Nov 3/04 Report
9:35-10:50 am

Attendance:

• Members: Ferguson (Chair), Braden, Bruckler, Collins (late, and out 1X, 15 min total), Pearson, and Samson.
• Non-Members: McCarthy
• Press: Spectator (Eric McGuinness), CHML (Ken Mann), CATCH (Judy Snider)
• Staff: Peace, Rinaldo, Graham, Larry Friday (taxation), Anna Bradford (Culture), 1-2
• Others: 2 Consultants from 'RiskPro Risk Management Consulting'
• Public: 1

Agenda:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/Agenda%2004-016.pdf
No transcription will be available of this meeting.

 Changes to the Agenda:

• 5.2 (Item 'b' and Appendix 'B' deleted, as the bill was paid)
• 4.1 Delegation request by Mr. Joseph Beattie, Business Manager and Secretary of the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council
• 6.1 Distribution of Information from Mr. Ray Ross, respecting Item 6.1
• 8.3 Report respecting Insurance Brokerage Services Request for Proposals (RFP).
• 9.2 Report of the Grants Sub-Committee meeting Oct. 28/04.
• 13.1 In Camera item respecting Legal Services Restructuring

Delegation Requests:
4.1 Delegation request by Mr. Joseph Beattie , Business Manager and

Secretary of the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council, respecting the City's Purchasing Policy, tender process and changes to the fair wage policy.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/added%20(c).pdf

Consent Items:
5.1 Quarterly Status Report on Use of Policy #10 - Emergency Purchasing and Policy #11 - Negotiations for the 3rd Quarter 2004
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/
FCS04075(b)%203rd%20Quarter%202004%20Status%20Report%20on%20use_of
%20Policy%20No.%2010%20No.111.pdf
During the 3rd Quarter of 2004, there were 102 instances where Policy #10 and #11 were used, totaling $4,512,864.30.
Item RECEIVED , no discussion.

5.2 Apportionment of Taxes - Pursuant to Section 356 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, Roll #2518 140 290 31000 at 0 Stonehenge Drive, Ancaster, Roll 2518 140 320 12600 at 0 Jerseyville Road West, Ancaster - (Item 'b' and Appendix 'B' deleted, as the bill was paid)
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/FCS04124%20-%20
Apportionment%20of%20Taxes.pdf
Staff Recommendation CARRIED , as amended, no discussion.

Delegations: ( 9:50-10:20 )

6.1 Mr. Ray Ross, Belvista Properties Inc., to submit a paper on multi-residential property taxation. (As published in the 'FE' ('Fair Exchange') magazine: http://www.frpo.org/pdfs/fairexchange/FEsept2004.pdf, a publication of 'FRPO' ('Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario', formerly 'Fair Rental Policy Organization') http://www.frpo.org/)

Mr. Ross emailed the Clerk on Oct. 27 to ensure that the committee read the article before he arrives. A copy of this email was included in the package received today by committee (on yellow copy, indicating an added item). ".This article defines the issues which I wish to have addressed by your city, and it represents my written submission to your council members. Due to the comprehensive nature of said issues, it should be reviewed and considered by members in advance. I am not cold calling and do not intend to waste time restating these documented issues to an unbriefed committee. Gut reactions don't interest me. Rather, I wish to benefit from the time allotted in hearing council members' considered position on the issues, including your city's strategy and direction vis-à-vis same. To avoid any misunderstanding, perhaps you would be so kind as to attach this request to the magazine handouts. I am meeting with another region on the same issue and will collect any magazine copies surplus to your needs."

The other thing that was handed out by Mr. Ross was a single sheet with these questions on it:

• Do Hamilton City Council Members Acknowledge that the Multi-Residential property tax ratio is fundamentally unfair? (Clue: Why is a 63.5% tax subsidy for new rental construction necessary?)
• When will Hamilton develop and implement a plan to reduce this unfair burden?
• Will Hamilton hurt the multi-residential class again to shield homeowners from legitimate assessment-related increases?

Ross begins by saying that he is not 'presenting' and asks if the committee has read the article. It appears that possibly only Braden has read any of it. Ferguson asks him to give a summary and Ross outlines a few points. Ross owns two apartment buildings in Hamilton , and essentially he is asking Hamilton to lower the multi-residential rate from 2.74%, citing that York by comparison, where he owns another apartment building, is at 1%. The handout shows that other nearby municipalities have multi-residential tax rates mostly between 2.10% to 3.76%. Ross says that he is interested in buy another building but will not buy in Hamilton if the tax rate is not lowered, and that the tax ratio (between tax classes, particularly compared to the residential) is unfair.

Braden starts the discussion by saying that "we are not in a position to replicate what York has done.it's simply not affordable". The other councillors all have questions and comments, including discussion on value assessment and tax ratios, but in the end it is suggested by Bruckler that Staff make a report to council outlining the implications of any changes to the multi-residential tax rate. Staff tells the committee that this type of report will be coming to council as a matter of course during the upcoming budget deliberations.

Discussion Items: (10:20-10:45)

8.1 Quarterly Investment Update to September 30, 2004.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/FCS04067(b)%20-%20Report%20-
%20Quarterly%20Investment%20Update%20Sept%2020041.pdf
Item RECEIVED , no discussion.

8.2 Hamilton Future Fund Investment Update to September 30, 2004.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/FCS04035(b)%20Hamilton%20
Future%20Fund%20September%2030%202004%20Investment%20Update.pdf

Ferguson notes that the fund started at $137 million, and even with money withdrawn for various projects, as of September 30 the balance was $141 million. Joe Rinaldo states that ".we've done extremely well on the rate of our return." (5.05% over the year).

Item RECEIVED.

8.3 Insurance Brokerage Services Request for Proposals (RFP).
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/FCS04121%20-%20Insurance
%20Broker%20Services%20RFP%20C6-05-04.pdf

RiskPro Risk Management Consulting was hired by the City to undertake revisions and re-issuance of the RFP document that had been utilized in 2003, and to assist in assessing all subsequent proposals and presenting a comprehensive report including recommendations to the Corporate Administration Committee for consideration. Proposals were received from Willis Canada Inc.; Cowan Insurance Brokers; Pearson-Dunn Insurance & Financial Services Inc.; and Dalton Timmis Insurance Group. However, Willis was disqualified, as they did not fully comply with the specifications outlined in the RFP. The proposals were independently reviewed by the evaluation team against the evaluation criteria (Insurance & Risk Management Services: 20 points, Market Sources: 16 points, Municipal Experience: 12 points, Staff Qualifications: 12 points, Management/Financial Strength of brokerage firm: 10 points, Compensation for Services 30 points.

Staff Recommendation: 'That the City of Hamilton enter into an agreement with Dalton Timmis Insurance Group for Broker of Record Services ..'

Braden asks for clarification on what this brokerage company will do and how are they paid. The consultant replies that the brokerage firm works in a similar way as a home insurance broker works, and they get a "small commission". Joe Rinaldo says they will get a "flat fee".

Collins is concerned the recommended company is not the one coming in with the lowest bid and asks about the lower bidder, saying that he "assumes that (they) failed on experience". (Dalton Timmis' came in at $86,200/year for at least 3 years, Pearson-Dunn $70,000, and Cowan $115,000) The consultant ('Barb') says that there were only marginal differences between scores - "all three were very, very close and all three are fully reputable". Collins is frustrated that this is the case, and wants to correct the process so that next time, in such a situation where competing companies are all fully reputable and capable, that the lowest bidding company be the recommended one. The consultant replies that in her opinion "30% is a reasonable number to put on compensation". Rinaldo interjects to say that this process is under review "on an on-going basis".

Pearson asks for specifics as to which category Cowan lost marks in, but Rinaldo cautions that the committee shouldn't go into these details because they are sensitive. (Cowan obviously lost marks in the compensation category, but probably Pearson meant to ask about Pearson-Dunn, as they were the lowest bidder and must have lost marks in some other category.)

Bruckler asks about a pre-qualification process and when told by Rinaldo that the only 'pre-qualification' was to ask for references, says that he "shares (Collin's) frustration .we have to get better at this".

Ferguson asks, "would any of the three do a competent job"? The consultant (Barb) says yes, but that they can't go back on the criteria, once set.

Collins asks that a proper pre-qualification process be used next time, and that he wants to see the cost factor more heavily in the overall evaluation criteria. He says that "it's frustrating that we're paying more for a service we could get cheaper.we're loosing ($16,200) for at least three years". Rinaldo tells committee that a new system is coming on line now, and that it's unfortunate that this bid process began before it was instituted, as "this one would have been perfect to apply this to".

The vote is called and the staff recommendation is CARRIED, Braden opposed.

Sub-Committee Reports: (10:45-10:50)

9.1 Report 04-004 of the Grants Sub-Committee
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/Grants%20Report%2004-004.pdf

9.2 Report 04-005 of the Grants Sub-Committee
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
corporate-administration/2004/Nov03/Grants%20Report%2004-005.pdf

Exerpts from the report: 'Community Partnership Program History

.In summary, the grants are consistent from year to year in the social services area; however, the grants in special events, arts and culture and miscellaneous vary due to

the fact that the volume of requests are becoming much greater. He also advised that services-in-kind were brought into the grants program in 2002; prior to that time, those dollars were absorbed within various departmental budgets.

Information was provided with respect to the impact of various percentages of increase to the Community Partnership Program budget, based on a net levy of $527 million (it's percentage based). Tony Tollis advised that the total demand and requests including all grant types in 2004 was $4.3 million, with $2.8 million in the budget. He also advised the Committee that the timing was appropriate for the Grants Sub-Committee to put forward a recommendation for consideration with respect to the 2005 Community Partnership Program budget.

Arts and Special Events Funding Ceiling Report GRA04008 respecting Community Partnership Program - Arts and Special Events Funding Ceiling, was tabled, pending approval of the 2005 funding level of the Community Partnership Program within the corporate operating budget.

Community Partnership Program - Impact of % of Levy Suggestion ( Ferguson opposed to this item in sub-committee vote)

. (b) That the budget for the 2005 Community Partnership Program remain

status quo (at 2004 levels), and referred to the 2005 budget process for consideration;

(c) That a 0.6% increase to the budget of the Community Partnership Program remain as an alternative option, should additional funds become available through the 2005 budget process.

Discussion:

Samson makes a proposal to take the "Big Five"; Opera Hamilton, the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra, Creative Arts, Boris Brott music festivals and Theatre Aquarius (the groups with the biggest budgets) out of the Community Partnership Program and putting them into the 'boards and agencies' category. This wouldn't necessarily affect the amount of funding they receive, a point that Collins wants to confirm, but will ensure a certain stability, as they will no longer be in competition with a varying (and likely increasing) number of competing organizations for a share of the grants pool.

Pearson wants to review a funding source for these organizations. Ferguson says that the yearly budget process is the appropriate time to look at this.

Motion: Samson/Pearson CARRIED

13.1 Private and Confidential: Legal Services Restructuring
Report LS04020 respecting "Legal Services Restructuring" was tabled to the November 17, 2004 meeting of the Corporate Administration Committee.