2015 03 23 - Agenda

Transcription

2015 03 23 - Agenda

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
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.
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
5.5
Report from Fleet Manager dated March 6, 2015, with
respect to Asphalt Recycler or Asphalt Patcher.
(RPT#PW-15-42)
16
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.
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
5.8
Report from Chief Clerk dated March 4, 2015, with respect to
Cheque Inquiries from March 2, 2015. (RPT#FIN-15-08)
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
“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
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
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.
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
______________________
CANADA
POSTES
Susan Maryles
V
MAL 0Z20i5
FEB 1 9 ZUlS
/
MS. SHERRY PERSON
CITY CLERK
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
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
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_
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$
12,324,910
$
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
$
13,960,660
$
13,764,544
Results in an 11% Increase in Actuals from 2013 to 2014
Difference
$
(196,116)
(first fuN year of new rate)
2015
15,144,380
$
Difference
% Increase in Actuals from 2014 to 2015
Results in a
2016
$
Resufts in a
Difference
15,144,380
% Increase in Actuals from 2015 to 2016
6
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
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
Ekity of Prince Albert
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
Matters that require the concurrence of more than one
department.
Matters that have financial implications require the approval
Routine
Substantive
LI
Financial
LI
City Manager
LI
M
LI
LI
Fire Chief
LI
LI
City Solicitor
LI
Chief of Police
LI
—
U
.
-a
I
REPORT
Report Title:
Asphalt ReGycler or Asphalt Patcher (RPT# PW-1 5-42)
Date:
March 6, 2015
Prepared By:
Robert Snowdon, Fleet Manager
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
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
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.
Robert Snowdon
Fleet Manager
4
ii
Asphalt recycler
w
‘I
Pothole Patcher
Asphalt Zipper or Milling machine mounted on loader
!'i;City of Prince Albert
Report Title:
Account lists
March 03, 2015
Date:
(RPT #FIN-CC- 15-0t.J)
Prepared By:
Valerie Kachor
Prepared For:
Executive Committee
Report Type:
Routine
~
Substantive
D
D
Financial .
[8:1
City Manager
~ ~rector of Financial Services ·
[8:1
D
D
Director of Ec.Dev & Planning
0
Director of Fire & Emerg. 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
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
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
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
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Account List #3 of 2015.
CONCLUSION:
N/A
Valerie Kachor
Chief Clerk - Financial Services
3
3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
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
System:
3/2/20 15
User Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
System:
3/2/2015
User Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
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
System:
3/2/20 15
User Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
SaskTel
Supreme Office Products Limited
Sureway International Inc.
Travelodge
Yellow Pages
Jason Burt
Municipal Employees Pension Plan
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
3ystem:
3/2/2015
Jser Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
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
System:
3/2/2015
User Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
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
)ystem:
3/2/2015
Jser Date: 3/2/2015
9:42:56 AM
Payables Management
Page: 7
* Voided Cheques
Cheque Number
Vendor Cheque Name
Saskatchewan Building Officials Association
Saskatchewan Housing Corporation
SaskTel CMR
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
.City of Prince Albert
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
Substantive
D
department.
Financial
D
City Manager
~~rector of Financial Services
!:8:1
~
0
D
D
Director of Fire & Emergency Services
0
D
City Solicitor
D
Chief of Police
0
j~Jow
~'fi,'frJ,1 mb!{a;; a
I
'(J
I
L
D
1
REPORT
Report Title:
Cheque Inquiries from March 02, 2015 (RPT# FIN - 15 - 08)
Date:
March 4, 2015
Prepared By: Val Kachor, Chief Clerk Finance
RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information and file.
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
No financial implications from this report.
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.
\). \\a_~~
Val Kachor, Chief Clerk Finance
2
ittcity of Prince Albert
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
department.
City Manager
181
0
181
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
City Solicitor
Chief of Police
,
C\)M_rfJlfl
( -dJil.
......£
1
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.
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
72
29,500
3
10
2. Catholic Scbool Divisjon
Number of Buses
28
2
3. French School Division
Number of Buses
2
2
48
72
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
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
N/A
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMUNICATIONS:
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.
~
Mohammad Kraishan
Transportation and Traffic Manager
4
Q.
ca
~
.!!
::3
0
a:
U)
::3
CD
c:
0
]!
c-~
0
0
..r:.
u
VI
-~
-a
0
..r:.
.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
department.
City Manager
~
0
0
0
.EJ
D
0
City Solicitor
~
Chief of Police
~
~(D. f
\
/7
(]!-I
1 1_
jl
~~
~
{/
0
1
•~.. 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
RECOMMENDATION(S): That City Council recind the July 17, 2007 resolution
that instructed Administration to develop a Rental Permit System
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
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
An increase of approximately $139,000.00 annually to budget
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
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.
w.mJOhnson
Chief Building Official
3
REPORT
Report Title:
Review of Nipawln'a Rental Bylaw
(EDP-11-174)
Date:
November 1, 2011
Prepared By:
Prepared For:
Housing Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The enactment of a licensing bylaw could cost the City at least $139,000.00
on an annual basis.
None
8
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
ficity of Prince Albert
Date:
Report Title:
Acquisition Request for
Building Inspection Software
(RPT# PDS-15-29)
Prepared By:
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.
City Manager
~
~
0()%~~fl
::::: '~-
""':j
v
D
D
Director of Planning & Development Services ~
D
~
City Solicitor
D
Chief of Police
D
\
/7
leJL
('l
~~
D
1
REPORT
Report Title:
Aquisition Request for Building Inspection Software
(RPT# PDS-15-29)
Date:
March 2, 2015
Prepared By: Kim Johnson, Chief Building Official
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.
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
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
-
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
If purchased, the annual fees will be approximately $2500.00. These costs were
not included in the 2015 Budget.
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
lib
---
Kim JQ6nson
5
.L'.
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
department.
Matters that have financial imp~cations require the approval
City Manager
Director of Planning & Development Services ~
[8J
[gl
City Solicitor
181
Chief of Police
181
0
1
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:
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That City Council adopts the proposed Fence and Hedge Enforcement Policy.
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
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
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
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.
None
PUBLIC NOTICEICOMMUNICATIONS:
None
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
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.
im Johnson
__—_——-fl.,
—
—
6
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
Department:
Various
Section:
Enforcement
Subject:
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
Department:
Various
Section:
Enforcement
Subject:
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.
ltICity of Prince Albert
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.
iJç7
Piw
City Manager
U
U
U
U
U
VI
City Solicitor
Chief of Police
Bylaw Manager
U
t
j
I
REPORT
Report Title:
Portable Sign Bylaw Issues
(RPT#PDS-1 5-32)
Date:
March 9, 2015
Prepared By:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
4
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
.L
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
department.
City Manager
~
D
D
D
181
City Solicitor
Chief of Police
r~
/}
:tJJ -
Ol ~
0
D
D
0
1
*" 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.
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
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.
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
N/A
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Notice of Decision —Appeal No. 1 of 2015
2. Location Map
3
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.
—
Craig Guidinger
Planning Manger
4
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
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
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
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
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
___________
__________
____
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
$City of Prince Albert
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:
department.
Routine
Substantive
D
Financial
D
City Manager
D
D
D
El
H
City Solicitor
El
Chief of Police
El
El
I
REPORT
Report Title:
Official Community Plan Review (RPT# PDS -15-42)
Date:
March 16, 2015
Prepared By:
John Guenther, Director, Planning & Development Services
RECOMMENDATION(S):
To receive as information and tile.
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
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
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.
Rena Noble
Board Secretary
I
Report Title:
February Bylaw Unit Activity
Report
Prepared By:
S/Cst. Suzanne Stubbs, A/Bylaw Manager
Prepared For:
Date:
March 16, 2015
Report Type:
Mailers that are routine in nature or are being provided for
Mailers that require the concurrence of more than one
department.
Mailers that have financial implications require the approval
Routine
Substantive
Financial
El
!
City Manager
Li
H
H
H
El
H
H
City Solicitor
H
Chief of Police
H
I
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
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.
N/A
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.
,nStubbs
S/Cst.
3
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

2015 03 23 - Agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

Nanaimo Regional District Letter to the Honorable Mary Polak Re

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Thompson-Nicola Regional District When?

eSCRIBE Agenda Package

Contact News Bulletin: December 18, 2014

the prince albert the prince albert

about bylaw enforcement

Snow W hite with the Red Hair

Decision Making - City of Prince Albert

Introduction to the Blue Book - Compton Unified School District

T:\NOTICES\PH 11 25 2014.docx