MINUTES

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

CHAMPLAIN ROOM

14 DECEMBER 1999

9:00 A.M.

PRESENT:

Chair: G. Hunter

Members: D. Beamish, M. Bellemare, B. Hill, P. Hume, J. Legendre, A. Munter, W. Stewart and R. van den Ham

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Planning and Environment Committee confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of 9 November 99

CARRIED

BUDGET

1. 2000 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BUDGET REVIEW

- Executive Summary, 2000 Draft Estimates tabled with Regional Council
08 December 1999

- 2000 Draft Estimates issued separately on 10 December 1999

- Committee Co-ordinator’s report dated 08 December 1999

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS (PLANNING)

Nick Tunnacliffe, Commissioner, Planning and Development Approvals provided a brief introduction to the budget. He noted the Department had a very successful year in 1999, with a number of major achievements. Next year will be a year of transition, however, there is still much work to do in the Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, with respect to implementing aspects of the Official Plan. The Commissioner also noted that because of the relatively strong economy, the Development Approvals Division is experiencing some increased pressure. He pointed out there were small increases in the budget, primarily in the salary line item, which reflects some increased temporary monies being put in to respond to those pressures. These will be recovered from Capital programs and therefore the bottom line of the operating budget is in fact zero.

Referring to page 9 of the Operating budget, Councillor Legendre had questions concerning the line "Recoveries", noting there was a substantial increase over 1999. He asked how this would be achieved. Mr. Tunnacliffe referenced page 19 of the budget, the Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, and advised the main increase in recoveries is in the Environmental Planning area (e.g. projects such as Rural Servicing Strategy Sub-watershed Planning, Aquafer Management Study, etc.). He explained the Capital accounts were set up some years ago and only now because that branch has been staffed up, is the Department moving into introducing the work program. Councillor Legendre requested staff flag these Capital programs for him, when the Committee considered them.

There being no further questions on the Planning portion of the operating budget, the Committee approved the following.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Planning and Development Approvals Department (Planning section) 2000 Draft Operating Budget.

CARRIED

The Committee then turned their attention to the Planning and Development Approvals Capital Budget.

Councillor Legendre then asked the Commissioner to highlight the Capital projects he had referred to in his explanation of the Recoveries in the operating budget. Mr. Tunnacliffe referenced pages 272/273, Rural Servicing Strategy and 354/355, Sub-Watershed Planning, as examples. Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, explained under Recoveries, the Department can recover monies for the operating budget from Capital projects for staff time (compensation).

Councillor Legendre questioned why there would be such an increase in activity in these projects. Mr. Tunnacliffe explained there are a number of projects in the Official Plan (first and second priorities to 2006) and the Planning and Development Approvals Department wants to ensure their side of the functional planning and the environmental assessment work is done. In the eventuality there is a Federal or Provincial infrastructure program, these projects will be ready to go. He noted examples of new projects for 2000 would be Innes Road and the continuation of work on Terry Fox North in Kanata. Ms. Sweet added another reason Recoveries is showing higher this year, is because this is the first year the environmental group is staffed up and ready to work on some of these projects.

Councillor van den Ham had questions concerning pages 96/97, Environmental Resources Areas Acquisition. He asked if any of the monies were uncommitted. Mr. Tunnacliffe explained the Project authority is $11.426 million, the net estimated to be spent by the end of 1999 is $8.754 million, leaving a difference of approximately $2.7million unspent. He confirmed for the Councillor that monies committed to this project are being spent but at a lesser rate than was anticipated.

Councillor Legendre questioned why no monies were requested for this project for 2000. Mr. Tunnacliffe advised this was because there is $2.6 million of unspent authority for this project. He noted the Capital program is under constraint and collectively it was decided this project could "take a breather" this year. He confirmed for the Councillor he was satisfied that the unspent authority of $2.7 million was adequate for the coming year. If properties are bought in 2000 (using the unspent authority) and the fund is depleted, extra funding could be requested in 2001.

Councillor Legendre then asked what effect there would be on taxation if money was moved up to the year 2000. Jack LeBelle, Finance Commissioner, stated there would definitely be an effect on taxation and the exact effect would be dependent on how much was moved. Mr. LeBelle stated there were no funds left in the capital reserve to fund this project this year; another project would have to be substituted or it would have to be done in the form of debenture authority. He said he really would not recommend this as he felt there was enough debenture authority in the year 2000. The Department has indicated it intends to spend $2.7 million in the year 2000 and, unless the Committee had specific knowledge of a piece of land it wanted to acquire in 2000 that would exceed the $2.7 million, the Finance Commissioner could not see a reason the Committee would want to add additional authority for 2000.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Legendre, Ms. Sweet advised approximately $500,000 was spent on this project this year and approximately $700,000 to $800,000 in 1998. Committee Chair Hunter noted in the eighteen year history of this project, except for the very early years and the occasions when waterfront property has come available, it has not come near to approaching $2.7 million in purchases in any year.

The Committee then proceeded to approve the Planning and Development Approvals Department Capital Projects (i.e. set out on pages 82, 84, 96, 270, 272, 352 and 354 of the 2000 Draft Capital Estimates).

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Planning and Development Approvals Department 2000 Draft Capital Estimates.

CARRIED

Councillor van den Ham had questions concerning a project listed on page 465 of the Capital Estimates, under "Works-in-Progress". With respect to project No. 900040, Future Transportation Corridor - Abandoned Railways, the Councillor asked if it was necessary to continue with this project. Mr. Tunnacliffee advised this project had to be continued as there is a Council policy that the Region should acquire these corridors as they come available. He noted the Property Services Division had just concluded negotiations with CP for the line through Gloucester and Osgoode.

Referencing the amount spent to date on this project, Mr. Tunnacliffe advised he found it strange that only $8,000 had been spent and said he would look into this and advise the Councillor.

Councillor Legendre asked for an update on Project No. 900063, Airport Parkway Ramps (page 468). Mr. Tunnacliffe advised the Region undertook, as a result of the Environmental Assessment approval for the Hunt Club ramp, to monitor the effect of the Hunt Club ramps. That work was done over the summer and a report will be going to Transportation Committee in January 2000. In addition, there was the Airport Parkway Extension Study that looked at the impact of the traffic on the surrounding neighbourhoods. The Commissioner advised this study has been completed by a consultant and would be presented to Transportation Committee and Council at the same time as the monitoring report.

Councillor Legendre questioned what was planned for the $350,000 of authority in 2000. Mike Sheflin, Commissioner, Environment and Transportation indicated this should be discussed at the Transportation Committee budget meeting.

Councillor Stewart added the studies referred to by Commissioner Tunnacliffe, indicate that the building of the Walkley ramp will probably alleviate the existing problems on the Airport Parkway and will expedite the evening peak rush to the airport.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES BUDGET

Mr. Sheflin introduced the Environmental Services section of the budget and began by thanking staff for all of their hard work and dedication in preparing this budget. A copy of the slide presentation used for the Environmental Services budget is held on file with the Regional Clerk.

The Commissioner then highlighted some of the achievements of the Department over the last decade. He pointed out over the 1990’s, the Region’s population has grown by approximately 70,000 which translates into increased demands for expansion to the infrastructure and services provided by the Environment and Transportation Department. The Department has been able to meet these demands with fewer resources and Council was still able to reduce the cost of lifeline services such as drinking water and sanitary sewers. Mr. Sheflin advised from 1993 to 1999, the sewer levy went from $18.6 million to zero; the water supply charge went from $13.3 million to $7.6 million, for a total reduction of $24.4 million from the property tax bill. He said this amount, combined with the user pay reduction to rates over the same period resulted in a savings of $45.4 million annually for the taxpayers. He opined this was good for business, good for employment and good for the citizens of the Region.

Mr. Sheflin went on to say that the Department’s ability to cut costs and optimize operations has resulted in a six year budget reduction of 52% (including inflation). Since 1995 the Department has reduced its overall staff complement by 25% and management has been reduced by 41%. He emphasized the Department was able to achieve these savings through leadership, technology, extensive reviews of business practices to ensure competitiveness and by developing and training staff. He said achieving these results in the 90’s has not been easy. Mr. Sheflin pointed out the Department continues to review its operations, as well as have independent assessments of the operations performed.

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Sheflin stated he was pleased and proud to say the Environment and Transportation Department was ready and well prepared to work and build one effective and accountable city for the 21st century.

Councillor Legendre referred to the slide which stated there was a combined annual savings to taxpayers of $45.4 million in the Sewer and Water funds since 1993. He asked if this could be attributed to the fact that previous Councils (before 1993) built infrastructure in advance of need. Mr. Sheflin stated this was not correct. He said the staff, through technology and skill, have done an absolutely fantastic job. He added as well, a very progressive Council has enabled the Department to access available technology quickly and this has contributed to the savings achieved.

Councillor Legendre felt the Commissioner’s answer spoke to the Operations side of the equation. Referring to a graph representing Sewer and Water Fund Needs, which indicated a reduction in total combined savings to taxpayers in the amount of $45 million each year, he asked if this spoke to a Capital reduction, or to a reduction of both Operating and Capital.

Mr. Sheflin agreed it did speak to both. He explained that from an asset management perspective, analyses were undertaken to determine the best time to make timely investments. He assured Committee that if staff at any time perceived there would be a lack of adequate funding to renew and rehabilitate the system, staff would request the necessary funding. The Commissioner felt both the Water and Wastewater asset management areas were in good shape. He said the Department was working on a more finely tuned asset management system, which would be presented to Council in an effort to ensure the public would not lose its near-$4 billion investment in the Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste systems.

Referring to a graph from the budget overview, Councillor van den Ham referred to "up-and-down pressures", noting one of the "up" pressures was compensation. He believed this had been provided for, Corporately, at the previous day’s Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting under a large Human Resources adjustment.

Mr. LeBelle explained each individual fund has its own provision for compensation. He said that corporately, staff had addressed this in the Executive Summary, but he noted that each of the individual business entities has to address this point.

Mr. Sheflin then introduced Mr. Doug Shannon, Acting Director, Finance and Operations Support Division, Environment and Transportation Department, who provided the Committee with an overview of each of the Divisions (i.e. Water Environment Protection, Water and Solid Waste) budgets, as well as an overview of the Capital Estimates for the Department.

WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DIVISION

Councillor Legendre referenced an entry under the Water Environment Protection Division’s (WEPD) section on page 41 of the budget book, which referred to a 312% increase in "secondary costs". He also noted a larger percentage increase of 853% on a subsequent page, and asked for an explanation of these figures.

Nancy Schepers, Director, WEPD, Environment and Transportation Department explained this was due to the introduction of a plant module of SAP, a system used to track departmental finances. Under the new work order system, all work orders became secondary costs, and increases were matched by decreases in other areas of the budget. Mr. LeBelle characterized it as a "restatement" of the numbers and noted had staff had more time to prepared the budget documents, the 1999 numbers would have been cross referenced.

There being no further discussion, Committee then approved the Water Environment Protection portion of the Operating Budget.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Water Environment Protection section of 2000 Draft Operating Budget.

CARRIED

WATER DIVISION

Referring to a separately issued "Performance Measures" book, Councillor Hume asked if the numbers were indicating that costs per average watermain break were rising. He said the information indicated the number of breaks per kilometre of watermain were on the rise, as was the average time for water shut-off per watermain break.

André Proulx, Director, Water Division, Environment and Transportation Department, explained that a new maintenance management system was being used at Clyde Avenue for the water distribution system, and data was only available for the last few years. He said it was necessary to look at a five to ten year average when studying watermain breaks. Mr. Proulx acknowledged the data was accurate, but could not be used for comparative purposes until a five-year running average had been established. He said the Region had approximately 250 to 300 main breaks a year, but numbers could fluctuate greatly from year to year. However, he noted the average for main breaks per year had decreased over the last ten years, which indicated the Region was better maintaining its infrastructure and replacing and rehabilitating it more quickly.

Responding to another query from Councillor Hume as to why it seemed to be taking longer to get to watermains once a break had taken place, Mr. Proulx explained it was more likely a case of the breaks occurring in larger mains, and that there may have been difficulties in isolating specific parts of the system where breaks had taken place. He also explained that indications of rising costs per watermain break were the result of receiving better data as to what actual costs were.

Councillor Legendre noted a 35% increase in Recoveries, and asked if this, too, was the result of accounting procedures. Mr. Proulx said this was the primary reason, but added it was also tied into recoveries from the division’s Capital program. He noted the division had not been accounting for its fleet equipment in the recoveries from its Capital program. He explained these recoveries would be most directly related to various Capital programs, primarily in the watermain rehabilitation program.

Councillor Hume noted that throughout the Fiscal section, payments were being made in lieu of taxes. Mr. Sheflin explained the Region made payments-in-lieu of taxes, as an operating utility. He added on those functions where the Region operated something other than a public right of way, or rate-supported area, it pays taxes, but because the Region constitutes a government, it makes these payments as payments-in-lieu rather than actual taxes.

Mr. LeBelle added this was a cost of doing business for the utility, and was a revenue for the tax-supported side of the operation. Mr. LeBelle explained it was important to think of this as a cost to the rate-supported operations and a revenue on the tax-supported side, noting the two were separate.

Councillor Legendre observed, in terms of payments in lieu of taxes, the Region was essentially paying itself. He then asked if payments were being made to another tier of government. Mr. LeBelle replied that there was both a school portion, and (for one more year), a lower-tier portion.

There being no further questions, the Committee approved the following.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Water Division portion of the 2000 Draft Operating Budget.

CARRIED

SOLID WASTE DIVISION

Councillor Legendre noted part of the presentation had mentioned continued planning and progress towards an Official Plan goal of a 475 kilogram-per-household diversion rate, and he asked what the current rate was. Pat McNally, Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation Department, said it was currently slightly more than 300 kilograms.

Referring to the blue and black box recycling programs, Councillor Legendre said he had received feedback from constituents frustrated with the programs because of the weight of the boxes and the inconvenience of bi-weekly collection. He said some of these constituents had indicated as a result, they would no longer be participating in the recycling program. However, the Councillor noted these individuals were in the minority, as the Region’s data indicated more material was being recycled than ever before.

Mr. McNally confirmed recent reports had indicated an 11% to 12% increase in recycling over the first three months of the program, and this was still on the rise. He said the results of a recent survey had shown a small portion of people were not participating or participating less. However, Mr. McNally said the number of those participating more was roughly ten times greater, which had been reflected in the tonnages collected.

Responding to a question from the Councillor whether age might be a factor for those who had indicated a reluctance to participate, Mr. McNally said the weight of the black box had been an area of concern, particularly for seniors. However, he said the department was continuing to look for solutions and striving to improve the program.

Councillor Stewart referred to the Performance Measurement document and noted under Client Impact (page 6), there is no data at all. The accompanying note indicates the Division is doing monitoring and there will be some benchmark in future. The Councillor stated it did not seem reasonable that, having done recycling for ten years, there would be no data. She said it would be difficult to explain this lack of data to constituents. Mr. Sheflin apologized and explained the speed with which this document had to be put together to comply with the revised budget timetable, did not allow staff to do as good a job as they would have liked.

Mr. McNally added there was data included under Waste Diversion (page 8) and this incorporated some of the data gathered from the survey. Mr. Sheflin advised it is staff’s intention to get all of this information on the Region’s web site.

Committee Chair Hunter had questions with respect to the slide that showed the up/down pressures on the Solid Waste Division. He asked if the figure shown for increased revenues/recoveries (for recyclables) of $517,000 was realistic. Mr. McNally replied, in developing this budget, staff looked at a blended revenue and this was approximately $71 per tonne. He indicated last year it was approximately $64 per tonne and it is currently above $71 per tonne. He said the markets have improved over the last while; whether they continue to be strong remains to be seen. He said, however, staff were quite comfortable with the $71 that was factored into the budget. Mr. McNally advised the fibre stream (particularly corrugated cardboard and newspapers) is quite high and is expected to remain so through late next year.

Chair Hunter noted Mr. Shannon mentioned in his presentation that not only were we receiving more tonnages for waste but for also for recyclables. He asked if the increase of 10,000 tonnes in each area was reflected in the budget. Mr. Shannon replied the budget was based on the bid model but there may be other mitigating circumstances to off-setting those increased tonnages. He said although the Region can keep the per-tonne cost down, the number of bags of garbage at the curbside cannot be controlled.

Chair Hunter pointed out this budget was prepared on the basis that there would be $18.8 million paid to private contractors to pick up at curbside and this was based on a certain amount of tonnage estimated for the year 2000. If updated information says that between waste and recyclables those could be up to 20,000 tonnes higher, this puts a tremendous upward pressure on the cost, with only half of that having some recoveries through the sale of diversion materials. Mr. Sheflin confirmed this. He offered the more prosperous the community is the worse off Solid Waste Division is as it is on a "fixed" income of sorts (i.e. costs increase much greater than revenue). The Commissioner said although staff would not say they were "comfortable" with the figures presented, he indicated the figures were not unreasonable.

Councillor Bellemare had questions on this same slide. With respect to "Transfer to capital", the Councillor asked for an explanation of how and why costs are transfered from operating to capital. Mr. Sheflin replied normally the greater the pressure, the more one examines particular areas. In this instance, there is a fund available for this and the question asked was "Are there any additional areas of expenditures that are eligible under the very specific requirements?" He pointed out diversion is a very specific requirement whereas garbage pickup could not be included. The Commissioner offered in this budget exercise, the Department was "pushed up against the wall" and every possibility had to be examined.

Responding to questions from Councillor van den Ham, Mr. McNally advised the handling costs on a per tonne basis for collection and recycling were close (i.e. $117 for collection and $115 for recycling). Mr. Sheflin added with the value of the landfill factored in, the costs would be about the same.

Councillor Hill asked if the large companies that collect solid waste for the Region, now pay tipping fees. Tim Marc, Manager, Planning and Environment Law, advised Huneault and Canadian Waste are withholding amounts to balance what Osgoode is not paying. The Region’s position, adopted by Council is that Osgoode should have to pay for every tonne of waste deposited at the Osgoode landfill. He said if the Region is successful at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing (anticipated to take place the beginning of 2000), Osgoode will have to pay tipping fees to the Region back to 1996, and Huneault and Canadian Waste will have to pay back what they have withheld. Mr. McNally added Huneault and Canadian Waste are paying a portion of the tipping fees but withholding a portion equal to the off-set that they believe Osgoode is taking.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Hill, Mr. Sheflin explained the agreement in place is that Osgoode would be allowed to be by itself and permitted to accept approximately 8,000 tonnes per year. The other large companies are indicating that Osgoode is accepting amounts greater than 8,000 tonnes therefore, they believe the agreement is not being followed and they are withholding an amount equal to the excess amount that is going to Osgoode.

The Committee then approved the Solid Waste Division Operating budget.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Solid Waste Division 2000 Draft Operating Estimates.

CARRIED

The Committee then turned their attention to the Environment Section, 2000 Draft Capital Estimates.

Councillor Munter indicated he had questions with respect to Project No. 900439, Stittsville/Kanata Feedermain Link (page 336). He indicated he was concerned with the portion of the feedermain from Terry Fox to Abbott Street and noted the matter had not yet been brought to Planning and Environment Committee. He questioned why this route was being proposed. Jim Miller, Director, Engineering Division, advised the matter will be brought to Committee sometime in the future. He said the route indicated on the map has been identified as one of the possible corridors, as it is the rail corridor.

Councillor Munter stated he had no objection to Stittsville receiving water but he did object to this particular route because there have been applications brought to Committee to redesignate this land from agricultural to urban and the Committee rejected those Regional Official Plan Amendments. The landowners are getting ready to come back and try again and he expressed the concern that if a water main is put on these lands, it would create an argument for servicing these lands.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Munter, Ms. Sweet replied staff would suggest that any pipe is sized for the development that is approved up to the 2021 time horizons, of which Stittsville has a limit. She said it was her understanding the purpose of this feedermain was to make the system work better and was not for the provision of growth over and above the 2021 time horizon.

Councillor Munter said his concern was that he did not want to approve the inclusion of monies in the budget that could "pave the way for bad planning decisions". Mr. Sheflin assured Committee the matter would be coming before them sometime in 2000 and it would be up to Committee and Council, at that time, to approve the exact route, subject to the Environmental Assessment.

Councillor Munter put forward the following motion, with respect to this project.

Moved by A. Munter

That the studies, funded by this spending authority, be predicated on the current approved growth projections only; and

That the terms of reference include maintaining the agricultural/green buffer between Kanata and Stittsville, as per the Official Plan and that this feedermain not be permitted to service these lands.

CARRIED

Councillor van den Ham had questions with respect to Project No. 900254, Pickard Centre - Operations Building Reconstruction. He noted this was the second year this item was included in the budget and for 2000, staff are requesting an increase in spending authority of $310,000 in order to make the Pickard Centre more ergonomically correct. He asked that staff expand on this. Nancy Schepers, Director, Water Environment Protection Division, advised in previous years a study was conducted driven by both ergonomic needs and space efficiency and a pilot project was undertaken. The evidence from this pilot suggested there are benefits on both sides in terms of reduction of losses from staff time (e.g. related to complaints such as carpel tunnel syndrome). In addition, the Division has been able to optimize the space in the Operations Building to enable an entire floor in the Technical Services Building, to be freed up.

The Councillor asked for an explanation of the statement "The payback period for the work is approximately 4 years or less." Ms. Schepers advised the payback is predominantly associated with the efficiency gains. Gaining additional space within the second floor rather than having to secure new space elsewhere. As well, the pilot project indicated the new furniture and equipment resulted in less repetitive strain type injuries.

Referencing Project 900336, Trail Road Landfill Capping Program, (page 435), Councillor van den Ham noted the purpose of the project was to design and construct geosynthetic caps and gas collection systems for stages 3 and 4. He questioned why a cap would have to be "redesigned" for stages 3 and 4, when caps were designed for stages 1 and 2. Mr. McNally advised the caps need to be designed to the specifics of stages 3 and 4. He noted much was learned from stages 1 and 2 with respect to material, construction techniques and maintenance of the caps, but there is some design work to be done for stages 3 and 4. The majority of the work is the purchase of material and the installation.

Referring to entries on pages 452 and 453 of the Draft Capital Estimates pertaining to a new landfill site, Councillor Legendre asked if staff were forecasting an end to the use of the present Trail Road Landfill site. Mr. McNally noted the funding indicated for 2002 was for the start of a program to plan for the site’s eventual replacement and landfill search process. He said a seven or eight year lead-up period would be required from the start of the process until the new landfill was in place. However, he noted Council had recently approved the Optimization Study of Trail Road, and the department was currently pursuing this option. He hoped that if successful, this project could be deferred in its entirety.

Referencing page 452, Councillor Legendre noted the document said the need for a new landfill could be deferred, but that some of the funding identified for the project would need to be brought forward to proceed with optimization. He felt this could mean optimization was being hampered in that funding for optimization might be insufficient.

Mr. McNally explained this should have been read as an "either/or" scenario, in that if the Ministry of the Environment approved optimization, a portion of the money would be spent in optimizing the landfill. If, however, the Ministry did not approve optimization, the Region would need to look for a new landfill site, a "worst case" scenario. Responding to a further question from the Councillor, Mr. McNally said the current expected life of the landfill was projected at a little over ten years.

Councillor van den Ham raised a question pertaining to Corporate Fleet Services. He noted page 466 of the Capital Estimates indicated the amount allocated for Corporate Fleet equipment replacement for 1998 had been underspent by $1.1 million, and in 1999 by $2.8 million. The Councillor asked if the reserve for Corporate Fleet was increasing. He said it was his understanding that every time a vehicle was used for Regional purposes, there was a specific charge-back to the various departments. Mr. LeBelle confirmed that this was so, charged at the same as if a vehicle were rented from a private provider.

Regarding the Councillor’s question about whether the reserve fund was being built up, Mr. Sheflin felt there would be no problem in the short term, but said the department’s long-term projection was that the reserve fund would experience a shortfall. He hoped that after municipal amalgamation, when all fleets would be combined, there would be enough of a saving to take care of the projected long-term shortfall.

Committee then approved the Environmental Services Department’s Capital budget.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Environment and Transportation Department (Environmental Services Section) 2000 Draft Capital Estimates.

CARRIED

In closing, Mr. Sheflin thanked Mr. Shannon for his efforts in presenting the departmental budget overviews and for his efforts since assuming the position of Director of Finance and Operations Support.

Chair Hunter thanked staff for the presentations, for the work which had gone into the preparation of the budget, and for the continued enthusiasm with which staff had maintained the department’s unofficial guideline of "better, faster, and cheaper". He said this had been realized through better operations, faster responses to problems, and lowered costs for ratepayers.

The Committee then approved the Planning and Environment Committee budget, as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the 2000 Draft Operating and Capital Budget Estimates and 10 Year Capital Forecast for the Planning and Environment Committee, as presented to Committee on 14 December 1999, and as amended by the following:.

ENVIRONMENT (WATER DIVISION, CAPITAL PROJECT No. 900439, STITTSVILLE/KANATA FEEDERMAIN LINK, PAGES 336/337)

That the studies, funded by this spending authority, be predicated on the current approved growth projections only; and

That the terms of reference include maintaining the agricultural/green buffer between Kanata and Stittsville, as per the Official Plan and that this feedermain not be permitted to service these lands.

CARRIED as amended

 

INQUIRIES

Councillor van den Ham asked the Environment and Transportation Commissioner for an estimate of how much the Region might save on snow removal for the current year.

Mr. Sheflin replied the department budgets on an average, noting that if the snowfalls are delayed, the department would be banking more money. He added the Transportation budget would indicate the department was budgeting very frugally for the coming year, but pointed out there was a $7 million reserve at present.

 

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

 

 

 

Original signed by D. Whelan Original signed by G. Hunter

COMMITTEE COORDINATOR COMMITTEE CHAIR

 

Notes: 1. Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by Committee.

2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 22 December 99 in

Planning and Environment Committee Report Number 48.