March 10/04 Report continued

7. Motions

7.1 Motion respecting security deposit policies to comply with the new regulations of the Ontario Energy Board  (originally made by Councillor Horwath, who is now withdrawing this motion , satisfied that the issues have been discussed at committee and the motion is no longer required.)

Motion to lift the following motion  7.2(a) from the table - Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED  

7.2(a) Motion to lift Item 3 of Hearings Sub-Committee Report 03-020 respecting Application to Amend the Dundas Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 3581-86 for lands located at 201 King Street East (Dundas) (PD03124)

Motion to  delete the following motion 7.2(b)  in its entirety from Hearings Sub-Committee Report - Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED  

7.2(b) Motion on Item 3 of Hearings Sub-Committee Report 03-020 respecting Application to Amend the Dundas Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 3581-86 for lands located at 201 King Street East (Dundas) (PD03124)

DiIanni:   Councillor McHattie, may I have a motion to reconsider Item 36 of the first report of the Planning and Economic Development committee. And, this requires a 2/3's majority to pass.

7.3(a) Motion to reconsider Item 36 of Planning and Economic Development Committee Report 04-001 respecting lands located a 151 Emerson Street, Hamilton, approved by City Council at its meeting held on January 14, 2004 be reconsidered.

Motion to reconsider McHattie / Merulla

(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Jan06/REPORT%2004-001.pdf )

36. Appeal of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Decision to Approve Minor Variance Application HM/A-03:221, 151 Emerson Street, Former City of Hamilton (PD04018) (Ward 1) (Item 9.3)

(a) That the City of Hamilton confirm and proceed with the appeal against the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (Urban) to approve Application HM/A-03:221, to permit an outdoor patio for fourteen (14) persons in conjunction with the existing building which contains a restaurant for thirty (30) persons on the ground floor and one (1) dwelling unit on the second floor, notwithstanding that the easterly and southerly lot lines are adjoining residential districts; and,

(b) That the appropriate staff (e.g. Legal and Planning and Development) be authorized and directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Hearing in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment (Urban) decision to approve Application No. HM/A-03:221, respecting the lands known municipally as 151 Emerson Street, former City of Hamilton, as shown on Appendix "A" to Report PD04018.

(the Clerk noted to the Mayor, upon question, that reconsideration is a debatable item.)

Horwath:   "I want to make a point about the reconsideration particularly because my understanding of the process that we have here at City Council is that everything's equal for everyone.  And so, if an application comes in and it isn't supposed to go in a certain route.  It's supposed to go in a different route, then applicants are notified that it's supposed to go in a different route.  And, even if they are not notified, when they read the analysis of staff when they get to committee of adjustment in this case, then that states quite clearly that you're in the wrong place.  This isn't a minor variance, it's not supposed to be dealt with at committee of Adjustment.  It's supposed to be dealt with as a re-zoning.  And that, quite frankly, Mr. Mayor, is exactly what this is.  And, you may recall that this has been a fuzzy issue over the last little while.  And, you may recall, actually, that the first time that the staff brought this forward as a way to try to clean up this inconsistency around Committee of Adjustment decisions in regards to over-stepping their bounds of decision-making was in fact a hair salon in the ward that you formerly represented.  Where they basically tried to do an end run around the procedures where everybody supported the concept of the hair salon at that time, Mr. Mayor. And, in a similar vein, I think everybody, on the advice of the Ward Councillor would support re-zoning of this particular piece of property for this particular use, since it is being supported by the Ward Councillor.  But, it becomes an issue of procedure and an issue of who gets to divert the process and who doesn't.  And, in this case it's quite blatant and quite frankly obvious that it's a matter of diverting the process whether it's to avoid fees, avoid process, avoid public meetings, I really don't know.  But, it's been clear for quite some time as we went through the debate or the discussion at the initial committee meeting that, in fact, it's a diversion of the process.  And, we've treated these issues in a certain way and we approved a staff recommendation, a staff policy around how do these matters get addressed by council when the purview of committee of adjustment is being not adhered to.  The Council approved that policy overwhelmingly.  There was not dissension to that policy change or that policy direction that was brought by staff.  And, they're simply implementing the direction of Council. And, when the hair salon came forward they were notified, you know, you have gone to the wrong place.  They tried to do the end run.  Council said, 'No, really . . . I mean it's not really fair that everybody else has to go the proper route and you get the exception, even though we all agree that your use is fine with everyone and the Ward Councillor supported it at the time.'  So from my perspective, Mr.Mayor, it's not a matter of a simply reconsideration; it's a matter of determining whether we have a policy or we don't. Either we have a policy that says, 'these kinds of changes in use when they don't meet the test for minor variance go to a rezoning' or we don't have that policy.  And, Mr. Mayor, from my perspective, it's not just a matter of reconsidering this one item.  It's a matter of the entire policy and whether or not that needs to be reconsidered or changed in some way.  Because it's sending mixed messages quite frankly, Mr. Mayor, to proponents, as well as neighbourhoods, as well as staff, as well as Committee of Adjustment. And, it's simply inappropriate.  The whole point of the policy was to clean up the uncertainties, to clean up the lack of understanding as to where these different things are supposed to go.  And, this reconsideration will simply muddy the waters all over again.  And so, I'm happy to support Councillor McHattie's  moving forward on a rezoning for this property as it should appropriately be done.  But, Mr. Mayor, this is inappropriate to be reconsidered as a kind of one-off.  It is in fact, flies in the face of a policy that the Council just adopted last year and it simply muddies the water, Mr. Mayor, and I can't support it.  I'll be recorded as opposed.

Merulla:   "I'm a little concerned about the approach Councillor Horwath has taken on this, only because I know Councillor McHattie has done his homework on this particular issue and every policy that's in place obviously had a reason.  But, every neighbourhood has a right to determine their own empowerment and to determine what exists within their own neighbourhood.  And, this is a classic example of neighbourhood empowerment. If you have an entire neighbourhood sign on to an issue . . . at the end of the day the entire process of governance is to ensure that the electorate is empowered . . . So, I'm not quite sure what the purpose of having an elected Councillor is if all we are going to do is simply rubber-stamp a policy that is bureaucratically driven . . ."

(DiIanni noted that Councillor Horwath will be able to respond on a point of privilege, but then really wanted to bring Councillor McHattie on next to bring forward his reasons for reconsideration)

Horwath: (on a point of privilege - been named several times in the debate and wants to respond):  " . . .it's basically about fairness and equitable treatment for all - not at all about the ward issue and of course, as I mentioned to Councillor McHattie several times, I totally support his initiative.  I just don't really believe that backdooring it and taking an end run around our processes is something that we should condone."

McHattie:  "It was clear to me that the proponent had no idea that he was supposed to follow the zoning route.  And I say  that because he went to the Committee of Adjustment through their application process and filled out the forms and no where on those forms and no where verbally to the proponent was it passed on to him that he had to go through zoning rather than through the Committee of Adjustment . . . I considered that very carefully because I was aware of Councillor Horwath's concerns and I am also concerned about proper process in this municipality. . ."  McHattie indicated that he believed the proponent has acted in good faith and that the proponent had done a noise level study and agreed to a number of restrictive operating criteria.  There were 30 neighbours at the committee hearing in his support as well.  McHattie  "wanted to note that, and I agree with Councillor Horwath, that there is a lot of confusion in this area between the Committee of Adjustment and the Planning Department and I think there needs to be some clarity . . . and on December 3 the Committee of the Whole asked for preparation of a public information brochure which was intended for the general public and applicants which explains the purpose of and function of the Committee of Adjustment.  So. I strongly suggest that this brochure be prepared, and it is my understanding that it has not been prepared yet, also that was December, 2002 - be prepared by the Planning Department.  And, that that brochure explain that any applicants for new or additional uses should be made by way of rezoning rather than through an minor variance.  By taking this action, we can prevent confusion in  future applications and I think that's critical.  My point in this case, though, is that this particular proponent, counci(&se)lled before my time - using the verb and the noun - by the previous Councillor in Ward 1 to go this route, through the committee of adjustment and he went that route and he did so in good faith and he received approval.  He's got support from the neighbours. If we ask him to go through the zoning route at this point in time, it's going to slow him down to a considerable extent and he's not going to be able to open the patio this year.  He's a small business man and he's already spent a lot of money - more than most applications I've seen - trying to serve the community's interests in this and to do it the right way.  So, I acknowledge Councillor Horwath's concerns; I too, am concerned about process.  I'm satisfied in this case that the proponent followed the process as he understood it, and as he was counselled.  And, that certainly we should move to clarify this situation for future applications and that the comments and recommendations contained in the December 3, 2002 Committee of the Whole Report should be followed starting with the brochure so future applicants fully understand what is required in the City of Hamilton."

Whitehead:   Referred to the demolition of buildings situation (in the information section of the Planning and Economic Development report discussed in item 6.2 of the agenda) whereby staff suggested that on matters of Council-adopted policies, as opposed to legislated policies council could look at these on a case by case basis.  So, Councillor Whitehead asked the following question to staff "barring the policy issue, because I know that policy doesn't cover everything, it's an intent.  But, we can't take a cookie-cutter approach.  Sometimes we have to take a look at individual cases . . . the question I'm going to as staff is that how is this different in regards to side-stepping the policy on demolition versus sidestepping the process on planning . . ."

L.A. Coveyduck:   "Just in terms of a generalist's response, when Council passes a policy if they want to amend that policy it is strictly up to council to decide whether they want to do that or not."

Whitehead:   Wanting to ask a question that is more specifically related to the issue at hand, his asks, "Is there a precedent being set if tonight  we accept and support the resolution put forward by my colleague in Ward 1?"

L.A. Coveyduck: "You may get other instances where individuals would come forward asking for the same thing.  So, you may be setting a precedent, yes."

DiIanni:   All in favour of calling the question - CARRIED

DiIanni:   All in favour then of the reconsideration - we need 2/3's to pass (only opposed was Horwath) therefore CARRIED

DiIanni: Councillor McHattie may I have a motion to delete and replace Item 36

McHattie: Motion 7.3(b) "Moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Merulla, That Item 36 be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:  That the City of Hamilton withdraw its appeal regarding the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (urban) Decision to approve Minor Variance Application HM/A-03:221, 151 Emerson Street, Former City of Hamilton."

Powers:   requested clarity of whether or not the issue was raised at the Committee of Adjustment and was it asked if is was the right venue or not ". . . or was it taken that it clearly in their opinion of Planning staff and Committee of Adjustment  it was the right venue in order to make that determination because if that would be the case, then very clearly the proponent was not at fault.  They followed the process and the direction they were advised to proceed with."

DiIanni asked staff if anyone could answer this.  L.A Coveyduck answered this question

L.A.Coveyduck:  "At the Committee of Adjustment, staff provided comments indicating that they did not feel that it was minor in nature.  At the time that the application was made, staff had advised them that staff would not be supporting the application.  In fact, the applicant had made an application to the Committee of Adjustment and was denied and then returned with a new application with some additional information and the second time around it was approved."

Horwath:   "The process is in place; the process was told to the proponent, but the problem is we have to walk the walk at council if we expect the process to work."

Ferguson: "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you to Ms. Coveyduck.  So, in your opinion the proponent was aware that this should come to Council as opposed to Committee of Adjustment and he proceeded with Committee of Adjustment"

(Unfortunately, my tape stopped, but my notes indicate that staff indicated the information of procedure was related at the Committee of Adjustment, regarding proponent's application.  But, staff  was not sure if proponent himself knew.)

McHattie:   "The proponent that I have spoken to said he was not aware of it.  I can't question his integrity."

Ferguson:  "Mr. Mayor, I think in this one-off case, I think we've all learned a lesson and I will support the motion, but I sure won't support the intent."

Morelli:   "Just to give a fair shake to the proponent," Morelli noted that the committee decides  whether it is a minor variance or not and it you disagree you can go to the OMB and that becomes part of the deliberation further.  "I've seen Mr. McHattie work through this whole thing and he's done a great job - especially as a newcomer - and can tell you, I'm happy that he can get this one passed, because I'm certainly probably going to be back with something very similar."

(just a bit of background, as follows, you can get a better understanding as to situation at 151 Emerson Street:

(http://www.hamilton.ca/Planning-and-Development/
development/Committee-of-Adjustment/pdf/Sept-17-2003.pdf ) - page 1 Committee of Adjustment, September 17, 2003 -

CLOSED

(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Jan06/REPORT%2004-001.pdf   - page  (17) "Planning & Economic Development Report 04-001 Committee Council - January 14, 2004 36. Appeal of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment (Urban) Decision to Approve Minor Variance Application HM/A-03:221, 151 Emerson Street, Former City of Hamilton (PD04018) (Ward 1) (Item 9.3) (a) That the City of Hamilton confirm and proceed with the appeal against the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (Urban) to approve Application HM/A-03:221, to permit an outdoor patio for fourteen (14) persons in conjunction with the existing building which contains a restaurant for thirty (30) persons on the ground floor and one (1) dwelling unit on the second floor, notwithstanding that the easterly and southerly lot lines are adjoining residential districts; and, (b) That the appropriate staff (e.g. Legal and Planning and Development) be authorized and directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Hearing in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment (Urban) decision to approve Application No. HM/A-03:221, respecting the lands known municipally as 151 Emerson Street, former City of Hamilton, as shown on Appendix "A" to Report PD04018." )

(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Planning-Economic-Development/2004/Feb17/REPORT%2004-004.pdf  page "9) Planning & Economic Development Report 04-004 Committee Council - February 25, 2004 (d) Mr. Scott Snider respecting City's appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision on 151 Emerson street (Added Item 4.2) The request for delegation was approved by Committee." )

page "(18) Planning & Economic Development Report 04-005 Committee Council - March 10, 2004 (l) Mr. Scott Snider respecting the West End Restaurant, 151 Emerson Street (Item 7.7) Chair Kelly advised that copies of the January staff report, recommending the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision had been distributed. Mr. Scott Snider addressed Committee on behalf of the owner of the West End Restaurant, in support of the proposed patio. He provided an overview of the application, its approval by the Committee of Adjustment, and subsequent appeal by City Council. He noted that the application did not represent a new use for the site. Mr. Snider distributed copies of information regarding his presentation. Mr. Snider requested that Committee rethink the appeal. Committee discussed the matter in detail and had further information supplied by the applicant and by staff. Councillor Horwath noted that there was a Council policy in place for the consideration of patios and that it had not been followed here. Staff outlined the process used for screening variance applications for a variance versus a rezoning. Councillor McHattie noted that the applicant had provided a Noise study and had addressed all the neighbourhood issues and that he supported the patio. Staff advised that an OMB Hearing for the matter has been set for March 24, 2004. Committee received the presentation and Chair Kelly thanked the presenter."
( http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/Planning-Economic-
Development/2004/Mar02/REPORT%2004-005.pdf )

DiIanni:   Calling the question, noting that a simple majority will pass this (only opposed was Horwath) CARRIED

Whitehead:   Move Motion 7.4 concerning the Canadian Steel Industry - Whitehead / Mitchell(?) - CARRIED

(before calling the motion, Whitehead asked if he could make a motion to make some minor amendments that would not  change the intent of the motion, just clarification.  He asked that in item 7.4(a), "indicate" be "reiterate" as he said that council had previously passed a resolution concerning the dumping of low priced steel on Canadian shores; as well, Councillor Whitehead asked to  change "urge Stelco" to "urge steel industry employers" in 7.4(c)  (Councillor Powers 2nd motion of amendment)  Mayor indicated that these were "friendly amendments" and did not change the intent at all.)

"a)That Hamilton City Council indicate (reiterate) to the Federal and Provincial Governments that we need immediate action to save the Canadian steel industry, which includes the implementation of safeguards against dumped steel
b) that Council work with both steel employers and the United Steelworkers, to pursue any necessary actions to protect and preserve Canadian / Hamilton steel jobs;
c) That Council urge Stelco (steel industry employers) not to use this economic uncertainty as a excuse to abandon their pension obligations to the thousands of hard working men and women of the steel industry."

- Councillor Whitehead recognized a group of Hamilton Steel Workers, including the president of the Steel Area Council, in the audience and asked them to stand and be recognized and thanked them for coming
- Whitehead indicated that he had been working on this file in his previous position with the federal government - and a couple of years ago sat around the cabinet table with Brian Tobin and Pierre Pettigrew and others and "there seemed to be a real sincere attempt to recognize and rectify an inequity in respect to how the CITT [Canadian International Trade Tribunal - ( http://www.citt.gc.ca/ )] dealt with steel industry issues; dealt with foreign trade issues period relative to their counterpart the United States of America . . . around that table it was clearly identified that especially after the American actions, that there was a lot of . . . low priced steel being dumped on our shores and impacting the steel industry and certainly impacting the employees of the steel industry."
- he noted that the federal government was called to act on this and look at tariffs, noted that May 15, 2003 council made a resolution to ask the federal government to act, also mentioning that the CITT had recommended to apply tariffs to certain products.  That didn't go far enough.  Whitehead sat around the table with steel unions and steel companies from all across Canada who were all urging for tariffs.  "They all were saying the same thing, that the way the CITT deals with this types of issues has to be resolved and that there was still dumping on a number of product lines that had to be addressed through tariffs . . .two years have passed, lots of discussion, lots of reports, but nothing but frustration because the federal government never moved any further ahead on this particular issue."
- Whitehead noted that there are about 8,000 pensionable employee on limited incomes and they can ill-afford to have their only source of income cut by 25% and will be "knocking on our doors . . .on social services doors . . .they'll be looking for housing.  There is an impact on this city if we do not stand up unanimously tonight and say that we support the employees of the steel industry and we will not allow them to be utilized as scapegoats for the type of management that's been put in place.  I'm not putting all the blame on the company.  I believe that they certainly should share in some of the blame, but in fact I believe that there's a collective approach to the industry." Whitehead concerned that federal government knows that there is an over-capacity of steel, but no action on tariffs.
- "I mean we take a look at farming and farming subsidies in Europe and the [United] States and how the Federal Government has dealt with farming subsidies.  And, you ask me why I'm talking about farming subsidies.  Well, there seems to be a culture at the federal level [of government] that we [Canada] should lead in regards to opening up the markets.  What concerns me is that the sacrificial lambs in respect to this type of policy is, in fact, going to be our steel industry and I'm certainly not supportive of that.  I know most of my colleagues are not supportive of that. And, I think we need to send a clear message to the federal government that we will not accept that."
- pensions are deferred wages and there is nothing else that those employees can do.  This is their "livelihood after retirement . . . I'm concerned about the impact on our communities . . .I'm really concerned about the lack of response from other levels of government and I strongly urge my colleagues around this table tonight to unanimously support this resolution.  Thank you."

Horwath:  noted that Councillor Whitehead covered some important issues with the final point that "these are deferred wages . . . you know it really is tantamount to theft.  It's tantamount to taking somebody else's possessions.  And,that is something that as a society we simply can't condone because it won't end.  There is no end in sight and it won't stop at the steel industry.  It'll trickle through every single employer across this province and across this country and across North America if we allow it to happen. . . . So, Mr. Mayor, I'm proud to second this motion.  I've stood with the brothers in the steel worker's union many times on the streets of our city.  In fact at one of their first rallies you were there with us, Mr.Mayor, and I'm sure everyone appreciated that.  This is a time when we have to stand strong as a community and say this kind of action is not tolerable.  This kind of industry is important to our community and we need to show very visibly and say loudly and clear that we're going to do everything we can as local government to support both the steel workers and the industry a being maintaining an important part in our economy,  Thanks Mr. Mayor."

Merulla:   noted that his Dad is a retired steel-worker (Pearson noted that her husband is a steel worker; DiIanni noted that his father-in-law was a steel worker) and that even though he felt that this didn't belong at the local level of government, "but, if we're looking simply for moral support obviously it's a no-brainer to support this particular issue."  Merulla went on to state that he "just wished we had the same passion and we vocalized the same concern regarding our own unionized employees here at the City of Hamilton when were dealing with the water and sewer treatment plant, when were dealing with the privatization of golf courses that we've seen displayed here this evening and for that it's a no-brainer I'm going to support this; my Dad's involved with this. I just wish those that bring this forward tonight, when it's a no-brainer that it has no effect whatsoever on the City of Hamilton had the same courage to bring it when it does have the same impact on the people of the City of Hamilton.  Thank you, Mr. Mayor."

Ferguson:  "Thank you, Mr. Mayor.  Just a point of information to Councillor Whitehead who alluded to the fact  that agricultural subsidies are a lot easier to get than steel subsidies but point of fact, we have American soybeans coming - truckloads of American soybeans - coming to this city the CanAmera Plant (http://www.canamerafoodshamilton.com/) on a daily basis and they're paying 25 cents a bushel less for American beans that the beans from Copetown.  So, it's not just the steel industry that's not being helped out.  The agriculture industry is far from subsidized, as well."

Whitehead:   "Just for clarification, the fact what I was saying is that the same policies that the Federal Government is taking with agriculture is the same policies they're applying on steel.  So, I'm am saying, in fact, they haven't been there for agriculture and in fact they're not there for steel."

DiIanni:   "so there's agreement there . . . No other speakers . . . all in favour of the motion as amended?  That's carried unanimously, I believe.  Thank you.  It's almost 9:00 o'clock [pm], councillors, I need a motion to move beyond Collins / Horvath - all in favour, that's CARRIED "

Braden:   At this point Councillor Braden asked Mayor DiIanni if when, or if this was the appropriate time to bring up an issue related to employee parking, but different from the context.  So, Braden ran the issue by the Mayor to see if he would allow it at this point, as the meeting was to be on "Notices of Motion"  "The issue is not new parking stickers; it's not additional parking units; it's not neighbourhood impact; it's the origin of where our workers came from.  It's the idea that if a person from the City Hall with the same seniority, the former City Hall and now the new City Hall worked here they got free parking, they still continue to get free parking."  (Braden explained basically that a person who worked for the former Township of Glanbrook, living and working at the municipal building in Glanbrook, now works for the City of Hamilton and physically has to come to downtown Hamilton to City Hall.  Whereas, an employee with the same seniority of the former City of Hamilton continues to work in the same building after the amalgamation and continues to receive free parking, the employee of the former township of Glanbrook, who now commutes to downtown Hamilton to City Hall, does not receive free parking and has to now pay.) "There are only 46 people in this condition.  But, we've used the words earlier tonight:  equality, equity, fairness.  This is a problem just with 46 people.  I'm not asking that there be 46 new stickers.  They already got stickers.  They're already paying for them.  And, I'm really sorry we have to do this in public.  But, it really is an issue of fairness.  I want to see if we can rectify it and I don't know if it needs a formal motion; if we can, in fact, let staff do it? (DiIanni indicated that the issue of parking was referred back to committee, as there were a number of issues that were to be addressed.  Braden was concerned with timing: "but, because it's unfair, timing is running against this. That's my concern." However, Councillor Braden accepted Mayor's ruling that the issue be referred back to committee.)

8. Notices of Motion
None

9. Statement by Members

DiIanni:  ". . . information statements that you wish to convey."

Horwath:   ". . .  Mr. Mayor, for the information of Council  we have a serious problem in downtown commercial district particularly and you've been made aware of it recently by myself and I think a couple of others as well and that's the issue of insurance rates that are being charged to downtown commercial proprietors."  Councillor Horwath indicated that this issue has come up often especially over the last 18 months and although insurance and rates are not in the purview of local government.  However, "it's becoming a significant deterrent for people to purchase property downtown and start turning around some of those under-utilised properties. I've had a couple of calls this week alone, Mr. Mayor, where people are saying, 'I want to buy this property, but I cannot get insurance.' It's not even a matter of rates.  It's a matter of the product will not be sold to people who are wanting to purchase property and insure it in the downtown."  Councillor Horwath urged the Mayor to work with her, other interested Members of Council, perhaps through Councillor Ferguson's committee (Corporate Administration Committee), in order to get the local MPPs to take back to the Province to "recognize that the entire insurance industry has absolutely got to be revamped in the Province of Ontario . . . and it's now becoming a deterrent to this city achieving its goals."  Noting that the Federal Government talks about priorities on cities and  the provincial government reiterated these sentiments during the recent provincial election.  "Mr. Mayor, it's pieces of the puzzle like this that we need to get at . . . so that our downtown businesses . . . people that are desiring to be new property owners in the downtown are able to purchase a product that is required, that is required by the mortgage industry to be able to even to get a mortgage.  So, we have a . . . mortgage industry that requires insurance; but, we have an insurance industry that absolutely refuses to sell the product to certain areas and certain districts."  Councillor Horwath noted, too, that banks have "red-lined" this downtown district and wanted to get the mayor to help her on that issue as well as the insurance issue.

DiIanni:  the Mayor indicated that Councillor Horwath showed him an e-mail about this situation.  He also recognized Councillor Ferguson on this, as well.  The Mayor did not that there had been some progress with banks.  "And, I'd be willing to engage in whatever way possible to deal with the insurance industry as well.  We're not going to be able to revitalize our downtown if we can't get money flowing to investors and certainly if we can't get properties insured."   The Mayor asked Councillor Ferguson for his thoughts on this.

Ferguson:   "Yes, Mr. Mayor.  I would be glad to take that back to my committee.  But, just a budget consideration.  One of the things this municipality can do is make our downtown core safer and cleaner and that's a budget consideration that we'll receive."

DiIanni:   "And, we'll talk about that over the next few weeks, as well.  So, you'll take that under advisement, we can work together on that.  Thank you."

Whitehead:  Related a meeting with Hamilton Health Sciences and Chedoke (HHC) the "stewards of the Lands" who presented a Master Plan, worked closely with the community advisory committee.  It spoke about the YWCA and it's operations and centralizing operations up there; it spoke about St. Peter's Hospital and the growth that has gone on.  Councillor Whitehead suggested "most interestingly . . . a permanent woodlot on the brow" - 8.5, -10 acres that would be preserved and locked in - to the City or Conservation Authority.  "The other was Holbrook park . . .currently . . . Chedoke lands but they are prepared to hand it over to the City."   Whitehead was pleased with the approach that Hamilton Health Sciences had taken on this and Chedoke. 

Braden:   "Mr. Chairman, could I have, if it is possible, just the one minute update on where we are with negotiations with one, the Band Council; and two, the confederacy."

DiIanni:   "I think we can allow that.  That's not on the agenda but it is information that would be worthwhile.  And, we have Chris Murray here anticipating the question."

Chris Murray: "Through you Mr. Mayor, we continue to meet with representatives of both the Confederacy council and the elected council to discuss post ratification implementation matters and we've met almost every week for the last few weeks on that particular issue.

Braden:   "The Confederacy, I believe, met on the weekend, Mr. Chairman, can I ask through you if they dealt with you."

DiIanni:   I'm sorry, can you ask me to . . .

Braden:   "you to the staff.  I believe the Confederacy Chiefs met this weekend.  And, I want to know whether or not it was on their agenda and whether or not there was any change or status or discussion."

Chris Murray: "Through you, Mr. Mayor, I did speak with Paul Williams on Monday.  I knew that there was a meeting on Saturday.  My understanding is that there were a number of individuals there to speak to the Red Hill issue.  Paul Williams said clearly to me on Monday that there's been no change in the direction of the Confederacy Council in terms of their support for the agreements.

DiIanni:   "Does the band council have a position that we know of?"

Chris Murray :  "They haven't formed a formal position on this.  They obviously have the agreements in hand.  Their representatives are reviewing them right now.  And, I understand, as well, legal counsel is looking at it."

DiIanni:   "I can tell you, that I have had discussions with Chief Jamieson from the Band Council.  We've had some meetings as well.  And, they do have some questions.  They like the thrust of the agreements, but they do have some questions.  And, we're trying to iron those out, I hope.

Morelli:   wanted to speak to the insurance issue brought up by Councillor Horwath.  He encouraged Councillor Horwath's efforts,  saying that the "insurance companies look at the loss ratios and they do relate to postal codes.  So, it's a growing problem and quite frankly sometimes not related to claims, but just related to the fact that they  outlaw certain postal codes." 
- in recent deliberations with Hamilton School Board, "which have, in my estimation, and I have said it publicly at meetings with the School Board, been somewhat disingenuous."  Morelli noted that it was documented that student of Robert Land School would be sent to Sanford, upon closure of Robert Land.  "I can tell you that's been changed drastically without any consultation with the community. And, I can tell you that the consultation, at one point, was even referred to that they spoke with you [Mayor] on December 16 [2003] and I assured them that you were just probably familiarizing yourself with the neighbourhood, let alone deal with school issues."  Morelli noted that the School Board has just recently come to these new conclusions in the last couple of months.  Councillor Morelli said that they hadn't even had a chance yet to establish the  community liaison committee with the Board of Education.  Morelli noted that the School Board tried to "pin the difficulties on the fact that we brought about the land swap with Edgar Davey (J. Edgar Davey school and Beasley park), which is an absolute untruth."  Morelli said that he was staying in touch with Guy Paparella, "who's worked on our behalf in terms of communicating."  Morelli also working with Councillor Kelly and Horwath, the School Board Trustees and the liaison committee as well. He was worried that children would now have to cross busy streets to go to school.

McHattie:  Reported that he and Executive Assistant Dale Brown attended a "Town and Gown" conference in Waterloo recently which looked at student housing issues all across Ontario.  In Waterloo, there is a "lodging home" by-law.  There are 1200 lodging homes - student houses.  Ten years ago there was a student killed in a fire in one of these homes that were renovated to house multiple students, and that is how the lodging by-law came about.  Hamilton should try to learn from the Waterloo situation.  McHattie noted that there will be a follow up conference on May 12th and 13th, this time hosted in Hamilton at Mohawk College. McHattie thanked the staff for their attendance also, and community policing.

Horwath:   would like to reconfirm the issues raised by Councillor Morelli where kids are crossing busy streets and Ward boundaries.  Kids already have enough challenges without these types of problems.  And, when issues get shrouded in misunderstanding, it pits Ward against Ward.  Then the City is dragged in as a bit of a scapegoat.  "We need to get it right.  We need to get the message across, that it's not a matter of blame game.  It's a matter of let's solve the problems and let's do the right thing for neighbourhoods and communities."

DiIanni:   noted that he did meet with the School Board Chair on December 16th concerning the  J.Edgar Davey School  and Beasley Park swap, as well as an issue in Dundas.  It was just information and he noted that he cautioned them about community reaction.  Any time a school closes there is upheaval.  The Mayor encouraged the Councillors to continue to work with the School Board and the neighbourhoods.

McCarthy:   Noted that in her Ward 15, that cabinet has approved that there are to be 20, 000 people that are going to be moving into her area over the next few years which is over the capacity that the school system out there can accommodate.  And, that she is already over capacity now.  McCarthy said, "In fact, I've been told that just in the public system alone 38 schools are projected to be closed.  These schools have to be closed before any schools can be built in any other areas because of the funding formula.  So, we're in a Catch-22 situation, which is fundamentally unfair."  She noted that the inner city school have social networks connected to them, so closing these would be a real problem.  But, McCarthy indicated that she currently has "portables coming out of  . . . everywhere."  And, as she noted that there is 20,000 more people coming into the area - a "crisis situation."

Motion to waive the rules of order :  McCarthy /  McHattie - CARRIED
(to allow for the introduction of a private and confidential matter - with respect to cleaning tenders)

Whitehead:   asked a question, directed to staff, asking what is the status of the identification of provincial issues that might help to "strengthen our tool box" in respect to student housing issues.
Coveyduck:   "One of the issues was our ability to get in and actually find whether or not there's an additional unit.  We have done some investigation into that and one of the problems that we have is getting warrants because the judges are reluctant to issue a warrant unless they have almost 100% proof that there's actually a unit in there and that's very difficult to do until getting in to see that.  So, that's where our main difficulty lies."
Whitehead:   So, it was his understanding that that staff identifying issues and bringing this together so that the province can be contacted about these types of access issues.  Whitehead noted that he had sent a student and a resident to that conference as well as staff and wanted to commend the staff for their work.
McHattie:   Indicated that in the City of Waterloo, the Fire department has a little more access, so they have taken the lead in this issue.  He indicated to Mr. Kay (staff) asking how this idea might help Hamilton's situation.
Mr. Kay:   He did take note of the Kitchener and Waterloo fire policy and wants to help out in this regard and perhaps join the conference in Hamilton on May 12 and 13

Ferguson:   "Just one more thing on the school issue.  I'm not usually defending the School Board, but they did, in fact, about 3 or 4 weeks ago, invite council in for an orientation session.  About 3 councillors showed up . . . in the next 2 years we're going to have six brand new schools built.  So, that's something that sometimes gets lost in this.  And, I attended Dr. Davey's school last Saturday night on a fundraiser at the YMCA, where they put on a "virtual Y" fundraising event . . .my experience is the School Board is willing to meet us half-way and I would encourage that dialogue to continue."

Morelli:   "As an ex-trustee, I can tell you, I'm very familiar with school board procedures . . .It's been my experience . . . that every time the school Board has problems, they bring 'em to our attention.  And, when they don't have problems, they just squawk."  That we have a major community had not been consulted regarding where the students were going to be going once their school closed.  He felt that the School Board has not done well at communicating information with the neighbourhoods.  "Obviously, they've (the School Board) been in the penalty box for two years -  I'm not so sure they should be out.  But, I can tell you, it's their jurisdiction  . . . and the least they could have done is consult with us."  And, Councillor Morelli felt that the people of Robert Land School have not been dealt with in a full consultative way noting that the school closing was  a major thing, and they were first told they were going to Sanford.  Now, without any consultation they are going to Bennetto.

DiIanni:   suggested that as Councillor Ferguson sits on the School Liaison committee, that a special meeting should be set up.  (Morelli said that Kelly was going to be doing that.)
- requested a motion to go in camera - 1) private / confidential items Item #3 Social and Public Health committee - 3. Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (Just to note, Andrea Horwath "declared an interest" in this item); 2) Cleaning tenders (McCarthy);3) a legal matter to be brought up by Mayor DiIanni 

10. Private and Confidential Items

Motion to go in camera :   Jackson /  Whitehead - CARRIED
(reason was with respect to cleaning tenders)

once OUT of "in camera" . . .

McCarthy:  MOTION:   That staff be directed to pull the three municipal buildings in Waterdown from the present cleaning contract , and that these three buildings be tendered in a separate contract . (this wording from Clerk's office.  I didn't have time to set up my tape recorder)  McCarthy / Merulla - CARRIED

Mitchell:  Councillor Mitchell asked about the policy as to how to do this and staff (Glen Peace) noted that there was a council approved policy for tender;  also wondered if  the committee could look at the policy again - it was noted that Corporate Administration was in the process of doing that.  Councillor Mitchell will attend.  There will be a cost savings to be done in a small way.

Merulla:   made a motion regarding the Social and Public Health Service Report 04-004 - Item 3  Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act:
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) Merulla / Jackson   (also from Clerk's notes)

It was noted that if council approved the above motion, then it would have to approve a), b) and c) (see below)

(Merulla/Collins) The Motion LOST on a Recorded Vote as follows: (this from Clerk's office)
Yeas: Councillors Merulla, Collins, McHattie
Total: 3 
Nays :   Mayor DiIanni, Councillors Braden, Bruckler, Ferguson, McCarthy, Mitchell, Pearson, Whitehead
Total: 8

(Merulla/Collins)   - (Motion LOST)
(a)     That Council withdraw its delegation of its powers and duties under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to the City Clerk and staff, made on November 27 th , 2001 pursuant to the approval of Item 8, of Report 01-086 of the Committee of the Whole, as this delegation applies to FOI Request 02-086; and
(b)     That Council convene a meeting to review all remaining undisclosed records under FOI Request 02-086 and to make determinations respecting the disclosure of the records pursuant to its powers and obligation as "head" under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and
(c)     That following the meeting Council issue a fresh Decision Letter to the Requester under FOI Request 02-086 setting out its decisions and the ground under the Act upon which it has based its decisions

Discussion (sorry, I didn't have my tape going and notes were a bit cryptic)

Councillor Mitchell indicated that this might be a slippery slope and doesn't want this opening up to council for all these legal items.
-Councillor Whitehead advised that we should be open and transparent but have an obligation in compliance as to what precedents will we set.  He was not convinced Council was the right place to do it and wondered if this opened Council up to every Freedom of Information (FOI) request and debate whether to release information or not
-Councillor Collins supported the motion and felt it shouldn't be left a the level of the Clerk's department.  The operating department releases sensitive information.  Council needs to do a better job of relaying the information to the public and to comment on why the information and decisions were made at this (Council) table.
- who is the arbiter; what kind of directive can we give without compromising the legislation that is in place?
-DiIanni suggested that if we approve this, we are politicizing the decision.  Essentially, government is normally accused of holding information.  But, we must give staff a clear process to follow and how staff applies the law.  Clerk carries out the request;  the operating department provides the information. Even don't might if there is a third party review and only hold back what must be held back for legislative reasons.
-Councillor Bruckler noted that if there is this gap, there is the appeal process that should be followed - doesn't want Council having to decide

The Motion LOST on a Recorded Vote as follows: (this from Clerk's office)|
Yeas: Councillors Merulla, Collins, McHattie
Total: 3
Nays: Mayor DiIanni, Councillors Braden Bruckler, Ferguson, McCarthy, Mitchell, Pearson, Whitehead
Total:  8

(Collins/Whitehead) (from Clerk's office)
That the issues raised during the consideration of the Freedom of Information matter be referred to Strategic Planning and Budget Committee, for a full review, to include an information session with staff and  thereafter, a discussion  at Committee. CARRIED .

(Merulla/Morelli) (from Clerk's office)
That the FOURTH Report of the Community Services Committee be adopted, as amended, and the information section received.        CARRIED.

11. Motion to approve By-laws (#0452-0464) - Collins / Ferguson - CARRIED

12. Adjournment (I think around 11:00 pm or so)

Return to beginning of report