and secondly, the report did not address the local business community's most
pressing need - parking in its first stage.

Comments:

The Community Promotion Committee has met with the Downtown Businessmen
to discuss the downtown revitalization programme, from that meeting a series of
projects have been identified, wnich both the City and businessmen agree upon.

The projects that could be undertaken in 1982 budget year include; southgate
improvements, north-west parking lot improvements, opening a new south-west parking
lot and facade improvements suggested in the Hotson Report.

of these improvements, the first two - south gate and north-west parking
let are included in the City's 1982 budget. At a recent meeting with the downtown
businessmen the proposal for a south-west parking lot was mentioned. This item has
not been included in the budget. It is the final item facade improvement, the
resolutions being recommended by this report are related. The facade improvement
grants do not require any capital expenditure by the City. Administration of the
programme does hcewever require City staff time for issuing Building Permits and
sitting on an Grant Administration Committee.

Resolution No. Two - Design for the Ministry of Municipal Affiars
requires an appendix providing a guide for store front improvements. The N. Hotson
report recommended a number of design details for storefronts downtown, eg. canopies.
Consequently, parts of the Hotson report relating to facade improvements are attached
to this memorandum as an appendix for Resolutions No. Two — Design.

In conclusion, the two resolutions being recommended for adoption by
this report are to permit downtown businesses to qualify for storefront improvements
grants. By endorsing this part of the Downtown Revitalization Programme the City
will not be committing to undertake any capital works but will be committing staff
time for sitting on a committee to administer the grant programme.

Wm. Brown,
Director of Community Planning.

WB/al