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