Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2017-02-27 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2017 CITY OF KITCHENER A special meeting of City Council was held at 2:35 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor B. Vrbanovic with all members present. Councillors J. Gazzola and S. Marsh were in attendance for part of the meeting. Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code. 1. FCS -17-028 — PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING Council considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS -17-028 (R. Hagey), dated February 1, 2017, regarding Participatory Budgeting (PB) and the ability to enable members of the community to directly decide how to spend a portion of the City's budget, thus allowing residents to make budget decisions that affect their lives. In addition, Council was in receipt this date of a PB ranking sheet to assist with facilitating feedback on Question 1 as outlined in the report. Mr. R. Hagey, Director, Financial Planning, provided a brief summary, stated as part of the 2015 Business Plan prioritization process, PB ranked 16th out of a potential 103 strategic action items and it has been reflected in both the 2016 and 2017 Council -approved Business Plans. He indicated the City has partnered with the University of Waterloo to assist with the development and implementation of PB in Kitchener. Mr. Norman Kearny, University of Waterloo, presented the report highlighting the history and development of PB as well as its key design features. He indicated the process for a typical PB program consists of: division into neighbourhoods or thematic areas; selection of social justice requirements; information and process engagement; deliberation and negotiation; site visits; voting; implementation and monitoring; and, reporting and process improvements. Councillor J. Gazzola entered the meeting at this time. Questions were raised regarding the similarities between PB and the Neighbourhood Strategy (the Strategy). Mr. M. May, Deputy CAO - Community Services Department, advised there are synergies between the Strategy and PB; however, staff does not believe there is any overlap between the two initiatives. Several members expressed concern with undertaking this initiative, noting there may not have been enough clarity on PB in 2015 when the strategic actions were ranked regarding what PB actually entails. In addition, several members noted they do not wish PB to detract from the recently approved Strategy. In response to questions, Mr. D. Chapman, Deputy CAO - Finance and Corporate Services Department, advised that staff have already received direction to pursue PB, noting the objective of the presentation this date is to determine how to implement the initiative. In response to questions, Mr. Hagey advised a PB pilot could be started as early as summer 2017 using existing capital balances. Council was asked to provide feedback on the following questions: 1. In your opinion, what are the most important outcomes of the PB pilot? a. increased community engagement and public participation b. education of the public about government processes c. improved accountability and trust d. increased effectiveness of budget allocations e. promotion of cooperation and social justice f. other Members were requested to complete and submit the circulated ranking sheet to identify their most important outcome by identifying it with a number 1 and the least important outcome using a number 5. It was noted if anyone was of the opinion that two items were of equal ranking, the item could be identified in such a manner. Additionally, the form contained blank rows that could be used to insert other possible outcomes members would like to achieve through the PB pilots. SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2017 -26- CITY OF KITCHENER 2. What population segment should be targeted in the PB pilot? • suggestions were made to target 4 separate wards; • consideration could be given to establishing a PB pilot in an area of the City that has low voter turnout; • several members expressed support for targeting youth and neighbourhoods; • a further suggestion was made to consider seniors as a target group for a pilot program; and, • it was also suggested not to limit the pilots to a specific target group; rather to offer a pilot in each ward and invite all residents within the ward to participate. 3. How many pilots will be undertaken? • suggestions were made to undertake 4 pilots as proposed by staff; • another suggestion was made to undertake 2 pilots if it could make the projects/funding available more meaningful; and, • consideration should be given to completing one pilot in each ward. 4. What do reasonable timelines for delivery look like? • several members of Council indicated a 6 to 12 -month timeline would be satisfactory; • concerns were raised regarding the possible similarities between PB and the Strategy and it was suggested the timeline should be mindful of the projects being undertaken with the Strategy to ensure PB does not take anything away from that initiative; and, • one member noted this initiative was not time -sensitive and could be postponed if there were too many strategic actions currently underway. 2. CSD -17-018 — DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING — PHASE 2 Council considered Community and Infrastructure Services Department report CSD -17-028 (B. Sloan), dated February 14, 2017, regarding potential development incentives for affordable housing and implementation strategies which could be used at a local level. Mr. B. Sloan, Manager, Long Range and Policy Planning, provided opening remarks, noting although the Region of Waterloo is the service provider for housing, it should be recognized housing is a basic human need and there are a number of initiatives the City can implement to assist with providing more affordable housing. He further advised the Report highlights specific development incentives and implementation strategies that could be put in place, or are already in progress, to complement existing services and programs offered for affordable housing by the Region, noting the scope of this report is focused on `rental' housing and not affordable home ownership. Ms. Lauren Nelson, Planning Analyst, presented the Report, advising the current provincial definition of affordable rental housing is broad and depends on the average income or average market rent in the area. She indicated when calculating based on average income, rental units in the City under $1,250. per month would be considered affordable under the provincial definition. She stated staff is recommending rental rates be set lower than the provincial definition, indicating the majority of the dwelling units should be at least 15% below market rate. Ms. Nelson commented the Report reviews five separate development incentives, suggesting reduced parking requirements and density bonusing could both be implemented through existing projects. She stated property tax increment grants, planning application/building permit fees and timing of Development Charge payments would all need to be implemented through new policies/programs. She provided a brief overview of the various incentives, the impacts/benefits to the various incentives, and possible implementation strategies for each one. In response to questions, Ms. Nelson advised the cities of Kitchener and Cambridge currently have more affordable rental options than the City of Waterloo. Concerns were raised that offering a number of development incentives ahead of neighbouring municipalities may create a sociographic divide between the cities. Questions were raised regarding implementation of the proposed incentives. Mr. Sloan advised a number of the incentives could be implemented in as early as three months, noting staff would have to create and receive approval on a new policy to facilitate some of the proposed incentives. He indicated implementing the property tax increment grants would require a Community Improvement SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2017 -27- CITY OF KITCHENER Plan that is a statutory process, adding implementation would require more time as authorization by the Region would be required before proceeding with such a program. Council was asked to provide feedback on the following questions related to specific development incentives: Propertv `Tax Increment Grant' Program: 1a.If the Region of Waterloo authorizes their staff to proceed with a tax incremental grant program, should the City also participate at that time? • it was suggested the City should proceed with an incremental program; and, • caution should be exercised when implementing affordable housing incentives to ensure affordable housing options continue to be balanced across the Region. 1b. If so, what geography or locations should be consulted on during any Community Improvement Plan process (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)? • several members expressed a preference for affordable housing options being available City- wide so that possible lower income housing solutions are not be concentrated in one general area; and, • one member suggested consideration should be given to walkability and public transit opportunities as potential locations for a Community Improvement Plan. Planning Application Fees and Building Permit Fees: 2a.Should staff prepare a policy for Council's consideration to exempt planning application fees and building permit fees for Not -For -Profit and charitable organizations building affordable rental housing and establish a budget of $25,000. for this initiative through the 2018 budget? • several members expressed support for the exemption of planning application and building permit fees; • suggestions were given to expand the exemptions for other developers that do not meet the criteria of a charitable organization/not-for-profit but who are interested in providing affordable housing options; and, • possible consideration be given to partnering with the Region of Waterloo in a joint effort with regards permit fees. 2b. If so, where in the city should it apply (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)? • several members indicated the exemption of planning application and building permit fees should be available City-wide and should not be concentrated in any specific location. Timing of Development Charge Payment: 3a. Should staff prepare a policy for Council's consideration to make Development Charges for Not - For -Profit and charitable organizations building affordable rental housing payable prior to occupancy instead of building permit, subject to certain conditions spelled out in an agreement registered on title? • concerns were expressed that delaying the payment of Development Charges may adversely impact some projects within the capital forecast; • concerns were raised about the city offering this incentive ahead of the Region of Waterloo, noting it may lead to a concentration of affordable housing in the City versus what is being provided by Waterloo and Cambridge. It was noted if the Region was offering the incentive instead of the city, it would provide a more equitable opportunity across the Region. • several members offered their support for amending the timing of Development Charges, noting it should be an incentive available for all developers, not restricting it to Not -For -Profit and charitable organizations. 3b. Should this occur prior to, or concurrently with, any similar Regional incentive? • several members expressed support for the development incentive; and , • concerns were reiterated about the possible impacts to Development Charge projects scheduled in the Capital Forecast and the possible impacts to delaying the payment of development charges. SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2017 -28- CITY OF KITCHENER 3c. Where in the city should it apply (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)? • several members indicated if incentives are being offered, they should be offered city-wide. Mayor B. Vrbanovic noted that due to time constraints, the remaining discussion on this matter would need to be recessed and re -convened following the Council meeting later this date. It was noted any members having additional feedback on this matter may submit their feedback to staff in writing following this meeting. ADDITIONAL IN -CAMERA ITEM Councillor S. Marsh left the meeting at this time. Mayor B. Vrbanovic advised of two items for in -camera discussion this date regarding a litigation 1 potential litigation matter which is also subject to solicitor -client privilege and a second matter subject to solicitor -client privilege. He advised that a motion to waive notice was required to be approved by 213 of the whole of Council. Moved by Councillor S. Davey Seconded by Councillor D. Schnider "That in accordance with Section 25.7.14 of City of Kitchener Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Procedure) the notice requirements be waived to add a litigation 1 potential litigation matter which is also subject to solicitor -client privilege and a second matter subject to solicitor -client privilege as items to be considered at the in -camera meeting being held this date." Carried with the required 213 of the Whole of Council. IN -CAMERA MEETING AUTHORIZATION Moved by Councillor B. loannidis Seconded by Councillor Y. Fernandes "That an in -camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider a litigation 1 potential litigation matter which is also subject to solicitor -client privilege and a second matter subject to solicitor -client privilege." The meeting then recessed at 5:12 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m., chaired by Mayor B. Vrbanovic with all members present except Councillors Gazzola and Janecki. 2. CSD -17-018 — DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING — PHASE 2 (CONT'D) Councillor F. Etherington expressed concern that Kitchener was taking a very active role with respect to affordable housing, particularly in comparison to its local municipal counterparts. He indicated that he would forward the remainder of his comments to Planning staff directly. Mr. M. May, Deputy CAO — Community Services, confirmed the comments and input received this date would be used to influence a series of reports that are intended to come forward in the near future. On motion the meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m. MAYOR CLERK