6. BILL 130 - MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

projet de loi 130 – loi modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

1. Approve, in principle, the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 included in Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, as amended by this report;

2. Petition the Province to provide municipalities with the authority to regulate the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (“IC&I”) sector from a recycling, waste diversion and waste disposal perspective as further set out in this report.

3. Petition the Province to review the legal principle of joint and several liability as set out in the Negligence Act and exempt its application from all municipalities and local boards;

4. Direct staff to circulate this report to local boards and the City’s advisory committees for information;

5. Petition the Province to provide an enactment date for certain of the Bill 130 amendments (i.e. new policies) of at least January 1^st, 2008 in order to provide municipalities with a sufficient timeline to thoroughly review these requirements and implement same; and

6. Direct staff to provide the 2006-2010 Council with an update on amendments to Bill 130 in order to enable Council, upon its enactment, to determine its strategic priorities arising from same.

RECOMMENDATIONS DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil:

1. Approuve en principe les modifications proposées à la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001, énoncées dans le projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités, tel qu’il est modifié dans le présent rapport;

2. Demande au gouvernement provincial de conférer aux municipalités les pouvoirs nécessaires pour réglementer le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel, notamment le recyclage ainsi que le réacheminement et la disposition des déchets, comme l’indique le présent rapport;

3. Demande au gouvernement provincial d’examiner le principe juridique d’une responsabilité commune et multiple, comme le précise la Loi sur le partage de la responsabilité, et de soustraire toutes les municipalités et tous les conseils régionaux de son application;

4. Enjoindre le personnel de distribuer le présent rapport aux conseils régionaux et aux comités consultatifs municipaux afin qu’ils en prennent connaissance;

5. Demande au gouvernement provincial de préciser la date d’adoption de certaines des modifications au projet de loi 130 (c’est-à-dire les nouvelles politiques), laquelle doit être au moins du 1^erjanvier 2008, afin de donner aux municipalités le temps nécessaire pour évaluer ces exigences et en assurer l’application;

6. Enjoindre le personnel de présenter au Conseil 2006-2010 une mise à jour des modifications au projet de loi 130 afin que le Conseil puisse, après son adoption, déterminer les priorités stratégiques qui s’y rattachent.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Chief Corporate Services Officer’s report dated 5 October 2006
(ACS2006-CRS-LEG-0008).

2. Appendix C – AMCTO submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Re: Bill 130 (September 22, 2006), issued separately to all members of Council.

Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

and Council / et au Conseil

05 October 2006 / le 5 octobre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : Greg Geddes, Chief Corporate Services Officer/Chef des Services généraux

Contact Person/Personne ressource : M. Rick O'Connor, City Solicitor

Legal Services/Contentieux

(613) 580-2424 x21215, Rick.OConnor@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2006-CRS-LEG-0008

SUBJECT:	BILL 130 - MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

OBJET :	projet de loi 130 – loi modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

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

Approve, in principle, the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 included in Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, as amended by this report;

Petition the Province to provide municipalities with the authority to regulate the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (“IC&I”) sector from a recycling, waste diversion and waste disposal perspective as further set out in this report.

Petition the Province to review the legal principle of joint and several liability as set out in the Negligence Act and exempt its application from all municipalities and local boards;

Direct staff to circulate this report to local boards and the City’s advisory committees for information;

Petition the Province to provide an enactment date for certain of the Bill 130 amendments (i.e. new policies) of at least January 1^st, 2008 in order to provide municipalities with a sufficient timeline to thoroughly review these requirements and implement same; and

Direct staff to provide the 2006-2010 Council with an update on amendments to Bill 130 in order to enable Council, upon its enactment, to determine its strategic priorities arising from same.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil :

D’approuver en principe les modifications proposées à la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001, énoncées dans le projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités, tel qu’il est modifié dans le présent rapport;

De demander au gouvernement provincial de conférer aux municipalités les pouvoirs nécessaires pour réglementer le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel, notamment le recyclage ainsi que le réacheminement et la disposition des déchets, comme l’indique le présent rapport;

De demander au gouvernement provincial d’examiner le principe juridique d’une responsabilité commune et multiple, comme le précise la Loi sur le partage de la responsabilité, et de soustraire toutes les municipalités et tous les conseils régionaux de son application;

D’enjoindre le personnel de distribuer le présent rapport aux conseils régionaux et aux comités consultatifs municipaux afin qu’ils en prennent connaissance;

De demander au gouvernement provincial de préciser la date d’adoption de certaines des modifications au projet de loi 130 (c’est-à-dire les nouvelles politiques), laquelle doit être au moins du 1^erjanvier 2008, afin de donner aux municipalités le temps nécessaire pour évaluer ces exigences et en assurer l’application;

D’enjoindre le personnel de présenter au Conseil 2006-2010 une mise à jour des modifications au projet de loi 130 afin que le Conseil puisse, après son adoption, déterminer les priorités stratégiques qui s’y rattachent.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 15^th, 2006, Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, was introduced into the Ontario Legislature, three days after the Provincial Government gave Royal Assent to Bill 53, the Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005 [the “City of Toronto Act”]. Bill 130 includes a number of proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 that will provide Ontario’s 444 municipalities with many of the same broad powers and duties given to the City of Toronto in Bill 53. However, one of the major differences is that none of the financial tools received by Toronto, have been included in Bill 130. Instead, the Provincial Government initiated its Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review on August 14^th, 2006. Expected to be completed by the spring of 2008, this broad-based review will include “funding, service delivery and service governance and will focus on how the best possible services can be delivered…in an affordable way.”

The bulk of the amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 in Bill 130 have been described by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO”) as moving “Ontario toward a more mature relationship with municipal governments by reducing Provincial micro-management and providing broader, accountable authority for municipal governments to pass laws.” More specifically, Bill 130 provides that the powers afforded to a municipality under the Municipal Act or any other Act are to be interpreted broadly “to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues.” For example, single-tier municipalities, such as the City of Ottawa, would have the authority to pass by-laws respecting the following eleven areas:

Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards;
Accountability and transparency of municipality and its local boards and their operations;
Financial management of the municipality and its local boards;
Public assets of the municipality;
Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality;
Health, safety and well-being of persons;
Services and things the municipality is authorized to provide;
Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection;
Animals;
Structure, including fences and signs; and
Business licensing.

These powers will replace the ten, more prescriptive spheres of jurisdiction in the current legislation.

Many of the amendments proposed in Bill 130 correspond to various recommendations previously endorsed by City Council at earlier stages in the Municipal Act, 2001 Review (November 2004), as well as a parallel review of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 (July 2005). One of the key changes in Bill 130 for Ottawa will be the ability of Council to pass a by-law that may “differentiate in any way and on any basis as the municipality considers appropriate” [s. 8(4)].

This new clause appears to correspond directly to City Council’s earlier request for “authority to license businesses based on geographic locations.” Other proposals of interest include the authority to establish a policy respecting when and how notice is to be given [s.270], as well as the authority to pass by-laws to regulate the exterior design of buildings and structures in all or part of the City of Ottawa.

It is anticipated that upon the enactment of Bill 130, City Council will direct staff to report back on how the proposed powers and duties more specifically impact on its services, as well as which, if any, new programs policies or procedures may be implemented, including any associated costs. These subsequent policy reports would likely come only upon the conclusion of a broad round of consultation (i.e. with both the general public as well as key stakeholders such as local boards and advisory committees) and after various options and cost analysis had been finalized.

RÉSUMÉ

Le 15 juin 2006, le projet de loi 130, Loi de 2006 modifiant des lois concernant les municipalités, a été intégré à la législature de l’Ontario, trois jours après que le gouvernement provincial a donné la sanction royale au projet de loi 53, la Loi de 2005 créant un Toronto plus fort pour un Ontario plus fort [la « Loi sur la ville de Toronto »]. Le projet de loi 130 contient un certain nombre de modifications proposées à la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, qui conféreront aux 444 municipalités de l’Ontario la plupart des pouvoirs étendus et fonctions attribués à la Ville de Toronto dans le projet de loi 53. Toutefois, l’une des principales nuances réside dans le fait qu’aucun des outils financiers reçus par Toronto n’a été intégré au projet de loi 130. Le gouvernement provincial a plutôt lancé, le 14 août 2006, son Examen provincial-municipal du financement et du mode de prestation des services. Ce vaste examen, dont l’achèvement est prévu au printemps 2008, « portera sur le financement, la prestation des services et la gouvernance en matière de services. Il mettra l’accent sur l’adoption d’un mode de prestation abordable permettant d’offrir ... les meilleurs services possibles ».

La majorité des modifications à la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités proposées dans le projet de loi 130 ont été décrites par l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario (« AMO ») comme entraînant « l’Ontario vers une relation plus mature avec les administrations municipales, grâce à une réduction de la micro-gestion provinciale et à une autorité plus vaste et responsable accordée aux administrations municipales pour l’adoption de lois ». Plus précisément, le projet de loi 130 prévoit que les pouvoirs attribués à une municipalité en vertu de la Loi sur les municipalités ou de toute autre loi doivent être interprétés au sens large « pour lui permettre de gérer ses affaires de la façon qu'elle estime appropriée et pour améliorer sa capacité de traiter les questions d'intérêt municipal ». À titre d’exemple, les municipalités à palier unique, comme la Ville d’Ottawa, auraient la compétence nécessaire pour adopter des règlements touchant les onze domaines suivants :

Structure de gouvernance de la municipalité et de ses conseils locaux;
Responsabilité et transparence de la municipalité, de ses conseils locaux et de leurs opérations;
Gestion financière de la municipalité et de ses conseils locaux;
Actifs publics de la municipalité;
Bien-être économique, social et environnemental des municipalités;
Santé, sécurité et bien-être des personnes;
Services et choses que la municipalité est autorisée à fournir;
Protection des personnes et des propriétés, y compris la protection des consommateurs;
Animaux;
Structure, y compris les clôtures et les enseignes;
Permis aux entreprises.

Ces pouvoirs remplaceront les dix sphères de compétence plus normatives de la législation actuelle.

Bon nombre de modifications proposées dans le projet de loi 130 correspondent aux diverses recommandations précédemment adoptées par le Conseil municipal lors d’étapes précédentes de l’examen de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités (novembre 2004), et lors d’un examen parallèle de la Loi de 1999 sur la ville d’Ottawa (juillet 2005). L’un des principaux changements apportés au projet de loi 130, pour ce qui est d’Ottawa, concerne la capacité pour le Conseil d’adopter un règlement municipal susceptible d’ « établir des distinctions de la manière et sous le rapport qu’une municipalité estime appropriés » [art. 8(4)]. Cette nouvelle clause semble correspondre directement à la demande antérieure du Conseil municipal de « pouvoir attribuer des permis d’entreprise en fonction de l’emplacement géographique ». Le pouvoir d’établir une politique sur le moment et la manière de passer un avis [art. 270] et le pouvoir d’adopter des règlements visant à réglementer la conception extérieure des édifices et des structures sur l’ensemble ou des parties du territoire de la Ville d’Ottawa constituent d’autres propositions dignes d’intérêt.

On prévoit que, lors de l’adoption du projet de loi 130, le Conseil municipal demandera au personnel de faire rapport sur la manière dont les pouvoirs et fonctions proposés influeront précisément sur ses services, et sur le type de programmes, politiques ou procédures pouvant être mis en place, en incluant les coûts associés. Ces rapports subséquents sur les politiques ne devraient être rédigés qu’au terme d’un vaste cycle de consultations (c.-à-d. auprès du grand public et des principaux intervenants, comme les conseils locaux et les comités consultatifs) et après l’étude des diverses options et analyses de coût.

BACKGROUND

On September 25-26, 2006, Bill 130 was debated in the Ontario Legislature and is currently awaiting Second Reading. Once that occurs, it will likely to be referred to the Standing Committee on General Governance in the fall of 2006. As such, it is possible that the Bill could receive Royal Assent in time for implementation early in the 2006-2010 municipal term.

A more detailed summary of the Municipal Act, 2001 Review, as well as the corresponding reviews of the City of Toronto Act and the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, can be found at Appendix “A” to this report.

DISCUSSION

While Bill 130 proposes hundreds of amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, the overall intent of this reform legislation is to provide municipalities with the flexibility and autonomy to respond to local matters and fulfill responsibilities within their jurisdiction. In fact, these proposed amendments have been described by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO”) as moving “Ontario toward a more mature relationship with municipal governments by reducing Provincial micro-management and providing broader, accountable authority for municipal governments to pass laws.” However, this omnibus bill of almost 200 pages, which includes many minor revisions, makes a comprehensive review of all the proposed changes virtually impossible. Therefore, only the more significant amendments are highlighted in this report.

In general, many of the proposed amendments in Bill 130 had their origins in the legislative review which led to a new City of Toronto Act. In response to a question posed during the committee hearings on Bill 53 in April 2006, Minister Gerretsen drew the following connection between Toronto’s amendments and the pending review of the Municipal Act in the following fashion:

Have we used this Act to sort of do our current review of the Municipal Act? To a large extent, yes; not to every extent but to a large extent.

Clearly, the most obvious difference between Bill 53 and Bill 130 is the lack of revenue-generating authority in the latter. As such, Bill 130 does not include any provisions similar to the new powers found in the City of Toronto Act to introduce sales taxes on limited entertainment, alcohol and tobacco items.

Despite this difference, the proposed amendments would provide municipalities with more authority to pass bylaws with respect to local services and programs. For single-tier municipalities such as the City of Ottawa, Bill 130 recommends broad permissive powers with respect to the following eleven areas:

The governance structure of the municipality and its local boards;
The accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations, and its boards and their operations;
The financial management of the municipality and its local boards;
The public assets acquired by a municipality for the purpose of exercising its authority;
The economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality;
The health, safety and well-being of persons;
Services and items the municipality is authorized to provide;
The protection of persons and property, including consumer protection
Animals;
Structures, including fences and signs; and
Business licensing.

These powers will replace the ten more prescriptive spheres of jurisdiction in the current legislation.

Key Amendments

As previously mentioned, Bill 130 is a lengthy document with various substantive amendments to the Municipal Act as well as a host of minute revisions. Set out below is an analysis of some of the more significant proposals for change. For convenience, each of the subtitled sections that follow will include: a summary of the proposed amendment(s); commentary or concerns identified by staff or interested third parties; as well as a staff recommendation regarding the “next steps” for the amendment. It should be noted that the staff recommendations are based on the assumption that the proposed change in Bill 130 will pass in its present form.

1. City of Ottawa Act Amendments

The primary enabling legislation for the amalgamated City of Ottawa is the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. As described in Appendix “A”, efforts were undertaken between 2004 and 2006 to have this statute revised in a manner similar to the joint Ontario-Toronto Review of the City of Toronto Act. In July 2005, Council endorsed 56 legislative recommendations to amend either the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 and/or the Municipal Act, 2001. The introduction of Bill 130 includes a number of proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 originally approved by City Council in July 2005. Of particular interest is Section 8 which permits that “a by-law under this Act may be general or specific in its application and may differentiate in any way and on any basis a municipality considers appropriate.” This proposed amendment would appear to satisfy the request of City Council for the “authority to license businesses based on geographic locations”, an important legislative change that was raised on numerous occasions during the 2005 Rural Summit.

Attached at Appendix “B” to this report is a comparative analysis of the 56 proposals approved by Council during the City of Ottawa Act review, cross-referenced with any provisions in Bill 130 which appear to correspond to these requests.

In addition to these changes, Bill 130 also includes a specific amendment to the City of Ottawa Act in order to provide Ottawa the same urban design powers that Toronto received in Bill 53. Specifically, Ottawa is to be granted the additional ability to approve off-site sustainable design elements on any adjoining highway as part of a site plan approval.

Staff Recommendation

Finally, it was articulated in the July 2005 report on the City of Ottawa Act that the amendments proposed for Ottawa’s own enabling legislation might be migrated to the broader review of the Municipal Act. As this expectation has largely been realized, there are no further amendment proposals to the City’s own, enabling statute at this time.

2. Recent City Directives

a) Planning and Environment Committee:

Recognizing that municipalities in Ontario have the primary responsibility for waste management, including recycling and disposal, the Planning and Environment Committee recently considered various issues surrounding the expansion of two local landfills at Carp Road and in Navan. During its meeting on August 22, 2006, the Committee expressed concern with respect to the percentage of waste arising from the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sector (“IC&I sector”). Acknowledging that, without appropriate enabling legislation, the City can only offer waste diversion programs to the IC&I sector but cannot mandate their participation, the Planning and Environment Committee approved the following motion as a direction to staff:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed, in the upcoming report on Bill 130 (Amendments to the Municipal Act), to include a request that municipalities be granted the authority to regulate the IC&I sector from recycling, waste diversion and waste disposal perspective including such matters as:

1. Identification of substances that cannot be disposed of at any landfill in the municipality;

2. Identification of requirements for set percentages for waste diversion in total and/or by type of waste; and

3. Requirements for source separation of waste.

Staff recommendation:

1. Petition the Province to provide municipalities with the authority to regulate the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (“IC&I”) sector from a recycling, waste diversion and waste disposal perspective including such matters as:

a. Identification of substances that cannot be disposed of at any landfill in the municipality;

b. Identification of requirements for set percentages for waste diversion in total and/or by type of waste; and

c. Requirements for source separation of waste.

b) Mayor’s Cutting Red Tape Task Force:

In April 2006, the Mayor established the Cutting Red Tape Task Force “to identify regulatory and administrative red tape and to make recommendations on how to remove these barriers to promote business growth and job creation in Ottawa.”

In its interim report issued in September 2006, the Task Force included a recommendation that the City petition the Province to “amend the Municipal Act to abandon the principle of ‘joint and several’ liability”. Concerns over this legal principle were described earlier in A.M.O.’s “2004 Municipal Act Review” as follows:

While not an issue directly related to the review of the Municipal Act, the impact of the legal principle of joint and several liability in negligence law should be examined as part of this review process. The impact on municipal government of this provision in the Negligence Act is substantial.

By making two or more defendants in a negligence action jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, there will always be an attempt by the plaintiff’s lawyer to include in the lawsuit a defendant with the ability to pay any judgment. Municipalities have been seen as defendants with deep pockets. This is because municipalities have, at least in theory, an unlimited ability to tax and secondly they are insured.

Furthermore, in July 2005, City Council approved a report on the City of Ottawa Act which also included a recommendation that “the legal principle of Joint and Several Liability not apply to municipal defendants.” More recently, AMCTO has made the following two submissions with respect to the broad issue of municipal liability and, in particular, the outstanding legal principle of “joint and several liability”:

There appear to be no substantive differences between this part and the corresponding part of the City of Toronto Act, Part XVI: Liability of the City. In light of the current increases in insurance premiums that municipalities across Ontario are facing, we urge the Ministry to seriously consider the position advanced in our October 2004 submission that the Ministry look into the possibility of abandoning the principle of joint and several liability in relation to municipalities [February 7, 2006].

*****

We are disappointed that Bill 130 contains no amendments to Part XV [Municipal Liability]. We reiterate our previous request that the Government look into the possibility of limiting or abandoning the principle of joint and several liability as it applies to municipalities. Action is needed in order to address the increasingly dramatic increases in insurance premiums that municipalities across Ontario are facing [September 22, 2006].

The Task Force found that, although the Joint and Several Liability approach was aimed at protecting the taxpayer, in so doing, it generated a high level of regulatory burden and red tape. As such, it made the following recommendation:

We recommend that the City of Ottawa lobby Queen’s Park to amend the Municipal Act to abandon the principle of “joint and several” liability.

Staff recommendation:

2. That City Council petition the Province to review the legal principle of joint and several liability and exempt its application from all municipalities and local boards.

c) Environmental Advisory Committee and Health and Social Services Advisory Committee:

On August 12, 2005, staff provided the Environmental Advisory Committee (“EAC”) with a presentation on the proposed amendments to the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. Following this briefing, the EAC formed a working group to review the City’s proposed recommendations. The working group’s overview was presented to the EAC on September 8, 2005, at which time the Advisory Committee approved the following resolution:

That the review and recommendations of the new City of Ottawa Act by the EAC be distributed to members of Council for their information.

The EAC’s complete review of the recommendations can be found at Appendix “D” of this report.

Further, staff made a similar presentation to the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (“HSSAC”) on August 30, 2006. The HSSAC reviewed the relevant documents and submitted a number of changes on September 27, 2005, based on the following two “general principles”:

1) Essential services should be funded by a progressive and fair tax system. Measures that would increase potential sources of taxation should be supported, within this context, in order to reduce reliance upon the property tax base for funding necessary programs and services.

2) “Prevention” in health and social services is always the first and best option. When a focus on cost savings results in cuts to “prevention” programs and services, long-term costs are likely to increase.

The HSSAC’s complete review of the recommendations can be found at Appendix “E” of this report.

Staff recommendation:

3. That the 2005 reports from the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as part of the City’s submission on Bill 130.

3. Accountability and Transparency

a) Public Officers & Lobbyist Registry

In Part V.I of Bill 130 there is a series of provisions entitled, “Accountability and Transparency.” This component was first presented in Bill 53, the Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act as a series of mandatory requirements in response to both the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry and the Toronto External Contracts Inquiry (collectively known as the “MFP Inquiry”). Accordingly, Section 223.1 through to Section 223.24 as proposed by Bill 130, provides municipalities with the discretionary authority to adopt a code of conduct, establish a lobbyist registry with a registrar, and appoint an integrity commissioner, ombudsman, as well as an auditor general. For reference, each of these matters is summarized below:

Code of Conduct (Section 223.2): Allows a municipality to pass a bylaw establishing a code of conduct for members of council and of its local boards. This bylaw cannot provide that a member of council who contravenes the code of conduct is guilty of an offence.

Integrity Commissioner (Section 223.3): Allows a municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who may be responsible for the application of the code of conduct and/or the application of procedures, rules and policies governing ethical behaviour for members of council, local boards or both. The Commissioner is not required to be a municipal employee but will report to council. The powers of the Integrity Commissioner may be delegated to any person other than a member of council. The municipality may impose either a reprimand or suspension of remuneration for a period up to 90 days should the Commissioner find that a member has contravened the code of conduct.

Lobbyist Registry (Section 223.9): Allows a municipality to establish and maintain a registry of persons who lobby public office holders. The registry will be available for public inspection in a manner and during times determined by the municipality. Further, a municipality may undertake a number of actions with respect to a lobbyist registry including: define the word “lobby”; establish a code of conduct for those who lobby public office holders; and impose conditions for registration or the renewal of registration.

Registrar for lobbying matters (Section 223.11): Allows a municipality to appoint a Registrar to perform duties related to a lobbyist registry. The Registrar may conduct an inquiry in respect of a request made by council, a member of council, or a member of the public regarding compliance with the system of registration or the code of conduct established under that clause.

Ombudsman (Section 223.13): Allows a municipality to appoint an Ombudsman who reports to council and whose function is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or act done or omitted in the course of the administration of the municipality, its local boards, or municipally-controlled corporations.

Auditor General (Section 223.19): Allows a municipality to appoint an Auditor General who reports to council and is responsible for assisting the council in holding itself and its administration accountable for the quality of stewardship over public funds and for achievement of value for money in municipal operations. The Auditor General may exercise the powers assigned to him by the council regarding the municipality, its local boards as well as any municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients. However, the duties of the Auditor General shall not include those of the municipal auditor.

Comments

In earlier submissions on the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act, 2001 reviews, both AMO and AMCTO recommended that such accountability measures be incorporated into the new Municipal Act on a permissive basis. As such, municipalities would have the discretion to implement the various accountability and transparency tools based on their respective circumstances.

More specifically, in both November 2004 and July 2005, City Council endorsed changes to either the Municipal Act, 2001 or the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 with respect to the following: the establishment of a lobbyist registry; the appointment of an Integrity Commissioner; and clarification regarding the independence of the Auditor General from freedom of information requests.

Staff Recommendations:

4. That staff be directed to review Bylaw No. 2005-84, being a by-law to establish the office of Auditor General, with respect to the statutory powers and responsibilities outlined in Section 223.19 of Bill 130 and to report back to City Council in 2007.

5. That staff be directed to review the remaining discretionary accountability measures in Bill 130 and to report back, in separate reports, to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council.

b) In Camera Proceedings & Investigator (Sections 239 (3.1), 239.1 and 239.2):

In the current Municipal Act, 2001, there is one mandatory and seven discretionary matters for which Council can move in camera. In Bill 130, the criteria permitting a closed meeting of council has been enhanced in Section 239 to permit a closed session where no member “discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board, or committee.” Founded upon earlier court decisions regarding such closed meetings, this provision would appear to facilitate such things as councillor training sessions or technical briefings. In essence, this ability to move in camera is premised on the understanding that municipal business will not be advanced. Section 239 is also amended to include increased record-keeping requirements with respect to such closed meetings.

In Sections 239.1 and 239.2, municipalities will have the discretion to appoint an investigator to respond to an inquiry as to whether or not the council or local board has complied with all of the closed meeting requirements. In the event that a municipality does not appoint such an investigator, the provincial Ombudsman would have the authority to undertake the investigation. As previously discussed, Bill 130 includes the discretionary authority to appoint a number of public officials with respect to accountability. Particularly, Bill 130 provides the authority to appoint a municipal Ombudsman to investigate complaints.

Comments

The inclusion of a new, albeit discretionary, factor that would allow municipal councils and local boards to move into closed session provides that, “no member…discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making” of council or board. Background documents from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing suggest that this provision would clarify the current Municipal Act, 2001 by “clearly [stating] that a meeting might be closed to the public if the meeting does not advance decision-making.” Conversely, this proposal has been criticized in the local media as being “an unintelligible right” and contributing to a further “lack of openness under the new act”. Furthermore, in a press release dated June 19, 2006, the provincial Ombudsman, André Marin, described this proposal as “fatally flawed”. In addition, Mr. Marin provided the following comments with respect to Bill 130:

While purporting to introduce a degree of accountability into municipal administration, this Bill will result in an unfair, inequitable and unsustainable patchwork of quasi-oversight measures throughout Ontario.

*****

The citizens of Ontario deserve to have a strong, credible and independent oversight body with full investigative powers, to ensure compliance with public meeting requirements as well as to deal with general complaints about municipal matters affecting them.

Finally, in November 2004, City Council rejected any proposals to expand the abilities of municipal councils or local boards to move into closed session. In addition, Council subsequently introduced further measures to provide information on in camera matters and their disposition.

Should City Council chose to appoint an Ombudsman, staff recommend that the responsibility of investigating adherence to closed meeting requirements be added to his/her jurisdiction. Furthermore, until Council has made a decision with respect to an Ombudsman, and subject to the passage of Bill 130, staff recommend that an interim investigator be appointed in order to ensure compliance with Bill 130.

Staff Recommendation:

6. That staff be directed to review the new provisions with respect to closed meetings and the responsibilities of an investigator, including an “interim investigator”, and report back to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council on an interim investigator in 2007.

4. Delegation of Authority

In the existing Municipal Act, 2001, there are few provisions which expressly address the extent to which a council can delegate its authorities to other bodies or offices. While there has been some implied authority to delegate arising from the natural person powers and the current spheres of jurisdiction, this has been an area that has raised many questions with respect to the scope of such delegated powers. It is proposed, in Sections 23.1 through to 23.5 of Bill 130, to broaden the ability of municipal councils to delegate authority to committees, staff, and others subject to certain restrictions (i.e. the delegated authority cannot be made irrevocable beyond the term of council). Despite the fact that councils will have enhanced authority to delegate, Bill 130 does identify specific powers and duties that a municipality would not be able to delegate including zoning bylaws and imposing taxes.

Specifically, Section 23.2 outlines the authority for municipalities to delegate legislative and quasi-judicial powers only to:

(a) one or more members of its council or a council committee;

(b) a body having at least two members of whom at least 50 percent are

(i) members of its council;

(ii) individuals appointed by its council;

(iii) a combination of individuals described in subclauses (i) and (ii); or

Comments

In July 2005, City Council endorsed the broadening of the natural person powers provided in the Municipal Act to include administrative matters such as delegation of authority. Further, City Council also endorsed a proposed amendment to allow the “option to appoint citizen members to the License Committee.”

In its September 22, 2006 submission on Bill 130, AMCTO recommended that the authority to delegate be limited to administrative and quasi-judicial powers:

Bill 130 adds provisions to Part II that would broaden the ability of councils to delegate authority to committees, staff and others. These provisions – sections 23.1 to 23.5 – are drawn word-for-word from the City of Toronto Act. They are excessively prescriptive for most municipalities, and we suggest that they be streamlined. We also recommend that the authority to delegate be limited to administrative and quasi-judicial powers. As we explained in our February brief, we fear that allowing councils to delegate legislative powers could undermine accountability to the electorate.

Staff Recommendation:

7. Staff be directed to review and recommend options with respect to Council’s ability to delegate its authority in light of the changes proposed in Bill 130 and report back to Committee and Council.

5. Other Amendments

In addition to the amendments identified above, Bill 130 also proposes a host of other amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 including:

· Broad powers with respect to business licensing (s. 151), including the ability to administratively suspend a licence prior to a hearing where there is a danger to health or safety; and the ability to issue an administrative penalty for failure to comply with licensing requirements;

· Increased authority to incorporate corporations using natural person powers, broad authorities, and spheres of jurisdiction (subject to limits);

· Requirement to adopt policies in new areas including: notice: accountability and transparency; ensuring the property and civil rights of persons affected by council decisions are dealt with fairly; and delegation matters (s. 270);

· Broader enforcement authority including: administrative penalties for non-compliance with parking bylaw, authority to establish fines for bylaw offences up to a maximum of $100,000, and an administrative power of entry to determine compliance with a bylaw (subject to limits); and

· Financial authority to establish multi-year budgets, processes for bonding designated individuals, and to identify other capital works as eligible to be funded through local improvement charges.

§ The authority to permit electronic participation of members at Council meetings but not during in camera sessions.

Staff Recommendations:

8. That the Director of Bylaw Services be directed to review the proposed amendments respecting business licensing and bylaw enforcement and report back to Committee and Council.

9. That staff be directed to review the provisions for new mandatory policies, including how existing policies may be revised, and report back to Committee and Council.

6. Amendments to other Acts

· Highway Traffic Act — Municipalities will have the authority to set speed limits up to 100 km/h in any increments chosen by the municipality on local roads. Municipalities at present can only set speed limits in increments of 10 km/h;

· Retail Business Holidays Act – Municipalities will be able to enact by-laws that the Act does not apply to them, provided a municipality enacts a by-law under Section 148 of the Municipal Act, 2001, requiring one or more classes of retail business establishments remain be closed on a holiday;

· Ontario Heritage Act — Municipalities will be able to determine the manner in which public notice is to be given when they intend to designate properties as being of cultural heritage value or interest;

· Housing Development Act — The Minister’s consent will not be required for municipalities to provide emergency temporary housing;

· Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 — Ministerial approval will not be required for municipalities to transfer, lease, dispose of or offer, list, advertise or hold out for transfer, lease or other disposal all or part of a housing project; and

· Line Fences Act – Amended to require owners of abandoned railway rights-of-way, upon request, to pay for the costs of line fences abutting a farm business.

Staff recommendation:

10. That staff be directed to review the specific amendments in Bill 130 related to the other statutes and, if necessary, report back to Committee and Council on the potential effects of these various revisions.

7. Bill 130 – Outstanding Concerns

Although Bill 130 is viewed in many quarters as a positive step towards further recognizing municipalities as a mature level of government, there remain a few areas of concern that appear contrary to the stated intent of providing municipalities with the tools and flexibility necessary to address issues within their jurisdiction.

a) Revenue-generating Authority:

As previously mentioned, Bill 130 does not include new revenue-generating authorities similar to those found in the City of Toronto Act to introduce sales taxes on limited entertainment, alcohol and tobacco items. Bill 130 makes minimal changes to the provisions of the Municipal Act dealing with financial matters, including the express ability for councils to adopt multi-year budgets and the removal of the detailed rules for cheque signing. In its general response to Bill 130, the Joint Ontario Business Sector (“JOBS”) Coalition expressed relief that the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act did not include “new taxation powers for municipalities”. The news release from JOBS summarized their viewpoint as follows:

“We are certainly pleased the government seems to have listened to the business community, and to municipal leaders outside Toronto,” JOBS spokesperson Judith Andrew, Ontario vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said. “They have held off from repeating the worst excesses of Bill 53, the new City of Toronto Act.”

*****

“The changes contained in this legislation are consistent with what we’re hearing from municipalities and businesses around Ontario,” Andrew said. “It gives municipalities more authority to run their affairs while increasing the level of accountability – and all without adding broad permissive powers of taxation as was done in Toronto. We feel there’s a message here for the City of Toronto not to go too far with its new powers, or find itself even less competitive than it is now.”

AMCTO expressed concerns regarding the absence of financial tools and local control over the policy governing the distribution of local property taxes.

On August 14, 2006, the Province of Ontario announced the establishment of the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review. Briefly, the purpose of this new joint review is to improve the delivery and funding of municipal programs and services and to develop a sustainable, provincial-municipal relationship where both orders of government can meet their responsibilities. As such, the review will focus on:

Affordability for both levels of government;
Fairness for taxpayers;
Timely infrastructure investments;
Provincial and municipal services effectively delivered across Ontario; and
Long-term economic development and prosperity for Ontario and its communities.

The Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review will be conducted by elected officials from both levels of government over the next 18 months. It is anticipated that a public report will be released in the Spring of 2008. The review process will include a common set of procedures and a communications protocol, and will benefit from a full and timely sharing of provincial and municipal information, data and analysis. Though taxing powers, such as income tax and sales tax, will not be included in the review, some areas that may be examined include:

Delivery and funding of housing, health, and social services;
Municipal financing tools, such as user fees and the use of municipal debt;
Infrastructure funding; and
The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund.

During the Second Reading phase of Bill 130, Minister Gerretsen confirmed that Bill 130 “will not give broad taxation powers to municipalities. Rather the joint Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Service Delivery Review … is focusing on a new fiscal and service delivery partnership for the 21^st century.”

On September 13, 2006, City Council approved the following motion with respect to this review:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Ottawa City Council support the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review and urge the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) to ensure that the primary focus of the review is a solution to the provincial municipal fiscal gap that will provide much needed property tax relief.

b) Provincial Regulations

The Province retains the power to issue regulations to impose limits and conditions on various municipal powers. In addition to such general regulatory powers, Bill 130 also proposed new regulations which are not yet available for review.

For example, the ability of a municipality to enact administrative penalties with respect to parking by-laws will be subject to an enabling regulation (Section 102.1(3)). Finally, Subsection 158(1) establishes a broad, regulatory authority by which the Province can impose conditions and limitations on municipalities’ licensing powers and make them retroactive for up to one year.

In its submission on Bill 130, AMCTO expressed concern with respect to this regulation-making authority and recommended that the Province indicate the areas in which it intended to maintain existing regulations or issue new ones.

Further, Section 451.1 of Part XVI would allow the Province to suspend, by regulation, any by-law passed by a municipality for up to 18 months. Should this provision remain in the Bill, AMCTO recommended that a process be established by which the Province would “consult with affected municipalities and state the provincial interest affected before it exercises a suspensive veto under Section 451 of the Municipal Act.”

c) Implementation of Bill 130

In the absence of a clear implementation date for Bill 130, there arise some doubts with respect to the ability of municipalities to comply with these new provisions at the beginning of the 2006-2010 term of council. AMCTO raised this concern in the submission on Bill 130 in the following fashion:

A final major concern is with regard to the timing of the implementation of Bill 130 in the event that it is approved by the Legislature. We do not wish to see the additional authority and flexibility that the bill will afford municipalities delayed beyond what we understand is the Ministry’s target effective date – January 1, 2007. However, the revised Municipal Act will contain certain new requirements that it would be virtually impossible for all 445 municipalities to meet. Examples include the appointment of an investigator to handle complaints about closed meetings under the new section 239.1 of the Municipal Act and the policies that must be adopted under paragraphs 1 and 4-7 of section 270(1). We note that the 2001 act gave municipalities three years to meet the new policy requirements imposed at that time. We recommend that the Ministry review the bill to identify provisions where some additional lead time makes sense.

When the Municipal Act, 2001 came into effect on January 1^st, 2003, municipalities had two years to develop the new mandatory policies regarding the hiring of employees and the procurement of goods and services. Municipalities also had until January 1, 2006 in order to review any bylaws or resolutions not permitted under the Municipal Act, 2001. In a similar manner, it would seem reasonable to request that the Province specify a deadline within which councils should adopt the mandatory policies (among other requirements) set out in Bill 130.

Staff Recommendation

11. That the Province be petitioned to provide an enactment date for certain of the Bill 130 amendments (i.e. new policies) of at least January 1^st, 2008, in order to provide municipalities with a sufficient timeline to thoroughly review these requirements and implement same.

Next Steps

Presently, Bill 130 is before the Ontario Legislature for Second Reading. It is anticipated that once it has received Second Reading, Bill 130 will be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government for public hearings and review. Staff will continue to monitor the progress of the Bill as well as any significant amendments that may be included. Upon passage of the bill, staff will begin to examine the specific implications of amendments to the Municipal Act, and will report back in 2007 on costs, options and implementation matters.

As expressed in the City of Ottawa Act report approved by City Council on July 15, 2005, staff anticipated that proposed amendments to the City’s Act might be migrated to the broader Municipal Act, 2001 review. The proposed amendments in Bill 130 include a number of those submitted by Council last summer. As such, it is understood that most of the changes contemplated with respect to the City of Ottawa’s enabling legislation have been included in Bill 130.

CONSULTATION

Upon consideration of the City of Ottawa Act report in July 2005, City Council also passed the following motion:

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa conducts business in a broad and open way to allow for participation and collaboration with the public;

AND WHEREAS City Council is both supportive of and values open and transparent dialogue with all members of the public, including the City’s Advisory Committees;

AND WHEREAS many of the regulatory and statutory proposals in the staff report may fall within the Terms of Reference of some of the City’s Advisory Committees;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager take immediate steps to further expand the public consultation process regarding any forthcoming changes to the City of Ottawa Act by forwarding the respective proposals to the City’s Advisory Committees for their comment (as set out in Attachment “A”, page 52);

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no public policy initiatives or by-laws based on any of the potential amendments be implemented prior to the completion of this consultation process.

As per Council's direction, the City of Ottawa legislative review was considered by the relevant advisory committees as per the following schedule. In most cases staff attended the meetings to provide a synopsis of the legislative review and to obtain feedback on the proposed amendments:

August 9, 2005 - Business Advisory Committee

August 11, 2005 - Environment Advisory Committee

August 16, 2005 - Taxi Advisory Committee

August 30, 2005 - Health and Social Services Advisory Committee

September 13, 2005 - Business Advisory Committee

September 13, 2005 - Poverty Issues Advisory Committee

September 19, 2005 - Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

September 26, 2005 - Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

All meetings were advertised and open to the public. As noted earlier, feedback was received from two Advisory Committees, being the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (attached as Appendix D and Appendix E respectively). These submissions were forwarded to the Ministry on December 1, 2005.

On September 7, 2006, a meeting of the Advisory Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs was convened with respect to a variety of governance-related issues. In addition, staff notified this group of the introduction of Bill 130 and encouraged the respective Advisory Committees to review the relevant portions in Bill 130 that were within their areas of expertise and to raise any issues they may have through their Standing Committees and on to Council. Staff will continue to advise the Advisory Committees of the progress of this bill.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications with respect to this report.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix A – Municipal Act, 2001 Review: Background

Appendix B – City of Ottawa Act – Bill 130 Comparative Analysis Matrix

Appendix C – AMCTO submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Re: Bill 130 (September 22, 2006) – Issued Separately

Appendix D – EAC Review and Recommendations of the New City of Ottawa Act (September 12, 2005)

Appendix E – Health and Social Services Advisory Committee – Recommendations for Amending the City of Ottawa Act (September 27, 2005)

DISPOSITION

City Clerk to forward Council’s endorsement of and comments on Bill 130 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Staff to report back in 2007 on the implementation and costs of various amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001.

Appendix B

City of Ottawa Act Submission	Bill 130
1. Authority to charge-back to benefiting school boards a pro-rated share of the cost of municipal elections	Not found in Bill 130
2. Authority to collect road-related fees and costs from telecommunication, hydro, and gas companies	Not found in Bill 130 (No changes to Ontario Regulation 244/02)
3. Authority to establish an Endowment Fund	Ontario Regulation 655/05 (Amending O. Reg. 438/97) (3) Section 4.1 of the Regulation is amended by adding the following subsections: (1.1) A municipality shall not invest in a security under paragraph 7.1 or 8.1 of section 2 unless, on the date the investment is made, the municipality has entered into an agreement with the Local Authority Services Limited and the CHUMS Financing corporation to act together as the municipality’s agent for the investment in the security. (1.2) Subsection (1.1) does not apply to investments in securities by the City of Ottawa if all of the following requirements are satisfied: 1. Only the proceeds of the sale by the City of its securities in a corporation incorporated under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 1998 are used to make the investments. 2. The investments are made in a professionally-managed fund. 3. The terms of the investments provide that, i. where the investment is in debt instruments, the principal must be repaid no earlier than seven years after the date on which the City makes the investment, and ii. where the investment is in shares, an amount equal to the principal amount of the investment cannot be withdrawn from the fund for at least seven years after the date on which the City makes the investment. 4. The City establishes and uses a separate reserve fund for the investments. 5. Subject to paragraph 6, the money in the reserve fund, including any returns on the investments or proceeds from their disposition, are used to pay capital costs of the City and for no other purpose. 6. The City may borrow money from the reserve fund but must repay it plus interest.
4. Authority to have municipal discretion respecting property tax policy issues	Not found in Bill 130
5. Authority to subdivide the property tax bill into services	Not found in Bill 130
6. Ability to negotiate directly with the Federal government on programs and policies regarding affordable housing	Not expressly found in Bill 130 though Section 3.1 does provide municipalities with the authority to enter in agreements Federal government.
7. Authority to cap municipal gross contribution to provincial cost-sharing programs	Not found in Bill 130
8. Exemption from all specific notice provisions in favour of Council’s discretion	Adoption of policies – s. 270 (1) A municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the following matters: 4. The circumstances in which the municipality shall provide notice to the public and, if notice is to be provided, the form, manner and time notice shall be given.
9. Authority to establish the manner of giving notice both for residual legislative notice requirements and for all discretionary notice requirements	Adoption of policies – s. 270 (1) A municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the following matters: 4. The circumstances in which the municipality shall provide notice to the public and, if notice is to be provided, the form, manner and time notice shall be given.
10. Authority to operate and regulate a Light Rail Transit System, with exemptions from The Railways Act and the Shortline Railways Act, 1995.	Not found in Bill 130.

11. Authority for Council to have the option to appoint citizen members to the License Committee	Section 23.2 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to delegate legislative and quasi-judicial powers under any Act except those listed in subsection (2) and the legislative and quasi-judicial powers under the listed Acts may be delegated only to: a. one or more members of its council or a council committee; b. a body having at least two members of whom at least 50 per cent are: (i) members of its council; (ii) individuals appointed by its council; (iii) a combination of individuals described in subclauses (i) and (ii); or c. an individual who is an officer, employee or agent of the municipality.
12. Authority to grant the License Committee the right to levy fines as a licensing enforcement mechanism	Not found in Bill 130
13. Authority to license business based on geographic locations	Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Act are repealed and the following substituted – s. 8 (4) Without limiting the generality of subsections (1), (2) and (3) and except as otherwise provided, a by-law under this Act may be general or specific in its application and may differentiate in any way and on any basis a municipality considers appropriate.
14. Exemption from restrictions related to establishing Municipal Corporations at council’s discretion	Section 203 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted (Power to establish corporations) – s. 203 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to do the following things in accordance with such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed: 1. To establish corporations. 2. To nominate or authorize a person to act as an incorporator, director, officer or member of a corporation. 3. To exercise any power as a member of a corporation. 4. To acquire an interest in or to guarantee such securities issued by a corporation as may be prescribed. 5. To exercise any power as the holder of such securities issued by a corporation as may be prescribed. Duties of corporations, etc. (2) A corporation established by a municipality and the directors and officers of the corporation shall comply with such requirements as may be prescribed. Exceptions (3) This section does not apply with respect to a corporation established under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 1998, a corporation established under section 13 of the Housing Development Act, a local housing corporation established under Part III of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 or any other corporation that a municipality is expressly authorized under any other Act to establish or control. Regulations (4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the powers of a municipality under this section and governing the corporations established under this section, including regulations, (a) prescribing the purposes for which a municipality may exercise its powers referred to in this section and imposing conditions and restrictions on the use of those powers; (b) prescribing the purposes for which a corporation may carry on business or engage in activities; (c) prescribing securities for the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5 of subsection (1); (d) imposing conditions and requirements that apply to a corporation and its directors and officers; (e) providing that specified corporations are deemed not to be local boards for the purposes of any pro-vision of this Act or for the purposes of the definition of “municipality” in such other Acts as may be specified; (f) providing that specified corporations are deemed for the purposes of any Act or specified provisions of an Act not to be operating a public utility in such circumstances as may be prescribed; (g) exempting a municipality from the application of section 106 with respect to specified corporations; (h) providing for transitional matters relating to a municipality’s exercise of its powers under section106 or relating to a specified corporation’s exercise of its powers. Conflict (5) If there is a conflict between a regulation made under this section and a provision of this Act, other than this section, or of any other Act or regulation, the regulation made under this section prevails.
15. Authority to set fee structure to allow public policy to be addressed in fee structure in certain, appropriate circumstances	Not found in Bill 130
16. Ability to levy a portion of the land transfer tax for affordable housing	Not found in Bill 130
17. Amend the Police Services Act to either provide the City with greater authority to control budget or increased Provincial responsibility over wage settlements	Not found in Bill 130
18. No regulatory provisions from the Province that require the City to take action unless accompanied by full, Provincial funding	Not found in Bill 130
19. Authority to establish standards for and to recover the City’s cost of the installation, reinstallation or relocation of utilities and telecommunications facilities within a highway which is being rehabilitated, repaired or altered by the City for municipal purposes	Not found in Bill 130
20. Authority to impose a rights-of-way use and occupancy levy	Not found in Bill 130
21. Authority to issue permits for vending in designated spaces on municipal sidewalks	Not found in Bill 130
22. Amend the Development Charges Act including an exemption from the ten percent statutory deductions	Not found in Bill 130

23. Authority to introduce a vehicle plate fee	Not found in Bill 130
24. Authority to levy a visiting players’ tax with respect to professional sports	Not found in Bill 130
25. Authority to levy a hotel tax	Not found in Bill 130
26. a. Authority to assign a recycling levy b. Authority to regulate the use of plastic bags by retailers including the authority to prohibit their use	Not found in Bill 130
27. Define the provincial interest in all statutes in order to avoid conflict between provincial/municipal authority	Not found in Bill 130
28. Establish a dispute mechanism with Province	Not found in Bill 130
29. Authority to enter into agreements with ‘federal, regional, and other municipal government agencies’	Agreements with the Federal Government – s. 3.1 The Province acknowledges that a municipality has the authority to enter into agreements with the Crown in right of Canada with respect to matters within the municipality’s jurisdiction
30. Expand ‘natural person powers’ to include administration (delegation of authority)	Part II of the Act is amended by adding the following sections: Delegation of Powers and Duties – s. 23.1 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10, and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under this or any other Act to a person or body subject to the restrictions set out in this Part. (2)
31. Add health and environment to spheres of jurisdiction for municipalities	Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Act are repealed and the following substituted – s. 10 (2) A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters: 5. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality. 6. Health, safety and well-being of persons.
32. Add protection of persons and property to spheres of jurisdiction for municipalities	Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Act are repealed and the following substituted – s. 10 (2) A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters: 8. Protection of persons and property, including consumer protection.

33. Authority to appoint and define the authority of a Municipal Integrity Commissioner	The Act is amended by adding the following Part: Part V.1 Accountability and Transparency – s. 223.3 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to appoint an Integrity Commissioner who reports to council and who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the municipality with respect to: (a) the application of the code of conduct for members of council and the code of conduct for members of local boards or of either of them; (b) the application of any procedures, rules and policies of the municipality and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards or of either of them; or (c) both of clauses (a) and (b).
34. Councillor’s Remuneration	Not found in Bill 130
35. Authority to establish local lobbyist registries	The Act is amended by adding the following Part: Part V.1 Accountability and Transparency – s. 223.9 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to establish and maintain a registry in which shall be kept such returns as may be required by the municipality that are filed by persons who lobby public office holders.
36. Ability to define the authority of Auditor General including the right to shield the Auditor General’s working papers from requests pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act	The Act is amended by adding the following Part: Part V.1 Accountability and Transparency – s. 223.22 (1) The Auditor General and every person acting under the instructions of the Auditor General shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this Part. (4) This section prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

37. Define the meaning of the designation of the Mayor as ‘Chief Executive Officer’ in Section 25 of the Municipal Act, 2001	Head of Council as chief executive officer – s. 226.1 As chief executive officer of a municipality, the head of council shall, (a) uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality; (b) promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities; (c) act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and (d) participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.
38. Authority to hold electronic meetings	Not found in Bill 130, however, subsection 238 (6) provides that the procedure by-law may provide that a member of council can participate electronically in a meeting of council which is open to the public to the extent and in the manner set out in the by-law but that member shall not be counted in determining whether or not a quorum of members is present at any point in time.
39. Ability to more effectively and aggressively enforce property standards, especially with respect to vacant/abandoned properties	Not found in Bill 130
40. Authority to create sub-classes of licenses	Subsection 151 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10, and 11, a municipality may provide for a system of licences with respect to a business and may: (d) impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all of the businesses in that class in order to obtain, continue to hold or renew a licence.
41. Authority to license with respect to a broader set of purposes and expand City’s licensing power to include ‘business protection’ as a purpose for licensing	Amendment 80 removes Subsection 150 (2) which outlines the purposes for which a municipality may exercise its licensing powers.
42. Exemption from the statutory requirement to consult with the public prior to the passage of a licensing by-law	Amendment 80 removes Subsection 150 (4) which refers to Notice and the requirement to hold at least one public meeting before passing a licensing by-law.
43. Authority to regulate limousines and other vehicles for hire	Not found in Bill 130
44. Authority to charge a fee with respect to the ‘Registry for Businesses’	Amendment 80 removes Section 157 which refers to establishing and maintaining a Registry of Businesses.
45. Exemption from the Minister’s authority to enact a retroactive regulation with respect to license fees	Not found in Bill 130
46. Authority to establish a general ‘power of entry’ with respect to all municipally-licensed business, including dwellings that are operating as a licensed business	Part XIV (Enforcement) - Powers of entry are enhanced to include administrative power of entry to determine compliance with bylaws, orders or conditions on a licence, but with limits re entry of dwellings (s. 435-439).
47. Authority to enter property, seize animals and provide temporary care in circumstances where an emergency has resulted in no one able to care for an animal	Not found in Bill 130
48. Authority to permit the regulation of vendors on private property and enable the City to seize vendors’ equipment and supplies and hold them until the disposition of the license hearing, or until the court appearance. The City also seeks authority to dispose of perishable merchandise as it deems appropriate	Not found in Bill 130
49. Authority to pass by-laws to regulate the exterior design of buildings and structures in all or part of the City of Ottawa as identified in the by-law, to prohibit the erection or alteration of such buildings or structures, the plans and specifications for which have not first been approved by an official of by a committee or board appointed by the Council, and where approval of plans and specifications for the exterior design of buildings is not granted to provide for an appeal process and to establish fees to cover the costs	Schedule D: The City of Ottawa Act, 1999 is amended to give the City the same urban design powers provided for the City of Toronto in the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Specifically, Ottawa is granted the additional ability to approve off-site sustainable design elements on any adjoining highway as part of a site plan approval.
50. Where the City has undertaken remedial work, authority to recover costs as taxes as opposed to ‘in the same manner’	Not found in Bill 130
51. Authority to levy against a property owner (or to place the charge upon the property tax roll), the costs incurred by the City to close down an illegal operation	Not found in Bill 130

52. Authority to own and operate communication towers as a business	Not found in Bill 130
53. Amend the Education Act so that the City shall have the same rights and obligations as a district school board for the purposes of acquiring any property intended to be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed by a district school board	Not found in Bill 130
54. Exemption from Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal roads and authority to set local standards	Not found in Bill 130
55. That the legal principle of Joint and Several Liability not apply to municipal defendants	Not found in Bill 130
56. Authority for increased flexibility with respect to managing the debt on the City’s social housing stock	Not found in Bill 130

Appendix “D”

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

To / Destinataire	Mayor and Members of Council	File/N° de fichier: G6 11 05 09
From / Expéditeur	Coordinator Environmental Advisory Committee
Subject / Objet	EAC Review and Recommendations of the new City of Ottawa Act	Date: 12 September 2005

At its meeting of 11 August 2005, the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) received a presentation from Mr. Rick O’Connor, Deputy City Clerk, with regard to the proposed recommendations for the New City of Ottawa Act.

Following Mr. O’Connor’s presentation, the EAC formed a working group to review the City’s proposed recommendations. The working group’s overview was presented at the EAC’s 8 September 2005 meeting (see attached). The EAC approved the following resolution:

That the review and recommendations of the new City of Ottawa Act by the EAC be distributed to members of Council for their information.

Kelly Sammon

Advisory Committee Coordinator

Attach (1)

cc: K. Kirkpatrick, City Manager

N. Lathrop, Deputy City Manager of Planning and Growth Management

R. O’Connor, Deputy City Clerk

M. Murdock, Research Assistant

C. Christensen, Manager, Environmental Management

C. Levesque, Program Manager, Environmental Management

M. Chevalier, Public Works and Services

C. Wilkie, Council Coordinator

EAC Members

Review and Recommendations of new City Act by the Environmental Advisory Committee

Introduction

City Council on July 13 directed that "Public consultation on all further amendments to the City of Ottawa Act will take place through the City's Advisory Committees." (see the complete motion in Annex A below). Deputy City Clerk Rick O’Connor, briefed the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) on August 11 and an EAC Task Force was then formed to conduct the review. Members who contributed to the preparation of this paper include: Patrick Quealey, Ann Coffey, Paul Koch and Bill Pugsley (Chair)

According to its approved Terms of Reference (see Annex B below), the EAC has a duty specifically:

Assisting in the development of policies, programs, and by-laws which could have an impact upon the environment,

and

To examine health issues, guided by the objectives of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act and its definition of “health hazards”

Purpose of this Document

- to provide Council and staff with advice and recommendations on the environmental and health aspects of proposed changes to the new City Act

Discussion

EAC was presented with 56 proposals from staff on August 11 which had been presented to Council on July 13, 2005. Although only three of these proposals were seen by staff to have environmental aspects, after a careful review the EAC Task Force found that at least 17 proposals had direct impacts on the environment or health, or provided an opportunity to improve the sustainability of the environment in our city. In this connection, the review suggested 24 specific recommendations for consideration by the City. The details are shown in the attached Table (see Annex C) which provides the background on how each proposal relates and then what action by the City is recommended. In passing, the single most important proposal among the 56 is the one (#5 under legislative changes) which would transfer more responsibility for the environment and health from the Province to the City. On this item (and others), more discussion with staff and with the province will be needed to properly assess all of the potential consequences and opportunities to improve the City’s environment and indeed make it a “Green and Environmentally Sensitive City”, as called for in the Ottawa 20/20 Strategic Plan

Action Proposed

a) that staff review this document and provide EAC with responses to each of the 24 recommendations, as part of the consultative process called for by Council

b) following approval of this document by the EAC at its September 8, 2005 meeting, that this document be distributed to members of Council for their information

Prepared by Bill Pugsley

Date: 9 Sep 2005

Note: staff responses (August 30 and September 7) are shown in Annex C

Annex A - Motion Approved at Council on July 13, 2005

MOTION NO. 37/13

Moved by Councillor M. McRae

Seconded by Councillor E. El-Chantiry

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa conducts business in a broad and open way to allow for participation and collaboration with the public;

AND WHEREAS City Council is both supportive of and values open and transparent dialogue with all members of the public, including the City’s Advisory Committees;

AND WHEREAS many of the regulatory and statutory proposals in the staff report may fall within the Terms of Reference of some of the City’s Advisory Committees;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that no public policy initiatives or by-laws based on any of the potential amendments be implemented prior to the completion of this consultation process.

CARRIED

Annex B: Terms of Reference (Environmental Advisory Committee):

· Assisting in the development of policies, programs, and by-laws which could have an impact upon the environment,

· Reviewing existing policies, programs, by-laws and development proposals and making recommendations upon environmental implications of same,

· Identifying, researching, consulting and bringing forward to Committee and Council local and global issues which may affect the environment,

· Soliciting and facilitating public input on matters of environmental significance to Council,

· Consulting with and receiving submissions for local environmental and other groups and reporting with recommendations,

· Aiding Council by increasing awareness of the City of Ottawa Environmental policy, programs and by-laws, and issues which have an environmental impact, by means of education campaigns, public meetings, articles in local newspapers and other appropriate means as determined by the Committee,

· Advising on the design, maintenance and frequent updating of a City database on the natural, built and socio-economic aspects of the City’s environment, and environmental health information and indicators,

· To examine health issues, guided by the objectives of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act and its definition of “health hazards” (i.e. health hazard means: a) a condition of a premises, b) a substance, thing, plant or animal other than man, or c) a solid, liquid, gas or combination of any of them, that is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person),

· Liaise with other City of Ottawa Advisory Committees as appropriate.

Annex C – Table Showing Review Comments and Recommendations of New City Act by EAC

Description of Proposal	How Proposals relate to Environment	EAC Recommendation
6. Ability to negotiate directly with the Federal Government on programs and policies regarding affordable housing.	- would allow City to implement federal programs aimed at promoting alternative energy uses which have positive environmental impacts such as green buildings (which relates to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program which Ottawa is now on the verge of joining), rapid transit, climate programs, air quality, water, agriculture, etc	EAC recommends that City seek agreements with federal government to address the environmental design of buildings, especially as it relates to the City’s participation in the LEED program
Staff Comment:
10. Authority to operate and regulate a Light Rail Transit System.	- would give greater municipal control over Light Rail Transit operations, resulting in greater efficiency and public use of transit, and less dependence on polluting vehicles for commuting and improved air quality.	EAC recommends that City seek authority to operate LRT systems in order to achieve maximum efficiency in their operation
Staff Comment:
13. Authority to license businesses differently based on geographic locations.	- charge higher fees for businesses located outside of a defined central core that could be located within the central core, with agricultural businesses exempt. Higher licensing fees would be levied for any new business that contributes to sprawl which would accomplish the following: a) discourage sprawl b) produce revenue to be reallocated into environmental conservation programs c) protect agricultural lands classes 1-4 for food security	EAC recommends that the City assess higher licensing fees for businesses and residential developments that contribute to sprawl or threaten protected agricultural lands
Staff Comment: This intent of this authority is to recognize that ‘one-size-does-not-fit-all’ and license accordingly with respect to administration and enforcement costs rather than as a punitive measure against businesses outside the urban core.
15. Authority to set fee structure to allow public policy to be addressed.	- could help with respect to using higher service fees to promote conservation behaviour where warranted - given the wide public support for a “Green and Environmentally Sensitive City”, one of the seven principles of Ottawa 20/20, it would be logical to expose how much of the tax bill is spent on services aimed at environmental management in the same way that police and transit services are identified – for example the overall costs of recycling, forestry program, park maintenance, air quality monitoring- and any other services that are clearly linked to this goal. Exposing such costs may provoke useful public debate and public support for the value of these efforts in the balance of priorities with purely economic programs	EAC recommends that the City clearly and specifically indicate how much of the budget is spent on activities that affect the environment, including but not limited to costs for maintenance of parks and forests, recycling and waste management, air quality, water quality etc

Staff Comment:

16. Authority to require affordable housing in new developments with a release ability to receive cash-in-lieu of meeting these requirements

- apply environmental standards to the development of affordable housing stock through incentives to developers

- buildings constructed ‘on the cheap’ can lead to enormous water, heat, and service bills due to structural inefficiencies.

- a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) should be examined to ensure that housing costs, remain affordable (heat, water, other bills) through environmental design.

- excessive rents can be controlled in the choice of unit locations (land value translates into price differentiation)

EAC recommends that

a) the City define requirements for affordable housing to incorporate energy efficient and environmental design to reduce structural inefficiencies and its costs

b) the City seek a Private –Public Partnership arrangement to ensure that the above proposal para a) is implemented

Staff Comment: This amendment was deleted from the City’s list of requests on July 13, 2005 by City Council.

19. Greater financial control over the annual budget of Conservation Authorities.

- there is a need to examine the Conservation Authorities (CA) and the City's Environmental Management (EM) budget proposals together and then make a considered decision on the value to the City of which programs and to what extent

- the City’s Environmental Management budget and that of the CAs should be integrated to ensure that the same level of attention is given to urban environmental conservation as to the largely rural programs under the CAs.

- at present, the CAs appear to have very generous budgets and EM is being starved. For consideration of human health and safety and sustainability where 90% of the population live, the urban area needs much more attention

EAC recommends that

a) the City have a greater direct role in approving the budget for the Conservation Authority than it now does

b) the City assess proposed activities of the Conservation Authorities and of the Environmental Management Branch and allocate resources according to their overall contributions to the environmental sustainability of the City

24. Amend the Development Charges Act including an exemption from the ten percent statutory deductions.

- newer suburbs are more costly to maintain than the denser established areas of Ottawa including the communities in Kanata and Orleans but the city cannot under present legislation increase suburban property taxes

- new user pay levies for the suburbs matching the extra costs added to the overall infrastructure by the suburbs which includes provision for maintaining environmental integrity and protection

EAC recommends that the City follow its own stated objective that “growth pays for growth” in all respects so that any additional pressures on the infrastructure or services provided to suburbs be recovered from Development Charges for those areas

Staff Comment: This amendment was deleted from the City’s list of requests on July 5, 2005 by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee which was further endorsed on July 13, 2005 by City Council and will be forwarded to the Province in accordance with the upcoming review of the Development Charges Act.

25. Authority to introduce a vehicle plate fee.

- this fee is an important first step to have road users pay for road maintenance, discourage multiple vehicle ownership and provide a source of revenue to promote other forms of transportation less damaging to health and the environment.

- the fee would also allow the city to distinguish between vehicle types. i.e. plates registered to inefficient vehicles located in urban areas could be charged a significantly higher plate fee based on air quality impact, health impact, and contribution to climate change impact.

- if there are incentives for cleaner cars and penalties for dirty vehicles, why not a property tax rebate for those who do not own cars and higher taxes for those who own two or more cars? Revenue from the city’s “disincentives for dirtier cars programme” would pay for the “incentives for the cleaner car or no-car-at-all programme”

- care would be needed in implementing such a fee to assess if it would result in residents moving beyond the city’s boundaries seeking to escape the extra costs – the optimum amount to charge is the objective

EAC recommends that

a) the City implement a vehicle plate fee that would increase over the long term to meet the costs of maintaining the roads and to encourage efficient fuel consumption

b) the City assess the feasibility of providing property tax rebates from the license plate fee revenue to those who do not own a vehicle – and, if feasible, implement such an program

Staff Comment:

28. Authority to assign a recycling levy (i.e.bottle returns, regulating use of paper/plastic bags, etc.).

-the link between a recycling fee and reduced garbage generation would hopefully reduce overall waste and the need for landfill capacity in the future

- the city should also impose a fee for every bag of garbage above the one bag per household service.

EAC recommends that the City enact a recycling levy and require businesses, restaurants and fast food outlets to recycle

Staff Comment:

3. Authority to enter into agreements with 'federal, regional, and other municipal government agencies'.

- would allow direct negotiations with the NCC and indirectly with the City of Gatineau, all of which would permit a more holistic approach to the protection of the environment and health for the national capital area as a whole via agreements on standards and common approaches to reduce risks. An example that demonstrated the dangers of independently approaching environmental health issues was the varied and potentially unsafe response to West Nile Virus from three different jurisdictions

EAC recommends that the City seek agreements with other levels of government and municipalities, including, specifically, the NCC and the City of Gatineau on matters related to environmental protection and the sustainability

Staff Comment: In terms of the authority that the City is seeking, it is understood that the issue specifically relates to the City’s inability to directly negotiate and contract with the federal government (i.e. as an entity of the Provincial Government). There is likely not any issue with the City’s authority to negotiate and contract with either the NCC or the City of Gatineau. The City already has agreements with both of these latter parties in a variety of areas.

5. Add health and environment to spheres of jurisdiction for municipalities.

-the City could assume lead responsibility for vehicle emissions as a major contributor to local air pollution, monitoring air quality near roadways when and where they exceed environmental or health standards and taking action to regulate traffic and roads when necessary

- implementation would require delegation of responsibilities for transportation, roads and environment from the Province

- other initiatives include the power to set emissions standards, building standards, road pricing and tolls, parking fees, etc

- The city should be able to stop a development (roads, commercial/industrial or residential) that will impact on the health of existing residential areas. This would include health effects from air pollution and noise.

EAC recommends that

a) the City monitor and regulate vehicle emissions through environmental monitoring programs and traffic control and road pricing measures that are now under provincial mandate

b) the City have greater authority, even a veto, over provincial roadways within municipal boundaries such as the Queensway

c) the City develop and implement stringent standards for noise and air pollution and include these in the Terms of Reference for all Development Applications

Staff Comment: On the issue of adding environment and health to our spheres of jurisdiction, the City would still be faced with conflict issues from time to time with federal or provincial legislation. Generally speaking, the City cannot enact regulatory legislation in an area which has already been occupied by federal or provincial legislation. For example, the province already has enacted extensive regulations in the area of vehicle emissions, therefore it is doubtful that there is much room for municipal involvement in this area.

12. Authority to hold electronic meetings.

- this could help the City’s advisory committees (including the EAC) to be more effective by allowing formal approval of motions using electronic means without the expense of face-to-face meetings, overtime for staff coordination, parking costs, etc.

- assessment of environmental impacts of Development Applications is being hindered because of the time to review the applications via traditional monthly formal meetings

EAC recommends that

a) the City permit advisory committees to hold electronic meetings, and

b) in view of current delays in reviewing Development Applications that the EAC be the first to be granted this authority on a pilot project basis

Staff Comment: The City is currently developing a protocol and proposed amendments to the Advisory Committee Procedure By-law with respect to e-meetings for Advisory Committees.

13. Ability to more effectively and aggressively enforce property standards, especially with respect to vacant/abandoned properties.

“Expropriation” funds from any sales could be used to fund, in part, environmental programs or provide funds in partnership with the proposed Ottawa Sustainability Fund- an arms length fund to support environmental research of critical importance to the City

- this should include the ability to set standards for all properties and levy fines for those who don't follow City bylaws

EAC recommends that the City use the revenue from expropriations to create and sustain a fund for arm’s-length research in key environmental areas

Staff Comment:

15. Authority to license with respect to a broader set of purposes and expand City's licensing power to include "business protection" as a purpose for licensing.

- being able to license for 'broader purposes' could include the potential impact on the environment. There could be an option to levy different licensing fees based on the environmental impact of the business in question. Businesses with a low environmental impact would be charged a lower rate than those with a high impact.

- licensing with a broader set of purposes could include such factors as the following:

a) Impact on Air Quality (how far do employees have to commute),

b) Impact on Health (does the business contribute to poor health in the community?),

c) Impact on Climate Change (does the business unduly increase the greenhouse gas emissions of the City?),

d) Physical Impacts (does the business threaten greenspace, wetlands, water quality, ecologically sensitive areas, agricultural lands, etc)

- businesses which design their location, business practices, and company policies around reducing their environmental impact could be charged less and given other incentives.

EAC recommends that the City include environmental sustainability along with business protection as key elements in its licensing authority

Staff Comment:

17. Authority to regulate limousines and other vehicles for hire.

- could give city the ability to place standards restriction on vehicle emissions and efficiency -especially on mobile 'advertising' platforms such as vehicles whose only purpose appears to be to drive around with rolling signs

EAC recommends that the City develop and apply standards for environmental and efficiency factors into the regulation of vehicles for hire to the point of disallowing hiring vehicles which exceed the standards

Staff Comment: This recommendation appears to go beyond the scope of the proposed amendment re: limousines

23. Authority to pass by-laws to regulate the exterior design of buildings and structures in all or part of the City of Ottawa

- would extend the present City ability, currently limited to the urban core of Ottawa (the former City of Ottawa), to develop standards and bylaws to encourage and regulate environmentally friendly building design for green roofs, solar water heaters , as well as efficiency standards, LEED certification, which would set the stage for green design for the entire City

- Munich and other cities in Germany have the ability to require green roofs for all new commercial and apartment buildings and to have existing buildings add green roofs (70% of the roof for new buildings and 60% for existing ones). Under present provincial legislation, this would not be possible in Ottawa although it would be desirable to take steps to move in this direction

- as a side note, preservation of historic aspects of heritage buildings might be included in changes made to these regulations

EAC recommends that

a) the City regulate the exterior design of buildings to encourage and promote the use of sound environmental design practices, such as green roofs and solar water heaters

b) the City develop measurable objectives for the introduction and implementation of sustainable environmental design practices

Staff Comment: Staff recommend that the paragraph making reference to Munich be deleted given that the City cannot impose building construction standards that are inconsistent with the Building Code or that by-laws that exact higher standards than the Building Code and thus the Advisory Committee’s recommendation cannot be pursued as noted. The City can recommend and promote, but it cannot dictate to a property owner the design of the building (specifically, the structural or mechanical design of the building).

The special legislation being sought expands on the site plan control authority the City presently has, which deals with the placement of the building on a lot, the landscaping and the appearance of the outside shell (i.e., colour, mass, set back), etc. If we own the land and invite tenders for the design and construction of our building, we can certainly willingly impose higher standards, that is, that the building meet the Building Code and include new technology that makes the building greener. But the City does not have the authority to impose these building construction standards on other private sector parties as they are higher than those imposed by the Province. In addition, it is unlikely that the Province would agree to permit the City to impose higher standards via the City of Ottawa Act as this would provide for an independent standard which is contrary with the Building Code Act which seeks to standardize building construction province wide. The introduction of the Objective Based Codes in 2006 will facilitate the introduction of new technologies, such as those referred to by the Advisory Committee but these technologies will still have to be vetted by testing agencies before these can be accepted (i.e. the performance of the system will have to be tested against stated performance by CSA, for example, before it can be considered as Code compliant).

However, perhaps the Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch of the Planning and Growth Management Department, and of course City Council, could certainly cajole a builder in voluntarily going further than the minimum Building Code standards and, as stated above, encourage and promote. Also, consumer demand will eventually exert pressure on the industry to come forward with homes and buildings that incorporate Green designs therefore promotion of the benefits will eventually yield the changes the Advisory Committee is seeking to see implemented.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

These powers will replace the ten more prescriptive spheres of jurisdiction in the current legislation.

Key Amendments

Comments

7. Bill 130 – Outstanding Concerns

Next Steps

Appendix A

Background

Appendix B

Appendix “D”

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

Mayor and Members of Council

Coordinator Environmental Advisory Committee

Kelly Sammon

Introduction

Discussion

MOTION NO. 37/13

Appendix “E”

Coordinator
Environmental Advisory Committee