Mr. G. Sharpe stated the problem is that many motorists seem to think the posted speed limits do not apply to them. He believed there are too few resources to deal with this worsening problem. He maintained the law is there to be obeyed. He felt the unfortunate reality is the majority of speeders believe they are not going to get caught. He stated nine officers are dedicated to traffic enforcement and they only work weekdays from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.. He maintained that from 5:00 p.m. Friday until 7:00 a.m. Monday, there is virtually no dedicated enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act. He believed police officers show up at a particular location as a direct result of complaints and on those occasions, the enforcement team does an excellent job, tickets are issued and cars slow down. Unfortunately, as soon as the police depart, the problem returns.

Mr. Sharpe wondered what can be done about the problem. He felt the Police Service needs to present to the community, as forcefully as necessary and using all mediums possible, that the only way streets are going to be safe is if individuals believe they may be apprehended. He believed this would require the sort of profile that occurred a few years ago regarding drinking and driving. He believed what is needed to deal with the problem is a proactive policy, within the Police Service, of encouraging every officer to pay more attention to speeding. He stressed the importance of getting the message across to motorists that when driving above the posted speed limit, they will not only be confronted by the dedicated traffic enforcement of 9 or 12 officers but by the entire police force. He also felt some arrangements should be made with the RCMP and the OPP. He suggested a round-table forum would be beneficial as it would give all interested parties an opportunity to deal with the issue.

Mr. Sharpe also indicated he has observed an increase in vehicles tearing through amber lights and even many racing through red lights. He maintained this too has become a serious problem. He believed the Board has a responsibility to give direct to the Police Service to enable changes in regard to this matter.

Chief Ford stated emphatically that traffic enforcement is a high priority of the Police Service. He recalled that when the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service (OCRPS) took over policing in the Township of Cumberland, 2,000 speeding tickets were issued. As for working in conjunction with the RCMP, the Board has passed a resolution to give special constable status to RCMP officers working in the Ottawa-Carleton area so that they can enforce the Highway Traffic Act. Chief Ford indicated a number of initiatives have been undertaken to address the issue of traffic enforcement in Ottawa-Carleton. He re-iterated it is, and will continue to be, a high priority for the Police Service.

He believed that technology is the answer to this problem. Photo-radar and red-light cameras would allow the Police Service to enforce the Highway Traffic Act in ways it currently can not. The technology was effective when it was tested in the province of Ontario and Chief Ford maintained it has the ability to reduce speed limits. During testing, photo-radar reduced average speeds on Highway 401 to within 8 or 9 kilometers of the posted limits. He also maintained red-light cameras are the most effective and efficient way to address the problem of red-light running.

Member Boudreau asked staff to comment on Mr. Sharpe’s information with regard to traffic enforcement operating only five days a week between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Deputy Chief Mackie explained that in fact there are 42 officers dedicated specifically to traffic duties within the present complement. Their duties involve enforcement, collision investigation, traffic education and in-house training programs. The officers work day shifts from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; afternoon shifts from noon to 8:00 p.m.; and weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. In addition, every patrol officer issues traffic and moving violations. Superintendent Hill explained that the Police Service has de-centralized its traffic enforcement so these sections operate out of each of the East, West and Central divisions, therefore the figures quoted by Mr. Sharpe could apply to one particular division, if it was considered in isolation of the others.

Councillor Legendre indicated an ad hoc meeting has been held to start discussions around this issue. Participants included the Regional Police Service, Regional Councillors, members of the Transportation Committee as well as staff from the Region’s Health and Transportation Departments. He noted the Health Department views this as health related in the sense that if you reduce accidents, you reduce injuries. He believed a public forum, as suggested by Mr. Sharpe, is likely to come as a result of this concerted effort.

Chief Ford stated that at every community meeting staff attend, the issue of traffic enforcement is raised. He maintained it is an issue of concern to the community and it can not be treated lightly. With regard to the ad hoc meeting referenced by Councillor Legendre, Chief Ford confirmed staff from the Police Service participated and Superintendent Hill will continue to meet with the Health Department on this matter. The Chief expressed support for a public forum stating staff of the Police Service are willing to participate and discuss the issues.

Superintendent Hill expressed excitement about the project because the three main departments are involved plus a political element. He explained the Police Service, the Health Department and the Transportation Department have been meeting on an ad hoc basis for the past year and together, they have released safety information to residents of Ottawa-Carleton, the most recent being the speed wagon. He hoped this partnership would be very fruitful in the future.

Mr. T. Bell, President, Skyline-Orchard Park Community Association, felt that over the past decade, the quality of driving and respect for both formal driving laws and common courtesy has deteriorated. In addition to drivers ignoring turn signals, failing to yield the right-of-way, and short-cutting through neighborhoods, he believed more and more motorists are speeding and running red lights. He noted such motorists have little or no concern for their own safety let alone that of other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and residents. He maintained measures such as increased signage, automated signals and traffic calming are not able to control the problem without the presence of enforcement.

He indicated over the past 18 months, the City of Nepean, in conjunction with the OCRPS, launched a neighborhood speed watch program. The purpose of the program was two-fold: to educate drivers as to their speed by the use of a radar and display board; and to enforce the posted speed limits through the participation of attending officers. He stated that in the past 18 months, the police have failed to attend any of these speed watch programs and as a result, the education of drivers is failing since there is no enforcement to back it up. He stated that in July and August, his community ran a total of eight speed watches on high-volume, high-speed internal roads and discovered that approximately 85% of motorists were traveling at more than 10 kilometers over the posted limits with some vehicles exceeding 20 kilometers over the limit despite advance notification of the date and location of each event.

Mr. Bell believed that in the case of red-light runners, the issue is at least as important as those drivers who are simply speeding, since the likelihood of multi-vehicle and/or pedestrian collisions is greater at intersections. He believed the recent announcement to increase fines for red-light running to $180 per incident will have little effect without enforcement.

He noted the passage of Bill 108 in June of this year allows for fines collected under the provincial offenses act to remain in the region, as soon as the eastern court region agrees to participate in the pilot project. This would see virtually 95% of all revenue from fines remain in the region which could be used to offset the cost of policing.

Mr. Bell maintained there are two things that need to be done to combat reckless speeding and red-light running driving: launch a series of one-week, zero tolerance programs where every officer is instructed to lay a charge if they see a motorist in violation of the Highway Traffic Act or municipal offenses; and the purchase and installation of red-light cameras to identify and charge those drivers putting lives at risk by running red lights. With respect to the zero-tolerance programs, he stressed the importance of encouraging police officers to lead by example. He indicated the Metro Toronto Police Service recently ran a one-week zero tolerance program and reportedly issued more than 15,000 tickets at an average of $52 per infraction. He said he had recently spoken with a manufacturer and a supplier of red-light cameras and was told that many municipalities in Ontario are interested in purchasing not only complete camera and housing units, but also additional housing units so that these boxes can be installed at various intersections around the city and the cameras simply moved from location to location as traffic and infractions warrant.

Vice Chair Kreling indicated the Police Service Board, the Regional Transportation Committee and Regional Council have on a number of occasions requested the province to permit the use of red-light cameras in Ottawa-Carleton. To date, the province has not given the approval and legislation to allow for those installations. He stressed the need for the province to pass the appropriate legislation to allow for the use of this technology. He recalled that type of lobbying of the province has been on-going for approximately two years. Mr. Bell acknowledged there are a lot of tie ups with regard to legislation. He believed municipal representatives have been putting an inordinate amount of pressure on Queens’ Park in this regard and he hoped appropriate action would be taken. With respect to the retention of fines, Vice Chair Kreling acknowledged that is conditional on court participation and indicated that too is being pursued.

Vice Chair Kreling wondered if staff could comment on Mr. Bell’s point with regard to officers not participating in the speed watch programs initiated by communities in Nepean. Superintendent Moyle stated he was unaware until recently that there was an expectation for officers from West Division to participate. He believed the intent was for an officer to attend and to lay charges as a result of the observations. He indicated an attending officer would have to use the Police Services’ certified equipment if charges were to be laid. However he expressed a willingness to enter into discussion with community groups or representatives of the city of Nepean in this regard.

Sergeant T. Alderson indicated members of the police service participated in the launch of the speed watch program. He confirmed there are technical problems involved in having officers attend on a regular basis though he has recommended the program to many people who have called in with concerns about speeding. He noted some of the speed watch programs were scheduled for times that were after the West Division Traffic Enforcement’s regular operating hours. He saw the Police Service’s role as one of follow-up enforcement after the fact because of the technical problems described by Superintendent Moyle. His understanding was that speed watch was an awareness program and he strongly supported and recommended it in that capacity.

Superintendent Moyle added that in the past two years, the OCRPS has set aside funds to upgrade and increase its traffic enforcement equipment and hopes to spend an equivalent amount in 1999.

With regard to notification and timing of the speed watch programs, Mr. Bell believed notices had been sent to the Greenbank Road division a minimum of two days in advance of each occurrence and the programs always take place no later than 6:00 p.m. and generally do not run on weekends. He also noted the brochures circulated by the City of Nepean indicate that it is an education and enforcement program. With respect to the technical aspects related to enforcement, it was requested that when officers attend, they bring their own equipment. He re-iterated there has unfortunately been no police participation to-date but should participation come now, it would be welcomed.

Chief Ford provided some statistical information with respect to traffic enforcement. In 1997, the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service issued 36,704 provincial offenses, of which 8,449 were speeding and 1,125 were red-light violations. The number of reportable collisions decreased significantly, from 17,000 in 1993 to 12,496 in 1997 and traffic injuries decreased from 4,405 to 2,962 for that same period. Chief Ford explained this trend is apparent not only in Ottawa-Carleton, but across the country.

Mr. C. Dungey believed the Police Service will never have enough human resources to deal with these problems. He maintained most drivers behave only in the presence of some form of enforcement, whether it be an officer, a radar or a camera. He indicated that at the highway exit to enter into Brantford, a permanent sign has been erected to advise travelers of their speed and people behave on that corner. They know the sign is there and they don’t speed. He did not understand the opposition to the use of cameras for traffic and red-light enforcement. He noted surveillance cameras are being erected everywhere. Mr. Dungey firmly believed technology is the answer to these problems and he encouraged anyone who is interested in the matter to make it their single plank during the next election to get the message to the provincial government that the citizens of Ontario need the legislation to use this technology. He indicated he would rather have officers responding to calls then enforcing traffic laws when cameras can do the latter.

Ms. A. Kempster felt traffic is a major problem and that there are no reasons for such things as speeding on residential streets, blocking intersections and running red-lights. She believed communities are looking for traffic calming measures because enforcement has been insufficient. She maintained efficient enforcement can not be achieved without the use of technology.

Mr. C. Bradshaw, Ottawalk, indicated his organization would like to see an end to turns on red lights, particularly in the older neighborhoods where there are a lot of pedestrians walking and many driveways near intersections. He recognized that there is a great deal of tension on the roads and many drivers attempt to intimidate other drivers and pedestrians. He believed people are of the attitude that they will be given grace for the minor offenses and only charged for major ones and this is leading to a lack of respect for the law and the rights of others. He maintained pedestrians are the most vulnerable group of travelers on our streets. He stated his organization is concerned that the statistics showing reductions in accidents involving pedestrians in fact reflect a reduction in walking. He noted it is part of the Region’s Official Plan to promote walking ahead of all other modes of transportation. He maintained that to preserve the quality of life for those who don’t have access to a car, it is imperative to ensure Ottawa-Carleton is a safe and secure environment for walking.

Mr. H. Carter noted that the Region recently installed a left-turn signal at the intersection nearest his home. He indicated that as a result, he no longer feels safe crossing there. He maintained the Region has a responsibility to ensure his safety when crossing such intersections.

Ms. P. Steenberg, Chair, Traffic Committee of the Glebe Community Association, indicated that as part of the Glebe traffic committee’s decision to undertake a traffic review, a meeting was held at which citizens identified the issues they felt were the most important. A large portion of those issues were related to either speeding or other traffic violations. She also noted many were related to the intersection at Bronson and Fifth where cars routinely run red lights. She maintained that 70 to 90% of the traffic calming measures being implemented in neighborhoods across the Region would not be necessary if drivers simply obeyed the law. Ms. Steenberg strongly supported the use of red-light cameras and photo-radars and the ability to retain revenues to assist the police in providing adequate enforcement.

Mr. D. Gladstone, Centre-Town Citizens Community Association, noted he has never seen a motorist pulled over for infringing on the safety of a pedestrian. He believed motorists in the Ottawa area have more respect for parking restrictions than traffic laws. He maintained that if the OCRPS enforced traffic laws with as much vigor as the City of Ottawa enforced parking restrictions, motorists’ attitudes would quickly change.

Councillor Legendre supported greater enforcement of traffic laws. He believed there is a need in Ottawa-Carleton to change the existing culture surrounding driving. He maintained that culture does not exist in the same way everywhere in Canada. He recalled that when he was in Calgary some years ago, there was an attitude among drivers that the pedestrian was king. A pedestrian had only to step off a curb for traffic to stop. That attitude errs on the side of safety because a motorist is surrounded and protected by his vehicle whereas a pedestrian or cyclist has no such protection. He believed there is a lot of work to be done in Ottawa-Carleton. Some of it has to do with changing the culture and will therefore require an education campaign as well as more enforcement and the use of technology.

Chair Vice believed everyone present was in agreement that disregard for traffic laws is a problem. Though he did not expect it to be easy, he felt everyone should rise to the occasion and attempt to change the culture. He did not believe the Police Service could do it alone. He re-iterated the importance of obtaining and using the technology available and encouraged staff to work with community groups to make the streets safer for everyone.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this for discussion.

2. REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP:

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY FUNDRAISER

- Board Secretary’s report dated 16 September 1998 and attached

letters from the Elizabeth Fry Society dated 11 and 15 September 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board approve a donation of $1,500 to sponsor the Elizabeth Fry Society’s Annual Fundraising Gala, to be held on 20 October 1998 in Ottawa, and that the Board’s tickets be returned to organizers to distribute.

Chief Ford declared a conflict and absented himself from discussions on this item because he is related to someone who works for Gervais.

Mr. K. Chaykowski Jr., Kornell’s Towing and Recovery, indicated previous towing contracts, awarded by the former Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester Police Boards had been extended as per their extension provisions. The provisions were contingent on factors such as satisfactory performance and prices. He noted the new contract awarded by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board also contains a similar extension provision. Mr. Chaykowski stated he and his colleagues expected this contract would also be extended for the two subsequent terms providing all the terms were met and no breaches occurred. He explained that Kornell Towing has expanded operations as a direct result of the awarding of the contract. The firm has purchased 5 additional service vehicles, hired an additional five full-time and three part-time drivers as well as two more office and pound staff. He also indicated that as a result of a letter received in June from Mr. P. Andrews requesting an extension to their contract, the firm has invested time and money in setting up and leasing a pound facility within the City of Kanata in preparation for the west end expansion. He noted this is a considerable financial commitment which, at this time, can not be reversed.

Mr. Chaykowski recalled his shock upon receiving a subsequent letter from Mr. Andrews stating a reversal of the extension. He wondered why his firm, and those of his colleagues, were not kept abreast of the unfolding circumstances leading up to this decision. He also wondered why they were not informed of the concerns brought forward by other parties and given an opportunity to respond to them. He questioned the membership and mandate of the steering committee involved in reviewing the process. He inquired about the rural towers who have made presentations to the Board, the firms they represent and the number of trucks they represent. With regard to the formation of a towing association, Mr. Chaykowski was not aware such an association existed and stated they do not represent his firm. He re-iterated he and his colleagues have complied with all the requirements of their contracts and he asked the Board to reconsider its decision to re-tender.

Mr. J. Gervais, Gervais Towing, stated his firm shares the concerns expressed by Mr. Chaykowski and they too have invested a great deal of time and money into expanding their operation as a result of being awarded the contract. He listed the positive aspects of their firm in that they have one-stop facilities, as requested by the Police Service; they are centrally located, making their site convenient for consumers and insurance companies; and they have the capacity to tow and store all sizes of vehicles. He maintained that he and his colleagues have done nothing but adhere to their contracts and no complaints have been received against them by the Police Service. In conclusion, he asked the Board to reconsider its decision to re-tender stating he and his colleagues would be pleased to do the towing for the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service for the next two years.

Chair Vice thanked Mr. Chaykowski and Mr. Gervais for their presentations. He confirmed the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board has heard from rural towers who have expressed the desire to be included in the towing contract and tendering process. However, although there has been some discussion on the matter, the Board has not made the decision to re-tender the towing contracts.

Mr. Chaykowski felt the spirit of the contract had not been honored. He believed the tender document should be straight-forward and indicate whether or not there is an intent to renew. Chair Vice believed the tender was very clear in that respect. D. White, Solicitor, confirmed the contract contains a specific term with two optional 1-year renewals based on mutual agreement of the parties. In response to a question from Councillor Legendre, Mr. White confirmed that no cause is needed for non-renewal of the contract.

Councillor Legendre requested clarification on the two letters referenced by the delegations. Superintendent L. Hill explained the first letter was sent as a result of a direction he gave to proceed. He based this on advice he received from staff who were also under the impression that the contract would be extended. As time when on, it became clear this was not the expressed direction of the Board and therefore he directed a letter to be sent out advising that at the end of this contract term the Police Service would be seeking changes to the contract and in effect re-tendering.

Chair Vice stressed the Board has not received complaints against the firms and the quality of service is not at issue.

Mr. Gervais questioned why the Police Service would re-initiate the tendering process rather than making amendments to the existing contracts. Chair Vice re-iterated the decision has not yet been made to re-tender the contracts. He explained the Board has to deal with the staff report on its agenda.

Mr. Gervais wondered if he and his colleagues would be privy to information pertaining to the membership of the steering committee. Chair Vice saw no reason why the larger towing services would not be represented on the steering committee.

Member Boudreau believed the confusion stemmed from the number of times the Board has been approached by rural towers. She indicated they put forward a very good case: they are losing their livelihood and there have been a lot of changes with the expansions into rural areas. The rural towers have asked the Board to revisit the entire situation and the Board has agreed to look into their concerns. With respect to the towing association, she believed it was felt that for the rural towers to have sufficient facilities to compete, an association would have to be formed. Superintendent L. Hill confirmed this was also his understanding of the towing association.

Mr. Gervais indicated that Gervais Towing placed recruitment ads in the local papers at the time of the awarding of the current contract and as a result, hired tow operators from the rural areas. He maintained those who chose not to join forces did so on their own volition.

Mr. Chaykowski indicated he is in the process of negotiating with two rural towers from West Carleton and Rideau Townships to work with Kornell Towing. He explained for the most part, a commission is rendered to the company but the partnership allows the towers to eliminate their current overhead costs. He stated, such a partnership would provide them with a cost-neutral opportunity to continue in the towing industry. He noted, however, that rural towers charge two, three and in some cases, four times the Police Service’s negotiated flat-rates. In light of that, he felt the Service has tendered a very cost-effective document for the general public.

Vice Chair Kreling asked for clarification on the three options listed on page 3 of the Chief’s report dated 25 September 1998. Superintendent. Hill explained option "A" assumed the specifications of the existing contract were valid and acceptable with some slight modifications. He noted staff from the Region’s Supply Management Division have advised that "A" and "B" are essentially the same as both involve a re-tender. However option "A" calls for a re-tender of the contract with only slight modifications in the specifications whereas "B" entails starting over with a clean slate.

With respect to the current contract, Vice Chair Kreling wondered if staff were aware of any problems with the specifications and content of the tender. Superintendent Hill acknowledged there were some problems but they were rather minor when considering the contract as a whole.

In response to questions from Vice Chair Kreling with regard to the steering committee, Superintendent Hill explained its composition would be similar to what it was for the first contract with the addition of a representative from the Insurance Brokers’ Association and a member of the Police Services Board. He maintained staff are open to suggestions on the matter. In response to comments from Vice Chair Kreling with respect to the possibility of towers being represented on the steering committee and the possible conflicts that would entail, Superintendent Hill recalled the steering committee in the past contract was used as a selection committee. In that case, he believed the towers’ participation would create a conflict of interest. However, if the steering committee is used as a body to oversee the formation or the modification of the contract and a sub-committee of it was struck to act as a selection committee, the potential for conflict would be lessened. He felt the issue would be the selection of representatives from the industry. He believed the candidate would have to be selected by his peers. He recalled the towing industry was consulted in the formation of the current contract, though they were not involved with the steering committee. Sergeant R. Lavigne added staff are in contact with towing firms on a daily basis in an effort to obtain advice and improve the process.

Vice Chair Kreling recalled the previous presentations by towing firms and noted that as critical as the current contract holders are of the Board considering a re-tendering of this contract, so are the rural towers critical if the Board does not re-tender. In order for the Board to make an informed decision, he felt it would be beneficial to establish the review committee, go through a consultation process with the towers, and receive a report from the committee on the information gathered.

Member Boudreau agreed with Vice Chair Kreling and suggested a steering committee be struck and that significant consultation take place as quickly as possible. She did not feel a Board member should sit on the steering committee as this is an operational function and one member can not make decisions on behalf of the Board. She suggested there may be other valid segments of society that should be involved though. She recalled hearing from people in the towing industry that their calls are not being returned and that there is a lack of communication. Though she appreciated that there are two sides to every story, she maintained issues can become much more inflamed when communication breaks down. She therefore asked that staff consult with all the parties and ensure that those involved are made to feel part of the process.

Councillor Legendre also supported a re-examination. He indicated he would like very clear objectives of what the public interest is in having such a contract. It is not to ensure the livelihood of anybody. He also wanted some clarifications on circumstances in which the Police Service is the client of the towing company and circumstances where the client is the owner of the vehicle. He also wanted a clearer delineation of responsibilities under the various circumstances. He believed greater clarity on these issues would help the Board with its decision.

Member Baskerville did not support having a member of the Board sit on the steering committee because he believed there is a tendency for the Board to feel compelled to support whatever recommendations come forward. He supported a Request for Proposal process as opposed to cost-tendering and felt the outcome of the first round produced a satisfactory result.

With respect to the various options listed in the report, Member Baskerville believed the essential difference between options "A" and "B" is the time required. If the timing was such that the process couldn’t be completed by the end of this calendar year, he wondered if the parties involved could, by consent, agree to extend the current contract for a short period of time. D. White, Solicitor, recalled that before the current contract was tendered, that is exactly the process the Board followed to ensure the towing services were in place until the request for proposal was issued and the proposals evaluated. He added such a scenario is always subject to mutual agreement. Superintendent Hill indicated that is also the recommendation he received from the Region’s Supply Management Division.

Member Baskerville echoed Councillor Legendre’s comments in that the need for a contract is to protect the interest of two parties; the Police Service and the public. The Police Service interests are law enforcement and public safety. The public interest is to protect vehicle owners from predatory activities and to provide them access to a service at a reasonable cost. He believed the only aspect that has changed significantly is the area to be served. Since the original Request for Proposal the Regional Police Service has taken over jurisdictions where other towing companies operated under an OPP contract or arrangement. After receiving confirmation from Superintendent Hill with respect to the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the current contract, Member Baskerville supported having the steering committee review it and consider a modified RFP based on the original tender. He emphasized that the Police Service interest and the public interest have to be paramount in this process.

Chair Vice suggested the first order of business should be to discuss, with the current contract holders, whether an extension is necessary and if so, whether it would be possible. In that regard, he wondered whether staff had any indication as to the time that might be required to complete the process and if the contract could be extended for three or six months rather than a full year. Superintendent Hill indicated it will take somewhat longer than three months from beginning to end. Chair Vice asked Superintendent Hill to prepare a report for the October Board meeting outlining the estimated time required to complete the process and providing an indication of the length of extension required.

Vice Chair Kreling suggested a motion to approve part one of the recommendation and to delete part two dealing with the appointment of a Board member to the steering committee. He felt the motion would formalize the direction to staff to convene the review committee, commence with the consultation process and enter into discussions with the current contract holders for extensions, if deemed necessary. He asked that staff report back on all of it at the next Board meeting.

Move by H. Kreling

4. COMPLAINTS REPORT -

PART V, POLICE SERVICES ACT (JULY AND AUGUST 1998)

- Director General’s report dated 22 September 1998

Ms. D. Frazer, Director of Finance, stated the staff report includes the Regional Council approved timetable, to which the Board must conform. She explained the objective of the timetable is to review and adopt all Regional budgets before year-end so that the new fiscal year can begin with an approved budget in place. She noted the 12 November date for tabling of draft budget estimates at Regional Council is conditional on the Region receiving a response from the provincial government on the m-core funding that was an intrical part of the 1998 budget. Approximately $43M was provided by the province to help close the gap in the provincial downloading formula and these funds are critical in the determination of the over-all budget and mill-rate. She added if that information is not received by the end of October, it will be impossible to complete the budget reviews by the end of the year.

Member Baskerville expressed concern that the report does not respect the independence of the Board, and that the timetable presumes that the draft estimates would have had the Board’s concurrence. He maintained it is the responsibility of the Board to decide whether or not there will be reductions in service levels, not a sub-committee of Regional Council and he did not believe it would be acceptable to the public to have a reduction in police services. He objected to the timetable presented in the report because based on it, the Police Service Draft Budget estimates would be tabled at Regional Council on 12 November and would therefore be in the public domain prior to the Board having reviewed it. He wondered if the timetable could be amended to allow the Board an opportunity to receive the draft estimates before they are made public.

Vice Chair Kreling believed the issues raised by Member Baskerville, and by Member Buckingham in her written comments, identifies the type of dilemmas created by provincial legislation as it pertains to municipalities’ dealings with agencies or boards. The legislation puts an onus on the municipal council to do certain things with respect to its budget process and it also puts a very clear onus on the Police Services Board to do certain things with its budget before it becomes finalized. He stressed the importance of finding a means of bringing two streams together in a way that is not adversarial and that reflects the best efforts of both the Board and Council. He stressed that when draft budgets are tabled with Regional Council, they are draft estimates and they are out in the public without the benefit of the standing committees having had an opportunity to decipher and debate them. In that draft stage, those budgets represent the best efforts of staff within the various departments. Similarly, the draft estimates of the Police Service’s budget reflects the best efforts of the Chief and senior staff.

Vice Chair Kreling suggested that, in order to maintain the type of protocol suggested by members Buckingham and Baskerville, police services board members be invited to attend the 12 November Regional Council meeting so that they may receive the draft estimates at the same time as members of Regional Council.

Member Boudreau noted section 39 of the Police Services Act states "the board shall submit operating and capital estimates to council". Though she appreciated the importance of the figures remaining confidential, she felt the Board should at least have an opportunity to see the estimates prior to their tabling with Regional Council. She suggested the Board have an in-camera briefing to receive the draft estimates.

Councillor Legendre expressed support for Vice Chair Kreling’s suggestion of a simultaneous tabling of the draft estimates. He felt the Board, like the budget sub-committee, should draft some recommendations to provide staff with some direction in the preparation of the draft estimates. He believed some direction is required and maintained it is within the Board’s purview.

Chair Vice agreed with Member Boudreau’s comments and recommended arrangements be made for the Board to receive the Police Service’s draft estimates in advance of Regional Council. He suggested the Board meet one day prior to the tabling of the draft estimates with Regional Council.

With respect to Member Boudreau’s proposal, Vice Chair Kreling stated the draft budget can not be received in-camera. He maintained a joint tabling of the budgets would provide an opportunity for both the Board and Regional Council to fulfill their legislative responsibilities.

Referencing Regional Council’s budget sub-committee’s direction with regard to the net taxation requirement, Member Baskerville wondered how prominently this factored into staff’s review and preparation of their budget estimates.

Chief Ford explained the Police Service can not develop its budget in isolation of the Regional Finance Department and therefore, such directions put the Service in a very difficult position. Though staff appreciate the authority the Board holds over the Police Service budget, they also have to respect the expectations that Regional Council place on the bottom-line.

Referring to Councillor Legendre’s comments with respect to budget targets for the Police Service, Mr. Kanellakos indicated it has always been a dilemma for staff of the Police Service. The dilemma stems from the fact that staff know that council, or in this case the sub-committee of council, is establishing budget guidelines for all operating departments by which the board does not have to abide. From staff’s perspective, some kind of starting point is needed in order to review budgets internally. He maintained staff always keep in mind what they believe Council will present as a budget envelope though it is recognized that the Board does not have to accept it. Accordingly staff bring forward estimates they believe will meet their requirements to provide the Police Service with the proper staff, equipment and facilities needed.

With respect to the dates put forward, Mr. Kanellakos indicated the Board has to abide by Regional Council’s budget timetable though staff will have to work with very tight timelines in order to have documents prepared for the 12 November tabling. He re-iterated his belief that a simultaneous tabling with Regional Council and the Police Services Board would not contravene section 39 of the Police Services Act. However if it is the Board’s desire, staff would be happy to provide a high-level briefing without the supporting documentation.

Member Baskerville supported the suggestion of a high-level briefing in advance of the 12 November tabling with Regional Council. He was concerned that once the documents have been tabled with Council and are in the public domain, the Board would be unable to increase the net requirement should they feel the need. He hoped for a special meeting to receive the draft estimates and to hear the Chief’s concerns, should he have any, with respect to potential shortfalls in the budget estimates. He maintained the Board needs such information in order to approve, in principle, the budget estimates before they go forward to Council.

Chair Vice noted that aside from the issue of tabling the estimates, the Board’s Executive Director has identified potential problems with some of the other review dates proposed. He believed she had submitted some alternative dates to the Board and staff. Staff expressed a willingness to work with the new dates.

Moved by H. Kreling

LOST

YEAS: H. Kreling, J. Legendre .... 2

NAYS: G. Baskerville, A. Boudreau, P. Vice .... 3

Councillor Legendre proposed a motion that would put the Board in receipt of the Police Service’s estimates one hour prior to tabling with regional council. He felt this would avoid any media stories being generated out of the context of the entire regional budget, yet it would allow the board to obtain its budget before it is tabled with Council.

Member Boudreau expressed support for that suggestion. She felt the Board should at least have some idea of what estimates are being put forward.

Member Baskerville felt the Board must maintain it’s independence and believed Councillor Legendre’s suggestion would achieve that. He believed it appropriate for the Board to have an early meeting on 12 November to receive the budget from staff, ask questions, and then to accept, in principle, those drafts before they are tabled with Regional Council.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Chair Vice noted Councillor Legendre had drafted a motion with regard to the 1999 budget principles established by the budget sub-committee, directing Police Service staff to prepare a draft budget which requires no net taxation requirement over the 1998 levels other than the provisions for increases associated with the final year of OPP phase-in costs.

Vice Chair Kreling proposed a friendly amendment to the wording of the motion. He suggested the wording reflect that of the recommendations from the budget sub-committee with respect to the budget "aiming" for no additional taxation rather than requiring no additional taxation.

Chair Vice asked staff whether they felt that to aim for no additional taxation was a realistic target. Mr. Kanellakos noted the projection from last year’s budget for an increase of $8.5M in 1999 and indicated more than half of that is attributable to compensation. Though he respected Regional Council’s goals in setting that direction, he indicated that without a significant revenue source or some sort of outside assistance, staff could not meet that objective. He was concerned that if the Board establishes that direction without control over a revenue source it could create a situation which the Board may not be willing to accept later.

Moved by Councillor Legendre,

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board request staff to prepare a Draft Budget for 1999 which aims for no net additional taxation requirement over the 1998 levels, other than provision for increases associated with the final year of OPP phase-in costs.

CARRIED

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board:

CARRIED as amended

6. 1998 SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT

- Director General’s report dated 22 September 1998

Member Baskerville questioned the probability of ice storm costs being recovered. Ms. Frazer believed the probability of that occurring was very high. She explained that provincial and federal funding will be available to cover most of the ice storm costs and Regional staff are very confident that the OCRPS costs will be covered.

Member Baskerville noted the decision to pay the OMERS premium into a reserve fund is based on the assumption that OMERS is likely to offer a further package of enhanced retirement options. He felt the Board needs to provide input to OMERS, noting there is a very serious concern amongst other boards in the province that this strategy could lead to significant cost increases for all police boards. He stressed the importance of obtaining information about the OMERS process so that if they introduce such a proposal, it is phased-in gradually, otherwise the impact could be catastrophic. The details have to be known and this concern has to be passed to OMERS.

With respect to "significant variances", Member Baskerville noted the report states the revenue trend for alarm registration fee and false alarm billings is very strong. He wondered whether this reflects actual receipts or accounts receivable that may or may not be paid. Mr. Frazer reported these are cash receipts, not invoices out for payment.

With respect to the reported reductions in monitoring projects related to the Criminal Intelligence Service, Member Baskerville was concerned that this reflected a critical reduction in service levels. Ms. Frazer explained the monitoring project relates to wire-tapping and goes hand in hand with criminal activity and surveillance projects so when one activity drops the other follows with it. She believed this has come about as a result of this year’s level of activity and not as a result of a reduction in the level of service. Chief Ford added, the Service has not directed the Criminal Investigation staff to not undertake wire-tap, in fact this use of technology is encouraged whenever it is necessary. He noted however, the service has asked staff to be cognizant of the over-time issue and to be very prudent in the amount of over-time that is used in all areas of the Service. He maintained this reduction is a direct result of a lower level of a certain type of crime.

Member Baskerville noted that under "Fiscal Account" there is mention of the number of sworn officer retirements being lower than planned. He wondered if the Service is still planning for some future liabilities in this area. Ms. Frazer explained that any surplus at year end would be set aside in a vested sick leave retirement reserve fund to cover off some of the peaks and valleys that occur in retirement trends. With respect to the billing situation with the City of Ottawa, staff have estimated the budget based on historical billing levels. She noted last year, by year end, the City of Ottawa had not billed the Service for 1997 and to-date, they have not billed for 1997 or for 1998. She indicated there is some confusion as to what amounts are owing but staff have taken the precaution of setting aside that money lest the bills come in. In response to a further question from Member Baskerville, Ms. Frazer indicated staff are pursuing the matter with City of Ottawa staff and through the Region’s representative sitting on the COSF Board. She noted that should staff feel they are not accomplishing anything by pursuing those avenues, the Board’s support would be sought.

Member Baskerville noted the variance for banked over-time and court time cash-in and wondered if this is a liability item that should be addressed in the long-term by some sort of reserve fund. Ms. Frazer explained that from an accounting perspective, this is not treated as a liability. These are funds the Police Service owes its members, should they decide to cash-in. She noted that should the Service end the year in a surplus position, staff would recommend putting those funds in a reserve because there are funds built up from previous years. The amount shown in the report is roughly a 1/3 cash in of the banks that exist. She felt it would be a good strategy to have a reserve fund to help even out the cash-in. Member Baskerville explained that from the perspective of the negotiating committee, this is a concern. If there is an accumulation then the Service could be faced with an unanticipated demand for funds in 1999 or in 2000. He maintained part of the budget process is identifying long-term accumulated costs.

Councillor Legendre praised the quality of the staff report. With regard to revenues for false alarms, he believed this funding stream would be moved into the Region’s general revenues in the coming year or two. Ms. Frazer explained this revenue stream is not part of the provincial offenses notice revenue. The false alarm by-law revenue is within the Board’s domain and will remain as such. Mr. Kanellakos further explained the false alarm by-law is a by-law of the Board and is essentially a cost-recovery exercise, it therefore is not part of the provincial offenses notices and there is no intention to move the alarm revenue outside of the Board’s purview. Councillor Legendre indicated he would be bringing this issue forward when the provincial offenses issue gets settled because he viewed it as a fundamental conflict.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

7. BOARD MEETINGS IN COMMUNITIES: REVISED SCHEDULE

- Board Secretary’s report dated 16 September 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive for information the revised schedule of community meetings for 1998-2000 outlined in this report.

RECEIVED

8. TITLE CHANGE FOR SECRETARY TO THE BOARD

- Board Chair’s report dated 17 September 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board approve that the title "Board Secretary" be changed to "Executive Director" effective immediately.

CARRIED

9. Update on Adequacy Standards

- verbal report from the Chief of Police

Deputy Chief Mackie reported the Deputy Minister had indicated to him that the legislation has gone to the ministers and standing committee and will be passed late this year or in early January. He noted there will be a two year period for police services to comply with the adequacy standards.

Member Baskerville recalled hearing that the standards had been considerably reduced and wondered if Deputy Chief Mackie had an indication of the changes from the draft tabled last July. Deputy Chief Mackie recalled the Deputy Minister indicated they were trying to incorporate some of the quality assurance issues into the standards but he gave no indication that there were significant changes from the last draft that went to the Minister.

Member Baskerville expressed concern that the Boards who have starting drafting policies might see their workloads increase dramatically if there are significant changes to the standards.

RECEIVED

10. PROVINCIAL PROPOSAL FOR NON-POLICE

PERSONNEL TO ENFORCE RED-LIGHT RUNNING

(deferred from 14 September 1998 meeting)

- Board Secretary’s report dated 10 September 1998

Based on the discussion surrounding the first agenda item (Lack of Traffic Enforcement), Member Baskerville felt there were many ramifications to this proposal that impact on public safety and on how police officers work. He thought anything of this nature would require significant changes to legislation and therefore can not be approached lightly. He suggested that such changes would require working groups from police associations, the police executives and perhaps police boards along with municipalities. He maintained that stopping moving vehicles should be done by sworn officers and to do otherwise would entail all sorts of risks. He expressed some concern that the Region’s Transportation Committee had become involved in this issue without consultation with the Police Service or the board.

Vice Chair Kreling explained this was not exactly a policing issue. Under this proposal, the enforcement personnel would not report to the Chief of Police but would be employees of a municipality. He indicated that at the Transportation Committee meeting he requested the matter be held over at least until the Police Services Board had an opportunity to consider it. He expressed his opposition to having non-police personnel enforce red-light running and did not think putting non-police personnel in a situation of trying to stop vehicles would be advisable. He maintained that if they were relegated to simply recording license plate numbers, red-light cameras could do the same and would be preferable. He indicated he would be putting forward a motion re-iterating a request for the province to introduce legislation to provide municipalities with the authority to install red-light cameras.

Member Boudreau believed that pulling over vehicles is one of the most dangerous things a police officer does and she did not support the proposal. She was pleased that the Region’s Transportation Committee had deferred the item because she felt it important to work as a group on this matter. She indicated her support of Vice Chair Kreling’s motion, adding it should clearly state that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board does not support the use of non-police personnel in these situations.

In response to Member Baskerville’s comments with respect to this proposal being considered by the Transportation Committee without consultation with the Police Service or the Board, Councillor Legendre explained the item was placed on the Committee’s agenda at his request. He maintained his motion of 6 May at the Transportation Committee had nothing to do with the stories that appeared in The Toronto Star as it pre-dated the articles by several months. He noted that, under the proposal, should a motorist refuse to stop, the enforcement officers would simply videotape or photograph the fleeing vehicle. He further explained his reason for putting forward the motion at Transportation Committee was frustration at the province’s lack of movement on red-light cameras. He hoped that in studying this proposal and trying to decide what such enforcement personnel would do if the cars didn’t stop, the province might progress in their thinking because the result would then be the same as with red-light cameras. He saw this initiative as being better than nothing, though not as good as the technology, and hoped that if the province didn’t move on one, they might move on the other. He did not share other Board members’ apprehensions with regard to the dangers of what was proposed. He did not believe the dangers were any greater than those faced by parking enforcement officers when confronted by vehicle owners.

Chair Vice agreed that traffic enforcement is one of the most dangerous situations in which officers find themselves. In response to Councillor Legendre’s analogy with parking enforcement officials, Chair Vice pointed out that in those instances, the enforcement officer is not dealing with a moving vehicle. Special training is required to do this type of enforcement and police officers have that training. In conclusion, he maintained that even if it was supported, according to legal opinion it can not be done.

Councillor Legendre pointed out that the Highway Traffic Act includes a provision that allows for the employment of non-police enforcement personnel, though according to the Act, they must be employees of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). He assumed these employees would receive the right training in terms of how to stop moving vehicles. He agreed with Chair Vice’s comments with respect to police officers being fully trained and argued they are so well trained that they are wasted in this function. He did not think it was such an outlandish proposal since the Police Service already employs special constables. They are not full-fledged officers and they receive a restricted sub-set of training and remuneration commensurate with that. He maintained that was the notion behind his motion.

With respect to the Highway Traffic Act’s provision for MTO employees to enforce part of the Act, Chief Ford explained their jurisdiction deals strictly with truck traffic and issues of vehicle safety. He stressed they do not have the authority to stop a truck for speeding or for any other Highway Traffic Act violations. The Chief did not support the use of non-police personnel for traffic stops for all the reasons mentioned by Metro Toronto’s Chief Boothby in his report, but also because he believed technology is the answer. He maintained that even if the technology was in place, he would still be very clear in his mandate, as the Chief of Police, to enforce the Highway Traffic Act. There are a significant number of people killed in traffic accidents across the country. It is incumbent on Chiefs of Police and Commissioners of Police to enforce the Highway Traffic Act and to not give the impression that this enforcement is considered secondary in the community. The enforcement of traffic laws is a very important function for police officers. Chief Ford re-iterated his opposition to the proposal on the basis that traffic safety and the enforcement of traffic laws has to be a priority in policing and the police have to continue that even though other methods might be put in place to help them. He believed the police have to be very careful not to place a lesser importance on an issue which causes deaths in such great numbers.

Mr. D. White, Solicitor, clarified an earlier point with respect to the enforcement of the traffic act by MTO or other personnel, stating the power to enforce moving violations and the power to stop vehicles is restricted to police officers.

Moved by H. Kreling

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board reiterate its request for the Province to enact legislation to permit the installation and use of red light cameras in Ottawa-Carleton.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Boudreau

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board advise the Province that it does not support the proposal for non-police personnel to enforce red-light running violations.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUSTICE ADAMS’ REPORT ON

POLICE COOPERATION WITH THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

- deferred from 14 September 1998 meeting)

*(Board members should bring their copy of the Adams Report to the meeting)*

- Board Secretary’s report dated 10 September 1998

- Chief’s report dated 11 September 1998

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this for discussion.

DEFERRED

12. REGULAR REPORT FROM THE CHIEF AND OPP INSPECTOR

- verbal update from Chief B. Ford and Inspector L. Beechey

OPP Staff Sergeant P. Barager reported the seven new officers have arrived in Kanata/Goulbourn. Their names and addresses are being sent to the OCRPS so that they can receive amalgamation packages. In response to questions from the Board, she indicated the detachment is now up to its full complement and most of the transferring officers came from surrounding areas though one came from Cobourg. All were no-cost transfers with the intention of joining the Regional Police Service.

Chief Ford reported on the following items:

Deputy Chief Bevan provided an update on the alarm registration program. He noted the Service seems to be meeting its goal of reducing the number of false alarms that officers have to respond to, despite the fact that the Service now has more territory to police. In June of this year, the number of false alarms police responded to was lower by 5.2%, in July that number was 4.5% and in August the numbers were down 9.2%.

RECEIVED

13. COALITION FOR GUN CONTROL: REQUEST FOR

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN RELATED PROJECTS

Councillor Legendre explained that when he contacted the Board’s Executive Director, it was simply to find out what the Board’s response had been to the invitation. He noted the letter posed several questions, the principle one being the request for an expression of interest in participating in some of the projects the Coalition is undertaking. He felt some of the initiatives sounded worthy of support or participation of the OCRPS. He believed the Service should be looking at ways to ensure the bill is properly implemented and put into action. He suggested the Service should participate in the spousal notification aspect and requested input from staff.

Chief Ford stated the process for the implementation of Bill C-68 is not in the hands of the OCRPS as a local police service. It is in the hands of the Ontario Provincial Police because, based on arrangements with the federal government, the province had the option to opt out. In the case of Ontario, the provincial government has opted out. Implementation is funded through the federal government to the provincial government, who in turn contracts certain police services throughout the province, in this case, the OPP. He noted however, the OCRPS may be paid on a contractual basis for some of the services it provides, or staff may be seconded to the province of Ontario. Jurisdiction over this matter is in the hands of the provincial firearms registrar.

Councillor Legendre believed what the Coalition is suggesting is not help with the technical aspects of the firearm registration but with such things as spousal notification. On spousal notification, Chief Ford said the screening process and spousal notification are done by local municipalities on a contract basis with the OPP. He re-iterated the responsibility for the implementation of Bill C-68 rests with the OPP.

Member Boudreau was unclear as to who the Coalition for Gun Control represents. She was unclear as to what their projects involve and how they believe the Board and the Police Service could assist them.

Based on the fact that implementation of the legislation is within the jurisdiction of the OPP, Vice Chair Kreling maintained the OCRPS and the Police Services Board do not have the resources to undertake any of the projects proposed in the correspondence. He felt the Board could contact the district OPP authorities should they feel that some of the issues might be of interest locally.

In answer to questions with regard to the Coalition for Gun Control, Chief Ford explained it is a loosely formed group of people who came together during the development of Bill C-68, and Bill C-17 which was the prior bill. The group grew out of the massacre of students at the Poly-technique in Quebec. He interpreted the correspondence as a proposal for fund-raising to support research aimed at monitoring the implementation of Bill C-68. In that the OCRPS is not tasked with the implementation of Bill C-68, it is extremely difficult for the Service to become part of that process because the comprehensive records that are required to facilitate that kind of research are controlled at the provincial level.

Though he supported most of the provisions in the gun control legislation, Member Baskerville noted this is a lobby group and he had some concerns about the Board supporting a lobby group. He felt the correspondence provides good information, and suggested the Board receive it and not take any further action.

Mr. K. Beattie expressed support for Bill C-68 but stated his opposition to registration. He believed it to be an ineffective waste of money. He asked the Board to either not support the Coalition or, as an alternative, to allow his organization an opportunity to review details of what is proposed and report to the Board with their side of the story.

Chair Vice questioned a $30,000 grant figure mentioned by Mr. Beattie, stating the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board gave $10,000 to the Coalition in 1995. Chief Ford believed the misunderstanding may stem from the fact that prior to amalgamation, the Ottawa Police Services Board provided some funding to the Coalition though he believed it was a one-time grant of $10,000.

Councillor Legendre suggested the Board respond to the correspondence by asking the Coalition for specific details about their projects. He did not object to Mr. Beattie’s proposal to allow his organization to review those details. He maintained the Board would then be in a better position to decide whether or not to support the initiatives. He also suggested that if a response is sent it should clarify the responsibilities with respect to the implementation of the legislation in Ontario. He believed that would be the start of a more constructive dialogue.

Chair Vice recognized all sides of the debate but noted the legislation has been passed and it is time to move on. He did not think it would serve any purpose for the Board to re-open the debate on this matter.

Vice Chair Kreling noted that from the correspondence it is not clear what the Coalition is seeking. He believed what they want is the Board’s participation in monitoring the authority that is going to be implementing the legislation. He expressed a disinterest in being a watch-dog of the federal government and suggested the Board receive the information and file the letter. He did not feel the OCRPS has the resources to participate.

Councillor Legendre expressed his disappointment with the tone of the comments around the table.

1. Complaint Re: Alarms By-law and Use of Collection Agency

IN CAMERA

CARRIED