|
March 10/04 Report
7:00 pm
Council Members:
Mayor Larry DiIANNI (present)
Ward # 1 Brian McHATTIE (present)
Ward # 2 Andrea HORWATH (present)
Ward # 3 Bernie MORELLI (present)
Ward # 4 Sam MERULLA (present)
Ward # 5 Chad COLLINS (present)
Ward # 6 Tom JACKSON (late) in 7:25 pm
Ward # 7 Bill KELLY (absent)
Ward # 8 Terry WHITEHEAD (present)
Ward # 9 Phil BRUCKLER (present)
Ward #10 Maria PEARSON (present)
Ward #11 David L. MITCHELL (present)
Ward #12 Murray FERGUSON (present)
Ward #13 Russ POWERS (present)
Ward #14 Dave BRADEN (present)
Ward #15 Andrea McCARTHY (present)
Members of the Media present:
- Hamilton Spectator - Eric McGuinness (in before meeting started; stayed until after In Camera Session)
- 2 other media people -
Staff present that answered questions through the Mayor:
- Kevin Christenson, City Clerk (and some other staff from that office, not sure of names and faces, yet, sorry)
- Peter Crockett, General Manager of Public Works
- L. Coveyduck, General Manager, Planning and Development
- City Lawyer (didn't hear the name - Marini?)
- Joseph Rinaldo, General manager Finance & Corporate Services
- Glen Peace, Acting City Manager
Call to Order (7:00 pm - The bells were dinging)
National Anthem
Prayer: Reverend NORRIE, of the People's Church (Mohawk Road). Has lived on West mountain since 1995. Prior to coming to Hamilton, was Senior Pastor in Guelph for 16 years, and served as Pastor in various small communities in the Maritimes. Pastor Norrie is a was born in Parry Sound, Ontario.
1) Approval of the Agenda (as amended): Ferguson / Collins - CARRIED
The following changes were made to the agenda before approval (Kevin Christenson, City Clerk):
1.1) Community Services Report, (Item 6.5 on agenda) has been deleted, as this meeting was cancelled
1.2) Typographical error in the Public Works and Environment committee (Item 6.1 on agenda) has to be renumbered as #1 - #4 inclusive as there are two # 2's at present
1.3) We have an added Communication Item from Winston Tinglin, CEO - United Way of Burlington and Greater Hamilton, on behalf of the Strengthening Hamilton's Community Initiative (SHCI) respecting budget issues and there is an item in this that is to be referred to in the upcoming budget deliberations (4 recommendations: extend the secondment of the Project Manager through 2005; position the Corporation of the City of Hamilton as a model employer by adopting and implementing bias-free recruiting, hiring, retention, promotion processes - supporting equitable service delivery to Hamilton diverse population; maintain supports to Access and Equity Office and consider re-locating it to the Office of the City Manager; Receive SHCI quarterly or bi-annual reports via the Strategic Planning and Budget Committee - keep Council informed)
1.4) Added Motions:
1.4.1) With Respect to (w.r.t.) Corporate Administration Committee - Item #13 in report - an amendment to it which will be put forward by Councillor Ferguson
1.4.2) w.r.t. Selection Committee Report, an amendment to be put forward by Councillor Whitehead to add recommendation # 2 to this report
1.4.3) Item 7.3(a) is a motion by Councillor McHattie to reconsider Item # 36 of the first report of the Planning and Economic Development Committee.
1.4.4) Item 7.4 is an motion by Councillor Whitehead w.r.t. the Canadian steel industry
2) Declarations of Interest
-none
4) Approval of Minutes of Last Council Meeting - February 25, 2004 - Powers / Pearson - CARRIED
3) Ceremonial Activities (done after #4 (shown above) of printed agenda)
- it says that there is none on the agenda, but Mr. and Mrs. Robert & Elaine Pasuta (Pork Farmers) were called to the podium by Mayor DiIanni (also asking Councillor McCarthy to come forward - as they live in her ward). Mr. & Mrs. Pasuta are from Mountsberg. As they were walking to the podium, Mayor DiIanni noted that when looking at a map of the New City of Hamilton, a lot of the territory is actually agricultural territory, that the agricultural industry is very strong in our community and that the current council, initiated by the former council has created a sub-committee made up of individuals from the farming community who provide advice to Council on matters dealing with agriculture. "And, not only should agriculture be supported because of the good things it does, but it's a strong part of our economy, generating $1 billion dollars of net value into our economy each year." Mr. & Mrs. Pasuta have been honoured this year by the Hamitlon - Wentworth Federation of Agriculture with the 2003 Family Farmer of the Year Award (applause). Mayor DiIanni referred to the feature that appeared in the Hamilton Spectator ("Farm family of the year keeps roots: The Pasutas have been running their small family farm since 1948," The Hamilton Spectator, Saturday, Feb. 21, 2004 - p. Go 6) noting Robert's father started the farm in 1948 (beef cattle), who still works the farm with Robert and Elaine. Mayor DiIanni asked the Pasutas to come forward to give them a Plaque on behalf of Council which says: "On behalf of the City of Hamilton, I wish to extend congratulations and recognition of Robert and Elaine Pasuta recipients of the distinguished 2003 Farm Family of the Year Award. Your success is to be commended and may it continue in the years ahead." (plaque signed by Mayor DiIanni and Councillor McCarthy) Congratulations (applause)
- Robert Pasuta thanked the Mayor and Council for recognizing agriculture and presenting the plaque to his wife Elaine and himself. "It's an honour, indeed. Agriculture is an important part of this city I believe the council and the City now has realised this by the economic impact study that was done for agriculture. We can be and will be an important part of this city now and in the future ... with the harbour, the airport if we get the new highway in . . . the different produce that we have out there, the crops we grow ... and if we can bring industry in to process this stuff, we can bring outside products in from other counties, even the states and process it. We can build on that and I think we can have a profitable and great future for this city. Thank you." (applause)
FERGUSON: "Mr. Mayor, you alluded to the fact that the city set up an Agricultural / Rural affairs advisory committee" (point out who sits on that? - didn't hear the rest)
DiIANNI: I know that and I should have mentioned that Councillors Ferguson and Mitchell are past recipients of the Family Farmer of the Year award, as well "And that speaks well for the kind of expertise we have around the council table;" . . .
DiIANNI: As well there has been performance recognition from the Province of Ontario Municipal Centre for Best Practices - specifically recognizing the work done by our conventional transit operators (memo from Don Hull, Director of Transit) for the Trans-Cab service (see City of Hamilton website:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Living-Here/Transit/Trans-Cab/default.asp), an Alternative Service Delivery (ASD), resulting in service being provided and at an affordable rate as well as another service the City of Hamilton provides - the Universal Bus program (is this referring to McMaster student bus passes?) (see "McMaster Undergraduate and Graduate Students" on:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Living-Here/Transit/Fares/default.asp) resulting in increased ridership; revenue; mobility improvements - DiIanni wanted to publicly congratulate Don Hull and the others on this team for the good work that is being done. (Applause)
5) Communications (moved to be received) - Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED
5.1 "Correspondence from Den Dakin Respecting Application for Amendments to the Former Town of Dundas Official Plan and Zoning By-law 3581-86 - 201 King Street East (also corresponds to Item B of City Council Outstanding Business)"
5.2 "Letter of appreciation for Kathryn Bulko, President, Municipal Information Systems Association (MSA) Ontario for hosting a successful 2003 MISA Conference and Trade Show"
5.3 Letter from Winston Tinglin, CEO - United Way of Burlington and Greater Hamilton, on behalf of the Strengthening Hamilton's Community Initiative (SHCI) respecting budget issues and there is an item in this that is to be referred to in the upcoming budget deliberations (late addition to agenda)
6) Committee Reports (move to go into Committee of the Whole (COW) to consider committee reports) - Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED
6.1 Public Works, Infrastructure and Environment Committee, Report 04-007, March 1, 2004
(motion to adopt report and information section to be received) Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/Public-
Works/2004/Mar01/Rep04-007.pdf
It was noted that Councillors Mitchell and Braden oppose Item # 1 in this report which states:
"1. City Hall Accommodations Project - C3-03-03 Evaluation Status Report (PW03010a/FCS03064a) - (Ward 2 with City Wide Implications) That the site of the Hamilton City Hall remain at 71 Main Street West, regardless of the type of structure or solution the City chooses to address the City Hall Accommodations issue."
(there was quite an humourous exchange with Mayor DiIanni and Councillor Morelli who noted the item number mix-up on the above report. The Mayor advised him that this was noted by the clerk at the beginning of the meeting and said: "but thank you. You're very observant." Morelli: "I try, I try." (much gregarity and joshing Councillor Morelli from other councillors) DiIanni (laughing): "There's no mercy, Councillor Morelli, right?" Morelli (also laughing): "Somebody told me it was a blood sport, so I'll get you.")
6.2 Planning and Economic Development Committee, Report 04-005, March 2, 2004
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Mar02/REPORT%2004-005.pdf
(motion to adopt report and information section to be received AS AMENDED ) Whitehead / Mitchell - CARRIED
Councillor Horwath wished to comment on Item#14:
"14. Application for a Modification in Zoning for Lands Located at 47 Caroline Street North (Hamilton) (PD04062) (Ward 2) (Item 7.2) That approval be given to Zoning Application ZAR-03-99, 456941 Ontario Limited (Silvestri Investments), owner , for a modification to the established "E-3" (High Density Multiple Dwellings) District for lands located at 47 Caroline Street North (Hamilton), as shown on Appendix "A" to Report PD04062"
Councillor Horwath noted that this is an excellent new development on Caroline Street North; progress and good work by the developer who has worked closely with the neighbourhood and our planners to come up with a design that will fit beautifully into our urban environment and makes use of an underutilized lot and is a "success story to the nines on urban infill development" thanking staff, planners and developer (Silvestri) for their hard work.
Councillors McHattie and Mitchell wish to be recorded as opposed to Item # 17:
17. Application to Expand the Winona Urban Community for a Portion of 10 Lorado Drive (Stoney Creek) (PD04063) (Ward 11) (Item 7.5)
(a) That the City of Hamilton inform the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) in respect of NEPA PW-138-01 (Hamilton General Homes Ltd.) that the subject lands are designated "Urban Area" by the Regional Official Plan, and the development of urban residential uses on such lands are considered appropriate.
(b) That in the event the NEC approves NEPA PW-138-01 (Hamilton General Homes Ltd.) to extend the Minor Urban Centre Designation in the NEP, staff be directed to report on modifications to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) OP-03-12, to redesignate the subject lands from "Agricultural" to "Winona Urban Community" in the Official Plan (OP) of the former City of Stoney Creek to increase the proposed residential density to achieve a more efficient and sustainable use of serviceable urban land resources in the context of appropriate site design issues.
-- McHattie wanted to oppose this item, as he was in disagreement with staff's opinion that this land was within the urban boundary and cited Stoney Creek official plan says it is out of the boundary; the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) case noted that it was out of the boundary; as did the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) say it was out of the boundary
-- Mitchell had a copy of the 1994 OMB hearing. He noted that there were some amendments made at that public meeting (re: Planning and Econ develop meeting, March 2/04 - see recommendation (a) in staff report, 3rd line, 3rd word in at:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Mar02/
PD04063%20-%20Report%20-%20Winona%20Urban%20Exp%20-
%2010%20Loredo.pdf) "that took out the word 'now' because this council did not 'now' put this in the official plan. It was done by a ministerial order back in January 1995. So that word was recommended to be deleted." He noted that there were no further amendments made, but that there were a lot of questions asked of our legal staff on this issue. And that there was a question as to how this area in question was named (or not name) designated as "urban area". This is 2-4 years away from being developed, believing the community would possibly be going to another OMB hearing concerning this in the future, for clarification. Mitchell noted that he voted on the issue upon advice from legal and staff as to their understanding that it was within the urban boundary and now he is Concerned 1) about the advice from legal staff and planners that the area is in the urban boundary (in lieu of what he read afterwards in the OMB hearing) and 2) had an extra public meeting at Stoney Creek and staff's recommendation is that if NEC passes this "because it has to go there, it cannot be dealt with here" [in council] our staff are recommending higher densities . . ."well I want to be opposed to higher densities down there. It is away from the character of the area and I have some concerns about that. So, for those 2 reasons, Mr.Mayor, I have to at this time, in light of this new information that has been brought to me oppose this."
-- Horwath stated that she supports the application, as she noted that from all the information that she heard at the meeting, the process that is required is for the NEC to decide on the issue, as the bottom line is that there is a ministerial order that council cannot supersede and that the next course of action is for the NEC to make a decision - and then it comes back to council to determine issues. It is a procedural issue rather that a political position on the urban boundary expansion and that the decision of whether to allow urban development on the land in question (i.e. whether the land be designated urban or not) rests at this point with the NEC.
-- Pearson - concurs with Horwath, noting a long history on this piece of land
-- Braden - would like to strike (a) from the report altogether; Mayor DiIanni noted that this would be contrary to the motion, then Councillor Braden spoke to the motion at hand. Braden felt that there were four official groups saying that the land had a certain status: OMB; our (Regional) official plan, which has been signed by the Minister; and Stoney Creek official plan all different than the NEC. The problem he has with sentence (a) was that it simply talked about one group the "official plan" and what that is and in having only this view, without the others, sentence (a) gives the "official plan" a higher weighing or importance over the other three. Braden felt this "sways the introduction of the topic" And, if sentence (a) remains, designation of the land by all four groups should be noted to avoid one getting stronger weight.
-- Ferguson - noted that at the Planning meeting there were actually five different levels: Stoney Creek Official Plan; the Regional Official Plan; NEC; OMB; and the Ministerial Order - "and that's the pecking order"
-- Mitchell - noted that there were some questions by Winona residents at the Planning meeting that were submitted to the Clerk's department. He would like a copy of those answers and noted that the residents will need the answers to the questions as well, especially if the case goes to another OMB hearing.
Mayor DiIanni, seeing no others who wished to speak called the question, splitting the item into #17 (a) and #17 (b)
All in favour of #17 (a) CARRIED
opposed to 17 (a) Braden, McHattie and Mitchell
All in favour of #17 (b) CARRIED
opposed to #17 (b) McHattie and Mitchell
Councillor Horwath spoke to the "FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCIL" section of the minutes of the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, specifically the demolition permit of (c) and (d)
(c) Demolition Permit - 119 Young Street (PD04059) (Ward 2) (Item 6.9)
Committee tabled the subject application to permit additional discussions with the applicant.
(d) Demolition Permit - 121 Young Street (PD04000) (Ward 2) (Item 6.10)
Committee tabled the subject application to permit additional discussions with the applicant.
- at the meeting staff recommended denial because they don't fit with policy. But, Councillor Horwath wanted to bring them forward to change the conditions, noting that these orders do not fit with policy because in the downtown area, you cannot demolish a residential unit unless you have a permit to put up another building. Wanted to see if she could bring these to council today (possible conditions already vetted through building department staff; vetted through Lee Ann (Sp?) Coveyduck, General Manager of Planning & Development) DiIanni want motion to waive the rules on this: Collins / Horwath; motion to move these two item from the "information section" to the body of the report as #22 and #23: (Horwath / ?)
Horwath's recommendation: That the building permits for 119 and 121 Young Street be granted with the following conditions:
"a) that upon demolition of said buildings, the properties known as 119 and 121 Young Street be merged and held under one separate title; that a landscaping plan approved by the Director of Development and Real Estate be submitted including a one year time limit for implementation upon completion of demolition; and that should landscaping plan not be implemented within said one year time limit, that the City be paid the sum of $10, 000, and that the applicant be required to register on title to subject property prior to issuance of said demolition permit a notice of these conditions satisfactory to Acting Director of Building and Licensing, Director of Legal Services and Corporate Council and that said approved landscaping plan specify that landscaping not be implemented as required (then it goes on to the initial recommendation that came to staff)"
Horwath said it is simply taking the condition of building a building on the lot and moving it to making it temporary landscaping on the lot. Older couple recently purchased the lots in question for their son, they live next door and wish that he lives there in the future. The current buildings on the lots are in grave disrepair. Councillor Horwath confirmed conditions of the lot, as she noted she went out to the lots.
Motion: Horwath / Collins (DiIanni asked if staff were okay with this, and indicated that they were) CARRIED
Whitehead: question regarding whether this would set a precedent.
- answered by Coveyduck: that this was a council adopted policy, as opposed to a legislated by-law, "so it is up to council whether or not they choose, you look at each individual situation, these lots are in disrepair and I think that the solution that the Councillor has come up with in this particular case makes sense."
After Councillor Horwath's motion passed, Mayor DiIanni then asked Councillor Whitehead give a motion on the report as amended
6.3 Corporate Administration Committee Report 04-006, March 3, 2004
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Corporate-Administration/2004/Mar03/
Corp.%20Admin.%20Report%2004-006.pdf)
(motion to adopt report AS AMENDED and information section to be received ) Ferguson / Collins - CARRIED
Councillor Merulla talked to Item # 5:
"5. Employee Parking Policy (HUR03007/PD03204/FCS03135) (City Wide) (Item 8.1(b))
(a) That the Employee Parking Policy attached as "Appendix A", be approved and implemented, effective January 1, 2005; (b) That the following policies and procedures be repealed:
(i) Former City of Hamilton/Region of Hamilton-Wentworth Policy No. 3.26, "Employee Paid Parking Procedure" and Policy No. 3.8 "Employee Paid Parking Policy"
(ii) Former City of Hamilton/Region of Hamilton-Wentworth "Court-house Parking Policy" Corporate Administration 3 Report 04-006 Committee Minutes Council - March 10, 2004
(c) That the Public Works and Planning and Development Departments be directed to investigate and report back on the costs and procedures for proposals to encourage employees in alternate forms of commuting to work, such as car pooling, walking and cycling;
(d) That Item D on the Outstanding Business List be removed."
Merulla: "My apologies, are we on Corporate Administrative Committee?" (in back ground from someone, "Yeah we are.)" Merulla continues . . . "and are we talking about employee parking" (DiIanni: "We're at five" - which concerns employee parking) "All right then, I do want to speak on this particular issue . . .I just realized that this is an issue that is quite important and no one else tapped on their glass and I was anticipating that. But, having said that, it's an issue that obviously is great contention regarding a number of employees of the City of Hamilton who have worked here for a number of years and I think I have to concur with them in that there has been a system in place at this particular city hall, that there is . . . "X" amount of employee parking allocated and that anyone over and above the amount that's allocated needs to get onto a list to ensure that they have first dibs in those parking spots. Now, we're told by HR (Human Resources) that we need to be equitable throughout the entire corporation. But, we're dealing with an issue here where I think grandfathering would play a significant role in creating equity in the entire process. We all know that we have a bounusing program at the City of Hamilton, which pays out nearly a million dollars a year to certain senior managers which I don't believe is equitable from a corporate standpoint. It goes to the top bureaucrats and not the bottom bureaucrats. And, I have to say to you that that in itself is not equitable an I've been told that the reason why we continue pursuing this million dollar bonus extravaganza (DiIanni interrupts Merulla saying: "Councillor talk about the parking") Merulla: "Oh, I am . . . the reason why we're pursuing this million dollar bonus extravaganza is the fact that people bought into their employment and their contract based on the fact that they were going to be receiving these bonuses. Well, now when we lower the bar, to those at home who are listening, when these people were hired, they were given a parking spot. Now, we're not talking 5, 10 15, 20 thousand dollar bonuses, we're talking simply a parking spot that was given based on their contractual obligation to the City to be employed at the City of Hamilton. Now, we're tearing that away from them, but yet we're still hanging on to the million dollar bonus extravaganza to the management. And, I say to you Mr. Mayor that's laughable at best. And I say, this is unheard of, it's unfortunate. HR doesn't recognize the fact that most of these people who were employed were employed being given this privilege and now are suddenly are being taken this privilege away. HR is saying to us, based on a bonus argument that . . . Whoa, you know what, these people signed on based on these bonuses, yet we are still giving them the bonuses based on the fact that they signed onto it. Now, you know what, I'm just a poor immigrant's son just trying to make a living in this country and I'm telling you right now (snickering under his breath and others giggling) this is the haves and have nots scenario because I'm telling ya, this is grossly unfair and something that I can't support and I will stand here proudly to say the inequity in this is laughable. Thank you Mr. Mayor"
DiIanni: So . . . you agree . . . the employee parking policy you're in supper of the recommendation or not?" (I think I heard in the background a "no" from Merulla, but he didn't have his microphone on)
Horwath: first asked a question regarding "when this issue arose the last time, there was clear instruction to staff about putting together a parking plan or doing an analysis of the effects of this recommendation on the surrounding downtown neighbourhoods and business districts which I happen to represent. So, could I ask through you to staff if that report was provided, is that analysis provided with these recommendations?"
DiIanni: Thank you . . . Mr. Marini
Marini: "The analysis wasn't done to that degree, the reason was first and foremost that the City Hall issue was going to be providing 1200 parking" . . . (didn't catch the rest of his comment, taped stopped momentarily) "This consultant has been working on an assessment of downtown parking" (tape stopped again, had to go with some of my notes) consultant working in the Durand neighbourhood
Horwath: (was under the understanding that Marty Hazel in parking services that was requested to do that particular analysis, but she was familiar with the one Mr. Marini was talking about) "this is the crux of the matter, Mr. Mayor, quite frankly on a brief quick look . . . based on a different study altogether, so not based on the information that was specifically asked for this particular initiative which has not come forward . . . and I have a big problem with that notwithstanding that, there was another study going on and so we used some of that information. . . to have a quick glance at 'Gee, what's really going on' in just one . . . residential neigbourhood, called the Durand neighbourhood . . . not the business districts, not the Corktown neighbourhood, not the Central neighbourhood, not the Stinson neighbourhood, not the neighbourhood that I live in . . . which people park on the streets that in my neighbourhood as well to come into the inner city for working. Mr. Mayor, it's unconscionable that this council will move forward on this item without having a full understanding with how it will affect the commercial and residential taxpayers of these adjacent neighbourhoods. You know what, different councillors have different perspectives on this issue and I have different perspectives when I'm only looking at purely the issue of merit and not merit; grandfathering and not grandfathering and all those kinds of things. But, for me, Mr. Mayor, this comes down to due diligence and being responsible to all (stressed) of the taxpayers of our community in making our decisions. It's just inappropriate, Mr. Mayor, for us to foist hundreds of cars into these neighbourhoods, which are already extremely stressed for parking and any one of us will know that just by driving, or walking for that matter, three blocks in any direction; six blocks; 8 blocks; 10 blocks; 12 blocks, Mary (giggle) Right?! I mean it's a big problem. And, I'm actually quite concerned that that specific issue, which I really believe is extremely legitimate, has not been addressed and it is completely unfair and completely inappropriate . . . It's a big problem . . . and I sent members of council an e-mail, and I didn't even write it. It was written by somebody in ward 8, I believe. But it just so encapsulised the issues that I brought to the table last time that have not yet been addressed, that I forwarded to members of council and plead with you to please, please, please understand that there is an issue outside of all of the HR issues and it's about how do you impact your downtown neighbourhoods which need to have people living in them and need to have commercial businesses thriving in them for us to make a successful downtown. Thanks, Mr. Mayor."
Whitehead: Motion to table, as Marty Hazel was not at the meeting. Whitehead felt that Mr. Hazel was the only one that could answer the questions that he had. Wanted "corporate memory" moving to table and reserve the right to speak.
DiIanni: Motion to table item Whitehead / Merulla - CARRIED
Whitehead: is concerned about the parking impact on surrounding neighbourhoods, wants to see a study done and a report come back and want to make sure Marty Hazel is available for questioning with respect to corporate memory
DiIanni asked if he was looking to have a motion of Referral back to committee. Councillor Whitehead said yes
Motion to refer back to committee: ? / ? CARRIED
(my notes had Collins asking why the item was tabled - but I don't have anything on tape)
Braden: "Being that vote as it is, there is still an outstanding issue. It's related to this. Would you like me to bring it up under new business. And I'd be happy to do it then."
Councillor Jackson had a comment about Item #8 of the report:
"8. Councillors' Remuneration - Continuation of One Third Tax Allowance (FCS04040) (City Wide) (Item 8.4)
(a) That the 1/3 tax free portion of the remuneration for Members of Council be maintained for the current Council term;
(b) That, in accordance with section 283(7) of the Municipal Act , each subsequent Council review By-law 02-354 'Continuation of One-Third Tax Free Benefit', once during its three-year term."
Jackson: "The same type of recommendation was before us last term at council. I asked to be recorded as opposed to it last time, I'm going to ask to be recorded as opposed to it this time." Councillor Jackson noted that Burlington and other municipalities that we look to compare ourselves to as being progressive and moving forward have discontinued this 1/3 tax free allowance. "Let's make our salaries open, transparent to the appropriate compensation if that ends up being the case, which other municipalities and provincial governments and federal governments have done for that matter. And, this 1/3 tax free allowance, Mr. Mayor, for me just perpetuates for a lot of our citizens and our tax-payers the notion that there's an extra special perq [perquisite] that Members of Council get. And, I'd like to dispel that notion, Mr. Mayor, and I think we should eventually move towards removing it and just make what ever appropriate adjustments be done . . . and I just think it's the right way to go. So unless there's a change here, Mr. Mayor, I'll ask to be recorded as opposed to item eight. Thanks, Mr. Mayor."
McCarthy: asks her question through the Mayor to the Finance Director (Joe Rinaldo). "Joe, my understanding of the reason that we were keeping this 1/3 tax exemption is that there was a cost to the City if we didn't do that. Can you confirm or deny that and what that amount would be?
Joe Rinaldo: "Through you, your worship, the additional cost to the City would be $250, 000 that we would have to add to the budget in order to discontinue the tax free allowance."
Ferguson: (didn't pick it up on tape and I didn't hear it to write down notes, but I think he even may have passed his turn because his question was asked by Councillor McCarthy, but I'm not sure.)
Braden: (through the Mayor to Joe Rinaldo) "When we had this discussion before, Joe, you were going to confirm whether or not there would be the option to go the opposite way assuming the individual paid all of the difference so that the net to the City was the same. Did you check and find that out?
Joe Rinaldo: "Through you, your worship, I did inquire with the province and it's all or nothing, in essence."
Merulla: "Just to expand upon this, there's an additional cost to the City of $250, 000 if we go away from this particular tax exemption, and also, if we were to move away from this exemption, our actual OMERS contributions would increase which would benefit us individually greater than that it is presently. So, it really is a selfless act to continue pursuing this particular initiative (councillors laughing)
DiIanni (laughing): "It's an act of generosity." After some kibitzing with councillors, calls the question to pass Item #8 - CARRIED, with Jackson being recorded as opposed.
Councillor Jackson wished to comment on the HECFI (Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facility Inc.) review Item # 12 of the report:
"12. HECFI Operational Review (City Wide) (Item 8.8)
(a) That the "Operational and Governance Review of Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc. (HECFI)", as submitted by KPMG, be received;
(b) That the following mandate for HECFI, as approved by the HECFI Operational Review Sub-Committee, be approved: "The purpose of HECFI is to generate economic activity in the City of Hamilton while providing community benefits through the management of its facilities.";
(c) That the Purchase Order issued to KPMG for the purpose of the Operational Review of HECFI, approved by Council in adopting Item 32 of Committee of the Whole Report 03-024 on September 10, 2003, be increased by $10,000 from $85,000 to $95,000 in order that KPMG present an implementation plan with respect to the operations and governance of HECFI;
(d) That the additional funds required be charged to the HECFI Capital Projects Reserve Dept. ID100025'
(e) That staff prepare a report to the Strategic Planning and Budget Committee outlining the options related to privatizing the HECFI facility(ies) at the conclusion of the final KPMG Report."
Jackson: (noted that he sits on the committee of HECFI with DiIanni, Braden, Ferguson (Chair), and Kelly) "I think that we're heading in the right direction . . . KPMG report has suggested that we do a quasi independent body that is set up similar to Hamilton Utilities Corporation, that would be an arms length agency with a reduced board or directors: six citizens and three politicians - reduced complement from what we currently have, with some tighten up of various aspects of the operation and administration itself, versus going right to the complete end of it which is possibly total privatization, which is what (e) speaks to. What I'm pleased about is that there seems to be renewed interest in our community from the business side of it from people who are going to be coming forward at your Strategic Planning and Budget Committee meeting in the near future wanting to put a proposal before council and community about operation of those 3 facilities . . . the KPMG report also said our attendance, our revenues from 2002 over 2001 actually increased that overall our facilities have done a good job compared to other municipalities. Other municipalities primarily subsidize, to some degree, these type of facilities that do both community good and generate economic activity in this community. And so, I know, I understand the controversy of which this review was spawned. I know that we didn't have a review of the HECFI operations pretty well since the HECFI was born in 1985 under bill PR34 through the provincial government. So it was timely and it was necessary. But, I don't want to disparage a lot of the good work that the HECFI organization and Board of Directors of the past and current have done to bring a lot of great acts to this community and will do so in the future. So I look forward to the final result. Thanks Mr. Mayor.
Ferguson: "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a point of information for the Members of Council. April 7, that's the Corporate Admin. Committee KPMG will be appearing in delegation at which time they'll present the final report of the Operational Review. Plus they will present the implementation plan. Plus they've offered, at no charge, which was the part that pleased me - offered at no charge to give an overview on their experience and expertise in the "triple P" field based on . . .
(and right then and there my tape stopped and I was fiddling with it, so I didn't write down the pertinent information.)
Whitehead: Pleased with the report. "Every Corporation should embark on such a process to take a look and improve on themselves. This report is a vindication is how I read into it in respect to the operation." He commended the staff for their performance. "I'm quite open to the debate and the discussion whether we look at private sector. I'm quite open to supporting this particular recommendation from this review."
DiIanni: calls the question to pass Item #12 - Powers / Mitchell - CARRIED
Powers spoke with respect to Item # 13 re amending:
" 13. Report 04-001 of the Governance Review Sub-Committee (Item 8.9)
(a) Election of Chair and Vice Chair (i) That Councillor R. Powers be appointed Chairman of the Governance Review Sub-Committee;
(ii) That Councillor D. Mitchell be appointed Vice Chairman of the Governance Review Sub-Committee.
(b) Reporting Structure for Volunteer Committees and the Selection of Citizen Appointments (CL04002) (City Wide) (i) That the reporting structure for Volunteer Committees, as amended, and attached hereto as Appendix "A" to Governance Review Sub-Committee Report 04-001, be approved;
(ii) That the following Volunteer Co-ordinating Committees be dissolved: . Corporate Services . Community Services . Public Works . Planning and Development . Social & Public Health Services
(iii) That appropriate staff liaison to Volunteer Committees continue to be provided from the applicable departments, with a view to the Volunteer Committees becoming self-sustainable within the duration of this term of Council;
(iv) That complimentary meeting space to Volunteer Committees continue to be provided where available;
(v) That the Volunteer Committees' 2004 Budget Submissions, as summarized in Appendix "C to Report CL04002, be received and forwarded to a future meeting of the Governance Review Sub-Committee for allocation of funds to the volunteer committees once the 2004 Budget has been approved by Council;
(vi) That recruitment of citizen members commence as soon as possible with the membership requirement as approved in Appendix "D", as amended, to Governance Review Sub-Committee Report 04-001;
(vii) That a sub-group of each Standing Committee conduct any required interviews, or appoint, for the selection of citizens to be appointed to volunteer committees;
(viii) That the appointment of members of the Standing Committee to each respective Volunteer Committee within its jurisdiction be made at the discretion of the Standing Committee;
(ix) That Standing Committees, with appropriate staff, review and assess mandates of the Volunteer Committees listed on Appendix "A" to Governance Review Sub-Committee Report 04-001, and make recommendations before the end of the term of Council on their future existence. CARRIED. (c) Item Referred from Council - January 14, 2004 re: Reporting Structure of the Grants Sub-Committee (i) That the Grants Sub-Committee report to City Council through the Corporate Administration Committee; (ii) That Appendices "B" and "F" of the City's Procedural By-law be amended accordingly.
Powers: "Moved by myself, seconded by Councillor Mitchell that subsection B (i) of Item #13 of the Report 04-006, of the Corporate Administration Committee respecting the reporting structure for the Volunteer Committees be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following in lieu thereof and it's attached to the ? that you have in front of you." (which states: "13(b)(i) That the reporting structure for Volunteer Committees, attached hereto as Appendix "A," be approved" - not sure where this is on the City Website - it was on a handout at Council meeting, but should be on the City's website)
DiIanni: on the amendment - CARRIED; on the motion - CARRIED
DiIanni: after all other items of the Corporate Administrative Report were passed, the Mayor asked for a motion on the report.
6.4 Strategic Planning and Budgets , Report 04-004, March 3, 2004
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Strategic-Planning-Budgets/
2004/Mar03/Rep04-004.pdf
(motion to adopt report AS AMENDED and information section to be received ) Jackson / Horwath - CARRIED
McHattie wished to speak to Item #1 of the report
1. Preliminary 2004 Re-assessment Impacts (FCS04028) (Item 7.1)
That report FCS04028 "Preliminary 2004 Reassessment Impacts" be received for information.
McHattie: "Mr. Mayor, the citizens in Ward 1, the area that I represent in the City, have the 2nd highest assessment growth rate in the City, this year. Today I met with he Municipal Property Assessment Corporation [MPAC], the provincial body that sets the assessment, undertakes the assessment - people should know that is a provincial initiative not a municipal initiative. It's done by the province of Ontario. And, I had several questions for them: Why has the assessment of Ward 1, why has it gone up as much as it has in this particular year. We didn't get a clear answer to that question today, Mr. Mayor. But, one of the things we're investigating is that investors who are buying houses at inflated prices in Ward 1 to establish student houses . . . making money from those houses in Ward 1. . . are driving up the prices of everybody's houses and the values of everybody's houses. This is something we're tremendously concerned about . . . We're also trying to determine whether there's a way that we can actually value houses that are profit-making houses that investors are strictly putting 6, 7, up to 10, 12 students in there - $450 a student per month and yet they're paying the same taxes as the next door neighbour who has a family of four, perhaps. So it's tremendously unfair situation. And, we've asked the MPAC folks . . .to look into . . . the City of Waterloo model where they've actually identified student houses as lodging houses, which they truly are lodging houses - they're not single family homes, they're lodging homes. And, whether they are be taxed differently in the Waterloo situation and that could perhaps be the same thing that we look at doing here in Hamilton . . . so, it's an affect through no cause of most of the citizens in Ward 1, family homes. It's the investors that appear to be driving up the cost. Hence, making Ward 1 the second most expensive place to live in Hamilton this year."
DiIanni: "Excellent!" requested if McHattie will bring recommendations at the appropriate time to the appropriate committees, McHattie indicated that he would.
Collins: Indicated that McHattie made some good issues regarding the new assessment figures and goes on to state the difficulty when constituents call and asked about how was their assessment arrived at by the MPAC office "and I don't think quite frankly anyone around this table is convinced or completely understands as to how some of those figures are arrived at . . . we have instances where people are living in identical homes on the same street next to each other and the figures are way off . . . I would ask . . . that our staff, under a letter in your signature, Mr. Mayor, invite the MPAC officials to City Hall to put that issue under the microscope and try to ascertain and better understand how in fact they come up with these figures . . . to undertake some kind of an information session, not only for us but for the general information of the community at large to understand exactly: how are they arriving at these figures and how are some of these inequities . . .how do they exist and what are they doing to correct this problem . . . so I would put that on the table for recommendation."
DiIanni: suggested that this just be taken as direction. That Staff have noted it and we'll do that, "we'll schedule that at some point."
McCarthy: "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This issue has been so contentious and so disenchanting, in fact, over the past three assessments that both myself and my assistant, Don Redmond, set up a process in Flamborough that we would help people navigate what has become a very complicated process for them as individuals to cope with. And, this process has taken such a downturn for areas that are more specifically hit than other areas . . . that we moved a resolution in September of last year that we asked for assessment averaging to be dealt with throughout the city to enable the areas that have seen huge increases be blended with the areas that have seen lower assessments . . . I see on average 15 people a week that are low income, senior citizens, fixed income that may live beside a new sub-division that are multi-million dollar homes, they've been in a home for the last 50 years, a small bungalow and their assessment's gone up $100, 000. They're being pushed out of their homes. This is a reoccurring theme throughout the city. It's been problematic since Current Value Assessment [CVA] came into play. What's really complicated the system is that we really have no control over it. It's been dropped on our lap to deal with and the province has initiated this process required to the tune of $4 million from us this year alone and we have no say in what's going on. So, anything that is going to help stabilize a very fluctuating market that has detrimentally impacted virtually everybody in the community one way or another, I'd be in favour of. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Merulla: "I know that last year I used the example of an individual that lives a stone's throw away from the water and sewer treatment plant that has issues regarding odour and on a weekly basis during the spring or summer she actually has to gauge the odour whether it's a barbecue day or not . . . her house was assessed at $160,000 this year, last year it was $140, 000 and she's still willing to accept $85, 000 for it."
Mitchell: "I'm pleased this discussion's at the council table because with amalgamation . . . and things that have gone on, Current Value Assessment has not been fair to the rural Wards of this city in any way shape or form. So, now that I'm seeing that we're gradually getting on the same page together, 'cause it's starting to affect some other areas of my urban colleagues that maybe we can go forward as a city to correct this dilemma because it most definitely is not a fair tax system. Councillor Bruckler, Councillor Pearson and myself met with Jennifer Mossop this week in Grimsby in her electoral district and it was one of the agenda items as not being fair because it does not co-relate to services provided in anyway shape or form. It's absolutely wrong. And, they are aware that they have to make some provincial changes and I think this city should put together a motion now together, hopefully unanimously, because it certainly wasn't 2 or 3 years ago, but unanimously to try to get this corrected would take us forward as a team, Mr. Mayor, as you spoke today."
Morelli: "I'm not sure what Councillor Mitchell is talking about. CVA hasn't just arrived in the urban area, quite frankly . . . I've never really supported it, . . . it's just not a new arrival in the urban centre . . What I would say is that I personally have just experienced a situation where we need to address the fairness of this whole thing. I've always thought it was not going to be fair . . . [re: rural or waterfront property] bottom line is that although their bungalow is sitting on whatever, and some of them are even shacks they're getting huge amounts of money . . . so on the basis of CVA it's worth what it's being assessed at because that's what they're getting once they go to market. So, we need to deal with those issues, because it's quite frankly unfair to those that are established in those bungalows who are on fixed incomes whether they be in rural or whether they live in Ancaster or whether they live in the urban areas, obviously they live on fixed incomes. But, their property potentially is worth a lot of money in the event somebody tries to purchase it. So, how we get around that, I don't know. So, I will support any effort . . . there's a number of instances we see CVA very much negatively impacting the neighbourhood. Probably Barton Street is most notable example. Thank you.
Horwath: "Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I wasn't going to fray into this one but . . . when the initial CVA came out . . the downtown businesses were excited because [it was a] $36, 000 reduction in their taxes and they got the notices and when the province realized that on the other side that on the suburban/commercial areas taxes were going way up, immediately, those clawbacks came. And, those $36, 000 reductions that were taking care of inappropriate assessments that were 20 years old got clawed back to pay for a political problem that the province made of its own in the suburban areas where the commercial assessments were going way up and so they capped those increases on the backs of downtown businesses, Mr. Mayor. And, I just needed to get that on the table because we kind of forget about that when we talk about what's happening in the different areas. And, it's something we need to remember that the urban areas really paid for decades in terms of inappropriate assessment. And, then when it came to correcting it, then had to pay for a couple years more because we didn't get the reductions that were required. Thanks, Mr. Mayor."
DiIanni: "And, that's the otherside of the debate and that's why the presentation by MPAC, I think is very worth while, as suggested. Councillor Ferguson, I wasn't sure whether your hand was up or not."
Ferguson: Well, I wasn't sure if I wanted to comment or not, but since my Ward has got the highest increase in CVA, in spite of what some councillors feel, Ancaster seniors are. . ." [tape missed this part, but I believe it was indication seniors on fixed income] and Councillor Ferguson would like to know how a home for $350, 000 receives 3 times the services of a $150, 000 home . . "their assessment has increased exponentially strictly based on their postal code and that is not fair."
DiIanni: "So, we do have the report. We've got a direction that we can bring MPAC in. I just want to emphasize myself the point that Councillor McCarthy made that this is a provincial initiative as Councillor McHattie said, were paying for it locally: $ 2 - 4 billion contribution out of our levy to support this. So, let's have them in and see what happens.
McCarthy: "I don't want it forgotten too, Mr. Mayor, that we have on record on September, of last year, a unanimous decision by council to request Assessment Averaging for the City to deal with that issue, too. So, I don't know how it's factored in in this direction. But, I just didn't want it lost in the debate.
Ferguson: "Through you to Joe - Joe, averaging is common, correct?"
Joe Rinaldo: Averaging is supposed to start in 2005, but I want to remind Council that the province did decide to delay it one year and there is still a move afoot to actually not implement averaging since they're doing annual reassessments. So, that's essentially what some of the recommendations that are before the province to consider. And, just if I may, Mr. Mayor, I just want to let you know we are going to provide each Member of Council, a ward map that highlights where the increases and decreases are and staff should have them out hopefully, by the end of this week, beginning of next week.
Whitehead: in noting that council wanted to bring MPAC in to discuss CVA process. "In fact I think I have a pretty good understanding of the process and it is clear as mud." Wants to invite the MPPs and Minister to talk about our experiences in to discuss the process.
DiIanni: "Well we do meet with the MPPs regularly and we can put that on the agenda. It's a meeting that happens monthly, it's actually organized by the Chamber [of Commerce] but I'll make sure it's on the agenda and let you know when that meeting is an see if we can get invited to that."
Mitchell: I'd have to agree with Councillor Whitehead, Mr. Mayor. If I had my choice, I'd like to fire all MPAC and save the $4 and a half million. What we learned yesterday, was as the assessment goes up, they get paid more and we pay the bill. So what incentive is there for not to allow all the assessment to go up as high as they can get it to go up, because they get paid more and we pay it. So, to meet in here with MPAC isn't going to accomplish absolutely anything. I think I want the MPPs in here - and they're aware of it, too. They know there is some fixing that has to be done there, because this system is wrong. So to meet with MPAC I don't think will accomplish absolutely anything.
DiIanni: "You know, I'm not sure whether that's entirely absolutely accurate. We have seen an increase in assessment. but, that's part of the information that we need to have. I just want to make sure we don't scare people out there any more than they are already concerned."
Powers: "I believe when the issue is raised I think it should either be a singular item and that . . .and that it be publicized and that the public are encouraged to come and actually hear the presentation, because I'm sure . . .we should be able to keep out question to 3 hours, just ourselves. And, obviously, the public would probably like to participate, also. So, maybe MPAC should set aside the week to be with us to answer the questions.
DiIanni: "Okay, well we'll leave that with staff to co-ordinate. #1, I need a recommendation on #1. CARRIED
DiIanni: And, Councillor Jackson, may I have a motion on the report
6.5 (CANCELLED) Community Services Committee , Report 04-005, March 9, 2004 (this was cancelled from the agenda, as the meeting itself was cancelled)
6.6 Social and Public Health Services Committee, Report 04-004, March 9, 2004
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Social-Public-Health/2004/Mar09/Rep04-004.pdf
Councillor Horwath declares having an interest in Item #3 , which she also declared at the Committee meeting
3. Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Item 10)
That the City Clerk immediately release the information requested under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding the restaurant safety inspection system, subject to obtaining an opinion from the Acting City Solicitor on the implications of doing so.
Councillor Merulla wishes to also speak to item #3
Merulla: "Just quickly, this is the Municipal . . .
DiIanni (interrupts): "I'm going to allow your statement, I just want you to know that staff indicated to me in the strongest of terms that we will need to go In Camera on this item to discuss details. Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
Kevin Christenson (Clerk): "Through you, Mr. Mayor, The Municipal Act, Section 239, sub-section 3 details that 'A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the council, board, commission or other body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that Act' - and it is in this particular case, and this is a 'shall' issue in the act, so we need to do that."
DiIanni: "And, that is now, before he speaks, before Councillor Merulla speaks?+
Kevin Christenson (Clerk): "I would suggest that we might want to defer this issue to the end of the agenda and move in camera at that time."
Merulla: "I can't speak at all?"
DiIanni: "Apparently not, Councillor Merulla. But, you can once we're in camera."
Merulla (Gfawing incredulously): "But that kind of defeats my entire purpose of the secrecy aspect. It's actually humourous now. My whole contention is the fact that we are acting in secret. Now you are telling me I can't speak. And, it kind of amplifies it."
DiIanni (over Merulla): "Well, but . . . sure . . . no but, but Councillor Merulla, Councillor Merulla . . ."
Merulla (over DiIanni): "It's actually humourous"
DiIanni: Well, it may be humourous to you, but there is a piece of legislation that we must follow called the Municipal Act. And, I think the Clerk was reading directly out of the Municipal Act. And, I see the two clerks are now conferring. Let's get some direction. Do we need to move into camera to discuss this item?
Kevin Christenson (Clerk): "Through you, Mr. Mayor, I would say yes. It's non-discretionary in terms of the Municipal Act."
DiIanni: "So the question then is . . . (to Chad Collins) on that interpretation?
Collins: "Mr. Mayor, I guess the question that I have is that the issue itself is a policy decision rather than the content of the information we're talking about releasing. And, I don't know if the debate, if it's centred around the actual debate surrounding the release of the information rather than the information itself. I don't know if that's a little confusing, but I understand the intent of Councillor Merulla's debate was to debate whether or not we release it or not. And so, it wasn't actually talking about the content of the report and the information. And so, is there a difference between those two debates there?"
DiIanni: "Mr. Clerk . . ."
Kevin Christenson (Clerk): "Through you, Mr. Mayor I would think that any discussion on this because it's about one particular request through the Freedom of Information section of my department is going to require that we're going to be discussing details of that request and for that reason and because of the Municipal Act . . ."
DiIanni (at the end of Clerks talking ): Let me do this. Let me rule as Chair, I mean we've heard the Clerk and you know the Clerk isn't usually as emphatic as he's being about protecting us. Let's have the session in camera to honour what the legislation says, and then depending on how the discussion goes we will entertain, if it's strictly a policy issue on different matters, we'll entertain a public discussion. And, that's what I'd like to suggest, all right? Now, because all these people here are waiting on other items, can we defer this until the end, are you in agreement on that? So, we'll come back then to number three."
(http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/
English/01m25_e.htm#P3722_320679)
Meetings open to public
239. (1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (1).
Exceptions
(2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,
(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;
(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;
(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;
(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board;
(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;
(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (2).
Other criteria
(3) A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the council, board, commission or other body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (3).
Councillor Bruckler asked that Item # 5 be referred back to committee and was not able to participate in the item ( Bruckler / Pearson - CARRIED )
5. Legal Advice/Social Housing Reform Act (Item 13.2)
That the correspondence from the Stoney Creek Non-Profit Housing Corporation dated February 16, 2004 respecting Articles of Incorporation be received.
Councillor Horwath asked that the Councillors that are interested in the item (Bruckler, Pearson, Mitchell) are flagged as to the date and time of the committee meeting so that they can attend.
(also note that the Mayor could not ask for a motion to adopt the Social and Public Health Services Committee, Report 04-004, March 9, 2004 just yet, as there was still an outstanding matter - Item # 3 - which needed to go in camera. So, the mayor went onto the Licensing committee report.)
6.7 Licensing Committee , Report 04-003, February 25, 2004
(motion to adopt report and information section to be received ) Merulla / McHattie - CARRIED
6.8 Selection Committee Report 04-002(a), March 4, 2004
(motion to adopt report AS AMENDED and information section to be received ) Whitehead / Mitchell - CARRIED
Motion Whitehead / Pearson (?) or Mitchell (?) - CARRIED
to add an Item # 2 to this report regarding Citizen appointments to the following bodies:
2a) Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum;
2b) Hamilton Owned Housing Corporation;
2c) Hamilton District Health Council
7. Motions
Report continued
|
