|
2. timetable
and approach for the 2004 operating and capital budgets BUDGETS DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET
DES IMMOBILISATIONS POUR |
Committee Recommendations as amended
That Council approve:
1. The 2004 operating budget approach and timetable detailed in
this report and amended by the following:
That the process from
January 5th to 23rd, 2004 be a blending of Option 1
(staff-coordinated) and Option 2 (Councillor-coordinated) public consultation
to ensure effective public dialogue on guideline and program review, focusing
on the public’s spending priorities;
2. The 2004 capital budget approach and timetable detailed in this
report, and amended by the following:
That the budget
timetable/process be amended for the week of March 1st to provide
for standing committee consideration of public delegations and review of the
draft estimates, as per the normal city process; and further that there be no
overall change to the completion date of the process; and
3. The
strategy for reviewing capital standards and establishing capital priorities.
RecommAndations MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ
Que le Conseil approuve :
1. la démarche et le
calendrier proposés pour le budget de fonctionnement de 2004, tels qu’ils sont
décrits dans le présent rapport et modifiés par les dispositions suivantes :
Que du 5 au 23 janvier 2004, le processus tienne compte de l’option 1
(coordination par le personnel) et de l’option 2 (coordination par le
conseiller) concernant la consultation publique afin d’assurer un débat public
efficace sur l’examen du programme et les lignes directrices, qui s’intéresse
avant tout aux priorités dans les dépenses publiques;
2. la démarche et le
calendrier du budget des immobilisations de 2004, tels qu’ils sont décrits dans
le présent rapport et modifiés par les dispositions suivantes :
Que le calendrier/processus budgétaire soit modifié la semaine du 1er mars
afin de permettre aux comités permanents d’entendre les délégations publiques
et de prendre connaissance des prévisions budgétaires, conformément au processus
normal; et que la date de fin du processus ne fasse l’objet d’aucune
modification; et
3. la stratégie
d’examen des normes d’immobilisations et d’établissement des priorités en
matière d’immobilisations.
Documentation
1. Corporate Services Department
General Manager's report dated 14 October 2003 (ACS2003-CRS-FIN-0037).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 21 October 2003.
Report to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services
organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council/et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par
: Kent Kirkpatrick,
General Manager/Directeur général
Corporate Services Department/Services
généraux
Contact/Personne ressource : Lloyd Russell, Director, Financial Services
and City Treasurer/ Directeur des Services financiers et Trésorier municipal
580-2424, Ext. 21312, Lloyd.Russell@ottawa.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°:
ACS2003-CRS-FIN-0037 |
SUBJECT: TIMETABLE AND APPROACH FOR THE 2004 OPERATING AND
CAPITAL BUDGETS
OBJET: BUDGETS DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET
DES IMMOBILISATIONS POUR 2004 – CALENDRIER ET DÉMARCHE
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:
a. the 2004
operating budget approach and timetable, including option 1 for the public
consultation on the Budget Guidelines and Program Review documents, detailed in
this report; and
b. the 2004
capital budget approach and timetable detailed in this report.
2. That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
recommend Council approve the strategy for reviewing capital standards and
establishing capital
priorities.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
1.
Que
le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
recommande au Conseil d’approuver :
a. la démarche et le calendrier
proposés pour le budget de fonctionnement de 2004, y compris l’option 1
concernant la consultation publique sur les Lignes directrices budgétaires et
les documents relatifs à l’Examen des programmes, tels qu’ils sont décrits dans
le présent rapport;
b. la démarche et le calendrier
proposés pour le budget des immobilisations de 2004, tels qu’ils sont décrits
dans le présent rapport.
2.
Que
le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
recommande au Conseil d’approuver la stratégie d’examen des normes
d’immobilisation et d’établissement des priorités en matière d’immobilisations.
BACKGROUND
The preparation of three budgets in just eighteen months was one of the biggest challenges City staff faced in the first three years of the newly-amalgamated City of Ottawa. The draft estimates were developed from SAP information, forecasts of operating pressures for the coming years and identified savings offsets (like amalgamation savings). They were presented by department and branch, and augmented by narratives outlining the branches’ mandates, accomplishments and challenges.
This approach, combined with the scope and scale of the new City, meant that the draft estimates presented to City Council for its consideration were a thousand pages and more. The operating budget alone was nearly 500 pages. Both City Council and the public observed that the draft budget documents were difficult to read and difficult to understand from a program and service perspective, and a number of these difficulties carried over into the reviews of the estimates by Standing Committee.
These observations were taken into account in the development of the Program Review package. The lessons learned over the past three budgets and the program review process have enabled the City to revise its approach to the preparation, presentation and discussion of the 2004 draft budget and make the kinds of improvements that Council and the public have indicated they would prefer.
DISCUSSION
In May, 2003, it became clear that the 2004 budget would be a challenging one, because 2004 budget pressures are certain to exceed the City’s ability to absorb them and there is every expectation that, unless there are changes to the provincial property tax system, there will be a shift in the tax burden to homeowners similar to that in 2003 (although the City will collect no additional revenues from the shift). At that time, Council directed staff to conduct a universal program review of all the services provided by the City, and describe the impacts of a 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 100% reduction in each program’s net operating budget requirement. The results of this Universal Program Review will be a cornerstone of the 2004 budget process.
Council also directed staff to develop criteria for the identification of capital priorities, and conduct a capital infrastructure standards review in preparation for the 2004 capital budget. As well, the City has initiated a study of new development charge rates in anticipation of the expiration of all its development charges by-laws in 2004.
The issues of criteria for capital priorities, capital standards and development charges are inter-related and contribute towards resolving the City’s capital funding gap identified in the Long Range Financial Plan: First Steps. They all require a coordinated approach and, until the work is completed, an approach is being recommended that restrains the 2004 capital budget and creates more financial flexibility for the City in the short term. This recommended approach, outlined later in this report, was endorsed by the Program Review Sub-Committee on October 3, 2003.
The proposed approach to the 2004 budget connects the Universal Program Review process into the budget process. Both the Budget Guidelines report and the Program Review report will be tabled with City Council on December 10, 2003. These will form the two main components of the public consultation to follow, while the Program Review report will be the primary document used by staff to develop the recommended budget.
The Budget Guidelines report will present the details of the 2004 budget pressures, as they are known at the time, and provide a range of scenarios for Council’s consideration. These scenarios will range from absorbing all of the budget pressures through expenditure reductions, to absorbing all of the pressures through taxation increases. The impact on the taxpayer and the City under each of the several scenarios will be identified so that Council can begin to narrow down the possibilities for purposes of consultation.
The appendices to the guideline report will contain a Citywide summary of the 2004 draft estimates at the branch level. The draft estimates will be prepared from the 2003 budget adjusted for the pressures identified in the Guidelines document, but not adjusted for any potential reductions to programs as identified in the program review document. On December 10, 2003, Council would direct staff to develop a recommended budget based on a single scenario or a range of scenarios. These scenarios would then be brought forward for public consultation.
The results of the consultation and a recommended operating budget will be tabled with Council on February 11, 2004. Following the presentation of the draft budget, a second consultation period would commence, with public delegations and final deliberations scheduled for early March 2004.
A final operating budget book will be prepared for distribution in April. This book will be a streamlined version of the budget documents produced in the past and will include the details of the program choices made by Council. The final budget book will be distributed in the normal manner.
o Where there are contractual commitments
o Where the City would lose federal or provincial grants and providing the project was a City priority
o Where the project is 100% funded from development charges
o Where the project has already received pre-approval (P3 initiatives).
The expectation would be that the current unspent capital authority in the Works in Progress (WIPs) would be used during 2004 in addition to the new authority identified above. Details on the unspent authority by project are provided in the Capital Status report, issued separately .
The 2004 operating budget would recommend the same contribution to PAYG (except as modified by the transfer of on-going capital projects to the operating budget as described below) so that those funds not committed for capital works in 2004 would increase the reserve balances and demonstrate an ability to afford the growth projects that make up the new Development Charges rates.
As part of rationalizing the City’s capital program, the “on-going programs” category of capital also needs to be reviewed. These projects are completely funded by either rate- or tax-supported PAYG, and may be more properly located in the operating budget because there is often no discretion as to whether they should be funded or not. It is proposed that all capital projects classified as “on-going programs” be reviewed to determine if they should become part of the operating budget and, if so, be recommended for transfer in 2004 with the PAYG contribution adjusted accordingly. The transfer to operating will have no impact on taxation.
The Long Range Financial Plan that was presented to Council in October of 2002 identified an average funding gap of $40 million per year in the City’s capital plan. To resolve this gap, Council made a number of policy recommendations including increasing the capital funded from pay-as-you-go (PAYG), maintaining a $50 million minimum reserve balance, reviewing capital priorities, reviewing capital standards and reviewing revenue sources (including development charges). The issues of capital priorities, standards and the new development charges study are all to be addressed concurrently in early 2004. An approach for the first two issues is being provided in this report. A fuller discussion on the principles around how the new development charge rates are to be established will be brought to Council at a later date.
It is fundamentally understood in the City that the first capital priority has to be the base maintenance of the assets the City currently owns. The second priority is the growth projects that are funded from development charges, the third is growth projects that are not funded from development charges and the fourth priority is anything else. The LRFP verified that the pressure for capital works exceeds the funding available. One of the ways, which could be used to eliminate the funding gap, would be to prioritize capital projects to fit the funding envelope.
The priority within each capital category needs to be reviewed to determine if yearly requirements can be reduced. The size of the funding envelope available for growth-related projects cannot be determined until the prioritization within the lifecycle category is complete. Until the costs of growth are identified in the Development Charges study, the funding envelope for non-DC growth projects and new initiatives will not be known. A report that identifies both the results of the prioritization exercise in the lifecycle category and the impacts of growth on the capital program needs to be brought forward before Council sets the DC rates, so that any changes to the growth program or to lifecycle priorities can be made. This report will be brought forward in late March 2004.
Capital Standards
The largest component of the discussion on capital standards relates to the City’s infrastructure standards. Infrastructure includes all physical assets located within road and Transitway rights-of-way both above and below ground, including roads, sidewalks, bridges sewers, watermains, etc. It also includes the infrastructure used to service these assets, such as pumping stations, stormwater facilities, etc. The Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department has begun a process to identify standards that Council may want to adjust in order to influence costs (and thereby the DC rates) or meet community needs.
The drivers that affect standards and ultimately, the cost of infrastructure include:
· policy, which defines the amount of infrastructure and where it is to be located,
· functional requirements which define the performance criteria for design and drives the amount and size of infrastructure,
· technical requirements that define the physical characteristics of the infrastructure, and
· process, which determines when you tender and what elements are included in the tender.
A report providing a clear description of the current infrastructure standards, the nature of the possible revisions to the standard, the range of potential savings and lifecycle implications and an assessment of the non-financial impacts of the revision will be brought forward from the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department for Council’s review and consideration on December 10, 2003. At that time, Council will identify standards that they want further analysis to be conducted on, for review at end of February.
The Development Charges study will cost projects using the current infrastructure standards. If decisions about standards are made that materially affect project costs, any affected projects will be re-costed prior to setting the DC rates. Any changes to costing methodology will need to be made well in advance, as the projects need to be included in the Final Draft Background Study for DC’s that will be released in April.
The proposed timetable for the 2004 operating and capital budget process and program review is summarized below.
Date
|
Event/Deliverable
|
|
Oct 21st/Nov19th |
CSEDC and Council to review and approve the · 2004 operating and capital budget timetable and approach · approach to setting capital priorities and infrastructure standards |
|
Week of Nov 24th |
Program Review Sub-Committee receives Program Review document. |
|
Dec 10th |
Items to be tabled or considered by Council: · 2004 pressures and guideline report, including a range of scenarios for consideration · The companion Program Review document · List of criteria for approving new capital authority ·
Infrastructure
standards report |
|
Jan 5 to Jan 23, 2004 |
Option 1 – Staff-coordinated public consultation on the guideline and program review, focusing on the public’s spending priorities. Option 2 – Councillor-coordinated public consultation on the guideline and program review, focusing on the public’s spending priorities. |
|
Feb 11th, 2004 |
Reports tabled with Council: · Summary of the public consultation results · Recommended budget for the scenario(s) selected on Dec 10th · Recommended capital budget |
|
Feb 12th – Feb 29th |
Councillor-led consultation on the recommended budget. |
|
Week of Feb 16th |
Report to standing committees on capital infrastructure standards |
|
Week of March 1 |
Committee of the Whole to listen to Public Delegations. |
|
March 8 - 12 |
Committee of the Whole to review Budget and City Council Meeting to adopt budget. |
|
By March 31st |
Report to CSEDC and Council on setting of priorities and the impact of growth on the capital program. |
|
April 2004 |
2004 Operating Budget book issued reflecting all program review adjustments made during the budget process. Final 2004 Capital Spending plan issued. |
|
Fall, 2004 |
Updated LRFP |
In a typical budget year, Council consults with the public both before the guidelines are adopted and after the recommended budget has been released. These two consultation phases are still being recommended in the approach to the 2004 budget, but the time in-between the two consultation periods is being compressed in order to have a budget adopted before the end of the first quarter in 2004. This is the normal practice for the first budget of a new term of Council.
The consultation approach being proposed is an evolution of the best practices and lessons learned from previous budget consultations and the significant public consultations employed for Ottawa 20/20.
During the first three weeks of January 2004, the first phase of public consultations will be held. This phase will be aimed at receiving input on the City’s Budget Guidelines and on the scenario(s) dealing with the budget pressures being examined. It will also provide citizens with information on the Universal Program Review and provide an opportunity for them to articulate their budget priorities for the services and programs the City provides.
For this phase of consultation, City staff is presenting Councillors with two options. The first option is to have a staff-coordinated consultation with six or seven public meetings scheduled throughout the community (for example, one in each geographic area served by the City’s Client Service Centres). At each meeting, staff would deliver presentations on the guidelines and the program review, and provide citizens with information on how to get involved in the budget process and how to offer feedback on their budget priorities. A good representation of City staff would be present at these meetings to provide information and answer any questions residents might have. The second option is for a Councillor-coordinated public consultation, where Councillors would arrange their own meetings and invite City staff to participate. If this option is chosen, past experience indicates there may not be as good a representation of City staff available to attend all Councillors’ meetings, because of their number and scheduling conflicts.
In both cases, City staff will be developing a toolkit for the first
phase of budget consultation, including a “City budget workbook” that will be
used to obtain feedback on residents’ priorities. The workbook will also be
made available on the City’s Web site and at Client Service Centres and public
libraries, so that those who are not able to attend a public meeting can
participate. The City will help to promote the consultation through the Web
site, and with corporate ads in daily and community newspapers. Staff is also
investigating whether video conferencing can be used to enhance
participation. The feedback received through all channels
will be summarized and reported back to Council, along with budget
recommendations, on February 11, 2004.
The second phase of public
consultation will begin with the presentation of the draft budget
recommendations in mid-February. City staff is proposing that Councillors be
given an additional two and one-half weeks to conduct their own ward-based
consultations. As in previous budget years, staff will provide members of
Council with a “customizeable”
toolkit, including a budget brochure, PowerPoint presentation, newsletter
article, fact sheets and feedback forms, all of which can be modified to suit
individual councillors’ needs. Again, the City will help promote Councillors’
draft budget meetings through the City’s Web site and with corporate ads in
daily and community newspapers. Councillors may choose to share the feedback
received in this phase of consultation – in feedback forms, or through e-mail
or other means – with staff, who will, in turn, provide it to all members of
Council for their consideration.
Last year, the City’s advisory committees were
asked to provide written comments on items they wanted to see included in the
budget. The results of these
consultations were appended to the budget directions report. This year, City staff is proposing that
advisory committees be asked to complete the workbooks being used in the public
consultation and to identify their capital priorities for 2004. This
information would also be provided to Council with staff’s budget
recommendations on February 11, so that it can be taken into consideration when
they are setting the 2004 budget.
The 2003 budget process saw standing committees listen to public
delegations and then immediately launch into a review of the budgets for their
areas. Often this meant that
deliberations started late in the day and finished well into the evening. To avoid the general fatigue this practice
can sometimes create for both Councillors and the public, it is being
recommended that hearing delegations and deliberating the budget be separated
into two processes.
For 2004, staff is recommending a process whereby Council would sit as Committee of the Whole and listen to public delegations during the first week of March. Sitting as Committee of the Whole is recommended because the format of the Program Review report and the organization of that information will not be able to be reflected within the Standing Committee structure. Programs are being aligned differently from the departmental structures as part of program review and the current committee assignments simply will not work.
The Committee of the Whole format will allow Councillors and the public
to hear the viewpoints and concerns on a wide variety of issues rather than the
more limited debate that occurs when dealing with a single standing committee
budget. It also allows delegations to appear once, and present Councillors with
all of their concerns and recommendations, rather than having to appear at a
number of different Standing Committees. Staff is also proposing that these
meetings be held in three different areas of the city as a means of enhancing
citizens’ access to the budget process.
As part of this process, public delegations would be encouraged to
register to speak at one of the three locations, although they would also be
able to register at the Committee of the Whole meeting as a walk-on. If the number of delegations requesting to
be heard at a particular location is beyond the number that can be heard in one
day, a fourth day of public delegations would be scheduled at City Hall.
The week after the public delegations are heard, it is proposed that
Council as Committee of the Whole deliberate on the budget. The Committee of the Whole format is being
recommended because the Program Review document is not organized in a way that
allows it to easily adapt to the Committee structure. As well, it will expedite the budget approval process because
budget deliberations will not be restricted by Standing Committee timetables
(reviewing the budget on a Standing Committee basis could result in the budget
being adopted in April because of the timing of the March break).
The proposed consultation process for the 2004 budget is described above.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications of this report.
Upon approval by Council, staff will begin preparing the December 10, 2003, report.
timetable
and approach for the
2004 operating and capital budgets
BUDGETS DE
FONCTIONNEMENT ET DES IMMOBILISATIONS
POUR 2004 – CALENDRIER ET DÉMARCHE
ACS2003-CRS-FIN-0037
K. Kirkpatrick, General Manager, Corporate
Services Department, and L. Russell, Director, Financial Services, Corporate
Services Department, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Kirkpatrick provided the Committee with a brief overview of
the staff report.
Councillor Munter questioned the rationale,
from a Councillor’s perspective, for a Committee of the
Whole budget deliberation process,
noting that Councillors would go from doing the work of three to eight Standing
Committees, thereby creating a situation where, by volume of work, Councillors
will be unable to give as much
attention as they could under the Standing Committee deliberation process.
Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that the rationale
for the staff recommendations was based on
feedback received following last year’s budget process, when several
Standing Committees met from early morning to late at night. He reiterated the substantive changes being
recommended, the first being the separation of public consultation from Committee
deliberation, based on last year’s indication that the process did not work
well, with public delegations going well into the late afternoon and evening,
creating a sense of time urgency and fatigue entering the deliberation process. He stated that staff felt there was merit in
the concept that delegations would be able to come once and provide input on
their issue(s) in one meeting before all Members of Council and Councillors
would receive input on wide variety of programs. He further indicated that in 2004, coupling budget with universal review would give Councillors
a broader and more productive perspective to make the choices between programs
and their objectives across the Corporation, and would allow both members of
the public and Councillors to experience broad consultations as a group across
the programs.
Councillor Munter referred to the Planning and
Development Committee deliberation of the Official Plan, wherein Committee
heard public delegations on a wide range of issues, and which he felt had been
chaotic for all involved. He felt that
to repeat the process on a $1.8 billion operating budget, and keep quorum was
not practicable. He subsequently moved
the following amendment:
Moved by Councillor Munter
THAT the budget timetable/process be amended
for the week of March 1st to provide for Standing Committee
consideration of public delegations and review of the draft estimates, as per
the normal City process;
AND FURTHER that there be no overall change to
the completion date of the process.
Councillor Chiarelli felt that the point of the staff recommendation was that previously, special interest groups had appeared to explain why they were the most deserving and important before a group of like-minded Councillors sitting on a like-minded Committee. This often resulted in several ‘pet project’ top priorities coming forward from each of the Committees to compete for spending pressures. He felt the goal of staff was to have all groups appear before all of Council, which would result in greater equity and fairness. Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that, assuming Councillor Chiarelli’s view to be an objective of Council, staff believed that the Committee of the Whole process would be an improvement to the overall process.
Councillor Chiarelli went on to state that the
recommended approach would enable Councillors to grapple with competing
pressures from diverse portfolios. Mr.
Kirkpatrick illustrated the example of Councillors considering such divergent issues as collector
road salting and subsidized day care spaces, indicating that staff believe it
would be beneficial for Councillors to hear from public delegations on both
issues, to be considered in the same set of deliberations.
Councillor Stavinga concurred with Councillor
Chiarelli’s remarks, expressing the view that there was significant merit in
the staff proposal, which challenges both Council and interest groups to see
things from a broader perspective. She
queried the logistics of the process in terms of providing five minutes to
delegations on each separate issue or limiting presentations to five minutes in
total. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that
staff have not given this detailed thought, but have considered the primary
objective being accessibility for the public to provide input. He referred to the recommendation to
advertise the process and request people to pre-register. If it is determined that the three day
meeting schedule is not sufficient to accommodate those who pre-register as
well as those who request to speak at the meetings, he
stated that a fourth day could be
scheduled. Although staff have not
determined a speaking limit, Mr. Kirkpatrick
acknowledged the recognition in
the proposal that appropriate time be provided for those who wish to contribute
to the process.
To facilitate effective discussion, Councillor
Stavinga put forward the suggestion of creating themes, to avoid jumping from
page to page. With respect to the two
public consultation options identified, she suggested a third option of blending the
staff-coordinated and Councillor-coordinated options. Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that staff could explore such an
option.
Councillor Stavinga requested clarification of
the statement that the “priority within each capital category needs to be
reviewed to determine if yearly requirements can be reduced”, expressing the
view that re-prioritization and re-evaluation not be restricted to specific
envelopes, but that the envelopes be taken apart and reviewed against each
other as was recommended by the Long Range Financial Planning
Sub-Committee. Mr. Kirkpatrick
concurred, indicating that the wording of the report was intended to support
the concept that there are issues to deal with before Council is able to
consider, approve and put in place a development charge study, specifically an
understanding of how the municipality will fund its share of the development
charge projects. He stated that that
there is a need to maintain flexibility prior to approving a development charge
study.
With respect to the toolkit for public
participation, Councillor Stavinga expressed the hope that the process includes
the tools to provide an education and awareness for residents to think beyond
their own wards to significant City-wide issues, recognizing priorities and the
long range financial plan. In response
to her query as to whether the toolkit will enable that discussion to happen, Mr.
Kirkpatrick assured the Committee that he would ensure
that the objective is understood
by those developing the toolkit.
Following up on Councillor Stavinga’s previous
comments with respect to the possibility of blending the public consultation
options and deliberating the budget by topics, Councillor Kreling reiterated
the need for flexibility. Mr.
Kirkpatrick recognized the importance of the issues and indicated that staff
would attempt to engineer the process approved by Council.
Councillor Kreling noted the merit of the
Committee of the Whole process, stating that although it might be onerous and
time-consuming, it might also prove beneficial in terms of the information
gained.
Mayor Chiarelli commented that it would be
unfair to the public to have a scattered, non-cohesive agenda and felt it would
have to be done by Standing Committee subject matter. Mr. Kirkpatrick acknowledged the concerns expressed, indicating that it is
understood there is a conceptual interest in a Committee of the Whole process,
subject to concerns expressed with respect to logistics. He suggested that prior to consideration by
Council, staff devise a proposed
implementation for Council’s consideration.
Mayor Chiarelli acknowledged both past and proposed processes and urged
caution in proceeding either one way or the other.
Mr. Kirkpatrick acknowledged that a Committee of the
Whole process would be uncharted territory for staff, albeit not for many Councils of
large municipalities in Canada, where it is the more common approach. He said he would have staff of both Secretariat
Services and Finance Services look at how the meetings are structured and
provide the information prior to debate at Council.
Councillor Munter appreciated the staff suggestions put forward to make a cumbersome proposal work better. He felt, however, that the case had not been made by staff respecting the disadvantages of the former process. He discounted the design of a process around aversion to groups with whom there was disagreement and did not accept staff’s rationale.
Councillor Cullen expressed dislike for the
Committee of the Whole process, having experienced this process at the former City
of Ottawa. He noted that with a themed
approach, some Councillors would have more of an interest in specific items
than others and it was difficult to keep a quorum of the Council. He felt that with the Standing Committee
approach, Councillors’ time could be better and more efficiently allocated. In terms of marathon Committee of the Whole
meetings, in addition to the difficulties of keeping
quorum, he pointed out that and
there is an expectation by the public that they will be addressing all of Council. By adopting the Standing Committee process,
he indicated the items would be themed, public comments would be recorded, and recommendations
would be forwarded to Council for a final decision.
Councillor Hume concurred, stating that he
found old City of Ottawa’s Committee of the Whole process cumbersome, difficult
and not particularly effective.
Councillor Chiarelli clarified his earlier
remarks expressing the view that the merit of the Committee of the Whole
process was to allow various interest groups meet one another at one meeting in
the context of the global budget, and to enable Council as a whole to debate
the diverse interests expressed, outside of the narrower scope of each
individual Standing Committee and Department.
Councillor Stavinga agreed with Councillor
Chiarelli, and while appreciating the anxieties expressed, stressed the
opportunity to set a different course with a higher degree of
accountability.
Moved by Councillor Munter
THAT the budget timetable/process be amended
for the week of March 1st to provide for Standing Committee
consideration of public delegations and review of the draft estimates, as per
the normal City process;
AND FURTHER that there be no overall change to
the completion date of the process.
CARRIED
YEAS (4): Councillors
A. Munter, M. Bellemare, P. Hume and Mayor Chiarelli.
NAYS (3): Councillors
H. Kreling, J. Stavinga and R. Chiarelli.
Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga
THAT the process from January 5-23rd,
2004 be a blending of Option 1 staff-coordinated and Option 2 Councillor-coordinated
public consultation to ensure effective public dialogue on guideline and
program review, focusing on the public’s spending priorities.
CARRIED
Committee then approved the staff
recommendations, as amended.
1. That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:
a. the 2004 operating budget approach and timetable detailed in
this report and amended by the following:
That the process from
January 5th to 23rd, 2004 be a blending of Option 1
(staff coordinated) and Option 2 (Councillor coordinated) public consultation
to ensure effective public dialogue on guideline and program review, focusing
on the public’s spending priorities; and
b. the 2004 capital budget approach and timetable detailed in this
report, and amended by the following:
That the budget
timetable/process be amended for the week of March 1st to provide
for standing committee consideration of public delegations and review of the
draft estimates, as per the normal city process; and further that there be no
overall change to the completion date of the process.
2. That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the strategy for
reviewing capital standards and establishing capital priorities.
CARRIED as amended