►
Description
Administrative Policies Committee meeting from July 5, 2017. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/Wbgsq9
A
B
A
A
C
Thanks
Derek,
so
we're
happy
to
be
here
with
you
this
evening,
we've
been
working
on
a
review
of
our
building
permit
fees.
For
about
a
year
now,
we've
undertaken
a
few
different
community
consultations
and
really
the
purpose
of
undertaking.
This
work
in
the
first
place
was
to
really
make
sure
that
we
had
a
firm
grasp
on
the
costing
associated
with
providing
the
excellent
service
that
we're
providing
at
a
building
services
and
ensuring
that
we're
doing
sufficient
cost
recovery
to
ensure
the
long
term
financial
sustainability
of
the
department.
C
So
with
us
today
we
have
Andrew
Grenda
from
Watson,
&,
Associates
I,
think
a
number
of
you
councillors
have
maybe
met
mr.
Grandin
before
he
has
worked
with
us
on
building
a
costing
model
for
the
delivery
of
our
services
and
helped
us
to
do
the
analysis
that
we'll
be
bringing
before
you
this
evening.
We
will
obviously
also
have
an
opportunity
to
take
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public.
C
If
there's
anybody
here,
that
has
questions
and
it's
our
intention
through
the
formal
business
tonight
to
have
the
committee,
hopefully
take
staffs
recommendation
and
if
you're
happy
with
the
work
that's
here,
we
would
bring
this
forward
to
Council.
But
then
look
at
doing
the
implementation
of
the
recommendation
through
the
fees
adjustment.
That's
done
by
Council
every
fall
and
then
the
changes
would
be
in
effect
for
January,
1st
2018.
So
if
they'll
further
adue
Andrew
Grenda
from
Watson
&
Associates.
D
D
What
we're
seeking
to
understand
is
to
move
beyond
the
the
requirements
of
the
code
which
seek
to
just
look
at
those
costs
across
the
entirety
of
the
Building
Code,
but
to
try
and
understand
those
a
little
bit
more
discreetly
across
different
types
of
permits,
and
so
once
we've
defined
those
on
the
far
right
hand
side,
whether
those
would
be
new
permits
for
residential
or
I
CI
type
of
buildings
or
alterations
or
other
types
of
minor
permits
like
decks.
We
then
want
to
understand
the
direct
participation
from
individuals
across
multiple
areas
of
the
organization.
D
D
We
then
also
identified
as
support
costs
in
the
form
of
governance,
IT
support
facility
maintenance,
support
that
allow
them
to
fulfill
those
services,
and
so
what
that
gives
us
is
a
full
cost
of
those
costing
categories
and
then
what
we
wanted
to
understand
beyond
just
the
cost
to
undertake
the
permit
on
average
is
what
are
those
underlying
charging
mechanisms
or
characteristics
of
those
permits
to
help
better
define
the
fee
structure.
So,
right
now
you
have
a
fee
structure,
that's
largely
based
on
estimated
construction
value
for
those
buildings.
D
So
we
looked
at
historic
construction
values
from
your
building
permit
statistics
over
the
last
five
years
to
inform
those
characteristics,
but
we
also
looked
at
size
in
that.
What
we
commonly
see
in
most
municipalities
is
denominating
building,
permit
fees
based
on
building
area
as
opposed
to
the
value
of
the
building
or
assumed
value
of
construction.
D
So
we
want
to
study
that
as
well
with
respect
to
new
residential
permits.
What
we
also
want
to
understand
was:
were
there
cost
differences
and
recommendations
that
we
can
more
thoroughly
develop
with
respect
to
low
density
or
medium
density
residential
units
as
compared
to
high
density
residential
units
and
for
secondary
Suites,
and
then
also
to
break
out
these
other
categories,
whether
they
be
demolition
permits,
plumbing
permits
and
deck
permits
so
again
also
understand
those
costs
more
discretely.
D
Once
we
had
established
those
various
costing
categories,
we
then
worked
with
staff
to
identify
the
process.
Maps
related
to
the
administration
of
each
of
those
permit
types
and
measured
those
based
on
inputs
from
staff
in
terms
of
the
various
activities
in
the
process
who
is
undertaking
them
and
estimates
of
time
of
how
long
those
processes
would
take
what
we
also
want
to
do
again
to
make
sure
that
what
we're,
including
is
costing
that's
defensible
is
we
do
something
called
a
capacity
analysis
which
measures
those
time.
D
Estimates
based
on
average
permit
volumes
by
those
various
categories
over
the
last
five
years.
So
that
allows
us
to
make
sure
that
the
people
that
we
have
attributed
to
those
permits
is
reasonable
and
defensible,
and
what
we
found
quite
commonly,
as
we've
seen
in
other
municipalities,
is
that
the
majority
of
building
department
is
spending
time
on
the
building
code,
about
94%
of
their
time
being
attributed
to
those
activities
under
that
authority.
D
The
other
six
percent
is
largely
related
to
involvement,
other
activities
that
are
governed
outside
the
code,
such
as
with
respect
to
zoning
reviews
or
licensing
activities
that
we
would
also
see
and,
in
addition
to
the
building
department,
being
the
largest
individuals
involved.
We
also
have
involvement
from
other
as
being
Zoning
engineering
and
fire
predominantly,
and
so
when
we
look
at
those
costs
to
undertake
an
average
permit
by
those
types,
and
we
compare
them
to
the
the
current
revenue
that
the
Miss
penalty
is
recovering
related
to
those
types
of
permits.
D
We
see
a
few
trends
again,
not
necessarily
uncommon.
We
look
at
the
relative
to
the
industry,
and
so
this
table
is
looking
at
the
the
major
groups
in
the
building
code,
whether
it
be
assembly,
institutional,
residential
or
other
I,
see
eye
types.
It
compares
new
permits
for
new
and
addition
construction
as
compared
to
costs
and
revenue
relationships
for
alterations
and
renovations,
and
what
we
see
first
of
all
is
that
the
majority
of
cost
and
associated
revenues
are
related
to
these
types
of
major
permits
under
those
groupings
of
the
building
code.
D
What
we
also
note
is
that
when
we
look
at
new
and
addition
permits,
they're
generally
recovering
the
cost
or
even
to
an
extent
over
recovering
those
cost-of-service,
but
when
we
look
at
alterations
and
renovations
again
as
we
commonly
see
across
the
industry,
these
are
the
types
of
permit
fees
that
are
not
recovering
their
costs.
And
so
partly
what
we
want
to
understand
is
how
much
can
we
increase
those
to
better
improve
that
cost
performance
without
necessarily
having
to
cross
subsidize
those
from
new
permits?
D
And
similarly,
we
see
the
same
characteristics
exhibited
in
these
other
types
of
permits,
again,
whether
they
be
demolitions,
plumbing
permits,
decks
patios
pools
these
types
of
permits,
which
again
don't
account
for
a
significant
amount
of
cost
and
revenue
to
a
municipality.
But
when
you
look
at
decks
and
patios
they're
generally
under
recovering
to
the
tube
of
$230,000
of
cost
a
year
based
on
the
current
pricing
levels
that
you
have
today
and
similarly,
when
we
look
at
plumbing
permits
under
recovering
to
approximately
one
hundred
and
sixty-five
thousand
dollars
annually.
D
So,
in
addition
to
just
looking
at
the
recovery
of
the
full
cost
of
service
annually,
what
the
building
code
also
allows
municipalities
to
do
is
to
design
a
fee
structure
that
also
provides
for
service
sustainability,
and
this
is
a
reasonable
request.
I
guess
for
municipalities,
in
the
sense
that
when
the
code
was
changed
in
2005,
it
also
had
other
impacts
of
having
mandated
turnaround
times,
tightening
labor'd
standards
for
individuals
that
are
employed
to
provide
regulatory
services
and
so
recognizing
the
cyclic
ality
of
building
markets.
D
What
it
provides
is
an
ability
for
municipalities
to
sustain
any
downturn
without
having
to
tell
necessarily
lay
off
staff
in
the
hopes
of
thinking
that
they
can
retain
those
individuals
in
that
tightened
labor
market
to
meet
those
mandated
turnaround
times
when
you
have
a
an
economic
recovery,
and
so
today
the
municipality
is
a
reserve
fund.
That's
approximately
3.8
million
dollars
in
its
current
funds
that
represents,
as
you'll,
see
in
a
moment
about
1.6
times
annual
direct
costs.
D
When
we
compare
that
multiple
to
historic,
economic
downturns,
if
we
wanted
to
weather
a
deep
recession
that
we
would
have
seen
in
this
order
early
to
mid-1990s,
we
should
be
targeting
a
reserve
fund,
multiple
of
approximately
two
point:
zero
seven
times
before
the
municipality
could
feel
assured
that
they
would
have
sufficient
resources
for
sustainability.
And
so
when
we
look
at
the
annual
cost
of
service,
that
would
suggest
that
the
municipality
should
look
to
building
contributions
to
that
reserve
over
a
five-year
term
of
about
186,000
dollars
annually
to
ensure
that
level
of
sustainability.
D
So
in
aggregate
when
we
look
across
the
code,
the
total
cost
target
that
the
fee
structure
is
designed
to
recover
on
average.
Going
forward
is
just
under
3.1
million
dollars
and
the
majority
of
that
cost
again,
which
is
fairly
typical
in
other
news
penalties
that
we've
witnessed
is
for
direct
cost
of
labor
materials
and
supplies
representing
about
75%
of
those
costs.
D
The
indirect
and
capital
costs
about
20%
and
the
additional
reserve
fund
contribution
approximately
5%
of
those
costs,
the
good
news
being
and
in
looking
at
the
current
fees
again
across
the
the
entirety
of
all
the
permit
types,
the
Meuse
probably
is
doing
a
fair
job
in
recovering
those
costs
recovering
about
91%
of
those
costs
annually.
On
average.
D
When
we
saw
to
then
look
at
that
cost
recovery
performance
and
to
look
to
adjust
the
fees
to
move
to
full
cost
recovery
levels
that
also
address
sustainability,
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
to
look
at.
How
would
we
adjust
the
the
fee
structure
itself?
So
we
continue
to
maintain
it
based
on
value
or
where
we
change
that
structure
to
a
value
per
square
meter
is
commonly
witnessed
in
the
industry,
and
the
latter
is
what
is
being
recommended
largely
because
that
provides
you
with
consistency
with
industry
best
practices.
D
D
The
second
factor
that
we
also
considered
was
in
setting
the
specific
fees.
How
were
the
current
fees
broken
up
by
those
costing
categories,
doing
relative
to
their
own
performance
and
the
market?
And
so,
when
we
looked
at
new
permits
for
commercial,
residential
and
institutional,
what
we
saw
was
that,
while
the
fees
were
generally
over
recovering
costs,
they
were
slightly
above
average
market
levels,
but
nowhere
near
market
maximum
levels.
D
What
we
anticipate
from
our
modeling
when
we
look
out
over
the
the
next
five
years
is
that
on
average
revenues
would
increase
by
about
8
percent
annually
or
about
240,000
dollars
a
year
from
those
historic
average
levels,
we
would
have
improved
cost
recovery
for
alteration
and
minor
permits
where,
right
now,
those
alteration
permits
are
recovering
about
61
percent
of
cost.
They
would
increase
roughly
about
80
percent
of
costs
and
with
respect
to
those
minor
permits
again
like
decks
plumbing
permits
and
the
like.
D
Where
you're
recovering
about
fourteen
percent
of
costs,
you
would
increase
to
about
thirty
percent
cost
recovery
in
those
areas
moving
towards
more
market
levels.
We
feel
that,
with
those
recommendations,
you'd
be
maintaining
your
market
competitiveness
and
also
mitigating
any
risks
of
forcing
some
of
those
minor
permit
activities
to
avoid
the
regulatory
processes,
and
this
would
also
generate
the
overall
revenue
targets
that
we
were
identifying
over
roughly
three
million
dollars
a
year
to
provide
longer
term
sustainability,
and
so
when
we
look
at
a
comparison
of
those
impacts,
we've
identified
on
this
first
slide.
D
The
residential
permits
for
new
permits
for
single,
detached
and
high-density
on
the
top
half
of
the
table
and
alteration
permits
below
you
can
see.
There's
no
recommended
change
in
terms
of
the
value
per
square
meter
for
the
the
new
developments,
but
an
increase
relative
to
market
for
the
the
charges
for
alterations,
in
both
cases,
keeping
municipality
still
below
market
maximum
levels
and
comparable
to
average
levels.
D
Similarly,
when
we
look
at
I,
see
I
permits
so
for
institutional
in
the
first
column,
commercial
in
the
second
and
industrial
on
the
far
right
again,
we
see
maintaining
new
permits,
institutional,
commercial,
but
decreasing.
The
industrial
permits
from
currently
roughly
$16
a
square
meter
to
$12
a
square
meter
again
were
comparable
to
what
we
see
in
the
industry
generally
alterations
again,
also
improving
in
their
position
closer
to
market
maximum
levels,
to
improve
that
recovery
target.
D
And,
finally,
when
we
look
at
the
minor
permits
being
decks,
demolition
permits
pools
plumbing
permits
for
residential
and
non
residential.
Again,
you
can
see
that
current
permits
are
low
relative
to
market
averages
to
improve
that
performance
to
to
ultimately
target
about
30%
recovery,
we'd
be
moving
to
higher
levels
relative
to
market
averages,
and
what
we've
also
done
is
is
to
provide
a
bit
of
a
comparison
of
moving
off
the
construction
value
metric
to
a
size
value.
D
What
we're
recommending
is
slightly
less
than
that
at
eleven
dollars
at
seventy
nine
cents
or
about
a
hundred
dollars
less
for
the
permit
to
this
applicant
in
particular,
and
so
that
concludes
the
presentation.
Obviously,
the
steps
in
the
process
following
this
evening
is
of
you
to
receive
put
from
the
input
from
the
members
of
the
committee.
If
there's
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
those
and
then
to
move
that
forward
to
Council
for
adoption
and
potential
implementation
on
January
1st
of
next
year.
D
A
E
You,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
focus
on
one
line:
one
type
fee,
starting
on
appendix
a
page
28.
Some
of
you
see
from
the
chart.
This
is
so
this
will
be
the
new
fee
schedule
and
it
says
some
of
them
are
by
meters
squared
and
some
of
them
are
flat
fee,
so
Group,
C
residential,
be
it
buildings,
you'll,
see
solar
panels,
sort
of
a
third,
the
way
down
there
or
the
flat
fee
of
268,
and
then
the
non-residential
equivalent
halfway
down
the
page
536,
which
I
think
is
double
anyway.
E
B
D
E
That's
so
that's
what
that
is.
That's
the
permit
cost
current.
Currently,
the
the
permit
cost
to
the
applicant
is
forty
four
forty,
nine
and
the
cost
to
the
city
to
process
each
one
is
five
hundred
ninety
seven
dollars,
that's
correct!
Okay,
and
that's
so
that's
something.
That's
changing
significantly
up
to
two
sixty
eight
and
five
thirty,
six
as
a
flat
fee.
E
E
C
Thank
you,
and
through
you
just
in
addition
to
mr.
Brenda's
comments.
We
will
obviously
be
watching
this
quite
closely
as
we
look
at
making
some
some
fee
by
a
fairly
major
changes
to
some
of
the
smaller
permit
categories
of.
Obviously,
we
don't
want
to,
through
the
process
of
trying
to
achieve
greater
cost
recovery,
increase
people
going
through
without
getting
proper
permitting.
So
there
is
a
fine
balance
to
it
as
mr.
C
going
to
indicate
indicated-
and
we
will
be
looking
at
that
quite
closely
so
upon
you
know
going
through
this
and
using
this
fee
structure
for
a
year.
If
we
see
that
there
are
significant
issues
or
we're
seeing
significant
decreases
in
the
number
of
permits,
that's
something
that
we'll
look
at
closely
in
review
and
can
make
further
recommendations
to
Council.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
the
report.
I
did
take
part
in
one
of
the
sessions.
We
knew
this
just
as
a
citizen
interested
so
found
that
very
Bible
I
learned
what
now
I've
got
a
number
of
questions
here,
so
perhaps
you
could
write
them
down
and
then
answer
them
at
the
end,
or
some
of
them
are
questions
Ashley
on
the
building
activity,
forecast
I'm,
not
sure,
that's
within
the
realm
of
what
you
want
to
discuss.
It's
in
the
report.
F
Just
right
there
Sun
page
12
of
the
package,
so
I've
got
three
questions
with
respect
to
that
set
of
charts.
They're
looking
at
the
chart
in
the
top
left
of
the
illustration
says,
wall
and
medium
density,
residential
building
permits,
2015
of
2016,
are
down
quite
a
bit
and
then
you're
forecasting
a
increase
to
similar
to
what
you've
had
before
for
the
next
four
years
and
then
to
a
greater
level
yet
for
the
next
four
or
five
and
I'm.
Just
what
is
the
basis
for
that
forecast?
F
Is
that,
based
on
what
you
already
have
in
the
way
of
project
sort
of
in
the
pipeline?
Or
is
it
based
on
a
more
about
more
of
a
global
thing
or
Ontario
wide
or
whatever
same
thing?
Same
question
with
respect
to
the
illustration
in
the
bottom
right
hand,
corner
where
it
says:
institutional
gross,
floor
area
and
square
meters?
F
Here,
you're
going
from
an
average
of
under
5,000
square
meters,
it
seems
for
2012
to
2016
up
to
around
20,000,
so
up
an
approximate
quadrupling
so
I'm
just
wanting.
What's
the
basis
for
that
and
then
a
further
question
on
the
footnote
just
below
that
church
it
indicates.
Historical
average
includes
the
2014
hospital
climate,
so
2014
there's
nothing.
There's
no
bar
there
on
the
trip,
so
I'm
just
wondering
why
that
that
was
done.
Okay,
now
I'll
move
on
to
perhaps
more
pertinent
item
Monsieur.
F
F
Well
just
say,
for
example,
we
know
real
estate.
Downtown
Kingston
is
more
expensive
than
say
out
in
the
West
End
or
a
north
end
or
whatever.
You
know.
We
know
that.
So
are
you
gonna
adjust
by
neighborhood,
like
let's
say,
you're,
building
a
50,000
square
metre
project
downtown
compared
to
50,000
square
meter
project
out
in
the
West
End
industrial
park,
or
whatever
are
you
gonna
be
adjusting
that
to
the
value
of
the
real
estate?
F
That's
already
been
established
there,
okay,
so
that's
one
question
and
when
ex
question
is
going
back
to
what
I
was
talking
about
with
the
forecast
right,
you've
used
the
values
of
Kingston's,
historical
building,
permit
activity
and
you've
used
your
experience,
looking
at
other
mr.
palette
ease
and
what
they
are
doing.
So
are
you
using
the
forecasts
that
you've
made
to
determine
the
fees,
or
is
it
really
only
the
previous
experience
and
other
outside
data?
F
Only
so
the
visit
the
forecasts
turn
out
to
be
fairly
incorrect,
then
we
could
be
in
for
some
issues
that
are
sown
alright.
Now
I
want
to
move
on
to
discussion
around
what
councillors
rob
is
talking
about,
and
what
I'll
just
do
is
all
this
sort
of
go
to
the
cheating
we
jump
to
the
case
here,
given
that
Kingston
is
aiming
to
be
Canada's,
most
sustainable
city
and
using
energy
efficiently
is
a
big
part
of
that
and
solar
energy
is
a
big
part
of
that.
F
Could
the
vastly
increased
costs
of
solar,
insolation
building
permits
serve
as
a
disincentive
to
people
who
wish
to
install
solar
energy
in
their
homes
as
a
way
of
being
more
efficient?
No
that's
a
fairly
complicated
question,
but
I
think
it's
a
valid
one.
Following
on
from
what
appeared
was
saying,
another.
G
F
As
well,
if
the
city
is
attempting
to
track
any
any
leakages
in
terms
of
jobs
being
done
on
construction
without
permits
being
obtained
for
them,
I
know
this
goes
on
on
here.
Talk
about
it
you're
in
there,
so
I'm
wondering
if,
if
you're
becoming
more
efficient
and
how
you're
operating
you're
going
to
be
a
signing
cost
based
on
the
work
that
the
city
stuff
is
doing
to
make
those
jobs
work.
F
F
Even
when
that
gets
implemented,
could
it
potentially
bring
down
the
cost
of
you
new
housing
unit
prices
somewhat?
What
could
we
save
5
or
10
grand
there,
because
the
developers
won't
have
to
be
paying
those
higher
fees
they'll
instead
be
brought
down
and
harmonized
with
the
other
fees,
as
you
presented,
thank
you
very
much
and
if
the
clerk
wishes
I
can
write
this
open
just
to
make
it
easier,
I,
don't
right
now
it
isn't
I,
don't
have
it.
But
okay.
Thank
you.
D
We
looked
at
what
the
historic
estimated
value
was
at
the
news
pallies
currently
charging
based
on,
but
then
what
the
municipality
also
collects
through
its
building
permit
process
is
the
actual
permit
size
itself,
and
so
in
moving
towards
a
size
charging
mechanism.
It
removes
value
from
the
equation
and
it
more
closely
aligns
the
effort
with
the
underlying
size
of
the
building,
and
so
that
takes
sort
of
the
area
and
value
of
those
areas
out
of
out
of
play
in
essence,
which
I
think
again
is
giving
you
a
better.
D
And
so
I
think
you
were
suggesting
that
or
seeking
clarification
on
whether
the
forecast
was
based
on
the
municipalities,
specific
forecast
or
general
trends
in
the
industry,
and
so
it's
back
to.
The
first
comment
is
that
we
are
using
specific
information
that,
in
terms
of
the
planned
forecast
for
the
city
for
the
purposes
of
our
determination
of
what
that
cost
target
should
be
and
how
to
reach
that
target
Marthe
multiple
over
that
five-year
term.
D
The
comment
with
respect
to
the
sustainable
cities
and
increasing
the
permit
fees
for
solar
panels.
So
again,
what
in
response
to
the
earlier
question
we
indicated
was
that
the
costs
for
residential
and
non-residential
panels
in
terms
of
the
permit
process
is
relatively
similar.
There
was
just
under
$600
per
permit.
D
What
we
acknowledge
is
that
the
municipality
is
is
significantly
under
recovering
that
cost
to
the
tune
of
recovering
booked,
maybe
10%.
So
the
question
that
this
the
city
is
faced
with,
then
is:
can
you
improve
that
cost
recovery
performance
from
those
applicants
who
are
deriving
that
benefit?
Or
can
you
seek
to
recover
that
from
cross-subsidization
from
other
applicants
who
who
aren't
receiving
those
benefits,
or
even
more
broadly
from
the
tax
base,
recognizing
that
we're
working
within
a
full
costed
model?
D
The
the
graph
that
you
see
represented
with
respect
to
historic
building,
permit
activity
again
was
taken
from
the
databases
that
was
used
with
respect
to
the
growth
forecast.
So
it
represents
the
same
geography
today
for
building
permits
over
that
geography.
Back
to
that,
that
data
think
was
in
1991
and
again
to
put
that
in
context.
C
You,
madam
chair,
you,
mr.
Dixon,
your
final
comment,
I
think
was
in
and
around
asking
whether
we're
tracking
construction
without
a
permit
is
that
correct
and
wondering
whether
this
would
create
a
situation
where
we
have
a
higher
degree
of
non-compliance
and
having
some
concerns
related
to
that.
So
we
certainly,
we
certainly
do
track
situations
where
we
become
aware
of
construction
without
a
permit,
because
we
do
go
through
a
prosecutory
enforcement
approach
as
it
relates
to
those
activities.
C
Certainly,
a
lot
of
that
happens
on
some
of
the
smaller
scale,
residential
renovations
and
and
some
of
those
renovations,
as
we
know
through
some
of
the
other
consultations
we've
been
undertaking
through
the
planning
team,
this
past
year
can
result
in
additional
bedrooms
units
being
added
into
neighborhoods.
That
haven't
been
done
so
in
a
safe
fashion
that
are
consistent
with
the
building
code.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
very
good
question
as
mr.
Dixon
thanks.
Ok
back
to
the
committee,
any
further
questions,
No
all
right.
So
that
concludes
tonight's
public
meeting
and
now
then
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
approval
of
the
agenda.
Can
I
have
a
mover.
Please
move
by
a
councillor
bomb.
Second,
by
councillor,
shell,
all
those
in
favor.
It
carries
confirmation
of
the
minutes
from
June.
A
21St
can
I
have
a
mover
councillor
bomb
and
seconded
by
Councillor,
shell,
all
those
in
favor,
and
it
carries
as
well
you've
already
done
and
the
disclosures
became
in
your
interest.
We've
had
our
delegation
briefings
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
else
tonight.
So
now
we're
on
to
business
item
8a,
which
is
the
building
permit
fees.
Are
there
any
further
questions?
Kosar
Stroeve.
A
E
So
in
general,
I'm,
supportive
of
this
type
of
analysis
and
the
the
I
say
aye
and
of
the
conclusions
as
well,
with
the
exception
of
the
jacking
up
the
price
for
solar
panel
permits,
even
though
it's
method
methodologically
sound
I,
think
it.
We
have
to
be
careful
that
it
that
it
doesn't
create
either
illegal
installation
of
solar
panels
without
permits
or
descendant
of
disincentivize
the
the
behavior,
which
is
on
the
rise
and
solar
panels.
The
price
is
coming
down
and
the
uptake
the
percentage
of
folks
that
are
doing
it
is
going
up.
E
So
this
seems
to
be
sort
of
contrary
to
the
historical
trend
and
I
know
that
wasn't
broken
down
separately
in
that
sense
with
some
with
the
other
charts,
but
it
just
really
stuck
just
you
know
popped
out
at
me
when
I
was
reading
this
report
now
to
compare
it
with
the
Dex,
which
you
mentioned
in
your
in
your
answer.
That's
the
other
one!
If
you
look
at
Table
three,
three
one
on
page
20,
those
are
the
three
that
jump
out
at
you
as
far
as
cost
recovery
line.
E
So
if
you
look
at
the
cost
recovery
percentage,
most
most
of
the
things,
we're
not
getting
100%
cost
recovery,
some
of
them
we're
getting
much
greater.
But
if
you
go
down
the
list
and
you
find
solar
panels,
the
the
two
solar
paneled
lions
and
the
Dex
is
right.
After
that
those
are
the
three
lowest
cost
recovery
items
of
all
the
different
types
of
permits,
with
the
exception
of
the
rare
alternative
solution,
one
and
the
temporary
structures
which
are
labor
intensive,
apparently
so
of
all
those
of
all
the
permit
classes.
E
E
Seeing
as
the
difference,
if
you
look
at
that
line,
total
cost
two
hundred
forty
five
thousand
for
Dex
and
the
deck
permit
cost,
which
is
on
a
different
chart,
is
$85
versus
just
under
54
solar
panels.
So
Dex
is
going
from
85
to
199,
and
solar
panels
are
going
from
just
under
50
to
268
or
at
536.
So
five
times
more
for
residential
and
over
ten
times
more
for
non-residential.
E
The
deck
increase
is
about
two
times
just
over
two
times
and
I.
Just
don't
understand
why
we
would
be
targeting
that
class
when
there
are
really
so
few
solar
panel
applications
and
and
I
would
just
as
a
comment
would
say.
I'm
cutting
on
supporting
this,
but
I
would
urge
staff
to
have
a
second
look
at
that
class
to
see
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
inadvertently
affecting
the
market
and
the
future
of
how
many
people
choose
to
install
solar
panels.
Thank
you.
H
You,
madam
chair,
just
a
couple
comments
there
on
what
councilor
Stroud
was
saying,
and
it
has
to
do
with
just
my
knowledge
of
how
the
permits
and
everything
work
on
that
is
for
a
lot
of
these
things.
You're
talking
about
five
or
ten
thousand
dollar
projects,
so
going
from
a
$50
and
$88
to
a
$250,
not
likely
gonna
change
somebody's
mind
a
lot
of
the
reasons
people
do.
These
things
are
for
philanthropy,
edek
reasons.
So
I
mean
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
even
though
it
looks
like
there's
a
massive
increase.
H
It's
really
not
gonna
change
your
mind,
especially
on
the
commercial
level.
The
reason
is
is
because,
on
a
lot
of
those
there's
actually
ways,
they
can
get
money
back,
whether
it's
through
grants
or
incentives,
or
something
like
that.
So
it
was
just
more
of
a
comment
to
that,
because
I
had
kind
of
some
of
the
own.
My
own
concerns
there
and
so
I
looked
into
it
a
little
bit.
The
other
thing
was
on
the
decks
and
patios
I.
Think
we're
actually
gonna
hear
more
of
an
outcry
from
those,
because
that's
something
where
somebody's
gonna
go.
H
They
know
what
it
used
to
be:
they're
gonna,
go
build
a
deck
for
their
own
personal
use
or
for
friends
or
something
like
that
and
then
realize
that
fees
gone
up
so
I
think
that
might
be
the
one
that
actually
generates
the
most
public
consternation.
But
again,
this
is
something
where,
when
you
have
a
permit
and
a
cost
system,
that's
on
a
cost
recovery
basis.
H
It's
not
really
ideal
to
create
a
whole
bunch
of
cross
subsidization.
Because
if
you
look
at
some
of
these,
the
more
we
cost
subsidized,
the
more
we're
actually
unbalancing
this
entire
system
right
so
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
I
think
what
we're
doing
here
by
going
on
a
square
footage
basis,
is
actually
trying
to
make
this
more
equal
and
more
balanced
as
we
go
forward.
It'll
never
be
a
perfect
formula
in
the
end,
but
trying
to
sort
of
balance
it
and
provide.
H
The
rationale:
is
it's
probably
a
good
step
forward,
but
I
I
do
understand
what
you're
saying
is
there?
Are
we
in
essence,
trying
to
recover
some
costs
while
at
the
same
time
reducing
people's
sort
of
ability
to
access
those
services
but
I
think
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
because
of
the
costs
of
of
some
of
those
larger
scale
solar
projects?
It's
it's
very,
very
minimal,
really
the
cost
increase,
but
our
recovery
is
part
of
that
Thanks.
C
Thank
you
and
through
you
so
based
on
the
analysis.
As
we
indicated,
it
doesn't
create
a
strong
line
of
revenue
for
the
municipality
one
way
or
another
based
on
the
volume.
So
if
it's
something
that,
in
principle
that
council
felt
very
strongly
about
because
of
our
stance
on
approaching
what
we
hope
to
be
Canada's
most
sustainable
City-
and
we
want
to
from
a
principle
of
that
point
of
view
encourage
as
much
sustainable
behavior
in
the
community
and
we
don't
want
to
make
the
fee
adjustment.
C
It's
certainly
something
that
we
can
do
and
look
to
absorb
that
money.
Other
ways.
So
it's
again
from
a
consistency.
In
a
fairness
point
of
view,
we're
trying
to
look
at
all
the
costs
and
categories
and
making
sure
we
are
applying
a
uniform
approach,
but
again
based
on
some
of
the
principles
of
the
community
and
the
priorities
of
council.
If
that's
something
that
the
councillors
feel
strongly
about,
staff
is
certainly
able
to
look
at
how
we
could
could
keep
things
similar
to
the
way
they
are
now
and
absorb
that
money
elsewhere.
A
G
I
Good
evening,
this
report
contains
information
from
April
through
May
of
this
year.
We
continue
to
maintain
a
high
occupancy
rate
and
the
current
rate.
Year-To-Date
is
ninety
nine
point.
One
three
percent
The
Home
has
six
incidents
reportable
to
the
Ministry
of
Health
and
long-term
care.
Two
of
these
were
acute
respiratory
illness
outbreaks
that
were
identified
as
coronavirus
and
rhinovirus.
I
The
Ministry
of
Health
and
long-term
care
attended
the
home
in
April
to
conduct
investigations
on
9
critical
incidents.
We
received
one
written
notification
surrounding
the
timing
of
informing
the
ministry
when
there
is
a
change
in
condition
of
a
resident.
The
ministry
no
longer
accepts
the
Holmes
practice
of
waiting
for
the
resident
to
return
to
the
home
with
a
change
of
condition.
I
Instead,
it
must
be
done
when
a
verbal
report
of
a
change
is
in
condition
as
received
from
the
hospital
Ministry
of
Health
and
long-term
care,
attended
the
home
again
in
May
to
conduct
our
annual
resident
quality
inspection.
The
home
received
two
written
notifications,
one
of
which
required
a
voluntary
plan
of
Correction
for
benchmark
purposes.
The
provincial
results
for
the
rqi
for
the
12
month
period
of
April,
1st
2016,
through
March
31st
2017
on
average
orders
received,
were
point.
Eight
seven
per
home
and
written
notifications
were
nine
point.
I
Three
seven
per
home,
the
home
conducted
a
workplace
pulse
survey
during
this
period
and
the
results
of
this
survey
will
be
available
for
you
in
inter
September
report.
We
continue
to
have
a
very
high
wait
list
of
three
hundred
and
ninety
eight
people
seeking
or
requiring
admissions
to
long
term
care.
I
I
The
resident
Choice
Award
goes
to
the
home
with
the
highest
percent
of
residents,
who
would
recommend
this
home
to
others?
The
second
piece
of
that
award
is
the
resident
voice
award,
and
that
goes
to
the
home
with
the
highest
percentage
of
residents,
who
feel
staff
listen
to
them
or
feel
they
can
express
their
opinion
without
fear
or
Consequences.
I
J
J
G
Okay,
so
this
is
seeing
other
questions.
This
is
an
information
report,
so
I'll
ask
for
a
motion
to
receive
it.
Do
I
have
a
mover
councillor
bomb
seconded
by
Councillor
shell,
all
those
in
favor
to
receive
the
information
report
that
passes
and
if
I
could
get
a
motion
to
rise
from
the
Board
of
Management,
moved
by
Councillor
Baum
seconded
by
Councillor
of
sanik,
all
those
in
favor
that
passes.
We
have
new,
no
new
motions,
no
notices
of
motion.
Is
there
any
other
business
seeing
none?
A
Yes,
mr.
chair,
so
in
regard
to
the
letter
of
Correspondence
I'd
like
to
move
that
it
be
referred
to
the
clerk's
office
so
that
they
can
respond
back
to
mr.
Dixon
and
copy
us
on
the
administrative
policy
committee,
so
that
we
know
it
was
addressed
and
also
asked
if
the
clerk's
office
could
forward
it
to
Luke
Folwell
right.
The
director
of
perks,
because
part
of
the
letter
is
about
parks
and
also
to
Collin
Wiginton
cultural
director
yep.