PRESENT

Chair: R. Chiarelli

Members: D. Beamish, R. Cantin, B. Hill, , A. Loney, M. Meilleur, W. Stewart, R. van den Ham

Regrets: G. Hunter, P. Hume

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

CARRIED

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were filed.

Notes: 1. Underlining indicates new or amended recommendations approved by Committee.
2. Reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on 12 April 2000 in Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report Number 63, except Item 10 which will be presented to Council on 5 April 2000 (Special Meeting) in Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report Number 62.

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION / PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS

1. ENVIRONMENTAL CODE

- Joint Environment and Transportation and Planning and Development Approvals Commissioners’ report dated 21 Mar 00

Councillor R. van den Ham said it may be appropriate for the Environmental Code to contain a definition of "sustainable development" so it means the same thing to everyone. The Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner, N. Tunnacliffe, responded that the Code makes reference to the standard definition contained in the Regional Official Plan however, another reference can be added by way of a footnote. Councillor van den Ham expressed concern about the policy applying to all internal operations, suggesting that some flexibility could be injected into the Code by using the words "where warranted". The Director, Solid Waste Division, P. McNally, pointed out that the Code encourages looking at environmental responsibility as part of the efficient and environmentally-responsible use of corporate resources, be they human, fiscal or natural: it is intended to strike a balance between environmental and economic issues in day-to-day operations. Councillor van den Ham asked whether there is any information about the overall cost of the program. The Environment and Transportation Commissioner, M. Sheflin, pointed out there have been many instances where becoming more aware of the environment has resulted in reduced costs. He assured the Committee that, given that fiscal pressures are unceasing and relentless, costs are always a high consideration. Commissioner Sheflin added that any additional funding requirements would be brought to Committee and Council for approval.

Councillor R. Cantin said he supported the re-use and recycling aspects of the program but there needs to be improved communication between regional departments as to the availability of used furniture and supplies.

CARRIED

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION

2. WEST NEPEAN COLLECTOR

CRYSTAL BEACH/GRAHAM CREEK FLOW DIVERSION

CONTRACT ETL00-0026 - CONSULTANT APPOINTMENT

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 18 Feb 00

3. Melfa Crescent, Minaki Avenue, Melfa court and Prince of Wales Watermain Rehabilitation
Consultant Appointment

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 23 Feb 00

4. Lees avenue AND beechmont drive watermain rehabilitation - CONSULTANT APPOINTMENT

CONTRACT NO. ETL00- 3009

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 13 Mar 00

5. Billings Bridge CONSULTANT APPOINTMENT (ETL00-7011)

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 15 Mar 00

6. PURCHASE OF VARIOUS SPARE PARTS AND COMPONENTS FOR SHARPLES CENTRIFUGE UNITS, R. O. PICKARD ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE, CONTRACT WEPD00-15

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 15 Mar 00

- Environment and Transportation Commissioner’s report dated 16 Mar 00

Councillor W. Stewart wanted to know why such a small contract was selected for the streamlined consultant selection process as opposed to being tendered more widely. The Environmental and Transportation Commissioner, M. Sheflin, responded by saying Council wants to greatly increase this program, and the department has a large number of contracts for which it will need to use all the resources available in the community. Mr. Sheflin posited there will be at least 10 similar assignments throughout the year. He added that, due to the inability to hire skilled personnel, the Department will be hard-pressed to carry out the program and is already experiencing staff shortages.

Councillor R. Cantin asked if there was any indication of the number of local requests that might become part of the Region’s program through amalgamation. Mr. Sheflin said he did not have this information, but he speculated the number would be low. Councillor Cantin wondered whether regional staff should inform the Transition Board about the difficulty it will have in completing the signals installation program because of a staff shortage. The Chief Administrative Officer, M. Beckstead, indicated that the Transition Board will soon receive all the information it has requested and he expressed the belief this matter will be approved expeditiously.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS

8. Limebank Road / River Road / Armstrong Road
Environmental Assessment: consultant appointment

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 08 Mar 00

REGIONAL CLERK

9. ATTENDANCE AT 2000 FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES (FCM) CONFERENCE

- Regional Clerk’s report dated 20 Mar 00

10. TRANSITION MATTERS - SERVICE DELIVERY STRUCTURE OPTIONS

- Chief Administrative Officer’s report dated 3 Apr 00

In response to a request from the Regional Chair, B. Chiarelli, the Chief Administrative Officer, M. Beckstead, provided background information on the development of the Options presented in the report. He said there had been considerable discussion within the Chief Administrative Officers’ (CAOs) group about the services delivered by the Region and the area municipalities, particularly in human services. Ms. S. Josselyn, Director, Management and Audit Services, and Mr. D. Presse, Audit Manager, were asked to do some background work and to prepare one or two organization charts for presentation to the CAOs’ group.

Mr. Beckstead informed the Committee that the Transition Board is looking at an organization chart and intends to finalize this matter by 10 April 2000.

Ms. Josselyn presented the report. She began by saying the CAOs group identified eight criteria to guide the development of options and spent some time discussing key strategic and operational issues relevant to developing a structure for the new city. She stressed that the options represent only two of many possibilities. The criteria identified to guide the development of options were as follows;

Ms. Josselyn described Option 1, which recommends nine general managers reporting to the City Manager, with Finance, Human Resources, City Clerk and Legal (corporate services) reporting directly to the City Manager. Economic development is included in the Development Services function. Option 2 sees five general managers reporting to the City Manager. The major differences in service groupings include combining human services, fire and ambulance services: parks, libraries, arts and culture are separate and included in Community Services: economic development reports separately to the City Manager and the corporate service functions are consolidated. Other topics of discussed at length included police, hydro services, City Living and libraries and whether these should report directly to the City Manager or be considered separate and distinct and reporting to their respective Boards. Ms. Josselyn said the group concluded there are synergies which make it possible to combine services within major portfolios and efficiencies and savings will be achieved through the amalgamation process. In addition, there should be four or five broad operating areas and an executive management team comprising from 6 to 10 members, depending on the option chosen. The role of the general managers would be to co-ordinate across functions, to provide a strategic business focus in the decision-making and to play a major role in resource allocation across functions within the respective portfolios. The role of the Commissioner and Director positions would be to focus on service delivery and provide operations expertise.

Ms. Josselyn fleshed out the differences between Options 1 and 2 with regard to emergency services, human services including parks, recreation and culture and between programming and maintenance activities.

She described a key feature of both options which are the shared service bureaus located across the city. She noted the bureaus could provide both external services to the community and internal support services across operations. Policy direction would be centralized whereas service delivery would be more decentralized.

Councillor R. van den Ham wanted it to be clarified that Council is the body that provides policy, not senior management as indicated in the report. Ms. Josselyn said its is recognized that Council sets policy. The role of senior management would be to provide direction to staff and to follow through on implementation, leaving senior managers free to explore different options for service delivery. Councillor van den Ham said he had the impression that a lot of attention was paid to internal clients as opposed to developing a structure focusing on service to the external clients who pay the bills. Ms. Josselyn replied this was not the intention of the group. The focus was on the community, its needs and its access to services, and on how internal functions can accommodate these requirements.

Councillor M. Meilleur said her concerns relate to the fact that, in both options, too many services are under the heading of human services. She asked whether the Region intends to develop its own organization chart, since there is a lack of balance in the models brought forward. Ms. Josselyn clarified the models proposed are those of the CAOs’ group. She added that significant concerns had been expressed about the appropriate size of the mandates and the best combination of services.

Chair Chiarelli asked Mr. Beckstead to proffer his own advice to the Committee, to differentiate his views from those of the CAOs’ group. The Chief Administrative Officer said he disliked Option 1 less than he disliked Option 2. With regard to the support services which appear as Corporate Services in Option 1, Mr. Beckstead posited they will need the same access to Council they currently enjoy. Some of the new services will need to be grouped with existing, region-wide services, and the responsibility for their delivery will need to be at a very senior level. Mr. Beckstead said he liked the notion of emergency services being grouped, but there are concerns about some aspects, specifically, the need for ongoing reporting relationship of certain bodies with their Boards. Speaking to the matter of economic development and tourism, Mr. Beckstead expressed the view these should have a higher profile and report directly to the City Manager. He spoke about social housing, indicating there are still uncertainties about how this will evolve, as well as uncertainties about hydro services and the nature and reporting relationships of libraries. Mr. Beckstead said he did not believe one chart clearly demonstrated how matters will evolve. He pointed out this is not adding a layer, but rather increasing responsibility at the senior level because of the number of services being combined.

Chair Chiarelli wanted a more detailed explanation of the reporting relationship differences for corporate services in both options. Mr. Beckstead said that, in Option 1, these services would report directly to the City Manager, whereas in Option 2, they would report through a Corporate Services Commissioner/General Manager/Deputy CAO (title irrelevant). He added that he could not envision not having the Legal and Finance Departments as partners when discussing policy issues at the senior management level. Chair Chiarelli suggested that, for the purpose of the Special Meeting of Council to be held on 5 April, the Chief Administrative Officer be charged with developing other options incorporating his comments with the advice received from the Committee.

Councillor Meilleur estimated that as much as 75% of the Region’s budget is under the human services heading, and this is the area of most concern to her constituents. She expressed the view that City Living is "a nightmare in itself". There are more and more homeless people in the Region and the public want more attention paid to this problem. She agreed there is a need for other options, or in the alternative, to move some functions into other portfolios. She also liked the Chair’s suggestion of presenting this model to the Transition Board. Councillor Meilleur reiterated that City Living and social housing will need a lot of attention. She suggested the housing function be grouped with other real estate functions, and not be administered by the Social Services Department.

Councillor D. Holmes said she feels quite strongly that serving the public is the prime role of this level of government, and corporate services are there to provide support for the operating departments. With respect to Option 1, and in light of the regional CAO’s comment about the need for supportive management, she thought it might be possible to create two administrative support departments, then divide the four large operating departments into seven or eight, resulting in up to ten departments. Councillor Holmes felt this would be a reasonable size for a management team and would ensure more diverse reporting to the CAO. Chair Chiarelli said he agreed in principle with these comments, and he suggested the organization chart contain one Deputy CAO to be assigned responsibilities at the discretion of the City Manager.

Chair Chiarelli emphasized the need for accountability, visibility and transparency. He noted that, in the Human Services area, thousands of people will be accessing services, and they want to be able to identify with an individual for services such as parks and recreation. He spoke about social services as being another huge area, with a large budget and a large client contact base. Chair Chiarelli posited people have to know where the decision points are, who is accountable, and this will not be achieved by having a lot of deputy city managers. It would be much preferable to have 8 to 10 Commissioners or Department Heads who are accountable to the public and to Council. In addition, there will be more transparent accountability to the City Manager and to Council because not everything will have been filtered through deputy managers.

Chair Chiarelli felt a flatter, more visible structure will allow all the parties to deal with quick-breaking issues.

Responding to a question from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Beckstead confirmed he will present options to Council incorporating the comments made by Committee members. He added that the report from Deloitte Touche on the Human Services Departments, which will be presented to Community Services Committee on 6 April, looks at combining human services areas for administrative and support services. It also recommends a slightly different role for the Medical Officer of Health. Chair Chiarelli suggested that position titles be identified on the organization charts. He also felt very strongly that a commissioner and a separate box were needed for parks and recreation and for arts and culture. For many people in the lower tier municipalities, this is their connection to the municipality, and as such, it should be given the highest possible profile.

Councillor A. Loney said he was unsure that all the functions listed under corporate services in either option need to be handled by a department head function. He cited the example of satellite centres, noting these could be under the aegis of the City Clerk for purposes of co-ordination. Councillor Loney added that, at this stage, a flattened chart would be more appropriate and would be a good starting point for discussion and refinement.

Councillor R. Cantin emphasized the need for emergency and protective services to remain as a separate entity and be placed in a separate box. He inquired about programming in Parks and Recreation, wondering where the rest of the activities in this portfolio will be placed and how the grants now provided by local municipalities will be handled. Ms. Josselyn responded by saying all these functions would be handled within the community services group described in Option 2. Councillor Holmes put forward the view the grants provided by the Region for certain cultural activities should come under economic development and tourism whereas the grants now provided by the local municipalities should be placed under Community Services, as per Option 2.

Chair Chiarelli asked that consideration be given to a resolution designating three or four people who, immediately following the Council meeting of 5 April, and along with the Chief Administrative Officer, will request a meeting with the Transition Board to present Council’s options.

The Committee then directed that the Chief Administrative Officer develop, for consideration at the Special Council meeting of 5 April 2000, Service Delivery Structure Options which include the suggestions made by the Committee.

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

- Chair, Green Steering Committee memorandum dated 28 Mar 00

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

NEXT MEETING

18 April 2000

____________________________ ______________________________

A/CO-ORDINATOR CHAIR