Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1997-10-20FAC\1997-10-20 OCTOBER 20, 1997 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Administration Committee met this date commencing at 10:30 a.m.. under the Chairmanship of Councillor J. Ziegler with the following members present: Councillors T. Galloway, M. Yantzi, John Smola, Jake Smola, B. Vrbanovic, G. Lorentz, C. Weylie and K. Taylor-Harrison. Councillor M. Wagner was in attendance for the part of the meeting. Others present: Ms. P. Harris, Ms. L. MacDonald, Ms. P. Houston, Ms. B. Baker, Messrs. J. Gazzola, J. Shivas, T. McCabe, D. Paterson, J. Witmer, R. W. Pritchard, T. Clancy, L. F. Parkhouse, C. Ford and G. Sosnoski. 1. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - 361 DUKE STREET WEST Ms. Andrea Saunders appeared in her capacity as a co-owner of the property at 361 Duke Street West to request that the City legalise use of a portion of the laneway between Duke Street West and Waterloo Street for parking purposes, and to allow fencing of a portion of the laneway directly adjacent to the rear yard of 361 Duke Street West. In this regard, she circulated a written submission dated October 20, 1997. The Committee was also in receipt of a report from L. MacDonald dated October 15, 1997, including a letter of objection from Mr. Michael Schwartzentruber, Duke Street Investments, owners of the property at 120 Wellington Street. The letter objects to construction of a fence on City-owned lands. Ms. Saunders referred to the subject lands as an undeveloped laneway and circulated photographs showing the relationship between the laneway and her property as well as the property owned by Duke Street Investments. She advised that the laneway has been used by the 361 Duke Street property since at least 1974, and argued that construction of the fence would not detract from any heritage value associated with the property at 120 Wellington Street North as suggested by the owner, since any value in this regard was greatly diminished through recent renovations. She also advised that she would like to construct the fence in order to enclose the yard, in part due to past problems with tenants of the Wellington Street property and their dogs. Ms. Saunders advised that she has cared for the laneway over the years and is willing to assume any liability associated with continued use. Councillor John Smola put forward the recommendation in the staff report relative to continued use of the laneway for parking, and the fencing of the portion adjacent to 361 Duke Street West. His motion also included direction to staff to close the subject laneway and pursue the sale of the lands to abutting property owners. Councillor Wagner questioned the need for an encroachment agreement and referred to similar uses of City-owned lands by Kitchener residents. Mr. Shivas explained that the City normally requires an encroachment agreement in order to document the assuming of responsibility and liability by the user. He also expressed concern that this is the first instance in his recollection where the City would be permitting an encroachment on the entire laneway by only one of two affected owners. He noted that the other property owner is objecting to the request and that the proposed fence would create a perpendicular obstruction across the laneway blocking public access, which is not legally proper. He suggested that the proper procedure would be to close the lane and deed off the abutting parcels. In response to a question from Councillor Weylie, Ms. Saunders clarified that the laneway in question is not open throughout and is presently blocked at either end. She also noted that a 1974 survey shows a large garage on the City laneway owned by the then residents at 361 Duke Street West. Ms. Saunders also clarified that she has already expressed to staff an interest in purchasing the subject lands. Mr. Shivas commented that a middle course would be to allow the encroachment, but to prohibit the construction of fences across the laneway, adding that he is not aware of any instance where the City has authorised the construction of a fence to block access. Councillor John Smola commented that of the twelve properties located along the path of the laneway, at least three or four houses already have fences constructed across the laneway proper. Councillor Galloway also noted that it would be possible to include in the encroachment agreement a provision that the fence would have to be removed in the event the lands were sold to a third party, and Mr. Shivas concurred that the City could request removal of the fence with notice. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 - 137 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - 361 DUKE STREET WEST - CONT'D Councillor Ziegler asked that the motion of Councillor John Smola be dealt with in two parts, the first relating to the encroachment agreement proper and the latter to the fencing of a portion of the public lands. On a motion by Councillor John Smola, it was resolved: "That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an encroachment agreement with the registered owners of Part of Lot 34, Grange's Survey, North of King Street, North of the C.N.R., Registered Plan 376, municipally known as 361 Duke Street West, to permit the continued use of the adjacent unopened laneway for parking purposes; and further, That staff begin the process of closing this public laneway and selling the lands to abutting property owners." On a motion by Councillor John Smola, it was resolved: "That permission be granted to construct and maintain a fence around the outside perimeter of the unopened laneway that is adjacent to the rear yard of 361 Duke Street West." 2. PRE-BUDGETAPPROVAL-HERITAGE KITCHENER Councillor Wagner spoke to a request from Heritage Kitchener for pre-budget approval of a $1,000.00 expenditure associated with co-hosting a Community Heritage Ontario Conference in 1998. It was noted that conference costs will be covered by Community Heritage Ontario; however, a $1,000.00 contribution is required of each of the three hosting municipalities; namely, Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. On a motion by Councillor M. Wagner, it was resolved: "That Heritage Kitchener be given pre-budget approval, with respect to its 1998 budget in order to allow a $1,000.00 expenditure associated with co-hosting of the Community Heritage Ontario Conference, May 29 - 30, 1998 and if appropriate be permitted to spend this 1998 budget amount in 1997." 3. MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVE - NORTH WATERLOO HOUSING AUTHORITY The Committee was in receipt of a report and recommendation from L. F. Parkhouse dated October 14, 1997 concerning the appointment of Randy Mattice as a municipal representative. On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz, it was resolved: "That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that Mr. Randy Mattice be appointed a municipal representative on the North Waterloo Housing Authority." 4. PURCHASE APPROVAL-APPLICATION AND PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Department report PD97-103 recommending acquisition of a tracking system from CSDC Systems Inc. Councillor Ziegler enquired why 52 work stations are required to implement the software, and Mr. Witmer replied that the work stations identified are those requiring an upgrade to Pentium PURCHASE APPROVAL - APPLICATION AND PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM - CONT'D class computers, with some of these individuals already on the upgrade list. Councillor Vrbanovic FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 - 138 - CITY OF KITCHENER questioned why these work stations would not be funded through the Computer Reserve Fund, the amount of which has already been approved by Council, and Mr. Gazzola replied that since this is a new initiative, it is usually the City's practice to include the base cost of initial hardware as part of the overall project cost. Councillor Galloway noted that he supports the proposal in principle but questioned the cost, and Mr. Witmer advised that this initiative is an expansion of the tracking system from a department specific to a corporate wide application which will assist departments in expediting approval processes and implementing the concept of 'one stop shopping'. Councillor M. Wagner left the meeting at this time. In regard to the specific funding required over and above the current budget allocation, Ms. Houston advised that $138,000.00 comprises a software shortfall with an additional $50,000.00 for a server, plus taxes, and that this amount would be listed in the 1998 Capital Budget. She further noted that $140,000.00 was previously allocated to this project in 1997 and a further $102,000.00 has been prioritised as a draw on the 1998 Computer Reserve Fund. Councillor Jake Smola advised that with respect to this initiative, he would like to see a clear work plan, implementation schedule and a budget summary, and suggested that this should be done in the form of a Committee presentation. Councillor Vrbanovic put forward a motion to adopt an amended version of the staff recommendation. On a motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic, it was resolved: "That Council authorize staff to procure for the City the goods and services of CSDC Systems Inc. for the purpose of providing an application and permit tracking system and hereby waives the requirement under Chapter 170 (Purchasing) of the Municipal Code relating to a call for expressions of interest; and That Council agrees to pay CSDC Systems Inc. $301,000.00, exclusive of taxes, which represents the cost of providing the goods and services for, but not limited to, software, support, consultation, data conversion, interfacing with other corporate systems, training and maintenance; and further, That pre-budget approval of up to $188,000.00, exclusive of taxes, be granted with respect to project funding, with this amount to form part of the 1998 Capital Budget, and to be exclusive of any funds already allocated in the Computer Reserve Fund." LOCATION CRITERIA EXEMPTION - PLEASURES (BODY RUB PARLOUR) Ms. Cheryl Edwards, owner of Pleasures, appeared and requested an exemption from the requirement that body rub parlours be located on lands zoned C6. She referred to difficulties in locating appropriate premises and indicated that she has found two suitable locations; however, both are zoned M3, one being at 270 Bleams Road and the other at 589 Fairway Road. She requested that Council accept the M3 zoning in place of C6. Councillor Yantzi pointed out that in his view, Council had not departed from the C6 zoning requirement when it previously dealt with an exception for Victoria's. Mr. Shivas added that this exception allowed for CR4 zoning based on the City's Official Plan, noting that the basic philosophy behind the criteria is to move away from pedestrian in favour of vehicular traffic. In regard to the Bleams Road location, Mr. McCabe commented that the lands are zoned C2 and that residential development is permitted in this area under the Official Plan, but is not a specific use under the Zoning By-law. Councillor Ziegler pointed out that the CR4 zoning under which Victoria's operates is equivalent to C6 zoning, and pointed out to the delegation that LOCATION CRITERIA EXEMPTION - PLEASURES (BODY RUB PARLOUR) - CONT'D properties zoned C6 are available and that in his view her request is premature at this time. Ms. Edwards responded that Phoenix, another body rub parlour, had to purchase the building they are occupying in order to obtain premises zoned C6. She asked for the same consideration which was extended to Victoria's and which allowed that body rub parlour to remain at its present FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 - 139 - CITY OF KITCHENER location on lands zoned other than C6. Mayor Christy advised that he supported the request of Victoria's with reservations and concerns that other body rub parlour owners would use this exemption as a precedent. He suggested that Council should allow the existing criteria to stand and that the owners should comply; otherwise, the number of body rub parlours would be reduced by attrition which was always Council's intention. Councillor Ziegler as the Ward Councillor, advised that he would have no objection to Pleasure's occupying the Fairway Road location, and would like staff to have an opportunity to investigate and report on same. On a motion by Councillor Jake Smola, it was resolved: "That no action be taken on the request of Cheryl Edwards, Pleasures (Body Rub Parlour), for an exemption from the location criteria which requires that such an establishment be located in an area zoned C6." Councillor Ziegler asked that the minutes note that both he and Councillor Lorentz were opposed to the motion of no action. CITY SOUVENIRS The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Leona Montag, A-1 Flags, dated October 2, 1997 requesting permission to purchase and sell souvenirs imprinted with the City crest; in particular, lapel pins. On a motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic, it was resolved: "That the request of Leona Montag, A-1 Flags, for permission to purchase and sell souvenir items imprinted with the City crest, in particular lapel pins, be referred to staff for further investigation of the possible options, including but not limited to purchase of the item directly from the City with an appropriate mark-up; purchasing from a third party after payment of a licensing fee; sale of such items by the City through its public service counter." NEW SIGNAGE - GRAND HOTEL AND EAST END TAVERN The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Report PD97/109 dated October 17, 1997 in response to a request by Council for staff comment on the recent wall murals installed on both establishments. Photographs of the wall murals pertaining to the Grand Hotel were circulated. Councillor John Smola noted that the staff report advises that sign content is not regulated under Chapter 680 (Signs) of the Municipal Code, and that the owners of the Grand Hotel should be required to obtain a permit for the new facia signs on the front of the building. He further noted that the report does not indicate whether Provincial or Federal legislation would apply in regard to sign content. The Committee concurred with the suggestion of Councillor Ziegler that further consideration of the staff report and recommendation be referred to the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting to be held later this date in order to obtain a legal opinion with respect to Provincial and Federal legislation. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST - CONSULTANT SELECTION (JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM) The Committee was in receipt of a report from D. Paterson dated October 14, 1997, on behalf of the ad hoc committee struck to develop a draft Expression of Interest. Councillor B. Vrbanovic disclosed a pecuniary conflict of interest and abstained from all voting and discussion concerning the Expression of Interest for consultant services (Job Evaluation System) as his wife is employed in the City's Information Services Division. Mr. Pritchard advised that the ad hoc committee is recommending that the City retain the current system in a revised form and provided background as to the process leading to preparation of the FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 - 140 - CITY OF KITCHENER draft Expression of Interest before the Committee this date. He noted that a section pertaining to "pay for performance" had been added in recognition of an objective in the Corporate Strategic Plan, and that Management Committee has suggested that this would only apply to Management and Non-Union staff. Mr. Pritchard further noted that C.U.P.E. Local 791 is opposed to including "pay for performance" as part of the Expression of Interest at this time. Mr. Pritchard referred to the timeframe proposed by the ad hoc committee and outlined in Mr. Paterson's report, noting that under this scenario, given the impact of the upcoming municipal election, the next Council would deal with the short list and selection of a consultant. He noted that responses are expected by the end of November and that a final completion date has not been recommended in order to allow flexibility vis-a-vis individual consultant work schedules so as not to negatively impact the cost of the study or to prohibit any consultant from bidding. He then reviewed the deliverables section of the Expression of Interest. Councillor Ziegler enquired as to the disposition of the specific concerns raised by Council to date in regard to the current Job Evaluation System and the degree to which it is tied to current Collective Agreements. He indicated that he would be interested in comment as to whether this tie can be severed. Mr. Pritchard responded that since Council will appoint the consultant selection committee which would evaluate the Expressions of Interest, it was assumed that these issues would be addressed at that time and presented to the successful consultant. Councillor Galloway agreed with the direction taken, but expressed concern over the vagueness within the Expression of Interest in regard to the reason for the review. He suggested that a cursory reading of the document could suggest that a review is only being requested as part of a five year cycle and has not been precipitated by Council concerns as to the appropriateness of certain provisions in the current program, and in light of the present economic environment. Councillor Galloway put forward a motion to amend the current draft Expression of Interest dated October 7, 1997 to reflect that the hiring of a consultant has been precipitated by Council concerns as to the appropriateness of certain provisions in the current system, which was voted on and Carried. Councillor Jake Smola asked that any analysis respecting the relationship between the City's Collective Agreements and the Job Evaluation System be conducted separately with separate recommendations. He also questioned why the "pay for performance" system was being limited to management and non-union employees, and Mr. Pritchard replied that C.U.P.E. Local 791 had expressed concern as this initiative is not presently in its Collective Agreements. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that the initiative should be looked at in a corporate sense and not be restricted to selected staff. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST - CONSULTANT SELECTION (JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM) - CONT'D On a motion by Councillor G. Lorentz, it was resolved: "That Council endorse the proposed Expression of Interest dated October 7, 1997 with respect to retention of a consultant to review the City's current Job Evaluation System and related policies and practices as well as the project timetable, all forming part of the report of D. Paterson dated October 14, 1997; and further, That the above approval is conditional upon amending of the draft Expression of Interest to reflect that in addition to the need for a 5 year review of the current Job Evaluation System, the hiring of a consultant has been precipitated by Council concerns as to the appropriateness of certain provisions in the current System." FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 - 141 - CITY OF KITCHENER 10. 11. 12. OTHER BUSINESS Councillor Ziegler advised of further discussion with Mr. Stefan Vogel concerning calculation of the amount of the cash in lieu of parkland dedication for his property on Bloomingdale Road and asked for a further review of these figures. On a motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, it was resolved: "That the City Solicitor review the cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication for Mr. S. Vogel relative to his property on Bloomingdale Road, and undertake a second valuation based on figures from the most recent offer to purchase." INFORMATION ITEMS The Committee accepted, as information a report dated October 10, 1997 from the Licensing section regarding Monte Carlo events recently approved by staff. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee will be held on Monday, November 17, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. G. Sosnoski Manager of Corporate Records/Assistant City Clerk