Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1994-02-28FAC\1994-02-28 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1994 The Finance and Administration Committee met this date, commencing at 11:25 a.m., under the Chairmanship of Councillor C. Zehr with the following members present: Mayor D.V. Cardillo, Councillors B. Stortz, T. Galloway, G. Lorentz, M. Wagner, C. Weylie and J. Ziegler. Councillor J. Smola was in attendance for part of the meeting. Others present: Councillor M. Yantzi, Councillor G. Leadston, Messrs. T. McKay, J. Gazzola, R.W. Pritchard, R. Freeborn, R. Arnot, T. McCabe, D. Mansell, J. Shivas, R. Barton, G. Sosnoski, Mrs. J. Koppeser, Ms. L. MacDonald and Ms. G. Meyer. DELEGATION - IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Mr. lan Cooke appeared on behalf of W. Ristau Construction Ltd. and 930983 Ontario Limited regarding the imposition of development charges as a condition of a severance application. The Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. W. Ristau dated February 21, 1994 and a copy of the Committee of Adjustment decision for Submission No. B44/93. Mr. Cooke read a prepared statement outlining the circumstances as they relate to Lots 83 to 89 and Block "N", Burnaby Cres., Registered Plan 1542. He explained that the property in question was purchased on May 14, 1993, prior to which discussions had taken place with staff concerning the possibility of incorporating Block "N" with the original seven lots and through a severance creating nine lots. He noted that the seven original lots were registered along with the balance of Plan 1542 in 1982 and development charges of $1,000.00 per unit were established at the time of registration. Mr. Cooke advised that the Committee of Adjustment had given conditional approval for the severance application, requiring that all nine of the lots be assessed development charges at the current rate of $4,800.00 per unit. Mr. Cooke argued that the imposition of the increased charge for all lots was inappropriate and unfair and asked that a charge for the original seven lots be levied at the agreed to rate of $1,000.00 per unit, with charges for the additional lots levied at the current rate. Mr. Cooke pointed out that the intent of the legislation is to levy development charges only where there is need for additional services. He added that the development charge legislation stands on its own and that the Committee of Adjustment has no authority to apply the subject condition unless specified in the appropriate legislation. Mayor D.V. Cardillo put forward a motion acceding to the request that seven of the nine lots be assessed development charges at the rate of $1,000.00 per unit, with the balance at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application. Mr. McCabe advised that under the City's by-law old agreements do not apply where property has been subsequently developed or severed, and pointed out that staff are willing to honour any commitment based on the original lotting registered in 1982. He also clarified that technically speaking the delegation's request is an official complaint under the Development Charges Act. He outlined the three areas where complaints of this sort can be legitimately made and advised that none apply in this instance. He summarized that staff are of the opinion there is no error in the application of the City's by-law, however, he suggested that if the Committee is disposed to act in favour of the applicant, this should be done in the form of a grant. Councillor Ziegler inquired as to who raised the lot levy issue and Mr. McCabe replied that it had been referred to in a staff report as a notice of intent to change the agreement. In response to a further question from Councillor Ziegler, Mr. McCabe stated that the applicant knew this was the case before he bought the subject lands, and has since changed the lot lines on every parcel. Councillor Lorentz inquired whether service capacity was set aside relative to the original seven lots and Mr. McCabe replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cooke referred to ambiguities in the legislation and suggested that development charges are only to be levied where a development will increase the need for service, which he indicated is only the case relative to the additional two lots. 1. DELEGATION - IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (con't.) FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES - 19 - FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Councillor Galloway asked whether the Committee of Adjustment has the authority to apply condition 4 (b) relative to Submission No. B44/93. Mr. Shivas replied that though the Committee has the power to impose development charges, this is unnecessary since the charges are payable at the time of building permit application. He advised that though a subdivision agreement is on title imposing the old rate, it would not apply if there is a further subdivision. He indicated that if the Committee wishes to grant relief, an amendment to the by-law would be required acknowledging that development charges on seven of the nine lots will be levied at the original rate. Alternately a grant from Capital funds could be awarded. Councillor Ziegler asked whether staff had mentioned that the development charges would change prior to purchase of the lands and Mr. Cooke answered that they had taken the position the lower rate for the seven lots would be lost. Mr. McKay suggested that on the surface it would appear the applicant has a valid argument, however, the new Development Charge By-law indicates that old agreements would only be honoured if there was no change to the original plan, otherwise charges would be levied at the current rate. He added that the owner knew the rules at the time of application and is not at liberty to pick and choose rates at his discretion. Councillor Ziegler suggested that the owner knew the staff position in advance of application and in spite of this chose to change the plan. He offered the opinion that there is no distinction between the present situation and an entirely new application. Councillor Galloway inquired as to the status of Block N in the event the lands are developed as per the original plan. Mr. Cooke responded that future development of abutting lands would result in oversized and inconsistent lotting, which in his opinion is not proper planning. Mr. McCabe acknowledged that the proposed transition of lot sizes is appropriate from a planning standpoint, notwithstanding the development charge issue. Councillor Wagner spoke in support of the request, noting that the new lotting is more appropriate and saleable and that the developer is adapting to current market conditions. Councillor Stortz spoke against the request, noting that the owner knew the legislative requirements, but chose to redevelop the lands. Councillor Lorentz related a history of the subject lands and spoke in support of the request, suggesting that it is an issue of interpretation. Mr. McCabe pointed out that the combined difference between the original and current development charge rates would total approximately $26,000.00. On a motion by Mayor D.V. Cardillo - it was resolved: "That development charges for seven of the nine lots created by incorporating, through a severance, Block N with Lots 83 to 89, Burnaby Cres., Registered Plan 1542, be levied at the rate of $1,000.00 per unit with charges for the remaining two lots levied at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application, and further, That the shortfall of approximately $26,000.00 resulting from the above arrangement be treated as a grant to the Development Charge Account and be debited from Capital." 2. HOURS OF OPERATION - HOTDOG VENDORS The Committee was in receipt of a report and recommendation from Ms. L. MacDonald dated February 15, 1994 proposing a restriction on the hours of operation. The Committee was also in receipt of a letter from Ms. Rita Couto, Owner, Sol Mar Restaurant, dated February 21, 1994 objecting to the proposed restriction on the hours of operation. Mr. Rafael Jacinto spoke on behalf of Mr. John Melo, Sol Mar Restaurant Inc., and in opposition to the proposed changes. He argued that the crowd problem referred to in Ms. MacDonald's report existed before hotdog carts were in use and that reducing the hours of operation would hurt his business. He asked that no action be taken to change the present hours of operation. 2. HOURS OF OPERATION - HOTDOG VENDORS (con't.) In response to a question from Councillor Galloway, Mr. Jacinto advised that the loss to Sol Mar in business would equal approximately $750.00 a month. Councillor Stortz inquired as to the operation of the restaurant proper while the Sol Mar cart is in use and Mr. Jacinto replied that the restaurant is open until approximately 3:00 a.m. for fast food sales only. He acknowledged that patrons frequent the restaurant proper in addition to the hotdog cart. Staff Inspector MacDonald appeared on behalf of Waterloo Regional Police Services and referred to a letter previously circulated by Chief L. Gravill. He referred to problems encountered in the FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES - 20 - FEBRUARY 28, 1994 past when as many as 500 people are on the street after bars and night clubs in the downtown are closed. He referred to the number of calls received by Police, their duration and the staff involved, pointing out that the majority occur between the hours 12:00 midnight and 2:30 a.m. He advised that the situation poses a policing problem and can cause delays in responding to other calls. He added that due to budget constraints Police are forced to pro-actively address problem areas. Staff Inspector MacDonald also offered the opinion that hotdog vendors are one of the major contributors to the problem referred to. Councillor Stortz reported that an informal committee including bar owners has met in the past with Police and Liquor Board representatives, with a number of solutions being put forward. He noted that one of these involved Stages voluntarily agreeing to remove their hotdog cart at 11:30 p.m., which is about the time Sol Mar Restaurant puts their on the street. On a motion by Mayor D.V. Cardillo - it was resolved: "That the Street Vendors By-law for 1994 include a subsection restricting the hours of operation for refreshment vehicles to between 9:00 a.m. and 12 midnight each day; and further, That any encroachment agreement prepared in 1994 for the purpose of acknowledging the extension of an existing restaurant licence relative to the operation of a hotdog cart (refreshment vehicle) contain a section restricting the hours of operation for the hotdog cart to between 9:00 a.m. and 12 midnight each day." 3. AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mr. D. Mansell dated February 16, 1994 recommending an amendment to By-law #91-314 relative to a one time exemption for additions to non-residential buildings. They were also in receipt of a copy of the public notice which appeared the K-W Record on February 4, 1994. No delegations registered in response to the public meeting notice. Mr. Mansell referred to the revised recommendation circulated to Committee members this date and noted that a one time exemption is proposed and is intended for lands where buildings presently exist. He added that the exemption would allow for one addition to a single building and advised that the exemption does not apply to vacant land. Councillor Zehr asked why staff are referencing the amendment to one building on a site rather than 50% of the total square footage, suggesting that this an unnecessarily restrictive condition. He reminded staff that the purpose of the amendment is to encourage expansion. Mr. Mansell referred to an example involving a strip mall where additions could take place to each individual unit, but indicated he had no objection to the proposed amendment. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - it was resolved: "That Council approve an amendment to By-law 91-314 by the addition of the following text to Section 10: AMENDMENT - DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW (con't.) '10a. Notwithstanding Section 10, there shall be a one time exemption of the development charge on a parcel of land for the first addition to an existing non-residential building, of 50% of the existing gross floor area on a parcel to a maximum of five thousand (5,000) square feet.'" LICENSING OF LODGING HOUSES The Committee was in receipt of a report and recommendation from Ms. L. MacDonald dated February 23, 1994 and a draft licensing by-law. Councillor Smola put forward a motion that the draft by-law as submitted be approved and FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES recommended to Council for enactment. -21 - FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Councillor Stortz suggested that staff assess the feasibility of having the Licensing Division at the time of application give out a letter from the Police explaining the Waiver of Trespass Notice. Councillor Galloway voiced a minor concern, in that this initiative is proceeding before Stage 7 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law has been completed and a number of lodging houses in the vicinity of Conestoga College would be impacted. Councillor Stortz responded that enforcement of the licensing initiative would take time to implement in any event, and that the lodging house issue transcends the zoning by-law process. Councillor Zehr inquired whether a licence would remain valid if ownership of a property changed in midterm. Ms. MacDonald replied that the licence would not be transferable and that a new application and fee would be required. Councillor Yantzi pointed out that the proposed by-law does not address planning requirements. Mr. McCabe advised that it was originally proposed that the Planning and Development Department would co-ordinate the overall process. He also reminded the Committee that the proposed initiative would result in approximately $300,000.00 in additional staffing costs, with revenues of approximately $50,000.00, and that it is being implemented without any new staff. He also expressed concern that at present the $250.00 initial fee and $125.00 renewal fee can only be accepted if a licence is approved. He suggested that provision should be made for an inspection fee to recover the City's cost in researching the application. Mr. McKay suggested a further amendment to reflect a non-refundable application fee of $250.00 which would be deducted from the initial license fee in the event of a favourable report. Ms. MacDonald suggested that such an amendment could be incorporated under Section 11. It was also indicated that there would be no change with respect to renewal inspections. On motion by Councillor J. Smola - it was resolved: "That Council enact a by-law for the licensing of lodging houses in accordance with the draft appended to the report of Ms. L. MacDonald dated February 23, 1994 and amended to include under Section 11 a non-refundable application fee of $250.00 which in the event of a favourable report is to be applied against the initial license fee, and further, That staff assess the feasibility of handing out at the time of application a letter from Waterloo Regional Police Services explaining the Waiver of Trespass Notice." 5. ENTRY QUALIFICATIONS FOR FIREFIGHTERS The Committee was in receipt of a report from Ms. G. Meyer dated February 22, 1994 recommending changes to the entry qualifications previously suggested by the Employment Equity Review Committee as they relate to acquisition of a DZ Driver's licence and job related physical fitness testing. ENTRY QUALIFICATIONS FOR FIREFIGHTERS (con't.) On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That the Entry Qualifications for the position of Firefighter, as contained in a report from the Employment Equity Review Committee dated August 11, 1993, be amended as follows: a) Acquisition of a DZ Driver's Licence will be a condition of employment rather than a prerequisite for application. Successful candidates will be required to obtain the DZ Licence at their own expense within six months of commencing employment. b) Job-Related Physical Fitness Testing (as available from York or Carleton Universities and successfully completed within the previous twelve months) will be required at the application stage. The City will reimburse the cost of this testing for those candidates who reach the Interview Stage of the process." FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES 6. CAUCUS ITEMS - 22 - FEBRUARY 28, 1994 The Committee resolved itself into caucus at 12:35 p.m. to consider two items on the agenda and reconvened at 1:10 p.m. to consider the balance of the regular agenda. 7. VOICE MAIL SYSTEM Mr. Freeborn gave a presentation in response to information requested by the Committee at the January 31, 1994 meeting, including a cost benefit analysis, how voice mail systems are used, the cost of a basic system and the experiences of other public institutions. Mr. Freeborn advised that the current cost to record incoming telephone messages is approximately $1,256.00 per day. He referred to the benefits of voice mail in terms of improved productivity and outlined the responses of individual departments and the benefits which they anticipate if a system is installed. Mr. Freeborn gave an overview of a basic system and available options and noted that a basic system for 400 users would cost approximately $60,000.00 and based on industry standards would have a payback period of three months. He advised that staff are recommending implementation of a starter voice mail system. Councillor Lorentz referred to his concerns over voice mail technology and the potential negative impression it can create for members of the public. He also questioned the installation of voice mail for staff who are routinely in the office. Mr. Freeborn advised that at present staff are prepared to release tender documents for a system and that responses would be brought back to the Committee for consideration. On motion by Councillor B. Stortz - it was resolved: "That staff be authorized to issue tenders for a Voice Mail System." 8. INTERNET COMPUTER INFORMATION NE'I'VVORK By general consent, consideration of this item was further deferred to the March 21, 1994 meeting in order to allow a system demonstration. 9. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee will be held on Monday, March 21, 1994. 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. G. Sosnoski Manager of Corporate Records/Assistant City Clerk