August 11, 2004 Report – Part 1
9:30 am (9:37 am )
Lunch (no lunch - sandwiches in Councillor's lounge - food rules were waived & could bring into Council Chambers)

Members of Council:

• Mayor Larry DiIANNI (absent)
• Ward # 1 Brian McHATTIE (present)
• Ward # 2 Vacant
• Ward # 3 Bernie MORELLI (present)
• Ward # 4 Sam MERULLA (present)
• Ward # 5 Chad COLLINS (present)
• Ward # 6 Tom JACKSON (absent)
• Ward # 7 Bill KELLY (present)
• 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 Vacant
• Ward #14 Dave BRADEN (present)
• Ward #15 Margaret McCARTHY (present - as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair in Mayor's absence)

Members of Staff (Present, some called upon to answer questions)

• Peter Barkwell - City Solicitor (was there but not called upon in open session)
• Rose Caterini - Deputy Clerk, Manager - Legislative Services
• Kevin Christenson - City Clerk
• Lee Ann Coveyduck - General Manager, Planning and Development
• Judy Downey- Co-ordinator, Standards & Licensing (By-Laws - Property)
• Mary Gallagher, COW Co-Ordinator (City Clerk's Office)
• Catherine Graham - General Manager, Human Resources
• Brian Mullan - Police Chief
• Guy Paparella - Red Hill Valley Project
• Pat Parker - Waste Management
• Glen Peace - City Manager
• Joe-Anne Priel - General Manager, Public Health and Community Services
• Wray Oakes - Manager of Roads (Operations & Maintenance)
• Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services
• Doug Rose - Manager, Standards & Licensing
• Blair Smith - Manager, Collections - Waste Management Division
• Scott Stewart - Director (Capital Planning & Implementation) CPI, Public Works
• Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works
• Ed Switenky - Manager, Traffic Engineering & Operations
• Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator Elections and Freedom of Information

Members of the Media present:

• Ken Mann - CHML
• Eric McGuinness - Hamilton Spectator
• Kevin Werner - Brabant

1. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA (Kelly / Braden - CARRIED)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : I'm going to ask for everyone's cooperation, Council and our delegations, to keep to the time limit. Mr. Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda?

Kevin Christenson - City Clerk : Yes there are, thank you Madam Chair.

Item 5.1 which is a delegation request by Mr. Glen Sollie of Tradeport International respecting Acceptance of International Waste from the John C. Munro Airport to Glanbrook Landfill has been WITHDRAWN.

In addition, Councillor Kelly will be asking Committee to TABLE the staff report noted as Item 8.1 respecting Acceptance of International Waste from John C. Munro Airport to Glanbrook Landfill.

We have a presentation noted as Item 7.1 respecting Operational Services Review has been WITHDRAWN and will be entertained at the Public Works Committee in September.

There are TWO ADDITIONAL staff reports:

1. Demolition Permit for 315 Beach Blvd. (PD04223). This will be added as Item 8.11.
2. Noise Exemption application - My Speedway Festival Flamborough Speedway. This will be added as Item 8.12. There's a typo in this which should be noted - it indicates 30 metres in the report, this should read 10 metres.

Item 10.1 the resolutions of the Shareholders for Hamilton Utilities has been REVISED. They have been distributed.

11.4 Motion respecting Appointments to Committees/Boards and Authorities.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Thank you very much Mr. Clerk. Members of Council, may I have a verbal motion to approve the agenda as amended. Moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Braden. All in favour? Carried.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Members of Council, are there any Declarations of Interest? Hearing none -

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Mitchell / Pearson - CARRIED)
3.1 July 14, 2004
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Jul14/Minutes.pdf)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : - Members of Council, may I have a verbal motion to approve the minutes of July 14, 2004 Com. of the Whole meeting? Moved by C. Mitchell, seconded by C. Pearson.Carried.

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Pearson / Mitchell - CARRIED)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : .):Members of Council, you have before you Consent Items 4.1 through to 4.15. Are there any items you wish to have moved for discussion?

4.1 Intersection Control List, August 11, 2004 (PW04038(e))
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04038e.pdf)

4.2 To Incorporate Certain City Lands into Various streets by By-law ( PW04085) (Wards 10, 12, 13)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04085.pdf)

Whitehead : .to Staff, 4.2 looking for clarification, talking about Redfern Ave., and it's listed . in Ward 12. I believe it's in my Ward. (Ward 8).

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Clerk will note the change.

4.3 Temporary Closure of Ferguson Avenue North for Hamilton's Annual Mustard Festival - International Village B.I.A. 9PW04086) ( Ward 2)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04086.pdf)

4.4 Temporary Closure of Locke Street South for the Annual Locke Street Merchants Association Festival (PW04087) (Ward 1)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04087.pdf)

4.5 Temporary Road Closures - Dundas Cactus Festival and Parade ( PW04088) (Ward 13)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04088.pdf)

4.6 Temporary Road Closures for the Winona Peach Festival ( PW04089) (Ward 11)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04089.pdf)

4.7 Temporary Closure of King Street West for the Westdale Village B.I.A. Street festival (PW04090) (Ward 1)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04090.pdf)

McHattie : .Item 4.7, .this is a brand new festival for Hamilton, WestItalia Festival in Westdale Village, want to affirm with Councillors this morning that it's a little late starting and a little token of introduction for WestItalia Festival for the Westdale area. Some of the Westdale folks are here today, David Naylor, Executive Director of the BIA. Congratulations to the BIA for moving that forward and here we have something to munch on if it becomes a really long meeting (snack left for Councillors).

4.8 Commemorative Street Sign - East 34 th Street (PW04091) (Ward 6) (Moved to Table by Whitehead / Merulla - CARRIED)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW04091.pdf)

Whitehead : 4.8, I'm wondering if we can table that item, commemorative street sign. I note in the staff report it does not recommend what's put forward. .it's not consistent with the City policy. I think this individual needs to be commemorated.I'm just a bit concerned about using street signs as a way of doing it..I'm asking if we can table this and sort of have discussions with those involved to see in fact if we can do something commemorative but something more consistent with City policy.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : .moved by Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor Merulla.

Merulla : Just in respect of Councillor Jackson, he's not here today, perhaps we can table that until he returns..

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Moved by Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor Merulla, that the motion be tabled, and brought back when C. Jackson is available.

4.9 To Appoint Authorized Tax Collectors (FCS04099)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS04099%20Appoint%20Authorized%20Tax%20Collectors.pdf)

4.10 By-law to Establish Advance Voting for 2004 Municipal By-Election ( CL04011) (Wards 2 and 13)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
CL04011_Advance%20Polls%20for%202004%20By-Election.pdf)

4.11 Monthly Status Report of Tenders and Requests for Proposals for June 2004 (FCS04023(e)) (City Wide)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS04023(e)%20June%20Tenders%20and%20Requests
%20for%20Proposals.pdf)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Do we have a motion on the Consent Agenda? Moved by Councillor Ferguson, or do you want to speak to an issue.

Ferguson : Just on 4.11. It's a sign of a larger entity now that we're tendering custodial works for our facilities, what the process has done, and I understand why it's been done. but it's eliminated smaller suppliers who can't comply. I don't want to table this.Ward 15.we lost a good supplier because they couldn't meet the bonding requirement of the tender, ask that staff be cognizant of this . it's to do with the Custodial Services for the City of Hamilton and this significant bonding required and some of the smaller suppliers couldn't comply with that.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Councillor Bruckler, this is Consent Agenda. It's gonna be a long day.

Bruckler : It's the same report - some clarity perhaps with respect to the tender related to the West Nile. Notice it says Phase 3 cancelled. I believe in an additional report within the report it talked about awarding of Phase 3 or something to that effect for adult mosquito. Just wondering what that might be. Whether we are going with the 3 rd phase or not.

Joe-Anne Priel - General Manager, Public Health and Community Services: I don't have the answer. I'll have to get back to you.

Pearson : With regards to the question that Councillor Bruckler raised, I would also like to get an answer to that because I have that on my item agenda. McCarthy asks Joe-Anne to deal with that.

Braden : Along with what the previous Councillor said about the bonding requirements, particularly about those kinds of tenders that I think would be . could fill in for if we got a problem. I think, in some areas where we have small businesses bidding, the necessity, to me, for bonding for custodial facilities, especially small ones, is perhaps debatable or unnecessary. I don't want to debate it now. But I would actually like to get the staff to look at it and make some comments, we don't need a whole report, in the future, about what they think, to balance the need for bonding as opposed the need to save money. It seems to me, that small businesses, particularly like my own, don't want to go through the whole bonding procedure. And we will underbid most ???.This isn't about me, but about small businesses being able to get a piece of the pie and save the city money. I would like to have some comments.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Councillor Braden , do you want a response from staff right now on this?

Braden : (inaudible off mike comment)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : And who do we get to do that?

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : We'll undertake to do a review of the bonding requirements for the ??? policy.

4.12 Hamilton Future Fund June 30, 2004 Investment Update ( FCS04035(a)) (City Wide)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS04035(a)%20Hamilton%20Future%20Fund
%20June%2030%202004%20Investment%20Update.pdf)

4.13 Quarterly Investment update to June 30, 2003 (FCS04067(a)) (City Wide)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS04067(a)%20-%20Report%20-%20Quarterly%20Investment%20Update
%20JUNE%202004.pdf)

4.14 Quarterly Status Report on Use of Policy #10 - Emergency Purchasing and Policy #11 - Negotiations for the 2 nd Quarter 2004 ( FCS04075(a)) (City Wide) (Move to hold over - Whitehead / McHattie - CARRIED)

Whitehead : On 4.14, I have some questions to be asked of staff, so I guess we could open to discussion.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : So that will be withdrawn or held over, removed from the Consent Agenda. Moved by Councillor Whitehead, seconded by Councillor McHattie.Motion carried. Item 4.14 is to be held over.

4.15 Apportionment of Taxes Pursuant to Section 356 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001 c.25 (FCS04103) (City Wide)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS04103%20-%20Apportionment%20of%20Taxes.pdf )

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Is that it for the Consent Agenda? May I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as amended? Moved by Councillor Pearson, seconded by Councillor Mitchell. Carried.

5. DELEGATION REQUEST

5.1 Request to address Committee by Mr. Glenn Sollie, John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport respecting international waste from airport being accepted at the Glanbrook Landfill site (corresponds to Agenda Item 8.1) (Moved to Table by Kelly / Braden - CARRIED)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/Item%205.1.pdf)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Members of Council, the delegation request, item 5.1,.has been WITHDRAWN from today's agenda. So we'll move on to item 6.1. (should be 8.1)

Kelly : As a companion to that (5.1), . regarding item 8.1, I'm wondering if I could ask that that be tabled until the next meeting. I was in touch with the people at Tradeport yesterday. They are fully aware of the staff report on 8.1, and they said they have some new information they'd like to discuss with staff, so the rationale for the tabling is not to dispute the report but simply delay it. They have some information which they think might have an impact, so if I could have a seconder, we could just hold off on 8.1 until the next meeting -

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Absolutely.

Kelly : My understanding from staff is that there is no time sensitivity with this anyway.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Braden. And staff are aware that those 2 are connected. . Carried.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1 Election Signs By-law (FCS02115(a)) (City Wide) (Pearson / Whitehead - CARRIED)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/
FCS02115a_Election%20Sign%20By-law.pdf)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : So me move on to item g, 6.1, the Municipal Act requires that before we pass a by-law respecting signs that the municipality give public notice of its intention to pass the by-law. Public Notice was placed in the newspaper advising the date of this meeting when the by-law amendments were to be considered. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this by-law? Going once, going twice, looks like you're off the hook Charlene (staff), there you go. Members of Council, do you have any questions concerning this report?

Bruckler : The recommendation, section 1, talks about campaign offices. In some of the other subsections, it refers to campaign office. Does the by-law allow for more than one campaign office?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : I believe it addresses the issue of only one campaign office. That hasn't been an issue for us, but if we want to make that change, this would be the time to do that.

Bruckler : Just a matter of clarity, it doesn't matter to me, I wanted to know what it was so that everyone else would be quite clear whether it's one campaign office or two campaign offices would be permitted with respect to the by-law.

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : It's our understanding that candidates would have one campaign office.

Bruckler : I think for clarity then it might read campaign office.

Whitehead : . I like to leave some flexibility, . to limit it to one campaign office concerns me.I think a mayor might want to have a satellite campaign office in the opposite side of the city, I wouldn't want to restrict that.

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : I believe it's plural only because we're talking about candidates campaign offices, so if you wanted to clarify that - I'm at the committee's direction.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : What's your pleasure gentlemen, can we get the wording down here? Councillor Bruckler?

Bruckler : I'm just wanting clarity, whether it's one or two or three or how many offices could be set up.

Morelli : That's fine, one seeks clarity here. I would call it campaign facilities. I think we're overworking something here, call it campaign offices or campaign facilities, you're gonna clutter this thing up more than you need to.we're limited and guided by the roles of the Municipal Act (MA).we have the responsibility to meet the requirements of the Act certainly.Charlene (staff) made a good point - it hasn't been a problem - what are we trying to do here? Fix something that's not broken? If we're having difficulties I think we should do more about it, but I'm not aware of it being a difficult situation, if somebody's got facilities in a particular neighbourhood to service that neighbourhood . in my experience this is something we need not fix because it's not broken.

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information (Charlene): The only section of the by-law that addresses the campaign office is Section 5, Sub-section 3, which says that election signs may be erected on campaign offices, once the candidate has filed her/his nomination papers and paid the required filing fee. The amendment before you is just to clarify what a campaign office is. So right now it identifies what may be erected on campaign offices.

Braden : I'm interested in enforcement. I really want to know in actuality, if I put up a sign before the campaign starts, or if I put up a sign on my own property that's too large, what's really going to happen? Is the by-law officer actually allowed on my property, to trespass on the property to remove the sign, and do we want to go there anyway?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information (Charlene?): Currently, the by-law is enforced on a complaint basis only. We do have enforcement staff here that are probably in a better position to answer that question directly.

Braden : We better ask these questions now and have the by-law in there. If I can get an answer about the by-law I'd like to hear it. (Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information asks to have the question repeated.)

Braden : If candidates or their volunteers put up signs that are on private property that are contrary to this by-law, what actually is going to happen, and if you could include in the answer, if I simply put up a sign on my property that's too large, beyond whatever the square footage is, and it's on my property, and I'm just obstinate in wanting to deal with the rules, what does in fact your group do about that?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : First step would be to identify the violation and to give you a warning, either a letter or verbal warning, and then if you don't comply we would take action under the by-law. With respect to entering your property, that's something I have to get clarified, if you refuse to let us on your property.

Braden : Go back to the first one, where you are going to take action under the by-law. Are we thinking that it's going to be in the form of a fine? What kind of action can you take?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : We can issue a fine, the first step would be to issue a warning to correct the violation, failure to do so could result in a fine.

Braden : Can any of the actions taken that are against the law, preclude the person in some future court hearing, from holding office?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information : ???

Braden : The answer's no? Thank you.

McHattie : Just a clarification about the signs on public property. I know that's illegal, but they're rampant on public property. How does the new sign by-law we're looking at here change that situation? Is there more enforcement vision for that?

Charlene Touzel - Co-ordinator, Elections and Freedom of Information (Charlene): In terms of public property, are you looking at road allowances as well, because they are allowed on road allowances, and that is clearly addressed in the current sign by-law, so there are some provisions provided there, certainly the properties owned by the City of Hamilton, parks, facilities, etc. signs are not permitted on these locations. Again, complaint driven, if a complaint is received, the staff would investigate and would let the candidate know and the sign would be removed. The changes that we're proposing here today are to clean up some housekeeping amendments. There are some issues that staff were involved with following the last election, and the provincial by-election, and the recent federal election. We're hoping to address some of those, such as placing of mobile signs on campaign offices, clarifying some definitions with regard to signs on campaign offices, etc. In response to Councillor Braden's question in terms of enforcement and holding individual accountable, certainly one of the new sections we're adding here, subsection 7, because that was one of the problems that enforcement staff actually found, was that candidates or campaign managers or someone from the campaign office was not taking ownership of who placed the signs out, so Section 7 is being added. The candidate will be held responsible for those election signs.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Moved by Councillor Pearson , seconded by Councillor Whitehead , all in favour of item 6.1. Carried

7. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Operational Services Review (Public Works - Operations and Maintenance) - No copy

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : The next section on the agenda are Staff presentations noted as item 7.2 through to 7.6.

7.2 Sidewalk Snow Clearing - Harmonization and Enforcement ( PW03130a/PD03226a) (City Wide)
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Aug11/PW03130a.pdf)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Move onto Sidewalk Snow Clearing and Harmonization Enforcement, and ask for Scott Stewart to make a presentation, and Councillor Whitehead is first to speak on this item.

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : Bryan Shynal is going to walk us through Item 7.2 as well.

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : This verbal report is provided to offer clarification and further background information to the sidewalk snow clearing report listed as item 7.2 in today's meeting agenda. In October of last year, Council in consideration of staff report PW03130 approved increased enforcement to the existing sidewalk snow clearing policy effecting all areas of the city, excluding the former City of Ancaster and the former City of Stoney Creek, where a status quo approach to sidewalk snow clearing service was to be taken for the 2003/04 winter season. The primary objectives of this report are as follows: 1) to provide an update to the success of the increased enforcement measures undertaken during the past winter season, 2) to seek endorsement of the harmonized sidewalk snow clearing maintenance policy for city-wide implementation, 3) to seek approval to formally transfer base budget to offset enhanced policy enforcement costs include to date an anticipated full extended enforcement into the former municipalities of Ancaster and Stoney Creek, 4) to seek endorsement for public communication initiatives regarding policy. As a reference, hard copy maps have been provided witch illustrate the sidewalk locations affected by this report. The reports executive summary notes results of a bench mark survey of service levels from other municipalities The survey of 21 comparable municipalities with population exceeding 100,000 reveal that 67% responding municipalities provide snow clearing services for all city sidewalks. 27% provide limited snow clearing, and only 6% provide no service at all. This means that in the survey sample, the majority of compared municipalities clear all the sidewalks on city streets. Staff note that in the report, while this service level would best minimize the city's liability exposure, the program costs appear to be prohibitive. The actual costs are estimated at $3 million as an annual operating expense to extend the service across the city. I would note this is a correction to the estimated range of $1.2 to 2.5 million that was identified in error in paragraph 6, p. 3 of the report. As requested, a review of the sidewalk related accident claims history from 2001 to 2003 reveals a doubling of claim volume during that time frame and a near three-fold increase in the settlement costs which totaled $527,000 in 2003. . I am joined too by Wray Oakes, Manager of Roads, and Mr. Doug Rose, Manager of Standards and Licensing to respond to further questions.

Whitehead : The question I have is originally with the Stoney Creek and Ancaster service of removing snow from the sidewalks. This is the question I was asked quite a bit when I knocked on the doors. Has that service been ongoing since amalgamation?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : Yes.

Whitehead : Did it take place last year as well?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works :: Yes, that's true.

Whitehead : Was it area rated?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works :: Not to my knowledge.

Whitehead : So, subsidized by the taxpayers of the broader community?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works :: That's my understanding, yes.

Whitehead : I understand the cost for this service was $70,000 if we were to remove it, so it's a $70,000 cost per year to remove snow from Stoney Creek and Ancaster sidewalks?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works :: Approximately $80,000.

Whitehead : What I'm going to be proposing, and I've seen the reports that identify the $70,000, and they're talking about where it goes, and my preference is that the $70,000 be put into an account, whether it's too much or not is to be determined by staff, but I'd like to see dollars put into the hardship fund that will address homeowners, or seniors, or whoever do not have the ability to clear their sidewalk. I'd like to be able to have sort of a compassion/hardship account that could address those kinds of households. We identify $70,000 here. I don't know if $70,000 is enough, whether it's too much, I think that's for staff to determine, so I'll leave that matter to staff. But that will be my motion, to identify a sum of money out of this savings to be identified for hardship cases.

Pearson : I did have a meeting with Mr. Shynal just a week ago, with regards to this report, just going through it, there were some concerns that I raised at that meeting, and because we just got the maps now, I just would like to ask the question again, if I could. In regards to Dewitt Rd. and Millen Rd., there's the hill areas that go up the escarpment level, and these have always been cleared in Stoney Creek. They are actually a very major safety issue. There are very few yards that front on the area and they've always been maintained by the City of Stoney Creek. This was proposed to be removed and I asked Mr. Shynal to have a look at this, and I'm just wondering if that can be addressed. Another was the bike path on Millen Rd., there's a bike path/walking path which leads to the Canada Post building is used extensively, could you answer those questions first?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works :: Yes, we are giving consideration to any of the areas that have potential for steep and sloped areas that have potential for injury that are too difficult perhaps Yes, it will be addressed and incorporated into our program.

Pearson: I know that in Ward 10, the major ones I am concerned with, we have a lot of reverse funds situations, I understand those are going to be continued to be maintained. The other question I have, and I didn't ask at our meeting with Mr. Shynal, is the 57% of the Ontario municipalities that do clear snow, has staff investigated their costs and expenses, obviously quite a high percentage that do clear, we're down to the 6% that do not provide this service and I'm just wondering how staff justify our fee, our costs for this service to what other municipalities are providing.

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : Certainly we can do that by update memorandum if that's appropriate.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): I'm sorry Bryan, what did you say?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : We'd be happy to do that. Would an update memorandum be appropriate or would you like a report back on future needs.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): I'm at the will of Committee.

Pearson: I wouldn't mind a report back to the committee so that maybe we can investigate it further if something comes before us on the table. Not a future report but just something that gives us an idea on what communities are providing and what their costing is, compared to what we're saying it is.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Bryan (Shynal), where are we in the percentile again?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : We're in the 6% group, oh I'm sorry, we provide limited services, so we're in the 27% group.

Bruckler: I have some concerns with respect to this as well, and Councillor Whitehead is correct. This is a service that is over and above what the majority of former municipalities had. I guess that's another example of reduction of service levels that some of the former municipalities enjoyed. I certainly wouldn't want to see the savings from that go back into administration or into the process. I think we have to do better. If we're looking at savings in certain areas, we have to give those savings back to the community. I recognize that we have to move forward with some of this harmonization. I don't like it but I certainly think we should be able to utilize the savings as a result of that reduction of service to benefit the community directly.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Councillor Pearson, I'm gonna come back to you for a motion on what you're looking for, but I'll go forward with the other list of speakers.

Collins: On the issue of the funds that were expended in prior years, you might recall we went through the harmonization process about 2 years ago. The Council decided to delay harmonizing the snow removal by-laws on municipal walks and private walks. As part of that discussion, we were given the assurance that this service would be area rated, as we would have residents in one area of the city receiving a service that others weren't. We were just informed that, in fact, that the general levy across the city was paying for this. Can I get some clarification on that? That wasn't the answer we received when we decided to harmonize 2 years ago.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): We might have to come back on that question. Joe Rinaldo is not here at the moment. Can I come back to you Councillor Collins?

Mitchell: I'm looking at the question for Bryan. McNeilly Rd. for example, in my ward in Stoney Creek. The road is very, very high, the sidewalk is low, and as spring thaw comes, and of course our winters are all about freezing, and it thaws and the water runs down there. It is an example of a road that is just about impossible for a homeowner to maintain. Because it's so much lower, the sidewalk rather than the road, every time a snowplow goes down there, 100% of the snow ends up on that sidewalk, and then that's where all the drainage goes as well, and it's very, very poor drainage through there. It's been a challenge for Stoney Creek for over the years. So to force those homeowners to totally maintain that, I question that, that's an area that has a problem, a drainage problem. Forcing that on the residents does not seem right to me. They've had a huge tax increase, and this is just another service level decrease to the rural area. That's wrong in my mind. I'd like to have an answer to that section of the road, as an example.

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : We'd be happy to investigate that site specific issue and concern and include a response in the follow up report regarding the other request for information on municipalities in terms of program costs.

Mitchell: Can that be so noted, Mary (staff), that report back on that section of the road because drainage is ghastly. Thank you.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): I'm just going to ask Joe Rinaldo to answer Councillor Collin's question on area rating for the sidewalk clearing that was previously discussed at a Council meeting.

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : The area rating report that went to Council for the budget 2004 kept the area rating policy the same as it was the previous year. That is an option for Council if they so desire and we could implement that if Council wanted to. You have that option. (Inaudible off microphone question to Joe Rinaldo, Mr. Rinaldo answers) Area rated right now? Only transit, culture and recreation, fire services, storm drainage, and Flamborough slot revenues are the only items currently area rated.

Collins: The concern I have is that when we decided to go ahead with the non-harmonized by-law, there were assurances that, if we allowed the community that was receiving the service, then everyone could live with that scenario, and what I'm hearing is that didn't happen.

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : Currently, it's not area rated, if Council wants us to area rate it we'll -

Collins: Discontinuing the practice, so, how do you sort that out, in the grand scheme of our overall snow budget, it's not a lot of money, but still, based on principle, it's not right for the entire community to pay for that specific service, when we had the debate, prior to bringing it to the table, maybe that's a different situation, but I think most of us said we won't harmonize as long as that community is paying and that hasn't happened. So how do you retroactively deal with that?

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : Retroactive adjustments area rating are problematic, but if that's what you're asking us to do, well, staff obviously will look into it.

Collins: Maybe you can come back at some point in time in the fall with a report?

Rinaldo: Yes.

Braden: My recollection of the area rating debate on this particular thing is different from some others, but there's no sense going backwards. I think if the appropriate vehicle to use, if there is a reason to have a service level that is different from the norm, and then it eliminates the debate and what's going on here. If Councillor Ferguson can speak to, if he chooses, to want to set a standard that is higher than normal sidewalk cleaning, then I'd like to hear that. I think that eliminates the dissention within the group. I would like to make it clear, that as a philosophy, that sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowner first. You have to find out where this sort of thing is weighted or driven. I think we need to be very, very careful talking about extending services, for whatever good reasons, in particularly the sidewalk clearing, because we can use this same argument for almost every single activity around the city. Lots of us have hardships of one sort or another that might make this more difficult than the norm. So we need to find out where this thing is grounded. I want to say first, that sidewalks in front of your house are the responsibility of the homeowner, and I think the community has to buy into that and the community has to certainly buy into helping their neighbour. The key to this is communication and how this is handled. Before when this was debated, the press just focused on the fine, and that's not the focus here. The focus is on clearing sidewalks. So we need to stick with safe sidewalks, and who's going to clear it, whether it's the homeowner or the government. This government cannot afford to take on more responsibilities in spite of what we've had in the past. So I look forward to people talking about the area rating, and I for one would certainly move that, in this case it's very appropriate. I feel that people in particular are not wanting a higher standard than others.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): I'll come back to you for that motion.

Morelli: .multi focus here, .I'm very pleased we're moving in the harmonizing direction . I think we should make sure that it's understood - I recall that it was going to be area rated. I'm not so sure of the fact that it should be retroactively dealt with, but so that we continue to nurture good relations between ourselves and staff, and I have no difficulty. Was it or was it not staff's understanding that it was going to be area rated. It's very clear. We should make sure there's no ill feelings about that, what was their understanding that it was gonna be or not gonna be area rated or do they not recall what some of us recall?

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : What I can recall is we submitted a report to Council every year on the area rated policies and what we've included in the area rating and I don't recall if that was discussed . At that time Council did approve the area rating policies in each and every budget on the basis of what is being done today -

Morelli (interrupting): Okay, so that's the overall area rating, but this is a one-off . very clear conversation around this table. (to staff) Does any recall that one-off conversation extensively here?

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : We'll have to pursue it in terms of looking back through the records. I do recall there was some discussion about it, but I don't recall -

Morelli (interrupting): I'm happy with that answer. If you can find any paperwork, it only just makes it clear for everybody. I'm very pleased that we're moving towards harmonization and I salute everyone around this table who recognizes the need to do that in the sense of - I think the second point I want to make is, now there are situations that we all have that, you know, I think there was reference that you have to clear your snow in front of your house, that you're responsible, do you want businesses or houses. Businesses are the ones that create the biggest discomfort for me, and quite frankly, they really, they really mess the system and really make it difficult so, I think that sense of responsibility is something we need to pursue and I'm happy again that we're all together in that. One of the things exciting here is that the city does pay out a significant number of claims with regards to slips and falls, and of course, I guess, if they read it you could assume, rightly or wrongly, that - I guess when we have claims that are high enough to equal the amount it would cost us for snow removal, it would be something we might consider doing that. I guess my point would be I would like to know what we pay out in claims and if that's something we can divulge probably, or we have to go in camera, we don't need to do that at this point. The second point that I would make with respect to that, we assume that's where we would be heading given that it would be equal. I'm not so sure we wouldn't have any claims even if we did remove the snow so I want to just make that point. The other one I wanted to draw a reference to is at the bottom of the page it talks about how the fines and how the enforcement would proceed and on the last sentence it says on any future instances of snow if removed immediately upon identification without warning given that it was a second or third occurrence, I think we better make it clear that it would have to be the same owner throughout all the cases. In other words if you've got someone that's moving in and it picks up and the previous owner ???, you wouldn't want to move in there and just do it without notifying the new owner of his or her responsibility as well. So I would be careful with just that statement there, so. I want to conclude by also mentioning, and addressing Terry's (Whitehead) idea about hardship cases. And I think we've talked about that around this table and, I'm looking at Bill Kelly, I've had a system where a lot of seniors who have difficulty, quite frankly, in a, I want to say that it's really clear to me that we need to help and we need to find ways to help. But I think we need to find ways that are both financially feasible as well as practicable and realistic. And I would say this. What I've done, and we as a community, is I've gone to the high schools and I'm pairing up students, really good students who take on houses which are within their blocks, or within, if I could find a youngster, high school preferably, who live in close proximity, then I have teamed them up and these young people have responded really effectively. In this case it happens to be Cathedral High. I think that we have to find ways where we don't get into this bit of, if you can prove that you don't have the ability, that we'll pay for it. You know, we're struggling with our, what I think we need to say, if you got a problem, we'll try to solve the problem, and I think that's the approach I prefer to take as opposed to saying, ok, we saved 80 here, let's put it into this file and if somebody wants to make submission, we'll support the - I think we need to support people, but we need to challenge ourselves and those synergistically ??? to solve it. And I just want to throw that out because not only am I a big proponent of doing something about sidewalks that are not clear, and I'm I'm realistically dealing with it, I think that the major problem has been for our seniors who have been able to do it legitimately and have been solutions to those problems, so we've been able to solve it. I want to make that comment, and for that reason only, would I not support Terry's suggestion. But I want to make clear that I think we have a very strong obligation and responsibility of trying to solve those difficulties, and but not to sort of apply money to it necessarily from our end.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): We have Councillor Ferguson, and then I'd like to ask a question, so I'm going to ask Councillor Whitehead to take over as Chair for a minute and then I'm going to go back to Councillor Whitehead for a motion, Councillor Pearson for a motion, and then Councillor Braden for a motion. Councillor Mitchell, for a second time after Councillor Ferguson, so I'm gonna insert myself in there. Go ahead Councillor Ferguson.

Ferguson: Joe, is the Forestry Program GRIDS, is that area rated?

Rinaldo: No.

Ferguson (to Bryan Shynal): Is the Forestry Program GRIDS, is that available for wards 9 through 15?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : The GRIDS Program, as it's presently funded, is offered strictly within the former City of Hamilton.

Ferguson: Thank you. I have to be opposed to this, and it's not necessarily the service, it's just one more nail in the paying more, getting less scenario the city's offering. ??? relative to the road, services that were in place ???. replacing hard services with enforcement and that to me just sends the wrong message. I question the $3 million ??? city. I question if we're going the right way when 2/3 of the established in Ontario do it now. I think I heard Mr. Shynal say that we paid out ½ million in slip and falls. Is that correct? So that wouldn't cash flow the 3 million per year versus ½ million. Like Councillor Morelli says, just because you clear all the sidewalks doesn't mean you have no slip and falls claims. I question the 70,000 reduced expenditure because, in my particular ward, it will only eliminate half of the sidewalk work, because the rest, you know, are municipal ???(inaudible) I just hope it isn't a phantom saving we're looking for here. How was the enforcement funded last year?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : Maybe I can start the response, and Doug Rose can provide the detail. I just want to clear up a misunderstanding. The cost for the services in question totals $80,000. What we're asking for in the report recommendation is to transfer $70,000 to by-law enforcement and that would support the cost of city-wide enhanced enforcement. Bear in mind the enhanced enforcement already took place within the other affected areas of the city in the '03 - 04 program to the extent of approximately $60,000, so the extra 10 bring you up to the 70,000 for cost of enforcement would then be applied to the rest of Ancaster and Stoney Creek if harmonized. And the last $10,000 unaccounted for, would remain in our operations budget to support any additional communication initiatives for public awareness of the policy harmonization. So that if there were in fact a redirection, the portion of the 80,000, or the 70,000 for enforcement, there would be an impact on enforcement and reasonably on compliance I would think. Perhaps Mr. Rose can speak to that.

Sorry, I wasn't involved in the snow clearing last year, and Wray (Oakes) has more information he can share with you.

Wray Oakes, Manager of Roads : Well, the impact of law enforcement initially assigned to create higher claims, higher cost of claims, so that was the intent, to be more proactive and hopefully reduce and gain more compliance.

Ferguson: I read here somewhere, that increase enforcement last year produced a satisfactory result - how was it funded last year - enforcement?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : If I recall correctly, we were directed to go ahead and fund the proactive by-law on a temporary basis and come back this year to report the cost associated with that, to make a decision as to whether it would be transferred on a permanent basis or not.

Ferguson: As far as the service, I could go either way, because A) only about 1/3 of the streets receive this service, although my residents say I don't get it so I don't want to pay for it. The people who do have it, the service is not terrific, so I could go either way on this. My only concern is we move into hardcore service and the taxes are going up. We're replacing that hardcore service with a club. That's not the message I think we want to send. In terms of Councillor Braden's motion for area rating, I would consider that, but it's, put it this way, it's not an essential service to Ancaster. Thank you.

(Whitehead takes Chair while McCarthy asks a question ) McCarthy (in capacity as Councillor): Bryan, or whoever can answer this, highway 5, how is that going to be affected, because there's one strip on highway 5, that is ploughed by the city, the sidewalk there, so how would this report affect that area?

Bryan Shynal - Director - Operations & Maintenance, Public Works : That wouldn't be affected at all. We consider that a BIA section and we're currently clearing.

(McCarthy resumes Chair)

Mitchell: I always have supported area rating and would support Councillor Collins request for a report to come back, but I think that report needs to be a little more inclusive as I do recall asking for a area rated report on leaf and yard waste, which is area rated as well and then to continue forward with harmonization. Harmonization scares me somewhat, because I only see it driving up costs for the rural area. Going forward in the future with the management of the city I look forward to having urban standards for all urban and rural standards for rural and having those harmonized as we go forward. But right now there's some very, very much, some gross inequities for my ward and what gets paid and those response time service levels and so on. So I would love to have a session on area rating and try to get some fairness and equities to services provided. . I look forward to a more inclusive report on area rating to get it more accurate for the rural area.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Councillor Whitehead, your motion please.

Whitehead: The motion I put forward is that staff investigate and report back and establish a compassion and hardship fund, utilizing up to the $70,000 base budget amount from the reduction in the sidewalk snow removal cost to seniors and those with little ability to remove snow from their sidewalks. Now, if I could speak to that? I guess I need a mover and a seconder? Just to speak to it. I heard what Councillor Morelli stated and I agree that we need to be doing more to capitalize or utilize the community in assisting in some of the issues of hardship. My concern is that it has to be sustainable. And when you go to the sort of patchwork approach, that's not necessarily sustainable. So I want to at least have dollars set aside that a, wherever there is shortfalls, these types of services to the community, that there is a pot of money that can be tapped into to assist seniors. And I want to expand on that a little bit, 'cause it's not about seniors or people in bad health that can't clear the sidewalk, but I think we've heard some issues around the table here where it might be very difficult for staff to clean the sidewalk, or the fact that, I think I heard Councillor Mitchell talk about an issue in regards to his area, and I think those things could be encapsulated in this motion as well, so I'm not restricting this motion just to hardship and seniors but obviously these one-offs where it's very difficult a case could be made, in fact they should be accommodated as well.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Councillor Kelly, you wanted to speak to this as seconder of the motion?

Kelly: I'm fully supportive of what Councillor Whitehead's talking about here, because as I say not withstanding, and I know it's a burning issue because we've had that discussion in some of the area schools up in my area as well, with some success. But there are still going to be some circumstances that fall between the cracks. I just wonder if I could recommend to the mover of the motion that when the staff come back with that report they could also recommend some parameters as to what we could define as a hardship case so that we would have some sort of a template as to how we're going to work from that too. And of course we can hash that out once the report comes back. I think we need a starting board for that too, so if Councillor Whitehead's amenable to that, if we could just add that in there too. But I'm fully supportive of it and I'd be happy to second the motion.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Is that ok with staff? That we get some parameters brought back to us? You've heard the motion, it's been seconded by Councillor Kelly. Councillor Ferguson wants to speak to the motion.

Ferguson: Does the mover and the seconder have any ideas of funding of the enforcement? (background voice: that's what the report suggests).

Whitehead: I think that what I'm asking of staff is to make those kinds of determinations. What I've heard is that we have $70,000 - $80,000 in total, $10,000 is gonna stay for communications purposes. I think they're going to send off $70,000 for further enhanced enforcement. I believe that when we talk about better utilization of services, we have animal control, we have a number of services that are currently out there and I don't see how adding more dollars into that system is going to enhance anything other than putting more dollars into it. I think we just have to utilize the staffing that we currently have that are out on the streets better. That's why I'm not supporting putting the full amount of these dollars into the by-law. There might be some of this portion, 'cause I'm saying up to $70,000. There might be a portion they might still want to reserve for a by-law but I don't support the full amount going there though.

Kelly: Just on that same point, of course as we know with all staff reports, one of the analysis of alternatives financial staffing and legal implications, when that report comes back that will all be covered in that anyway and that will be debated by the council or committee at that time.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Thank you. There's extensive discussion. I'm gonna call the question on Councillor Whitehead's motion. All in favour: Carried. That motion is carried. Councillor Pearson please, your motion.

Pearson: I'll move a motion, and Councillor Mitchell will second it, that staff report back on the 60% of comparable Ontario municipalities that clear all the municipal sidewalks as to the cost of the service level versus the 6% that do not, including Hamilton, and to give us a breakdown on the fee or the costing that has been arrived at, is estimated, to provide this service for all of Hamilton, in a report.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): I'm going to ask staff if they're clear on that direction? You're clear on that direction? Councillor McHattie, you'd like to speak to this issue?

McHattie: Just for clarification. Can we ask for an alteration/amendment to the motion, to have a focus on municipalities of a similar size? So we're looking at 60% that are doing it, but are they all small municipalities, that sort of thing. So the comparability aspect of it be ???

(interrupted by McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Good point, good point.

Pearson: That's excellent, I'll agree with that amendment.

Ferguson: Could you include in the report the slip and fall claims and the history for the last 5 years?

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Slip and fall claim and history for the last 5 years.

Whitehead: I think it's also important to understand the geographically and weather pattern wise where some of these municipalities are located. I know that if you're in a snow belt, you get inundated with snow. I think the municipality doesn't expect, or puts the burden on the house owner because of the sheer volume of snow that -

(interrupted by McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : Good point. Councillor -

Whitehead (continues): I just to make sure that that's reflected somehow in the report.

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair): Councillor Mitchell, then I'm going to call the question on the motion.

Mitchell: Absolutely. Just on section C, on this charge back for enforcement. Back in budget time, I did ask for a report that I don't believe we got, on having the animal control officers do more multi-tasking enforcement. This would be an example of that. We've - first year of taking animal control in house, so we have all those animal control officers working for us now, rather than the SPCA, and this suggests that they can take on those

(Comments Continued on Tape # 2 - below)

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "I'm going to call on Kevin Christenson to clarify what in this report has to be deleted."

Kevin Christenson - City Clerk : "Through you, Madam Chair. As a result of Councillor Whitehead's motion being carried, item (c) should be tabled until such time as that report comes back."

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "Let's do that now. Moved by Councillor Kelly; seconded by Councillor Mitchell that item (c) be deleted" (hear Kevin Christenson and others say off microphone - tabled) "- sorry, Tabled until the report comes back. All in favour of that? Motion is carried. And, Councillor Pearson, your motion has been Moved and seconded. Everyone's heard the debate. All in favour? That motion is carried. And, moving on to Councillor Braden's motion. Councillor Braden, do you have a seconder for your motion? I believe Councillor Mitchell seconded your motion, did he not?

Braden : "The Motion would be, as simply as I can put it: 'that area rating be used to fund municipal sidewalk clearing of snow above the standard practice across the municipality.'"

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "And, that's been seconded by Councillor Mitchell. A question from Councillor -"

Collins: ( interrupts ) "Madam Chair, the current report harmonizes what the services across the city now, so I don';t believe there would be a need to separate that in the form of area rating, because now the services are harmonized. Is that not correct? I mean, if we decided at some point in time to increase the service in one or more communities, then that would be appropriate but now that we have a harmonized by-law in service levels through you to staff - can I just get clarification - will there be any area of the city now that's receiving higher standards or services than any other portion or part of the community?"

Staff (not sure who): "Through you, Madam Chair, no - not if the recommendation (a) is accepted."

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "Can I help here just a second. Is it possible to put an explanation in that if service level is changed, that that be then area rated to that community - instead of presenting a motion - that if - since we're going for a harmonized by-law is it possible to say if there's any level change in this harmonized by-law that that fee be considered for area rating? When the report comes back under item (d), (e) or (f) or whatever it would be."

Staff (not sure who): "My understanding that would require direction from Council to reverse the -"

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "Does that satisfy you, Councillor Braden?" ( Braden answer off microphone, 'Yes, it does, Madam Chair. Thank you.' Councillor Braden continues with comments off microphone, but could not hear them clearly. )

McCarthy (as Deputy Mayor and Acting Chair) : "I think that the direction. Is there a requirement for a Motion to that effect. Moved by Councillor Braden; seconded by Councillor Mitchell. Is the intent clear? Council's okay with that? All in favour of Councillor Braden's motion? That motion is carried. (hear

Councillors say carried.) "Carried? Thank you. Now, on the balance of the report item 7.2 - May I have a Mover? Councillor Whitehead and seconded by Councillor Morelli. All in favour of the balance of the report 7.2. Carried. That Motion's carried."

Continue with Part 2, Item #7.3 - "Staff Presentations"