COMMUNICATIONS

Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:

Council Inquiry 33-09: Lansdowne Plan Without a Stadium

Demande de renseignements du Conseil 33-09 : Le Plan de Lansdowne sans stade

Council Inquiry 32-09: Lansdowne Park Meetings Before Process Suspension

Demande de renseignements du Conseil 32-09 : Réunions sur le parc Lansdowne avant la suspension du processus

Council Inquiry 28-09: St. Thomas School

Demande de renseignements du Conseil 28-09 : École St. Thomas

RECEIVED

presentations

prÉsentations

1. update on the congress centre

MISE-à-JOUR SUR LE CENTRE CONGRèS

Ms. Johanne Levesque, Director, Community Sustainability, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, introduced Messrs. Pat Kelly, President of the Ottawa Convention Centre (OCC), and Graham Bird, Development Manager for the Ottawa Convention Centre’s re-development project. She explained that Mr. Bird had been retained in the spring of 2007, has led the project through various phases and is currently managing the project’s design and development compliance on behalf of the City. Messrs. Bird and Kelly then spoke to a detailed PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which provided the Committee with an overview of the project.

Councillor El-Chantiry indicated that he had asked for this update to ensure that all was in order, and that the project was on time and within budget. Responding to questions regarding the land lease with Viking Rideau Corporation (VRC), Mr. Bird explained the nature of the original lease between VRC and the old Ottawa Congress Centre Corporation for the lands occupied by the Congress Centre had been deemed inadequate both in legal terms, and in size, to meet the OCC’s needs for private sector financing and in terms of an ownership position. He further explained VRC has arranged an eighty-year land lease with OCC, which has permitted the OCC to gain the $40 million in private financing required to fund the project. Mr. Bird noted the OCC has purchased approximately 10,000 square feet of additional space from the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the Department of National Defence (DND) to allow the construction of a Tier 2 level convention centre to complement Ottawa’s status as a Tier 2 level City, emphasizing its world capital stature, level of tourism, convention draws, government facilities and other related support networks and hotel facilities.

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s request for a further update in six months’ time, Mr. Bird said he would be pleased to do so, and offered to give interested members of Committee a tour of the site to demonstrate the results of the work performed to date. He declared that the next six months would see the addition of significant architectural features. Ms. Levesque confirmed that staff would be bringing back regular updates.

At Councillor Wilkinson’s request, Mr. Bird confirmed that the 80-year nature of the lease involved the payment of one dollar per year for 80 years.

Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that when Council originally approved the debenture, Members of Council had been told that the Province and Federal Government would get their money back within three years from sales taxes. She noted that because the Province has made this a tax-exempt building, the City would receive nothing in return on its investment. The Councillor asked for an explanation of the City’s $40 million investment in terms of payments and debentures.

Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, explained that of the $40 million authorized as debt, $23 million had already been spent in terms of fund transfers to the OCC. She noted the remaining (approximately) $20 million would be (first payment would be mid-2010) financed as debt servicing costs to the tune of approximately $1,675,000 per year for the next 20 years. In 2011, the second half the debt will be issued, with costs being similar to that, which would be added to the budget for 2011. Ms. Simulik confirmed for Councillor Wilkinson that the total would approximate $3.4 million per year for 20 years.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that despite optimistic talk of economic benefits, certain tax revenue streams were no longer available to the City. She reminded the presenters of a motion passed at Council calling for the establishment of a committee between the OCC and City to discuss other ways of acquiring revenue, and asked what was being done in this regard.

Mr. Bird acknowledged that the OCC needed to put greater effort into working with the City to explore additional options for revenue generation, but noted that an increased number of conventions resulting from the Congress Centre’s expansion and hotel construction would lead to increased revenues for the City in terms of support to various local businesses (i.e., hotels and restaurants), which would in turn be paying their share of various taxes, including business taxes. Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that the City no longer received business taxes. She also noted that property taxes paid to the City were to pay for City services, and not for debt financing.

Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Council had originally put forth a number of specific recommendations on ways funds could be raised, which he said he had shared with the Ministry. He said these recommendations, along with his comments, were currently under review, and that a response was expected soon. He offered to communicate with the Province to see how the review was progressing, and said he would be pleased to work with Council to establish a committee to deal with this matter.

Councillor Wilkinson expressed her view that the OCC was doing a good job, but emphasized that the City needed to find ways to pay for its investments, as she believed the Province did not fully understand that the City received no direct revenues from these developments. While acknowledging that the community benefited from such projects in terms of job creation and such, she emphasized the City needs to find ways to pay off its debts to remove budgetary pressures, which might otherwise necessitate the cancellation of community services.

Responding to a query from Councillor Monette regarding the number of houses that would be built as a result of collaborative partnerships, Mr. Bird referred to a development in the New Edinburgh area, which is slated to be revitalized, partly through volunteer efforts by the companies, suppliers and unions involved in this project. He noted the Ottawa Housing Corporation would be gaining six additional units through these efforts, to be completed by the summer of 2010, with a value of up to $1 million. Referring to job creation statistics outlining the creation of 1,580 direct and 4,740 indirect jobs, Councillor Monette asked for an explanation of what was meant by the term indirect. Mr. Bird explained that this referred to “behind the scenes” efforts made by various off-site steel yards, brick plants, engineering and architectural shops, etc., who work to support those directly involved in a project on-site, by up to a 3:1 ratio. In addition, post-construction, indirect employment includes convention centre support in terms of employment at retail hotels and other support service industries, i.e., trucking, chair suppliers, event suppliers, et cetera. Councillor Monette thanked the presenters for their efforts, and expressed the view that the project will be of great economic impact for the City of Ottawa for years to come. He also congratulated the unionized building and trades workers for their efforts.

Councillor Bloess said he hoped the employees who had been forced to seek alternate employment with the closing of the original Congress Centre would have first right of hiring with the opening of the new Centre. Mr. Kelly confirmed that the Ottawa Convention Centre is unionized, and that all unionized employees wishing to do so will have full recall and seniority rights upon rehiring. Mr. Kelly noted he often encounters former employees who have had to seek work elsewhere, but said he would be delighted to welcome them back when the new Centre opens.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive a verbal presentation.

RECEIVED

After consideration of several items on the agenda, Chair Jellett referred back to this item, reminding Members that Councillor Wilkinson, during her earlier comments, touched on a motion that was previously approved regarding the creation of a committee. The Committee agreed to waive the rules in order to consider the following motion:

Moved by M. Wilkinson,

That Councillors E. El-Chantiry and Wilkinson (and the Ward Councillor if he wishes) be appointed to a working group to meet with representatives of the Ottawa Congress Centre as per the motion previously passed by Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to explore funding possibilities for obtaining enough funds to pay for the annual debenture payments on the City debenture for the Centre; and, further, that the City Manager provide staff support to the Working Group.

CARRIED

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

city clerk & solicitor / finance departments

services du greffier municipal & chef du contentieux / des finances

2. PURCHASING BY-LAW - REVIEW

RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ACHATS - ÉTUDE ET REVUE

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0058

Moved by M. McRae,

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) table the above-noted report at the 1 December 2009 meeting; and

That discussion of the report take place at the CSEDC meeting on 19 January 2010.

CARRIED

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council approve that:

1. The City Treasurer be directed to establish and fill the new position of Chief Procurement Officer;

2. The criteria to engage the services of a Fairness Commissioner in specific procurement processes as set out in this report be adopted;

3. Subsection 9(1)(e) of the Purchasing By-law dealing with a “substantive objection” to a procurement process be revised to adopt the Comprehensive Complaints Process as described in this report;

4. The Purchasing By-law be amended to reflect the use of a local preference provision as a “tie-breaker”; and

5. The Purchasing By-law be amended to add to the discretion of the City Treasurer, in consultation with the City Clerk and Solicitor, the authority to prohibit a supplier from bidding on future contracts when engaged in litigation with the City of Ottawa.

TABLED

FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT

SERVICES FINANCIERS

3. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY – CONTRACTS AWARDED FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, AND LEGAL OUTSOURCING COSTS

DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIR – CONTRATS ACCORDÉS POUR LA PÉRIODE DU 1^er JUILLET AU 30 SEPTEMBRE 2009 ET FRAIS LÉGAUX D’IMPARTITION

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0056 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Chair Jellett, on behalf of Councillor Desroches, thanked staff for their work on the above-noted report.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee table this report to be received and discussed at the next scheduled meeting of CSEDC, and then forwarded to Council for information.

TABLED

4. TEMPORARY BORROWING BY-LAW FOR 2010 CURRENT OPERATIONS

RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL D’EMPRUNT TEMPORAIRE POUR LES OPÉRATIONS COURANTES DE 2010

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0057 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the enactment of the draft by-law, contained in Document 1, authorizing temporary borrowings for current purposes for the year 2010 in accordance with existing legislation.

CARRIED

CITY CLERK & SOLICITOR

SERVICE DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL & CHEF DU CONTENTIEUX

5. WARD NAMES

NOMS DE QUARTIER

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0060 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

In response to Councillor McRae’s motion to approve the name change for Ward 6 from ‘Stittsville-Kanata West’ to ‘Stittsville’, Councillor Wilkinson stated that the area was actually part of the former City of Kanata, pre-amalgamation. Although the name change would remove the Kanata reference, the Councillor continued that facilities in the ward, such as Scotiabank Place, actually have a Kanata mailing address. Councillor Wilkinson suggested that when the ward names were revised a few years ago, it was decided to keep the reference to Kanata-West, because of the area’s history. Councillor Wilkinson also opined that sufficient ward consultation could not be done in this newer area until the area grows, suggesting that new residents might like the opportunity to keep the Kanata reference in their name.

Councillor Qadri clarified that the intention for the name change is to avoid confusion, as currently, the area is already comprised of three different townships and former cities Goulbourn Township, the former West-Carleton Township, and part of the former City of Kanata. Councillor Qadri noted that area residents have both ‘K2C’ and Stittsville postal codes, yet their ward mentions Stittsville; the local papers, workplaces and merchants are all from Stittsville, he added. To add further confusion, the Councillor said the area’s minor hockey league is named for Stittsville, while the local soccer club references Goulbourn. When an issue arises, the Councillor continued, it can be confusing as to whom to contact – the Councillor for Kanata, or Stittsville. The Councillor also noted that the Stittsville community, circa 1825, which started at the corner of Carp Road and Hazeldean, was intended to combine Carp and the village of Stittsville at the time. Councillor Qadri stated that his proposed ward name change would not take effect until the 2014 municipal election. The Councillor stated further that on the issue of prospective tenants, that of the 4500 to 7000 homes being developed in the area, the location of most are considered as Stittsville.

Councillor El-Chantiry asked staff about public consultation on the prior ward boundary review. Cathy Bergeron, Manager of Elections and MFFIPA, responded that a public consultation was done for the ward review on the actual boundaries themselves, but not on the ward names.

Councillor El-Chantiry suggested the issue of the ward name change could be deferred until the 2014 municipal election, so as to address related ward boundary line adjustment issues also, noting the example of businesses in the West Carleton business park, which are otherwise unrelated to Stittsville, Goulbourn or even Rideau.

Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor and Clerk, replied to Councillor El-Chantiry’s suggestion that they could defer this matter to a Ward boundary review for the next election.

Councillor El-Chantiry moved a motion, that this item be deferred to 2011.

In response to Councillor McRae’s question on whether Councillor Qadri’s request to change the name of his Ward would changes any ward boundaries, Mr. O’Connor replied that it changes the name only. Mr. O’Connor also clarified his previous response to the question from Councillor El-Chantiry on combining the ward name change with a future ward boundary review. Mr. O’Connor stated there would be no future opportunities to change the ward names, as numbers will have to be used, unless the current status quo for ward names is used. At present, Mr. O’Connor said that Councillor Qadri remains the only Councillor to request such a change.

Councillor McRae indicated she would not support a deferral of a ward name change to a process also involving an entire ward boundary review. Councillor McRae opined that Councillor Qadri’s public consultation with his residents was sufficient.

Councillor Wilkinson read a comment from a ward resident, Cyril Leader that requested the ward name be kept as Kanata-Stittsville. Due to this person being purportedly missed on Councillor Qadri’s consultation, Councillor Wilkinson suggested there would be still others of the same opinion, and so she would support a deferral.

Councillor McRae raised a Point of Order, stating that debate should remain on whether or not to defer the ward name change, and not on whether or not enough ward consultation had been conducted.

Councillor Bloess said that the item was a simple point to consider, and that there can be no argument about residents who are not yet living in that area. Councillor Bloess was not in support of a deferral and felt that Committee should make its decision. Councillor Monette agreed, offering that Councillor Qadri’s community had stated it wants the name Stittsville recognized, similar to his own experience with the name of his ward, Orleans. Councillor Monette stated his ward area name included Gloucester and Cumberland, but it is called Orleans Ward. Councillor Monette expressed his affinity for both the heritage of Gloucester, and Cumberland, adding that when a community requests historical identification, which dates over 100 years, why should Councillors oppose it. He stated his opposition on a deferral and would support the community for renaming it Stittsville.

Moved by E. El-Chantiry

Defer the name change to the next Ward Boundary Review following the 2010 election, and that all current Ward names remain in place for the 2010 election.

Yeas (2): Councillor El-Chantiry and Wilkinson.

Nays (6): Councillor Bloess, Brooks, Deans, McRae, Monette, and Jellett

LOST

Moved by M. McRae

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that the name of Ward 6 be changed from “Stittsville-Kanata West” to “Stittsville”.

Yeas (7): Councillors Bloess, Brooks, Deans, El-Chantiry, McRae, Monette and Jellett

Nays (1): Councillor Wilkinson.

CARRIED

Moved by D. Deans

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that City Council confirm that Ward names be used along with the numbers for the ballot purposes for the 2010 municipal election.

CARRIED

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that the name of Ward 6 be changed from “Stittsville-Kanata West” to “Stittsville”; and

That City Council confirms that ward names be used, along with the ward numbers, for ballot purposes for the 2010 municipal election.

CARRIED as amended

6. ELECTION-RELATED RESOURCES POLICY - UPDATE

LIGNES DIRECTRICES SUR LES RESSOURCES LIÉES AUX ÉLECTIONS - MISE À JOUR

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0061 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the revised Election-Related Resources Policy set out in Document 1 to this report.

CARRIED

REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

BUREAU PARTENARIATS ET DÉVELOPPEMENT EN IMMOBILIÉRS

7. Ottawa Stadium Preliminary Report - 300 Coventry Road stadE d’Ottawa RAPPORT PRELIMINAIRE - 300 chemin coventry

Gordon MacNair, Director, Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Dave Donaldson, Manager, Realty Initiatives and Development accompanied him and assisted in answering questions from Committee Members. The pertinent points he raised are noted below:

· The stadium, which was built in 1993 cost approximately $17 m. The building is approximately 133,000 square feet, has over 10,000 seats with 32 private suites. The site is less than 14 acres with 845 parking spaces.

· Since August 1992, the City of Ottawa has an operations and maintenance agreement with the Ottawa Triple “A” Management (O & M). This agreement expired on 31 October 2009. In June 2000, the Ottawa Triple “A” assigned O & M agreement to Ottawa Lynx and March 2008, the Lynx and the City assigned an agreement to Ottawa Pro baseball for 2008 and 2009 at a base annual rent of $180,000.

· In 2008, the Ottawa Rapids played baseball under a management agreement with the Ottawa Pro. In September of that year, the Rapids filed for bankruptcy and the Can-Am League undertook financial backing of the team and sought new ownership for the 2009 season. In March 2009, Can-Am advised the new team Ottawa Voyageurs that it would not operate in 2009. Ottawa Pro honoured this obligation regarding the payment of rent for 2008 and 2009. In April 2009, Council directed staff to review options for a go-forward strategy for the Ottawa Stadium, including an analysis of merits of all options.

· The City of Ottawa received two unsolicited proposals:

o The Ottawa Pro Baseball would use the stadium for Can-Am Baseball on a two-year renewal period. The rental rate would remain at $108,000 and then provide a letter of credit to cover the one-year rent and expenses and Ottawa Pro to manage parking and retain fees.

o The Ottawa Stadium Group (OSG) is proposing the use of the stadium for professional baseball, other commercial events and community use activities and lease and operates the stadium on a year-round basis with initial terms of two years, then year to year. The rent was based on a number of professional baseball games and other events with a surcharge of one dollar per ticket for non-baseball events. The proposal was silent on the operating and maintenance cost.

· There was another interested party that contacted staff in October 2009. Their interest was related to professional soccer.

· The report defines the long-term strategy, options for future use, the methodology relating to the long-term strategy and the assessment of the existing situation for the short-term strategy.

The next steps, with respect to the business strategy, staff are proposing to come forward with this in Q1 2010. The visioning exercise and public consultation for the long-term strategy would be in 2010. The highest and best use and the cost analysis would be completed in Q1 2011. Moving forward with an RFP process would be after that, and then finalizing the RFP would be in Q2 and Q3 2011.

Mr. MacNair concluded with the financial aspects, noting that the stadium has been closed for use with city incurring costs for the annual operating maintenance of approximately $11,000. Currently, the City is obtaining revenue for parking of $144,000 and annual cost are $155,000. Based on minimum offer conditions, the City would receive net revenue of $17,500 with actual amount, depending on results of best offer to lease process. The three report recommendations before committee are:

· To approve the methodology to produce long term strategy for highest and best use analysis for the Ottawa Stadium;

· To approve short-term strategy for interim use of the Ottawa Stadium;

· To direct staff to solicit best offers to lease from the two proponents who approach the City on an unsolicited basis to utilize the Ottawa Stadium facility in the short term.

Neil Maholtra, Claridge Homes advised that they are the third party noted in the report that is interested in bringing professional soccer to Ottawa. He clarified that he made several inquiries since May/June on multiple occasions, receiving responses that staff were directed not to look at any unsolicited proposals, and they would bring forward a report that would address how the City wished to proceed with the stadium. He clarified that their interest is in sports, not in redevelopment of the current site. He provided copies of a study that was prepared by Novatek Engineering on the current playing field and how professional soccer could be accommodated. He noted that within the staff report is an overlay of Carleton’s multi-use facility, which actually represents the length more in line with the Canadian football field than a soccer field. He explained the standard soccer field according to FIFA, is 110 yards with a five-yard buffer. They studied the site to indicate how it could be accommodated, potential works that would be required. Any proposals they plan to put forward would have had them pay for the work. The magnitude of the work is in the neighbourhood of $100,000, not a significant cost to build upon the playing field. The playing field would still allow baseball to be played. He spoke of the four conditions in North America, similar to the one that they are proposing and elaborated on the different areas that share facilities between baseball and soccer.

Mr. Maholtra claimed that staff did not have all the correct information at this stage, noting the process currently outlined is not one that is going to be successful. He believed it to be an unreasonable expectation to think that someone would invest in a sports franchise on a one-year basis, regardless of the sport. He did not think the right approach was to begin making development plans for the site before a RFP is put in the community realm. The timing of the report for the 2010 season for any sport is tight at this stage and suggested an RFP process to begin immediately in the new year. The City should consider four questions, being, can the proponent bring a professional sports team to the facility; what is the financial strength and the ability of that group to perform its obligations; how can the community be engaged in making best use of the facility, in off-days; and how can a proposal be contemplated that does not require significant changes to the project.

Mr. Maholtra was concerned that he was not given an indication that short-term proposals would be considered until the week prior to this meeting. He concluded that the best approach is for the City to go forward with a RFP in 2010 for a tenant in 2011.

In response to a question by Councillor Legendre, Mr. Maholtra reiterated that the fourth point he raised was the need to search for people to take the facility in its current state. He felt that the staff report was bias in either tearing it down, sell it, or maintaining the stadium but sell off the parking lot. Clear statements allude to the scenarios being as the best uses for a financial return basis. Replying to a follow up question by the Councillor, Mr. Maholtra felt that the community should be allowed to comment before a decision is made.

Mr. Maholtra added that some examples he provided previously are cases with artificial turf and others with natural grass, being brought in and out, on the clay, even in periods as short as 24 hours, to accommodate both uses. The pitcher’s mound is dealt with the same way that it would be in Rogers Centre, which is pre-built, that would be brought in and out, depending on the event.

Councillor Legendre questioned if he would contemplate replacing the field with artificial turf. Mr. Maholtra noted that the benefit of this stadium is to play soccer on natural grass and added that the City of Toronto is spending millions of dollars to replace their artificial turf with natural grass.

For the benefit of his colleagues, Councillor Legendre informed Committee that there was a significant part of the cost that went into the underground and the field, describing it as high-tech due to the drainage system. Mr. Maholtra agreed and advised that they have consulted with the people who built the stadium.

With respect to the additional seating arrangements, Councillor Legendre observed that there was no mention of this in his drawings or the letter from Novatech. In order to allow baseball to continue, Mr. Maholtra explained that temporary metal seating would be brought in and out of the stadium as needed.

Councillor Cullen asked staff if the process could be adjusted to an RFP. Mr. MacNair advised that he and the City Manager met with Mr. Maholtra regarding his proposed use for soccer. Currently, staff’s position is looking at a short-term solution in order to reach a long-term strategy. He clarified that the long-term strategy does not recommend the demolition of the stadium. Mr. Donaldson agreed with Mr. Maholtra that the stadium could accommodate the two but the concern is, that in order for Mr. Maholtra to respond, he has to get a franchise in place, and that would require for a longer term than one year. The direction that staff were provided with in April related to looking at the use of the stadium for a variety of options, including whether or not the stadium stays, and the report reflects that accordingly. Staff are of the opinion that the existing stadium can fit within a mixed-use complex, with other developments on the site, provided it is connected to transit in the future, such as the proposal that Canada Life Assurance made in the early 1990’s, when the stadium was under construction. Ultimately, their plans for bringing that into a mixed-use center did not materialize, and they ended up selling the site for big box stores, which is unfortunate.

At this juncture, Chair Jellett suggested holding any further questions of staff until the end.

Councillor Monette asked Mr. Maholtra his chances of acquiring a franchise and how this affected the Lansdowne Live proposal given it is the same type of franchise. Mr. Maholtra advised that there have been a number of issues at that level of soccer given the previous league lost its ownership groups. But he met with the new league and there have been productive discussions to this point. He believed that once this process is set forth, he could likely comment further. He added that he could not comment of how it affects Lansdowne Live.

Mr. David Butler explained that the Ottawa Stadium Group (OSG) is a collection of local senior community and business leaders, who share a dream of breathing fresh life back into the stadium to give back to the community. He recalled his past work in bringing various programs to the City, i.e., Ottawa’s official “blue bike rack” Bicycle Parking Program of the 1990s, still in use today, and now expanded to 18 other Canadian cities. He noted the past 2.5 years had been spent consulting with the community to try and develop programming to not only meet but also exceed community expectations, and he added that OSG is well capitalized, and can satisfy every concern the City may have. Mr. Butler characterized the OSG proposal as foolproof, and one that would cost the City nothing by having OSG operate the stadium for the next few years.

In response to a question from Councillor Monette, Mr. Butler advised that they met with OC Transpo on several occasions discussing a prospective program, for example, when purchasing a ticket online, it would be free with a ticket from OC Transpo. They are trying to lessen the number of cars going into the area by supporting the local transit system and increasing ridership. They also have a good relationship with the adjoining property owners at Hampton Hilton and they offered their extra parking in their buildings. Regarding a follow up question from the Councillor, Mr. Butler noted that they are intending to charter buses on game day. In addition, their intent is to discuss specifics regarding Park and Rides in outlining areas with strategists at OC Transpo.

Councillor Monette referred to the media release and confirmed that Mr. Butler acquired a franchise that would be ready in 2010. The delegate responded affirmatively, noting that Duncan MacDonald would be elaborating on that shortly, but confirmed that they are ready to begin the planning process, which includes, purchasing equipment, doing drafts of players, website design, etc.

Duncan MacDonald spoke on behalf of Peter Tilley, Chief Executive Officer, Ottawa Food Bank, and Wyatt McWilliams of Navan, known for Hay West. He advised that Mr. Tilley was very enthusiastic that the Ottawa Stadium Group (OSG) approached the Food Bank to incorporate them into the overall business plan. Having the opportunity to support the community in a number of ways, the OSG dedicated 200 seats of the stadium to the Food Bank. Rather than take money to purchase a ticket, there will be 200 cardholders or members who will sit in those seats and be asked to donate two non-perishable items for each home game. Mr. Tilley agreed to set a stage in the concourse area so that those items of four hundred non-perishable items times the 45 home game-schedule would help stock the Food Bank. Mr. McWilliams, in asking them how they would support the farmers, was invited to attend the first fundraising concert called the Peanut Butter and Jamboree.

Bill Beelen, Commissioner, National Capital Baseball League (NCBL) represents 34 amateur local baseball teams, with approximately 500 players, the majority of which are 20-35 years old. Their league is one of the largest adult baseball leagues in Canada, and they operate four tiers, accommodating all skill levels from very competitive to more recreational. As a league, they strongly support the view that the Ottawa Stadium is used for professional and local baseball. In the past, the majority of the players never had the opportunity to play at the stadium. In their opinion, the stadium is a jewel that must be preserved as a baseball asset for future generations. In his opinion, the OSG offers the best chance of bringing back professional baseball to Ottawa, while at the same time, giving the local baseball community much better access to open field times at the stadium. The NCBL is eager to use as much playing time as is made available in the stadium, provided that the fees charged are similar to fees at other baseball facilities. More information on NCBL is available at www.nationalcapitalbaseball.com

In response to a question from Councillor Monette, Mr. Beelen confirmed the leagues interest in playing at the stadium and paying for the rates. He noted that they already negotiated an agreement with OSG.

Sheila Perry, President, Community Council of Overbrook (CCO) advised that the OSG approached her to support the reactivation of the city’s baseball stadium. She submitted a letter to Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager noting their support of OSG. The Community Council of Overbrook recognizes the need to make best use of this valuable asset in Overbrook. They also support community partnership activities and their initiatives, the growing need for a multi-use year round sports facilities and fields that support the growth of soccer and various other activities in sports in Ottawa. The CCO members expressed their dismay that the baseball stadium has been unused for over a year. And that no significant progress has been made to reactivate this facility. To their dismay, they have heard rumours of selling it to developers for future retail and office space. She concluded that CCO encourages the City of Ottawa to move forward on this issue so the facility would be reactivated in 2010.

Councillor Monette said he was pleased to see the community is supportive of baseball and the facility being used again. In response to his question relating to using the facility in 2010, Ms. Perry noted her support in having the facility used immediately, adding that it would help with area businesses and promoting not just baseball but other events that involves the community. When asked her opinion with having outdoor concerts, Ms. Perry did not have concerns given the City’s noise by-law.

Peter MacFarlane, Executive Member, Overbrook Community Association spoke of his career as a teacher in urban studies and how he made several field trips with his students to the stadium before, during and after construction. In 1992, he moved in Overbrook since his long term plans for retirement included going to baseball games within walking distance from his home. He advised that baseball provides unlimited opportunities to bring many together and the Overbrook community is an excellent example of this with its multi-cultural diversity and immigrant population. He concluded that the City has a policy of no community left behind, and respectfully submitted that there is an opportunity and a duty to not leave this baseball community behind.

Jonathon Trottier, student at Algonquin College and former employee of the Ottawa Voyageurs, noted his angst at seeing the stadium empty and unused all this time. He has had the privilege of working with Mr. MacDonald and the Ottawa Stadium Group during the past two months when they acquired the franchise. He spoke of this involvement in the community, throughout high school and college, working with baseball leagues and the food bank.

Sam Holman, Ottawa Bat Company reminded Committee that the stadium had Fernando Saginal hit the first baseball with a maple bat in the Lynx stadium. He noted that Ottawa is a City with a surplus infrastructure and not enough population to use it all and share in the dilemma on how to keep it going. He stopped by the stadium that morning and it occurred to him that there is a concourse there that needs to be enclosed. He believed it would help the group across the street as an overflow for events because it is a sizeable space with a large hotel next door and often they never have enough space. He encouraged the City to rethink the restriction of modifying the building, as he believes it would be a missed opportunity.

A. J. Plant, former President of Gloucester Chamber of Commerce and current member of the Ottawa Chamber. He noted his working career has involved working with community groups in the Vanier area, which allows his to go door to door and talk to residents. He advised that the main topic raised during these conversations is the stadium. The Ottawa Stadium Group approached him to discuss their vision, which he supports fully from a personal as well as a professional aspect. He spoke of the importance of inexpensive, good entertainment for the community. He believes that the stadium has changed the face of Vanier and Overbrook from a real estate perspective for instance.

Brian Carolan, Ottawa Stadium Group (OSG) thanked Committee Members for the opportunity to speak on this important issue and to show their passion that they have as Ottawa Stadium Group, to bring life and entertainment and family values back to the stadium. His personal involvement has been approximately one year on this potential project. He met Dave Butler and immediately bought in to his passion for involving the community into the Ottawa stadium. Mr. Carolan observed that after having been given an opportunity to share Mr. Butler’s vision and meeting with various community groups, he too, was excited with the prospect of becoming involved with the stadium project. He then provided the following highlights of what OSG can offer:

· OSG will deliver a financial plan to the City, its residents and various charities for the stadium at no cost to the City or the City’s taxpayers;

· OSG will increase the tax revenue base and create new employment opportunities for both younger workers and seniors;

· OSG has expertise in the local marketplace and a track record of local business success;

· OSG will deliver a vibrant, 12-month operation with baseball offices, tenants, and other year-round activities, to include sports training/recreation and other family-oriented opportunities;

· OSG will provide affordable, family entertainment;

· OSG will use the existing transit system, in tandem with its ticket sales, to employ a ticket bar-code system, which will allow fans to use their baseball tickets to ride OC Transpo, thereby helping with “green” initiatives and allowing baseball fans to use the transit system at no additional cost;

· OSG will provide benefits to the local area businesses;

· OSG has partnerships in place with the local hotelier sharing the stadium parking lot that are expected to increase commerce in the area, to the benefit of both partners;

· OSG has pulled together an advisory committee made up of local business people, community leaders and community associations to help fine-tune programs that will be of benefit the community at large;

· OSG will have ticketing programs targeted to all aspects of the community, including the military, military veterans, seniors and mature adults, along with programs geared to community support, i.e., Ottawa Food Bank drives and other initiatives to raise much-needed capital.

Councillor Monette inquired, like the NCBL buy-in, if the same offer has been put forward to the little leagues. Mr. Carolan confirmed that they have their buy-in to their programs at a reasonable rate. In response to a final question from the Councillor, Mr. Carolan referred to Mr. Duncan to advise as to how many businesses were approached, but noted the corporate revenue opportunities were remarkable.

Councillor Legendre confirmed with the delegate that they were comfortable with the parameters of the cost reflected within the staff report. Mr. Carolan determined that there was nothing in the cost structure or the rental fees that surprised them. The fee level is in line with what we expected.

The other aspect that the Councillor touched on was the 12-month operation and questioned the ability to consider doing this in the stadium. Mr. Carolan confirmed that this was part of their detailed plan in looking at tying the stadium with winter activities and events in the City, such as Winterlude. In response to a follow up question, Mr. Carolan claimed that the dome is an option, although a lot more discussion has to occur before considering it. Due to the short time period in reviewing the staff report, they need to assess their plan. It was confirmed at the end of the questions that the dome is not part of their current proposal.

Duncan MacDonald is with the Ottawa Stadium Group, and other than playing professionally; he has held every position in baseball from scouting to technical director for Baseball Canada. He was before to market the sport of baseball to the community at large for both men and women teams. He believes that has been in this City before and it can happen again. He spoke of the mascot “Grape” that will be hired as the first draft pick.

The OSG assembled an experienced, winning team to implement a creative solution for this stadium puzzle. The baseball marketing plan contains fresh, creative ideas never seen in this marketplace before, many that are loaded with double-play value; from guarantees on sunshine to family-affordable entertainment that will bring people together. The OSG proposal to City Council, if chosen, will be based on the main principles of what is required for the success of a baseball operation, which is innovation and creative marketing. In closing, the proponent noted that with even two strikes, a home run hit was still possible.

Councillor Monette asked what the average attendance would be for breaking even for the new league. Mr. MacDonald advised that it is difficult to calculate the figure until the costs are known. In response to a follow up question regarding the Golden League, Mr. MacDonald said that the Golden League is expanding eastward across Canada; they want Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. They currently have Calgary, Edmonton and Victoria, with NHL owners as backers, thus the reason for their interest with them seeing that it is a growth opportunity and the best fit for Ottawa.

When the Councillor noted his concern with travel costs, Mr. MacDonald advised that the budget for travelling by bus would be $65,000 for the Can-Am league. They also compared the cost of flights and noted that they have an airline sponsor.

In relation to the Nine of Diamonds and the idea of not paying for a ticket if you buy a season ticket to the Golden League, Councillor Monette suggested that as an alternative, guests could donate one or two cans or non-perishable foods at the game.

In terms of other entertainment such as concerts, Mr. MacDonald advised that they are currently speaking with two promoters that are well known in this City. They are looking at holding the Highland Games and the clogging event. Lastly, the Councillor asked the delegate’s thoughts on the one-dollar surcharge that is mentioned is the staff report. Mr. MacDonald said that if they sell the events that are planned and only half-successful on selling tickets, keeping in mind that the rent would be higher than last year, he believes there will be an opportunity of $227,000 to $230,000 on a fifty per cent of entertainment sales.

In response to a question from Councillor Legendre, Mr. MacDonald advised that Can-Am approached them but after careful consideration, they decided to keep searching for another league. They secured the Golden League with conditions such as securing the stadium.

After discussing details of the Golden League, Mr. MacDonald explained that the opportunity to participate in this league had arisen from Edmonton Oilers’ management contacting other major Canadian cities currently possessing National Hockey League franchises to offer a co-promoted product of baseball, similar to the Edmonton Oilers’ Edmonton Capitals baseball franchise as a summer product to complement winter’s offering of hockey. Responding to a query from Councillor Legendre regarding the stadium’s multi-sports use potential, Mr. MacDonald acknowledged that many stadiums offered this possibility, i.e., soccer and baseball. He said the current stadium might also take advantage of such potential, if the fit was appropriate, but not at the expense of baseball.

Bruce Murdock and Carl Kiiffner, Can-Am Baseball League, spoke from a written submission that is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Murdock spoke of his time volunteering to assist Miles Wolff who is the Commissioner of the Can-Am Baseball League and American Association of Baseball. He provided a brief synopsis of Mr. Wolff professional experience with baseball in the United States and Canada and felt that the stadium could not afford to have a future owner without baseball experience. Mr. Murdock outlined six points that Mr. Wolff offers on the future of the Ottawa Stadium that are:

· Long term lease would be in the best interest of the City;

· Ensures that Can-Am would make every effort that the stadium does not sit dormant;

· Secure other sources of revenue with nearby businesses and the RCMP;

· Have more than one tenant in order to bring stability and revenue to the stadium;

· Community involvement by local leagues should be a priority;

· Careful consideration in converting the stadium is crucial as it is considered the best baseball facility in the country.

In response to a question from Councillor Monette, Mr. Murdock advised that Mr. Wolff is currently working on securing a franchise. He added that under the lease arrangement that exists, $108,000 a year for the lease and the cost of heat and hydro is very expensive for a baseball team to operate. He advised that the Can-Am league would like to operate and work with the City to get a long term lease arrangement, in order to get stability for a baseball team and other tenants like Baseball Canada.

Councillor Legendre questioned if the delegate was speaking on behalf of Mr. Wolff’s behalf. Mr. Murdock clarified that his presentation represents Mr. Wolff’s views but offered to respond to any questions the Councillor had. Councillor Legendre then asked if Can-Am had a team in place for next year. Mr. Murdock advised that Mr. Wolff was currently making every effort to do so.

Given this was the end of the public delegation portion for this item, Chair Jellett preceded to asked for questions to staff.

Councillor Cullen followed up with staff on the report recommendation and the notion of an RFP, as opposed to solicit the best offer to lease from the two proponents that approached the City on an unsolicited basis. He asked if the same criteria could still be used if an RFP approach was considered. Mr. MacNair advised that in terms of operating in 2010 and potentially in 2011 under the minimum conditions, staff outlined in the report an interim arrangement, which is not based on people making long term arrangements to obtain franchises. If an RFP process were considered, then it would suggest the stadium would be there for the longer term.

Mr. MacNair continued, reflecting on Mr. Maholtra’s idea that the City should go with an RFP, giving him the opportunity to bid on the stadium for the long term. If Committee wants to commit the stadium, then an RFP is possible. He reiterated the options before Committee and the direction that was provided to staff in April.

Councillor Cullen voiced his concerns with narrowing the choices to the two current proponents. Should Committee decide to go through an RFP, he suggested that the wording be changed to reflect both the short and the long-term elements. Afterwards, should the only two proposals received are from the current proponents, he would be more comfortable with that process. He suggested that staff prepare a motion to amend Recommendation 3 to have an RFP process but still reflect the short and long-term strategy reflected in the report.

In the same line of questioning of Councillor Cullen, Chair Jellett inquired if an RFP can be done that quickly in order to take proposals and make a decision in time to operate in 2010. Mr. MacNair advised that when combining the short and long-term processes through an RFP, it would require a framework on the city’s strategy. In light of Councillor Cullen’s suggestion, he added that staff’s opinion would be to choose the first option in terms placing an advertisement, expedite that process to allow these groups who want to put teams in can be mobilized as quickly as possible. He concluded that it could be done within a month or two.

In regards to a question from Councillor Wilkinson regarding opening the RFP to others, Mr. MacNair suggested advertising for people to submit their best offers to purchase based on the minimum and other conditions outlined in the report and not go with a RFP. The two proponents can submit their proposals as well as any other group. The Councillor asked if the stadium could be used for things other than baseball in its present configuration. Mr. MacNair responded affirmatively, noting that they do not want the main basis be that proponents secure some other kind of franchise for other events and then advise that they spent a lot of money, which could lead to binding the City in long-term arrangements.

In response to a question from the Councillor regarding timing, Mr. MacNair advised that the basic terms could be put together, post an advertisement in newspapers and other notices on a best offer, within a two or three week period. He advised that typically, there is a 30-day period to allow proponents to respond and felt that the City would be in a position to be ready for February 2010. He asked for Council direction in terms of turn around time, if Option 1 was chosen.

Councillor Wilkinson was pleased with this change and felt it was a better procedure to use. She offered to move a motion, since Councillor Cullen was not a member, to amend Recommendation 3, if staff could provide the wording. Mr. MacNair suggested that the wording to Recommendation 3 be as follows:

“Direct staff to solicit “best offers to lease” to utilize the Ottawa Stadium facility in the short term, based on the minimum conditions to lease described in the short-term strategy as outlined in this report.

Councillor Legendre thanked those who had come forward to present their proposals, as well as staff who had provided an opportunity to provide input into the report. However, he pointed out that Ottawa currently possessed an empty state-of-the-art stadium with no tenant, and which costs a great deal to maintain. He noted that two professional franchises had tried to make it a success and had both failed. Despite the foregoing, he believed another attempt should be made to use the facility for its intended use, failing which, the City could then consider other multi-use sports options.

The Councillor noted that various options might work if only they could make greater use of the stadium than perhaps one league could sustain. He pointed out that with no tenant at present, the empty stadium was costing the City $11,000 a year to maintain, adding that such costs might likely rise if the stadium were to be used for only one season, due to additional maintenance costs.

Councillor Legendre felt the City was not in a desperate situation, and said he approved of Councillor Wilkinson’s motion, as he did not like Recommendation 3 for having named only two proponents. The Councillor acknowledged the proponents’ proposal offered one potential solution, but suggested it would be prudent to be open to the possibility of other offers. He also cautioned about entering into short-term lease arrangements. In conclusion, Councillor Legendre said he was pleased to see the recommendation coming forward and reiterated his support for trying again with professional baseball and community use. However, he reminded the Committee that if professional baseball were to fail again, the City would be left with a facility that is too costly to operate for amateur leagues, which have alternate options available to them in terms of other sports fields in and around the City.

Councillor Monette questioned if the one-dollar for each ticket sold was from one group or if it was a condition by the City. Mr. Donaldson that it was part of the proposal from the OSG group. He added that staff are not suggesting any gate-related revenue in the minimum conditions, on a base rent of $108,000. The Councillor wondered if, for instance, the public said they like the vision of a soccer stadium in 2011/12, Mr. Maholtra could still come forward with a proposal. Mr. Donaldson confirmed that in terms in terms of the RFP that would proceed after Council set the direction from the vision exercise, and all the work done for the business development strategy around the transit tunnel, there could be a whole range of options, including multi-use sports facility. There is always a bit of a compromise and a bit of switch over between baseball and soccer but it is not impossible to do. He confirmed that a partnership could be made during the process.

By way of response to the Councillor, Mr. Donaldson confirmed that the awarding of the contract could be done in February, if staff are delegated the authority. Councillor Monette wondered if the two proponents would be in a position to submit a proposal within that time frame. Given that both Ottawa Pro baseball and OSG were ready at the latest by 1 January 2010, Mr. Donaldson assumed that these time frames would work for them.

Councillor Monette felt that the final consideration of awarding the contracts should be at the first Council meeting in February to allow for the groups market their product and build excitement in the community. The City Solicitor confirmed that the first Councillor meeting in February would fall on the second Wednesday of the month.

Given the timeframe, the Chair inquired if Council could give staff delegated authority in order to not delay the project even further. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that this could be done.

Chair Jellett and Councillor Monette suggested adding a friendly amendment to the motion, giving delegated authority to staff to make a decision by 1 February 2010.

Councillor Desroches – thank staff for their presentation I do want to see a viable tenant here and it is great that we have some interest and I think we need to consider all our options but I want to hear from staff and this first step it is to identify a short term tenant the focus will be on the viability of the group that we are prepared to partner with I am not seeing request I don’t think we will be considering making a lot of investment for a short term lease arrangement and confirm that the focus of the first phase will be to look at a viable reliable tenant for the short term

In responding to Councillor Desroches, Mr. Donaldson advised that staff are currently looking for financial feasibility to move forward in the short-term process. Councillor Desroches asked about the different scenarios relating to the DOTT opportunities that are listed in the long-term strategy within the report. Mr. Donaldson clarified that the DOTT and the pedestrian bridge are two separate projects. If the DOTT does not proceed, there is still the possibility of the pedestrian bridge. More will be known within the next year and staff will have a better idea on how to plan for the kind of development that could be either connected or not to a Pedestrian bridge and/or a transit station. Both would require an Official Plan direction. Councillor Desroches concluded that he supports the motion by opening up the process to multi groups that are interested in using the facility.

Moved by M. Wilkinson,

Direct staff to solicit “best offers to lease” to utilize the Ottawa Stadium facility in the short term, based on the minimum conditions to lease described in the short-term strategy as outlined in this report and further, that staff be delegated the authority to make a decision by February 1^st.

CARRIED

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the methodology to produce the long-term strategy outlined in this report for a highest and best use analysis of the Ottawa Stadium;

2. Approve the short-term strategy for the interim use of the Ottawa Stadium as outlined in this report; and

3. Direct staff to solicit “best offers to lease” to utilize the Ottawa Stadium facility in the short term, based on the minimum conditions to lease described in the short-term strategy as outlined in this report; and

4. That staff be delegated the authority to make a decision by 1 February 2010.

CARRIED as amended

DIRECTION TO STAFF:

That Real Estate Partnership and Development staff revise the wording to Recommendation 2 of the report in light of the amendment that was made to Recommendation 3.

8. SALE OF PROPERTY – 2751 EIGHTH LINE ROAD

VENTE DU TERRAIN – 2751 RUE EIGhTH LINE

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0040 OSGOODE (20)

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:

1. Declare the property known municipally as 2751 Eighth Line Road and shown hatched and identified as Parcel 2 on Document 1 attached, containing approximately 5929.2 m² (1.465 acres), subject to final survey, being part of PIN 04310-0147 and legally described as part of Lot 22, geographic Township of Osgoode, in the City of Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs;

2. Approve the sale of the property detailed in Recommendation 1, subject to any easements that may be required, to Metcalfe Stanley Non-Profit Apartments Corporation, for the amount of $100,000 plus GST, if applicable, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.

CARRIED

9. ORLEANS (SHENKMAN) ARTS CENTRE AND TOWN CENTRE - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

CENTRE D’ACTIVITÉS ET CENTRE DES ARTS (SHENKMAN) D’ORLÉANS – MODIFICATIONS PROPOSÉES AUX ACCORDS de PARTENARIAT

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0056 ORLÉANS (1)

Carey Thompson, Deputy City Solicitor, Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, Lauren Reeves, Project Manager, Real Estate Partnership and Development Office were in attendance to respond to questions from Committee.

In response to a question from Councillor Deans, Ms. Reeves has been involved in this project for a number of years and provided the history of the agreement and the development of this project. As part of the agreement, the City sold 20 acres for the development and the OTCP Arts Centre G.P. Inc. was charged with developing the Town Centre lands. Within those agreements, she added that there are obligations by the P3 partner (Forum Equity Partners) to develop specific pieces of development, such as a hotel and an office building.

Ms. Reeves explained that the modifications, which are divided into two groups, are requests for financial and planning amendments. These amendments listed in the report, have been negotiated with Forum Equity Partners. In early summer, OTCP submitted their last construction draw for the arts centre and realized that there was a shortfall of $865,099, resulting in requesting that the City reimburse this shortfall. In reviewing the accounts, she advised that the shortfall could be funded from the interest collected in the project escrow account, or through the enhanced infrastructure budget. The project escrow account has been generating interest and currently has an excess of $312,000.

Council approved the enhanced infrastructure budget in 2006. Ms. Reeves highlighted that there is $3.1m in the infrastructure budget, which is essentially the City’s contribution to the Town Centre, for roads, parks, and sanitary sewers. The second source, staff are suggesting it be a line item within that enhanced infrastructure budget, which pertains to the Centrum Boulevard extension. With these two sources, it would cover the $865,000. Ms. Reeves referred to the planning amendments, and explained that staff are requesting a year deferral on the east lands development for the roads and the housing; two year deferral on the west land where there is a hotel and a seniors development; and some support for reducing density requirements in both those ends of the community.

Councillor Deans thanked Ms. Reeves for providing this information to Committee and asked how the error occurred as well as who was responsible for the error. Mr. Thomson advised that the Perly Robertson law firm had been retained by the City to do the legal work for this public-private partnership, which involved approximately $38M. When this issue arose, the legal firm was contacted and asked to review the situation. He advised that the error arose in May 2007 and both parties were responsible for the error. Unfortunately, the legal agreement did not properly reflect the deal, which is what is required to change.

In response to a follow up query from the Councillor, Mr. Thomson noted that although he was not involved in several of the meetings, did not believe that Forum felt they should share in the cost of this error. Councillor Deans agreed that the cost should not be shared equally but suggested that both parties contribute to the error, so that the taxpayers not bare the full cost.

Councillor Wilkinson agreed with her colleague and inquired if both parties signed the agreement. Staff responded affirmatively, noting that an external legal firm was hired to do the legal work for this project. He added that the law firm advised that it took instructions from the City representatives who were involved in the negotiating team, and given that it was a complex matter, there were a number of agreements pertaining to this particular project. Mr. Thomson noted that the agreement, which was signed between the City and Forum, and the various line items with regard to the construction, did not line up identically with the various headings as far as soft costs. The error surfaced when the project was at the substantial completion point, and it became apparent to the parties that there was a shortfall.

With respect to the enhanced infrastructure budget, Ms. Reeves advised that staff are continuing to review whether there is a need for the east/west link of Centrum Boulevard, even though it is within the Official Plan that a road be constructed. Once an EA has been determined, staff will have a better indication as to what kind of road is required and possibly, all funds may not be required. Another recommendation, staff are suggesting that rather than have Forum maintain the obligation to construct the link, staff would like to follow through with it.

In reply to a question by Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Reeves advised that if the road is built, there are existing funds in a deferred revenue account that should have been carried into the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget, as it was a cheque by an adjacent landowner that was to feed into the road infrastructure in the Town Centre. Subsequently, that fund could replace the Centrum extension fund.

Ms. Simulik explained the money in the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget is from the sale of the Orléans Client Service Centre to Forum, therefore, the land sales are providing the revenues for all those projects. She added that a contract was signed to lease back the Client Service Centre for approximately twenty years.

In a series of follow up questions by Councillor Wilkinson, staff provided the following responses:

· Due to possible changes in zoning, the tax income generated could be lower;

· The recommendation is to provide some flexibility to the Forum to apply for a rezoning, should they determine that that is what fits, although it is believed that they will try to meet the current requirements.

· They have requested a reduction from the 260 dwelling units on the east side to no less than 200 units, subject to a rezoning application.

Councillor Wilkinson commented that it appeared to be that it often costs the City when there is an issue and wondered if staff had any ideas to share on how to resolve this. Mr. Thomson claimed he could provide advice to Committee, although noted that it should be discussed in-camera. At this time, Councillor Wilkinson was prepared to move a motion that Committee go in-camera but Chair Jellett requested that remaining questions be responded to in the open session.

Councillor McRae followed up on the concerns raised by Councillors Deans and Wilkinson that this particular situation was unfortunate, especially when they appeared on the front page of the newspaper. She urged Committee to listen to Mr. Thomson’s summation that the facility is currently up and running and asked that he reiterate his comments about the amendments. Mr. Thomson repeated that the basis upon which this has come forward is that the proponent is not looking to change the deal, but rather to amend the agreement so that it accurately reflects the transaction. All of the various agreements to bring this project to fruition have been signed by both the City and Forum.

Councillor Deans conceded that it may be more the responsibility of the City, but emphasized that it was an error on both parts. Having spoken with the Forum representatives, they agreed that the City cover 75 per cent and they would cover 25 per cent of the cost; therefore she proposed to prepare a motion accordingly.

Councillor McRae noted her support to this motion given it is amenable to staff. She then requested that Mr. Thomson finish his statement on the amendments. Mr. Thomson continued, noting that this was a $38 million project involving numerous agreements, with the City, and its partner for this particular P3. The discrepancy was not realized until late in the game. He clarified that after consideration, the following information is not necessary to be communicated in-camera. In looking at the options, there were only two options staff felt were appropriate, which are that staff come forward in a proactive manner to address the situation or advise Forum that the City was not going to entertain it, and chance the possibility that they bring legal action against the City to reopen the matter. Given the fact that this is a significant project that is still in progress, it was not in the best interests of the City to be involved in a potential lawsuit over this matter, hence the reason for the report to come forward together with the recommendations. He concluded that staff support the proposed motion.

Councillor McRae suggested that a direction be given to staff to send a memorandum to Council explaining the situation and the error that occurred relating to this project to ensure that it does not occur in the future. The City Solicitor confirmed that he would relay the information to Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Monette, Ms. Simulik advised that the $642,000 residual would be paid through the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget project. The Councillor noted that he would be working on removing the east-west link of the Official Plan. He explained that the residents living in the community are mostly seniors, and it has been identified that it is no longer needed, adding that it was an idea from the former Cumberland Township, and planned as an arterial route. Should he be successful in his attempt, those funds could then be put it towards the 2010 budget.

Councillor Wilkinson noted her support to the report with the amendment but encouraged the developer to provide more units and thanked them for having accepted this change.

Chair Jellett confirmed that Mr. Donaldson contacted Forum to try and come to an agreement the day before the meeting. Mr. Donaldson confirmed, adding that Forum advised they would be attending the meeting and act accordingly upon a Committee and Council decision. Chair Jellett thanked Forum for agreeing to this resolution but noted his disappointment that the error occurred.

After confirming through the City Treasurer, Chair Jellett requested that the money is withdrawn from the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget for the benefit of the taxpayers. He explained that by taking the interest earned money and putting it back in the general accounts would help the overall tax base.

Moved by D. Deans,

That recommendation 1 be amended so that both parties contribute to the solution on a cost sharing arrangement of 75 per cent by the City of Ottawa and 25 per cent by the Forum Equity Partners.

CARRIED

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve a correction to the project budget for the Shenkman Arts Centre in the amount of $865,099 to be contributed by both parties on a cost sharing arrangement of 75 per cent by the City of Ottawa from the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget, and 25 per cent by the Forum Equity Partners.

2. Approve the reallocation of $108,000 within the Enhanced Infrastructure Budget to construct a new sanitary sewer in the “Police Road” as further described in this report; and

3. Authorize staff to amend the Partnership Agreements between the City and the OTCP Arts Centre G.P. Inc., in its capacity as general partner of OTCP Arts Centre Limited Partnership, to implement the adjustments described in this report and the staff letter dated 18 November 2009 to Forum Equity Partners attached as Document 1 to this report.

CARRIED as amended

10. DISPOSAL STRATEGY – 2720 Richmond Road – former Grant ALTERNATIVE school

STRATÉGIE D’ÉLIMINATION – 2720, chemin Richmond – ANCIENNE ÉCOLE PARALLÈLE Grant

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0046 BAY / BAIE (7)

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Receive the Centre multi-services francophone de l’Ouest d’Ottawa (CMFO) Progress Report Two, dated 2 November 2009, attached as Document 3 to this report, regarding a Business Plan for a multi-use community centre, long term care facility and seniors housing cooperative on the subject property; and

2. Provide the CMFO until 31 January 2010 to finalize the Business Plan for the subject property and to submit it for the consideration of Committee and Council.

CARRIED

11. disposal sTrategy - 3071 riverside drive – former bayview PUBLIC school

STRATÉGIE D’ÉLIMINATION – 3071, PROMENADE RIVERSIDE – ANCIENNE ÉCOLE PUBLIQUE BAYVIEW

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0053 RIVER/RIVIÈRE (16)

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Retain the portions of the property at 3071 Riverside Drive shown as Parcels “A” and “C” on Document 1 to allow for use as a sports field (approximately 0.791 ha / 1.95 ac) and for the construction of a field house (approximately 0.09 ha / 0.22ac) respectively as described in this report;

2. Direct staff to pursue the acquisition of 2026 Springland Drive, shown as Parcel “D” on Document 1 attached and described as Part of Lots 24 and 25 Junction Gore, shown as part 2 on plan 4R-12424 being all of PIN 040730129, for use as an access to the property at 3071 Riverside Drive as outlined in this report and report back on costs and funding source in Q1 2010;

3. Declare the property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached containing an area of approximately 3.173 ha (7.85 ac), described as part of Lot 24 Junction Gore, concession 2 (O.F.), Geographic Township of Gloucester, now in the City of Ottawa, being part of PIN 040730076, as surplus to the City’s needs; and

4. Direct staff to advertise the 3.173 ha (7.85 ac) property, shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1 attached, for sale, subject to development conditions as described in this report to ensure the redevelopment of this property is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

CARRIED

12. DISPOSAL STRATEGY – 25 ESQUIMAULT AVENUE – QUALICUM–GRAHAM PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE

STRATÉGIE D’ÉLIMINATION – 25, AVENUE Esquimault – Qualicum – CENTRE COMMUNAUTAIRE DU PARC Graham

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0054 COLLEGE / COLLÈGE (8)

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Direct staff to initiate a Request for Proposals (RFP) in Q1 2010 for the redevelopment of the property known municipally as 25 Esquimault Avenue, containing an area of approximately 1.41 ha (3.48 a), described as part of Lot 70, Lot 71, Block A, Plan 479669, former City of Nepean, now in the City of Ottawa, being PIN 046960138, shown as Parcel “A” on Document 1;

2. Direct staff to include, as outlined in this report, provisions in the RFP for the redevelopment of the property to be:

(a) Respectful of the development concept shown on Document 3 attached, and;

(b) Subject to a development agreement that will include conditions for the proponent to be responsible for the construction of a new community centre, the demolition of the existing building, the remediation of the environmental contamination on the property, and the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the concept plan to be submitted by the proponent; and

3. Direct staff to report back to City Council in Q2 2010 with recommendations regarding:

(a) Approval of a preferred proposal;

(b) Identification of the portion of the site not required for Park purposes and which is surplus to City needs;

(c) Approval of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and associated Development Agreement.

CARRIED

13. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL AND LEASE OF LAND AND PROPERTY - 1 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE 2009

DELEGATION DE POUVOIRS – ACQUISITION ET CESSION DE TERRAINS ET DE PROPRIÉTÈS – DU 1^ER Janvier AU 30 Juin 2009

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0052 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

14. OTTAWA CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD SURPLUS PROPERTY - ST. THOMAS CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PROPRIÉTÉ EXCÉDENTAIRE DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DES ÉCOLES CATHOLIQUES D’OTTAWA – ÉCOLE ÉLÉMENTAIRE CATHOLIQUE ST. THOMAS

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0055 BAY / BAIE (7)

Gordon MacNair, Director, Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office provided a PowerPoint presentation, copy of which is held on file.

The committee received the following delegations.

Ruth Tremblay, President, Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBLCA) provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. The CBLCA supports the property being used for a Community Centre that includes some paying users to off-set costs; it does not support a community centre being built in Maki Park because of the lack of room for it there and the financial constraints it would incur. Since the 90-days given in Ontario Regulation 444/98 for the preferred parties to make an offer on this property expires soon, the Association requests that the City purchase the former St. Thomas School property and then consult with the community about its future use so a decision that includes taxpayers can be made. More detailed comments can be found in Ms. Tremblay’s presentation.

Councillor Cullen asked to what extent the community supports the City purchasing the site. Ms. Tremblay said support is widespread, indicating she is aware of only two individuals that have objected. In response to a question from the Councillor, Ms. Tremblay presented a community petition signed by 370 people in support of the acquisition, as well as 70 letters of support that had been collected since the night of November 27^th.

Councillor Cullen thought that the former City of Nepean conducted a number of recreation studies looking at facilities to meet this community’s needs. Ms. Tremblay confirmed, noting that Grant Millar, lead for the CBLCA Parks and Recreation Committee had intended to provide comments to Committee in that regard but was unable to attend. She asked if she could deliver his presentation on his behalf. Chair Jellett agreed. Ms. Tremblay added that countless recreational needs studies were conducted that identified the area as being under serviced and the need has not yet been addressed.

Councillor Cullen recalled that the City of Nepean had considered acquiring the site at Moodie Drive and Carling for an arena complex/community centre, but it did not come to fruition. Ms. Tremblay explained that was not popular because it is NCC land and the community values NCC land more than it values an indoor gym.

Councillor Cullen referred to Ms. Tremblay’s comment that there is a problem with the size of the site for what staff are proposing as a new community building. He requested further explanation. Ms. Tremblay provided numerous reasons the community does not support the proposed location for a new community building, which are listed in her presentation.

Councillor Cullen advised that he had asked Councillor Wilkinson to move option two of the report, which would have the City acquire the site and consult with the community on potential uses with the expectation that a portion of the site could be sold off to recoup some of the costs, and a portion of the building demolished to reduce the operating costs. He asked whether that would be acceptable to the CBLCA, provided the gym and classrooms surrounding it were retained. Ms. Tremblay replied that would be acceptable, but the Association really would prefer that the entire property be purchased and the community consulted before proceeding in any way.

Councillor Desroches noted one of the current challenges is that the City doesn’t have a policy to help Council make decisions, and it would only be coming forward in the new year. He noted that Ms. Tremblay had stated a number of reasons why the City should acquire the site, and asked for clarification that one of those reasons was that because the City has acquired the other three it has set a precedent. Ms. Tremblay replied that it has built an expectation in the community and it would be very disappointing for the residents and the Association if the City doesn’t buy it. She said the community would like equal treatment.

Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that just keeping the gym and tearing down the rest of the building has been done with other sites, which makes the rest of the land surplus that could be sold for development. She inquired whether Ms. Tremblay had any issue with that option. Ms. Tremblay said she would not have a problem if that were all they could get but the community would prefer that the private schools be included in some kind of discussion because they would like to use the facility and they need space.

Councillor Wilkinson inquired whether Ms. Tremblay had talked to the private schools about whether they could purchase the school. Ms. Tremblay indicated she had not and preferred that they speak for themselves, noting a representative from the Waldorf School was scheduled to speak to Committee later on.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that with the other such sites the City has bought, part of each is being sold for development and part is being kept to meet community needs, which is one way the City can justify the purchase. She felt that any purchase must be economical for the City, which means there needs to be some return for part of it. Ms. Tremblay agreed that would be good.

Councillor McRae asked Ms. Tremblay to elaborate on why she would not be supportive of the City trying to recoup some of its taxpayer money to buy the property by redeveloping part of it. Ms. Tremblay explained that the association was encouraged by the City’s Parks and Recreation department to find uses for the rest of the building, which they did. She expressed concern about the work they had done. She understood why the City would want to sell part of it to recoup costs and suggested that would be ok, but reiterated the Association’s first choice would be that they buy the whole thing and consult the community about what to do with it.

The Councillor commented that on the agenda for this meeting, there is a former school property in her ward (Bayview), noting her community association showed great leadership in passing a motion to ask her to work on buying an old school in an extremely valuable area of the city. Their motion indicated they understood the City could not sink too much taxpayer money into the property and asked that a plan be developed that would incorporate redevelopment of the residual. She asked Ms. Tremblay to verify that she is not opposed to that option. She pointed out that the staff report does not recommend purchasing the entire St. Thomas property. She noted there would be a cost to look after the school and asked Ms. Tremblay to elucidate her thoughts about the City buying the property, tearing the school down, selling most it for development and possibly building a brand new centre on that site.

Ms. Tremblay indicated agreement with that idea, but pointed out it was not an option being offered. She suggested a good option might be that the City purchase the whole property and keep an acre, on which it could build the new community building, but noted this was not presented to the Association as an option. She added that option 2 is also acceptable (just keeping the gym), noting that the Association was not aware until a week ago that the options included the possibility of having a new community building for $3M, so they have not had much time to consider it.

Councillor McRae was not clear, pointing out that staff are doing what Council tells them to, which is to not build new buildings. She referenced Councillor Desroches’ ward, which is one of the fastest growing yet no new community centre will be built in Riverside South. She added that just because he has a new subdivision that doesn’t have old properties that could be fixed up for community use, it doesn’t mean that queue jumping should take place. She suggested that the situation with the Crystal Beach/Lakeview community looks like queue jumping because there is already a community centre on the property in Maki Park, and although it may need some work, that’s part of the lifecycle program and money will be made available for that as per the normal process. She suggested that perhaps the ward councillor, Councillor Cullen, could ask one of the committee members to do the same with this site as was done with the Bayview site, which involves the majority of the site going out for redevelopment. She asked Ms. Tremblay to indicate what she sees as a reasonable option.

Ms. Tremblay reiterated that option 2 is reasonable. Chair Jellett clarified for Councillor McRae that option 2 is to buy the entire property, retain and improve the gym portion and parcel B, demolish the rest of the building and sell the land for development. He indicated there would be a motion coming forward to that effect. Chair McRae commented that she would like to see the Association come out with a statement saying they will work towards the redevelopment of these sites to get the support of Committee and Council.

Councillor Cullen recalled that as a result of the loss of the facility space at St. Thomas the community had been working in consultation with Parks and Recreation staff, who have acknowledged a programming deficiency in the community. The Association had created a shopping list of ideas and consulted with various community groups and had the expectation that, should the City buy the property, there would be full community consultation before making a decision based on what the community needs and what the City can afford. Ms. Tremblay confirmed that to be correct.

Councillor Cullen asked for verification that Ms. Tremblay would accept the City selling 1.2 acres of the land with the older portions of the school. He noted the community had met and discussed this and although it was not the preferred option, they had indicated support because the gym and some of the classrooms and space around it would be retained for community use. Ms. Tremblay confirmed.

Mike Tremblay remarked that he has lived in Crystal Beach for 14 years and both his children have attended St. Thomas school so he is familiar with the building and the community’s needs. However, he wanted to share his perspective from 30 years of experience as a commercial realtor in Ottawa. He said he had analyzed hundreds of commercial investment opportunities and sold dozens of older commercial buildings for redevelopment into exciting and innovative residential and commercial reuses. He did not agree with staff’s recommendation to build a new structure in the middle of the area’s sportsfields. He said that proposal is not right for Maki Park; it does not protect the valuable school grounds that will be lost forever to taxpayers, and given budget constraints it would not likely happen anytime soon. In his opinion, acquisition of the St. Thomas property is a far wiser and less costly solution for the taxpayer for the following reasons:

§ It acquires land, an enduring asset that can be debt financed and will appreciate and remain in the public hands long after the debt is retired.

§ The cost of the St. Thomas property should not be as high as the $2.2 - 3.6 M that is being bandied about. A review of recent school sales, specifically the three that were referenced earlier clearly show that the St. Thomas property has a market value of less than $2 M, or less than $800 K per acre.

§ Staff’s statement that the building is reaching the end of its useful life is misleading and unfair. He suggested the school was not closed because of its age, adding that the Catholic Board’s Facility Condition Index for St. Thomas is 39%, meaning that the cost of renewing the school building is only 39% of the cost of new construction. The private sector would consider such a building in the right location to be extremely useful.

§ The $1.4M deferred life cycle work identified by the Catholic Board is a theoretical budget for replacement of many typical elements of a school building, and includes a number of unnecessary expenses such as communication systems, carpeting, clock systems, window coverings, etc. The expenditures on the critical elements, like a roof or air conditioning unit, would be typically spread out over their useful life of 10 to 20 years.

§ If, after consultation with the community, a robust business plan that generates revenue to offset some of the renewal and operating costs cannot be developed, option 2 is very feasible because only 30% of the building, a gymnasium that currently meets modern standards, would need renewal. And this would be relatively inexpensive because it is a single storey, free span, open structure with few windows. There are no walls inside; there are no windows around the gym. A reasonable estimate for renewal under option 2 should be less than $400,000. Demising of the gymnasium section and demolition of the older, single storey portion of the school building would also be relatively inexpensive because the exterior wall footings and structural supports are already in place. Mr. Tremblay noted there is a dividing wall between the original building and the newer section, the gymnasium, meaning demolition would not be difficult. Furthermore, about 50% of the demolition costs would be recoverable from the resale of the residual lands, as this is a cost that any developer is going to incur.

§ Upgrades to meet the building code and contemporary City standards, for example barrier-free access for the remaining gym, would be relatively minimal, as it is a single storey structure built at grade with large washrooms and double entrance doors already existing. Half the structure is a gym that most users already think is in good condition.

§ Rejecting the St. Thomas option in favour of a new LEED building is false environmental economy and net zero gain. If not reused, the demolition of the St. Thomas building results in the eventual land filling of tons of bricks, mortar and jip rock, which must be accommodated at tax payer expense, offsetting the benefits of the small LEED building that is 20% more energy efficient. Staff has estimated the cost of option 2, retaining the gymnasium, at $3.5M, but he suggested a more reasonable estimate of the total cost of this option is less than $2M. That includes the sale of the residual acre of land, which is now being cleared and approved for low to medium density residential development.

On those grounds, he suggested option 2 is a far better solution than creating a new building because 1) it costs far less, 2) the City acquires 1.5 acres of valuable land for future use, and revitalizes a cherished structure 3) it immediately addresses the community’s recreational needs to their satisfaction, 4) it permits the City to debt finance the project rather than finance scarce capital, and 5) the City would still have the ability to retain an acre of the land for construction of the lead facility if costs rise unexpectedly. In closing, he said he understood staff’s reluctance to take on another school at this time, given the lessons learned with the Bayview school acquisition, but he thought it would be unfair fair since a surplus school policy was approved by Council for the purpose of protecting greenspace and meeting recreational needs. He added that given Crystal Beach clearly meets the recreational needs criteria, St. Thomas should have been at the top of that priority list, had staff completed that prioritization criteria in a timely manner.

Councillor Cullen asked Mr. Tremblay to confirm that, as a licensed commercial realtor, he felt that option 2 would be best and that under that scenario, there is a possibility of the market providing about $800,000 an acre, or just under $1M for 1.2 acres. Mr. Tremblay replied that at an appraised value of $800,000 per acre, the City would purchase it for less than $2M and could add value by demolishing the school and approving the rezoning, and could then resell at $1M per acre. He felt Parcel C would be a desirable place for development, estimating that if Leeming Drive was extended out before it turns to create a circle it could accommodate 10 to 12 houses, very similar to Mackie Circle on the other end of the school property. The Councillor noted that is what happened when Sir John A. MacDonald public school got closed.

In response to further questions about his presentation, Mr. Tremblay suggested that retaining the old portion of the school for community use would amount to a facility comparable to the Albion Heathering Centre - a gymnasium with a couple of rooms, a kitchen and washrooms. He remarked that those things are there now and are in fairly good condition, contrary to the staff report, and the community wants it, and it would meet their needs rather than waiting for a new building.

Theo Vanderburg spoke on behalf of the Ottawa Waldorf School. He added he has often represented the Great River School in different situations and offered to answer any questions on that front. A copy of The Ottawa Waldorf School, which is now located in Stittsville, is part of a Federal, not-for-profit charitable organization that is governed by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA). As a not-for-profit private school seeking the best possible enrollment, the school has often thought of moving east, closer towards the proximity of the rest of the Waldorf community, which has been based downtown, as well as larger population. Its board has also been drawn to Crystal Beach / Lakeview community because of the greenspace, which is an important element of Waldorf’s education process. The school has consulted with the Crystal Beach / Lakeview Community Association and attended some of its meetings, and determined the community is a good fit for the Ottawa Waldorf School in terms of greenspace and in terms of being active and engaged. He acknowledged the deficiencies in the community in terms of recreational programming and lack of a licensed daycare centre and pointed out that Waldorf offers some recreational programming (e.g., art/craft type courses, sewing, woodworking). Furthermore, Great River School currently runs a day care so the site is of interest to them as well. In closing, he said the Ottawa Waldorf School would like to express interest and would appreciate the opportunity to consult with the City on the potential dual community use for the building, and would like to determine whether or not a purchase for service agreement with the City would be appropriate at some point. Mr. Vanderburg’s more detailed PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

When asked by Councillor Cullen about current enrollment, Mr. Vanderburg enlightened that approximately 65 children are currently registered in Ottawa Waldorf School approximately 35-40 in the Great River School. He also confirmed for the Councillor that Great River School has a day care program, and that both schools have early childhood education programs for parents and children, as well as kindergarten classes.

In response to a follow-up question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Vanderburg explained that the Ottawa Waldorf School would not require use of the entire building.

The Councillor inquired whether the Waldorf would bid on the St. Thomas school if it were put on the market as per option 1 of the report. Mr. Vanderburg acknowledged that is an option but was unsure whether the school has sufficient equity to bid against developers and to be able to afford the full market price.

Councillor Wilkinson asked whether, if the City chooses to go with the option 2 but instead of demolishing the rest of the building demolish just the end of it, Waldorf would be interested in purchasing that part. Mr. Vanderburg replied that since the School’s governance requires the full board to make financial decisions, he could not speak totally on behalf of the School, but in principle, he thought they would. Since the full facility is more than Waldorf requires, he thought they would be willing to consider all sensible options.

The Councillor asked staff whether it would be possible to enter into a joint venture with the Ottawa Waldorf School without opening it up to everybody if the City decided not to take the building down. Dave Donaldson, Manager of Realty Initiatives and Development replied that if the City approved the option to retain part of the building for itself and dispose of the rest, then one of the options to consider would be allowing the building to stay and have a parting wall put in and sever the two portions in terms of use and ownership, provided it fit within the zoning and appropriate use.

Councillor Wilkinson explained to Mr. Vanderburg that a number of schools currently have community buildings attached to them, meaning there are joint owners. Mr. Vanderburg thought the option might be of interest to Waldorf.

Dave Kent, Group Commissioner, 112^th Nepean Scouts presented comments to remind Committee of the value of Scouting to local youth, to recount some of the group’s 45 years of service to the children of the community, and to express the need for affordable community space to continue that service. He said the community is passionate about St. Thomas because is not just a geographic landmark; it also represents the founding and growth of the community. Since the demolition of Sir John A. MacDonald Public School, which was also on Leeming, St. Thomas stands as the sole monument to the community’s past. He suggested the loss of St. Thomas would be the destruction and denial of that past. He noted that although the value of St. Thomas to its community far exceeds its floor space, it’s that space that has become the focus of discussion. In that regard, he pointed out that option 1 is strongly favoured by the community, yet option 3 is recommended by staff. At nearly 26,000 sq/ft, he remarked that St. Thomas offers its community a significant block of space that is needed and is big enough to share and to grow a better and stronger community in sharing. And options 1 and 2 come with land, which, if acquired by the City mitigates any risk and allows the City to keep all its options open. By contrast, the staff recommendation would deliver less than 30% of the community space, but at 60% of the cost. It would add little land as a safeguard, and it would severely limit the City’s options in the future. He added that the community needs the certainty of an existing facility, not the uncertainty of a possibility of a potential facility at some point in an unclear future. He held that given the facts, and being mindful of the scout law to be wise in the use of all resources, he could only characterize any recommendation that would abandon the St. Thomas facility as being profoundly unwise.

Ruth Tremblay presented comments on behalf of Grant Millar, Crystal Beach Lakeview CA Parks and Recreation Committee. Mr. Millar asked for the opportunity to explore with the City viable utilization of the St. Thomas site to address demonstrated recreational needs of the community by recommending the purchase of the entire site, and together developing the best plan to serve the surrounding area and the City of Ottawa. He pointed out that City studies for over 20 years have recognized the need for additional recreational facilities in that area. Furthermore, these reports recommend decentralization of specific Parks & Recreation programming for youth and seniors, which could be realized at St. Thomas. Mr. Millar presented compiled data showing the significant level of parks and recreation programming registration in the community, noting that numerous participants undertook recreational courses outside of the community because there aren’t facilities to offer them within the community. He said that makes it very difficult for the community to properly participate in activities together, and that local programming would provide that added accessibility to youth and seniors and sharing of culture. Furthermore, now that St. Thomas School has closed, most children are bussing across the greenbelt to Bells Corners for schooling. A copy of Mr. Millar’s presentation is held on file.

Esme Tremblay and her friend Joanne explained that St. Thomas used to provide a sense of community and belonging while they grew up in the area and went to school there. They were very distressed that the building could be torn down and the school grounds could be lost to make room for modern houses that would not fit the style of the neighbourhood. They felt that St. Thomas was part of the heritage of the community, and that there is a strong connection between the building, the houses, the streets, and the people. They suggested that if the City truly wants to become green, it should buy the St. Thomas building to prevent it from ending up in the landfill, adding that it is offensive to them that the City thinks of St. Thomas as a useless building when it has lots of life left in it yet. They noted that the building has wheelchair ramps, at least one fire exit in each classroom, an extra large gym, a large stage, a library, a kitchen, spacious rooms with large windows, and six major entrances, suggesting there is no reason why it cannot be reused as a community centre. They felt the community would benefit greatly from having a community recreation centre in the St. Thomas building and that it would provide many opportunities to many people..

Ian Ash, former President of the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community Association (CBLCA) wished to refute Councillor McRae’s earlier suggestion that the community of Crystal Beach was seeking unjust enrichment. Explaining that he was President of the CBLCA in 1988 when the Sir John A. MacDonald School was demolished, he noted there were rumblings at that time that the St. Thomas School might be in jeopardy. He read out a portion of a petition that was presented to the Mayor and Councillors of Nepean Council at that time, asking for protection of St. Thomas. He reiterated this is not unjust enrichment, but rather is a case where the community is pleading against unjust depravation of all its facilities, noting that Mackie House once had another school near it, which has since gone to redevelopment. He said that essentially the community has been on the defense period for about 25 years, trying to protect assets of the community that were accorded to the community by Councils such as this one. He explained that the Association also tried to protect the school through the school board, but suggested that in the end, the school board used essentially improper tactics, sidestepping the community when, in June of the academic year, they went to all the parents of children in St. Thomas and said told them they would have to choose between Bayview and Our Lady’s, and as a result the school, as an operating unit, essentially collapsed the following September. He felt that Council was about to make some hasty decisions with respect to St. Thomas and although he was pleased to see they were talking about a possible new community centre, he felt they should take more time to look at the space and decide in conjunction with the community what might be most appropriate, including development.

Councillor Deans appreciated Mr. Ash’s passion for the school and that of the community but observed the area is not currently considered a priority because there is community centre in close proximity to this one and there is a community building in the abutting park. She explained the difficulty in expending this amount of taxpayers’ money when there are so many competing priorities. She questioned whether he thought the community would consider a levy to cover the costs of the acquisition, as was done for the Canterbury Community Centre. Mr. Ash said he could not speak on the community’s behalf in that regard, but suggested the City should consult them on it. He said the community is trying to be creative to find a solution to maintain the building. He felt a referendum would be required to determine if the community would support a levy as suggested.

Councillor Cullen agreed that a referendum would be in order but noted that the City only has until December 24 to take action, so in order to make this a real choice, the City must buy the land.

When asked by the Councillor whether he would prefer a new building be constructed for a community centre or St. Thomas retained for that purpose, Mr. Ash replied he would like to see the City buy St. Thomas because he felt it is limiting its options at the moment.

The delegations having been heard, the Chair opened the floor to questions / discussion and motions.

Councillor Cullen advised that Councillor Wilkinson would move the following motion on his behalf:

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee direct staff to pursue negotiations with the Ottawa-Carleton School Board for the City to acquire the St. Thomas school site at 9 Leeming Drive, pursuant to option 2 of the report ‘Ottawa Catholic School Board Surplus Property - St. Thomas Catholic Elementary School’.

He referenced page 99 of the agenda, which contained a map showing the park and Parcel A, B and C. He clarified option 2 would see the City buy the site and sell off parcel C as a means of recouping the costs of the site. He noted that the difference between option 2 and option 3 (p.95), option 3 being the staff recommendation, is that option 3 proposes to build a new-purpose built 7,700 sq. ft. community building amounting to approximately $3M, whereas option 2 would amount to $3.5M. He noted that staff are also recommending that Council ‘may wish to consider’ approving a budget project and allocating funding to provide a new-purpose built community building with a gymnasium to replace the facilities that were previously available to the community for use for over 30 years until the use agreement was terminated in 2006. He asked staff if there is a budget for this. Mr. MacNair indicated there is not.

Councillor Cullen asked Mr. Burry to verify that previous recreation studies were done by the City of Nepean and City of Ottawa that identified recreational programming needs for the community, and the present staff report states the same. Mr. Burry responded that the question was too general in terms of recreational programming, noting that most communities need more or would like more than they currently have.

The Councillor asked whether the recreational programming needs in this community are such that they require a facility. Mr. Burry responded that following amalgamation staff re-examined what the recreational programming needs would be with all the borders between communities removed. The decision of Council subsequent to that was to follow an infrastructure approach, which basically consolidates more infrastructures on large locations. So for the west end of the city, for example, this is why the City is now looking at a large Kanata North project. Also included in this was looking at the overall needs for this particular sector of the city, and that is the Pinecrest-Queensway expansion, which would have taken place this year but was deferred.

Councillor Cullen understood Mr. Burry’s comments in terms of the planning process, but noted there is a recommendation for a facility; the debate on that is whether to build a new one or use the existing property. Regardless of which, he said, it is needed to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Burry replied it would be fair to say that the way that the City to date has planned or looked at its facilities was more of a consolidation approach. The City was not looking to expand at the neighbourhood level. So in this particular neighbourhood there’s an existing service and what remains to be discussed and considered is what level of services the City will be providing at the neighbourhood level. He noted that many neighbourhoods across the city are asking for more neighbourhood level services. The question becomes how that would be financed and paid for because the City’s current Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) does not include acquisition of schools or augmenting and bringing up neighbourhood levels to a higher level.

Councillor Cullen pointed out that the report explicitly states that ‘…both City staff and local residents have identified an indoor recreational facility, with approximately 7,700-7,900 sq. ft. of total floor space, including a gymnasium, as being an additional recreational need for this community that would complement the existing Maki Park facilities…’, so that is recognized by staff. Mr. Burry confirmed.

The Councillor remarked that the Official Plan (OP) states that the City will work with school boards, the community, private sector and other interested parties to investigate means to retain school buildings for public purposes and school ground for open space, either in whole or in part. He noted that Options 1, 2 and 3 would be consistent with that OP policy (section 2.5.3). Mr. Burry conceded that as the policy is written they would because it opens all options. Councillor Cullen commented that’s why the City has a policy for purchasing surplus schools and why two have already been purchased. He said there is flexibility in the model, and what is being proposed here is an element of flexibility by selling off Parcel C.

Chair Jellett asked Mr. Burry where this rates on the priority list - creating a community centre space of 7800 sq. ft for this community vis-à-vis the entire city. Mr. Burry replied that it has not been identified, and further, that one of the dilemmas, to be fair and reasonable in terms of what staff have been looking at for the last year, is that essentially the school boards will be selling between two and three properties per year going forward. The current dilemma is that within the financial resources that have been identified, there has been no financial plan in terms of acquisition or included in the LRFP. He pointed out that if there were funds to do this, it is unlikely Committee and Council would be debating it. The question is, when staff are looking out in terms of recommendations, it is to decide which properties should be acquired and at what kind of maintenance costs and budget pressures. He said that next year, when the neighbourhood level consideration starts, there would likely be many requests from neighbourhoods to have facilities that residents could walk to. He said there is a significant deficit of such facilities in the city if that’s the standard that Council wants to move to.

Chair Jellett asked whether, if there were $3M available to create a centre of this type anywhere in the city, staff would be recommending putting one in this location first. Mr. Burry said that would not be the case because there are a number of other communities currently on the list that don’t have existing facilities of this level. The Crystal Beach/Lakeview community already has 4500 sq. ft., and although that might be less than desired, there are many communities that only have 4500 sq. ft. or less that would like to move to a standard that includes a gym and many of the other facilities. He said there are many things undone and the priority list will need to be redone as a result of federal investments.

Chair Jellett pointed out that the motion proposed to come forward does not contain a funding source, and as it serves as a replacement motion for the three staff recommendations, it requires a funding source.

Councillor Deans agreed with Mr. Burry that it would be nice to do this for communities because many of them don’t have enough community space. She noted there are a number of schools coming up where the ward Councillors and their communities will be championing their purchase but there is currently no budget to do so. She asked how much would have to be added to the 2010 budget in terms of acquisitions if Council were to agree to this acquisition and the ones that are following. Mr. Burry said he could provide a ballpark figure based on the track record of the last year, that being about $10M per year over the next 10 years for the acquisitions of the sites and possibly $250-500 K annually for operating costs of those buildings. He thought that would be in the realm of what staff sees in terms of what’s coming online and potentially coming up for sale.

The Councillor referred to Document 1 of the staff report and observed the indication that the property is severable into three parcels. Mr. MacNair confirmed.

Councilor Deans inquired whether a building condition audit has taken place on the building and whether, for example, there is asbestos in the building. Mr. MacNair advised such an audit has not been done but he has been informed there is asbestos in the building. He said staff had also seen a lifecycle audit that had been done by the school board, which is how staff estimated the lifecycle costs of the building to be $1.4M.

The Councillor asked whether, because of the asbestos, there would be safety issues and problems with asbestos removal if part of the building were torn away, as suggested by Councillor Cullen. Mr. MacNair replied there would be issues in that regard. He said the other unknown is that they might run into the same problem as at Bayview School where the location of the mechanical systems ruled out the possibility to retain part of the building and it all had to be torn down.

In terms of Option 3, construction of a new building, Councillor Deans asked Mr. Burry where that would fit in terms of overall priority for the city, i.e. when the community could expect to see the new building constructed. Mr. Burry explained that would depend largely on what level of neighbourhood plan is developed next year and what Council is looking at in terms of financing it. He added that priority would be those communities who currently have no facility and are waiting, so this location would be lower on the priority list. He said that with the number of infrastructure programs and projects that have come on, the priority list is a little outdated at this point. Councillor Deans interpreted that comment to mean that should a new facility be built in this community, it would amount to queue jumping over communities with greater need. Mr. Burry agreed. He added that since there is essentially no budget in terms of acquisition of schools, whether the purchase of the school or the construction of the building is debt-financed it would not necessarily change the timing, if that is the concern. He commented that staff’s experience over the last 10-15 years has been that new buildings are just a lot more useable to the community and cheaper to operate in the long run. Typically, old schools don’t represent good value from a strict financial standpoint.

Councillor Deans asked what the estimated value of Parcel C would be if were severed and sold. Mr. MacNair felt that such discussion should occur in-camera because it involves property belonging to someone else.

Councillor Deans noted a motion would be coming forward that the entire site be purchased, and she noted there is time sensitivity around the acquisition of the property. She asked whether it would be feasible to move an amendment to that motion to say that the acquisition would be done conditional on a future area levy (so the City could recoup the cost) and that if the community did not accept an area levy the property would be disposed of.

Ms. Simulik explained that a referendum would not be required to impose a special area charge. She referred to a similar situation in Canterbury, where Council decided it would be funded from the community. According to the Municipal Act, Council just has to determine there is a benefit to the area and the area will pay for it; it is then added to the tax bill. The Canterbury Community Centre was debt-financed, so the community is paying the debt over ten years.

Councillor Deans inquired as to the cost per household for the Canterbury Community Centre. Ms. Simulik advised it amounted to approximately $100 per household over a ten-year period, noting, however, that the catchment area for the centre is fairly large, which makes the cost less per household.

Councillor Deans asked how the boundaries were decided for Canterbury and how the boundaries would be determined for Crystal Beach/Lakeview if the community was prepared to go forward on that basis. Ms. Simulik remarked that the boundary issue is a little tricky. She noted Alta Vista worked well because there are either natural barriers or manmade barriers that create restrictions. She said you would look at the natural flow of the area, who would be using it and whether there are major roads, rivers or buffer areas that would define the limits of the catchment area that would benefit from having the community centre. In terms of getting the community’s endorsement of the Canterbury Community Centre, the ward Councillor had approached the community association and explained this was the only option to proceed and they agreed. She reiterated, however, that the Municipal Act authorizes Council to proceed in this manner without the community’s endorsement as long as there is need and benefit.

Councillor Deans noted that Councillor Cullen was in agreement with an area levy for the centre in his ward and she asked staff if there would be any down side for the municipality in moving ahead in that manner. Ms. Simulik was unsure and said her staff would need to look at how easy it would be to define the catchment area.

Councillor Deans inquired who would be responsible for paying the operating costs of the building under this scenario. Ms. Simulik explained that the City would be responsible, adding that the Capital costs are borne by the residents.

Councillor Deans noted the complexities of the scenario give the possible conditions of the building and wondered if it wouldn’t be more efficient to tear down the entire building and construct a new one on site if an area levy could be put in place to pay for it. She pointed out a new building would be asbestos-free, would be easier to maintain and would have a longer lifecycle. Mr. Burry thought that would be a reasonable approach in order to save on costs for everyone in the long run.

Councillor Desroches commented that he represents an area that is growing rapidly, where there are plans to enhance recreational facilities. He noted some areas of the ward do not have anywhere near the recreational opportunities available in some other parts of the city. He also noted that the construction of the recreation centre in Kanata was delayed by a year because of budget concerns. He requested clarification as to whether the City actually has a policy regarding the acquisition of schools or simply a Council decision that would be developed, to come forward in the first quarter of 2010. Mr. MacNair replied that the policy that was approved in 2007 indicated that school acquisitions would be considered on a case-by-case basis and that staff was to come back with some type of funding mechanism and also with the criteria. That is planned to happen in Q1 of next year. He further confirmed for Councillor Desroches that the City does not currently have criteria for these acquisitions.

The Councillor felt that one of the criteria should be that if a community has no park or community space the City would look at the acquisition. In the case of Crystal Beach/Lakeview there is community and park space. He asked whether staff could provide their preliminary thoughts on what the criteria would be in the policy for acquisitions. Mr. Donaldson provided the following list as potential criteria that may be recommended:

· That City program requirements based on response to internal circulation process, e.g. what staff typically do now is when they find out a school property is being declared surplus they do a circulation for response within a specified timeframe, so if needs and funding are identified staff can move forward on that basis

· Neighbourhood program requirement based as per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan that will be coming forward

· Maintain and enhance green space based on the supply and requirement in immediate neighbourhood

· Purchasing the property for the site requirements and not the building

· Working with the Province and getting amendment in place to the Education Act to allow staff to look at situations where the City could acquire part of the lands, not all, to meet its needs

· A city initiative that would be proactive in terms of zoning regulations and looking at institutional schools and moving forward with a dual zoning that would be compatible with the OP to meet the uses of the surrounding area

· Carrying out consultation with community on community needs and redevelopment

Councillor Desroches suggested those criteria are too vague and would allow for the purchase of nearly every school that comes forward over the next decade, which is not a proposition that is affordable to the City and causes some difficulty with the rollout of a larger City strategy that tries to focus the City’s limited resources in areas that are absolutely desperate for greenspace and recreation.

Mr. Donaldson explained the proposal coming forward in Q1 would be more detailed but the point is staff are looking at options where the City wouldn’t have to buy entire sites. Acquisitions would also be considered not only for City program requirements but the criteria would evolve in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Plan so that consideration would be given to what already exists in the community in terms of facilities and greenspace. This would potentially make it possible to achieve the same result for the communities without buying the school in every case. He said the City can’t afford to purchase every surplus school, even in a holding pattern, because it ties up a lot of the City’s capital to do that. He added there has to be some way to recognize the community’s needs, protect them from unwanted development and make sure things go ahead as compatible where sites will be developed. He reiterated the criteria coming forward, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, would be much more in-depth.

In response to further comments from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Donaldson responded that staff’s recommendations on the St. Thomas school were based on lessons learned.

Councillor Wilkinson advised she had consulted with some of the Crystal Beach/Lakeview residents in the audience and although they wanted to discuss it with the community, she was led to believe there would be general acceptance for proceeding as Councillor Deans had suggested (with a levy). She asked staff to confirm that would not equate to queue jumping because the community would be paying for it. Mr. Burry agreed with that statement, adding it would be very consistent will all of the partnership approaches the City has in terms of communities coming forward with funds to make things happen sooner for them.

The Councillor suggested this would set a precedent for all of the other schools that would come forward so that communities could advance their projects by agreeing to the same procedure; otherwise they would be placed in the normal order of priority. Mr. Burry said it is very consistent with what is being seen and heard through all of consultations surrounding the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and something Council will need to deal with in terms of how it will finance the things communities request without significantly increasing property taxes.

Councillor Wilkinson advised she would bring forward a revised motion that would incorporate the funding component.

Councillor Brooks questioned whether there is any possibility that selling some of the land could make this a revenue-neutral undertaking. Mr. MacNair stated it could not be. He clarified that, in terms of looking at option 2, the City is a priority purchaser; however, there are other priority purchasers, i.e. other school boards that would be ahead of the City if they wished to purchase the property. Chair Jellett advised that was understood.

Councillor El-Chantiry was supportive of the local area improvement levy but asked what would happen if the City incurred other costs for the project. Mr. MacNair replied the practice would be essentially the same as with the other schools previously purchased in that staff would conduct due diligence and report back with its findings before the project would proceed. In other words, if staff were given the mandate to move forward they would enter into negotiations now to get into an agreement and come back to Council for approval. After that point, staff would enter the due diligence stage, similar to what happened at Bayview School, and would report back to Council with any issues determined.

Chair Jellett asked whether, if it was determined that the land was contaminated (which he doubted) and required environmental remediation costs, the City could opt out of the project at that point. Mr. MacNair replied staff would structure the agreement in such a way as to make that possible.

Councillor Cullen encapsulated that if the community wants to keep the facility they would have to come up with a local levy. He felt that would be feasible, noting that the City would have to indicate its interest in the acquisition by December 24^th, and proposed the following (to be moved by Councillor Wilkinson):

1. That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee direct staff to pursue negotiations with the Ottawa Catholic School Board for the City to acquire the St. Thomas School site at 9 Leeming Drive; and

2. That staff be directed to consult with the Ward Councillor and the community on the future uses of the school on the condition of funding this acquisition through a Local Improvement Levy; and

3. That staff report to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on the status of the negotiations for acquiring the site and the funding sources for this acquisition.

He noted that if the community is not in agreement with paying the levy, which he thought would amount to approximately $200 per year per household for ten years, the school would be disposed of and the City would recoup its investment.

Chair Jellett asked Mr. Burry his thoughts on the motion, noting it would create an eventual operating pressure for the department. Mr. Burry replied that Committee and Council would have to consider the operating pressure in due course once the final configuration of the project is determined. He remarked there are also some details that require tidying up in terms of what business Council is in.

In speaking to the motion, Councillor Cullen acknowledged that the struggle between meeting the needs of growing communities in terms of facilities and finding the means to pay for them. However, he did not feel it is appropriate to sit idle when a community loses a facility, noting St. Thomas was in use by the community for more than 30 years and the community now has a need. He added that fitting the request into the City’s priority list is not necessary if the community is willing to pay for the facility. He also noted that would provide the opportunity for the community to look at this site to determine if the entire site should be purchased and retained or whether some of it could be sold to recoup costs, and whether to retain any of the existing building for community use or demolish and build new.

Chair Jellett informed that on the advice of the Treasurer the motion would have to be amended slightly to change ‘Local Improvement Levy’ to ‘Special Services Levy (Section 326)’.

Councillor Deans asked if Councillor Cullen and Wilkinson would accept as a friendly amendment, for the sake of clarity, to add after ‘funding this acquisition’ the words ‘and related costs of renovation and/or construction’. The Councillors agreed. Councillor Deans was supportive of the shared opportunity, notwithstanding the eventual operating pressure, noting such partnerships take pressure off the City’s Capital budgets.

Councillor Wilkinson proposed to add the word ‘net’ to recommendation 2 in reference to costs because it would help provide for options to be discussed with the community, in the event that it would be favoured to sell part of the property.

Moved by M. Wilkinson:

That Committee direct staff to pursue negotiations with the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School board to acquire St. Thomas School, and that staff be directed to consult with the Ward Councillor and the Community on the future uses of the school on the condition of funding the acquisition and/or all renovations, demolitions, and construction net costs through a special services levy, section 326; and that staff report to Committee on the status of negotiations for acquiring the site, and the funding sources for the acquisition.

CARRIED

The Committee then approved the report recommendation as amended:

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend that Council:

1. Direct staff to pursue negotiations with the Ottawa Catholic School Board for the City to acquire the St. Thomas School site at 9 Leeming Drive; and

2. Direct staff to consult with the Ward Councillor and the community on the future uses of the school on the condition of funding this acquisition and / or all related net renovation, demolition or construction costs through a Special Services Levy (Section 326); and

3. Direct that staff report to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on the status of the negotiations for acquiring the site and the funding sources for this acquisition.

CARRIED as amended

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITE DES COLLECTIVITES

COMMUNITY AND SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES

SERVICES DE VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

15. BROWNFIELDS GRANT APPLICATION - CLYDESDALE SHOPPING CENTRES LIMITED - 1357 BASELINE ROAD (FILE NO. F18-04-08-CLYDe)

Demande de subvention pour la remise en valeur des friches industrielles – CLYDESDALE SHOPPING CENTRES LIMITeD – 1357, chemin BASELINE

ACS2008-ICS-CSS-0004 RIVER/RIVIÈRE (16)

Councillor Wilkinson requested that staff be given direction to staff that the revised policy apply to the land and not buildings.

Moved by M. McRae,

WHEREAS staff are planning to review the Brownfields Policy as part of the normal course of business;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff bring forward to Committee and Council recommendations for amendments to the policy in Q1 2010 that ensure the policy is used to achieve its intent; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a moratorium be placed on use of the policy until amendments to the policy are approved by Council.

CARRIED

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the Brownfields Rehabilitation Grant Application submitted by Clydesdale Shopping Centres Limited, owner of the property at 1357 Baseline Road, for a Brownfields Rehabilitation Grant not to exceed $3,442,184, payable to Clydesdale Shopping Centres Limited over a maximum of 10 years, subject to the establishment of, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of the Brownfields Rehabilitation Grant Agreement;

2. Direct staff to enter into a Brownfields Rehabilitation Grant Agreement with Clydesdale Shopping Centres Limited establishing the terms and conditions governing the payment of the Brownfields Rehabilitation Grant, for, and redevelopment of, 1357 Baseline Road, satisfactory to the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, the City Clerk and Solicitor and the City Treasurer; and

3. That the terms and conditions referred to in Recommendation 2 include the retention of funding until such time as, where a single large format store is located in the east portion of the site as part of the first phase of development, that at least two of the six buildings shown on the concept plan, submitted in support of this Application, are constructed also as part of the first phase along either Baseline Road or Clyde Avenue frontage and are completed for occupancy within three years of the commencement of the large format store; and

4. That staff bring forward to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council recommendations for amendments to the policy in Q1 2010 that insure the policy is used to achieve its intent; and

5. That a moratorium be placed on use of the policy until amendments to the policy are approved by Council.

DEFERRED

DIRECTION TO STAFF:

That Community and Sustainability Services staff ensure that the policy is applied to land, not buildings.

16. NAME CHANGE FOR VANIER bUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (BY-LAW )

changement de nom pour la zone d’amélioration commerciale de vanier (règlement)

ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0038 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:

1. Approve that the name of the Vanier Business Improvement Area be changed to Quartier Vanier Merchants Association (BIA) – Association des marchands du Quartier Vanier (Z.A.C.);

2. Enact a by-law to amend By-law Number 2792 of the former Corporation of the City of Vanier that established the Board of Management of the Vanier Business Improvement Area to change the name of the BIA to “Quartier Vanier Merchants Association (BIA)” in English and “Association des marchands du Quartier Vanier (Z.A.C.)” in French.

CARRIED

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

17. CAPITAL FUNDING SUPPORT – BRUYÈRE CONTINUING CARE

AIDE AU FINANCEMENT DES IMMOBILISATIONS – SOINS CONTINUS BRUYÈRE

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0224 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that Bruyère Continuing Care be remitted $ 126,908.05, representing the amount paid to the City for building permit fees for construction projects undertaken pursuant to the hospital’s approved 10-Year Capital Program up to and including March 31, 2009, as noted in Document 2.

CARRIED

18. CAPITAL FUNDING SUPPORT – CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO FOUNDATION

AIDE AU FINANCEMENT DES IMMOBILISATIONS – FONDATION DU CENTRE HOSPITALIER POUR ENFANTS DE L’EST DE l’ONTARIO

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0225 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Foundation be remitted $111,992.66, representing the amount paid to the City for building permit fees for construction projects undertaken pursuant to the hospital’s approved 10-Year Capital Program up to and including March 31, 2009, as noted in Document 2.

CARRIED

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

SERVICES DE TECHNOLOGIE DE L’INFORMATION

19. RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSITION BY-LAW 2003-527, 2004-567, 2005-507, 2007-11 SCHEDULE A AMENDMENTS

RÈGLEMENT SUR LA CONSERVATION ET LE DÉCLASSEMENT DES DOSSIERS (RÈGLEMENT NUMÉRO 527-2003, 567-2004, 507-2005, 11-2007), MODIFICATIONS À L'ANNEXE A

ACS2009-COS-ITS-0002 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council amend the Records Retention and Disposition By-law No. 2003-527(as amended) to incorporate the revisions to Schedule 'A ', as outlined in Document 1, subject to the approval of the City's external auditor.

CARRIED

Organizational Development and Performance

DÉVELOPPEMENT ORGANISATIONNEL ET RENDEMENT

20. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT TO COUNCIL, q2: APRIL - JUNE 2009

rapport TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE rendement présenté au conseil POUR LE 2^iÉme TRIMESTRE, AVRIL-JUIN 2009

ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0011 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee review and discuss the service areas’ performance results, as outlined in the Table of Contents of the Quarterly Performance Report to Council Q2 April-June 2009, pursuant to a recommendation approved by the Committee at its meeting of 3 November 2009.

CARRIED

NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)

Councillor McRae

WHEREAS During the Comprehensive Zoning By-law discussion, Motion 35/14 was approved by Council on April 23, 2008. Motion 35/14 provided the following direction: the Comprehensive Zoning By-law be amended for the area bounded by Churchill North, Workman, Duchess, Kirchoffer, Atlantis, and Shelby have a height limit of eight meters;

AND WHEREAS Motion 35/14 was specific in the defined area subject to the reduction of height, however, an error occurred by staff during implementation to incorrectly apply the zoning change;

AND WHEREAS Although the error was corrected through an anomaly report adopted by Council on October 8 2008, the impact of this error adversely impacted a resident who was in the process of a development application. The impact is valued at approximatly $10,000 in additional costs resulting from new architectural drawings, building in the winter months, etc;

AND WHEREAS While the error was inadvertant and subsequently corrected the affected applicant who was not respossible for the error and was adversely impacted should ethically not bear the financial burden resulting from this error by the city;

AND WHEREAS The resident affected by the incorrect implementation of Motion 35/14 resides at 303 Lanark;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The City Clerk and Solicitor be directed to audit expenses directly associated with the incorrect implementation of Motion 35/14 for this development and reimburse the appropriate expenses.

Councillor Bloess

WHEREAS, the City requires parkland to be conveyed or the equivalent value in cash to be paid to the City as a condition for (re)development; and

Whereas severances and new building lots requires a payment in lieu of parkland dedication; and

WHEREAS, an exception to this rule may be applied if City Council should decide to waive the fee;

WHEREAS, the proprietor of 2231 Pagé, following the death of her spouse, has decided to sever her property to make ends meet; and

WHEREAS the CIL in the amount of $10,000 will cause hardship to the property owner;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the cash in lieu of parkland fees be waived for 2231 Pagé Rd.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

Committee Coordinator Chair