March 23, 2015 CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2015 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Chair will call the meeting to Order and remind anyone that has a cellular phone or similar electronic device, that they are to be turned off or programmed not to ring during the proceedings. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: “That the Agenda for this meeting be approved, as presented, and, that the presentations, delegations and speakers listed on the Agenda be heard when called forward by the Chair.” Page 1 of 5 March 23, 2015 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: “That the Minutes for the Executive Committee Public Meeting held March 2, 2015, and Incamera Meetings held March 2 and March 16, 2015, be taken as read and adopted.” 4. DELEGATIONS: The Chair will invite individuals by name to come forward and be heard and they will be allowed five (5) minutes to make their presentation. Page No. 4.1 Correspondence from Rick Sawa, on behalf of The Council of Canadians, Prince Albert Chapter, dated February 17, 2015, requesting The City becoming a Blue Community. 1 Suggested Disposition: Receive as Information and File. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: The Consent Agenda is a listing of informational reports, as well as correspondence directed to City Council, which the City Clerk has indicated a suggested disposition. Any item may be removed and dealt with separately. 5.1 Correspondence from Vice President, Government Relations and Policy, Canada Post, dated February 19, 2015, forwarding information on Canada Post’s decision regarding the Future of the Postal Service. 3 Suggested Disposition: Receive as Information and File. 5.2 Correspondence from Executive Committee Member, North Central Saskatchewan Waste Management Corporation, received March 11, 2015, forwarding the North Central Saskatchewan Waste Management Corporation 2014 Year End Report. Suggested Disposition: Receive as Information and File. Page 2 of 5 4 March 23, 2015 5.3 Report from City Manager dated March 13, 2015, with respect to Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Review. (RPT#CM-15-01) 8 Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 5.4 Report from Transportation and Traffic Manager dated February 26, 2015, with respect to School Bus Use in The City. (RPT#PW-15-38) 34 Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 5.5 Report from Fleet Manager dated March 6, 2015, with respect to Asphalt Recycler or Asphalt Patcher. (RPT#PW-15-42) 16 Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 5.6 Report from Planning Manager dated March 10, 2015, along with the following, both with respect to Notice of Decision – Appeal No. 1 of 2015. (RPT#PDS-15-38) 71 ● 75 Correspondence from Secretary, City of Prince Albert Development Appeals Board, dated March 10, 2015. Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 5.7 Report from Chief Clerk dated March 3, 2015, with respect to Account List No. 3 of 2015 in the amount of $2,834,421.05. (RPT#FIN-CC-15-04) 22 Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 5.8 Report from Chief Clerk dated March 4, 2015, with respect to Cheque Inquiries from March 2, 2015. (RPT#FIN-15-08) Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. Page 3 of 5 32 March 23, 2015 5.9 Report from Board of Police Commissioners dated March 18, 2015, with respect to February Bylaw Unit Activity Report. 83 Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. “That the Consent Agenda Items be received and referred, as indicated.” 6. REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATION & COMMITTEES: 6.1 Report from Chief Building Official dated February 25, 2015, with respect to Rental Permit System Review. (RPT#PDS15-33) 40 Recommendation: “That City Council Resolution No. 0435 dated July 17, 2006, which instructed Administration to develop a Rental Permit System, be rescinded.” 6.2 Report from Chief Building Official dated March 2, 2015, with respect to Acquisition Request for Building Inspection Software. (RPT#PDS-15-29) 51 Recommendation: “That the Building Division of the Planning and Development Services Department assume the annual cost of $2,500 associated with the installation and use of Noratek’s City Reporter Software.” 6.3 Report from Chief Building Official dated March 9, 2015, with respect to Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy. (RPT#PDS-15-34) Recommendation: “That the Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy, as attached to the report from the Chief Building Official dated March 9, 2015, be approved.” Page 4 of 5 56 March 23, 2015 6.4 Report from Chief Building Official dated March 9, 2015, with respect to Portable Sign Bylaw Issues. (RPT#PDS-15-32) 65 Recommendation: “That Administration proceed with an online forum, generating public input in regards to the Portable Sign Bylaw and Development, and provide members of Council with both the public commentary and proposed draft changes to the existing Bylaw for consideration.” 6.5 Report from Director of Planning and Development Services dated March 16, 2015, with respect to Official Community Plan Review. (RPT#PDS-15-42) PowerPoint Presentation: John Guenther, Director of Planning and Development Services. Recommendation: Receive as Information and File. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 8. ADJOURNMENT: Page 5 of 5 80 FEB 172015 THE LE COUNCIL CONSEIL OF CANADIANS DES CANADIENS ACTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AGIR POUR LA JUSTICE SOCIALE PRINCE ALBERT CHAPTER COMMUNICATION Mayor Dionne City of Prince Albert 1084 Central Avenue Prince Albert, SK S6V7P3 Refenedt -r “Rec.,e ye as. _Lrt j February 17, 2015 Dear Mayor Dionne: Canada’s waterways are increasingly polluted and depleted by unsustainable industrial, agricultural, and municipal activities. Our water services face the growing threats of underfunding and privatization. The need to protect water resources and services is urgent and governments must play a central role in ensuring water is used responsibly and allocated fairly. So the Prince Albert Chapter of The Council of Canadians is asking that City Council joins several other Canadian municipalities in becoming a Blue Community which is one that adopts a water commons framework by taking the following three actions: 1. Recognizing water as a human right. 2. Promoting publicly financed, owned and operated water and waste-water services. 3. Banning the sale of bottled water in public facilities and at municipal events. The push to privatize Canada’s water and sewage systems through long-term operation contracts, or so-called public-private partnerships (P3s), began more than a decade ago. The Harper government has made water privatization part of its agenda by committing public money destined for water infrastructure to the hands of water profiteers through funding mechanisms that promote P3s. In the meantime, the bottled water industry sells water—which should be a shared public resource—for huge profits. Greenhouse gasses are emitted and watersheds destroyed as a result of producing and transporting bottled water. Bottled water production places a huge stress on increasingly scarce water resources. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 1 Municipalities are responsible for water quality, supply, treatment and conservation. The adoption of a water commons framework to address these problems at the community level is crucial in the battle to preserve water and ensure fair access to all. We would like to be on the PA City Council agenda on March 16, 2015 to discuss with council the possibility of Prince Albert becoming a Blue Community. Sinc The Council of Canadians Prince Albert Chapter Box 27 Site 203 RR#2 Prince Albert 5K, S6V5P9 306-922-3851 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 2 ______________________ CANADA POSTES Susan Maryles V MAL 0Z20i5 FEB 1 9 ZUlS / MS. SHERRY PERSON CITY CLERK CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT 1084 CENTRAL AVE PRINCE ALBERT 5K S6V7P3 Dear Ms. Person: V ce-::-es’dei:e :e-Pe-der: Governmer: -Re a:’crs aid P0 EV (AWDA POST 270 RVEPS CE OR SJ OT1AWA ON 04 OBI ReIaI 095 zojvereeraIcs et cc!: gre N 200 OSTES CAJADA 270 POM RIVERS OE BUREAU 9i!Ex: OTTAWA ON K1A OB1 COMMUNICATION Referredir.,: ‘Iee.e\,t on.ol — - Thank you for your letter to Mr. Deepak Chopra, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding the conversion to community mailboxes (CMBs) in your area. We appreciate the time you took to share your views on behalf of the residents in the City of Prince Albert. As you may be aware, we are at a turning point in the history of Canada Post, and we have to make very difficult decisions in order to secure the future of the postal service for all Canadians. Digital alternatives are replacing traditional mail and that trend will accelerate. We have to transform our business in the face of rapidly declining mail volumes that have put the national postal service at risk. The conversion to CMBs is the cornerstone of our plan to evolve our business, and we know that the success of this endeavour rests with our ability to communicate, collaborate, and consult with affected municipalities. For more than 30 years, Canada Post has worked with municipal leaders and their staff as we have introduced CMBs across the country, and we certainly value the opportunity to maintain an open dialogue with you and your staff. As part of this effort, Andrew Walasek of our Municipal Engagement team attended your city council meeting in January to discuss the upcoming changes. As Andrew explained, we understand the importance of the considerations associated with the transition, including maintenance, security, and accessibility. Canada Post maintains all CMB sites and equipment and keeping our customers’ mail safe will remain a top priority. We have also developed a program to accommodate individuals who may have difficulty accessing their mail from a CMB. Residents who need special accommodation to access a CMB are encouraged to call us directly at 1-844-454-3009. As we move forward with the transition in Prince Albert, we wish to continue working with you and your colleagues. Your input will help us ensure that we are addressing any potential issues as we work to serve all Canadians in your community and across the country. While we work closely with municipal staff, we are also committed to communicating with each affected customer individually and directly to provide information, seek feedback, and guide them as the transition progresses. As you may know, we sent information packages with surveys to all affected residents by which they could express their priorities and preferences. The surveys gave residents the opportunity to tell us which issues matter most to them, and feedback has been shared with local leaders and planning departments to assist in collectively determining solutions. Our comprehensive process for implementing this change is premised on solid consultation, and we will continue to keep your office and any affected residents informed during the various stages of the transition. Thank you again for writing on behalf of the City of Prince Albert. Should you have any further questions, Andrew remains available at 613-734-9317. Please be assured of our dedication to providing your community with the highest level of postal service. ‘Ti? sincerely, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC wwwnostescanadara AGENDA - PAGE 3 www.canadaoost.ca MAR 112015 North Central Sask. Waste Mgt. Corp. (NCSWMC) CD 2014 Year End Report Total Authority Materials Received (Prince Albert City j • + LJec. Ccry,,r, Partners) 1531.22 MT Total Materials Received (Crown Shred included) • 3763.86 MT Please note that out of the Authority Material Received there was 128.37 MT of waste/garbage received and handled by our partner Crown Shred. Total average of 309.93 MT per month being diverted from our landfill. Respectively Submittes1,—- n Ring, Councillor Ward 6 1 M COMMUNICATION Rehred 1o Executive Committee Member, NCSWMC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 4 NCSWMC 2014 YTO REPORT Residential Single Stream PA residential material delivered 471.48 MT Authority material delivered ITotal YTD 1188.11 MT 1,659.59 MT Material Delivered 128.37 MT Authority Waste 1531.22 MT Total Material Processed Rebate OTHER Residerital Single Stream delivered 239.16 MT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 6 I— Jan I Feb PI ! ef.H±2!L. July Aug Sept Oct Nov . Dec f2014_122.1 92.96 101.3 144 5 144 01 140 5 158 511216 139 91127 5 118 6 119 2 j I 2013 96.14;79.91: 7710 i028ii384F102111014l10691223143O4096 1287 20i2 93.471 76.48 97.87 107.5 150,1 103.6 104.2 90.15 92.00 116.0 100.1 110.7. 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 Authority Material Received ____IL_ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 7 Apr May June July Aug Sept Material Received* Oct Nov DE1 27350 834553638 303.4 328.1 317.21 317.2 321.8 2013?2871j247924913075 339831113260 278.8 296.6 332.11298.4 311.3 [2012’276324o3j2987 331 040583221 3360 307.1 266.4 328.0 318.7 308.3 0.00 100.00 200.00 I 300.00 400.00 500.00 City of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Review (RPT# CM-I 5-01) Prepared By: Jim Toye, City Manager Prepared For: Executive Committee Report Type: Routine Mailers that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Mailers that require the concurrence of more than one department. Mailers that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. D Substantive Financial LI Approval Required By: City Manager 1& •)ZL(7 Director of Financial Services Director of Public Works LI Director of Community Services LI Director of Planning & Development Services LI Fire Chief LI Director of Corporate Services LI City Solicitor LI Chief of Police LI LI I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 8 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Review (RPT#CM-1 5-01) Date: March 13, 2015 Prepared By: Jim Toye, City Manager Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): That this report be received as information and filed. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: In January 2013 a report was forwarded to City Council by the previous City Manager which provided two proposals for rate increases to the Water and Sewer Utility Rate Structure. City Council, at its meeting of January 28, 2013, approved the following recommendation and rate structure: 0069. Moved by Council/or M. Ring, AND RESOLVED: That the Report from City Manager dated January 23, 2013, with respect to 2013 to 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Rate Structure be received; and, that the following recommendations of the City Manager, as contained therein, be approved: “1. That Proposal No. 2 of the 2013 to 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Rate Structure, as outlined in the Report from the City Manager dated January 23, 2013, be approved; and, 2. That the necessary Bylaw be forwarded to Council for approval, once the final rates are approved.” 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 9 Average Residential User_(IN_CITY) Quarterly Increase % Increase Year2Ol3 Year2Ol4 Year2Ol5 Year2Ol6 $22.60 10.4% $22.07 9.2% $23.34 8.9% $25.39 8.9% On February 25, 2013 at the City Council Meeting, Bylaw No. 3 of 2013 was approved along with the following recommendations: 0147. Moved by Mayor G. Dionne, AND RESOLVED: That the Report from City Clerk dated February 15, 2013, with respect to Water Service Bylaw ’d Reading Bylaw No. 3 of Amendment 2 and 3 2013, be received; and, that the following be approved: — — “l That Bylaw No. 3 of 2013 be given second and third reading; 2. That consideration of Bylaw No. 3 of 2013 be laid on the table and brought up under the Order of Business “Unfinished Business Bylaws’ and — 3. That Administration provide a report in the Spring of each year regarding the status of the Revenue, as compared to the Four (4) year plan.” Bylaw No. 3 of 2013 received Ministerial approval on March 7, 2013 and the rates were then able to be implemented. DISCUSSION: The water and sewer utility rates are established to cover all of the water and wastewater utility costs related to operations such as treatment, storage, distribution/collection, etc. along with capital projects related to water quality, city growth and regulatory requirements. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 10 The 2013 and 2014 increase in revenues from the water and sewer utility allowed the City to increase budgeted spending in both Capital and Operations. In 2013 there was an additional $524,550 to reserves, capital projects and principal payments and in 2014 there was an additional $960,960 to reserves, capital projects, transfers to other fund(s) and principal payments. These revenues allowed for the following increases to both Capital and Operations: CAPITAL REVENUES 2013 In 2012, the capital projects equaled $430,000 and this was increased by $317,500 in 2013 to $747,500 for the following Capital Projects: o o o o o o o nd Waterline Replacement 22 Street Watermain Replacements Water and Sewer Lines Unit Block of 17° St W WWTP Lab Equipment Storm Outfall Structures Raw Water Pump Station MCC Storm Sewer at 15”’ St and Central Ave — — $137,500 $80,000 $135,000 $30,000 $100,000 $200,000 $65,000 $747,500 2014 In 2014, the capital projects amount increased by $877,000 to $1,624,500 for the following projects: o o o o o o Watermain Replacements Storm Outfall Structures Storm Sewer Extenstion Sewer Replacement Program WTP Boiler Replacement rd Effluent Line WTP 3 $450,000 $311,500 $13,000 $250,000 $500,000 $100,000 $1,624,500 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 11 OPERATING REVENUE 2013 The Operating Budget for 2013 increased by $659,280 over 2012 and allowed for approximately $360,000 going towards base adjustments with the remaining $309,220 used for these specific projects: o o o o o o Radio-Read Water Meter Inventory Increase WTP Succession Plan Fire Hydrant Replacement Program Storm Channel Maintenance Sewer Photography Program Mineral Removal Program $60000 $39,220 $40,000 $20,000 $50,000 $100,000 $309,220 2014 In 2014, the Operating Budget increased by $803,900 which was allocated to the following projects: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Hydraulic System Analysis $375,000 WTP Chemicals $109,490 WWTP Master Plan $50,000 Postage Increase $20,000 Radio-Read Water Meter Inventory Increase $105,000 WTP Filter Completion Project $122,500 Software Licensing $12,500 West Pump Well Fill Valve and Actuator Replacement $15,000 WTP Acti-Flow Completion $33,000 Various High Lift Pumps $21,500 Clearwell Ceiling Repairs $25,000 Waterworks System Analysis $50,000 Boiler Control Replacement $10,000 Marquis Road Reservoir New VFD Drive $25,000 New Equipment Saws $5,000 Miscellaneous Savings $(66,090) Utility Savings $(109,000) $803,900 — — — 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 12 The chart below provides information with regard to the revenue received as a result of the increase in the water and sewer utility rates. Budgeted Revenues and Actuals 2012 2012 Budgeted Revenues 11,141,080 $ 2012 Actual Revenues $ Difference 11,281,226 $ 140,146 2013 2013 Budgeted Revenues $ 12,324,910 2013 Actual Revenues $ Results in a 9.9% Increase in implemented (April2013) I Difference 12,397,994j$ 73,084 Actuals from 2012 to 2013 when the new rates were 2014 2014 Budgeted Revenues $ 13,960,660 2014 Actual Revenues $ 13,764,544 Results in an 11% Increase in Actuals from 2013 to 2014 Difference $ (196,116) (first fuN year of new rate) 2015 2015 Budgeted Revenues 15,144,380 $ 2015 Actual Revenues Difference % Increase in Actuals from 2014 to 2015 Results in a 2016 2016 Budgeted Revenues $ Resufts in a 2016 Actual Revenues Difference 15,144,380 % Increase in Actuals from 2015 to 2016 6 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 13 The previous report provided to City Council by Robert Cotterill dated January 23, 2013 (RPT#CM-13-02) stated that the recommended (and subsequently approved) proposal would increase revenue over a 4 year period as set out below. The Actuals for Years 2013 and 2014 are also set out below for your information and as a comparison to what was initially projected: Projected Revenue Increases Actual Revenue Increases Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 Amount $170,000 $250,000 $415,000 $860.000 $1,775,000 Amount $1,116,768 $1,366,550 OPTIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The water and sewer utility rate increases have had a significant impact on revenues being generated. Although the increase did not come into effect until after March 2013, the City has increased the total annual revenue for the utility from $11.1 million in 2012 to $13.96 million in 2014. From review of the projected revenue as presented to the actual revenue, the City has received significantly more revenue than was initially projected; however, the percentage increases are within +/- 2%. The 2013 approved water and sewer utility rate increase was 10.4% and the actual revenue from 2012 to 2013 increased by 9.9%. Therefore the actual revenue received was 0.5% higher than the rate increase that was implemented. The 2014 approved water and sewer utility rate increase was 9.2% and the actual revenue from 2013 to 2014 increased by 11%. Therefore the actual revenue received was 1.8% higher than the rate increase that was implemented. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: Fiscal Management and Accountability ATTACHMENT(S): N/A 7 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 14 CONCLUSION: The water and sewer utility rate increase has provided significant increases in revenue for the City of Prince Albert. The Actual Revenue from Years 2013 and 2014 were considerably higher than what was presented as a projection. We would fully anticipate that the actual revenues would continue to exceed the projected revenues for the duration of the 2013-2016 years, but to be in line with the percentage increases presented. Respectfully Submitted, Jim Toy City Man9er 8 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 15 Ekity of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: Asphalt Recycler or Asphalt Patcher (RPT# PW-15--42) Prepared By: Robert Snowdon, Fleet Manager Prepared For: Executive Committee Date: March 6, 2015 - -________ - Report Type: Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Routine Substantive LI Financial LI Approval Required By: City Manager Director of Financial Services LI Director of Public Works M Director of Community Services LI Director of Planning & Development Services LI Fire Chief LI Director of Corporate Services LI City Solicitor LI Chief of Police LI — U . -a I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 16 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Asphalt ReGycler or Asphalt Patcher (RPT# PW-1 5-42) Date: March 6, 2015 Prepared By: Robert Snowdon, Fleet Manager Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION: That the information being provided in this Report be received and tiled. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: nla BACKGROUNO: After the SUMA Conference the Fleet Manager for the City of Prince Albert received several calls from suppliers regarding when the City was going to tender an Asphalt Patcher, as they had been told one was approved in the 2015 budget. The Fleet Manager therefore informed suppliers that an Asphalt Recycler had been approved in budget and that it had already been tendered, closed and awarded. DISCUSSION; To avoid any confusion, an Asphalt Recycler was approved in the 2015 budget. This unit will recycle the asphalt millings we have stock piled in the City’s MSC yard and the hot asphalt that is reclaimed will be used to patch potholes and other defects on City of Prince Albert roads. The Asphalt Recycler has been received and Administration is awaiting warmer weather to receive training on the proper operation of the unit and to start using it. Roadways staff will be able to use hot asphalt to repair potholes as a permanent fix earlier in the spring and later in the fall instead of purchasing cold mix and applying it as a temporary fix. In essence what the City purchased and budgeted for is a mini asphalt plant that recycles millings. This Recycler has the ability to recycle up to ten (10) tons of hot asphalt per hour. A Pothole Patcher is quite a different machine and is in the long term budget to purchase. A Patcher is a truck based machine that is tilled with hot or cold mix asphalt and drives to each pothole applying usually hot asphalt to the pothole, packing it, and moving onto the next area to be patched. The storage hopper on the Patcher is usually heated to ensure the material it is hauling stays usable until it is applied. The storage hopper on the Patcher usually holds a couple of 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 17 yards of materiaF, and depending on the size and amount of patches, can be operated for several bouts before returning (or more asphalt. The Patcher is operated with one person and does the job that currently requires two or more staff. This unit would work in conjunction with the Recycler as the Recycler reconstitutes the millings into new asphalt and the Patcher would apply the recycled rnillings as new asphalt to the problem areas in the road. Obtaining the Recycler was a big step in our road maintenance program. Roadways now has a machine that can cost effectively recycle old asphalt millings to patch our streets with permanent patches earlier in the spring before local asphalt plants are operational and later in the fall after local asphalt plants are shut down. There are three (3) steps for an improved road maintenance program: 1. 2. 3. As stated above, the Recycler is the first piece of equipment to be purchased; The second step would be the purchase of a Pothole Patcher (in the 2016 budget); and The third step would be the purchase of an asphalt milling machine or an asphalt zipper. The Zipper has the ability to mill an asphalt street or gravel Pane. On asphalt the Zipper could mill areas that are cracking badly or uneven surfaces so a new application of asphalt could be overlaid. The millings would be recycled in the Recycler. On gravel this machine would break up the surface and graders and rollers could relay the material back to a smooth surface, or it could be used in conjunction with a soil stabilizer to create a better driving surface. OPTIONS: n/a FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n/a PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: n/a STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL; n/a ATTACHMENT: 1. Pictures of Recycler, Pothole Patcher and Asphalt Zipper. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 18 CONCLUSION: The purchase of an Asphalt Recycler was Phase 1 of a multiyear plan to obtain the proper equipment to repair our streets efficiently and cost effectively. Phase 2 will be the purchase of a Pothole Patcher and Phase 3 will be the purchase of an Asphalt Zipper. Respectfully Submitted, Robert Snowdon Fleet Manager 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 19 ii Asphalt recycler w ‘I Pothole Patcher EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 20 Asphalt Zipper or Milling machine mounted on loader EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 21 !'i;City of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: Account lists March 03, 2015 Date: (RPT #FIN-CC- 15-0t.J) Prepared By: Valerie Kachor Prepared For: Executive Committee Approval Required By: Report Type: Routine ~ Substantive D D Financial . [8:1 City Manager ~ ~rector of Financial Services · [8:1 Director of Public Works D Director of Community Services D Director of Ec.Dev & Planning 0 Director of Fire & Emerg. Services Director of Corporate Services D D City Solicitor 0 Chief of Police 0 \...) ~~~lh :nnt.tp.V ffiQI buCA (j "v0 D Report Type - Definitions: Routine Substantive Financial Matters that are routine in nature and/or follow existing Council p_olicy_ require Department Head approval only Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department and/or are complex in nature and require the approval of the City Manager prior to being provided to elected officials Matters that have substantial or unusual financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services Version Updated: February 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 22 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Account Lists (RPT # FIN-CC-·15 · ot..J) Date: March 03, 2015 Prepared By: Vat Kachor - Chief Clerk Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION: That this information be received and filed. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: N/A DISCUSSION: CURRENT LISTS TOTAL DEPOSITS DISBURSEMENTS: PAYROLL SCHOOL OTHER $ 1,148,708.15 2015 YEAR-TO-DATE* $ 1 ,685,422.68 6,873,547.22 4,737,231.42 4,812,079.35 1 '148,998.37 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $ 2,834,421 .05 BANK BALANCE IN GENERAL BANK ACCOUNT $ 4, 759,002.46 18,956,543.52 $ 16,422,857.99 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 23 TOTAL DEPOSITS LAST YEAR'S LISTS 2014 YEAR-TO-DATE* $ 12,088,968.68 $ DISBURSEMENTS: PAYROLL SCHOOL OTHER BANK BALANCE IN GENERAL BANK ACCOUNT 6,624,192.62 3,885,189.01 4,988,536.04 1 '795,644.19 824,125.57 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $2,619,769.76 19,990,881.06 $ 15,497,917.67 $ 7,043,638.44 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMUNICATIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Account List #3 of 2015. CONCLUSION: N/A Respectfully Submitted, Valerie Kachor Chief Clerk - Financial Services 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 24 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert System: User Date : VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT 3/2/2015 Payables Management Ranges: Cheque Number Vendor ID Vendor Name Sorted By: To: 999999 Last Last From: 162257 First First Cheque Date ChequebookiD Page: From: First First 1 To: Last Last Cheque Number *Voided Cheques Cheque Number Vendor Cheque Name Cheque Date Amount -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 162257 162258 162259 162260 162261 162262 162263 162264 162265 162266 162267 162268 162269 162270 162271 162272 162273 162274 162275 162276 162277 162278 162279 162280 162281 162282 162283 162284 162285 162286 162287 162288 162289 162290 John J. Guenther Receiver General of Canada Receiver General of Canada AT AP Infrastructure Management Ltd. Aquam Inc Lee Atkinson Bank of Nova Scotia Barbarian Holdings Bell Canada Bob's Custom Water Hauling B & P Water Shop Inc Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Carlton Park Community Club Carriere Fire & Safety Co. 1988 Ltd. Danielle Castle Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 882 Kelly Chester Michael Chow Mathew Cholodniuk Christopherson's Industrial Supplies Scott Christopherson City Hall Social Club CKBI/Power 99 FM Glenis Clarke Clark's Supply & Service Ltd. CTV Television Inc. Dee-Jacks Custom. Metal and Welding Greg Dionne Jonathan Foster Four Seasons Cleaning Ltd. Stacey Franc Future Print Thomas Gertz GL Mobile Communications 2/13/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/ 19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/ 19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 $2,553.31 $406,357.72 $14,845.67 $1,026.69 $313.95 $258.33 $1 ,208.83 $4,635.40 $13.56 $1 ,250.00 $227.50 $1 ,249.92 $3,830.00 $193.03 $208.00 $2,387.97 $200.00 $69.01 $200.00 $9.17 $183.75 $93.00 $2,584.47 $123.50 $279.02 $529.20 $7,928.08 $161 .33 $257.13 $330.72 $6.19 $712.20 $240.00 $401.54 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 25 System: 3/2/20 15 User Date: 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 2 *Voided Cheques CheQue Number Vendor CheQue Name CheQue Date Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 162291 162292 162293 162294 162295 162296 162297 162298 162299 162300 162301 162302 162303 162304 162305 162306 162307 162308 162309 162310 162311 162312 162313 162314 162315 162316 162317 162318 162319 162320 162321 162322 162323 162324 162325 162326 162327 162328 162329 Crystal Harris Ron Harris Glen Holden Gordon Hood Perry Hulowski lnfosat Communications Inc. Joesoftware Inc. King George Community School Kevin Kristian Lorri Ma Kathy & Brooks McMullin Charlene Miller Millsap Fuel Distributors Ministry of Social Services Christina Mogg Shaunah Muldoon Napa Auto Parts NCIX. COM Needham Promotions Inc Needham Promotions Inc Nexus Contracting Ltd. Nordale Community Club NSC Minerals Ltd. Nudawn Sparkle Cleaners Ltd Curtis Olsen Prince Albert Co-Op Assoc. Ltd . Prince Albert Firefighter's Association Local 510 Prince Albert Golf & Curling Club Lorraine Painchaud Prince Albert Metis Women's Assoc. Inc. Paperworks Inc. Adrien Paradis Ken Paskaruk Pro-Tech Alarm System Services Province of Saskatchewan PR Septic Services 1997 Ltd. Q-line Trucking Redhead Equipment Conrad & Isabel Richards 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 $40.00 $50.46 $250.00 $574.20 $315.00 $69.16 $698.25 $150.00 $160.92 $22.38 $288.75 $258.33 $115.18 $150.00 $336.13 $16.90 $766.48 $4,948.07 $1,365.00 $1 ,522.50 $5,940.00 $3,830.00 $8 ,884.59 $2,729.44 $92.85 $1 ,834.65 $1 ,056.00 $2,300.00 $165.37 $4,216.56 $4,268 .56 $38.00 $422.46 $945.05 $18,599.83 $1 ,247.40 $2,108.37 $104,441.99 $178.50 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 26 System: 3/2/2015 User Date: 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 3 * Voided Cheques Cheque Number Vendor Cheque Name Cheque Date Amount -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------162330 162331 162332 162333 162334 162335 162336 162337 162338 162339 162340 162341 162342 162343 162344 162345 162346 162347 162348 162349 162350 162351 162352 162353 162354 162355 162356 162357 162358 162359 162360 162361 162362 162363 162364 162365 162366 162367 162368 Saskatoon Airport Authority Share Saskatchewan Building Officials Association Saskatchewan Newspaper Group Inc. SaskPower Sask Research Council Saskatchewan Transportation Company Snake Lake Construction Ltd Softchoice Corporation Sterling Truck & Trailer Sales Ltd. Supreme Office Products Limited Supreme Basics Sutherland Automotive TARGET Products LTO RIDDICK, PATRICIA M DYCK, CORINNE D MCDOUGALL, RAIGAN L CALLF AS, GARY L FRANC, RICHARD A SMALLBOY, ROBERT C MOO, KYI COTTERILL, ROBERT J ZATLYN , LORNA Thorpe Bros. Ltd. Jim Toye Trafco Canada Truck Outfitters Prince Albert Inc. Tru North RV, Auto & Marine Mark Tweidt Van Houtte Coffee Services Inc Warwick Salt Inc Waste Management Weston Bakeries Ltd. W .F.A. Turgeon Catholic Community School Markus Winterberger Dale Bassingthwaight B & P Water Shop Inc Commander Signs Sheri L. Fiset 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 $16,500.00 $1,800.00 $160.00 $453.16 $164.27 $97.65 $233.93 $920.00 $2,018.64 $115.50 $2,310.35 $455.40 $2,010.56 $5,212.48 $54.54 $41.84 $142.16 $21.34 $183.20 $12.32 $13.93 $39.50 $132.09 $1,560.11 $148.33 $4,195.05 $2,623.50 $217.50 $81.62 $4,363.75 $3,459.75 $485.30 $414.36 $150.00 $411.98 $110.25 $172.80 $168.00 $11.64 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 27 System: 3/2/20 15 User Date: 3/2/2015 City of Prince Albert 9:42:56 AM VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 4 * Voided Cheques Cheque Number 162369 162370 162371 162372 162373 162374 162375 162376 162377 162378 162379 162380 162381 162382 162383 162385 162386 162387 162388 162389 162390 162391 162392 162393 162394 162395 162396 162397 162398 162399 162400 162401 162402 162403 162404 162405 162406 162407 162408 Vendor Cheque Name OTIS Canada Inc Prince Albert Photocopier Ltd . Prince Albert Photocopier Ltd. Ad Graphics Ltd Production Lighting Rod's Decorating Centre Ltd. Shaw Cable Saskatchewan Newspaper Group Inc. Saskatchewan Newspaper Group Inc. Saskatchewan Newspaper Group Inc. SaskTel Supreme Office Products Limited Sureway International Inc. Travelodge Yellow Pages Receiver General of Canada Receiver General of Canada Jason Burt Municipal Employees Pension Plan Municipal Employees Pension Plan Municipal Employees Pension Plan Municipal Employees Pension Plan Municipal Employees Pension Plan Municipal Employees Pension Plan Receiver General of Canada Receiver General of Canada Acklands Ltd . Adcom Solutions Affinity Insurance Services AGA T Laboratories Glen Amonson Aaron Anderson Darren Androsoff Anderson Pump House Ltd. Aquam Inc B A Robinson Co. Ltd. Kourtnay Bear Lorraine Beardsworth Ervin Blanchard Cheque Date 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/19/2015 2/23/2015 2/23/2015 2/23/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 Amount $677.69 $110.94 $16.08 $98.70 $431.20 $15.83 $167.10 $210.00 $210.00 $210.00 $546.69 $110.83 ~1,297.45 $787.09 $56.28 $709.39 $988.46 $1,800.00 $17,359.38 $45,698.90 $37,092.42 $109,896.36 $9,174.24 $46,357.16 $100,525.28 $509.23 $1,732.76 $1,579.03 $527,061.00 $340.20 $19.00 $242.50 $242.50 $2,369.62 $324.44 $325.52 $61.20 $180.00 $131.25 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 28 3ystem: 3/2/2015 Jser Date: 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 5 * Voided Cheques Cheque Number 162409 162410 162411 162412 162413 162414 162415 162416 162417 162418 162419 162420 162421 162422 162423 162424 162425 162426 162427 162428 162429 162430 162431 162432 162433 162434 162435 162436 162437 162438 162439 162440 162441 162442 162443 162444 162445 162446 162447 Vendor Cheque Name Sonya Boyer Vern Boyle B & P Water Shop Inc Jeanie Braun Reid Braaten Canadian Corps of Commissionaires Allan Carrier Prince Albert Public Employees Assoc Certified Laboratories Mark Chicoine Michael Chow Christopherson's Industrial Supplies Linda Clarke Clark's Supply & Service Ltd. Bill Cline Hazel Cloak Crown Cleaners Culligan Water Conditioning Danger Sandblasting & Painting 2009 Ltd. Marilyn Dearing Delco Automation Inc. Sheila Devine Armand Ethier Fastenal Canada, LTD Four Seasons Cleaning Ltd. Corey Fowler Geneq inc Glenmor Equipment LP Gregg Distributors John J. Guenther Crystal Harris Lauren Haubrich HBI Brennan Business Interiors Inc. Rick Hodgson Holash & Logue McCullagh Home Building Centre Barb Hotzak ICEBERG Pure Water Martin Janovsky Cheque Date 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 Amount $33.00 $60.00 $126.40 $50.00 $49.45 $3,607.30 $19.00 $4,239.03 $2,326.45 $60.00 $87.51 $1 '139.13 $557.40 $2,974.94 $20.40 $45.00 $363.00 $157.30 $875.91 $60.00 $5,655.20 $560.00 $200.00 $413.50 $280.30 $25.00 $5,571.02 $105.30 $206.82 $1,000.00 $10.00 $938.36 $173.80 $19.00 $11,942.99 $40.77 $89.74 $10.50 $1,890.00 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 29 System: 3/2/2015 User Date: 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 6 * Voided Cheques Cheque Number Vendor Cheque Name Cheque Date Amount -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J. A. Tours Inc. 2/26/2015 $288.00 162448 162449 162450 162451 162452 162453 162454 162455 162456 162457 162458 162459 162460 162461 162462 162463 162464 162465 162466 162467 162468 162469 162470 162471 162472 162473 162474 162475 162476 162477 162478 162479 162480 162481 162482 162483 162484 162485 162486 Jay's Transportation Group Ltd. Justice Institute of British Columbia Kinsmen Club of Prince Albert Konica Minolta Business Solutions Canada Ltd. Kramer Ltd. Lawson Products Inc Regan Lepage Loomis Express Nicole Lychak-Smith Lorri Ma Ranjitt Mann Marsollier Petroleum Michelle McFarlen Sheena Mel ntyre Allan McKeand M D Charlton Co. Ltd. Brittany Miller Millsap Fuel Distributors Megan Miller Tayler Milligan Minister of Finance Ministry of Central Services Kim Morrall Michael Nelson Nordale Community Club Odyssey Productions Inc. Operator Certification Board Rick Orr P A Outreach Program Inc. Adrien Paradis Kim Pedersen Greg Pilon Carol Prete Sue Rechenmacher Kyra Robillard Tim Scharkowski Trent Severn Shaw Cable 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 $260.69 $6,334.17 $40.00 $722.53 $7,129.73 $1,363.65 $30.60 $928.36 $457.02 $55.71 $472.50 $175.55 $80.00 $40.00 $624.48 $494.13 $73.50 $54,883.98 $84.00 $30.60 $50.00 $8,426.04 $312.00 $18.00 $78.75 $3,158.28 $150.00 $236.58 $4,796.65 $19.00 $219.99 $292.50 $577.55 $102.91 $38.00 $217.58 $2,000.00 $162.58 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 30 )ystem: 3/2/2015 Jser Date: 3/2/2015 9:42:56 AM City of Prince Albert VENDOR CHEQUE REGISTER REPORT Payables Management Page: 7 * Voided Cheques Cheque Number Vendor Cheque Name Saskatchewan Building Officials Association Saskatchewan Housing Corporation SaskTel CMR Saskatchewan Newspaper Group Inc. SaskPower Sask Power Electric Inspection Division SaskTel Perry Soderberg Elizabeth Stadnyk Star Development Corp Dallas Stender Sureway International Inc. Sysco Food Services The Bolt Supply House Ltd Katie Tolley Universal Music Canada Tammy Vansil Stan Vermette Alina Walker Mark Warner Westview Community School Samantha Williams Shawn Young Tamara Young Ellen Froese-Kooijenga 162487 162488 162489 162490 162491 162492 162493 162494 162495 162496 162497 162498 162499 162500 162501 162502 162503 162504 162505 162506 162507 162508 162509 162510 162511 Total Cheques: Cheque Date 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 2/26/2015 Total Amount of Cheques: 254 Amount $80.00 $83,318.70 $3,375.01 $420.00 $77,055.73 $250.00 $2,355.71 $19.00 $40.00 $40,469.71 $69.27 $1,065.46 $3,131 .28 $341.88 $30.60 $516.00 $19.00 $247.50 $40.00 $10.00 $150.00 $55.00 $19.00 $402.48 $1 ,050.00 --------------------------------· $1,947,538.50 ------------------- SUMMARY OF BANK TRANSFERS Bank of Montreal Payroll Transfers Bank of Canada Transfers (Canada Savings Bonds) Total amount of Bank Transfers $ 692,528.56 194,353.99 $ 886,882.55 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 31 .City of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: Cheque Inquiries from March 02, 2015 (RPT# FIN- 15 - 08) Date: Prepared By: Val Kachor, Chief Clerk Finance Prepared For: Executive Committee March 4, 2015 Report Type: Routine !:8:1 Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Substantive D Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Financial D Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: City Manager ~~rector of Financial Services !:8:1 ~ Director of Public Works 0 Director of Community Services D Director of Planning & Development Services D Director of Fire & Emergency Services 0 Director of Corporate Services D City Solicitor D Chief of Police 0 j~Jow ~'fi,'frJ,1 mb!{a;; a I '(J I L D 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 32 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Cheque Inquiries from March 02, 2015 (RPT# FIN - 15 - 08) Date: March 4, 2015 Prepared By: Val Kachor, Chief Clerk Finance Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information and file. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: At the March 02, 2015 Executive Committee meeting there was an inquiry about the following cheque. DISCUSSION: Cheque Number Vendor Amount $582.98 161694 306 Tactical Nuguru Business & Marketing Consultants 162000 National Hotel 162087 J.A. Tours Inc 161616 $2,500.00 $100.00 $16,500.00 Description Purchased a Parka Strategic Planning Refund overpayment subdivision ·application Artist Contract- Jann Arden (E.A Rawlinson Ctr) OPTIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No financial implications from this report. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A ATTACHMENT(S): None CONCLUSION: The information provided above provides a further explanation for the amount paid to the corresponding Vendor listed on the cheque listing provided at the March 02 Executive Committee meeting. Respectfully Submitted, \). \\a_~~ Val Kachor, Chief Clerk Finance 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 33 ittcity of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: School Bus Use in the City (RPT#PW-15-38) Prepared By: Mohammad Kraishan, Transportation and Traffic Manager Date: February 26, 2015 Ex.<: c::...u .:ti v ~ CoMM.~ike Prepared For: Report Type: Routine IZI Substantive 0 Financial 0 Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: City Manager 181 Director of Financial Services 0 181 0 0 D D 0 0 0 Director of Public Works Director of Community Services Director of Planning & Development Services Director of Fire & Emergency Services Director of Corporate Services City Solicitor Chief of Police , C\)M_rfJlfl ( -dJil. ......£ 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 34 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: School Bus use in the City (RPT#PW-15-38) Date: February 26, 2015 Prepared By: Mohammad Kraishan, Transportation and Traffic Manager Prepared For: f'l(.e.c,......:;t\~ CorM'V\\ik.e. RECOMMENDATION(S): • That this report be received as information and filed. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: At the April 7, 2014 City Council meeting, City Council (under resolution No. 0225) requested that Administration prepare a report advising where school buses are allowed to travel within the city, specifically residential areas and whether the City's Public Transit could be utilized for the School system. DISCUSSION: The Public Works Department had contacted the three School divisions (Public School Division, Catholic School Division, and French School Division) to obtain buses inventory and their capacity and bus route maps. The school buses' inventory for the three School divisions is as follows: 1. Public School Division: Number of Buses Seating Capacity (passenger) 48 54 1 66 18 72 Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs.) 25,000 25,500 28,000 29,500 Seating Capacity (passenger) 72 Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs.) 29,500 3 10 2. Catholic Scbool Divisjon Number of Buses 28 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 35 3. French School Division Number of Buses 2 2 Seating Capacity (passenger) 48 72 Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs.) 25,000 29,500 As shown above, most of the school buses used in the city are Type C school buses (buses of 72 passenger capacity). A typical Type C bus has approximately a width of 2.4 m, height of 3.2 m, and a length of 12 m. The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) for a typical bus from this type ranges between 10,500 kg to 13,381 kg (23, 1491bs. to 29,500 lbs.). The bus route maps for the school buses were collected and it was observed that most of the buses travel on most streets in the city including the residential streets. The Traffic Bylaw does not state weather or not these school buses can travel on residential streets, however, it indicates the dimensions and gross weight for any vehicle that would be allowed to travel on any street in the city but does not specify the street's type (i.e. residential, collector, and arterial). According to the Traffic Bylaw, vehicles with width greater than 2.6 m, height greater than 4.15 m, and length greater than 12.5 m for a single vehicle cannot drive on the city's street without moving permits. The 72 passenger school buses in the city do not exceed these dimensions. As per the Gross Weight Chart in the Bylaw, two axles vehicles with inter-axle spacing greater than 3.7 m are allowed to drive on city's streets (street's type is not stated) as long as the combined weight does not exceed 18,200 kg (40,124 lbs. ). If the average weight for an occupied 72 passenger school bus is approximately 13,381 kg (29,500 lbs.), this means school buses would be allowed to drive on city's streets including residential streets since it is not classified in the Bylaw. It is noteworthy that, as per the Traffic Bylaw, no vehicles having a gross vehicle weight in excess of 7,500 kg (16,535 lbs.) or a length greater than 8 m is permitted to park on any residential street longer than the time required to load and/or unload. The damage that could be caused by school buses travelling on residential streets is not easily determined. The axle load of a full 72 passenger bus is equal to 10 cars. The smoother the roadway the less impact when hitting bumps. The older the roadway the greater the likeliness that the existing asphalt is thinner and not as smooth. Heavy loads will accelerate deterioration. As part of the paving program, roadways are examined every 3 years with vehicles equipped with electronic equipment and laser devices that collect data on condition of roadway ride quality, surface condition, and structural capacity. Administration believes that it is not feasible for the City's Transit System to be fully utilized for the School system as the geographical distribution of the students is wide (almost all residential streets) and the Transit system cannot go 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 36 inside all residential areas like the dedicated school buses because of the disruption that would be caused to the Transit schedule and service. OPTIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A N/A ATTACHMENT(S): • • Public School Division bus route map as provided by school division Catholic School Division bus route map as provided by school division. CONCLUSION: The Traffic Bylaw does not prohibit school buses from driving on any residential streets in the city, however, they are not allowed to park on residential streets longer than the time required to load and/or unload. According to the school bus route maps obtained from the school divisions, school buses travel on most residential streets in the city. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Mohammad Kraishan Transportation and Traffic Manager 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 37 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 38 Q. ca ~ .!! ::3 0 a: U) ::3 CD c: 0 ]! c-~ 0 0 ..r:. u VI -~ -a 0 ..r:. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 39 .a.*i'l.. City of Prince Albert ~REPORT APPROVAL FORM Date: Report Title: Rental Permit System Review (RPT# PDS-15-33 ) Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee February 25, 2015 Report Type: Routine 0 Substantive 0 Financial 0 Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: City Manager ~ Director of Financial Services 0 Director of Public Works 0 Director of Community Services 0 Director of Planning & Development Services .EJ Director of Fire & Emergency Services D Director of Corporate Services 0 City Solicitor ~ Chief of Police ~ ~(D. f \ /7 (]!-I 1 1_ jl ~~ ~ {/ 0 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 40 •~.. City of Prince Albert -REPORT Report Title: Rental Permit System Review (RPT#POS-15-33) Date: February 25, 2015 Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): That City Council recind the July 17, 2007 resolution that instructed Administration to develop a Rental Permit System JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: In July 2007 City Council reviewed a report from the Director of Planning and Development and subsequently instructed the Planning department to hold public meetings and develop a Rental Permit Bylaw. With the exception of the Director at the time no one in the Department was aware of this motion and no further action was taken. At the September 2011 session of Council a motion was made requesting a review of Nipawin's Rental Bylaw and the possibility of adopting the type of Bylaw in the City of Prince Albert. A November 1, 2011 report was forwarded to Council; the report noted several factors with final conclusion being that the gains from enacting such a bylaw were minimal while the costs of administration as well as possible legal implications far outpaced any possible gain. DISCUSSION: The Administrative costs of such a bylaw would be upwards of $139,000.00 on an annual basis The Bylaw required a building owner to sign a document allowing the city access to property, this is a provision which exceeds the rights granted by the Cities Act and thus legal implications were at issue. The provisions mandated by such a Bylaw are found within Prince Albert's Maintenance and Occupancy Byfaw. In addition the rental bylaw does not apply to any building that has owner occupancy such as a secondary suite. The Bylaw does not provide enforcement other than the license requirements itself, which would place the City in a position of landlord- tenant as eviction could occur simply because a license has not been obtained. s=ems~-· SP1?'M'r'rztw·.,=nz=· 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 41 The legal aspects of proving "rental" has been an issue within the confines of existing bylaws. All bylaws are subject to legal appeal, it does not matter what I think, it matters what I can prove. Finally the only gain from a Rental Permit System would be the creation of a rentals database, and it would only be valid for those who obtained a license. Secondary suites have minimum requirements under both Fire and Building Codes how many meet minimum requirements? Entry into privately owned property must be based on contravention, simply thinking there is a contravention is not sufficient. It entry is refused an application for a warrant can provide entry but a Warrant will not be issued without sufficient grounds. OPTIONS: 1). Recind the July 17, 2007 Motion requesting the development of a Rental Bylaw 2). Instruct Administration to create a Rental Bylaw, inclusive of Staffing, Cost Analysis and Legal Ramifications FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: An increase of approximately $139,000.00 annually to budget PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: None required if recinded. If the instruction is to proceed Public Notice and input will be undertaken as per the requirements of the Cities Act and include any additional tasks mandated by Council STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A ATTACHMENT(S): 1 ). The November 1, 2011 report titled MReview of Nipawin's Rental Bylaw" CONCLUSION: The costs and issues surrounding the implementation of a Rental bylaw exceed the possible benefits and should not be considered as a means to control issues with rental property. Respectfully Submitted, w.mJOhnson Chief Building Official 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 42 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Review of Nipawln'a Rental Bylaw (EDP-11-174) Date: November 1, 2011 Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Housing Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: Deals with a proposed legal issue BACKGROUND: At the September 26, 2011 session of Council a motion was passed asking for a report reviewing the possible adaptation of the Town of Nipawin's Bylaw 901/10, which deals with the licensing of rental properties, for use by the City of Prince Albert. DISCUSSION: Review of Nipawin's Bylaw 901/10 suggests it was adapted to regulate rentals within the town via use of a licensing bylaw to provide accurate tracking data and enable the town a means of gaining entry to property which they would otherwise not be able to access without authorization from either an Owner or tenant. WhUe the ideal behind the Bylaw may have some merit the actual bylaw is rife with inconsistencies and errors that render it ineffective. Please refer to the attached copy of Bylaw 901/10 for reference to the following excerpts... PART II- REGULA nON AND LICENSING OF RENTAL UNITS Exemption 5. This Part does not apply to a single detached dwelling unit where: (a) the property owner occupies all or part of the single detached dwelling unit; (b) the single detached dwelling unit remains under a unified legal title; and (c) the single detached dwelling unit contains no more than one secondary suite. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 43 This bylaw does not apply to any owner occupied single detached dwelling unit with a rental suite. It applies to any other residential dwelling unit such as, duplexes, townhouses, apartments, boarding rooms. student housing, or single family units where the owner is not in occupancy. Each unit is subject to following fees in order to be licensed under this bylaw. 6. Unless exempted under Section 5, no person shall rent or have available for rental any rental unit unless: (a) an application for a business licence has been made to the Inspector on the prescribed form; {b) the licence fee prescribed in Appendix "A" of this bylaw has been paid; (c) a business license under this bylaw has been issued by the Inspector; (d) an inspection of the rental unit has been completed; and (e) an inspection fee prescribed in Appendix "A" of this bylaw has been paid. Therefore as per Appendix "A", initial costs are 25$ for a single unit = $25, and $25.00 for each extra unit until the number of units exceeds 7, the fee would then be a maximum of $175.00. A $180.00 inspection fee will be added to the cost if during the course of inspection, problems are identified. Conditions of Ucence 14. For the purposes of preventing or abating nuisances and ensuring the safety, quiet, peace, enjoyment, comfort and convenience of tenants of rental units and persons In the vicinity of rental units, the Inspector will encourage the use of properly management practices, including but not limited to: Section 14 seems to have no other purpose than to inform as the only action available to an inspector is to "encourage" an action. Enforcement is noted within the terms of the License Agreement bylaw as being compliant with the Maintenance and Occupancy and Nuisance Abatement Bylaws. From the License Agreement: I hereby authorize the Town of Nipawin to perform an inspection of the above-listed property in accordance with the Town's Maintenance and Occupancy bylaw and Nuisance bylaw, and, if applicable, agree to pay all fees associated with the performance of the inspection. The enforcement for a rental ·ncense" is under this bylaw. Inspections for compliance are under the Maintenance and Occupancy bylaw and Nuisance bylaw respectively. As stand-alone bylaws each contains individual provisions for enforcement. In the matter of due process which one governs? A $180.00 inspection fee is charged for compliance with the provisions of the Maintenance and Occupancy bylaw in order to validate the rental unit's business license. The $180.00 is not listed in the Maintenance Bylaw. If an inspection for compliance with the Maintenance 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 44 Bylaw is done in regards to a building without a rental unit, the fee may not be charged. Is this unfair practice? Inspections 22. The Town shall determine which rental units will be inspected based on a representative percentage of properties owned by a respective owner. While I believe the intent of this statement was to provide the Town with an option where they would not be required by the bylaw to re~inspect every unit each year, it is actually creates a problem, without clear definition of how unit inspection is determined, a challenge could be initiated that a particular property owner has been unfairly targeted. 24. If deficiencies are identified during an inspection of a rental unit, the Town shall charge and the landlord shall pay the inspection fee, and the rental unit wiH be subject to a fo/low~up inspection to confirm the deficiencies have been corrected, at the applicable fee. An Order issued for compliance under the provisions of the Maintenance and Occupancy bylaw and Nuisance bylaws include the option for appeal. If an appeal is successful is the inspection fee refunded? 27. The inspection fee will be invoiced to the property owner listed on the Rental Unit Business License Application Form. If the invoice is not paid within thirty (30) days from date of issue, the license may be suspended or cancelled in accordance with Sections 11 and 12 of this bylaw. Once cancelled, the suite is not legal and cannot be in use. If all actions required by inspection have been completed but the fee is not paid and the license is rendered invalid, in what period of time must the tenants be evicted? Does remedial action continue on a building in violation once tenancy is not in effect? (Enforcement of the other bylaws do not automatically become resolved when the use of the rental is discontinued) As per section 324 of the Cities Act, reference latter in this document, if the license is canceled the City no longer has authority to enter the property without authorization from the owner or tenant. If a separate order has not been issued, what future actions are possible? 28. If deficiencies relating to health and safety are identified in or about a rental unit, by an Inspector or designated offiCer, the Town may immediately, or upon notice, stop the provision of utility seiVice to the property. utility seiVice may be reinstated upon the Town being satisfied that the defiCiencies have been corrected. January 15th, 40 below zero, mom dad and 3 kids are suddenly without service, based on a report, with no appeal. 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 45 Each dwelling must contain a minimum of two units, unless all units in a building are in violation this option is not viable. 39. A designated officer who has reason to believe that a person has contravened any provision of this bylaw may serve on that person a Notice of Violation, which Notice of Violation shall indicate that the Town will accept voluntary payment in the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) to be paid to the Town within thirty (30) days. 40. Where the Town receives voluntary payment of the amount prescribed under Section 39 within the time specified, the person receiving the Notice of Violation shall not be liable to prosecution for the alleged contravention. Upon voluntary payment of $200.00 prosecution is no longer an option; therefore no further action may be taken once the fine has been paid. This statement may jeopardize any further legal proceedings. The phrase "may serve" without a clear definition of reason may also be subject to scrutiny in a court of law. This bylaw includes enforcement which is determined under multiple bylaws inclusive of the operation without a license. Enforcement is defined within each individual bylaw and/or the Cities Act. In essence more than one order can be issued for the same offence. 41. Payment of any Notice of Violation does not exempt the parson from enforcement of an order pursuant to Section 30 of this bylaw. This statement is in direct contradiction with section 39, as an Order under the Municipalities Act and/or the Cities Act has an option for prosecution which a bylaw cannot override. 42. Where the offence is a continuing one, each day the offence continues shall be a separate offence. This may have been intended to apply to the requirement for a license, however this is not clear in the wording and the application of a continual fine is questionable. A license is invalid, the owner has failed to renew and an invoice has not been paid. The license is in violation. A notice of violation has been issued Friday, even if the owner attends Monday morning, the accumulated fine is now $600.00. 43. Every person who contravenes any provision of Section 38 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction: If a 200.00$ voluntary fine has been paid, as per section 39, then prosecution is no longer an option. 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 46 There are many issues in the design and layout of this Bylaw. Some have been identified within the confines of this report. We use the Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw which is an almost standardized format used by many Cities and we still are challenged within the court systems. A violation may be dismissed because the word "OR" has been used where "And" would have been the optimal choice. Bylaw 901/10 in its present format should not be used as a template for adopting anew bylaw. Proceeding on the assumption that a new bylaw be created with regards to the intent of this bylaw, tracking rental properties and gaining access, we must look further into all aspects of implementing such a bylaw. Cost of enforcement If we assume that rental properties account for 10% of all residential uses then we can build a costing model based on those assumptions. It takes an average of 2hrs hours to do an inspection where no problems are encountered . This includes contact, scheduling, inspection and reports. It takes an average of 20 hours for inspections where problems are encountered and 40 hours or more if legal action ensues. So we use 30hrs as a base rate. This model based Is based on only single family dwelling units. Prince Albert 'Population 40,000 Assessment records estimate 10,000 S.F dwellings and 3500 multiple unit dwellings (duplex, apartments etc.) As licensing for Multi-units cannot be accurately defined because of the maximum applied rate once a unit contains more than 7 suites, suites within single family dwellings will be used as a base model. 1 0000 Dwellings If 10% contain rental suites then we have 1000 suites If we assume a 90% rate of compliance we have 1000 suites with license only and 100 that require both license and inspection. Revenue: The minimum business license fee for the City is currently $75.00 1000 units at $75 each_ _ _ _ _ __ $75000.00 6 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 47 100 units at $180 Total annual income $18,000.00 $93,000.00 Expenditure: An inspection where no issues are encountered take approximately 2 hours. An inspection that reveals issues that need to be dealt with take on average 30 hours Inspection of 900 units without issue Inspection of 100 units with issue 4800 hours@ $40/hour $192,000.00 = 1800 hours 3000 hours The addition of 13500 new business licenses will represent a large increase to the number of licenses handled by our system, which will require the addition of one new staff member to accommodate work load. $192,000.00(inspection wages)+ $40,000.00(Business Licence personnel)= $232,000.00 annual expenditure This represents an annual loss of ($93,000 - $232,000) $139,000.00 Please note this does not include associated costs that are impossible to quantify such as tile searches, legal costs, registered mail and administrative costs. Does the cost justify the gain? Only two things change with a suite licensing bylaw. 1). A database of suites is created The database is still dependent on landlords voluntarily making application. This will be an issue. We chase a number of business's each year; the rental sector will be less likely to comply. Even if a suite were to be reported to be in use, we still would not have any recourse until such time as we could prove that the suite is being rented. This would have to be done without the right of entry. The current bylaw works because the issue enforced is not "is it rental?" but rather is it being used as a suite. 2). Enforcement gains the right of entry without invitation as long as a suite is licensed. This is a possible contravention of Section 324, Paragraph 6 of the Cities Act. 7 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 48 Enforcement of City Law Inspection 324(1) (6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (5), a designated offiCer shall not enter any place that is a private dwelling without: (a) the consent of the owner or occupier of the private dwelling; or (b) a warrant issued pursuant to section 325 from a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge authorizing the entry. If we assume that the licence agreement can provide right of entry, the issue is still not solved. A landlord that has licensed his suite provides the right of entry under the terms of his license. A landlord, who does not, must be proven to be in violation before any action can be taken. Proof must be shown that a suite exists and that the suite is being rented. The addition of a new bylaw can sometimes create as many problems as it could be perceived to solve. A new Bylaw creates new avenues for both sides as it introduces separate pathways of legal interpretation. I.e. A suite is inspected, it is perfect and 5 persons reside in the dwelling, however the owner cannot be reached and the license fees are months in arrears. The unit cannot be rented as no valid license exists, shall the city evict the tenants? The Building and Bylaw Enforcement Divisions are currently in the process of updating the Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw. These Bylaw updates are needed because the process in place has become effective enough that some offenders are now challenging every aspect of the bylaw in the Court Systems. We are updating, phrasing, punctuation and the order writing process, closing the loopholes as they are exposed. We have established a consistent approach and are continually adapting our methods and bylaws. This is an ongoing process. The system we have in place is working well. While it does not allow us the option to immediately gain access, this is an area where the City is limited in the action it can take by the provisions of The Cities Act. OPTIONS: 1. To receive as information and file FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The enactment of a licensing bylaw could cost the City at least $139,000.00 on an annual basis. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: None 8 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 49 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of Bylaw 901/10, Nipawin's rental bylaw CONCLUSION: The possible gains from enacting a suite licensing bylaw are minimal. A consistent approach with an annual review and update of existing bylaws will provide the most effective means of moving forward. 9 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 50 ficity of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Date: Report Title: Acquisition Request for Building Inspection Software (RPT# PDS-15-29) Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee March 2, 2015 Report Type: Routine ~ Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Substantive D Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Financial ~ Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Finanaal Services. Approval Required By: City Manager ~ Director of Financial Services ~ 0()%~~fl ::::: '~- ""':j v Director of Public Works D Director of Community Services D Director of Planning & Development Services ~ Director of Fire & Emergency Services D Director of Corporate Services ~ City Solicitor D Chief of Police D \ /7 leJL ('l ~~ D 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 51 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Aquisition Request for Building Inspection Software (RPT# PDS-15-29) Date: March 2, 2015 Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): That City Council authorize the Building Division of the Planning and Development Services Department to assume the annual costs associated with the installation and use of Noratek's City Reporter Software. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: The Building Division in Planning and Development Services has been seeking a means of integrating the stages involved in the permit and inspection process. Currently, the Division uses Microsoft Access, Excel, Outlook and iAnnotate in combination With paper inspection cards and notes. DISCUSSION: Over the last 8 weeks the Building Division installed and tested Noratek's City Reporter. The software was tested for use in tracking; building permits and Inspections, sign permits and maintenance and occupancy inspections. Information input by the Division is stored in the •cloud" and can be backed up to local servers. Both the interface and data entry are user friendly and modification of existing forms and permits were easily changed to reflect those in use. Entering the permit information generates both the tracking information base and generates an inspection checklist set for each project. Each permit is assigned an expiry date and a reminder is sent to an inspector at a predetermined date. In the field, an inspector has access to the program from a smart phone. Inspection check sheets specific to each job are filled out If all aspects are good, the inspection is closed and the next inspection queued. If a problem is encountered, the sheet will remain active and the notes entered by the inspector will be emailed to the client and a copy sent to the inspector's computer. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 52 This progresses through each inspection stage. At each stage, any photo taken can be uploaded to the specific inspection record as can any scanned data such as engineer's reports or plan amendments. All reports retain the date of inspection and inspector's information. Once a file is complete, all records are closed and retained. Paper copies of the records may be generated at any time. The program automatically generates some of the external reports required from the department such as Stats Canada Reports, a list of permits nearing expiry or even those permits that have seen no activity over a period of time. The Positive: - Most of the information and processes covered by this program are currently completed by use of several programs, many which are not available out in the f~eld . - Some of the information generated by this program is currently completed by hand. - This application forces every inspection to be completed in the same manner. - Search fields within the program have easy access and better flexibility than those we have now. - This program has fonnat setups for parks, facilities and roadways and could be easily modified to ftt most departments. - Noratek is currently entering into a use agreement with Diamond who provides much of our in-house software. - Current use of both Tablets and smartphones could be replaced with smartphones only, eliminating both data connection and tablet replacement. - Reports can be automatically forwarded to property owners with an e-mail address. - The program can be set to be viewed by other departments while restricting them from making any modifiCations. - Will minimize the need to return to the office to retrieve data for clients in the fteld and updates from the field will be available in real time to office staff resulting in improved customer service. - The annual Cost for the Building Department would be approximately $2500.00. - The program uses an industry standard database which can communicate with other software The Negative: - Data is stored in the Cloud which is provided to us in an SQL backup. I.T. has advised that if the Web is down for an extended period of time, it could be restored for our use within a day. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 53 - If the City were to purchase and implement a city wide GIS, this data in this program could be modified so as to be migrated into a GIS and with an annual fee of -$2500.00 there are minimal financial implications. The program has no current inspection schedule calendar. We use Outlook and would continue to do so (Noratek is working on an in-program calendar). Existing data will need to be migrated to the program. This is both a positive and a negative as it will use staff time, however, once complete, all data will be in a single database for future reference. Use of the program will implement a higher level of consistency in both inspections and records management. A secondary protocol will need to be maintained to ensure valid data entry. OPTIONS: 1). That City Council authorize the Building Division of the Planning and Development Services Department to assume the annual costs associated with the installation and use of Noratek's City Reporter Software system. 2). That City Council deny the acquisition of Noratek's City Reporter Software FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If purchased, the annual fees will be approximately $2500.00. These costs were not included in the 2015 Budget. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A AnACHMENT(S): None CONCLUSION: This program delivers a very good product for the price. In setup and testing, several errors were purposely entered and did not lock~up the program. Modification to meet the City's format was quick and the data entry is straight forward. If implemented, both internal and external customer service will be improved as data from the field becomes almost immediately accessible in the office and vice versa. All information collected can be printed into a report form at any time or be e-m ailed dlrectly to a client. In addition the Software already has modules for, Fire Inspection, Parks, Sports Fields, Facilities and Road works. Noratek has indicated that City wide use by multiple departments could be obtained for approximately $10,000.00 annually. 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 54 Respectfully Submitted, lib --- Kim JQ6nson Chief Building Official 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 55 .L'. City of Prince Albert IIDPREPORTAPPROVALFORM Report Title: Fence and Hedge Date: March 9, 2015 Enforcement Policy (RPT#PDS-15-34 ) Prepared For: Executive Committee Report Type: Routine 0 Substantive [8J Financial 0 Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial imp~cations require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: City Manager Director of Financial Services Director of Public Works Director of Community Services Director of Planning & Development Services ~ Director of Fire & Emergency Services [8J Director of Corporate Services [gl City Solicitor 181 Chief of Police 181 0 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 56 E i 1 , City of Prince Albert iP REPORT Report Title: Fences and Hedge Enforcement Policy (RPT#PDS-1 5-34) Date: March 9, 2015 Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): That City Council adopts the proposed Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: BACKGROUND: City Council provided a list of inquires in regards to City Bylaws and specific questions in regards to fences and hedges. DISCUSSION: Currently fences and hedges are subject to the same regulation within the City’s Zoning Bylaw. Restrictions are placed on height specific to location. Section 4.19 (Fences) of the Zoning Bylaw states: “Subject to Sections 6.16, 15,6, 21.5 and 26.2, fences shall comply with the following requirements: 4.19.1 Rear and Side Yards (residential fences) Maximum height of 1.9 metres measured from the ground level immediately adjacent to the fence on the site of the owner provided the fence shall not be higher than 2.4 metres when measured from the ground level immediately adjacent to the fence on the neighbouring site. 4.19.2 Front Yard (residential fences) Maximum height of 1.22 metres measured from the ground level immediately adjacent to the fence on the site of the owner provided the fence shall not be higher than 1.5 metres when measured from the ground level immediately adjacent to the fence on the neighbouring site.” In Commercial and Industrial Zones fence heights may be between 8 to 10 feet high, depending on the specific Zone. Section 4.20 (Hedges) of the Zoning Bylaw states: ‘Subject to Sections 6.16, 15.6, 21.5 and 26.2, hedges located in the front yard shall have a maximum height of 1.22 metres. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 57 In regards to both items, the height restrictions became a part of the City’s Zoning Bylaw in 1982. In addition to the Zoning Bylaw, three other bylaws deal indirectly with fences and hedges. Public Works Traffic Bylaw deals directly with corner visibiUty and has been used to enforce this aspect. The City Police Fortification Bylaw deals with fences that are greater than 3mm in thickness, electrified, trapped or otherwise fortified beyond normal means. The Fire and Emergency Services Bylaw, section 28 requires that the civic address of a building shall be displayed so as to be visible from a street. With the exception of corner visibility lots, this section of the Zoning Bylaw was never actively enforced through Planning and Development Services. The main reason was a lack of staffing. The Building Department, prior to 2005, was tasked with The Property Amenities Bylaw, Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw, Building Bylaw, Zoning Bylaw, and enforcement of The National Building Code. Orders and complaints in general were handled by 1 Inspector (who served as both Fire Inspector and Building Inspector) and one Development Coordinator who shared duties between Building and Planning. All Orders were pursued on a complaint only basis. When it came to fences and hedges, enforcement via Planning and Development was cumbersome and presented some challenges. Process Within the confines of a Zoning Bylaw, the term legal non-conforming is tantamount. When a section is added to a Zoning Bylaw, future development must follow those rules. They do not apply to development that occurred prior to the adoption of the bylaw. In this instance, the height requirements do not apply to any fence or hedge that was in existence prior to 1982. An Order issued under the Zoning Bylaw includes the right to appeal to the Development Appeals Board. In most cases involving fences or hedges that were not “corner visibility” concerns, the appeal board has found in favor of the applicant. This is consistent in other jurisdictions as well. An appeal board may grant an appeal if they find the action would not: • Grant special privilege inconsistent with neighbouring properties; • Amount to a relaxation so as to defeat the intent of the Zoning Bylaw; or • Injuriously affect the neighbouring properties. When these cases have moved into the court system, Judges most often take into account neighbouring properties”. Were complaints received from residents in the neighborhood? Is the fence, hedge inconsistent with others in the area? 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 58 Moving Forward Why are there restrictions on fences and should the bylaw remain in place? The restrictions within the Zoning Bylaw were implemented to deal with streetseape, aesthetics and design and as a reinforcement aspect to ensure that new development meet conditions defined in other bylaws. Fences and hedges should remain in the Zoning Bylaw but it should be clarified that the requirements are apphed to any new development or redevelopment. What about Fortification? The Police Department has a Bylaw that deals with this directly, and if required, can use their bylaw as it provides conditions and terms that are more applicable to such a situation. What about the need to ensure that a civic address is visible from the street? The bylaw does not state that the address must be mounted on the building and be visible from the Street. In instances where this is an issue, a property owner can achieve compliance with a fence or pole mounted address sign located at the entry to their property. The Traffic Bylaw is and can be used in regards to corner visibility as the requirements do not entail the extended process for enforcement mandated under The Planning and Development Act. In addition, Council posed several general questions in relation to City Bylaws: How many Bylaws do we have and if we do not enforce them what are they? The City has 64 Bylaws listed on its web page. It should be noted that each bylaw is a listing of regulations. The Zoning Bylaw is a 290 page document, the Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw, 26 pages. Each Bylaw is a document consisting of a multitude of enforceable aspects either individually or in combination. Planning and Development Services is tasked with the enforcement of the following: The Zoning Bylaw The Building Bylaw The Maintenance and Occupancy Bylaw The Subdivision Bylaw The Business License Bylaw The Development Plan Bylaw The Development Levy Bylaw The Downtown Business Improvement District Levy Bylaw Municipal Heritage Bylaws The National Building Code of Canada The Uniform Buildings and Accessibility Standards Act The Uniform Building and Accessibility Standards Regulations The Building and Accessibility Standards Administrations Regulations The Planning and Development Act 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 59 We also provide services to the Bylaw Enforcement Division and Fire Department in inspecting and review for The Property Amenities Bylaw and The Housing Compliance team. Staff and priority are the primary factors that define the level of enforcement. As a Building Inspector, my primary function is the enforcement of The National Building Code. Secondary bylaws are then delegated to as much time as we can allow. Most bylaws are complaint or discovery driven. An active Order varies in time consumption from 8 —200 hours. Priority: Regulation mandated by Acts are the primary tasks fulfilled first. Why doesn’t administration write bylaws in a manner so they can’t be overturned at appeal? The right of appeal is granted in regards to any legal action, No wording, action nor document is static nor absolute. In this regard, the Department does undertake active review and makes amendments to all active bylaws under their control. The implementation and effective enforcement of any and all amendments is an ongoing process as can be attested by the number of revisions requested by both council and administration to existing bylaws. OPTIONS: 1). That City Council adopts the Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy. 2). That City Council provides administration with further direction on this matter. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None PUBLIC NOTICEICOMMUNICATIONS: None STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A ATTACHMENT(S): 1). The Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy CONCLUSION: Fence and hedge regulations have been brought forward several times. The questions answered in this report should be considered when considering future amendments. The City uses bylaws that derive their power from different Acts (The Cities Act, The Planning and Development Act, The UBAS Act). Each Act imposes different restrictions and requirements and serves different functions. 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 60 Fences and hedges are referenced in the Zoning Bylaws as they contribute to development and to re-enforce the rules established by other City bylaws that apply. Enforcement has been through this Department only because Planning and Development Services held the Building Inspector’s positon which was historically the only City Hail enforcement officiaL Bylaws need to be enforced in reference to the aspect that does not meet compliance specific to the reason for enactment. The problem does not lie in the bylaw nor the appeal process but rather in procedure. The Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy recognizes the different possible contraventions and directs enforcement to the most efficient and valid option. Respectfully Submitted, im Johnson Chief Building Official __—_——-fl., — — 6 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 61 City of Prince Albert Statement of POLICY and PROCEDURE Various Department: Policy No. Section: Enforcement Issued: Subject: Fence and Hedge Enforcement Effective: Council Resolution # and Date: Replaces: Issued by: Dated: Page: 1 of 3 Approved by: 1 POLICY 1.01 That Administration utilizes the correct bylaw dependant on the specific situation when enforcing fence and hedge regulations 2 PURPOSE 2.01 The purpose of the Fence and Hedge Policy is to establish clear guidelines in regards to the procedure to be followed when a fence or hedge is in violation of City Bylaws 3 SCOPE 3.01 All City Departments 4 RESPONSIBILITY 4 .01 Each Department shall be responsible for enforcing the aspects of the Bylaw that related to the Bylaw managed by the Department 5 DEFINITIONS 5.01 "In Force" means the edition of a bylaw currently adopted by the City of Prince 6 REFERENCES PROCEDURE 6 .01 ''The City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw", in Force and RELATED STATEMENTS of POLICY and 6.02 "The Fire and Emergency Services Bylaw", in Force. 6.03 "Fortification Bylaw", In Force EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 62 City of Prince Albert Statement of POLICY and PROCEDURE Department: Various Section: Enforcement Subject: Fence and Hedge Enforcement Polley No. Issued: Effective: Council Resolution # and Date: Replaces: Issued by: Dated: Page: 2 of3 Approved by: 6.04 "Traffic Bylaw", in Force 7 PROCEDURE 7.01 A compliant about a fence or hedge is received and or noted by a City employee (a) The nature of the complaint shall be matched to the Bylaw that is most relevant. (b) Once relevancy is determined the complaint and all particulars related to the complaint shall be forwarded to the Department that manages the Bylaw used for enforcement. 7.02 Complaint Basis (a) Fence Height (Interior Lot- not related to fortification) Contact the Planning and Development Services i) Department ii) The Department will determine if the development is in violation of the Zoning bylaw or the development is deemed to be Legal-non-conforming iii) If in violation enforcement shall proceed iv) If Legal Non-conforming a letter shall be issued to the resident noting the condition and that replacement would be required to conform to current bylaws (b) Corner Visibility Fence or Hedge i) Contact the Public Works department ii) Public Works shall proceed to enforcement if warranted (c) Building Address Identification i). Contact the City Fire Department EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 63 City of Prince Albert Statement of POLICY and PROCEDURE Department: Various Section: Enforcement Subject: Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy No. Issued: Effective: Council Resolution # and Date: Page: Issued by: Dated: 3 of3 Replaces: Approved by: ii). The Fire Department shall proceed to enforcement if warranted (d) Fortification i). Contact the City Police Department ii). The Police Department will proceed to enforcement if warranted. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 64 ltICity of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: ! Portable Sign Bylaw issues (RPT# PDS-15-32) Date: Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Inspector Prepared For: Executive Committee March 9, 2015 Report Type: Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Routine Substantive D Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Financial D Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: iJç7 Piw City Manager Director of Financial Services U Director of Public Works U Director of Community Services U Director of Planning & Development Services Director of Fire & Emergency Services U Director of Corporate Services U VI City Solicitor Chief of Police Bylaw Manager U t j I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 65 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Portable Sign Bylaw Issues (RPT#PDS-1 5-32) Date: March 9, 2015 Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): That Council instruct administration to proceed with an online forum generating public input in regards to the Portable Sign Bylaw and Development and provide council with both the public commentary and a proposed draft changes to the existing bylaw. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: At its meeting on November 10, 2014, City Council requested that Planning and Development Services review and report on possible changes to the Portable Sign Bylaw in regards to flags, banners and other types of promotional signage. A report was tabled and Council requested that a follow-up report be provided. DISCUSSION: Recently, fabric flags and banners varying in both size and shape have been growing in popularity. These signs vary in size and shape from small banners to the crescent moon flags, An online review revealed that these signs are relatively inexpensive and that this type of signage can vary from small ift x 3ff flags up to 6ff wide by 20ff high or even larger. Council has asked administration to provide an option that would allow businesses more opportunity for self-promotion. Currently, these types of signs require a permit and may be erected for a period not to exceed 14 days not more than twice in any one year period. In addition, they must adhere to the same general rules that apply to other signs. They also may be erected as a “portable sign” as they meet both the intent and the definition of a portable sign under the current bylaw. This would allow placement on site at the setbacks defined within the bylaw on a monthly or annual basis. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 66 the current required “20 meter minimum separation” between signs and the application of existing permit fees ($15.00 monthly or $150.00 annually) being applied to each sign have been flagged as being an issue. the primary intent of a sign bylaw is to minimize urban clutter and maintain a visually appealing streetscape. The number of signs allowed on a site is dictated by the required 2Dm (65 ft.) separation between signs. The previous report suggested that “interior signs” following suggested regulations be considered exempt from bylaw restriction and permits. Council expressed the following concerns and commentary in this regard: - Council requested that administration meet with commercial sign makers as well as any industry that uses portable signs to advertise, In reference to Commercial sign makers; the signs in question are banners that are mainly purchased by the business owner rather than rented from a portable sign company. These signs are available from multiple retailers abroad as well as on-line. Who uses portable signs? This could apply to any business in town as well as community based organizations and special events. The general public should also have an option to provide commentary. In this instance public meetings do not really provide the opportunity to obtain input from all interested parties. Administration has held previous meetings requesting input from both sign providers and the general public and attendance was 3 and 0 respectively. It is suggested that an online survey be developed and placed on the City website, properly promoted it could provide all parties with an option to provide input over a select period of time rather than requiring attendance at a set date and time, - Council questioned whether it was possible to modify the Bylaw to provide an exemption specifically for Car Dealerships. While possible; this scenario is not recommended as these are not the only business’s that have these signs in use. Their easy portability and the relative low cost make them attractive to all businesses. Tailoring a bylaw, any bylaw to be specific to circumstance renders most bylaws essentially ineffective and makes enforcement a logistics nightmare. Speed limits are not based on the capability of the driver nor the vehicle but rather on a set of defined limits mandated to achieve an effect. - - In reference to the rationale behind the portable sign bylaw. Sign bylaws are used to regulate; urban clutter, Streetscape visibility, traffic site lines and public safety. Consider bylaws tailored to a specific business,. .within each zone multiple uses are allowed. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 67 The City would then be a mix of your neighbor can have X signs but even though you are next door you can only have this many signs. Enforcement, streetscape control and urban clutter would all become ineffective. - The previously suggested compromise was to allow interior’ signage set back lOm (32ft) from property to be placed without permits. Concern was expressed that this would eliminate most Car dealerships from proper display. The suggested setback was lOm and standard at front yard is a 20m separation. If a lOm setback was adjusted to be lOm from the edge of a road, buffer strips and ditches are no longer an issue and setback is retained along primary streetscapes where buffers do not exist. OPTIONS: 1. That Council provide administration leave to undertake an on-line survey 2. That Council deny the use of an on-line survey and instruct Administration to undertake traditional public forum meetings FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None PUBLIC NOTICE!COMMUNICATIONS: Administration is seeking council’s approval to place and promote an on-line survey in regards to signs bylaws. The suggested disposition would be two weeks on-line with concurrent radio and newspaper advertisement’s requesting input STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: NIA ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Proposed Survey questions CONCLUSION: The provision of an advertised online survey that allows interested parties to provide feedback over a period of should encourage participation and provide a forum that allows input from all aspects of our population base. Once input has been tabulated a further report can be provided inclusive of the commentary received complete with proposed amendments to the existing bylaw Respecifully Submifted, Ki Johnson Chief Building Official 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 68 PORABLE SIGNS, BANNER SIGNS, A-BOARDS 1). Do you feel there are? • enough portable signs • to many portable signs • Could be more portable signs 2). Do you think that Banner Signs? (The half-moon flags) • Should be excluded from sign regulation • Should be required to meet the same requirements as any other portable sign 3). Do you think that the required spacing between signs (60ft) is; • Working • Should be decreased • Should be increased 4). Do you think the size allowed for a portable sign is • Good as is • Should be increased • Should be decreased 5). Current Bylaws do not allow a home based business to have an advertising sign do you; • Agree • Disagree • Donotcare 6). If Home based signage was allowed should it be? • Restricted to a standard portable sign • Restricted to a window or wall mount sign • Unrestricted 7). In regards to large promotional displays such as 20ft Balloons or banner signs hung from the face of a building should they? • Be unrestricted if placed for a limited amount of time and in a manner which does not create a safety concern • Be approved only at the discretion of council • Be allowed EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 69 .L City of Prince Albert IIUPREPORTAPPROVALFORM Date: Report Title: Notice of Decision: Appeal No.1 of2015 (RPT# PDS - 15 - 38} Prepared By: Craig Guidinger, Planning Manager Prepared For: E~C<.-4-4;. "e ~f'o\.M.\~ March 10, 2015 Report Type: Routine 181 Substantive D Financial 0 Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Approval Required By: City Manager ~ Director of Financial Services D Director of Public Works D Director of Community Services D Director of Planning & Development Services 181 Director of Fire & Emergency Services Director of Corporate Services City Solicitor Chief of Police r~ /} :tJJ - Ol ~ 0 D D 0 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 70 *" City of Prince Albert -REPORT Report Title: Notice of Decision: Appeal No. 1 of 2015 (RPT# PDS - 15 - 38) Date: March 10,2015 Prepared By: Craig Guidinger, Planning Manager Prepared For: &.~five. ~-uee_ RECOMMENDATION(S): That this report be received as information. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: N/A BACKGROUND: On Thursday, March 5111 , The Prince Albert Development Appeals Board considered appeal number 1 of 2015. As per Section 225 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, and Section 3.19 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 1987, the Board shall forward a copy of its decision to City Council within 10 days after the date on which the Board's decision is made regarding its hearing. DISCUSSION: The Appellant, Dennis & Leighann Ditzel, requested a 0.75 relaxation of the maximum roof pitch of 5/12 required in the R7- Country Residential zone. This requirement is set forth under section 6.1. 7 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 1987. The subject property is located at 2019 Valleyview Drive, legally described as Lot6, Block 1, Plan No. 94PA17472. The appeal was granted by the Development Appeal Board based on the position that the appeUant successfully met the criteria in Section 221(d) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007 (The Act). The provisions of Section 221(d) of The Act were considered and the following findings were made: Special priyjlege: The Board determined that the relaxation would not result in a special privilege as in the event another appeal was brought forward to the Board, with simHar circumstances, the Board would be inclined to grant such a relaxation. Intent of the bylaw: The Board found that the relaxation would not be a detriment to the intent of the bytaw as the amount of relaxation being requested was minor. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 71 Irilurious affection: The Board found that the relaxation would not injuriously affect the use or enjoyment of neighbouring properties as no objections were received and the amount of relaxation being requested was minor. Pursuant to Section 226 of The Act, Council may within 20 days after the date of receipt of a copy of the decision, appeal a decision of the board, by written notice, to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, with a copy of the notice to the board. OPTIONS: 1. That this report be received as information. 2. That Council appeals the decision made by the Development Appeal Board for Appeal No. 1 of 2015 to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A PUBLIC NOTICEICOMMUNICATIONS: Required: In accordance with Section 225 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, and Section 3.19.12 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. I of 1987 which states that within 10 days after the date on which the decision is made, the board shall forward a copy of its decision by personal service or registered mail to the appellant, the municipality, the minister and all persons who made representations at the public hearing. Optional: None Completed: Notification has been sent by personal service or registered mail to the appellant, municipality and minister STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: N/A ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Notice of Decision —Appeal No. 1 of 2015 2. Location Map 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 72 CONCLUSION: The City of Prince Albert Development Appeal Board has granted Appeal No. I of 2015 for a relaxation of 0.75 of the maximum roof pitch 5/12 required in the R7 Country Residential zone at 2019 Valleyview Drive, legally described as Lot 6, Block 1, Plan No. 94PA17472. It is the recommendation of Administration that this report be received as information. — Respectfully Submitted, Craig Guidinger Planning Manger 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 73 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 74 CD CD 0. Cn D,tt 0 00 S CD oC/) C 0 C C Lot 6, BIk 1, Plan 94PA1 7472 N 1 7102/15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JM 1 -- cD—1z Cloverdale Road NORTH 2 C —I I,, r m C-, z C m -a -1 C, ro uq MAR 10 Z015 CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT APPEALS BOARD PHONE: (306) 953-4370 FAX: (306) 953.4380 CUfl 44ea March 10,2015 To: Members of City Council RE: DEVELOPMENT APPEAL NO.1 OF 2015 As per Section 225 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, please find enclosed a copy of the Notice of Decision for Development Appeal No. 1 of 2015, which was passed at a Hearing that took place in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan! on March 6, 2015. The Appellant, Dennis Ditzel, was requesting a 0.75 roof pitch relaxation, in accordance with Section 6.1.7 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 1987. The property is legally described as LotS, Block 1, Plan No. 94PA17472 (Civic Address 2019 Valleyview Drive, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) in an Ri Country Residential zone. — The appeal was granted by the Development Appeals Board based on the position that the appellant has successfully met the criteria in Section 221(d) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007 (The Act). The provisons of Section 221(d) of The Act were considered and the following findings ‘were made: Special privilege: The Board determined that the relaxation would not result in a special privilege as in the event another appeal was brought forward to the Board, with similar circumstances, the Board would be inclined to grant such a relaxation. Intent of the bylaw: The Board found that the relaxation would not be a detriment to the intent of the bylaw as the amount of relaxation being requested was minor Iniurious affection: The Board found that the relaxation would not injuriously affect the use or enjoyment of neighbouring properties as no objections were received and the amount or relaxation being requested was minor. Pursuant to Section 226 of The Act: “the ministry, the council, the appellant or any other person, within 20 days after the date of receipt of a copy of the decision) appeal a decision of the board, by written notice, to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, with a copy of the notice to the board.” Yours truly, Lars Ketilson, Secretary City of Prince Albert Development Appeals Board Enclosure 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 75 CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT APPEALS BOARD APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2015 NOTICE OF DECISION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE CITY OF PRINCE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD, UNDER SECTION 219 OF THE PLANNING AND DVELOPMENT ACT, BEING CHAPTER P-13.2• of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007 BETWEEN Dennis & Leighann Ditzel, of the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. APPELLANT - and - The City of Prince Albert, being a body corporate in the Province of Saskatchewan. RESPONDENT In the matter of an appeal by, Dennis & Leigh-Ann Ditzel, heard In Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, on March 5<t~, 2015, requesting a relaxation of the maximum roof pitch, pursuant to section 6.1.7 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No.1 of 1987. The subject property is legally described as lot 6, Block 1, Plan No. 94PA17472 (Civic address: 2019 Valleyview Drive, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan) in an R7- Country Residential zone. BEFORE: Mr. leo Pinel, Chairman Mr. Wesley Moore, Vice-Chairman Mr. Martin Kiffiak, Member Mr. Bruce Stevenson, Member APPEARING: Appellant: Dennis Ditzel Representing the City of Prince Albert: Craig Guidinger, Planning Manager Michael Nelson, Building Inspector FACTS: This matter was brought to the Board by letter of AppHcation for an Appeal dated February 91h, 2015. The Board, having received the said Application on February glh, 2015, set the matter down for hearing on March 51h. 2015, in the 2rocl Floor Main Boardroom of City Hall, 1084 Central Avenue, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, at 2:00 PM. A meeting of the Board was held on the said date and the hearing was held as scheduled. The facts in this Appeal, as presented to the Board, are as follows: 1. 2. The subject property is zoned R7 - Country Residential Section 6.1.7 of the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 1987, which applies to the subject development, reads as follows: "Section 6.1 .7 Prince Albert Local Development Appeals Board Notice of Decision- Appeal No. 1 of 2015.docx No accessory building shall have a wall height exceeding 3 metres. No accessory building shall have a roof pitch exceeding 5112, excepting to match the roof Page 1 of4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 76 style utilized by the primary building (Bylaw No. 9 of 2006)" 3. 4. 5. 6. The appeal before the Board is for a 0. 75 pitch relaxation of the maximum roof pitch requirement. An Order to Remedy Contravention was issued on January 1911\ 2015. An application to appeal the Order was filed with the Board on February 9111, 2015. This appeal has been submitted to the Board under Section 219 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007. DECISION: In considering this appeal, the Board must examine Section 221 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, which states: (221) In determining an appeal, the board hearing the appeal: (a) is bound by any official community plan in effect; (b) must ensure that its decisions conform to the use of land, intensity of use and density of development in the zoning bylaw; (c) must ensure that its decisions are consistent with any provincial land use policies and statements of provincial interest; and (d) may, subject to clauses (a) to (c), confirm, revoke or vary the approval, decision, any development standard or condition, or order imposed by the approving authority, the council or the development officer, as the case may be, or make or substitute any approval, decision or condition that it considers advisable if, in the opinion, the action would not: (i) grant to the appellant a special privilege inconsistent with the restrictions on the neighbouring properties in the same zoning district; (ii} amount to a relaxation so as to defeat the intent of the zoning bylaw; and (iii) injuriously affect the neighbouring properties. In the opinion of the Board, the provisions of Section 219(5) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, do not apply and this appeal is therefore property before the Board. Accordingly, the test to be applied by the Board is whether or not the requested relaxation would grant to the applicant a special privilege inconsistent with the restrictions on neighbouring properties in the same zoning district or would be contrary to the purposes and intent of the zoning bylaw and would injuriously affect the neighbouring properties. The Chairman declared the public hearing portion of the meeting open. The Chairman requests that Lars Ketilson act as recording secretary. The Chairman introduced the members of the board and asked the secretary of the board, the appellant and the City representatives to introduce themselves. Lars Ketilson stated that he was the secretary of the board. Craig Guidinger stated that he was a representative of the City. Michael Nelson stated that he was a representative of the City. Dennis Ditzel introduced himself as the appellant The Chairman asked if there were no objections for the appeal to proceed. No objections were raised. The Chairman asked the Secretary if the required notifications were sent. Prince Albert local Development Appeals Board Notice of Decision- Appeal No. 1 of2015.docx Page 2 of4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 77 The Secretary confirmed that the required notifications had been sent and that no correspondence had been received. The Chainnan asked the City to state its position on the appeal. Craig Guidinger described the process the City has for a Building Permit application for a detached garage. Mr. Guidinger noting the clause in the Building Permit application stated the maximum roof pitch allowable under the City of Prince Albert Zoning Bylaw No. 1 of 1987 which had been signed by the applicant and a separate sheet titled "Detached Garage Construction" which uses a diagram to explain the required roof pitch which had been signed by the contractor. Mr. Guidinger stated that the City is of the opinion lhat this appeal meets the criteria set out in section 221(d) of the Planning and Development Act, 2007, and would not appeal a decision of the Development Appeal Board which was in favour of the appeal to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board. Michael Nelson described how a roof pitch is calculated. The Chairman asked if the roof pitch of the garage was less than the roof pitch of the house. Michael Nelson described that a roof pitch of a detached garage can be greater than 5/12 but it would have to match an existing roof pitch of the house, which in this case it does not exceed 5/12. The Chairman asked if there were any further questions. Bruce Stevenson asked if the additional pitch of the garage roof was noticeable. The appellant described that it is not noticeable. Craig Guidinger stated that in the R7 -Country Residential zone, the lots are 1 to 2 acres in size and usually have trees bordering property lines. The Chairman asked if the board members had any more questions to the City. No questions were raised. The Chairman asked the appellant to state their position. The appellant stated that they believed that the reason for the difference in roof pitch was due to the difference in width of the garage pad was overlooked and construction had already started. The contractor attempted to solve the problem by altering the planned roof pitch of the rear of the garage instead of extending the garage pad. The appellant added that the rear of the garage is not visible from the road. The Chairman asked if the board members had any further questions. No questions were raised. The Chairman declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Board, having carefully considered the evidence presented to it, in light of the powers granted to it by The Planning and Development Act, finds as follows: The provisions of Section 221(d) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, were considered and the following findings were made: Special privilege: The Board determined that the relaxation would not result in a special privilege as in the event another appeal was brought forward to the Board, with similar circumstances, the Board would be inclined to grant such a relaxation. Intent of the bylaw: The Board found that the relaxation would not be a detriment to the intent of the bylaw as the amount of relaxation being requested was minor. Prince Albert local Development Appeals Board Notice of Decision- Appeal No. 1 of 2015.docx Page 3of4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 78 ___________ __________ ____ Injurious affection: The Board found that the relaxation would not injuriously affect the use or enjoyment of neighbouring properties as no objections were received and the amount or relaxation being requested was minor. Therefore, the appellant having successfully met the criteria in Section 221(d) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, the appeal is granted to alow relaxation of the maximum roof pitch equirement, in the amount of 0.75. This appeal is therefore GRANTED. TAKE NOTICE THAT, subject to Section 225 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007 this decision does not take effect until the expiration of 30 days from the date on which the decision was made. DATED AT PRINCE ALBERT, in the Province of Saskatchewan, thisjf day of March, 2015. THE CITY OF PRINCE ALBER -0 OPME’N APPEALS BOARD Leo Pinel, Chairman Per: Lars Ketilson, Secretary Prince Albert Local Development Appeals Board Notice of Decision Appeal No. 1 of 201 5docx - Page 4 of 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 79 $City of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: Official Community Plan Review (RPT# PDS-15-42) Prepared By: John Guenther, Director, Planning & Development Services Prepared For: Executive Committee Date: March 16, 2015 Report Type: Matters that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Matters that require the concurrence of more than one department. Matters that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Routine Substantive D Financial D Approval Required By: City Manager Director of Financial Services D Director of Public Works D Director of Community Services D Director of Planning & Development Services Director of Fire & Emergency Services El Director of Corporate Services H City Solicitor El Chief of Police El El I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 80 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: Official Community Plan Review (RPT# PDS -15-42) Date: March 16, 2015 Prepared By: John Guenther, Director, Planning & Development Services Prepared For: Executive Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): To receive as information and tile. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCAMERA: BACKGROUND: At the March 2, 2015 Executive meeting, Administration reported on potential changes to the Flood Management section of the draft Official Community Plan. A public meeting was set for March 26, 2015. The meeting notice has been advertised and door-to-door delivery was completed on March 18 and 19. DISCUSSION: Administration suggests that a follow up to the March 26 session should be scheduled for May 6. 2015 from 7-9 p.m. for the following reasons: 1. Some Council members are unable to attend; 2. Further issues may need to be addressed such as flood elevation determination and methods of mitigation; and 3. The meeting may be oversubscribed. Once the date is set, Administration can prepare notification for potential attendees. OPTIONS: 1. Executive receive the report as information and file. 2. Executive may choose to refer the matter to City Council for an alternate date or another recommendation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A PUBLIC NOTICE!COMMUNICATIONS: Conducted through advertising and social media. public notice, 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 81 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: The Official Community Plan Draft references the need for early and ongoing public engagement and protection of the natural environment. The Strategic Planning goals are Active and Caring Community; and Sustainability. - ATTACHMENT(S): N/A CONCLUSION: This report shoulde received as information so that Administration can p’an for a follow up FlooPIain meeting on May 6, 2015 from 7-9 p.m. Respectfully ubmitted, enther, Director an ing & Development Services 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 82 A Prince Albert Board of Police Commissioners DISPOSITION Report Title: February Bylaw Unit Activity Report Date: March 18, 2015 From: Board of Police Commissioners To: Executive Committee DISPOSITION: That the Board of Police Commissioners provide this report to Executive Committee for their information as requested at the November 14, 2014 Budget Committee meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Rena Noble Board Secretary Board of Police Commissioners I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 83 City of Prince Albert REPORT APPROVAL FORM Report Title: February Bylaw Unit Activity Report Prepared By: S/Cst. Suzanne Stubbs, A/Bylaw Manager Prepared For: Board of Police Commissioners Date: March 16, 2015 Report Type: Mailers that are routine in nature or are being provided for information purposes. Mailers that require the concurrence of more than one department. Mailers that have financial implications require the approval of the Director of Financial Services. Routine Substantive Financial El Approval Required By: ! City Manager Li Director of Financial Services H Director of Public Works H Director of Community Services H Director of Planning & Development Services El Director of Fire & Emergency Services H Director of Corporate Services H City Solicitor H Chief of Police H I EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 84 City of Prince Albert REPORT Report Title: February Bylaw Unit Activity Report Date: March 16, 2015 Prepared By: SICst. Suzanne Stubbs, A/ Bylaw Manager Prepared For: Board of Police Commissioners RECOMMENDATION(S): That the Board receives this report as information, and further; That the Board forward this information to City Council for their information. BACKGROUND: Section 14 of the Board Policy requires monthly statistical reporting. City council has also requested a monthly summary for their review. The information provided to the Board in this report is intended to be shared with Council. DISCUSSION: The unit saw a reduction in animal control calls in February despite extreme cold weather. We are hopeful that with our education and enforcement efforts this trend will continue. The Unit activity for February shows a focus on traffic enforcement, which is typical for this time of the year. Assisting with snow removal by ticketing and towing non compliant vehicles was the focus of enforcement. For the most part our staffing levels were adequate for this purpose; however we did have occasions when the area cleared was very large and our resources were challenged. We will work with the City staff and administration to assist them in their review of the Snow Clearing Policy as moved at the March 2nd Executive meeting. Property related files were consistent with previous years. Staffing levels in February are at authorized strength. 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 85 As previously reported, two senior staff members are attending the provincial Community Safety Officer training program, graduating April 10th. The training increases their capacity to enforce local and provincial legislation dealing with moving violations. Our intention is to rotate all Bylaw staff through this training over time as workload and budget allow. Fortunately it appears that the next training session may be hosted in Prince Albert which will reduce training costs. OPTIONS: 1) That the Board receives this report as information and forwards it to Council. 2) That the Board reviews its policy relating to monthly statistics. This is not recommended as monthly stats assist in the allocation of resources and determining priorities. 3) That the Board requests more detailed statistical data. This is not recommended as a more detailed review occurs at year end. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: The attached data suggests our Bylaw resources are being applied appropriately to address traffic enforcement, maintain animal control and enforce property standards. Reporting in this way supports our strategic objective of improved communication. ATTACHMENT(S): February Bylaw Statistics CONCLUSION: Monthly internal reviews are completed using the attached data. Priority alignment meetings take place semi-annually as well to ensure resources are applied in a way that allows us to meet our objectives. Respectfully Submitted, ,nStubbs S/Cst. 3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 86 MUNICIPAL BYLAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-IS YTD % Chg YTD 2014 YTD 2015 YTD % Chg ANIMAL CONTROL 1 Total Animal Files 91 68 -7.69% 169 140 -7.69% Housing lnspection 6 2 -73.33% 21 6 -73.33% Other 33 47 30.00% 63 86 30.00% Parking Complaints 103 71 -26.19% 187 133 -26.19% Vehicle Seizure 19 21 93.75% 35 52 93.75% Other Traffic 20 15 -25.00% 32 24 -25.00% 113 83 49.15% 302 173 49.15% 12 14 666.67% 15 37 666.67% 12 16 62.50% 36 55 62.50% PROPERTY I - Property TRAFFIC - ViOLATIONS Parking Tickets Other Violations - .IHER BYLAW p ‘1 February 2015 Activity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Total Animal Files Housing Inspections Other Property •Total Animal Files • Housing Inspections - • Other Property - Parking Complaints Parking Complaints Li Vehicle Seizure Vehicle Seizure b4 Other Traffic - Other-Traffic A Parking Tickets A Other Violations - Parking Tickets U Other Other Violations - Other EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PUBLIC AGENDA - PAGE 87
© Copyright 2024