteriesare currently included in Kitchener’s current DC bylaw, butare no longer eligible services under Bill 197. The City can still collect for these services under its current bylaw, but will have to deal with them differently in the future. Community Benefits Charge(CBC) If the City would still like to collect funds for growth related costs related toParking and Cemeteries, it could be done through a CBC. The CBC legislation has changed significantly through the various Bills, but highlights of CBCs as of Bill 197 CBCs are provided below: 2 - 2 CBCs are a land value based charge and used to fund growth related capital costs o Previously proposed amount was 10% of land value for lower-tier municipalities CBCs are only charged to apartment buildings o Defined as buildings with at least 10units and at least five storeys CBCs can be used to pay for DC-eligible services,parkland acquisition, as well as other recreation purposes, provided thecapital costs funded fromCBCs are not also funded from DCs or Parkland Dedication o No “double dipping” Parkland Dedication Bill 197 reintroduces a provision to calculate an alternative parkland dedication fees based on the density of a development which was removed in an earlier Bill. This provision is currently used by the City, so having it reintroduced is seen positively by the City. 2)Proposed PolicyRelated to Development Charge Interest Under the new legislation,qualifying developments can freeze DC rates and/or defer DC payments (both of theseare described more thoroughly later in this report).These two provisions create more certainty for the developer about the amount of DCs thatwill be paidand also spread out the timing of DC payments over multiple years. These two provisions are beneficial to developerswho gain increased cost certainty and improved cash flows to aid in their development, but detrimental to municipalities who use DCs to fund growth related municipal capital projects.To help offset the negative impacts on municipal DCcash flows caused by the items noted above, municipalities are permitted to charge interest on frozen or deferred DC payments. A Regional Approach: Prime + 2% To ensure better consistency of approach and information amongst regional municipalities, and thereby abetter customer experience for developers operating across the region, aregional working group wasstruck which includes representation from all eight regional municipalities. One of the primary topics discussed by the working group was interest rates for delayed DC payments. The working group agreed that for DC freezes and deferrals, all municipalities wouldpropose the prime interest rate+ 2%. Theprime interest rate is a publicly available figureon the Bank of Canada’s website and is determined by an independent third party, somewhat similar to CPI inflation.And much like CPI inflation, the prime interest rate will fluctuate over time, based on economic conditions. When times are good, the cost of borrowing will be higher than when the economy is struggling. A premium of 2% on top of the prime interest rate is proposed to cover an element of risk in the development process and tooffset interest rate fluctuations over the course of a freeze/deferral. One of the goals of new legislation is to provide cost certainty to the developer. In order to help achieve this, the interest rate will be fixed at the appropriate time in the development process. 2 - 3 The new legislation allows a developer to opt out of freezing/deferring DCs, so they have full flexibility to choose the option that makes the most sense for their particular development. DC Rate Freeze(DC Act Section 26.2) Under the City’s current DC bylaw, the amount of DCs payable was calculated at the same time DCs were paid, which was most commonly at the time of building permit issuance. So if a developerwere getting a building permit in June 2022,theywould be charged the DC rate in effect at June 2022. Under the new legislation, the amount of DCspayable will be calculated based on the rates in effect at the time of various Planning applications (e.g. site plan, zoning). The DC payment will not actually be paid until later in the development process (typically at the time ofbuilding permit issuance, but it could be a later date as outlined in the next section of this report).Any “frozen” DC rate wouldalso be charged an interest rate of Prime +2% per year if the attached policy is approved by Council. So if a developerwere getting a building permit in June 2022 but submitted a complete Planning application in June 2020, theywould be charged the DC rate in effect at June 2020 plus interest. DC Payment Deferral(DC Act Section 26.1) As noted in the previous section of the report, DCs have typically been payable at time of building permit issuance. Under the new legislation this will remain the case for mosttypes of development, although it also allows certain types of development to defer their DC payments over multiple years.A qualifying development would be allowed to instead make DC instalment payments starting at occupancy with future annual instalment payments coming on the anniversary date of the first payment. Rental housing (that is not non-profit)and insitutional development areable to defer their payments over 5 annual instalments beyond their first payment. The proposed policy includes an interest charge of Prime + 2% for these deferred payments. An example calculation is shown below for illustrative purposes. Example of DC Deferred Payment Schedule 2 - 4 Non-profit housing development (aka affordable housing) is able to defer their payments over 20 annual instalments beyond their first payment. In an effort to support the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy, staff are proposing that no interest be charged for these deferred payments. This policy decision will reduce the financial hurdles for affordable housing developers as they will be able to spread one oftheir upfront costs (development charges) outover 20 years, interest free.This will result in less revenue being paid into the City’s DC reserve over time, but staff believe the relativley minor cost to the City is worth it to incent affordable housingdevelopment. 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: Overall, the legislative changes from Bill 197 should have a positive effect on City finances, primarily due to the removal of the mandatory 10% reduction to “soft service” areas like parks and recreation facilities. Somewhat offsetting this, deferred DC payments will mean reduced DC cash flows to the Citywhich could potentially delay the timing of some of the City’s growth related capital projects that require funding to proceed. 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: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services 2 - 5 POLICY Policy No: FIN-PLA-XXX Approval Date: August 31, 2020 Policy Title: DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INTERESTPOLICY Reviewed Date: August2020 Policy Type: COUNCIL Next Review Date: August2025 Category: Finance Sub-Category: Financial Planning Amended: Click here to enter a date. Author: Ryan Hagey,Director of Financial Planning Replaces:Click here to enter text. Repealed: Click here to enter a date. Dept/Div:Financial Services Department /Financial Planning Replacedby: Click here to enter text. Related Policies, Procedures and/or Guidelines: Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, Sections 26 & 27 1.POLICY PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this policy is to establish the interest rate to be charged for delaying development charges, whether it relates to the rate to be charged or the timing of payment. As well, this policy establishes the process whereby a developer could elect toopt out of incurring interest charges. 2.DEFINITIONS: Agreements –a legally binding arrangement between a developer and the municipality as toDC payments terms that differ from what is permitted in the DCA, as allowed under Section 27 of the DCA. Complete Applications –Pursuant to Section 26.2 of the DCA, the City considers an application of a Site Plan or Zoning Amendment to be made as of the date that the submitted application is deemed to be complete according to the City’s Planning staff. DC/DCA –Development Charges/Development Charges Act 1of 5 2 - 6 Policy No: FIN-PLA-XXX Policy Title: DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INTEREST Development Charge Deferral –the ability of qualifying developmentsto spread their DCs over multiple annual instalment payments as defined in Section 26.1 of the DCA Development Charge Freeze –the locking inof DC rates as defined in Section 26.2 of the DCA Institutional Development – is defined by O. Reg. 454/19, s. 3 (1)and means development of a building or structure intended for use, (a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007; (b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the RetirementHomes Act, 2010; (c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution: (i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operating funding from the Government of Ontario, (ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i), or (iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017; (d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or (e) as a hospice to provide end of life care. Non-Profit Housing Development – is defined by O. Reg. 454/19, s. 3 (1) and means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by, (a) a corporation without share capital to which the Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; (b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; or (c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co- operative Corporations Act. Prime – means the Primeinterest rate as indicated on the Bank of Canada website Rental Housing Development – is defined by O. Reg. 454/19, s. 3 (1) and means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises 2 of 5 2 - 7 Policy No: FIN-PLA-XXX Policy Title: DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INTEREST Qualifying Developments – are defined in Section 26.1 (2) of the DCA and include: Rental housing development that is not non-profit housing Institutional development Non-profit housing development 3.SCOPE: POLICY APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING: All Employees ManagementPermanent Full-Time Employees Permanent Full-Time Non UnionPermanent Full-Time C.U.P.E. 791 TemporaryPart-Time Non-Union StudentPermanent Full-Time Union Continuous Part-Time EmployeesPart-Time Employees Continuous Part-Time Non-UnionContinuous Part-Time Union CouncilLocal Boards & Advisory Committees Specified Positions Only: 4.POLICY CONTENT: The City’s DC interest policy is provided belowand only provides the specifics of the City’s policy without reiterating most aspects of the DCA itself.The City’s policy is meant to be interpreted in accordance and in conjunction with the DCA.To help clarify, example calculations are provided. 1.Development Charge Freeze(Section 26.2 of the DCA) Under this section of the DCA, the amount of DCs payable will be calculated based on the rates in effect at the time of various Planning applications (e.g. site plan, zoning). The DC payment will not actually be paid until later in the development process (typically at the time of building permit issuance). The City’s policy regarding rates for DC Freeze includes: a)An annual interest rate of Prime + 2% will be charged for any DC rate frozen during the development process. b)The Prime interest rate to be used will be the rate in effect when complete applications are submitted. As noted in Subsection 26.2(1) of the DCA, the rate can be frozen for either: i.Site Plan – Subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act, or ii.Zoning - Section 34 of the Planning Act. 3 of 5 2 - 8 Policy No: FIN-PLA-XXX Policy Title: DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INTEREST For illustrative purposes, an example of a frozen DC rate calculation is shown in the table below. At the time a complete applicationwas received, the DC per unit cost was$10,000 and the Primeinterest rate was5.25%. The development takes 18 months (or 1.5 years) to proceed to building permit, so an interest rate of 7.875% (5.25% x 1.5 years) results in a DC of $10,787.50 per unit. DC Freeze Rate Example DC Rate$10,000per unit Prime Interest Rate5.25%per year Years Frozen1.5years Effective Interest Rate7.875% Applicable DC Rate$ 10,787.50per unit 2.Development Charge Deferral(Section 26.1 of the DCA) Under this section of the DCA, instead of making full DC payment at the time of building permit issuance, a qualifying development would be allowed to instead make DC instalment payments starting at occupancy with future annual instalment payments coming on the anniversary date of the first payment. The City’s policy regarding rates for DC Freeze includes: a)An annual interest rate of Prime + 2% will be charged for any DC charges deferred in relation to: i.Rental housing development(that is not non-profit) ii.Institutional development b)The Prime interest rate to be used will be the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuanceas noted in Subsection 26.1(7) of the DCA. c) No annual interest rate will be charged for any DC charges deferred in relation to non-profit housing development For illustrative purposes, an example of a deferred payment schedule is shown in the table below. DCs of $120,000 are calculated at the time of Building Permit (BP)issuance, when the Prime interest rate is 2.45% (meaning the applied interest rate is 4.45%).Instalment payments begin at occupancy, which is 6 months after BPs are issued. Interest is charged for the 6 months between BP issuance and occupancy. Interest continues to be charged on the outstanding balance for future instalment payments, which occur on the anniversary of occupancy. 4 of 5 2 - 9 Policy No: FIN-PLA-XXX Policy Title: DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INTEREST DC Deferral Payment Example Interest Rate4.45% Outstanding Principal Interest Total Date Balance Payment Payment Payment Building Permit (BP) $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - Occupancy = BP + 6 months$ 120,000$ 20,000$ 2,670$ 22,670 Occupancy + 1 year$ 100,000$ 20,000$ 4,450$ 24,450 Occupancy + 2 years$ 80,000$ 20,000$ 3,560$ 23,560 Occupancy + 3 years$ 60,000$ 20,000$ 2,670$ 22,670 Occupancy + 4 years$ 40,000$ 20,000$ 1,780$ 21,780 Occupancy + 5 years$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 890$ 20,890 TOTAL$ 120,000$ 16,020$ 136,020 3.Agreements(Section 27 of the DCA) Under this section of the DCA, a municipality may enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or any part of a development charge to be paid before or after it would otherwise be payable. The City’s policy regarding Agreements includes: a)If a developer and the municipality preferto negotiate different DC payment terms, they are permitted to do so by agreement b)The Treasurer has delegated authority to enter into such agreements on behalf of the municipality 4.Other Matters Upon approval by Council, this policy shall take effect retroactive to January 1, 2020. 5.HISTORY OF POLICY CHANGES Administrative Updates Formal Amendments 5 of 5 2 - 10 IF1 - 1 Significant Projected Variances (over $200,000) IF1 - 2 o o o o Building287(825) 1,112 IF1 - 3 Golf58233(175) Parking (1,094)31 (1,125) Water886(365)1,251 Sanitary Sewer 168(1,175)1,343 IF1 - 4 Storm Sewer 869718151 Gas Division (Total) 864725139 Gas Delivery 995 1,224 (229) Gas Supply (130)(499)369 IF1 - 5 IF1 - 6 IF1 - 7 IF1 - 8 IF1 - 9 IF1 - 10 IF1 - 11 IF1 - 12 IF1 - 13 IF1 - 14 IF1 - 15 Average Short-Term Investment Balance* Investment Report as of June 30, 2020 January to June 2020 Comparison of Short Term Yields IF1 - 16 Operating Fund Accumulated Interest Investment Report as of June 30, 2020 Long Term Investments Cash & Short Term Investments Investment Balances IF1 - 17