Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1995-10-16FAC\1995-10-16 OCTOBER 16, 1995 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Administration Committee met this date, commencing at 10:10 a.m., under the Chairmanship of Councillor J. Ziegler with the following members present: Mayor R. Christy, Councillors T. Galloway, G. Lorentz, K. Redman, Jake Smola, John Smola, B. Vrbanovic, M. Wagner and C. Weylie. Others present: Ms. P. Houston, Mrs. J. Koppeser, Ms. L. MacDonald, Ms. S. Tranter, Messrs. T. McKay, J. Gazzola, T. McCabe, E. Kovacs, T. Clancy, R.W. Pritchard, S. Gyorffy, D. Snow, W. Beck, P. Summers, and G. Sosnoski. 1. TAX ARREARS - 216 THALER AVENUE Mr. Nabil Zakhary appeared to request a reduction in the amount of taxes owing or a freeze on the interest and penalty charges over the next three years, either of which would facilitate repayment of the taxes owing. Mr. Zakhary advised that he and other investors have owned the apartment for approximately eight years and over the last five years alone have accumulated losses of approximately $70,000.00 which are hindering efforts to pay outstanding taxes. Mr. Zakhary advised that at present he is trying to negotiate a loan for payment of taxes and asked that Council assist him as requested. Councillor Ziegler pointed out that a similar request from a previous delegation had been turned down on the basis that between 50,000 and 60,000 residents are in arrears and the City cannot afford to entertain individual requests for relief. Moved by Councillor M. Wagner - "That no action be taken on the request of Mr. Nabil Zakhary for relief from interest and penalty charges on tax arrears for 216 Thaler Avenue." Councillor Wagner advised that though he can sympathize with Mr. Zakhary's situation, it differs little from that of other apartment owners who would also benefit from such relief. Mr. Zakhary pointed out that his situation is somewhat unique due to the magnitude of the losses incurred, and noted that he is unable to either raise rents or impose a uniform rental rate due to existing Provincial legislation. Councillor Ziegler stressed that the City cannot become involved in personal and business finances. Mr. Zakhary suggested that the taxes on the property are relatively high compared to the rent. Councillor Redman asked whether Mr. Zakhary had spoken with Finance staff concerning a flexible repayment schedule and he replied in the negative. Councillor Redman encouraged him to do so. Mr. Zakhary argued that the $7,000.00 annual penalty on accumulated arrears makes it very difficult to repay the principle amount, particularly due to the accumulated building losses. The previous motion by Councillor M. Wagner to take no action on the request for relief relative to 216 Thaler Avenue was voted on and Carried. 2. SIDEWALK INSTALLATION - MARLBOROUGH AVENUE The Committee was in receipt of a report from S. Gyorffy dated September 28, 1995 recommending construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Marlborough Avenue, with financing to be arranged pursuant to Section 8 of the Local Improvement Act. Councillor Wagner outlined the background to the request and the associated safety concerns. Ms. Dianna Johnson appeared in support of the proposed sidewalk and presented a list of 28 families expressing concern over the safety of children going to and from J.F. Carmichael Public School via Marlborough Avenue. Ms. Johnson showed a video illustrating the volume of traffic due to parents picking up and dropping off their children at school and which showed that the children are either forced to walk along the edge of the roadway or over neighbouring lawns. Ms. Johnson expressed concern over children sliding down the lawn inclines and into the FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 125 - CITY OF KITCHENER SIDEWALK INSTALLATION - MARLBOROUGH AVENUE (CONT'D) roadway, especially during the winter and referred to three such incidents which took place last winter. She pointed out that cars are routinely parked in "no parking" areas and that the orange markers installed by Traffic and Parking staff are a temporary solution and will not suffice during the winter months. She noted that the traffic congestion due to illegal parking creates problems for residents entering and exiting their driveways. She offered the opinion that these residents should not have to pay for the proposed sidewalk. Mayor Christy inquired as to the school's position regarding the traffic situation and Ms. Johnson replied that though the Principal supports installation of a sidewalk, the school board does not feel it is their responsibility. Ms. Johnson stressed that the sidewalk should be constructed before winter and suggested that three foot moveable curbs could be installed in the interim, noting that it takes only one car to cause an injury or fatality. Mr. Gyorffy pointed out that Section 8 of the Local Improvement Act allows the City to initiate construction of a sidewalk if Council feels there is a legitimate safety concern. He noted that the City would be responsible for 50% of the cost as well as a percentage of the rate applying to properties with flankage, and that the abutting property owners would be charged for the remainder of the cost. Councillor Wagner inquired as to the impact if residents went to the Ontario Municipal Board, and Mr. Gyorffy replied that the project would likely be delayed until next year, as their is only a two week interval remaining in the Fall construction season during which concrete can be poured. He noted that precedents exist for OMB approval under similar circumstances. Councillor Wagner pointed out that the school board has recently increased the size of the parking lot entrance, which along with the recent introduction of junior kindergarten, has made the problem worse. In response to a comment made by the delegation concerning the use of portable curbing, Mr. Gyorffy advised that he would not recommend this, as the curbing would likely be moved during the snow removal process. He also noted that an application under Section 8 of the Local Improvement Act would take months to approve. Councillor Redman inquired whether crossing guards could be used to control the situation, and Mr. Snow replied that this measure has not been used in the past and pointed out that he has sent notices to the school and by-law enforcement officers are trying to deal with the parking problem. He pointed out that the traffic congestion problem will still occur after the sidewalks are installed and suggested that the best way to correct the situation is to obtain the assistance of police in enforcing the "no parking" regulations. Ms. Johnson questioned whether it is possible to block off a section of the street to local traffic as an interim step, and Mr. Snow replied that the Marlborough Avenue entrance is the only access to the school parking lot. Councillor Lorentz asked whether the City could construct the sidewalk now, while at the same time making application under the Local Improvement Act. Ms. MacDonald advised that this would not be possible and the City would likely end up paying 100% of the cost. Mayor Christy suggested that given the safety issues, staff withdraw the recommendation relative to application under the Local Improvement Act and the City proceed to construct the sidewalk at its own expense. Mayor R. Christy put forward a motion that the proposed sidewalk along Marlborough Avenue be constructed entirely at the City's expense in the Fall of this year. Mayor Christy argued that the owners' share of the cost of construction would likely be offset by the administrative cost of applying under the Local Improvement Act which Mr. Gyorffy estimated at approximately $1,000.00. Councillor Lorentz expressed concern that other such situations in the City could result in similar requests and questioned why the construction proposal is before the Committee this late in the Fall and not earlier in the year, which would have allowed application under the Local Improvement Act. He suggested that the motion be reworded so as not to set a precedent, and should also include an outline of the circumstances under which the City has agreed to construct at its own expense. Mayor Christy accepted the comments of Councillor Lorentz as a friendly amendment. 2. SIDEWALK INSTALLATION - MARLBOROUGH AVENUE (CONT'D) FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 126 - CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor John Smola stressed that he would not support the motion as in his opinion it sets a dangerous precedent, and referred to a number of similar situations in the Village of Bridgeport. He pointed out that the problem on Marlborough Avenue is largely caused by the parents who are driving their children to and from school. Councillor Wagner argued that the motion would not set a precedent as the sidewalk is needed to address specific safety concerns relative to an individual school. The following motion was then voted on. On a motion by Mayor R. Christy - It was resolved: "That in light of demonstrated safety concerns arising from the fact that the needed sidewalk is adjacent to a school, the City, without prejudice or precedent and at its own expense, construct a sidewalk along the south side of Marlborough Avenue from the parking lot of J.F. Carmichael Public School through to Belmont Avenue, and further, That in light of the need to install the sidewalk as soon as possible, the City proceed with construction in the Fall of 1995, and that no action be taken relative to an application under Section 8 of the Local Improvement Act." Councillor Ziegler advised that the above recommendation would be dealt with at the October 23, 1995 Council. Councillor Jake Smola asked whether, given the fact that there is little time to construct in the Fall of this year, the recommendation could be dealt with at the Special Council meeting of this date. Mr. Sosnoski replied that under normal circumstances advance notice of the items on a Special Council agenda is required; however, given the overriding safety concerns it may be possible to waive this requirement. Mr. Pritchard advised that he would consult the Procedural By-law and advise whether it is possible to waive the rules of notice. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - MASTER PLUMBERS The Committee was in receipt of a report and recommendation from Mrs. J. Koppeser dated October 4, 1995 concerning a housekeeping item relative to Chapter 578 (Master Plumbers). On a motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: "That Council pass a by-law to amend schedule "A" of Chapter 578 (Master Plumbers) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code by adding: '13. The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of York."' 1996 BUSINESS LICENCE FEE The Committee was in receipt of a report from L.F. Parkhouse and J. Koppeser dated October 2, 1995 requesting pre-budget approval of the various fees outlined therein. On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: "That pre-budget approval be granted for the 1996 Business Licence fees as outlined in the joint report of L.F. Parkhouse and J. Koppeser dated October 2, 1995." CRITERIA FOR HOT DOG CARTS - CITY PROPERTY The Committee was in receipt of reports from J. Koppeser and R. Arnot dated July 27, 1995 and October 11, 1995 outlining various options regarding additional vendors at alternate locations. The report of R. Arnot indicates the support of the Parks and Recreation Department for Option #3 involving the acceptance of applications for street vendors on any City property, and the individual consideration of each of these on its own merit by City Council using the criteria in the FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 127 - CITY OF KITCHENER current Street Vendor By-law. Mr. Parkhouse expressed concern over Option #3, as it would mean that applications would be entertained for any location in the City. He suggested that if Option #3 is adopted, Council would have to decide whether to entertain applications relative to any City street or just at specific locations throughout the City. Mr. Clancy responded that it was his understanding that Option #3 related to park areas, and referred to past pressure to allow additional vendors in City parks. Councillor Redman noted that Option #3 is neither event nor site specific. Councillor Jake Smola questioned how the City would deal with applications from out of town vendors. Mr. Parkhouse clarified that the Licensing Division does not support a significant expansion in the number of vendors and locations. Councillor Lorentz suggested an approval of Option #3 in principle to allow staff an opportunity to identify the implications of this action and present more detailed information on how the option would be implemented. He expressed concern over the wholesale adoption of Option #3 without additional detail. Mayor Christy suggested that this option implies specific events and sites and that if there should be a further expansion of the number of permitted vendors and locations, staff should indicate which City parks would be appropriate in this regard. Mayor Christy put forward a recommendation to adopt Option #1 which would maintain the existing Street Vendor By-law, subject to staff submitting a more detailed report on any proposed expansion. Councillor Jake Smola asked that the motion be amended to include notification of adjacent or affected businesses that the City is considering changes to the Street Vendor By-law. Councillor Ziegler replied that the parties referred to by Councillor Smola could be notified after the Committee considers a specific list of locations and events submitted by staff. The following motion was then voted on. On a motion by Mayor R. Christy - It was resolved: "That at present, Council continue with the existing Street Vendor By-law #95-56, allowing street vendors only in the area generally referred to as the Downtown, and further, That staff prepare a report for future consideration by the Finance and Administration Committee, outlining details of any proposed expansion of the street vendor provisions to include additional properties and events as well as a proposed schedule of fees." 1996 MEETING SCHEDULE The Committee was in receipt of a proposed schedule and options from L. Parkhouse dated October 10, 1995, and a discussion took place concerning various alternate meeting dates. 1996 MEETING SCHEDULE On a motion by Councillor C. Weylie - It was resolved: "That the proposed 1996 meeting schedule for Standing Committees and City Council/Committee of the Whole be approved as outlined in the report of L.F. Parkhouse dated October 10, 1995 with the following changes: a. March 18 Standing Committee meetings moved to March 4; FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 128 - CITY OF KITCHENER March 25 Council meeting moved to March 18; July 29 Standing Committee meetings moved to August 6; August 6 Council meeting moved to August 12." SURPLUS LANDS The Committee was in receipt of a report from G. Anderson dated October 11, 1995 recommending that these lands be declared surplus and their sale arranged. A plan drawing showing site #5 was circulated this date. On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: "That the vacant parcels of land outlined in the report of G. Anderson dated October 11, 1995 and whose legal descriptions appear below, be declared surplus to the City's needs: Part Lot 17, German Company Tract designated as Part 2, Plan 58R-9456 (adjacent to 301 Victoria St.S.); Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, designated as Part 1, Plan 58R-7412 (between Grand Hill Drive and King St.E.); Part Lot 52, Plan 959 and Part Lot 7, Plan 975 designated as Parts 3,4,5,6 & 7, Plan 58R-947 (River Road and Scenic Dr.); Part Lot 38, Plan 775 (Reference Plan will be required) (Fairway Rd.N. and Grulke St.); Part Lot 98, Plan 284, designated as Part 2, Plan 58R-9380 (Samuel St. and Stirling Ave. N), and further, That the City's Land Purchasing Officer be directed to negotiate agreements of purchase and sale with the abutting owners, with each agreement to be presented to Council for acceptance." WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER AND WASTEWATER The Committee was in receipt of a draft City response to the report of the Waterloo Region Review (WRR) on water and wastewater dated October 13, 1995 as prepared by staff of the Finance and Public Works Departments. They were also in receipt of correspondence from L. Neil dated October 10, 1995 referring comments of the Environmental Committee (October 4, 1995) for consideration. Mr. Gazzola, Ms. Houston and Ms. Fisher gave a video presentation outlining the staff response to each of the recommendations put forward by the WRR. He noted that staff support in principle any changes to the present method of delivery of services where such changes can be proven to result in cost efficiencies and improved levels of customer service. However, he suggested that the WRR report which recommends the transfer of responsibilities for the water distribution and wastewater collection systems to the Region of Waterloo, fails to provide WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER AND WASTEWATER (CONT'D) sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the transfer would result in either efficiencies or improved service. Mr. Gazzola questioned the $400,000.00 saving referred to in the WRR report, and noted that a consultant estimated this figure, and that staff could find no basis for its determination. He stressed that even if the figure were valid and substantiated, the savings would only be in the order of 1/2% relative to the overall budget. Mr. Kovacs advised that he had corresponded with the consultant who provided the $400,000.00 figure, noting that a financial model had been used which assumed a $400,000.00 savings. Mr. McKay suggested that half of the Waterloo Region Review is based on the public assumption that two tiers of government result in service duplication. He pointed out that if this were the case FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 129 - CITY OF KITCHENER a 5-15% duplication in budget could be expected along with savings in the order of $5 to $15 million over the entire budget. Mr. McKay suggested that if accurate, the $400,000.00 figure proves there is little or no overlap or duplication. Mr. McKay also noted that costs generally increase with the transfer of responsibilities to upper tiers of government, and suggested that any projected $400,000.00 saving would disappear due to increased staff costs. Ms. Houston referred to the overlap and problems which would occur as a result of fragmented surface and subsurface infrastructure programmes and facilities. J. Gazzola referred to comments in the report reflecting that a uniform retail rate for water and wastewater would provide greater equity, and suggested that such a rate would cost the City of Kitchener nearly $2.8 million annually in increased water and sewer surcharge rates. He pointed out that there are already uniform wholesale rates and the individual jurisdictions within the Region are allowed to set their retail rates appropriately. Mr. Gazzola added that centralized billing for water and wastewater would confuse the customer and result in increased processing costs. Mr. Gazzola reminded the Committee that in Kitchener billing for water, gas and taxes are integrated functions and this allows the City to better utilize staff resources by spreading the billing workload over an entire year and to realize related efficiencies. Ms. Houston referred to the issues raised by the WRR concerning municipal control over trunk/pumping station facilities and the proliferation of communal systems, and it was noted that very few areas are affected by this issue. She also referred to the issue of infiltration, noting that Kitchener does not have an infiltration problem as the City has addressed this over the years, and that staff concede that infiltration issues are better handled at the Regional level. She referred to the issue of consistent water quality, and noted that Kitchener has taken the lead in the past as regards water quality, despite the Region's lethargy in dealing with concerns expressed by Kitchener. She suggested that this function should be retained by the City. Ms. Houston commented on the issue of water conservation and noted that the staff position is that the Region should initiate such measures, with support from area municipalities as has been the case in the past. It was also noted that staff agree that the area of groundwater contamination control should be dealt with at the Regional or Provincial levels. Ms. Fisher addressed the issue of water supply strategies, noting that this is already a Regional responsibility and no further shifts are required. She referred to issues relating to cross-boundary service areas and subsidization of wastewater rates, noting that with regard to the latter, Kitchener does not operate on a full cost recovery, but at 75% of the water rate. She noted that Kitchener's policy is that processing costs and capital are covered by the rate charged for wastewater, and that any surplus or deficit that occurs is accumulated in the Sewer Surchage Surplus account. Ms. Fisher pointed out that if responsibility were assumed by the Region they would likely implement a full cost recovery system which would result in a rate increase. Ms. Fisher referred to the aesthetic components of water quality and noted that though guidelines are in place these are not enforced by the Region. She pointed out that Kitchener has an effective water quality program in place which includes a five year swabbing cycle, which could be seriously compromised by the Region's attitude of response on an "as needed" basis. WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER AND WASTEWATER (CONT'D) Ms. Fisher advised that Kitchener staff have met with their counterparts in Waterloo and Cambridge and have reviewed several issues to establish a Tri-City consensus. It was this group's view that the WRR does not present a convincing case that cross-boundary servicing problems exist. She also noted that the three Cities agree bulk purchasing has potential savings and accordingly have been practising cooperative tendering for a number of years. As a result, a one tiered system does not have any apparent advantage over current practices. Ms. Fisher noted that the three Cities expressed concern that if trunk sanitary sewers or the full sewer and watermain systems become a Regional responsibility, the extension of these services to new development will be subject to Regional funding, programmes and constraints which will further remove development control from the local level. On the issue of customer service, she noted that the WRR acknowledges that the best customer service can be delivered by the municipal government closest to the customer, and that transferring service delivery to the upper tier government would result in the decline of personalized, customer based service and would result in customer confusion. Ms. Fisher referred to the table in the WRR report containing an analysis of the factors likely to affect overall water and wastewater costs, and noted that the three Cities do FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 130 - CITY OF KITCHENER not agree with the identified cost impact for a number of factors, and had serious concerns about how the cost figures had been determined. Specifically, the three Cities questioned the projected $400,000.00 savings which were assumed as an order of magnitude, and believe that there would likely be increased costs rather than cost savings in any transfer of responsibility. In summary, Mr. Gazzola suggested that the Waterloo Region Review has failed to provide any real evidence that the transfer of responsibility for water distribution and wastewater collection systems would either save costs or improve customer service. Councillor Ziegler also referred to the resolution of the Environmental Committee, and the response of Dr. James Kay, which were also submitted for the Committee's consideration. Councillor Wagner referred to comments in the staff response to the effect that there are wells within Kitchener that do not meet Provincial targets and continue to cause water quality problems and asked to be given the names of the facilities at issue. In response to a question from Councillor Wagner as to the next step in the response process, Mr. Gazzola stated that he hoped the Committee would endorse the staff comments and add any additional points they feel are relevant. Moved by Councillor T. Galloway: "That Council endorse the following as the City of Kitchener's response to the Waterloo Region Review (Water and Wastewater - May, 1995): a) the staff position that the proposed transfer of responsibility for water distribution and wastewater collection systems to the Region of Waterloo does not result in either cost efficiencies or improved customer service as outlined in the draft response submitted by J. Gazzola and dated October 13, 1995, b) the comments and concerns put forward by the Environmental Committee on October 4, 1995, c) the written submission from Dr. James Kay dated October 2, 1995, and further, That staff prepare the City's final response, incorporating all of the above, for submission to Regional Council." WATERLOO REGION REVIEW - WATER AND WASTEWATER (CONT'D) Councillor Galloway reviewed the concerns raised by the Environmental Committee on October 4, 1995, and asked that these be incorporated in the City's final response. He added that the WRR recommendations promote urban sprawl and are contrary to current thinking in this area. Councillor Galloway acknowledged that there are major problems with infiltration in rural areas; however, if the WRR recommendations are approved the onus to act on these will be diminished. He noted that Kitchener has a good track record with regard to water conservation, and in his opinion could be more successful than the Region in certain areas. Councillor Galloway acknowledged that the Regional government should take the lead in dealing with groundwater contamination. He suggested that a transfer to the Region of responsibility for water and wastewater would result in increased costs to the taxpayers of Kitchener. Councillor Galloway referred to the previous impact of transferring responsibility for certain municipal roads to the Region, and noted that initially, Kitchener taxpayers subsidized improvements to roads elsewhere in the Region which were not as well maintained as those in Kitchener. He suggested that the proposed transfer of water and wastewater is a similar situation. Councillor Galloway also referred to instances of the Region subsidizing communal water systems in rural areas. In closing, Councillor Galloway stated that he agrees with the recommendation of the WRR concerning waste management, and would agree with the transfer of water and FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 131 - CITY OF KITCHENER 10. wastewater provided there are demonstrated cost savings; however, the information shows there is clearly no advantage to City taxpayers in this regard. The previous motion by Councillor T. Galloway concerning the City's response to the Waterloo Region Review was voted on and Carried. CAPITAL PROJECTS - FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION The Committee was in receipt of a report from P. Summers dated September 11, 1995 recommending various project allocations in the Capital Forecast. Mr. Pritchard noted that a number of buildings require significant repairs and asked that the staff recommendation be referred to deliberations on the Capital Budget and Forecast. On a motion by Councillor M. Wagner - It was resolved: "That the capital items referred to in the report of P. Summers dated September 11, 1995 relative to the Transit Garage and the Bramm Street facility be referred to the 1996 deliberations on the Capital Budget and Forecast." CAPITAL PROJECTS - TRANSIT DIVISION The Committee was in receipt of a report from W. Beck dated October 10, 1995 recommending additional capital funding for a timed-transfer system. Mr. Beck referred to his report and advised that he was uncertain as to the exact cost, or the City's portion, relative to construction of timed- transfer locations on private lands. On a motion by Councillor M. Wagner - It was resolved: "That the recommendation of the Transit Division that a $200,000.00 annual allocation ($150,000.00 from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario, and $50,000.00 from the City) be included in the Capital Budgets for the years 1996 to 1998 be referred to the 1996 deliberations on the Capital Budget and Forecast." 11. CUSTOMER SURVEY The Committee was in receipt of a memorandum from Councillor C. Weylie outlining recommendations of the Continuous Improvement Steering Committee concerning a proposed customer survey. Councillor Weylie argued that it is wise to approach ratepayers at this time and determine their preference with regard to the delivery of City services. Moved by Councillor C. Weylie - "That Council adopt the recommendation of the Continuous Improvement Steering Committee that a consultant be hired at a cost not to exceed $10,000.00 to conduct a Citizen Survey, the results of which would be used as a budget priority setting tool, and, That the content of the survey be decided through a roundtable discussion meeting involving members of Council and Management Committee, and further, That the results of the survey be available to Council members no later than Budget Day on January 19, 1996." Councillor Ziegler indicated his opposition to the proposed survey, characterizing it as a waste of time and money, especially if the Province takes unilateral action to reduce funding for certain services. He also noted that in his opinion this is not a proper area of involvement for the Continuous Improvement initiative. Councillor Vrbanovic noted that he is in favour of the survey, FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1995 - 132 - CITY OF KITCHENER 12. 13. 14. 15. and that though a small investment is required, the responses would be beneficial in setting the 1996 budget. Councillor Wagner indicated his support, provided that while the survey questions are being developed, those responsible would be willing to consider other methods of communicating with taxpayers. Councillor Lorentz indicated his opposition, noting that citizens can call Councillors at any time to comment on municipal services. He also indicated that he has concerns over a survey relying on random sampling. The previous motion by Councillor Weylie to endorse the development of a customer survey was voted on and Carried. CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH PROGRAM -WINDHOEK Ms. Tranter gave a verbal update on the in-house training program developed in Windhoek, Namibia as part of the Africa 2000 Partnership. She referred to recent partnerships developed between the City of Windhoek, the local university and literary organizations which has resulted in 25 programme graduates, 1200 employee registrations and development of a comprehensive English program. Ms. Tranter advised that Kitchener has recently been approached for input on setting up similar programs in developing countries. OTHER BUSINESS Councillor Wagner complimented staff on significant improvements in the calibre of the reports being sent to Council. Councillor Jake Smola asked whether it would be possible to arrange for delivery of the Council packages on Thursday rather than Friday afternoon. Mr. Pritchard advised that though it may be possible to prepare agenda packages earlier, this would be impossible in other instances. Councillor Ziegler suggested that there be no change to the current system, and Councillor Jake Smola suggested that he needs more time in the event he has to make staff inquiries prior to Committee and Council meetings. Mr. McKay pointed out that the change suggested by Councillor Jake Smola would result in delays in receiving items for Council consideration. He pointed out that at present staff and Council have agreed that agendas will be set at noon on Wednesday, and that all background material is to be received in time for mailing with the Friday packages. He offered the opinion that changing this arrangement would not be appropriate. Councillor Ziegler added that if particular items are problematic, Councillor Jake Smola could request deferral of these to a subsequent meeting, as has taken place at the Region from time to time. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee will be held on Monday, November 6, 1995. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. ........... G. Sosnoski ........... Manager of Corporate ........... Records/Assistant City Clerk