5. GREEN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

PROGRAMME COMMUNAUTAIRE DE PARTENARIAT ÉCOLOGIQUE

Committee recommendations as amended

That Council approve the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works and Services Department include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating Budget Estimates for consideration the following:

1. The continuation of the Green Partnership Program as a formal operating program, with annual operating funding in the total amount of $325,000 to include 1 FTE, project grants, advertising, promotion and program administration costs.

2. The amendments to the Green Partnership Program Terms and Conditions for Recipients of Funding as outlined in the report.

3. The discontinuation of the appeal process for applications that are declined.

4. The remaining $75,000 of the recommended annual Green Partnership Program funding be re-directed to the Community Garden Program Action Plan for the development of new community gardens and the enhancement or expansion of existing community gardens ($5,000 for promotion/printing and $70,000 for allocation to community gardens), subject to 2009 Budget Council approval.

5. The Cultural Services and Community Funding Branch within Community and Protective Services administer the community garden funding in conjunction with the Community Gardening Network, and that all future applications for funding for community gardens under the Green Partnership Program be directed to the Cultural Services and Community Funding Branch for consideration.

Recommandations modifiÉeS du Comité

Que le Conseil approuve que la Direction des opérations de surface et Services et Travaux publics incluent, dans le cadre des estimations préliminaires du budget de fonctionnement de 2009 ce qui suit pour examen :

1. la continuation du Programme de partenariat écologique à titre de programme d’exploitation officiel, doté de fonds de fonctionnement annuels d’un montant total de 325 000 $, qui comprend un (1) poste ETP, les subventions de projet, les dépenses de publicité, de promotion et d’administration du programme.

2. les modifications aux conditions du Programme de partenariat écologique pour les récipiendaires de financement, comme il est expliqué dans le rapport;

3. l’interruption du processus d’appel pour les demandes qui sont refusées.

4. la réorientation du financement annuel recommandé restant du Programme de partenariat écologique, d’un montant de 75 000 $, au Plan d’action du Programme de jardins communautaires en vue de l’aménagement de nouveaux jardins communautaires et de l’amélioration et de l’agrandissement des jardins actuels (5 000 $ pour la promotion et l’impression et 70 000 $ pour ventilation aux jardins communautaires), sous réserve de l’approbation du budget de 2009 par le Conseil.

5. l’administration par la Direction des services culturels et du financement communautaire, Services communautaires et de protection, conjointement avec le Réseau des jardins communautaires, du financement des jardins communautaires, et la soumission de toutes les futures demandes de financement de jardins communautaires en vertu du Programme de partenariat écologique à ladite Direction pour examen.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services report dated 17 July 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0008).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 9 September 2008.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee /

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

July 17 2008 / le 17 juillet2008

Submitted by/Soumis par : R.G. Hewitt,

Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, Director / Directeur

Surface Operations/Opérations de surface

(613) 580-2424 x 21110, John.Manconi@ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0008

SUBJECT:	GREEN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
OBJET :	PROGRAMME COMMUNAUTAIRE DE PARTENARIAT ÉCOLOGIQUE

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services Department include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating Budget Estimates for consideration the following:

1. The continuation of the Green Partnership Program as a formal operating program, with annual operating funding in the total amount of $400,000 to include 1 FTE, project grants, advertising, promotion and program administration costs.

2. The amendments to the Green Partnership Program Terms and Conditions for Recipients of Funding as outlined in the report.

3. The discontinuation of the appeal process for applications that are declined.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver que la Direction des opérations de surface et Services et Travaux publics incluent, dans le cadre des estimations préliminaires du budget de fonctionnement de 2009 ce qui suit pour examen :

1. la continuation du Programme de partenariat écologique à titre de programme d’exploitation officiel, doté de fonds de fonctionnement annuels d’un montant total de 400 000 $, qui comprend un (1) poste ETP, les subventions de projet, les dépenses de publicité, de promotion et d’administration du programme.

2. les modifications aux conditions du Programme de partenariat écologique pour les récipiendaires de financement, comme il est expliqué dans le rapport;

3. l’interruption du processus d’appel pour les demandes qui sont refusées.

BACKGROUND

During consideration of the City Corporate Plan on September 28, 2005, City Council approved a motion that Cleaning the City and Greening the City be added to the Neighbourhood Agenda in Ottawa’s first City Corporate Plan 2006-2009. The motion further resolved that staff pilot a community-based Green Partnership Pilot Program to encourage and support community involvement in keeping the city clean and green. Consequently, on November 30, 2005 Council approved the recommendations contained in the Cleaning the City and Greening the City Report that focused on the City services aspect of the Cleaning the City and Greening the City Neighbourhood Agenda Actions.

During the 2006 Budget process, Council approved the budget submissions for funding of these services including a $1M Capital allocation to pilot the Green Partnership Program (GPP). On April 12, 2006 Council approved an overview of the program’s accountability framework, eligibility criteria and associated details to implement, monitor and manage the $1M pilot grant program. On January 10, 2008, Council approved the extension of the pilot phase of the Green Partnership Program through December 31, 2008 with no additional funding, requiring that staff report back to Committee and Council on the program results in the Fall of 2008.

Objectives of the Green Partnership Pilot Program

The Green Partnership Pilot Program was developed to address a need expressed by City of Ottawa residents that maintenance, cleaning and greening are considered part of Ottawa’s essential services.

The specific objectives of the Green Partnership Pilot Program (GPPP) were to provide funding for sustainable community-based cleaning and greening initiatives, and to leverage the community’s resources resulting in cost effective projects. Priority was given to projects that:
Demonstrated commitment to keeping the city attractive and green and reflect the values of sustainability;

· Contributed to a healthy and beautiful City;

· Demonstrated and promoted leadership in environmental stewardship through innovative methods;

· Reflected the existing qualities and unique characteristics of the community;

· Showcased City facilities for emerging best practices;

· Involved and engaged community stakeholders;

· Facilitated change in public perception;

· Included a strategy for long-term sustainability.

DISCUSSION

This report provides an overview of results from the pilot program (2006 - 2008), including input collected through stakeholder consultations and recommendations for the future of the Green Partnership Program.

Summary of Approved Projects and Outcomes

Table 1 provides a summary of the pilot program’s project applications. Since inception of GPPP in April 2006, over 300 groups and individuals have showed interest in completing community based greening and cleaning projects through the Program. A total of 150 applications were received. Seventy-five percent or 112 applications met the objectives and were awarded $691,478 in funding through the Green Partnership Program. Of the 150 applications received, fourteen (14) projects did not meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of the Green Partnership Pilot Program and were denied funding. The remaining projects were either incomplete, withdrawn, or referred to other funding programs such as the TREE Program, Community Environment Projects Grant Program or Minor Capital Grants Program.

Of the 14 projects that were denied funding, five projects were appealed, with one being approved upon 2^nd consideration by the Allocation Committee, and four being approved upon consideration by the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC). In the case of projects which were approved by PEC, the approvals resulted in the program funding projects which are in contravention of staff interpretation of the Council approved Program objectives and eligibility criteria.

Table 1: Summary of Green Partnership Program Project Applications (2006-2008)

Application Status	2006	2007	2008	Total
Inquiries to the Program	137	106	58	301
Applications Received	31	62	57	150
Requested Funds	$225,763	$372,191	$548,615	$1,146,569
# Projects Approved	26	45	41	112
Approved Funds	$181,518	$270,616	$239,344	$691,478
Value of Community Contribution for approved projects	$781,034	$579,892	$551,249	$1,912,175
Total Value of approved projects (GPP + community contribution)	$962,553	$850,508	$790,593	$2,603,654
# Projects Denied	3	4	7	14
Other (project withdrawn, deferred to other funding program, or incomplete)	2	13	9	24

A wide variety of projects were approved, covering both environmental and/or beautification objectives, and reflecting the broad range of community interests and priorities. Document 1 provides details of approved Green Partnership Pilot Project applications. Projects included shrub, tree and flower plantings, interpretative signs, pathway enhancements, community gardens and graffiti prevention. Projects were completed on various common grounds across the city, including school grounds, parks, community gateways and road right-of-ways.

The Program creatively partners with local communities to deliver on the community’s priorities in cleaning and greening the City. The Green Partnership Pilot Program has extended the objectives of a clean and green City to include non-City owned common grounds such as school grounds and NCC lands. Green Partnership projects are generally well distributed across the city. Document 2 provides a map that illustrates the locations of approved projects.

The Green Partnership Pilot Program has provided excellent value. Through this program, the City will realize almost $2.9 M in value for a City contribution of approximately $1,002,878 (City funding plus in-kind contributions). For every City dollar allocated to projects, the community has matched it dollar for dollar either through cash, in-kind services or volunteer labour contributions. In many cases the applicants provided more funding or in-kind services than the minimum required. Chart 1 provides an overview of the community and city investments into the Green Partnership Pilot Program. The community will continue to contribute to the projects, as they have committed to maintaining the projects in the long-term, and ensuring their sustainability and upkeep. This Program is well appreciated by the community, as there are limited opportunities for residents to receive funding to support cleaning & greening projects outside of this funding program. To date, the Surface Operations Branch has not incurred any additional operational costs as a result of approved projects.

The Program is currently coordinated by one temporary FTE. Extensive consultation is required with applicants to assist with development and implementation of project proposals and to ensure transparency and compliance with all applicable policies and guidelines. In addition, the Project Coordinator consults with internal staff to ensure the necessary approvals are in place, and to gather information required by the Allocations Committee to make accountable and informed decisions. The Allocations Committee has 21 members consisting of staff members who are directly related to programs, services and/or activities associated with the Green Partnership Program, and one member of the Environmental Advisory Committee. The Allocations Committee met on eight occasions in 2008 to review project applications, for a total staff commitment of approximately 900 hours (about 0.5 FTE in total additional effort). The Allocations Committee ensured that projects meet the Council approved Program objectives, guidelines, and eligibility criteria. The Program guidelines, eligibility criteria and application process are modelled after the Community and Protective Services’ Community Funding Framework Policy to ensure that the Program is administered in a transparent, accountable and cost-effective manner.

The application process has been streamlined to reflect input from program participants, while still meeting the accountability framework. A short version of the application form has been created for funding requests under $3,000. Staff have carefully reviewed the application process and have determined that it is appropriate given the need for transparency and accountability for granting of public funds. In order to assist applicants, additional effort will be made to ensure that applicants contact the program administrator prior to completing the application. This step will facilitate initial assessment of projects and the completion of the application completely without excessive or unnecessary detail.

Program Promotion

The program promotion goals were to promote and raise awareness of the Green Partnership Program and to encourage residents and civic-minded community groups to envision and undertake cleaning and greening projects in their neighbourhoods. The program was promoted through a variety of methods, including: web site (ottawa.ca/green), community newspapers, Councillor columns, targeted outreach to interest groups, display, project signage, posters, and buckslips. Future promotion may include testimonials, project showcases with media coverage, and enhancements to the web site.

Program Amendments

Annual Budget: Staff recommends that Council approve the continuation of the Green Partnership Program as outlined in this report as a formal operating program funded at an annual level of $400,000. This funding will cover the expenses associated with 1 FTE, program advertising, promotion and administration costs, as well as approximately $300,000 for annual grant funding.

Terms and Conditions: The Terms and Conditions for recipients of funding have been modified in the following ways to reflect input received from program participants and Allocation Committee members:

· Other City Funding Programs: The Program’s eligibility criteria explicitly state that projects that receive funding from another City program are ineligible for funding. Throughout the pilot phase of the GPP, projects that should have been considered for funding through other city programs were often directed to the GPP program for consideration. This created confusion as to the role of the various programs, and placed undue strain on the GPP funding allotment. It is recommended that projects that fall within a separate, funded governance structure should be coordinated through the appropriate department, and not be eligible for GPP funds. For example, projects that fall under the TREE program, community garden program, or mural program (under development) will be considered for funding under their respective programs.

· Application Deadline: It is proposed that the annual application deadline be set as February 15th, to allow staff the necessary application processing time before the spring planting season begins. Successful applicants will be granted one calendar year from the date of approval to complete approved projects and to submit all required reports.

· Sustainability of Project Site: Grant recipients commit to ensuring the project site is sustained over the long term, including any ongoing maintenance such as pruning, weeding, watering, regular site cleanup, addressing vandalism, replacement, etc. Participants will be responsible for the reinstatement of the project site to the original condition if they are unable to sustain the project.

· Hard Assets: The Green Partnership Program was not intended to fund hard assets, as the installation of hard assets provides a potential for the City to incur future operating costs. Throughout the pilot phase, numerous requests were received to fund hard assets such as large tools, hoses, benches, water sources, and fences. These requests were typically denied funding by the Allocation Committee. Staff recommend that hard assets remain as ineligible costs as they are considered capital assets and do not meet the objectives of the GPP. Applicants are encouraged to seek alternative funding sources or donations for hard assets required for their projects.

· Appeal Process: As discussed earlier in the report a 21 member Allocation Committee ensures that projects are approved in a transparent and accountable manner, while ensuring compliance with all applicable policies. The current appeal process allows denied projects to be considered by the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC). This process has resulted in the program funding projects which are in contravention of the Council approved Program criteria. For consistency with many other City funding programs such as this report recommends removal of an appeal process from the Green Partnership Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Ottawa 20/20 establishes that Ottawa will be a Green and Environmentally Sensitive City. Healthy natural and environmentally sustainable green spaces contribute to this objective in many ways. Trees and green landscaping can improve local air quality by intercepting particulate matter and other air pollutants, and improve water quality by providing for natural infiltration and preventing erosion and sedimentation. Trees also provide natural habitat to support urban biodiversity and provide resiliency to help prevent spread of invasive species and adapt to longer-term changes including changing climate. Green infrastructure also helps to reduce temperatures (thus mitigating the urban heat island effect and making the City more comfortable and energy efficient) by providing shade and transpiration. Use of low maintenance and environmentally sustainable plant material (e.g. native species) also will reduce maintenance and watering requirements.

The Department also recognizes the value that community organizations and groups provide through these greening projects. The value of the project extends far beyond the dollar value and the length of the project. Quality of life is enhanced for residents and communities and partnerships are developed that will continuously impact their community. The Green Partnership Program has very positive environmental implications for several reasons:

· It provides direct benefits as described above through use of City lands and other common grounds. The City owns a substantial portion of green space in Ottawa and the contribution of these lands if they are maintained and enhanced in an environmentally sustainable fashion would be significant.

· It provides for learning and increased capacity for environmentally sensitive landscaping in the general community through completion of projects and the showcasing of innovative ideas and Hallmark Projects. This knowledge can extend beyond specific projects involved in the Green Partnership Program.

· It provides another opportunity for the City to demonstrate and showcase environmental leadership, and reinforce the City’s commitment to be a good steward of the environment and partner with its residents. This directly supports the commitment in the Environmental Strategy for the City of Ottawa (2003) that states that the City will demonstrate and promote leadership in environmental stewardship through application of innovative methods and practices. This commitment was further developed in the Corporate Environmental Action Plan for 2004-2008 that states that the City will “demonstrate and promote leadership in environmental stewardship by developing City facilities, lands, parks, forests, and roadways as showcases for environmental best practices”.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommendations for the Green Partnership Program are city wide.

CONSULTATION

Consultation was a necessary component in the development of the recommendations for the future of the Green Partnership Program. A survey was circulated to approximately 75 people, which included applicants and internal and external stakeholders. As of June 26, 2008, the due date for comments, 15 written submissions were received, providing a 20% rate of return. A similar survey was completed in the fall of 2007 and the survey results were included in the Green Partnership Pilot Program report (ACS2007-PWS-SUR-0009) presented to Council in January 2008 requesting the extension of the pilot phase of the Green Partnership Program for an additional 12 months. The results of the 2007 survey were also considered in the development of the report recommendations.

Based on the stakeholder consultations to date, there is general support for the program, appreciation for the community commitment required to implement and sustain approved projects, and an indication that the projects meet the objectives of the Green Partnership Program. Document 5 provides a summary of stakeholder consultations.

The following groups and individuals were invited to participate in the 2007 and 2008 consultations:

· External stakeholders including all applicants and program participants

· GPPP Allocation Committee consisting of:

o Safety & Traffic Services Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Mobility & Area Traffic Mgmt Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Infrastructure Management Division, Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Roads, Parks, Forestry and Technical Support Services Divisions, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Business & Client Services Division, Parks & Recreation Branch, Community & Protective Services Department

o Environmental Sustainability Division, Economic & Environmental Sustainability Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department

o Comprehensive Asset Mgmt. Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Program Properties Management Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Design & Construction Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Corp Development &Environmental Law Division, Legal Services Branch, City Manager's Office.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This report has no 2008 budget or tax implications. Council approved the Green Partnership Pilot Project of $1.0 M in 2006 under capital account 903790.

The continuation of the Green Partnership Program as a formal operating program will require annual operating funding in the total amount of $400,000 to include 1 FTE, project grants, advertising, promotion and program administration costs, subject to annual inflationary increases.

This additional requirement will be identified as a 2009 budget pressure and incorporated into the Surface Operations Branch 2009 Draft Operating Budget for council’s consideration and approval.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Summary of Green Partnership Pilot Program project applications (2006-2008)Document 2 – Map illustrating location of Green Partnership Pilot Program approved projects (2006-2008)

Document 3 – Summary of Stakeholder Consultation (2008)

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of this report subject to the 2009 Budget approval, the Public Works and Services Department will proceed with implementation of the recommendations.

DOCUMENT 2

Document 3

Summary of Stakeholder Consultation 2008

This document summarizes the comments received on the Green Partnership Pilot Program, up to and including June 26, 2008. A similar survey was completed in fall of 2007, and the survey results were inserted in the Green partnership Pilot Program report (ACS2007-PWS-SUR-0009) presented to Council in January 2008 requesting the extension of the pilot phase of the Green Partnership Program for an additional 12 months..

The following were invited to participate:

· External stakeholders including all applicants and program participants

· GPPP Allocation Committee consisting of:

o Safety & Traffic Services Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Mobility & Area Traffic Mgmt Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Infrastructure Management Division, Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Roads, Parks, Forestry and Technical Support Services Divisions, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

o Business & Client Services Division, Parks & Recreation Branch, Community & Protective Services Department

o Environmental Sustainability Division, Economic & Environmental Sustainability Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department

o Comprehensive Asset Mgmt. Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Program Properties Management Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Design & Construction Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

o Corp Development &Environmental Law Division, Legal Services Branch, City Manager's Office

All comments identified through the survey and verbal meetings have been captured under each question. In general, there appeared to be a common agreement amongst most respondents that the Green Partnership program continues to be a beneficial project to the City of Ottawa.

1. How important do you think it is for the City of Ottawa to promote and fund volunteer commitment programs geared towards cleaning and greening?

Important	10
No Opinion	0
Unimportant	0

§ Think the number of hours we (volunteers) work, with or without grant money, and consider the tax increase that would be needed to buy our (volunteers) services. Also, consider that we (volunteers) know the areas in which we are working and City staff are rotated through areas and jobs and don’t get to know the little details that make a project successful.

2. Please provide comments or suggestions on the application process for the Green Partnership Program.

§ Add an example of a completed application form to the City’s web content.

§ Standardize diagram/plans/photo for universal use and legibility.

§ I had heard about the program from several sources (local community association and school council) and found the application process relatively straightforward. It would have been ideal for our project if we had received confirmation of funding sooner given our intention to work with students/classes, but I nonetheless found the feedback came at a reasonable interval (2 months between submission and approval). To allow greater possibility of student involvement in the planning and preparations for green partnership projects, consideration should be given to having the deadline for submissions earlier (ex. mid-February). The application deadline is still too late in the year to effectively plan and implement new projects. New garden beds need to be constructed in early spring, with planting out in late May. If plants are being grown from seed, then indoor seeds start in March. That means that planning and budgeting and having funds in hand by March 1^st would be optimal. Perhaps a deadline of January 1^st is more appropriate.

§ The application process for this grant process was well explained and clear. Anne Huneault was very helpful.

§ The application process is too lengthy. There needs to be ideas on how the application can be streamlined.

§ In terms of the application deadline, it needs to be ensured that there is enough time for the approval process to happen, but also so the applicant can possibly start planting in May.

§ The program has way too many hurdles for volunteers to jump. Felt there are too many things that have to be obtained (such as approvals and utility clearances.)

§ Ranking the priorities (question #15) was very challenging to complete. Some points were very specific and others were vague and/or had more than one point to consider in the statement. It would have been more sensible to rate each statement (e.g. “not at all important” to “very important”) rather than ranking them as a group.

§ The applicant form is still quite complex and even though this was my third time filling out an application, I still made mistakes. I helped two other people and they said they could not have done it without my assistance. I am not convinced they really needed my help but they did feel quite confused somewhere around pages 12-15. And it does seem to ask for the same information twice or more, or at least, the same information seems to satisfy the question. Listing tasks, outcomes, money etc. seemed quite confusing to most of us.

§ More information could be posted on the City’s website explaining the calculation of the subsidy. This was the area we had the most questions about, and thankfully Anne Huneault was available and quite helpful on the topic. It would reduce the number of calls you may get at your end (the City’s).

§ Timing of the Application Deadline – Application deadline should be in February so by April approvals will be out and applicants can start work as soon as the snow melts. This is especially important for schools because students and staff are very busy in May and June with summative projects and exams and have little time to volunteer.

§ To tighten up the process, a timeline needs to be established for the GPP (Green Partnership) funding process. All dates related to the process need to be set well in advance so that allocation committee members can commit to participating in the process/attending all meetings and that the community knows what to expect in terms of timelines. This would include:

o Selection of allocation committee members (including representation from the community).

o Information sessions for the community.

o Orientation of allocation committee members.

o Providing all allocation committee members with copies of the project proposals and then a timeframe for the committee members to read, review and tentatively rate the proposals.

o Dates for the allocation meetings, including final deliberation day when all projects are given a final ranking (preferably dates that are consecutive and adhered to, could happen over a five day period).

o Date to communicate results to the community and date for funds to be released.

3. Do you think the Green Partnership Program was effectively publicized?

Yes	5
No	1
Provided Feedback for Possible Improvement	4
No Comment	5

§ I received the information through the OSCSB, otherwise I would not have known about it.

§ Yes, I saw lots of flyers and ads in community newspapers.

§ I think the program became better known throughout the two years. The best publicity seemed to come through working with organizations such as Evergreen, schools, and community garden networks. There needs to be more engagement with the Ottawa Stewardship council.

§ Better this year with the little green bookmark, but because of the delay in the budget process and the lateness of the advertising (the Green Partnership) may have missed some people. I know that for some, having the money in early May would have been nice and that would have required much earlier publicity, sending in the form and hen your evaluation and notification.

§ I realize you can’t convince the Ottawa Citizen to publicize good news about what the City does but convincing one reporter to do a feature on the program as it is in progress this year might help. Also, what about NOW-EMC? It is an up and coming newspaper and has “regional” editions and they are always looking for stories. Get their reporters out to see projects in action in 2008 and then do follow-ups at budget time in November-December to convince Councillors that this program needs to be repeated and then again at the 2009 application time in February. The same goes for the many Ottawa magazines that seem to come through the mail slot – they are looking for stories.

§ The City needs to add to the City’s website examples of ‘great’ beautification projects, even from other cities. Perhaps there could be an ideas page. Before and after pictures also need to be added to the website.

4. Please share your ideas or suggestions for modifications to the program.

§ Spell out that applicants are to provide follow up photos showing the project results. Photos to be issued to GPP mailbox and inventory.

§ City contribution in terms of logistical support by operations staff could be more clearly defined (such as deliveries of materials and pick ups etc.)

§ Having the deadline a little earlier, such as mid-February instead of mid-April, will allow for more opportunity for the involvement of students and teachers (assuming a two-month turn around on proposal confirmation).

§ Given the desire to encourage sustainable and environmentally friendly garden practices, it seems that rain barrels should be an eligible expense. For the same reason, the emphasis on “planters” should be modified to “raised beds.”

§ The real costs of gardens need to be covered. This includes infrastructure, minor capital assets, fencing and human resources. If you want this to be a program that leads to ongoing, sustainable community projects, then you have to recognize the need for the above to be included in the initial project costs.

§ Cheques need to be delivered to community groups when the money is most needed – up front.

§ It may help to do a broader public education process and some community consultation. There are many environmental associations/groups in Ottawa that would probably be willing to participate in a consultation process. Committing to and cultivating long-standing relationships with community and stakeholder groups as partners is also referenced in the Green Partnership Program Framework, Cleaning and Greening report. Having community members participate, as allocation committee members would also increase the visibility and validity of the program and cultivate relationships with the community. It would also increase the diversity of experience around the table. Some environmental organizations in Ottawa with a municipal mandate are Ecology Ottawa, Evergreen and City Repair Ottawa.

§ Community service groups, including religious organizations, should be eligible to create publicly accessible green space on private land. A case in point is Operation Go Home, whose lease of private land for their public programming made them ineligible. Private/public partnerships are often more sustainable in the long term because the landowner has a large stake in the success of the project

§ Administrative requirements, and the timing of feedback such as this, should take into consideration that the grant recipients are largely volunteer-run groups with limited time. Sometimes the management or administrative structure of these groups meet only once a month.

§ The timeline for the entire granting process must take into account the reality of working with living material in this climate. As suggested above, a properly planned out project involving planting needs to be in place at the beginning of winter, with seed starting commencing indoors as early as March, and planting out in mid-May. Feedback should not be required until the fall, when the projects are in place and there is time to sit down, reflect, and write a report.

§ The program should focus more on sustainability and avoid annuals and routine cleaning.

§ There needs to be a way to get more environmental or ecological emphasis. This is difficult because design and implementation can be more difficult.

§ In terms of community gardens, it needs to be ensured that the process is clear and then determine whether the criteria fit within the Green Partnership. If it does, then potential sites for community gardens should be identified before applicants apply.

§ Simplify the application form. The table in section 18 is hard to do. Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 in the case of my part of the project used many of the same sentences and thoughts. Can they be combined so that there are only two or three paragraphs?

§ Getting the approval from all the utility companies takes time, which needs to be factored into meeting the deadline. This should be highlighted in the information about the program.

§ Perhaps this program and the TREE program could be linked somehow as they share similar goals and questionnaires. If we could use our application form for both programs it might facilitate the process and promote the two programs.

§ Set dates for start and completion of work and also a contact name for the group.

5. Do you feel your Green Partnership Program has the community support necessary to sustain and maintain the project?

§ Yes, our volunteers are very committed to this project. Working in partnership with the school will ensure its success.

§ We have only just begun making the announcement about he project and getting the word out to the wider community. From the time of the application stage, however, we have had great support from local community groups and therefore believe that we have the momentum to sustain and maintain the project.

§ In the case of Rockcliffe Park, definitely. I don’t know if the Village Gardeners project will be funded but that one, being carried out in a highly visible place, has much community support. My project takes place in part in a woodlot where we are visible to people who love to walk in the woods and the other part will be done in a highly visible place so the level of community awareness will be high. That will ensure that if there is ever any project in the future, or even if we need to fund something ourselves, we will have one (maybe two) visible projects with terrific results to use as leverage to get funding from the community. The trouble is, though, that some people think that the City should be doing this kind of work – not residents.

§ Yes, we are committed to our community and maintaining its looks and green spaces.

§ Yes, there has been an enthusiastic response from students, staff, school council members, community association members and neighbours alike.

6. Do you feel your project has made an inspirational difference in your neighbourhood?

§ It is certainly our intention to inspire those involved and the community at large. Thus far, reaction to the project has been extremely positive and we commend the City of Ottawa on this initiative, which will no doubt have a positive impact on our community.

§ I believe it will make a difference when the project is complete and the area has established itself.

§ It is a little soon to tell how much impact this (project) will have, but the initial feedback has been positive and many questions about other projects around the area have been asked. We hope to have a phase 2 next year.

§ Yes, neighbours of all ages are enthusiastic and keen to contribute.

7. Please advise if you feel there are Terms and Conditions that need to be modified, deleted or added.

§ In order for applicant to receive funding they should need to include e-photographs.

§ The aspect of sustainability needs to be looked at; for how long is it the responsibility of the volunteer group? Anything longer then 5 years is unrealistic and impractical.

§ The funding of assets should be expanded to include, for example, benches, planters/waste containers, etc.

8. Please provide comments or suggestions you have regarding the approval process.

§ The deadline for the program needs to be moved up to give a more timely (seasonal) response. There may need to be some evaluation criteria to put application in bundles (High, medium, low). The committee needs to consider an all day meeting to approve the applications, starting with the projects listed high.

§ There is no real information about when and how the funds are forthcoming which is a real problem from the point of view of a volunteer. It doesn’t seem right to have two instalments of the funds and two reports to be filled out. This just doubles the work for everyone. Splitting the payments is also a bit of an insult as well as making everything more difficult. If the applicant deserves the grant, then give them the money (preferably with the grant letter) and let them account for its expenditure at the end.

9. Additional Comments

§ It would be wonderful if the City covered the real costs of greening the city. These are complicated projects that involve many volunteer hours, planning and coordination. There is more to a garden than soil and plants. I encourage city staff and those sitting on the grant application committee to get out and see what can be done when a project is properly supported.

§ If the program continues, it may be more efficient to have a smaller core approvals committee comprised of representatives from business areas that are consistently impacted by the community projects. This committee should meet regularly to discuss the projects and a circulation process to the larger group, or “pool” of staff, with particular areas of expertise for their comments when required.

§ Thank you for making this program available. Special thanks to Anne Huneault for all her support during the process.

§ Program objectives are not clear. There is mention of priorities, criteria, etc. but there is too much information provided in the guidelines, but objective are not identified.

§ There are some areas that appear to have ‘fallen through the cracks’ in the broader park picture in the City, that perhaps should be given consideration for future funding:

§

1. Park planning – the City does not have ‘approved, long-term park plans’ that guide future development and park investment. Lots of service clubs would buy trees/benches etc. but there are no designs to guide where they should go on the majority of City Park sites. This would be a tremendous investment in our future.

2. Pathways – this area crosses surface operations/transportation/recreation. It can include sidewalks or not, it is not always congruous with a cycling plan (much of which is on-road), but it is an important aspect of building a ‘walkable/active’ City. The community is anxious to build in this area so a project might fit under the “hallmark” category.

3. Signage – almost all fire stations now have ‘City’ signage – and thus a common look. Very few of the City’s parks and open spaces have appropriate “City” park signs. We should be proud of our green spaces. Most parks have meaningful and historical names. The GPP should fund Park signage 100% and especially if it is integrated into a shrub/floral enhancement.

§ The application form and the information required to complete it could have been more succinct and had a more logical flow.

• Thank you for this great opportunity.

GREEN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

PROGRAMME COMMUNAUTAIRE DE PARTENARIAT ÉCOLOGIQUE

ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0008 City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Moe Garahan, Vicky Smallman and Owen Scott were present in support of the motion put forth by Councillor Feltmate.

An email dated September 8, 2008 was also received from Iola Price, Chair of the Environment Committee of the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association and is held on file with the City Clerk.

Moved by P. Feltmate:

Whereas the objective of the Green Partnership Program is to provide funding for sustainable community-based cleaning and greening initiatives;

And whereas during the 3-year pilot phase, the Green Partnership Program funded 17 community garden projects for a total grant amount of $136,374, because community gardens fulfill the objectives of the program;

And whereas the Green Partnership Program's eligibility criteria explicitly state that projects that receive funding from another City program are ineligible for funding;

And whereas City Council also established the Community Garden Program Action Plan to support the creation of new community gardens;

And whereas the approved funding through the Community Garden Program Action Plan is insufficient to meet the demand for community gardens;

And whereas Public Works and Services Surface Operations Branch in Council Report ACS-2008-PWS-SOP-0008 Green Partnership Program has identified a 2009 operating budget pressure of $400,000 to establish the Green Partnership Program as an operating program;

Therefore Be it Resolved that the recommended 2009 budget pressure of $400,000 for the Green Partnership Program be reduced to $325,000, and that the remaining $75,000 of the recommended annual Green Partnership Program funding be re-directed to the Community Garden Program Action Plan for the development of new community gardens and the enhancement or expansion of existing community gardens ($5,000 for promotion/printing and $70,000 for allocation to community gardens), subject to 2009 Budget Council approval;

And that the Cultural Services & Community Funding Branch within Community and Protective Services administer the community garden funding in conjunction with the Community Gardening Network, and that all future applications for funding for community gardens under the Green Partnership Program be directed to the Cultural Services & Community Funding Branch for consideration.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services Department include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating Budget Estimates for consideration the following:

1. The continuation of the Green Partnership Program as a formal operating program, with annual operating funding in the total amount of $325,000 to include 1 FTE, project grants, advertising, promotion and program administration costs.

2. The amendments to the Green Partnership Program Terms and Conditions for Recipients of Funding as outlined in the report.

3. The discontinuation of the appeal process for applications that are declined.

4. The remaining $75,000 of the recommended annual Green Partnership Program funding be re-directed to the Community Garden Program Action Plan for the development of new community gardens and the enhancement or expansion of existing community gardens ($5,000 for promotion/printing and $70,000 for allocation to community gardens), subject to 2009 Budget Council approval.

5. The Cultural Services and Community Funding Branch within Community and Protective Services administer the community garden funding in conjunction with the Community Gardening Network, and that all future applications for funding for community gardens under the Green Partnership Program be directed to the Cultural Services and Community Funding Branch for consideration.

CARRIED as amended