Will Welland finally make a decision on the size of its council? Niagara Falls Integrity Commissioner costs increase, despite $500 roadblock
Niagara Democracy Watch is The Pointer’s feature aimed at increasing the public’s awareness and political involvement in the Niagara Region by highlighting key agenda items, motions and decisions.
Council Meeting
Date: January 14 - 7:00 p.m. | Delegate | Full agenda | Watch live
What will Welland do with its council size?
With the holidays in the rear view mirror, 10 of Niagara’s 12 lower-tier municipalities at City Hall with Council or Committee of the Whole meetings over the second full week of January. The City of Welland is wasting no time with staff delivering a report that could prove quite consequential for future governance in the municipality.
A staff report, slated for Tuesday evening, could see the ranks of Welland Council reduced in time for the next Council term in 2026. The report responds to an April 2024 Notice of Motion from Councillor Leo Van Vilet (Ward 2) that asked staff to provide council with options on a reduced council size “with the sole objective to reduce the cost on to the taxpayer.”
Councillor Van Vliet’s motion came shortly after the annual report on Council remuneration and expenditures, required of all Ontario municipalities by the end of March the following year. In 2023, the total remuneration and expenditures of Welland Council totalled $560,796.07 and
“Those costs keep going up,” Van Vliet stated.
The Councillors that spoke in April were generally receptive to a future staff report on the possibility of governance changes. Councillor Tony DiMarco (Ward 4) seemed especially enthused, uttering an emphatic “thank you” and indicating that he had raised the issue of reducing the size of council numerous times without success. Councillor David McLeod (Ward 2) even broached the possibility of dual-seated councillors, that would sit on Welland Council and at the upper-tier Niagara Regional Council, as well as having an at-large system, which eliminates ward boundaries.
While Councillor John Chiocchio (Ward 3) was supportive of a forthcoming staff report, he was dubious of any results. The three-term Councillor noted that Welland Council had been down the road of governance review many times previously without any changes.
The report offers three options: a five-person council, the smallest permitted under the Municipal Act; a seven-person council to align with the current governance structure of six wards; and a nine-person council. The current configuration, which consists of the Mayor and 12 councillors—two in each of the sixwards—is not presented as an option in the report. But there is nothing to stop council ignoring all three options and maintaining the status quo.
Tuesday’s report does not differ substantially from one that appeared on Council’s September 3rd agenda. That report highlighted the three Council size options, but differed in that staff firmly recommended a seven-person configuration as the “most optimal solution” due to potential cost savings and any subsequent ward boundary review could be easily accommodated within the established six-ward structure.
The decisiveness of staff’s September recommendation met with criticism from Councillor DiMarco, who indicated that he was “shocked” that a recommendation was coming from staff, as opposed to coming from the Council members themselves or the electorate. The councillor put forward a motion, seconded by Councillor Chiocchio that would reconfigure the municipality into eight wards, with one representative per ward. Councillor Bryan Green (Ward 4), who indicated that he was generally supportive of the motion on the floor, thwarted an eventual vote by moving a superseding motion to refer the matter back to staff to complete a public engagement process.
Tuesday’s report indicates that the public engagement process consisted solely of a survey through the municipality’s Engage Welland platform between October 16 and November 20, 2024. The survey elicited 909 visits, though the numbers of responses to specific survey questions usually numbered in the 300 responses range.
While not all of the respondents identified their demographics, the majority (approximately 87 percent) identified themselves as homeowners within the municipality. Few of the respondents availed themselves of additional “engagement tools” to inform their responses to the survey. Eight respondents viewed or downloaded staff’s September report posted on the platform, there were 18 views of the City’s ward boundary map and only one respondent visited the “Council Composition: What you Need to Know” newsfeed.
Perhaps chastened by the reaction from Councillor DiMarco in September, staff’s latest report does not make an explicit recommendation on Council composition but argues that the “survey results strongly support the reduction of members of Council to six councillors plus the Mayor”’. The survey, however, grouped a five-person council and a seven-person in the same response category. While 51.3 percent of the respondents preferred this option, whether it was truly for a seven-person council or an even smaller five-person council is unknown. Nearly 29 percent preferred an eight to ten person council, with almost 17 percent in the next category of eleven to thirteen members (the current council composition).
The desire for a smaller council size may be a result of the public’s perception of council representation. While the majority of respondents (37.4 percent) had an “average” assessment of how the current council is representing their interests, cumulatively 40 percent landed in the poor or very poor category. In September, Councillor Graham Speck (Ward 5) indicated he had heard from constituents who described Welland Council as having “too many cooks in the kitchen”.
When asked what criteria was most important in determining the number of elected officials, population size was identified over geographic area, diverse representation and economic factors. Paradoxically, the majority of respondents indicated that future population growth should lead to a decrease in council members.
During the September debate on the issue of population projections and their implications on council composition was raised. Councillor Bonnie Fokkens (Ward 6) fretted about Council deciding on a number and “then being stuck with it”, while Councillor Chiocchio argued that with the municipality possibly reaching a population of 100,000 in the near future, a reduced Council size was not practical and could necessitate Welland’s representatives needing to be full-time.
The financial impact on the taxpayer, if Council was to reduce its size, is nominal. The total financial expense of the current council in 2024, including remuneration, professional development, mileage, various benefits and cell phones equated to $631,848. A seven-person council would realize $254,250 in savings, having a less than half a percent (0.52) tax savings impact. Council members made approximately $28,000 in salary, as per last year’s remuneration report.
For any changes to be implemented for the next municipal election in 2026, Welland Council will have to approve a bylaw related to council composition by December 31, 2025. A bylaw changing council composition is not appealable and there is no requirement for a statutory public meeting before council passes such a bylaw.
Staff have indicated in their report that they will only contemplate a ward boundary review if a change in the number of council members is approved. If a seven-member council comes to pass, the current six wards will remain in place with minor modifications based on population numbers and growth projections.
Similar to any council composition changes, the municipality will have to pass a bylaw by the end of the year for the changes to be effective for the 2026 municipal election. Ward changes, however, would require a formal advertised public meeting and can be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The council report can be read here.
Past reporting:
- 'Too many cooks in the kitchen'? With 4,800 residents per councillor, Welland delays decision on reducing City Council size
Council Meeting
Date: January 14 - 2:00 p.m. | Delegate | Full agenda | Watch live
‘Disturbing’ lack of information on development applications on City-owned
Niagara Falls City Council meets for its first regularly scheduled meeting in 2025 on Tuesday. The busy agenda includes five Public Meetings under the Planning Act. One of those meetings has a retired, veteran municipal planner critical of a City-initiated application related to two downtown properties.
Niagara Falls City Council will be considering an application for Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments for a 20-storey residential-use building at 4500 Park Street and a 20-storey mixed-use building at 4200 Queen Street.
Both properties are owned by the City of Niagara Falls. 4500 Park Street was the location of one of the City’s farmers’ markets until the mid-1990’s and was subsequently used as a municipal parking lot for downtown businesses and patrons. The site at 4200 Queen Street was the former location of the King Edward Hotel, but for approximately the last 30 years has been a staff parking lot for employees of City Hall, located across the street.
It has been well documented that 4500 Park Street is being proposed for an affordable housing project by the municipality. It was identified in the City’s 2021 Housing Strategy and was part of the municipality’s unsuccessful application under the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund program.
Last year, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to “developers and property manager partners” to submit proposals to be considered to develop and manage a purpose-built rental property, with 40 percent of the units to be affordable. In the document, the City indicated that it would be contributing “land, zoning, and other expertise” with an expectation that it would be “a minority equity partner for this contribution and will expect to obtain a return on investment that is aligned with its risk exposure.”
Despite the intentions outlined, the RFP did not lead to a private partner and was terminated. There is no indication whether a revised RFP will be issued. The planning report on Tuesday’s agenda states that the City “put out for RFP” but does not state that it was unsuccessful, instead offering that “the City proposes to redesignate and rezone the parcels to facilitate future development.”
The future use of 4200 Queen Street has been less explicit than the Park Street development. Nonetheless, based on an appendix to Tuesday’s report on the Official Plan Amendment, it is clear that the property is intended for use by the University of Niagara Falls Canada (UNFC), the private university, which is located nearby at 4342 Queen Street. The planning amendments, if approved by Council, will permit a student residence and private or public school above grade and ground level institutional uses.
On February 27, 2024, after a closed meeting, Niagara Falls City Council, in open council, reported that it had approved the “potential” sale of 4200 Queen Street. Tuesday’s report goes further indicating that an agreement of purchase and sale has been entered into, but there has been no indication on the purchaser or any financial consideration associated with the sale.
The City held a public open house on December 19, 2024. According to the staff report, six residents attended, with four expressing opposition to the application. Concerns raised included the disposition of land process, the lack of related plans and studies, and the loss of public parking.
The staff report simply states that the process and decision to dispose of 4200 Queen Street was approved by Council, that the municipality may redesignate and rezone properties without plans and studies based on Provincial policy direction and planning principles, and that the “loss of public parking lots was a decision of Council prior to the application.”
The lack of available parking also seemed to be a concern during the RFP process related to 4500 Park Street, with various addenda outlining potential proponents questioning the availability of parking and the possible use of City owned lands for such a purpose.
A more pointed criticism comes in the form of a correspondence on Tuesday’s agenda from Niagara Falls resident, Peter Colosimo.
Mr. Colosimo is a retired professional planner, who spent a number of years as the Director of Development Services at the Niagara Region. In his letter, he states that the public notice on the applications promised that “digital copies of plans and documents submitted with the application may be obtained” but notes when he inquired he found out that no such plans were available. Mr. Colosimo describes that lack of information as “disturbing” and contrary to the regulations under the Planning Act.
“Even if development is not immediately contemplated, it is critical to have a preliminary site plan (i.e. number of units, mixed use sq. ft., parking, setbacks, etc.) to assess the level of potential development for future planning purposes and to determine whether 20-storey buildings can meet all zoning provisions. This is also important to estimate the appraised value of these properties intended for sale or joint partnership.”
Mr. Colosimo is of the opinion that 20-storey buildings are not feasible options for the lots, in question, “nor are they necessary at this time.” He also notes the loss of parking and suggests that the municipality should hire an independent planning consultant.
Mr. Colismo stresses that because lands are owned by the municipality and may be conveyed it “elevates the importance of an open and transparent process.”
The related Council report can be read here and the letter of opposition can be read here.
Annual Report delivers a mixed verdict on Integrity Commissioner costs
Each Ontario municipality is required to appoint an Integrity Commissioner, an accountability officer, who, as per the Ontario Ombudsman, “is responsible for applying the rules governing the ethical conduct of members of municipal councils and local boards (including codes of conduct), and for providing advice and education on those rules.”
Since April 2019, Niagara Falls has used the services of ADR Chambers, a conflict resolution firm that provides integrity commissioner services to more than 40 municipalities, with Edward T. McDermott, the Integrity Commissioner of Record for the municipality.
Niagara Falls City Council has implemented a number of requirements related to the process of receiving requests for an Integrity Commissioner investigation that have elicited strong criticism from Ontario’s Ombudsman, Paul Dubé.
Complaints can only be initiated by a “resident of the City of Niagara Falls”, as opposed to the more generic language of a “member of the public”, as listed in the Municipal Act. In addition, as of June 2021, City Council imposed an administrative fee of $500 for a resident to file a complaint, with 50 percent of the fee refundable if the complaint is found to be valid, while the entire fee may be forfeited if the Integrity Commissioner determines that “a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or contains insufficient grounds to support an investigation under the Code of Conduct”.
Twice, Dubé has sent correspondence to Council requesting that the municipality cease charging a fee.
“There should be no fee or other barrier to make a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner,” he wrote to Council in 2023. “Charging a fee to complain is entirely inconsistent with the primary intent of the Integrity Commissioner scheme, which is to foster democratic legitimacy and public trust at the local level.”
In a subsequent letter to Council in April 2024, he was critical of the Integrity Commissioner’s broad interpretation of declaring a complaint as “frivolous and vexatious” and for dismissing a complaint (in part) for insufficient information, without reaching out to the individual to clarify or obtain additional information.
At last year’s April meeting, City Solicitor, Nidhi Punyarthi argued that the Council had the statutory authority to charge a fee that would “go toward staff costs”; however, City Clerk Bill Matson admitted that there was not a “tremendous amount of staff time” involved and other than the occasional back and forth he might have with the Integrity Commissioner, staff would be merely receiving and forwarding the complaints.
If Council’s hope was that the $500 filing fee would be a deterrent, it has not quite worked out that way to date but may be trending in that direction, according to McDermott’s latest report going before council Tuesday.
In the reporting period of April 2023 to April 2024, ADR Chambers billed the City $77,037. The amount exceeded the previous reporting year, which had billings of $60,790, though it was less than the April 2022 to April 2023 year ($97,595). It should be noted that the billings include councillors seeking advice on potential conflicts from the Integrity Commissioner.
Mr. McDermott, who has retired as the City’s Integrity Commissioner as of December 31, 2024, does indicate that the 2024 totals from April to year end have been considerably lower at $29,457.50 plus HST and that there are no current matters under investigation.
The related Integrity Commissioner report can be found here.
Past Reporting:
Email: [email protected]
At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you
Submit a correction about this story
