There can be no doubt that this tax exemption bylaw only came forward as a result of our Mayor and some others strong beliefs that the only way to up usage at the convention centre would be to entice someone to build a hotel on land we would be willing to give them behind said centre. Initially in bringing forward the bylaw there was somewhat of an outcry from the Hospitality Association and this latest inception is designed to placate the association and bring them on board with the tax exemption. 

At council’s meeting on January 23^rd these points were approved to be added to the above bylaw:

To include renovations to existing hotels and motels that achieves any one or more of the following:

• adds services

• adds rooms

• improves the quality of the stay for the visiting public;

Also approved was that staff do a report “on the potential for redevelopment of some hotel/motels into nonmarket rent low income housing for the working poor and low income seniors.” As well mention is made that “Council could consider expanding the “downtown” boundaries for revitalization reasons to potentially assist some of the properties currently on the fringes of this boundary.”  This one directly related to Development Cost Charges (DCC’s) and the fact that development within downtown boundaries currently does not pay DCC’s.

The report then goes further in talking about “ways that we, collectively, could mitigate the drop in occupancy through increasing visitors to Nanaimo, particularly if the City attracts a hotel partner.”  There you have it; the main reason for developing the bylaw in the first place, a hotel for the convention centre.

In looking at the above one would initially see the creation of housing for the working poor and low income seniors as a positive and as an advocate for such one would think I am strongly on side with this point.  The fact is that many motels already offer monthly accommodation, though not necessarily affordable at rates of $700.00 and higher.  How I ask would the city propose to ensure the cost to monthly renters if redevelopment is done is affordable, affordable being one of those hugely subjective terms. Also in the event the idea is taken up by current owners there would then be a decrease of low cost temporary accommodation that could see many travel straight throughNanaimoinstead of staying a night or two.

Development cost charges are the means by which the city secures funds to put in the infrastructure needed to support development.  Many years ago, as a means to promote the revitalization of Downtown Nanaimo these costs were waived by the city to promote development.  If these costs are not paid the burden is then put on taxpayers to come up with the costs.  If the Downtown boundary is expanded the costs born by taxpayers can only increase. 

When added together the loss of DCC’s and revenue as a result of the Tax Exemption would be in the millions and have to be born by the taxpayer, this with no guarantee that a hotel for the convention centre would be built anytime soon.  

There is no real, only anecdotal, evidence that a hotel for the convention centre will increase its usage or in any other way, especially with tax breaks, benefit the community.  Currently operating at less than 3% capacity; even with the proposed delegate days for 2012 and 2013,mentioned in the report, capacity would still be less than 5%.  It will take far more than one hotel to bring about any change that would result in the taxpayer subsidizing the facility any less. Yes if it were built it would add to the abundance of underused 4 or 5 star accommodations in the core but at what cost to the community/taxpayer.

The report on the whole is an interesting read and I would encourage folk to check it out.

January 23, 2012 Council Video http://www.nanaimo.ca/CouncilMeetings/VideoArchive.aspx?clip=C120123V 

(Hotel Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw 2011 NO. 7143 – pgs 28 – 48) http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Agendas/C120123A.pdf

During Monday’s (Jan.23, 2012) Council meeting a significant discussion almost took place regarding the expenditure of up to $560,000 for Preliminary Engineering on the South Fork II Dam.  The discussion which almost took place began when Councillor Bestwick asked whether we have examined the alternatives to a very costly dam project which is predicated on a population increase to 100,000 in the next ten years and a total expenditure of some $70 million dollars to meet the resultant water needs. Almost before the issue could be raised, Councillor Brennan called a point of order indicating, as far as I was able to decipher, that Council was no place to discuss such issues: that once in Council, Councillors are to either raise their hand yea, or raise it nay.   This is a pattern with which those of us who view Council are all too familiar.  Again, as far as I was able to tell, the matter of the point of order was never settled, so the principle involved was not made manifest, but the discussion fizzled at this juncture.

The real point to be made here is that if such matters are not to be discussed in Council before the public, when are they supposed to take place and what is the public’s role in such discussions?  Obvious alternatives to spending $70 million on a new dam are to further reduce per capita water use; to limit population growth through land controls, a method often used in tourist communities as we seem to strive to be; or to seek alternative sources.  While I do not represent that no alternatives have been examined, I suggest that the public is not aware that such growth and the path that we are on currently will cost the city more than one year’s total property tax income.  And where do Development Cost Charges (DCCs) fit in?

And most importantly, if Council is not the place for such discussions, then where is the place and when is the time for them?

I end by noting that the land under study in the up to $560,000 is not owned by the City and thus the results of the study could prove to be of little or no use.  I am informed that we could perhaps, under the Water Act, be able to expropriate it at fair market value.  What is that fair market value?  What is it now?  What will it be after the study?  Seems we ought to be looking a few steps ahead.

At its meeting this evening (Jan. 23,2012, 7pm in the Auditorium of the Conference Centre) Council will, among other matters:

“consider amending “REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW NO. 7143″ to include renovations to existing hotels and motels that achieves any one or more of the following:

• adds services
• adds rooms
• improves the quality of the stay for the visiting public;”

A great number of questions arise from this this amendment and indeed from the original bylaw (which has not yet been passed).  Many of them revolve around section 7(1) in the bylaw which states that:

“Council may provide a Tax Exemption under this Bylaw to an owner of eligible lands where:

(1) the new construction value, or the demolition and reconstruction value of the Project, as determined based on the building permit(s) issued, must be two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) or greater;”

Questions like these need clarification:

• How are the demolition and reconstruction values as determined by building permit(s) issued calculated?  And how do these relate to assessed value?
• Where does renovation fit in?  Extensive renovations/upgrades can be made which do not add to assessment now or later: i.e. Furniture, bedding, fixtures, etc., which are not part of the structure.  It is not clear whether such items can be counted toward the $2,000,000.. Items which are not permitted in calculating the exemption should be clearly identified.
• What is the anticipated exemption (i.e. the amount by which other property tax payers rates will be raised) based on each $2,000,000 of exemption and remembering that the original hotel was supposed to cost $52,000,000 (the same estimate that was presented as the cost of the VICC)?
• How will the exemption be changed by the annual changes in assessment?  And how do they impact over the 10 year time frame, i.e. are they compounding?
• Why is the $2,000,000 lower limit figure given in the bylaw not shown in the Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement which will be signed by those requesting the exemption?
• Why is the exemption based on land and improvements rather than improvements alone?
• Why are strata units considered for exemption?

The last scheme in aid of business which Council passed, the VICC, left us with over $3 million in overpayments on our contract with Millennium/Suro/Triarc, and, all-in, several millions per year in operating grants and loan payments.  Can we afford another such decision to provide aid to business, particularly in light of the letter to the City from the President of Nanaimo’s Hospitality Association that clearly states:

“The revenue deterioration that will be experienced by the entire hospitality sector with the addition of a taxpayer-subsidised hotel will be severe.”

I think we all know who will be expected to make up the difference.  This is another scheme with good intentions but without a well-defined business plan and no projections or risk assessment.  Council would be well advised to stop this train wreck before it goes any further and do some proper business planning and risk analysis.  If this were a great idea, we could sell shares in it to our local businesses and investors as was done not so long ago for the Malaspina Hotel and the Arena when capitalism was still in vogue.

I am sure that if you read the bylaw and accompanying documents you will find many other questions which need to be examined before we move ahead with such a bylaw –or not.

The documents can be found in the agenda for tonight’s (Jan 23) meeting on the City’s web site at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Agendas/C120123A.pdf

pp: 28-48 and 113-126  (As far as I can determine, the docs on 113-126 are the relevant ones for tonights meeting, but this was not clear to me.

Read it and weep.  And then contact your Councillors.

The election that will see our current Council in office until November 2014 was held on November 19, 2011.  All candidates, especially those who were elected, have until March 15, 2012, to file the obligatory campaign finance documents which state the amount of money spent in a campaign and the sources from which that money was obtained.  To date, only four of the nine elected candidates have filed their papers.  See:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Legislative-Services/4609/2011GeneralElection/CamFinDisclose.html

 It is hard to imagine why filing should not be completed quickly , although 120 days from the election is set in the legislation, particularly as this information is to be used in accordance with Section 93 of the Local Government Act:

“Section 93(8) states that “a person who inspects or otherwise accesses a document referred to in subsection (1) under this section must not use the information included in them except for the purposes of the following:

(a)    this Part;

(b)   Division 6 [Conflict of Interest] or Division 7 [Disqualification] of Part 4 of the Community Charter;

(c)    Section 141, 142.1 to 142.3 and 145.92 of the Vancouver Charter.”

The start of a new budget year following an election can be of particular interest in noting any perceived conflicts of interest which might arise linking campaign donations and City budget items or contracts. This information is vital to ensure that doubts concerning the independence of City financial decisions are minimized.  The problem can be particularly acute in an election environment like that in Nanaimo which is basically devoid of individual grass roots campaign contributions and is dominated by corporate and union monies.

Nanaimo has had an unfortunate history of problems with Divisions 6 and 7 which we should try to avoid in future.  The problem can be complicated by votes taken in-camera which may add to the concern that all is not handled in a transparent manner.  Such matters should be avoided by Council and the votes on contracts or budget items should, if not done in public, at least quickly be made public.

As an additional point of darkness, I have been informed that Council’s decision to approve the recent CUPE contract was made in-camera and that the vote is thus secret.  I have enquired how such a money matter can be decided beyond public examination but have yet to get a response.

More on these issues later.

Jan. 16

Item 1: The Port Theatre Society which manages the City owned Port Theatre on behalf of the City made a request for significant additional funding as they had their first, but substantial, deficit in their 2011 operations.  Like almost all of our nonprofit groups the Society has been affected by the economy and declining Provincial grants as well as increasing utility and other costs.  The Port Theatre was built in 1998 at a capital cost of about $10 million dollars, with $7 million coming from City taxpayers.  Operations and maintenance of the theatre have received annual grants since then and the Society has operated it within budget. 

In 2011 the Society received $454,000 in an operating grant from the City and a Capital grant of $100,000. If all costs were counted, they receive, in effect, a further hidden grant, as do many if not all City owned properties which are operated by private non-profit or for- profit agents, as they pay no property taxes due to City ownership of the land and improvements the consequent tax exemption.  The costs of servicing the property do not disappear, however but must be made up by general ratepayers.  (The same pass through of costs will pertain to any exemption given to hotel or motel builders.)  In the case of the Port Theatre this amounts to about $446,000 per year using the 2012 Assessment Value of the property and the 2011 tax rate for Business/Other properties.

Put it all together and it adds up to about $1,000,000 per year before the requested additional $90,000 annually in operating costs, continuation of the present annual increase of2%, and a new Co-Management agreement which would see the City taking over more of the maintenance operations.  Put it all together and it is a substantial chunk of change, even forgetting the City’s contribution to the initial construction and any borrowing costs associated.  At this rate each ticket sold is subsidized by taxpayers at a rate of about $10.00.

Should the additional request be granted?  Should the Society be pressured into reducing their costs?  I think that this can only be answered by a broader public discussion than is taking place at present.  The document regarding this request can be seen in the Council Agenda at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Committee_Agendas/FPCOW120116A.pdf

Item 2: A letter was received from the Vancouver Island North Film Commission requesting a $32,000 grant to fund that organization in its efforts to bring more film development to our Community.  It quickly became clear that while there was some interest in taking part in this venture, there was considerable confusion regarding the roles in such ventures which were to be played by the new Economic Development Corporation and the $1.4 million dollar budget which Council gave to it, and Council itself.  It was obvious that some on Council still have the ambition to play development deal makers and that this may well conflict with the Development Corporation even before it gets off the runway.  The fast ferry and the hotel were both mentioned in this context.  This will be an important area to watch.  The grant request was eventually referred to the Development Corp. can be seen in the agenda at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Committee_Agendas/FPCOW120116A.pdf

Item 3:  Along this same vein, the matter of the $218,000 grant to the BIA was raised.  Ours remains the only BIA in the province to receive a matching grant from ratepayers.  Asked about this situation, it was stated that our BIA is the envy of BIAs all over the Province.  I wonder why?

Jan 17

Item 4:  While due to the inclemency of our weather this afternoon (Jan. 17) I was unable to attend the final round of open Departmental budget presentations, I am told that in the first budget cutting move of the season, the position of City Auditor was axed saving a budgeted $150,000: pretty thin gruel, but a start.

The Departmental presentations from Jan. 16 are already available on the City’s web site, and the last set from Jan 17 should be up today.  See the Finance Department’s Budget page at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Finance/budget-financial-reports.html

And don’t forget the budget forum!

Calling all Retirees, unemployed persons, night Shift workers, and other citizens  who have their afternoons free:  Join our City Council for a budget presentation at the City Hall boardroom at 3pm today, Monday, Jan. 16, 2012.  This session of the Finance and Policy Committee of the whole (Council as a whole) will hear from the Port Theatre asking for additional funding and be given budget presentations by the Fire Department, the Police Services Department (the City Staff who serve the RCMP), and the Strategic Relationships Department.  Delegations concerning these matters can be presented without the necessity of prior application and there will be an opportunity to ask questions about the matters presented.  Please note that these presentations are prepared for our City Council and are therefore aimed at a level of financial sophistication comparable to that of the average citizen.  One does not need to be an accountant or a financier to get the general drift of what is being planned by each department and the amount of money which will be spent for their various programs and projects.  One may -or may not- find that these represent the direction which you would like to see our City take.  Now is your time to look, learn and question.

The agenda for Monday’s 3pm meeting is available at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Committee_Agendas/FPCOW120116A.pdf

In case you missed last Tuesday’s FPCOW budget presentations, i.e. the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department and the Engineering and Public Works Department, copies of the overheads presented are available at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Finance/budget-financial-reports.html

This page also accesses the set of budget and Financial Plan information which is available on-line.  Remember these meetings, along with some upcoming Council meetings, are the public’s chance to review and comment on the way our $160 million dollars will be spent in 2012, i.e. over $1800 for every man, woman and child in Nanaimo.

Note too that this page also allows access to the “Budget Forum” on the left side of the page.  The forum allows citizens to ask questions about the budget to which City Staff respond.  This is also a way to find the kinds of questions which your fellow citizens are asking, as well as the responses from the City.  Please note that if you submit a question it may take a day or two for Staff to respond.

The final Departmental budget presentations are scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, also in the City Hall Board Room, but at 1:30pm.

It is worth following up on Brian Fillmore’s comment to my Dec. 14 post.  While Council did indeed eschew a full core review, they did, as a sop, order up a review of the City’s contracted services, i.e. those services performed by private agents on behalf of the City.  As an aside it was also to examine functions now performed by Staff that might be contracted out. This $75,000 dollar study was originally supposed to be done prior to the November election.  It has yet to be accepted; but at a budget presentation on Tuesday, it was stated that a draft might be available today (Friday).  Of course it must be reviewed by Staff and then passed on for comment to the unions before Council can act on its recommendations in the budget.  That is if the time line allows it.  This information came out at the meeting because Councillor Bestwick asked for the status of the report.  This is an important study as contracted services in the City run to some $30-40 million dollars or some 20-25% of the City’s total budget.  It needs to be done in time for serious consideration during this budget cycle and we can only hope that Council will not let this slip through their fingers.

Other areas where cuts might be made include the single position which Staff have recommended for 2012, a City Auditor.  $150,000 has been budgeted in 2012 for this position.  It is interesting to speculate on why this position is being touted as the Province has put forward legislation for a Provincial Municipal Auditor which, I am told, should be in place by mid-year.  Why we are rushing to fill a job which may prove redundant in times when the local economy and its taxpayers are at their limit is not obvious to me?  What do you think.

Another position which was not originally recommended by Staff but which at least one Councillor has raised for further consideration by Council is that of a Communication Officer at $140,000.  To my mind this position is all about spin.  There is plenty of information available from the City if one can find it.  The internet can make all the information available to the public which is public.  And it can make it available in an easily locatable form.  This can provide the facts and nothing but the facts, but without the spin.  I hope we make sure that this one doesn’t arise from the dead.

It is worthy of note that there are seven positions which came pre-approved and thus have not been up for consideration.  These are comprised of five new RCMP Officers and two City liason staff for them which are part of a five year growth plan for the RCMP which was approved a couple of years ago.  While the plan may be sound, I find it difficult to see why at least a cursory review of how this has been working out is not included.  I think we can all see from recent history that looking even one or two years ahead is more a matter of guessing that reasoning.

$1,400,000 is in the 5 year plan for sidewalks; approximately $280,000 per year.  Sidewalks are normally treated as local improvements.  That is they improve a local neighbourhood.  Local improvements typically are undertaken as shared cost projects with the neighbourhoods that desire them and are willing to share the cost.  Questioned about this, the City has responded that, if neighbourhoods had to pay anything, none would be done.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

$3,100,000 is in the five year plan for phase II of the Maffeo Sutton park upgrade which, among other things, is to build a concession stand and rid our parks of those, apparently despised, food wagons.  Granted, following the lukewarm reception of the millions spent on phase I, there is to be a review of the project.  Despite the fact that this money comes from the Port Authority for public works along the waterfront, there should be a broader examination of the possibilities rather that limiting them to Maffeo Sutton, i.e. the budget item should at least be broadened.

These are just a few ideas for examination, with the biggie being the report to come from the review of contracted services.  While we wait for the release of this information we can review the City’s budget and five year plan at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Finance/budget-financial-reports.html

This page leads to both the general budget and plan information as well as to the Department budget presentations, the first of which took place last Tuesday.  The next set are scheduled for a special meeting of FPCOW (Finance Policy Committee of the Whole) which will be held in the City Hall Board Room at 3pm on Monday, Jan. 16, with another to be held on Tuesday.  The agenda and the departments that will be presenting their budgets can be found at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Committee_Agendas/FPCOW120116A.pdf

Where do you think the City should spend its money?  And where should it save?

It seems that our new and self-proclaimed transparent Council got off on a shaky footing when they met for their first meeting on Monday, Dec. 12.  The old Council ended their term with an in-camera meeting to instigate an injunction against the Occupiers in Diana Krall Plaza.  (Why such a move should be made in-camera is beyond me.  It’s not as if this action had not been widely touted.)  Our new Council began their tenure with an already moved, seconded (and apparently approved) motion to go in-camera that was already reported as such in the agenda!!  Talk about fast action.  In this case it appeared to precede even the meeting.

It will be instructive to see how transparent our new Council will be.  Most, if not all of them, promoted transparency in their runs for office and some even promised to quickly review and reveal the secrets of several of the in-camera decisions of their predecessors, with particular emphasis on the Jerry Berry affair which is apparently now out of covenant in any event, and the case of the City Hall Annex.  These first few weeks should set the tone in transparency for the next three years.

In the meantime, Monday’s FPCOW (Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole –the OTHER public Council meeting) meeting gave our brand new Council a preliminary presentation of the 1012-2016 Financial Plan for the City.  This plan increases residential rates by 4%, commercial rates by 3% and lowers Industrial rates by 20%, and raises water user rates by 5% and Garbage rates by 6.14%.  At that meeting questions were raised about several general budget matters which deserve attention.

First among these was the role that Council played in setting the preliminary Department budgets on which the Financial Plan was based.  It appears that Council gave no advice in this matter though it was open to them to request specific parameters, such as: a zero based budget; a zero increase in the budget; an x% increase or decrease in the budget, etc.  This ability is perhaps greater in this year than in most as we are currently in negotiation with our major unions.  In addition, the study which was undertaken on contracted services which amount to tens of millions of annual expenditures in the City and which was to be completed prior to the recent election has yet to appear.

While the presentation pointed to some $81.4 million in Major Capital Projects related to Water during this period and a further $23.9 million in Ongoing Programs related to Water, a question elicited the response that the City’s policy of not providing water to agencies outside the City has been overturned by an agreement on “emergency” water for Lantzville and that there has apparently been no policy development in dealing with the supply of water to the cruise ship industry or directly to Lantzville, both of which have apparently been requested and run up the flagpole by our mayor.  It should be further noted that the above figures do not include the circa $75 million which is proposed for a new dam in the next decade.  A policy in this area is urgently required as new requests from other of our regional neighbours can be expected to follow, particularly if either or both of these requests are granted.

A recent article in the Nanaimo Daily News, “Occupy camp turns down city proposal”, Nov. 30, 2011, raises some issues which demand clarification.  Foremost is the nature of city bylaws.  In the above story our Mayor is quoted as saying that: “the city must enforce the bylaw that prohibits tents in city parks.” He went on to state that:  “We are not going to compromise on the bylaw . . . to ignore it would start anarchy”.   For better or for worse this is poppycock.  Legally, the city is under no obligation to enforce its own bylaws, even in the face of complaints.  This was first pointed out to me by our City Manager and was later confirmed by a panel of judges which was convened in the Courthouse on Law Day earlier this year.  To say that I was flabbergasted, naïf that I am, would be a gross understatement.  I later came to learn that not only does the City not always enforce our bylaws; they may, at times, actively ignore infractions on their own recognizance or even on instruction from Council.

Citizens who believe that they will always be protected by existing City bylaws should be forewarned.  Your complaint may legally fall on deaf ears for any number of reasons.  This ambiguity in the legal structure can offer solace against the use of bylaws for abusive purposes.  It also opens a perilous path for active non-enforcement.   Bylaws are not a shield; they are a weapon of choice.

A number of years ago when I worked in the Planning Department at the City of Edmonton I found myself in discussion with the Director of Bylaw Enforcement about the fees for various city permits.  In reviewing the list of permit charges I ran across one which was $1000 per day.  Intrigued, I asked him what this was for.  He answered with a straight face that it was, “for gypsies and other people whose faces we do not like.”  I took this as an isolated and unofficial interpretation, but it stuck with me as an isolated statement until the circumstance described above.

While I may agree that it is time for the occupiers to leave the plaza while the broader legal issues of public occupation are settled, and that they should immediately clean any walls or space that has been defaced, I admire the manner in which they have generally conducted themselves.  Their point has been clearly made:  Many of our institutions have failed us and need to change.  I hope they will find creative ways to keep this message before our eyes.  It is not only they that have been injured; it is the rest of us as well.  Whistling through the graveyard will not only NOT revive our dead institutions, it will also disguise the bell that is tolling for us all.

It seems that current revenue objectives and policies set out in our financial plan do not permit tax exemptions to profit making corporations.  This makes sense to me, but to our Council, capitalism is a thing of the past and corporate socialism reigns.  Council recently gave three readings to “REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7143” which, with a fourth reading (perhaps at the farewell old Council Nov.28 Council meeting and these policy changes in effect), will potentially give millions of dollars to private corporations if only they will build or substantially renovate a hotel or motel in Nanaimo.

The current situation where private companies and corporations are forced to compete for business is evidently eminently unfair to our conference centre and this situation calls out for Council action by way of still more subsidies to that too-big folly in the form of hotel tax exemptions.

Of course, providing such subsidies to newbies is eminently unfair to our existing hotels and motels, but as the ads on TV with the kids so poignantly points out, we can forget our old businesses in favour of some new ones.

Is it right and proper that we should venture still further into corporate socialism at public expense?  Is it right and proper that we should favour the new to the neglect of the old at public expense?  Come to the FPCOW meeting today (Nov. 21) at City Hall and hear our Council and Staff explain why this is a good deal for you and me and our existing hotels and motels. We had better act fast.  Other communities may also have bribes on offer.

From the agenda for the Monday, Nov 21, Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole (FPCOW) meeting held in the City Hall Board Room at 4:30pm.

CORPORATE SERVICES:

(a) Hotel/ Motel Revitalization Tax Exemption

Staff’s Recommendations: That Council:

1. consider “REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2011

NO. 7143″ in conjunction with the objectives and policies set out

in its financial plan;

AND:

2. direct Staff to modify the revenue objectives and policies to

include the new objectives stated in “REVITALIZATION TAX

EXEMPTION BYLAW 2011 NO. 7143″.