Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1995-06-26FAC\1995-06-26 JUNE 26, 1995 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Administration Committee met this date, commencing at 10.20 a.m., under the Chairmanship of Councillor J. Ziegler with the following members present: Councillors T. Galloway, G. Lorentz, K. Redman. Jake Smola, John Smola, B. Vrbanovic, M. Wagner, C. Weylie and M. Yantzi. Other present: Messrs. T. McKay, R.W. Pritchard, J. Gazzola, T. Clancy, E. Kovacs, J. Shivas, L.F. Parkhouse, D. Snow, K. Tribby, G. Sosnoski, Ms. L. MacDonald and Mrs. J. Koppeser. 1. RAFFLE LOTTERY LICENCE - K-W WEAVERS AND SPINNERS GUILD The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mrs. J. Koppeser dated June 16, 1995 outlining the organization's request and asking for Committee direction. Moved by Councillor C. Weylie - "That the Manager of Licensing be authorized to issue a Raffle Lottery Licence to the Kitchener- Waterloo Weavers and Spinners Guild for a draw to take place at the Guild Hall December 6, 1995" In response to a question from Councillor Jake Smola, Mrs. Koppeser advised that Council has approved some similar requests in the past. She also noted that the aims of this particular group, though not purely charitable, have an education component which corresponds to the policy guidelines issued by the Province's Lotteries Branch. Councillor John Smola also pointed out that in the past this organization has made donations to the Bridgeport Community Centre. The previous motion by Councillor C. Weylie was then voted on and Carried. 2. HOT DOG CART -WOODSIDE PARK The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mrs. J. Koppeser dated June 21, 1995 outlining a request for approval to locate a hot dog cart in Woodside Park. Appended to Mrs. Koppeser's report was a memorandum from Mr. P. Beaudry of the Parks and Recreation Department dated June 19, 1995 advising that the Department does not support the request for a variety of reasons involving anticipated interaction between the cart and the swimming pool, concerns over patrons' safety and increased traffic volumes. Councillor Lorentz put forward a motion recommending no action on the request and asking that staff prepare a report outlining criteria for the location of hot dog carts outside of the Downtown. Councillor Lorentz suggested that if carts are to be permitted outside of the Downtown area, Council should consider other locations and related opportunities. Councillor Ziegler advised that he has no concerns over individual requests being dealt with by the Committee on the basis that proponents are in the best position to know if a location could be profitable. He alson noted that no parties othern than staff are objecting to the location. In response to a question from Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. Clancy advised that concessions are not presently contracted in Woodside Park. Councillor Wagner advised that he sees no difficulty in agreeing to the request as the operator could control their own waste and there is plenty of room for a hot dog cart. He also noted that the concerns expressed by staff over an increase in traffic are unfounded since traffic volumes are normally high in this area anyway. Councillor Redman recalled that hot dog vendors were added to the Downtown to make the environment more attractive and that carts located elsewhere would likely be in direct competition with restaurants presently paying taxes to the City. She suggested that the entire matter be looked at in a more holistic manner for the sake of consistency. Mr. Clancy indicated his concerns with regard to the application and referred to hot dog carts presently operating in Victoria Park. In regard to Woodside Park, Mr. clancy clarified that the staff concern relates to bathers leaving the pool and returning with food since strict counts of bathers are required by law. He also suggested that the City should be receiving more revenue from carts located in City parks. In response to a question from Councillor Jake Smola on how 2. HOT DOG CART - WOODSlDE PARK (CONT'D) FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 26, 1995 - 91 - CITY OF KITCHENER the Downtown cart locations were awarded, Mrs. Koppeser replied that in 1995 locations were given to the vendors occupying the location in the preceding year and that there are also criteria in the by-law relative to an order of priority. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that the City review the entire selection process and related criteria, and, in this regard he indicated his support for a deferral. Councillor Lorentz argued that the City should have set criteria relative to locations and should benefit financially where these are on City owned lands. Councillor Wagner suggested a report in one week's time which would allow Council to deal with one or two trial locations. He suggested this would be appropriate since the next Committee meeting would not be held until August 14, 1995. Mr. Clancy responded that staff could look at the Woodside Park location again and would try to have a report available for the July 4, 1995 Council meeting. Councillor Wagner clarified that he is asking for one report within one week's time which is specific to the Woodisde Park request; whereas, the report referred to in the motion would be more comprehensive and long term in nature. Mr. Clancy suggested that any cart located in Woodside Park should be related to the concession stand in order to achieve maximum impact. Councillor Yantzi questioned whether Council could resolve the issue in one week and suggested that more time should be taken to examine the issue in its entirety. On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: "That no action be taken at this time on the request of Mr. Robert Glover for permission to operate a hot dog cart at Woodside Park (corner of Highland Road and Queen Street) in 1995, and further, That staff submit a report for consideration by Council concerning criteria for hot dog carts located in areas of the City outside of the Downtown." Mr. L. Parkhouse added that if Council wishes to expand hot dog carts throughout the City, the criteria for City owned lands would likely be different from those which are privately owned. HOT DOG CART - 703 BELMONT AVENUE WEST (BELMONT VILLAGE) The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mrs. J. Koppeser dated June 21, 1995 outlining a request for approval of a hot dog cart location. Ms. Elizabeth Halat was in attendance in support of her request and Mr. Bogdan Winiorski spoke on her behalf. Mr. Winiorski advised that the proposed cart would be located outside the variety store at 703 Belmont Avenue West located beside the Automobile Licence Bureau. He added that the owner has agreed and clarified that the cart would be located on public as opposed to privately owned lands. Councillor Weylie questioned whether the applicant pays business taxes either in the Belmont Village area or elsewhere in the City and Mr Winiorski responded in the negative adding that Ms. Halat pays a licence fee for a cart located at the Zellers plaza. Councillor Weylie questioned whether Ms. Halat had considered locating her cart in Waterloo and why in particular she had chosen the Belmont Village location. Mr. Winiorski advised that Ms. Halat felt there were good business opportunities at the Belmont location from Monday to Friday. Mr. Giuseppe Tarantini, appeared on behalf of the Casa Rugantino Restaurant, 709 Belmont Avenue West, and in opposition to the hot dog cart request. He ointed out that there are three restaurants in the immediate vicintiy and that in addition a variety store sells sandwiches. He pointed out that his business is presently struggling just to pay taxes and he would not welcome another food outlet at this location. Councillor Jake Smola asked whether Mr. Tarantini sells hot dogs at his restaurant and he replied in the negative, noting that other outlets in the Mall do. HOT DOG CART - 703 BELMONT AVENUE WEST (BELMONT VILLAGE) (CONT'D) Mr. William Christou, appeared on behalf of the Checkerboard Restaurant, located in Belmont Village and in opposition to the request. Mr. Christou stated that he has been in business at the FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES J U N E 26, 1995 - 92 - CITY OF KITCHENER present location for two and a half years and sells hot dogs, sandwiches and sausages. He noted that his business having a difficult time as it is due to the number of food vendors presently in the area and that a hot dog cart would likely make the situation worse. He pointed out that it seems unfair that hot dog vendors only pay a licence fee to operate whereas other food outlets in the Mall pay substantial property and business taxes. Ms. Sharon Vollans, appeared on behalf of Big John's Submarines which is located in the Belmont Village and indicated her opposition to the request. She pointed out that the proposed hot dog cart would be very close to her fast food outlet and would have a negative impact on business during the summer months. She added that Big John's has been in business for twenty five years and relies on summer trade to carry the business over the slower months of the year. She pointed out that at present there are eleven businesses selling sandwiches within a two block radius of the proposed hot dog cart location. Councillor Jake Smola asked whether Ms. Vollans was opposed to any location within the Belmont Village business area and she replied in the affirmative. Councillor Smola pointed out that at present any business could set up within the Mall proper and directly compete with any other business. Moved by Councillor C. Weylie - "That no action be taken on the request of Mrs. Elizabeth halat for permission to locate a hot dog cart on the City sidewalk at 703 Belmont Avenue West." Councillor Weylie argued that Belmont Village is one of the most successful business areas in Kitchener and that it is not fair to allow transient businesses which would reduce the profits of other year round businesses, especially since a number of these rely on summer trade to remain profitable. Councillor Jake Smola inquired as to the process followed in locating hot dog vendors in the Downtown core; specifically, whether there was any business opposition. Mrs. Koppeser replied that there was opposition and extensive discussion to identify the most appropriate locations. Councillor Ziegler pointed out that as part of the arrangement, restaurant owners could also choose to operate sidewalk carts in the Downtown. He also clarified that the purpose of this incentive was to attract business to the downtown, and that Belmont Village does not require any such incentive. Councillor Jake Smola pointed out that any restaurant in the Belmont Village could also choose to operate sidewalk carts. Councillor Smola referred to the free enterprise system and the desirability of product choice, noting that the delegates here today would not likely go out of business as a result of the hot dog cart, whcih he suggested would make a nice addition to the Belmont area. He indicated that generally speaking he was uncomfortable approving or not approving hot dog vendor locations arbitrarily. A motion by Councillor Jake Smola to defer consideration of the request to locate a hot dog cart at 703 Belmont Avenue was voted on and Lost. Councillor John Smola pointed out that the Belmont Village area presently has a Board of Management and that they should deal with such requests before they come before Council. The Committee agreed with the comments of Councillor John Smola and asked that staff ensure that this procedure is followed in future. Councillor Weylie explained that the request was only before the Committee this date due to Council's summer schedule and that the President of the Belmont Improvement Area Board of Management was familiar with the request and was not in favour. HOT DOG CART - 703 BELMONT AVENUE WEST (BELMONT VILLAGE) (CONT'D) The main motion by Councillor C. Weylie to take no action on the request to locate a hot dog cart at 703 Belmont Avenue was voted on and Carried. Councillor J. Ziegler asked that he be recorded as in favour of the motion. 4. MODIFICATIONS TO THE WARD SYSTEM FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES J U N E 26, 1995 - 93 - CITY OF KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from D.r Robert J. Williams, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo, outlining criteria recommended for use in proposed modifications to the City's Ward System. The report was previously requested by Council on March 6, 1995. Mr. R.W. Pritchard reviewed the chronology of events leading to the report, noting that Council had previously agreed to a reassessment of Kitchener's Ward boundaries. He requested direction concerning the proposed number of Wards, an indication as to whether Council agrees with the criteria outlined in Dr. Williams' report and a general indication of the process to be followed. Mr. Pritchard pointed out that Dr. Williams is prepared to develop alternatives himself, but noted that this was previously done in conjunction with a staff committee comprised of himself, Mr. Parkhouse and Mr. Brock Stanley of the Planning and Development Department. He also noted that Dr. Williams would be operating under time constraints and would fit the work in on an as-time-allows basis. Mr. Pritchard suggested that a new criteria should be finalized and on the assessment role by next year. Councillor G. Lorentz put forward a motion to retain the ten Ward system and realign the boundaries and to adopt the five criteria outlined in the report of Dr. R. Williams. Councillor Redman questioned how Council would know whether ten Wards constitute the best number, and suggested that various options whould be developed and discussed. Councillor Galloway noted that he had suggested earlier that the number of Wards could be increased to improve the level of service and at no cost to the taxpayer through a reduction in the Council Honorarium. He referred to Recommendation No.5 in Dr. Williams' report which suggests a review of Ward boundaries after every third election, and indicated his preference that a commitment be made to changing the boundaries at this time and not just reviewing them. Councillor Galloway also suggested that the Ward System be looked at in an eighteen year timeframe with nine years as the midpoint. He advised that he would not support the motion on the floor on the basis of the present wording of Recommendation No.5. Councillor Wagner agreed that there should be further discussion and a review of various Ward options in the range of eight to twelve. He stated that he does not agree with Recommendation No.2 which suggests that Wards should reflect existing communities of interest, noting that his own Ward, Rockway-St. Mary's could not reflect all communities of interest. He suggested that the wording be changed to indicate that Wards would not divide communities of interest. He also suggested that Recommendation No.4, which indicates that Wards should be of a "compact, contiguous shape", should be qualified with the words "as far as possible". As regards Recommendation No.3, which indicates that Ward boundaries should be straightforward and easy to remember, Councillor Wagner offered the opinion that Ward boundaries need not be easy to remember on the basis that citizens do not care and are equally served by knowing the name and telephone number of the Ward Councillor. Councillor Ziegler clarified that Dr. Williams has put forward an ideal to be used in assessing possible Ward configurations and expressed his disagreement over inequities in the present Ward system noting that there are approximately 20,000 ratepayers in his Ward while other Councillors have less than 10,000. He suggested that ten Wards is a good number for this Council and that each Ward should have between 11,000-12,000 ratepayers. Councillor Redman argued that it is necessary to demonstrate an objective evaluation rather than selecting the number of Wards subjectively and questioned the rationale for a ten Ward system. Councillor Yantzi inquired as to the timeframe for completing the study, and Mr. Pritchard indicated it could be completed more quickly based on ten Wards. Developing alternate scenarious would increase the amount of time required. Mr. Pritchard further advised that 18-20 years ago when the Ward configuration was last established, the working committee brought back two or three alternatives of which one was selected by the 4. MODIFICATIONS TO THE WARD SYSTEM (CONT'D) Council of the day. Councillor Weylie pointed out that ten Wards would cause a problem with direct election to Regional Council and suggested that any direction in this regard from the Province would be a major determinant of Ward numbers. Councillor Ziegler suggested that Council must deal with the Ward issue under the existing legislation and if necessary, revise the system in reponse to future direction from the Province. Councillor Jake Smola asked at what point the issue of full-time Councillors will be addressed and also indicated his personal bias towards an eight Ward system. Councillor Galloway advised that FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES J U N E 26, 1995 - 94 - CITY OF KITCHENER he does not support the concept of full-time Councillors as this would prohibit participation by the vast majority of people who would otherwise be available on a part-time basis. Councillor Galloway asked that No.5 of Dr. Williams' recommendations be dealt with separately. The portion of the motion by Councillor G. Lorentz relative to retaining the present ten Wards was then voted on and Lost. Councillor Lorentz argued that staff should not be asked to develop different models based on the number of Wards as he felt this should be a political decision. He also offered the opinion that the present boundaries are inappropriate and should be adjusted prior to the 1997 election. Mr. McKay observed that the Committee is unlikely to reach a consensus today on the number of Wards and suggested that they vote on the five criteria put forward by Dr. Williams and direct that options be developed involving Wards totalling no less than eight and no greater than twelve. Councillor Jake Smola argued that this would be inappropriate as it would mean a bit more work, options are necessary for Council to make a proper decision. Mr. Pritchard pointed out that the criteria developed by Dr. Williams are not based on the number of Wards and if criteria are agreed to, the next step would be to give staff the latitude to develop alternative configurations for further consideration. In this regard, Mr. Pritchard referred to a range of between eight and twelve Wards, and advised that the assistance of Planning would be required to develop options. Councillor Vrbanovic indicated his support for a series of Ward options, noting that Dr. Williams could lend his expertise in suggesting how an eight, ten or twelve Ward system would work for Kitchener. A motion by Councillor Jake Smola to adopt an eight Ward system was voted on and Lost. The second part of Councillor Lorentz's earlier motion concerning the criteria put forward by Dr. R. Williams was then dealt with, and Criteria 1-4 and 5 were voted on separately. It was resolved - "That Council endorse the criteria for revising Kitchener's Ward System as outlined in the undated memorandum from Dr. Robert J. Williams and considered by the Finance and Administration Committee on June 26, 1995." Councillor Galloway argued in favour of a longer term for review of the boundaries than was outlined in Criteria No.5, and suggested planning for the midpoint. He offered the opinion that inequities will creep back into the system in a very short time if this is not done. MODIFICATIONS TO THE WARD SYSTEM (CONT'D) On a motion by Councillor K. Redman - It was resolved: "That with regard to the proposed revision of Kitchener's Ward System, and consistent with the criteria outlined in the undated memorandum from Dr. Robert J. Williams, alternative Ward models be developed for further consideration by Council with the total number of wards to be no less than eight and not greater than twelve." On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: "That a working committee comprised of the Commissioner of General Services and City FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 26, 1995 - 95 - CITY OF KITCHENER Clerk, the Deputy City Clerk, a senior representative of the Planning and Development Department and Dr. Robert J. Williams, University of Waterloo, be struck to address the revision of Kitchener's Ward System." Mr. Pritchard advised that he anticipated a preliminary report as regards the development of Ward System options in October or November of this year. REGULATION OF POSTERING ON UTILITY STANDARDS The Committee was in receipt of a report from Mr. J. Shivas dated June 21, 1995 in response to June 5, 1995 direction from Council. Councillor Ziegler indicated his preference for a modified Option No.2 as outlined in the report, with no designated locations, a limitation on the size of the sign to conform with the width of a utility pole, a date by which posters are to be removed, and provision to charge the person who put up the poster for removal after a specified period of time has elapsed. Councillor Ziegler argued that the foregoing would prevent visual obstruction of signs which are too large, ensure posters are not up long enough to deteriorate and become unsightly and would require no utility pole sleeves or special bulletin boards. Councillor Galloway advised that he was thinking more in terms of quitely taking down posters to discourage this practice; however, if this cannot be done the City should look at some sort of regulatory system either before or after the practice of removal is challenged. Councillor Ziegler referred to the Supreme Court decision granting the right to post signs on utility poles and suggested that simple regulatory criteria are required. Mr. Snow advised that the Region is also developing a policy to regulate postering on certain types of poles. Councillor J. Ziegler left the Chair for the remainder of the debate on postering and Councillor Galloway assumed the Chair. Mr. Snow displayed two sample bulletin boards, one for utility poles and a larger version for other public locations. He argued that this would allow the City to control how and where posters are put up and prohibit posting in other than recognized locations. In response to a question from Councillor Redman, Mr. Shivas advised that in speaking with the City of Mississauga it was indicated they are undertaking a similar initiative on a trial basis and are proposing utility pole sleeves at 200 locations, or approximately 22 per Ward. It was noted that this number would likely be increased in future if the trial is successful. Mr. Shivas offered the opinion that this is a workable method. Councillor Ziegler put forward a motion to regulate postering in the City by requiring that all posters be dated, the sponsor identified, conformity to the diameter of the utility pole and removal within a specified timeframe. REGULATION OF POSTERING ON UTILITY STANDARDS (CONT'D) Councillor John Smola questioned whether charges could be imposed for postering violations under the Provincial Offenses Act once a regulatory by-law was in place, and Mr. Shivas replied in the affirmative noting that a by-law amendment would be required. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that any charge relating to the removal of illegal posters should reflect the City's actual vehicle and labour costs and not the one to two dollar figure referred to earlier by Councillor Ziegler. He noted that any such charge should serve as a deterrent and not an inexpensive method of removing expired posters. Mr. Shivas pointed out that though the City could charge for removal it may be difficult to collect the money and this would have to be investigated further. Councillor Wagner suggested that under Councillor Ziegler's proposal, possters, with their corresponding aesthetic impact, would still be put up and in addition the City could be creating a complicated administrative process. He suggested that before undertaking the suggested process, the City should first try removing posters until the activity of postering becomes futile. Councillor Ziegler indicated that though he may agree with Councillor Wagner's concerns; nevertheless, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to put up posters. Councillor Redman suggested that the initiative proposed by Councillor Ziegler should be assessed and Councillor FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES J U N E 26, 1995 - 96 - CITY OF KITCHENER Ziegler agreed to a friendly amendment imposing an assessment one year after implementation. Mr. Shivas asked whether it was Councillor Ziegler's intention that any by-law amendments as regards postering be presented at a public meeting, and if so, whether such a meeting would involve the Finance and Administration Committee. Councillor Ziegler replied that a draft by-law should be considered by the Committee prior to any public meeting. Mr. Shivas indicated his concern over any decision on a by-law being made prior to public input and in this regard suggested that public meeting be held. On a motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "That Chapter 682 (Signs and Posters) of the city's Municipal Code prohibiting attachment to property of the Public Utility Commission be repleaed and a draft by-law prepared to amend Chapter 680 (Signs of the Municipal code which would have the effect of regulating postering in the Municipality so as to require as follows: that all posters must be dated and identify the author or sponsoring business, individual or group; must conform to the diameter of the utility pole so as not to create a visual obstruction; and must be removed four days after expiry of a normal two week posting period, and, That staff investigate and report on the feasibility of establishing a penalty for non- compliance in removing posters within four days of expirty of the posting period; or alternately, establishing an offence under the Provincial Offenses Act, and, That a public meeting be held to obtain input on the proposed amendments to the Sign By- law once a draft has been reviewed by Council, and further, That this entire initiative be reviewed one year after implementation." Mr. Shivas advised that Ms. Catherine Thompson of the K-W Record has requested a copy of his confidential report dated June 21, 1995 concerning the postering issue, and if the Committee wishes to ascede to the request a motion to waive solicitor/client privilege in this regard is required. REGULATION OF POSTERING ON UTILITY STANDARDS (CONT'D) On a motion by Councillor M. Wagner - It was resolved: "That Council waive its right to solicitor/client privilege regarding the confidential report from Mr. J. Shivas dated June 21, 1995 concerning the removal of signs from City boulevards and posters from utility poles." NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Finand and Administration Committee will be held on Monday, August 14, 1995. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 26, 1995 - 97 - CITY OF KITCHENER ........... G. Sosnoski ........... Manager of Corporate ........... Records/Assistant City Clerk