1. INTEGRATED STREET FURNITURE PROGRAM – CITY OF OTTAWA INTEGRATED STREET FURNITURE POLICY AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL STRATEGY
PROGRAMME INTÉGRÉ DE MOBILIER URBAIN – POLITIQUE DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA SUR LE MOBILIER URBAIN INTÉGRÉ ET DIRECTIVES DE CONCEPTION ET STRATÉGIE CONCERNANT LA DEMANDE DE PROPOSITION
1. Approve the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines as discussed in this report and set out in Document 1;
2. Approve the release of a Request for Proposal ("RFP") in accordance with the strategy and recommended key terms discussed in this report and direct that no further street furniture elements be separated from the ISFP to ensure the success of the RFP and the resulting program;
3. Direct staff to report to Council in the fourth quarter of 2010 on the outcome of the RFP and for final approval of the preferred proponent.
4. That the ISFP timeline be revised to allow for more time for respondents (minimum of 6 months from the issuance of the RFP) to prepare their submissions to the City’s RFP.
5. That the ISFP RFP process incorporate the services of the City’s Fairness Commissioner.
6. That the Internal staff completing the “technical, functional, and design review” include representatives from the City of Ottawa Heritage staff, the National Capital Commission and a specialist in Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.
7. That the Policy and Design Guidelines be modified to incorporate a Central City designated area where integrated street furniture and restricted advertising potential as proposed by staff is incorporated; and for other areas of the City a more flexible approach be used which permits special BIA design areas, as well as variations for different parts of the City which may also have some of the same elements as the Central City areas (e.g. bus shelters).
8. That given the size of Transitway style platforms on Rideau Street that size restrictions for advertising be established with the BIA.
9. That the Downtown Rideau BIA area remain a restricted area for advertising on street furniture (except Transit Shelters) as is the current status.
10. That with the elimination of Item 3 of the Report that consultation be carried out with BIAs on advisory elements that would be acceptable to the specific Ottawa BIAs.
11. That City staff not prepare a revised version of the Integrated Street Furniture Program based on the York Region model and not issue a RFP based on the York Region model.
12. That for the purposes of the Integrated Street Furniture program, the Central City area be defined as the “ISFP Restricted Advertising Area” as illustrated by the map attached as Figure 1 to the report, to be kept on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor Department.
13. That the evaluation of technology give full consideration to the operating cost for the City in terms of bins that maximize capacity, reduce frequency of pick-up and have positive environmental impacts.
14. That Stittsville Main Street be removed from the ISFP restricted advertising area as this area does not have a BIA, and any future BIAs may be permitted to opt into the ISFPs restricted advertising area.
15. That the revised timelines as indicated in the Supplemental Report (ACS2002-ICS-CSS-0036) replace the timelines shown in the main report and that staff be permitted to vary these times as required.
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve la politique sur le mobilier urbain de la ville d’Ottawa et les directives relatives à la conception qui sont abordées dans le présent rapport et présentées dans le document 1;
2. approuve la publication d’une demande de proposition (« DP ») conforme à la stratégie énoncée et aux conditions clés recommandées dans le présent rapport et d’ordonner qu’aucun élément de mobilier urbain ne soit retiré du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain (PIMU) afin de garantir le succès de la DP et du programme en découlant;
3. charge le personnel de faire rapport au Conseil au cours du quatrième trimestre de 2010 sur les résultats de la DP et sur l’approbation finale de l’auteur de la proposition choisi.
4. Proposant que le calendrier du PIMU soit révisé de manière à donner plus de temps aux candidats (au moins six mois à partir de l’émission de la DP) pour préparer leur proposition à la Ville.
5. Proposant que le processus de DP visant le PIMU intègre les services du commissaire à l’équité de la Ville.
6. Proposant que l’équipe interne effectuant l’examen « technique, fonctionnel et conceptuel » compte parmi ses membres des représentants de la conservation du patrimoine de la Ville d’Ottawa, de la Commission de la capitale nationale ainsi qu’un spécialiste en prévention du crime par l’aménagement du milieu.
7. Proposant que les lignes directrices d’orientation et de conception soient modifiées de manière à inclure un secteur désigné du centre-ville où le mobilier urbain et les options de limitation de la publicité proposés par le personnel soient intégrés, et proposant, dans d’autres secteurs de la ville une approche plus souple permettant l’aménagement de ZAC et des variations dans différentes parties de la ville, qui pourraient être équipées des mêmes éléments que dans les secteurs du centre-ville (p. ex. : les abribus).
8. Proposant que, étant donné la dimension des quais de la rue Rideau, du style de ceux du Transitway, des restrictions de dimension soient établies pour les enseignes publicitaires dans la ZAC.
9. Proposant que la ZAC Rideau du centre-ville demeure une zone à publicité limitée sur le mobilier urbain (sauf sur les abribus), comme c’est le cas actuellement.
10. Proposant que, avec le rejet du point 3 du rapport, des consultations soient menées avec des représentants des ZAC sur des éléments consultatifs acceptables pour chaque ZAC d’Ottawa.
11. Que le Conseil instruise le personnel municipal de ne pas préparer une version révisée du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain inspirée du modèle de la Région d’York et de ne pas émettre une demande de propositions inspirée du modèle de la Région d’York.
12. Que le Conseil instruise que, dans le cadre du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain, l’Aire centrale de la Ville soit définie comme étant la « Zone du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain, à publicité restreinte », comme l’illustre la carte de localisation au document 1 joint à cette motion, définition à conserver dans les dossiers à la Direction du greffier municipal et chef du contentieux.
13. Que dans l’évaluation de la technologie, une importance particulière soit accordée aux coûts de fonctionnement associés au modèle de conteneur retenu, lequel devra offrir la plus grande capacité possible, permettre de réduire la fréquence des collectes et avoir des répercussions positives sur l’environnement.
14. Que la rue Stittsville Main sera exemptée de la restriction imposée à l’affichage de publicité du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain (PIMU), puisque ce secteur n’a pas de zone d'amélioration commerciale (ZAC), et que toute ZAC constituée ultérieurement pourra être autorisée à appliquer la restriction en question.
15. Que l’échéancier révisé qui figure dans le rapport supplémentaire (ACS2002-ICS-CSS-0036) remplace l’échéancier fourni dans le rapport principal que le personnel soit autorisé à déroger aux délais prévus au besoin.
1. Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 10 August 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0020).
2. Integrated Street Furniture Program Memo to Committee from Sponsors
3. Extract of Minutes, 26 August
4. Extract of draft Minutes, 7 October to be distributed prior to Council meeting.
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability
Contact/Personne-ressource: Michael Murr, Acting Director/Directeur intérimaire, Community and Sustainability Services/Services de viabilité et des collectivités
(613) 580-2424, 25195 email@example.com
That Transportation Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines as discussed in this report and set out in Document 1;
2. Approve the release of a Request for Proposal ("RFP") in accordance with the strategy and recommended key terms discussed in this report and direct that no further street furniture elements be separated from the ISFP to ensure the success of the RFP and the resulting program;
3. Limit advertising on street furniture elements to transit shelters and information and way finding kiosks; and
4. Direct staff to report to Council in the first quarter of 2010 on the outcome of the RFP and for final approval of the preferred proponent.
Le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil :
1. d’approuver la politique sur le mobilier urbain de la ville d’Ottawa et les directives relatives à la conception qui sont abordées dans le présent rapport et présentées dans le document 1;
2. d’approuver la publication d’une demande de proposition (« DP ») conforme à la stratégie énoncée et aux conditions clés recommandées dans le présent rapport et d’ordonner qu’aucun élément de mobilier urbain ne soit retiré du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain (PIMU) afin de garantir le succès de la DP et du programme en découlant;
3. de limiter la publicité aux abribus et aux kiosques d’information et de signalisation; et
4. de charger le personnel de faire rapport au Conseil au cours du premier trimestre de 2010 sur les résultats de la DP et sur l’approbation finale de l’auteur de la proposition choisi.
This report represents the third of four key milestones associated with the ISFP. It reports on the work undertaken since February 2009 towards the development of an integrated program for the provision of street furniture elements in the City. Specifically, the report discusses the following:
· City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines (a document that details the placement and design criteria of street furniture elements)
· RFP strategy
· Results and implications of a business case analysis
· Continued consultations
· Litter and recycling issues
· An organizational unit responsible for the ISFP
Over the previous five months, several actions have been undertaken in order to complete the work listed above. These include consultation with a number of public and stakeholder groups through initiatives such as individual meetings, participation at advisory committee meetings, and a Design and Functionality Workshop. Staff continue to conduct best practice reviews and extensive research in order to arrive at the final stages of this project. In addition, staff have taken the necessary steps to remove the bicycle parking component from the ISFP, which Council directed at its 10 February 2009 meeting be excluded from the program.
The report requests the approval of the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines document. It describes the design and placement criteria for each element of furniture as well as the role of advertising, advertising exclusivity, and any advertising restrictions. Potential proponents, when submitting their response to the RFPs, must adhere to this document and the Successful Proponent will be required to comply with it for the 20-year contract term. The document will also serve as a reference guide for staff making future decisions related to street furniture. Although bicycle parking was removed from the ISFP, the City will use this policy to guide the design of parking to ensure consistency with all other furniture.
The report also requests the approval of the RFP strategy and recommends that no other street furniture elements be removed from the program. The request for no further removal of furniture elements is in response to the removal of the bicycle parking component. Any further removal of furniture elements will negatively affect the ability of the City to receive quality proposals to the RFP and will significantly diminish revenues received by the City. In addition, it could result in an uncoordinated design of street furniture elements that this program aims to eliminate from our current City streetscapes.
Prior to the completion of this report, an external business case analysis was conducted to determine the effects of the economic downturn on the ISFP and to assess whether the number of street furniture elements and advertising levels proposed through the program creates an attractive proposition to bidders. The study indicated that although the current economic uncertainty will not have a major affect on the project, the amount of advertising on street furniture significantly impacts the success of the program. For this reason, staff recommend that advertising be limited to transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks. Limiting advertising to these two elements will attract more quality bids, ensure accessibility for small businesses, increase revenue potential, and ensure less visual clutter.
The report also discusses litter and recyclable collection related to the ISFP. Based on direction received during the 10 September 2008 Council meeting, the City will assume the responsibility of managing on-street litter and recycling receptacles. Staff envision this being done through a Request for Tender prior to the implementation of the ISFP.
A report will be brought to Committee and Council in the first quarter of 2010 for final approval of the preferred proponent. At this time, additional information on the organizational unit responsible for the ISFP will be provided.
Le présent rapport constitue la troisième des quatre étapes jalons du Programme intégré de mobilier urbain (PIMU). Il rend compte des travaux entrepris depuis février 2009 dans le cadre de l’élaboration d’un programme intégré destiné à fournir divers éléments de mobilier urbain sur le territoire municipal.
Plus précisément, ce rapport traite de ce qui suit :
· Le document intitulé City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines (Politique de la Ville d’Ottawa sur le mobilier urbain intégré et directives relatives à la conception) (un document qui explique en détail les critères de conception et de mise en place des éléments de mobilier urbain)
· La stratégie pour la demande de proposition
· Les résultats et les répercussions pour la réalisation d’une analyse de rentabilisation
· La poursuite des consultations
· Les problèmes concernant les contenants à ordures et à recyclage
· L’unité organisationnelle responsable du PIMU
Plusieurs mesures ont été entreprises au cours des cinq mois précédents afin de réaliser les tâches énumérées ci-dessus. Nous avons notamment mené des consultations auprès d’un certain nombre de groupes de membres du public et de parties intéressées, au moyen de rencontres individuelles, en participant aux rencontres des comités consultatifs et en ainsi qu’à un atelier sur la conception et la fonctionnalité. Le personnel poursuit ses recherches et l’examen des pratiques exemplaires en vue de finaliser ce projet. De plus, le personnel a pris les mesures nécessaires pour retirer l’élément aire de stationnement pour vélos du PIMU, élément que le Conseil avait recommandé d’exclure du programme à sa réunion du 19 février 2009
Dans le rapport, on demande l’approbation du document City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines (Politique de la Ville d’Ottawa sur le mobilier urbain intégré et directives pour la conception). Il définit les critères de conception et de mise en place pour chaque élément de mobilier ainsi que le rôle de la publicité, de l’exclusivité publicitaire et de toutes restrictions relatives à la publicité. Les auteurs de proposition potentiels, lorsqu’ils présenteront leur réponse à la demande de proposition, doivent se conformer aux critères énoncés dans ce document. De plus, l’auteur de proposition qui sera choisi devra s’y conformer pour les 20 années du contrat. Le document servira également de référence lorsque le personnel devra prendre des décisions relatives au mobilier urbain. Bien que l’élément aire de stationnement de vélo ait été retiré du PIMU, la ville utilisera cette politique pour guider la conception du stationnement afin d’assurer l’uniformité avec tous les autres mobiliers.
Dans le rapport, on demande également l’approbation de la stratégie portant sur la demande de proposition; de plus, on recommande qu’aucun autre élément de mobilier urbain ne soit retiré du programme. Cette demande de ne pas retirer des éléments de mobilier est faite en réponse au retrait de l’aire de stationnement de vélos du programme. On croit que tout autre retrait d’élément de mobilier découragerait la présentation de soumissions de qualité en réponse à la demande de proposition de la Ville et se traduirait par une baisse importante de revenus pour la Ville. De plus, avec d’autres retraits, il existe un risque que la conception des éléments mobiliers manque d’uniformité, problème que le programme vise justement à éliminer du paysage urbain actuel.
Avant la finalisation du présent rapport, une analyse de rentabilisation externe a été effectuée pour évaluer les conséquences de la récession sur le PIMU et déterminer si le nombre d’éléments de mobilier urbain et les niveaux de publicité proposés dans le cadre du programme constituent une proposition attrayante pour les soumissionnaires. L’étude conclut que bien que l’incertitude économique n’aura pas d’incidence importante sur le projet, la quantité d’éléments publicitaires permis sur le mobilier urbain aura une influence significative sur le succès de ce programme. Pour cette raison, le personnel recommande que la publicité soit limitée aux abribus et aux kiosques d’information et de signalisation. Le fait de limiter la publicité à ces deux éléments constitue un argument de force pour attirer des propositions de qualité, assure l’accessibilité aux petites entreprises, augmente le potentiel de revenus et réduit grandement le fouillis visuel.
Le rapport aborde également la question de la cueillette des ordures et des matières recyclables relativement au PIMU. Selon les directives reçues au cours de la réunion du 10 septembre 2008 du Conseil, la Ville assumera la responsabilité de la gestion des contenants à ordure et à recyclage installés sur la rue. Le personnel prévoit que cet aspect sera réglé au moyen d’une demande de soumission avant la mise en œuvre du PIMU.
Un rapport sera présenté au Comité et au Conseil au premier trimestre de 2010 pour l’approbation finale du proposant choisi. À cette date, on fournira également des renseignements supplémentaires sur l’unité organisationnelle qui sera responsable du PIMU.
This report represents the third of four key milestones associated with the ISFP. These milestones include the approval of three legislative reports and the issuance of a RFP to design, install, and maintain street furniture elements in Ottawa’s right of way.
At its meeting of 10 September 2008, Council approved the first report, entitled Integrated Street Furniture Program - Guiding Principles and Work Program (ACS2008-PWS-DCM-0001). This report provided the foundation for the development of the ISFP. As part of this report, Council approved a set of guiding principles upon which the program would be based. The principles were to be further developed in consultation with the community and best practice research. Staff were directed to report back on the results of consultation along with recommendations regarding specific furniture elements and levels of advertising. The guiding principles were approved as:
· Improve the Streetscape and Preserve Street Identity
· Provide a service
· Enhance a service
· Ensure and encompass Accessibility, Environmental Sustainability, Safety and Technological Innovation (approved at February 11, 2009 meeting)
· Improve Coordination
· Offset capital and operating costs
· Generate Revenue
At its meeting of 11 February 2009, Council approved a second report entitled Integrated Street Furniture Program- Project Update and Way Forward (ACS2009-ICS-ECO0008). The report details the results of public consultation and best practice research.
Research and consultation results suggested the addition of a guiding principle to reflect accessibility, the environment, and technology advances. The report also details the elements for inclusion in the program and on which of those elements advertising should be permitted. The following elements are to be included in the ISFP:
· transit shelters
· litter and recycling receptacles
· multiple publication boxes
· information and way-finding kiosks
Of these elements, advertising is to be permitted only on transit shelters, information and way-finding kiosks, and bicycle parking. Where numerous elements are clustered in one location, only one element would be permitted to contain advertising. Council also carried a motion to remove bicycle parking from the program and directed staff to reconsider advertising on litter and recycling receptacles and benches.
The second report also discusses:
· the advertising-based funding model upon which the ISFP will operate;
· advertising permissions and exclusivity; and
· the requirement for an extension in the implementation of the program to July 2011.
The extension was approved based on the state of the economy and the need to further assess the ISFP business case. Staff also reported on consultations that took place with proponents and the public, both of whom reached a consensus that the City should be responsible for litter and recycling collection for the duration of the program. Upon confirmation of this direction, staff was also asked to investigate coordinating the litter and recycling collection with the yellow bag program.
In accordance with Council approval and direction, the following actions have taken place since the last ISFP report in February 2009:
· Contract Extension Negotiations. At its meeting of 11 February 2009, Council approved the request for extension of the current ISFP contracts by an additional year to 1 July 2011. The need for the extension is based on numerous factors including economic uncertainty, proponent feedback, and the importance of furniture design. To this end, staff is presently negotiating with current street furniture contractors to extend existing contracts by one year to ensure that the City maintains an appropriate supply of furniture until the new ISFP is implemented. Council and all Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) have been consulted on their interim furniture needs.
· Completion of the Policy and Design Guidelines. This document, entitled City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines, will be included as an appendix to the ISFP RFP. Its purpose is to provide potential proponents with furniture design and placement requirements for their bid submissions. It will also be used throughout the duration of the ISFP contract to guide future furniture design and placement decisions. This document is attached as Document 1 and is discussed in more detail later in this report.
· Removal of Bicycle Parking. At its meeting of 11 February 2009, Council carried a motion to remove the bicycle parking component from the ISFP. Staff has taken this direction and will exclude bicycle parking from the ISFP RFP. A separate RFP specific to bicycle parking with advertising will be issued at a later date. The bicycle parking RFP will require the successful proponent to design parking elements that adhere to the Policy and Design Guidelines identified in this report to ensure that they complement and properly integrate with the ISFP furniture elements.
· Completion of Business Case Analysis. In light of the current state of the economy and to ensure due diligence, an external assessment was completed to advise staff on the ISFP business case. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the achievability of the expectations of the ISFP and, based on the results, provide recommendations for the design of an RFP that is attractive to bidders. The analysis also informed the development of the Policy and Design Guidelines and the RFP. The specific results of this analysis and implications are discussed later in this report.
· Continued Consultations. Consultation with external stakeholders continues to be one of the key success factors of this program. Accordingly, individual consultation has taken place with each BIA in order to fully appreciate their needs. In addition, various Advisory Committees, the Arts and Design Community, the National Capital Commission, Police Services as well as experts on accessibility and internal staff, were all consulted on the development of the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines document.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the following:
· the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines document;
· the RFP strategy, its recommended key terms and its release and;
· the street furniture elements that will contain advertising.
The report also details the results of the business case analysis, responds to outstanding litter and recyclable collection issues, and discusses the addition of an organizational unit responsible for the implementation and ongoing operations of the ISFP.
City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines
Purpose of the Guidelines
Recommendation #1 - Approve the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines as discussed in this report and set out in Document 1.
Development of the Guidelines
At its meeting of 11 February 2009, Council approved both the guiding principles and the street furniture elements that form the basis of the ISFP.
The guidelines are based on the results of recommendations gathered at focus group sessions involving various stakeholder groups. These sessions took place October 2008. The stakeholders were consulted on the guiding principles of the program along with the street furniture elements listed for inclusion in the ISFP.
The City also hosted a Design and Functionality Workshop on 17 February 2009. In this workshop, City of Ottawa staff, Ottawa’s professional design community, Police Services, the National Capital Commission, and experts on accessibility participated and offered ideas and opinions on furniture design, placement, and functionality. Several draft versions of the document were also distributed to staff and Advisory Committees for feedback. Many of the ideas generated at the workshop and suggestions received from draft reviews are included as part of the guidelines.
RFP Overview and Process
Staff has developed an RFP for the ISFP for release in September 2009. Together with the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines and the results of consultation, the RFP details the requirements and specifications of the program for proponents. The first part of the second recommendation of this report is that Council authorize staff to issue an RFP:
Recommendation # 2 (First Part) – Approve the release of a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) in accordance with the strategy and recommended key terms discussed in this report.
The following table outlines the timelines associated with the release and evaluation of the RFP.
No Further Removal of Elements from the ISFP RFP
Recommendation #2 (Second Part) - and direct that no further street furniture elements be separated from the ISFP to ensure success of the RFP and the resulting program.
Inventory Replacement and Growth
The proposals received in response to this competitive bid process will be evaluated against mandatory submission requirements as well as criteria in the following three rated areas:
· technical, functional, and design
Proposals are required to achieve a minimum grade in each rated criteria in order to receive further consideration. The percentage score within each rated criteria has been aligned to the approved guiding principles of the program. For example, one of the highest rated guiding principles was the importance of improving the streetscape and one of the lowest rated guiding principles was revenue generation. Therefore the scoring on the quality of the furniture should outweigh the scoring of the revenue generated. As such, the financial points allocated are worth 25% of the proponents overall score, and as a result, the highest revenue proposal may not be the selected proponent.
Given the complex nature of this project and the level of acceptance required for successful implementation of this new program, specific evaluation teams will be formed with both internal staff, external experts, and stakeholders best qualified to evaluate the required steps. A lead from Supply Management and the Fairness Commissioner will attend all evaluation sessions; however, they will not be involved in the scoring process.
The following outlines the categories for review, the overall objectives for each, and the evaluation teams:
· Mandatory Submission Requirements. This step confirms whether the proponent has provided the mandatory documents as stated and required by the City. City staff in Supply Management will use a pass/fail scale for this assessment. Examples of Mandatory Submission Requirements include a Bid Deposit, independent third party evidence of the Proponent’s ability to obtain the Performance Security, and Insurance stipulated in the RFP document.
· Qualifications Evaluation. This step serves to evaluate the documents received under the aforementioned Mandatory Submission step as well as other criteria such as the relevant experience of the Proponent’s proposed team and its financial capability to undertake a program of this magnitude. It is anticipated that this review team will consist of staff from Finance, Planning and Growth Management, Public Works, Infrastructure Services, and an external accounting firm.
· Technical, Functional, and Design Review. Criteria evaluated in this step include conformance with Council’s approved guiding principles, the specified technical requirements, and the Policy and Design Guidelines. Special attention will be paid to accessibility requirements, suitability to the intended purpose, quality control procedures, accessibility for small businesses, levels of customization and operations and maintenance plans. It is anticipated that staff from Infrastructure Services, Public Works, Transit Services, Planning and Growth Management, and Environmental Services will participate in the evaluation of this step.
In addition to the Technical, Functional and Design review team, an independent Design Jury comprised of local urban designers, planners, architects, artists, landscape architects, industrial designers, and one BIA representative will also review the design submissions and award the points associated with the Design section. The Design Jury will be aided in their evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team’s Evaluation Summary (excluding scoring) to ensure that the Technical and Functional requirements scored by the latter are factored into their assessment. For example, the Design Jury may prefer the litter and recycling receptacle design of a proponent, but the technical evaluation may have identified non-compliance with accessibility requirements.
The Design Jury will evaluate criteria such as the scale of the proposed furniture, modularity, coordination of elements, capability for customization and branding, construction materials and finishes, and adaptability to future new technologies.
· Financial Evaluation. The evaluation conducted in this step may include awarding points to each proposal’s minimum guaranteed revenue to the City schedule as well as the percentage of gross revenue payable to the City. This review team will be comprised of representation from Finance, and Risk Management and may include the external accounting firm identified in the qualifications team.
The proposal selected as best meeting the City’s requirements will be brought forward to City Council in February 2010 for approval to proceed with negotiating a final form of legal agreement. This step will see the City and proponent undertake limited negotiations within a specified time period the final terms and conditions of the proposal and legal agreement, based on the ISFP Agreement appended to the RFP as discussed further below. Should an agreement not be reached within the specified time period, the City reserves the right to approach and deal with another responsive proponent.
ISFP Legal Agreement
A form of agreement (the ISFP Agreement) describing the ISFP to be undertaken by the successful proponent with the City will be included as an appendix to the RFP. While the ISFP Agreement appended to the RFP will be substantially in its final form, the RFP will invite proponents responding to the RFP to provide comments and suggested revisions to the ISFP Agreement that they might consider as important or necessary for consideration by the City.
While the City would not be obligated to accept any or all of these comments and/or suggested revisions, it would consider them before negotiating and settling the final form of the ISFP Agreement with the successful proponent. As a condition to responding to the RFP, each proponent must confirm its agreement to enter into a final ISFP Agreement on substantially those terms and conditions as are contained in the ISFP Agreement. It is believed that providing proponents with a final form or near-final form ISFP Agreement with the RFP will accelerate, simplify, and limit the negotiations needed for completion of a final form of ISFP Agreement with the successful proponent. This strategy was successfully employed by the City of Toronto when it undertook its recent procurement process for its Integrated Street Furniture Program.
It is recommended that the ISFP Agreement would include, but not be limited to, the following key terms:
· The term of the ISFP Agreement will be 20 years.
· The ISFP will be proponent-run subject to certain City-mandated protocols (such as a supplier code of conduct, equity and diversity policies, and ethical purchasing policies).
· The design, installation, and maintenance of the ISFP will be based on predetermined protocols.
· Local business advertising provisions will be addressed.
· The City will be entitled to five percent of advertising space for public service advertising.
· The City will be entitled to share in gross revenues of the advertising component of the ISFP, with a minimum annual amount guaranteed in respect of such share.
· A fixed amount of the City’s development costs will be reimbursed by the successful proponent.
· The successful proponent will maintain adequate performance security to guarantee its obligations under the final ISFP Agreement.
· The ISFP Agreement may be terminated by the City for breach thereof by the successful proponent, following a reasonable opportunity for the successful proponent to remedy such breach. The ISFP Agreement may also be terminated upon payment by the City to the successful proponent of a fixed fee (to be determined and possibly following the elapse of part of the term).
· Any disputes under the ISFP Agreement will be settled by informal negotiation by the parties, followed by mediation by an expert appointed by the parties, and then by arbitration, if required. Arbitration in respect of matters that are less than a fixed monetary threshold value will be final and binding on the parties.
· At the midpoint of the ISFP Agreement, the proponent may be required to submit a proposal to modernize or retrofit the existing street furniture elements should advancements in materials or technology deem it worthwhile.
· During the term of the ISFP Agreement, ownership of all existing and new street furniture elements will rest with the successful proponent. Upon termination or expiry of the Agreement, ownership of all right, title, and interest in the street furniture elements and unique street furniture element designs will be transferred to the City. This will ensure that at the end of the Agreement the City will own the furniture.
Upon completion of the Proposal Evaluations in the RFP process, staff will return to Council in Q1 2010 for final approval of the preferred proponent.
Upon approval, staff will commence the limited contract negotiations with the preferred proponent as outlined above and work with it to prepare for the installation and maintenance of the furniture.
Business Case Analysis
The purpose of the external business case analysis is to determine the impact of the current economic downturn on the ISFP and to assess whether the number of street furniture elements and advertising levels proposed through the program creates an attractive proposition to bidders. The analysis also examined the consequences of removing the bicycle component from the ISFP, which was discussed in the RFP section of this report, and the effect of separate advertising programs administered by the City on the ISFP.
The results of this analysis directed the content development of the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines document, the RFP, and more specifically, the second and third recommendations of this report.
R.E. Millward and Associates completed this assessment through the guidance of an advertising consultant with former experience in the Canadian outdoor advertising market. The highlights of the study and its impact on the City of Ottawa’s Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines, the RFP, and resulting recommendations are discussed in the next sections.
The ISFP RFP and Current Economic Uncertainty
At its 11 February 2009 meeting, Council agreed to delay the implementation of the rollout of furniture by one year, to 1 July 2011 in order to study the potential impacts and decreased value placed by proponents on the City street furniture assets during an economic downturn.
Although the state of the economy cannot be ignored, the business case analysis indicated that the proposed new implementation target date is an appropriate time to release the RFP. The new schedule provides proponents with ample time to respond to the RFP and allows more time for the economy to improve. Many sources have noted that we have already begun to experience positive changes in our economy. This is a 20-year program that presents a long-term investment for proponents who will be required to account for market fluctuations in their proposals.
Proposed Street Furniture Elements and Level of Advertising
To ensure that the proposed scope of work provided to proponents in the RFP is feasible and maximizes value to the City, staff also requested an analysis pertaining to the number of street furniture elements to be rolled-out during the 20-year term and the amount of advertising to be included on the elements.
The results of the analysis suggest that the number of street furniture elements proposed by the City is adequate; however, bidders will be more inclined to bid on the RFP if the amount of advertising is limited. For this reason, the following recommendation is being made:
Recommendation #3 - Limit advertising on street furniture elements to transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks.
The reasons for this recommendation are twofold and include the need to limit the amount of outdoor advertising in Ottawa and Ottawa’s position in the advertising market.
First, it is important to understand that more advertising does not necessarily equate to more revenue for the City or to the advertising company. In fact, the opposite is true in that the greater the number of advertisements in the public realm, the less effective each ad. More advertisements create visual clutter and resultantly, the customer’s attention becomes lost and the ads become ineffective in reaching their desired audience. Stated differently, the market becomes saturated with outdoor advertising and the result is outdoor advertising that is less successful and less valuable.
In looking at the total number of ad faces in the Canadian market, Ottawa indexes at the highest. Compared to Vancouver that has 1.34 ad faces/1000 people and Toronto with 1.03 ad faces/1000 people, Ottawa places first in the country with 1.36 ad faces/1000 people. There are currently numerous street level advertising venues in Ottawa that all compete for the same audience and equally contribute to visual clutter. These include ads on litter and recycling receptacles, benches, bicycle parking units, four sided pillars in parking lots, and media storefront signs. Not all of these ads contribute to City revenue. Of these elements, the ones that currently provide revenue to the City include litter and recycling receptacles, benches, bicycle parking units, and transit shelters. Only transit shelters provide a significant amount of revenue to the City and at present they have the lowest occupancy rates of ads. The other elements provide negligible amounts of revenue but have high occupancy rates that contribute to increased clutter.
Second, Ottawa is the sixth-ranked city in Canada in the advertising market. By industry standards this makes Ottawa a “B” city. During an economic downturn, advertising dollars are generally reduced in B markets and focus is typically directed to the top two or three markets in the country. This suggests that in order to attract quality bids, Ottawa must ensure that it has an attractive business case relative to the top three markets.
Based on these research results, it is anticipated that limiting advertising to two key street furniture items (transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks) results in an RFP that is more attractive to proponents. For the ISFP, this research indicates that less advertising is required and of the advertising that is needed that it be included on elements that provide the most significant return (transit shelters) and those that that create the least amount of clutter (information and way-finding kiosks). Moreover, proponents will be required to describe how advertisements on transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks will be accessible to local business advertising.
Limiting advertising to these two elements also ensures less visual clutter on the streets, which adheres to the program’s guiding principles, and as previously stated, creates more revenue for the City. Transit shelters are the medium through which the most revenue is generated so it makes sense to advertise on these elements and to elevate the number of ads that currently sit at low occupancy rates. Furthermore, public consultations with all stakeholders have shown that advertisements in transit shelters are a commonly accepted practice. Again, we will ensure through the RFP process that small businesses will have access and opportunity to participate in the ISFP.
Other City Advertising Initiatives
There are a number of advertising initiatives with upcoming RFPs in the City including the bicycle parking program, billboard advertising program, bus advertising, and transit station advertising. All of these programs are outdoor advertising initiatives, which have the ability to affect the success of each other given that outdoor advertising revenue is not unlimited. Increasing outdoor advertising space at the street level does not necessarily generate additional revenue to the City, as discussed in the analysis of advertising research presented earlier.
As stated in the business case evaluation, the current Ottawa market for outdoor advertising does not support a strong business case for additional outdoor media at this time. As a result, it is intended that the City release the upcoming RFPs for the various advertising initiatives at different times and inform proponents of the timing of the remaining initiatives. It is also recommended that the ISFP RFP be released first. Unlike the other RFPs, the ISFP RFP provides both a revenue source to the City along with assets over a 20-year term, while the other RFPs simply provide revenue.
Further to this, through research it has been found that the economies of market packaging in similar media forms, such as on bus advertising and transit station advertising, is important in the media sales process. This means that it is important to package advertising with similar opportunities, for example when someone rides the bus they will view the ads on the bus, they will also view ads once they get to the transit station, therefore advertisers could structure a continued theme for their ad campaigns. With this in mind, it is intended that the RFPs for transit stations and transit vehicles be combined, since both venues reach the same audience as the riders exposed to the interior of the bus also pass through the transit stations.
As approved in the second report, advertising exclusivity in the right of way will be granted to the ISFP proponent; therefore, if Council is considering any other elements for advertising in the future, this new advertising initiative must be offered the first right of refusal to the ISFP proponent.
Beyond the consultation processes outlined in previous reports, extensive consultation has taken place with the BIAs to address the ISFP. Two group meetings were held in the fall of 2008, individual meetings were held with each BIA in early January/February 2009, a follow-up presentation was made to the Business Advisory Committee in March and June 2009, and a further BIA meeting was held in late June 2009. During individual meetings, the majority of BIAs indicated their support of this program. All are in agreement that advertising should be limited to transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks only. BIAs commonly expressed the need to ensure customization of the furniture in order to represent distinctiveness within their community. Within the RFP, specifications will be included requesting that proponents provide details on the level of customization, where possible. It was also understood that there are other ways to mark uniqueness other than through furniture such as bollards, tree guards, lighting, banners, planters, and pavement markings.
Those BIAs with recent street furniture installed as part of an infrastructure renewal project will not have their furniture changed, nor will those receiving furniture installations up to July 2011. Going forward, any new infrastructure renewal projects will use the suite of ISFP furniture. It was also expressed from the BIAs that upon lifecycle renewal for recently installed furniture that a section at a time be replaced rather than an ad hoc approach. In other words, a block width of furniture will be replaced at once; not simply a bench or transit shelter as needed.
During consultation, one BIA indicated a desire to have its own design selected for future furniture. Given the guiding principles of the ISFP, the cost savings and operational challenges with multiple pieces of furniture and their replacement parts, the City will not fund separate designs. If a separate suite of furniture is desired, the cost to purchase, install, and maintain the furniture will become the responsibility of the BIA. If a BIA chooses this route, transit shelters would be exempt and would remain the City’s asset and design.
As indicated in the RFP evaluation process, given their interest in ensuring the design and levels of customization suit their diverse needs, the BIAs have requested, and staff support the inclusion of one of their members on the design jury.
Litter and Recyclable Collection
As per the Direction to Staff arising from the 10 September 2008 Council Meeting, the City will assume the responsibility of emptying and disposing of the contents of on-street litter and recycling receptacles. Staff anticipates offsetting the cost of this program through the ISFP revenues, although the extent of the revenues will not be known until the completion of the RFP process in the latter part of 2009. Should the ISFP revenues not be sufficient to sustain the litter and recycling collection program, a budget pressure would be identified through the 2011 budget process.
Staff envision a Request for Tender being issued by the City to award a contract for the collection and disposal of the contents of litter and recycling receptacles for the ISFP. This would allow the City to accurately report and track gross metrics associated with litter and recyclables, such as tonnes collected and tonnes recycled.
The cost of operating this program is dependent on many factors such as:
· Determination of the most effective collection method. In other words, should collection be done by stream or by receptacle and sorted later? The preferred collection method will also determine the type of collection truck needed. (Note: the use of three-stream trucks is no longer a common practice.)
· Determination of the public’s perception to the preferred collection.
· Setting cost-effective collection routes based on varied collection frequencies.
Staff will work closely with the successful litter and recycling collection proponent to improve and encourage the amount of recycling. As directed from the second ISFP report, staff will examine the processes of other City related litter and recycling collection programs to determine the most efficient way to operate this new service.
ISFP Organizational Unit
Once the RFP process is finished and a winning proponent is selected, a new organizational unit will be established to ensure the successful rollout and ongoing operations of the ISFP. When staff return to Council in Q1 2010, information on the new structure will be provided.
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report. That being noted, it will nevertheless be important that, as with other high profile and/or significant procurement processes undertaken by the City, proponents respect and adhere to the process and requirements set out in the City’s Request for Proposal. In turn, the City has an obligation to conduct a fair, open and impartial procurement process. A Fairness Commissioner will oversee the City’s procurement process and will be able to provide guidance as required as the process unfolds.
The ISFP is on target and does not foresee any need for additional funding to support this project.
Document 1 City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines (Previously distributed to all members of Council and issued separately)
Subject to the approval of this report, staff will issue the ISFP RFP in September 2009 and will report to Council in the first quarter of 2010 on the outcome of the RFP and for final approval of the preferred proponent.
Transmittal Letter to Transportation Committee
From the Integrated Street Furniture Program (ISFP) Sponsors
Dear Members of Transportation Committee,
As you are aware, the third ISFP report (ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0020) went forward to Transportation Committee on 26 August 2009. At this meeting, a number of recommendations were deferred, carried or lost. Further information was requested and staff was asked to return to the 7 October 2009 meeting with a supplementary report containing additional information.
At this time, an interim Sponsor Committee was also established. As the Sponsor Committee, our role was to work with staff in reviewing and refining the proposed program based on the recommendations that resulted from the meeting of 26 August 2009.
Since being designated as Sponsors, we have met with staff on three occasions in an effort to advance this project. Specifically, we have guided the development of the Supplemental Report, which will be going forward to Committee on 7 October 2009. This report provides additional information on motions made at the 26 August 2009 meeting including, the RFP timelines and modification to the RFP content, a definition of the Central Area as it relates to restricted advertising provisions, flexibility of furniture design, and the York Region model for coordinated street furniture.
As Sponsors we understand, support, and endorse the information contained in the staff Supplemental Report. In light of the new information contained in the report, we will be putting forward two motions at the 7 October 2009 meeting. We are confident these motions will address the major concerns of Committee members and their residents. They will also serve as a catalyst in moving this program to its next stage, the RFP process.
The first motion will address the York Region street furniture model. As Sponsors, we are requesting that staff not be required to prepare a revised ISFP based on the region of York, and that the City continue to proceed with the original ISFP model. Implementation of the York model would increase the City’s timelines and require additional funding for the design and short-term furniture needs. It would also separate the design and manufacturing aspects of the program. Given the City’s experience in other projects, it has been demonstrated that it is more effective to have those that are responsible for the design also be responsible for the construction therefore ensuring total accountability.
The second motion will address the physical parameters of the “ISFP Restricted Advertising Area”. In this area, advertising will be restricted to transit shelters and information/way-finding kiosks while outside this area, we propose that benches also carry advertising. The intent of this motion is to restrict advertising in the central area, while allowing for more furniture advertising mediums in outlying areas that enhance accessibility for local businesses.
Further, you will notice in the Supplemental Report that the flexibility of furniture design is discussed. The report states that the ISFP RFP will include a requirement for proponents to demonstrate how furniture designs will be adaptable to different parts of the city. As Sponsors, we are supportive of this and hope that proponents will be encouraged to create a design that is unique to Ottawa but one that is also designed to allow flexibility to represent the distinctive areas within our City.
We are asking Transportation Committee to consider the information within the Supplemental Report and the motions being put forward on 7 October 2009. We are certain these motions will assist in finalizing an ISFP that benefits the City and its residents.
Georges Bédard Clive Doucet Christine Leadman Marianne Wilkinson
Integrated Street Furniture Program ("ISFP") - City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines and Request for Proposal Strategy
Programme intégré de mobilier urbain – Politique de la Ville d’Ottawa sur le mobilier urbain intégrÉ et DIrectives de conception et stratégie concernant la demande de proposition
Michael Murr, Director of Community Sustainability introduced the item. Lee Ann Snedden, Program Manager, Strategic Planning and Project Management and Robert Millward, R.E. Millward Associates Ltd., provided a detailed overview of the report. A copy of their presentation is held on file.
In terms of the criteria for the furniture, Councillor Legendre wanted assurances that one of the criterion for the seats in the transit shelters is that they be comfortable. He also suggested that the chosen shelter design protect persons from the elements, e.g., blowing snow. Ms. Snedden advised that during their design workshop, some of the statements within the design guidelines speak to the comfort of the furniture and she offered that staff would look at expanding on those to ensure it is very clear in the RFP specifications that comfort is a criteria. She also assured the councillor that the RFP would make specifications about offering protection from the elements and that some of that language has been included in the policy document.
Councillor Legendre expressed concern about the hiving off of particular elements or criteria, particularly as they refer to advertising on bicycle racks near transit shelters. He was concerned about not allowing advertising on the bicycle fixtures, even if there was no ad at the shelter.
Councillor Wilkinson stated her concern with a one-size-fits-all approach, noting that may be appropriate for downtown, may not be appropriate for other areas. She preferred that the core be treated with more stringent regulations, while affording more flexibility to the outer and rural communities, particularly advertising on benches. Mr. Murr explained that the RFP and the guidelines both speak to the fact that the program is intended to be deployed throughout Ottawa (urban, suburban and rural), and the basis of it will be focused on the main streets, while allowing for that level of flexibility. The suite of furniture will not be deployed in exactly the same way at every location, as it will be in keeping with the needs of each specific location. The councillor made note of the fact that the guidelines speak to having no advertising on benches, although this might be perfectly suitable for communities in Kanata. She asked staff to re-think this ‘sanitized’ approach.
Councillor Bloess felt that a universal approach is likely not appropriate. He noted that small businesses and regions have different needs and he questioned why staff are not recommending flexibility so that small businesses could obtain benches or receptacles by allowing ads on them while maintaining a certain aesthetic appeal. Ms. Sneddon advised that staff looked at the business case going forward, compared other municipalities’ practices and found that those who have been successful with the program have limited advertising to reduce clutter. Reducing the amount of advertising in the right-of-way increases the value of the overall program. Further, the strategy will increase the quality and have a higher design of furniture for Ottawa, as well as enhance the service in terms of being able to offer it in other wards. She pointed out that there would be a range of opportunities for small businesses to advertise and the bicycle-parking program, although separate from this program, would be an option. They will also be asking the proponents to identify how they will accommodate small business operations. She noted that although advertising would be limited to the two types of furniture, the quantity of advertising would not be limited. Staff foresees that proponents will be able to demonstrate how they will accommodate a small business affordable package and consultation to date has found that this is a standard practice.
Councillor Bloess commented that Legal Services had reiterated the message in the presentation that small business advertising provisions will be addressed, but he questioned whether the program would set a rate by area and stipulate that a certain percentage of advertising space be set aside. Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor advised that if it was the will the Council, staff would need to go back and ensure there is sufficient weight in the RFP for the criteria with respect to that aspect of the proposal. Subsequent to that, they would have to insert sufficient enforcement language in the legal agreement to ensure that whatever has been promised by the successful proponent in their RFP is carried forward into the legal agreement.
Councillor Bloess provided an example of how particular businesses (real estate) might not be able to afford the advertising rate after the contract has been awarded, and wondered what would happen then with respect to enforcement. Mr. Thomson explained that the template legal agreement will be attached to the RFP and he suggested that if the councillor wanted to forward the names of those businesses to the project team before the report rises to Council, staff would have a way to informally discuss with them some of their concerns on that particular issue and to determine if the current wording and the proposed RFP fairly address their concerns and if not, staff could look at how they might be able to augment that wording to deal with that particular concern. The councillor agreed to forward something to Legal counsel for a determination on how best to respond.
With respect to timelines, Councillor Bloess believed the delays in this process to date have been beneficial, especially given the fact this will be a contract for 20 years. He asked when the current contracts expire to which Mr. Murr advised that the individual contracts were extended to mid-2011 for the July 1st time point, at which time the new integrated program would roll out.
The councillor wondered how far in advance of that timeframe would the new contract have to be awarded and Mr. Murr explained that staff have tried to move this forward as expeditiously as possible while being mindful of achieving the best possible outcome. Given the fact this is for the long-term, staff recognize it will have long-lasting effects and they are therefore comfortable with the timelines described to Committee. Therefore, in Q1 2010, staff would bring back to the Committee a recommendation with respect to a preferred proponent and that would allow them time to design the furniture and roll it out by July 2011.
Councillor Bédard hoped the Internal Staff Working Group would include Heritage staff as well as a representative from the Police Services Board or the Ottawa Police Services and the National Capital Commission. He had concerns about various areas of the downtown core that already have their own ‘look’ and the fact the NCC has it’s own street furniture and the objective is to have an integrated design. Ms. Sneddon advised that staff are currently in the process of formalizing the make up of that committee and they have in fact been working with a number of the groups identified by the councillor as part of their consultation sessions. She further confirmed that the NCC is represented on their working committee. Mr. Murr later confirmed their agreement with ensuring that there is an appropriate range of expertise and perspective to help staff evaluate the proposals.
With respect to garbage cans, Councillor Bédard asked if he would have to wait until 2011 before new garbage cans are provided in his ward. Ms. Sneddon explained that through their contract extensions, they have been able to negotiate additional litter bins and these will be deployed in the next couple of weeks. She explained that they conducted an assessment and that was the feedback that we received from Council and the BIA groups that these were their short-term needs and they negotiated the amount required through that process. If there was a miscalculation in the numbers, she presumed there would be a budget pressure for Public Work and Services. The councillor was particularly concerned about the lack of litter containers in Vanier and stated that the Vanier BIA had to purchase and install their own at their cost. He was extremely reluctant to wait until 2011 before new bins can be provided to this area of the city. Ms. Sneddon advised that 18 bins are slated for the councillor’s ward Councillor and these would be deployed in the next four weeks.
Councillor Doucet wondered if staff looked at the possibility of having some variation in the street furniture as long as the same advertising capacity was maintained. He suggested having a requirement that all City furniture has a certain number of space available for advertising, not whether or not the furniture differs or is the same. That would give the City the flexibility to deliver character to each neighbourhood as they wished and at the same time the revenue would remain constant to the City.
Mr. Murr noted that the staff recommendation is proposing limited advertising to transit shelters and kiosks, and removing it from benches and litterbins. Mr. Millward highlighted that through the RFP process, proponents are requested to respond to the City’s request and provide certain types of street furniture, benches, bus shelters, litterbins and information kiosks at their cost. This is paid for through advertising. Staff also made it very clear that this is not a one size fits all, that there has to be a capacity for customization of that furniture to relate to more urban areas, for historic or BIA areas and each of the proponents in the RFP will be asked to address that issue and show how they can provide a degree of customization. Mr. Millward cautioned that there should be a basic framework otherwise the proponents have to design several suites of furniture; there is the issue of cost, efficiency and fabrication. The RFP process for other cities that staff have researched have requested suites of furniture with the capability of being modified to an extent.
Councillor Doucet indicated that he wanted to understand the crux of the debate. The debate is not the advertising aspect, but regarding fabrication costs of customizing street furniture other than information booths and bus stops. Mr. Millward responded that through this RFP, companies will be asked to bid on a suite of furniture that is to be designed and paid for at their cost. They will be asked to provide transit shelters, litterbins and benches, in which some of that furniture will not allow for advertising, therefore, companies will have to pay for that capital cost.
Mr. Murr explained that there are really two parts of the discussion. One is fundamentally how much flexibility is there in the suite of furniture that staff expect proponents to put forward. Staff have been clear all along that as a City wants to see a degree of flexibility that allows the furniture to be adapted to ensure that it fits within the various main streets and arterial roads. The proposed process, staff believe will allow this flexibility. Further, a design review panel that will include a BIA representative, will be part of the evaluation process.
The second part of the discussion relates to advertising placements and where within that suite of furniture should those advertising faces go. Staff are recommending that it be limited to shelters and kiosks. The recommendation is based on the original intent and principals of the program in terms of improving the look and feel of the main street, which was based on various strong and consistent feedback received through consultation meetings. The objective is to make this a compelling opportunity for potential bidders that will translate into higher quality of furniture for the City and that will translate into increased amounts of furniture for the City that will have a better look and feel over the next twenty years.
Councillor Doucet felt that the question that needs to be answered is if there will be sufficient variability in the RFP to keep the BIAs across the City happy by respecting their local character.
Mr. Murr stated that should the Committee approve the recommendations, it would allow staff to move this process forward to determine if it is compelling to the proponents. Staff’s expectations are that proponents will show a suite of furniture that provides for flexibility.
Councillor Leadman asked a series of questions regarding the opportunities for BIAs who choose to opt out of the suites of furniture and choose their own. She pointed out that premium advertising locations are in the urban core and asked how staff would proceed if all urban core BIAs decide to opt out.
Mr. Murr advised that the staff report provides that option to BIAs. Staff’s expectation is that not all will opt out of the process based on the feedback showing the BIAs support. He added that transit shelters are exempt and that is where that ad faces will be.
Councillor Leadman has not seen much support come forward to date. She quoted one comment, “We do not support advertising structures or kiosk. We wish to remain a restricted area for advertising on street furniture. We agree with advertising on transit shelters.” She stated that several BIAs have special elements that they were exempted from, such as Westboro that do not have bike racks.
Ms. Snedden summarized that staff met several times with the BIAs in group meetings, individually and attended two Business Advisory Committee meetings, in which staff received feedback, which was reflected in this report. In general, the majority are in favour with less than a few who were not in support. When it comes to the information way finding kiosks, there are locations in the city where those should be located; however, the BIAs have been advised that staff would be consulting with them with regards to those placements. If there are locations that are not a fit, staff will know this from the consultations undertaken. Councillor Leadman asked whether the BIAs can opt out if they do not want them in the community and Ms. Snedden advised that they could.
The councillor believed it was important to stipulate that fact to ensure there are no perceptions by the proponent or through this RFP that while this is going to be a City-wide program, there are areas that may not be participating in this. She believed that should be made very clear because that will have a determining factor to proponents that the revenues may not be where they think it is going to be. She went on to state that in order to be cost effective the adaptability is going to be fairly limited and it may not suit those areas with specific needs. She further commented that those areas have already undergone community design plans with input from businesses as well as the residential community, so it must be clear that there is a lot of input derived from the broader communities as to how they want their neighbourhood to look. She was concerned that she did not see that emphasis captured in the report.
Following on these comments, Chair McRae indicated that Committee members have received a letter from the Downtown Rideau BIA, where they indicate their interest in remaining a restricted area. She further explained that the DRBIA have concerns regarding advertising in transit shelters vis-a-vis the size of the shelter and they do not support advertising kiosks at all. Given these concerns, the Chair wondered why staff would be trying to impose the same standards to larger suburban or even large urban areas outside of the downtown core in terms of limiting where advertising occurs and she wondered why the City would want to limit bench advertising beside a transit shelter on a large street like Hunt Club Road. She wondered what the value was on that because she did not believe such street furniture is clutter if it is on a large road such as Hunt Club. There are BIAs that do not want to be in the program at all, and then there are other areas of the city that only has access, for example, to a bus space. She recalled that staff had agreed that one size does not fit all, although it sounds like this program is just that.
In response, Mr. Murr explained that this is really a question of around adverstising and on which furniture elements such advertising should be allowed. Staff are recommending that it be limited to transit shelters and information/way-finding kiosks based on the factors previously expressed to Committee. One of the fundamental tenants of this program (in terms of an integrated approach) was to improve the streetscape and to minimize visual clutter. In addition, and just as important, it comes back to the business case that staff will be able to offer to prospective bidders because not only is this an impact for the bidder, it ultimately is an impact for the City in that it will reduce the quality and value of the bids. That likely means a reduced quality and quantity of furniture being proposed. It is on that basis staff put forward that recommendation.
With respect to previously made comments about small businesses and ensuring the program will provide affordable access for them to advertise, the Chair did not believe this program would make that happen for them, by removing the affordable option they have today which is to advertise on benches. So, while the Deputy City Solicitor suggests the appropriate wording that can be sent to those businesses to ensure they are happy with the language in the RFP, the Chair had not heard any small businesses saying they want to be included because bench advertising has been the most affordable, accessible and positive avenue for them to advertise. She wanted to know staff’view of protecting those small businesses.
Mr. Murr responded by stating that staff are very sensitive to their needs and to ensure that there is that continued accessibility for small businesses. It is on that basis, combined with the Motion approved last February, that staff have very clearly built language into the guidelines document, and which will also be in the RFP specifications, that proponents are expected to demonstrate how they will ensure that their advertising program is available to small businesses. He offered that once the proposals have been received, if staff are not satisfied that there is that accessibility, they are prepared to come back to Committee and discuss how to move forward at that point.
Chair McRae inquired that if those small businesses do not want to advertise on a bus shelter or kiosk, it automatically limits them to benches, whereas benches may not always be right for some parts of the downtown core. Given that there are issues with regards to communities that are unique and how those would be addressed with respect to styles of furniture, she wondered why the City would then not have the ability to advertise on a bench on a less compact type roadway because this would offer those small businesses affordable and accessible advertising.
Mr. Murr indicated that any decision made comes with trade-offs and the recommendation was made on the basis of trying to maximize the quality of the proposals. Based on their business case analysis, the best way to do that is to limit those advertising locations to those two particular street elements. Ultimately, it is about trying to get the best quality and the best furniture at no cost to the taxpayer. He offered that what the Chair describes is possible, but is not something staff would recommend.
Chair McRae preferred to have that flexibility built in now, so if Council does agree to limit benches outside the central area or where there is no bus shelter, that proponents may seek to get the revenue. She recognized that there are other businesses other than real estate companies that like to advertise on benches and she did not feel the RFP is sufficient enough to protect the interests of those businesses.
Councillor Bloess wondered about the value of owning street furniture that is 20 years old and Ms. Snedden explained that while the program will be rolling out over that timeframe, not all the new furniture will be installed at once, so it will be a phased-in process. Therefore, at the end of 20 years, the furniture will all be at varying ages at the end of the 20-year period. The value of owning the furniture provides the City with a stop-gap measure. And, at that 20-year period, it is likely that some of those furniture elements will be coming up renewal. Owning the furniture will also all the City to bridge any gaps until the next program begins. The councillor was concerned that the City would end up owning a lot of street furniture that is destined for the landfill at the end of that period.
With regards to consultation staff conducted with other cities, Councillor Bloess preferred to see what other jurisdictions have done so Ottawa can benefit from their experiences. Ms. Snedden advised that they looked at a number of different municipalities including Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver, as well as some American cities, such as Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, and Chicago. Some of the consultation results were in previous reports. They found that the key to success with those business cases going forward was the integrated approach, the limiting of advertisements on the furniture, and ensuring that the design of the furniture was integrated within local characteristics of what each city wanted to project. The premise of the recommendations to the City of Ottawa is based on that research.
Mr. Murr confirmed with Councillor Bloess that there should not be any further removal of elements from the program and that the bike racks fit in terms of the look or feel with the rest of the program (i.e. the design will be compatible with the furniture).
The committee heard from the following public delegations.
Luc Beaulieu, Vice-President, Street Furniture, Astral Media Outdoor and Eric Menzies, Director of Sales expressed support for the report, commending city staff for its study of how the City can maximize the potential of an integrated street furniture program, consulting the public and retail community and recommending a quality approach. They urged approval of the report as is. They stressed the following key points for Committee in consideration of the report:
· They strongly endorsed the concept of a single unique design for all street furniture in Ottawa to create an equally appealing streetscape throughout; the furniture should be of the highest quality design and reflect the character of the city. They also stressed the importance of ensuring that quality of the design is highly ranked in the RFP rating process.
· They agreed with the recommendation that advertising should be limited to shelters and information kiosks, as it will provide the best balance for the city, maximizing the most efficient advertising panels. Advertisement on waste receptacles and benches are not considered to be effective media support.
· It is imperative that the program be accessible and affordable so local businesses can advertise their products and services in their neighbourhoods.
· Local businesses are not second class advertisers and should not be treated as such; bench and garbage bin advertising are not quality mediums for any business – local or national – because they are small, unlit and poorly designed units that position local businesses as being second-class advertisers; this kind of advertising also creates visual clutter for citizens and for local advertisers that want to grow a business and gain a competitive edge.
· Local businesses are a vital part of Ottawa’s economy but also of Astral Media’s business model, in that over 30 per cent of its business is with retailers now and is growing; an organized and forward thinking company understands this reality and builds its business model to accommodate it. Astral Media works with hundreds of local community-based businesses and organizations, and its focus is to improve the way it works with them, but most importantly, to improve the way they market their business.
· Astral Media recommends that the City ensure the RFP reflects the importance of local businesses and allows those businesses to enjoy affordable and high quality media solutions, the same used by national brands because by being on the same advertising format as larger advertisers, local businesses are provided with the same level of exposure and brand recognition through programs they can afford.
· Achieving this win-win partnership is a result of true local business consideration, discipline inventory management and a dedicated sales force composed of individuals that know the business owners by name and understand their daily challenges and opportunities.
Councillor Legendre inquired how Astral Media would propose an affordable solution for small businesses, such as he indicated. Mr. Menzies noted that this would not be the appropriate time to provide detailed information on their strategy but explained that there are special programs designed for local advertisers, and it has a lot to do with inventory management. He said that in any given market, business is not concentrated all in the same areas. National advertisers have different needs than local advertisers. Astral Media believes that a dedicated sales force is the key, with employees whose main job is to take care of these businesses and work with their specific needs. He noted they have ten to twelve different programs for local advertisers, all differing in some aspect, that offer customized solutions. In one program, over 65 retailers are enjoying the same or lower rates than bench advertising in backlit transit shelter formats. For that program, Astral media qualified 1000 local businesses in Toronto over a course of 5-6 months, sent an invitation to all of them to come hear Astral’s approach and hear about how to better brand their business, and about 230 of those invited attended. 65 of those joined the 52-week advertising program.
Councillor Legendre questioned the phrase ‘qualified’ local advertisers. Mr. Menzies explained that the qualification is based on the need to advertise, on whether the business is in the local market that Astral is in or if it is a subsidiary of a international or larger company, and on an identification of needs (competitors, twelve-month goals, etc.).
Councillor Legendre inquired whether the rate differs for local versus national advertisers. Mr. Menzies confirmed, adding that the program is also about education and knowledge sharing.
Councillor Leadman asked whether Astral would consider entering into an advertising-only contract, if the City were to purchase furniture and shelters separately from someone. Mr. Beaulieu replied that would not be a common model, but admitted being interested if the City pay for all of the capital expenditures and the maintenance costs.
Councillor Bloess spoke about timelines, questioning the impact to the bidding proponents if the program is delayed to 2010. Mr. Beaulieu advised that the process has been delayed already due to the economy, and because the City needed to do more extensive stakeholder consultation. He said Astral is flexible as long as they have enough time between the signature of the agreement and the construction to refine and finalize the design, specifications, tendering process, fabrication and etcetera, which would take at least one year.
Councillor Bloess inquired about the level of buy-in versus scepticism to Astral’s program. Mr. Menzies said they did not choose clients but rather clients chose them. He explained that the factors determine how many people participate in the program. In Toronto, the rollout was somewhat different as benches and garbage bins were being phased out and some people did not buy in at that point because they wanted to expire their current contracts. That being said, Mr. Menzies noted that Astral’s local sales team likely meets with more clients than the national team. He added that with this program, they offered the lowest rate available in the market on any street furniture, whether existing or being phased-out. It was offered to 1000 people because that’s how many Astral could qualify in that period of time in their first year. It is a 52-week continuous branding program so businesses will have the opportunity to opt in every year and build a name that people that will start to recognize, and at the lowest possible rate.
The Councillor inquired how many could participate in the program. Mr. Menzies responded they have different programs throughout the year and business differs from month to month, year to year, but overall they keep between 20-25 per cent of their inventory for these kinds of initiatives. Of the 1000 invitations, 260 people attended the demonstration and approximately 60 of those businesses opted in.
Councillor Legendre asked how Astral’s business is faring given the depressed global economy. Mr. Beaulieu responded that things are tough at the moment, noting that advertisers are still advertising but there is a lot of insecurity, making them reluctant to book long-term. He said there are signs of recovery and it will improve slowly, but he felt it wiser for the City to delay the process.
Jeremy Kramer, Principal and Creative Director, Kramer Design Associates (KDA) Ltd. advised that his business involves developing award-winning street furniture designs. He said they are working closely with Astral and will be responsible for the design of its street furniture proposal. He explained that the purpose of his presentation was to communicate the important role of design in creating a successful street furniture program. KDA attended the City’s public consultation sessions and was pleased to observe that design was consistently an important issue for the public. For this reason and his own significant past experience, he strongly supported the staff report. KDA urged the Committee to endorse the concept of a single unique design for all street furniture across the City. Having created street furniture programs for several cities, he has seen in each instance that well designed street furniture beautifies and adds a polished image to the streets and improves the quality of street life for citizens and visitors.
Mr. Kramer thought that as the Nation’s Capital and a major tourist destination, Ottawa’s street furniture program should reflect Canada’s commitment to excellence and smart design solutions and should be tailored to the specific needs of Ottawa. He suggested that smart street furniture solutions would encourage public use of the amenities, improve functionality, deter graffiti, eliminate redundancy caused by lack of coordination and reduce overall maintenance fees. In addition to providing a unified quality look, a single design is far more cost effective because it means that common components can be produced in large numbers and used on all furniture. This would save on replacement time and considerable maintenance and upgrade costs over the life of the contract. To reduce advertising clutter and inappropriate furniture placement, KDA also supported the City staff recommendation that advertising be restricted to transit shelters and information kiosks.
Because of their location placement, design and purpose, these products are accepted worldwide as an appropriate format for advertising. The location of benches and bins should be dictated by how people use the product, not by the needs of advertising. Advertising-free amenities give the City more flexibility to place these items where they are needed and where they are most used. Street furniture should be flexible in configuration, size and placement to reflect how people use different locations. Benches, recycling bins and garbage containers should be designed for their use; they should not be unnecessarily large or designated to meet the needs of advertising at the expense of these other, more important factors. Other cities with attractive streetscapes do not have bins or benches as part of their advertising program. The project is an important opportunity to improve the look and style of the city while also providing street furniture that serves the needs of citizens and visitors while reducing congestion on the sidewalk and generating new revenue for the city. To guarantee a high level of design, the city must ensure that the RFP score card evaluation puts great emphasis on design, perhaps as much as 40 per cent.
Councillor Legendre acknowledged that advertising on bins is not the most desirable practice for any business and questioned the desirability of advertising on bicycle parking facilities. Mr. Kramer replied the challenge usually becomes the natural orientation of the furniture and where it wants to be placed on city sidewalks. What often happens when people attempt to put advertising on products like a bicycle rack or a bench is that rather than it being oriented to the ergonomics of the public user (e.g. how someone wants to approach with a bicycle to lock up), it gets oriented so the ad is more visible, and that becomes the natural conflict.
The Councillor thought the guidelines would tackle this problem and offered to further discuss the matter with Mr. Kramer offline.
Alan Koffman, President and CEO, Dr. Flea’s Flea Market explained that in the past 23 years he spent over$4M in advertising and promotion for his business, using different forms of media, e.g., television, radio, bench advertising, billboards, internet, brochures, etc. He talked about the transition that Ottawa will go through if it changes its media type. He explained that about 15 years ago, he had concerns about switching from a local to a national advertising company, especially about losing bench advertising and having to spend a lot more money, but after receiving a presentation from the company found that his concerns were unfounded. He went on to point out that advertising in only one form of media is not the most effective method as the ad becomes stagnant. Responding to earlier suggestions by one Committee member about accommodating two forms of advertising in certain streetscapes, he pointed out that drivers could easily be distracted by multiple ads.
In response to questions posed by the Chair and Committee members, Mr. Koffman explained that he lives in Toronto, but was asked by Astral Media to provide the perspective of a small businessman. He supported the staff report.
Darcy Clark, Director of Transit, CBS Outdoor indicated that the Council-approved request last February to extend the current ISFP contract for one year was very much welcomed by CBS Outdoor as it is a challenging year for the outdoor industry. He reported that an RFP was issued in York Region for a full street furniture design where submissions were issued and reviewed, but the designs were not deemed to be satisfactory. This was done at considerable cost to all providers (potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars). As a result, the RFP was cancelled and is scheduled to be reissued in 2010. He touched on the timelines of the process and suggested that it be a six-month process as opposed to sixteen months. He suggested that the RFP be deferred until the end of the first quarter of 2010.
Chair McRae inquired about delaying the RFP process until Q1, 2010 and if the City would be bound to a 20-year contract that is based in the 2009 economy when it could change within that time period. She advised that during debate, she would be asking staff to comment on the other municipalities referred to by the delegation.
In response to her questions, Mr. Murr informed the Committee that the original timeline for the winning proponent to design, fabricate and build the furniture was twelve months. It was only when the overall integrated program was delayed by a year that it increased to sixteen months. He asked that Committee consider this information over the break, at which time staff would be in a position to respond more appropriately. He confirmed that staff were not aware of the issues in Surrey or Richmond prior to submitting the report.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 for a one-hour lunch break.
Upon resuming session, Mr. Murr provided the following details to the questions raised before the break:
· The RFP is currently scheduled for release next month, with the bid being open until early January. Staff recommends that the RFP be released on 1 October 2009 and be open until 14 February 2010. This would still allow the overall timelines within the program to be met in terms of adequate time for evaluation of the bids, time for staff to come back to Committee and Council in April, and time for the successful proponent to design, fabricate and provide prototypes, followed by the actual furniture in July 2011
When asked to comment on the proposed extension, Mr. Clark advised that 16 weeks is the amount of time that is being considered and, in his view, is the minimum amount of time in which to undertake such a daunting project. He noted that it was compounded by the fact that it would commence on 1 October, during the most challenging year they have ever faced. He maintained that 16 weeks is reasonable, but preferred it be moved at least into the first quarter of 2010.
Chair McRae asked if the extra three weeks being proposed by staff (to February 1st) is significant, and if he had any information about the process in other municipalities. Mr. Clark reiterated that 16 weeks would be the minimum requirement, and they would normally suggest 20-24 weeks to undertake an RFP of this scope. Chair McRae noted that February 1st would equate to approximately 19 weeks and inquired whether the end of February would be sufficient. Mr. Clark confirmed it would be reasonable.
Chair McRae asked Mr. Murr for his comment on a deadline extension to the end of February 2010. Mr. Murr replied that staff could accommodate that, although it does tighten staff’s ability to deliver for July 2011.
Councillor Legendre commented that he had been prepared to move a motion asking for a deadline extension of the end of the first quarter (or the end of March). He felt that the process for reviewing the bids at the end of that deadline need not be lengthy and that an extension to the end of March should still enable the program to be rolled out in time for the summer of 2011. Mr. Murr advised that staff wants to ensure that the bid is available to businesses, but the problem they are facing is that once they receive proposals, it is expected to take two months to evaluate them. After that, staff must come back to Committee and Council with recommendations around the proposals, and would then need additional time to work with the preferred proponent to finalize the actual agreement. Staff had been targeting late summer for the installation of furniture prototypes to occur, and the deadline extension would push into the ability to have a window for that. As such, staff believe the deadline could be extended to the end of February, thereby allowing them to meet the July 2011 timeframe.
Councillor Legendre inquired, as he had with Astral Media, about the state of the delegation’s business. Mr. Clark responded that in his career he has not encountered a more challenging and difficult year. He commented there is revenue and expense; if the revenue isn’t coming in and it is diminished, realistically, the only other opportunity the business owner has is to watch the expenses. He said they need to get through 2009 in order to have watched their expenses in a very challenging year. To that end, he was suggesting the process be moved forward and the RFP issued, noting that the closing date is key. He said they need time beyond January 21st of 2010 to make the assessment of whether or not it is a reasonable risk for them to consider. He concurred with the proposed extension to the deadline by the councillor.
Chair McRae asked staff to comment on the situation in Surrey, BC and Mr. Murr indicated that between this meeting and that of Council, staff would have the opportunity to understand fully the municipalities that were referenced and provide that information for Committee and Council. The Chair asked whether Mr. Millward was aware of the challenges that happened in Surrey, to which he responded that he had not heard there was a public decision made, although he confirmed they had received a weaker response to their RFP than anticipated. It was this anectdotal information that he was trying to confirm.
When asked by the Chair if he looked at other jurisdictions for that issue and what was happening with some of the RFPs to day that were not successful, Mr. Millward advised that they looked across Canada and provided some advice to staff. When asked what information he had about other jurisdictions that have experienced challenges or problems in attracting good bids, he advised that the economy has had some impact, although it is improving. He reminded the Committee that this is a 20-year contract and there will be ebbs and flows in the economy over that span of time. The bidders will take that into consideration when submitting their bids.
David Gray, President, Creative Outdoor Advertising asked the Committee to consider striking Recommendation 3 in the staff report which speaks to limiting advertising to shelters and kiosks only. He believed this recommendation will eliminate small businesses from the program because they will not be able to afford to advertise on such large fixtures. This is what happened in Toronto when small businesses were faced with an approximate 300% cost increase based on the rate card provided to Committee members. The report claims that limiting advertising to specific furniture elements will assure more quality bids and will increase the revenue potential to the City. He maintained therefore, that the bid process should bear out this claim or it will prove to be false. If large, regional and national advertisers are to be the only users of the advertisement, resulting in more revenues to the City, then let it show through the bid process. Why mandate that only national firms are going to have a place in the program? The reality is that these large national firms do not like to sell to the small business community because it is unprofitable for them to do so. They know also that if the City allows for both, i.e., small business and shelter faces, these firms will be at bidding disadvantages because they do not have profitable access to the revenues from the small business markets. Offering solutions to both and large and small business companies will generate more capital to invest in the street furniture and substantially more revenue can be paid to the City. It does no harm to evaluate all possibilities and he urged the Committee to allow all companies to bid, as per the Council Minutes of 29 February 2009. A copy of his submission was submitted and is held on file.
Responding to questions posed by Councillor Bloess, Mr. Gray explained that as detailed in his rate card, what is being presented is for shelter face. He was not suggesting that what is listed is the wrong rate for shelter face, but was suggesting that when you only offer shelter face that is the only price the small businesses will pay to reach the community through the street furniture. Mr. Gray believed that if the City wanted to limit the square footage of advertising space, then bidders should be given the opportunity to determine how that is going to be used most effectively in order to maximize the revenue to the City. To do that, they will need to maximize the return from both large and small business markets. He believed that increasing the options would generate more revenue overall because there is a limit to the outdoor market which combined, will tend to be billboards and shelters. He indicated he was in support of extending the deadline for this proposal.
Councillor Legendre requested clarification on the cost of advertising according to the delegation’s submission and Mr. Gray explained that a correction should be made to his document to read $350/week for a total of $1350/month.
Councillor Thompson had a question about the Toronto bidding process and Mr. Millward confirmed that the City of Toronto encouraged small business as well as local and national ads and they did specifically prohibit advertising on benches, litter bins and recycling bins.
The Chair asked whether the delegation was aware of any other jurisdictions that are advocating getting rid of bench advertising in favour of shelters and kiosks only and Mr. Gray advised that York Region is going through a similar process today and up to this point, have decided that they would have two faces – one for the national and one for the local.
When asked to comment on the delegation’s suggestion not to limit the advertising to specific types of furniture, Mr. Millward offered that Council could very well make that decision, rather than letting the advertisers dictate what elements get the advertising. Mr. Murr added that the recommendation being put forward was based on many factors:
· one of the guiding principles of the program speaks to improving the look and feel of the streetscape
· it is more costly and time-consuming to design furniture, e.g., benches, as it requires more thought in terms of designing two benches; there are additional complexities in terms of the management of those benches, i.e., additional parts and supplies for both, whereas one type of bench is deployed versus another
· the desire for this program to maximize the value to the City, which translates back to a higher quality of furniture that will be available to the City and residents
Mr. Murr added that there is clear language in the RFP that speaks to the importance of accessibility for small businesses.
Councillor Legendre asked staff to review the rate sheet referred to by the delegation, with a view to clarifying the information provided in that document prior to this item rising to Council. The Chair suggested that staff clarify this offline.
Suzanne Valiquet, Executive Director, Vanier BIA explained that their existing street furniture is well beyond its useful life and over the years, the BIA has made attempts to repair and paint it. She maintained that an integrated approach is a positive one to address their community’s needs, but highlighted the fact that advertising is a secondary element. She emphasized that street furniture is designed and placed to serve the public: to beautify main streets and to make bus stops and sidewalks more pleasant for pedestrians, residents and visitors. Steps should be taken to reduce the plethora of advertising, which only makes neighbourhoods look cluttered and unsightly. Park benches and garbage cans need to be placed strategically for users, not for advertisers. She understood some of the concerns raised by other BIAs, but suggested the City needed to move forward on this issue and not delay it any longer.
Catherine Linquist, Glebe BIA spoke about the role of BIAs in the city and how they are local boards mandated to improve, beautify and promote districts of the city to ensure business develops. She remarked that many of these districts reflect a unique aspect, whether its historical or cultural or special character; this is reflected in their themed streetscaped environments, with specially coordinated lamps, benches and waste receptacles. They do support some generic city-wide street furnishings for easy identification by users and to ensure a reduced cost; however, these may not be appropriate in business improvement areas with their unique suites of furnishings. To that end, they would like to ensure that the Glebe BIA, and any other BIA, continues to fulfill that mandate of creating these unique environments and having these complimentary furnishings. The City should offer the BIAs options that can be worked out, in order to reinforce what they have built together and to continue in their mandate to create special places. In closing, she suggested that the public service announcements (civic advertising) referenced in the RFP also be offered to the BIAs in a limited fashion to allow them to promote specific events in the community. She also wanted to ensure that the exclusivity of the contract would not prevent a BIA from installing a banner in the right-of-way which mentions sponsors.
Councillor Bédard was concerned that having different standards for different areas of the city will result in a mix of furniture and will make it very difficult to keep an inventory thereby reducing the possibility of revenues. He explained to the delegation that that is the concept staff are thinking of when it comes to putting this out to advertising and suggested that it might be a wiser approach to have a standardized system, but have it compatible with most neighbourhoods. He believed something could be created that would meet everybody’s standards and probably be less expensive. Ms. Linquist offered that the challenge is finding something that fits all, otherwise there could be some latitude in adding some variety that respects what was built and what is unique in these areas.
At this time, Councillor Doucet proposed the following motion:
BE IT RESOLVED that when staff return with a revised version of the present integrated street furniture program, an alternative also be offered based on the York Region model where the city prepares the design requirements and then issue an RFP based on the city designs and separates large corporate and local advertisers.
He believed this would give the City an alternative to consider that will address some of the BIA’s concerns. When asked to explain the rationale for introducing his Motion at this time, the councillor indicated that his Motion continues with the staff proposal, and requests them to bring forward an alternative plan to deal with creating a new street furniture program. He was impressed with references made to the York Region, noting that they separate the large corporate advertising from the local advertising. Also, the City sets the designing requirements and then goes to the RFP and the proponents have a clear understanding of what they are bidding for.
Councillor Leadman noted that one issue raised by one of the BIAs (who had since left the meeting), was that there is no clarity with regards to the BIAs should they choose to opt out, i.e., the report does not mention whether or not they would be charged for using the public space. She wondered if that was a concern for the delegation and Ms. Linquist agreed this was a concern for the Glebe BIA and others because ideally, no one should have to feel that they have to opt out. Regardless, some were surprised to learn that if they did choose to opt out, they would have all the costs thrust upon them in terms of what is on their streetscape and having to maintain it – with the exception of the transit shelters.
Paul Sieman Clear Channel Outdoor Company expressed the following concerns:
· the BIAs do not have any commonalities in terms of how they want to see this developed
· vendors do not seem to have any agreement about what products are on the street
· elected representatives are concerned about what products ultimately end up on the street
· it takes six months to put together an appropriate RFP response and staff do not appear to be terribly concerned with that, although they seemed concerned about awarding the contract to a specific vendor
· since the RFP has not been released, he does not know what products are ultimately going to be required to design or what is required to sell in terms of advertising; he does not have a cost base yet to make a qualified decision and until he has that, he cannot comment on how this is going to go and what it will take
· this situation happened in Toronto when the same consultant who is here today said this is exactly what is needed; apparently this consultant does not seem to like multiple ad faces on the streets of any city
· he would like to step back and to see what the councillors and residents would like to see before he starts bidding and given the economy, he was reluctant proceeding with the RFP at this time
· he asked the Committee and Council to take its time determining what should be in the RFP and vendors will decide if they want to respond and how much they are willing to pay; then, staff can have all the time they need to make a calculated decision about what the best thing is for Ottawa and Council will ultimately make that final decision; he was happy to participate in that process, but would not participate in the Toronto RFP process all over again.
Councillor Bloess acknowledged the desire to find the right timeframe that works to get the best possible bid on the table and he inquired what the delegation thought was an appropriate period for that process. Mr. Sieman suggested it should be six months from the day Council decides what will be in the RFP. Therefore, it will be Q1 before Council is ready to go to market.
The councillor asked the delegation to comment on the recommended restriction to advertising in the RFP and whether he was suggesting allowing more opportunity or flexibility for more faces or spaces on which to advertise. Mr. Sieman explained that there are large and small markets for advertising and they do not compete and for that reason, the City cannot actually generate additional revenues by having additional venues that are not competing. Instead, Ottawa should simply have a competitive market where they all compete for the same price point. Can there be more ad faces than just the shelters and increase the revenue? Yes, as long as it is understood that those are two different markets that need service and are not serviced by necessarily the same company. The market that is currently being served by the smaller faces/spaces will not be served the way it is currently presented.
In response to a proposal by Councillor Legendre to issue the RFP with a closing date for March/April 2009, Mr. Siemens stated that if the City puts out a bid on 1 September, with a spring closing date, it will result in excellent bids and Council will have the summer to make a decision.
Councillor Legendre was very concerned about testing the market now and wondered if it was doable given the current economy. He presumed the City would build into the contract, an escalator clause that if the market improves, revenues would improve for the municipality and the successful proponent, rather than getting locked in for 20 years at a low market. Mr. Sieman offered that the problem is that the City may be in a situation today where the economics do not make sense. And, he did not know the quantities and the products or the services required so there may not be enough ad revenue currently to sustain an equitable bid. He found it an interesting concept but not doable because it does not provide a good ‘go forward’ basis to have a long-term sustainable bill. Potential bidders need capital which will be well up in the millions of dollars and commitments to vendors and contractors that have to be paid, regardless of the market. Based on the work he thought needed to be done, he believed the City would be in a much better position to issue the RFP at that time, knowing it is going to be better than it is today.
When asked for a staff response to the councillor’s suggestion to an escalator clause, Mr. Thomson advised that it is possible and the escalation might be something like an increase commencing in year whatever that would be greater or lesser of increase in the consumer price index vs. some other benchmark pertaining to the revenues coming in. The question at this point in time is what effect, if any, that would have on the bidders and whether some may choose not to participate in the process because they do not want to assume the risk of an escalation clause in the agreement?
Councillor Legendre thought an escalation clause would protect both parties and Mr. Murr advised that staff could examine that option between now and Council and determine to what extent they feel that by introducing this kind of an element it would dissuade potential bidders. He reminded the Committee that last February staff had recommended extending the implementation of this program by a year in order to better assess the state of the economy. This has been done and staff believe that bidders would take the current state of the economy into consideration and would also understand that this is a 20-year contract throughout which the economy will fluctuate. On that basis, staff are comfortable proceeding with the RFP.
In response to additional questions posed by the Chair with respect to an escalation clause, Mr. Murr indicated that staff could evaluate and discuss with proponents their sense as to how that would influence the attractiveness of a potential bid with a view to coming back to Committee and Council with recommendations in that regard. Staff would like time to consider the suggestion in terms of including an escalation clause, without prejudicing the bidding process and the RFP process. Chair McRae felt the proponents would not participate because of the escalation clause.
The Chair asked what the delegation thought Ottawa could do in order to have success in this process and Mr. Siemens offered that if certain aesthetical guidelines can be determined, i.e., what is important to Ottawa; what areas is Council uncomfortable having advertising in; what services a street furniture program should provide, et cetera, and then simply offer it up to the proponents with a term, he believed they would respond with their best effort.
Following a short break and in consultation with staff, the Chair suggested that the Committee consider deferring the report to the next meeting (7 October) and that a small group of councillors work with staff to flush out the concerns and details discussed and heard today. The Committee supported this direction with the proviso that this be the first item of business on the agenda that day. The Chair requested confirmation from Legal staff that Motions that are lost at todays’ meeting would be ruled out of order at a subsequent meeting of the Committee. Mr. Thomson concurred. The Chair asked that a procedural Motion be drawn up and that the issues discussed today not be redebated again.
Councillor Leadman inquired whether the 20-year timeframe was the standard set in Toronto and other cities across Ontario. Ms. Snedden responded by stating that through their research this is an industry standard. The councillor reiterated the concern that tying in several terms of Council to a contract is onerous and she wondered if there was an opportunity to review the contracts during that time. Ms. Snedden explained that the long-term commitment is required in order to be able to offset the costs involved in operating a program of this size. When asked if any revenue was coming back to support the unit, she explained that when the proposals are received, staff hoped that the revenues generated from this program would go to offset those costs. She added that staff would be reporting back to Committee and Council on how they would like to see the unit managed and what the potential costs might be.
Councillor Leadman wondered if staff had compared the benefits of having the City come up with its own concepts and designs and have a separate contract for the advertising component. She thought the result may be a better financial position for the City. Ms. Snedden advised that they had not evaluated that approach to any great extent, but did evaluate what the industry best practice was in terms of what was successful in other municipalities. She added that one thing is key to this program going forward is the successful proponent would have to maintain the furniture as well as design and manufacturer so if they are responsible for the design, it puts the onus on them for a full turn-key operation, which is the most cost-effective way of going forward with this program.
Councillor Leadman noted that staff have not gone through the process to do a cost-benefit analysis with the City undertaking a process where we tender out the furniture separately and the advertising separately to determine whether or not there is a better way that the return on this program might be better for the City. She understood what staff was saying with respect to turn key operation and best practice in the industry, but she was looking at this from a City of Ottawa service to the community as well. So, it is great for the industry she wondered whether that cost-benefit analysis done. Mr. Murr responded no.
Councillor Doucet suggested a friendly amendment to his motion to issue an RFP based on the City designs and this would include consultation with local BIAs. He indicated he would introduce the motion later on in the meeting.
Councillor Bloess recognized the goodness that would come from this program, but based on the rate card as well as the public comments received, it appeared to be a significant shift for small businesses. He recognized that staff ensured that small businesses would be protected, but questioned how the City would maintain accessible advertising for small businesses. In response, Mr. Murr explained that the RFP process would include clear language requiring the proponents to show the City how their proposed advertising program is accessible to small businesses, at a variety of options and price points.
Mr. Murr added that staff have not seen the specifics of what those proposals would be and the expectation is that staff would see appropriate means by which local companies would have continued access. The RFP evaluation process would capture any proposals that are inappropriate or insufficient, and subsequently, staff could then report back with recommendations.
In a follow up question from Councillor Bloess regarding the timelines, Mr. Murr advised that the original proposal was based on feedback from the proponents who offered that more time would be better but a minimum of 12 weeks would be acceptable. Given the feedback received at this meeting, some firms requested more time, which is addressed in the motion that Councillor Legendre has put forward. He offered to report back in October on the adjusted timelines.
In fairness to Astral Media Inc., the Chair asked if staff had information to clarify their rate card. She referred to the rate sheet provided by Creative Outdoor Advertising where there appeared to be some confusion and required clarification. Ms. Snedden explained that she understood the rate card to be a media proposal. As Astral had explained in their presentation, they have several programs in which they work with advertisers. For example, their advertisements start as low as $175 for their format per month at transit shelter locations which is actually lower than they indicated the $210/month that was indicated in the Creative Outdoor charges. She believed there appeared to be some discrepancies from this particular document, which has been taken out of context.
The Chair cautioned members to refrain from discussing numbers and the competitive nature of these businesses. The Deputy City Solicitor concurred with this advice. She further suggested that representatives from Astral Media consult with staff if their intention is to send any kind of financial information to any Members of Council to ensure Councillors are in no way prejudicing the RFP process.
Councillor Wilkinson believed the streetscape would be quite boring if all the street furniture was the same, although she understood the design to have a particular ambiance for the downtown core and the requirement for some uniformity where there is a lot of clutter. She supported standardization in the downtown core but wanted the involvement of the BIAs so they can voice their desire should they want a certain theme in their community. Should a special design be chosen, the difference in cost could be charged to the BIA. She noted that she would prepare a motion on this matter.
Mr. Murr acknowledged the importance of ensuring that one size does not fit all. He noted that the report states: “elements have the ability to be customized to support existing character in BIAs and special areas”, but offered to review the language and ensure that it is clear. The Councillor offered to work with staff on the wording, adding that the key is to be very generic. She suggested including a map outlining the area that is considered in the BIA or special district.
Councillor Leadman observed that a lot of the presentations focussed on revenue and the advertising component, but very few from manufacturers who would produce the furniture. She questioned if this was a services to the City when there has been little input from manufacturers. Mr. Murr emphasized that this integrated approach is the correct way. In terms of the guiding set of principles that were approved by Committee, the highest priority principle is to improve the look and feel of the streetscape. He stressed that this program is about the quality of the street furniture. Mr. Murr acknowledged that staff had a preliminary meeting with a group of individuals that come from the design world to have a better understanding of the important factors that go into design.
Ms. Snedden added that points will be allotted for design in the evaluation process. Proponents will be required to secure manufacturers and designers that will put together the type of suite of furniture that is outlined in the policy and design guidelines. She offered that the industry bidding on the program, although it is funnelled through the advertisers, have a strong connection with the manufacturing and design community.
Moved by M. Wilkinson
That when the Integrated Street Furniture Program comes forward at the 7 October 2009 meeting of the Transportation Committee that discussion and debate be limited to any new or amended information as a result of the deliberation of the Committee on August 26 and that no delegations be heard.
Councillor Doucet proposed the following:
BE IT RESOLVED that when staff return with a revised version of the present integrated street furniture program, an alternative also be offered to Committee based on the York Region Model where the city prepares the design requirements and then issues an RFP based on the city designs and separates large corporations from local advertisers.
The Deputy City Solicitor commented that the motion is in conflict with which currently recommendation in the staff report in that is the proponent’s design maintain manufacture furniture equipment and he believed that this would only confuse proponents as to what they are actually bidding on. Councillor Doucet clarified that the motion provides an alternative RFP process, allowing Councillors to review two possibilities.
Councillor Bédard, on a Point of Order reminded Committee Members that a previous motion by Councillor Wilkinson was approved forbidding consideration of additional motions at the next meeting. Councillor Doucet thought that the Wilkinson motion spoke to the fact that the Committee would not vote contrary to anything decided upon at this meeting. He clarified that if his motion was voted down, then it would not be considered at the October meeting.
Councillor Doucet explained that the Motion offers the option of an alternative RFP process to consider at the next meeting. It does not mean that the proponents are involved at this stage at all; they would only get involved if and when the City approves one program or the other. He explained that what his Motion seeks to do is ask staff to bring forward a different/parallel process than the one before Committee now so when the time comes to make a decision, there will be two possibilities to choose from.
On a Point of Order, Councillor Bédard indicated that the Committee approved a Motion that said there would be no additional Motions at the next meeting that would be contrary to what the Committee is doing today. Therefore, if the councillor’s Motion is approved, it would mean at the next meeting the Committee would be voting on this proposal versus the proposal that staff are bringing forward. Councillor Doucet interjected, stating that he assumed from the Motion that the Committee would not vote contrary to anything decided on today. Therfore, if the Committee decides on his Motion today, it would be in order at the next meeting. If the Motion is rejected, then it cannot be considered at the next meeting.
Councillor Bédard suggested that the Chair rule the Motion out of order and failing that, the other option would be to simply direct staff to come with the two proposals and the Committee would decide on which is preferred.
The Chair ruled that Councillor Doucet’s Motion was “in order” and that the Committee was free to vote it down.
Councillor Bloess believed the Motion only serves to complicate an already difficult process, and he encouraged members to reject it.
Councillor Legendre interpreted the Motion as providing Committee a choice and while it may complicate the issue, there may be a better result at the end of the day. He was in support of the Motion.
Councillor Bédard agreed there should be choice and suggested that perhaps this was something the Committee should have been requesting at the beginning of this process. However, that was not what was decided on in February and staff have simply responded to the Committee’s direction taken at that time. He believed it was too late in the process to suggest staff design the street furniture and suggested that if the Committee is not interested in going forward with this kind of approach then it should send everything back.
Councillor Doucet argued that it was not too late to have a choice, especially given the point made again and again that this is a 20-year decision the City will be making and he believed a few additional months to the process will not make a different. He offered that many delegations who spoke today referred to experiences in other regions, such as York Region and the success that municipality has had with their program. He believed his Motion says to use the traditional process that will deliver a more nuance version, will deliver small advertisers as well as large advertisers, will deliver more competitors and will include more BIAs in the consultation process in the RFP. He noted that Councillor Bédard has made a suggestion to him to amend the wording of the Motion to read as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that staff return with a revised version of the present integrated furniture program as an alternative based on the York Region Model where the city prepares the design requirements and then issues an RFP based on the city designs and separates large corporate from local advertisers.
Councillor Doucet asked to slightly amend the wording by removing the word ‘when’ prior to ‘staff return…’ and remove the words ‘also be offered committee’.
Mr. Thomson clarified that the intent of the motion based on the discussion that occurred. His understanding is that if this motion were to be approved, it would essentially overturn the staff recommendation currently in the report where the proponents would be expected to design the furniture. In addition, there would be new direction to staff in terms of how this process would go forward, notwithstanding the previous decisions by committee and council on this matter that the new direction would be that the city would look at designing the furniture.
Councillor Bédard suggested adding the words refer back to staff and explained that the Committee would like to see an alternative based on the York model but not replace the original proposal. Councillor Doucet concurred with this addition.
Moved by C. Doucet
BE IT RESOLVED that staff return with a revised version of the present Integrated Street Furniture program, an alternative based on the York Region model where the city prepares the design requirements and then issue a RFP based on the city designs and separates large corporate from local advertisers.
In reference to Councillor Legendre’s motion, he suggested that this would allow more time in the RFP process, resulting in the deadline to be at the end of Q1 with a minimum of six months from the issuance of the RFPs. The second portion of his motion referred to a previous error regarding the removal of the bicycle-parking component of this program. The bicycle-parking program is currently being pilot tested in Gatineau, Europe and Montreal. He insisted that this program be part of a larger program, such as the ISFP to ensure financial support.
Chair McRae questioned staff on the timing portion of Councillor Legendre’s motion, assuming that pending approval of this report, it may be into the second month of Q2 to meet these requirements. Councillor Legendre clarified that end of Q1 would be the minimum. Chair McRae then suggested removing the words ‘the end of Q1’, in which Councillor Legendre agreed.
Mr. Thomson explained that the second resolution regarding re-integrating the bicycle parking raised the procedural question if it would be considered a re-consideration or not based on Council’s previous decision in February 2009. If it were a re-consideration, it would require a three-quarter vote of the present members, which would be six of the seven members present. Through discussions with Councillor Legendre, he confirmed that if there was new information to cause Council to make a different decision had it known that information at the time. He concluded that the latter would require a ruling by the Chair as to whether she is satisfied that there is sufficient, new information.
Chair McRae ruled that there was new information and allowed the motion to go forward.
Councillor Wilkinson advised that she had not heard any new information that would have changed her vote on the bicycle program and requested that the Motion be divided. The second point she raised was that there was something happening before the election that people can see some things being installed. She did not mind it going through this time but would ask when talking with staff that they have some suggestions on bearing that time and make that known to us by October 7 before sending it to Council.
Chair McRae confirmed that Councillor Wilkinson was requesting to divide the motion so that you will not be supporting the second operative clause. Also asked if staff could come back with information about what could be done before the next municipal election. She argued that is relevant with Councillor Legendre’s motion because if we are giving a minimum six months for the RFP process, what you are talking about is the execution of the agreement once the RFP is done.
Councillor Wilkinson suggested that if the Committee approves this at the end of October, the RFP doesn’t go out for another month and you have six months until the deadline, then it usually takes a month or two to evaluate, which makes it September until we get it awarded, then they have to get the furniture and install it.
Councillor Wilkinson asked staff to show the timeline and outline how it would work out should this motion be approved.
Nancy Schepers, DCM Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability advised that if this motion passed, it would build in a minimum of six months and noted that it would move it beyond the municipal election.
Chair McRae was not concerned with showing results based on a timeline of an election. I am looking to get the work done that reflects what the proponents have told us today and we’ve heard from many proponents that they need a minimum of six months.
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Staff to outline the timeline and show where there is flexibility.
Councillor Bloess gave note to the fact that Council provided direction to staff that it would be the City’s responsibility of the litter collection. However, he believed there should be a cost comparison of the city’s responsibility of collecting and disposing of the litter versus the cost of a contractor. He asked if there could be a possibility of building this portion into the Legendre motion. Mr. Murr reiterated that Council gave direction for the city to collect litter and recycling.
Councillor Bloess highlighted the importance of knowing the cost of both scenarios and considered writing a motion noting that in addition to Councillor Legendre’s motion, a comparison is provided when this report comes forward between city collection and disposal versus the contractor.
Mr. Thomson suggested Committee pass a motion and Council noting that an option be set forth in the RFP that would request a price from the proponent to not only design, maintain the furniture but also to pick up the litter. The City would have the choice when it is awarding the contract, to accept or refuse the inclusion of the litter collection. In the financial section of the RFP, it would be structured such for the two options.
Councillor Bloess offered to write a motion in that respect and asked the Chair to advise when this motion would be best voted on and/or if it should be included with Councillor Legendre’s motion.
Councillor Leadman clarified if Councillor Bloess’ motion was going to be an amendment to Councillor Legendre’s motion. She questioned why a cost benefit analysis would be done in order to add that in but why would only be one component of the program, yet not on the whole program. At this time, Chair McRae suggested moving through the remainder of the motions, and then take a brief recess to plan how to consider Councillors Legendre and Bloess motions.
All agreed standing down the motions and proceeding with Councillor Legendre’s motion regarding the ISFP.
Moved by J. Legendre
That the ISFP RFP process incorporate the services of the City’s Fairness Commissioner.
Councillor Bédard introduced the following motion, explaining that there is a need to include representatives from the City of Ottawa’s heritage staff, the National Capital Commission and specialist in Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in the Internal Staff Working Group.
Moved by G. Bédard
That the Internal Staff Working Group completing the “technical, functional and design review” include representatives from the City of Ottawa Heritage Staff, the National Capital Commission and a specialist in Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.
Moved by M. Wilkinson
That the Policy and Design Guidelines be modified to incorporate a Central City designated area where integrated street furniture and restricted advertising potential as proposed by staff is incorporated; and for other areas of the City a more flexible approach be used which permits special BIA design areas, as well as variations for different parts of the City which may also have some of the same elements as the Central City areas (e.g. bus shelters).
Councillor Bédard introduced his motion and reminded the Committee that the OC Transpo shelter platforms are larger on Rideau Street than those in residential communities. His concern was with respect to the lack of size restrictions of the advertisements on these shelters, and how it would distract from visual sightings and add to security matters. Mr. Murr advised that staff would support this motion and work with the BIA.
Councillor Bloess voiced his opinion that the issue was not the size of the ads but the amount of advertising in bus shelters. He asked how staff would resolve any disagreements with the BIAs. Mr. Murr explained that the intent would be to work with the BIA to reach a mutually agreeable solution in terms of the amount of advertising in bus shelters.
In response to a question by the Chair, Mr. Murr offered to prepare a response for the October meeting to any concerns that cannot be immediately responded to.
Moved by G. Bédard
BE IT RESOLVED that given the size of Transitway style platforms on Rideau Street that size restrictions for advertising be established with the BIA.
Chair McRae ruled that reconsideration of this motion would be allowed in the event staff bring new information at the October meeting.
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Staff will return with additional information based on Councillor Bloess’ concerns.
The Committee took a 10-minute recess and reconvened at 4:55 pm.
Chair McRae advised that Councillor Bloess’ motion is not tied to Councillor Legendre’s motion; therefore, will be voted on separately. Councillor Legendre read the following motion:
WHEREAS the overall effectiveness of the INTEGRATED STREET FURNITURE PROGRAM (ISFP) was seriously compromised by the February 2009 Council decision to exclude the bicycle parking component from the ISFP; and,
WHEREAS it is now evident that it was nonetheless necessary to include the bicycle parking component in the ISFP “Design Guidelines” without being able to include the benefits to the City of having the bicycle parking component fully integrated in the ISFP; and,
WHEREAS this constitutes new information which could reasonably have affected Council’s decision to exclude the bicycle parking component from the ISFP; and,
WHEREAS the generally depressed state of world and Canadian markets indicate that the City may not derive the greatest benefit if it proceeds with testing the market-place for advertising revenue at this time; and,
WHEREAS the task of crafting both furniture design elements and an innovative business plan requires that adequate time be allotted to the potential respondents,
RESOLVED that the ISFP timeline be revised to allow for more time for respondents (to the end of Q1, 2010 – minimum of 6 months from the issuance of the RFP) to prepare their submissions to the City’s RFP; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City take advantage of the increased timeline by altering the Council’s decision and re-integrate the bicycle-parking component in the ISFP.
As per Councillor Wilkinson’s request, the Committee divided the last two paragraphs for voting purposes.
Moved by J. Legendre
That the Integrated Street Furniture Program timeline be revised to allow for more time for respondents (to the end of Q1, 2010 – minimum of 6 months from the issuance of the RFP) to prepare their submissions to the City’s RFP.
Moved by J. Legendre
BE IT RESOLVED that the City take advantage of the increased timeline by altering the Council’s decision and re-integrate the bicycle-parking component in the ISFP.
YEAS (3): R. Bloess, G. Bédard, J. Legendre
NAYS (4): M. Wilkinson, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, M. McRae
Chair McRae confirmed through the Deputy City Solicitor that if the Committee received new information on October 7, 2009, reconsideration would be in order for this motion. Councillor Legendre noted that the new information referred to in the first sections of the motion was information received at this meeting. Mr. Thomson took this direction under advisement.
Councillor Bloess read the following motion:
That the option be included concerning the pick-up and disposal of litter prior to the awarding of contracting to allow a comparison of costs of an in-house service versus the external service.
Further to the advice of the Deputy City Solicitor, that the Rules of Procedure be waived to consider the following motion, which is contrary to previously approved Council direction.
Councillor Leadman reiterated her earlier comments with respect to conducting a cost benefit analysis for one component as opposed to the whole program. Mr. Murr noted that a comparison could be done but suspected that there may be issues with providing this information in a timely fashion. He offered that Mr. Manconi could articulate his requirements in order to generate these costs.
In response to a further question from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Murr advised that it was not the preference of the proponents to be in the recycling, litter collecting business and staff agreed with this assessment.
Moved by R. Bloess
BE IT RESOLVED that an option be included concerning the pick-up and disposal of litter prior to the awarding of contracting to allow a comparison of costs of an in-house service versus the external service.
YEAS (3): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, M. McRae
NAYS (4): G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet, C. Leadman
In response to a question from Chair McRae regarding the staff report, Mr. Thomson advised that it would be inappropriate to vote on Recommendations 1 and 2 at this meeting, based on the motions that have just been approved. He noted that Recommendation 3 could be voted on at this meeting.
Chair McRae ruled Recommendation 4 Out of Order since the Committee requested staff delay the RFP until the end of Q1. She noted that staff would be asked at the October meeting as to the logistics of reporting back to Committee.
1. Approve and endorse the City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines as discussed in this report and set out in Document 1;
DEFERRED TO OCT 7
2. Authorize staff to issue an RFP in accordance with the strategy discussed in this report and direct that no further street furniture elements be separated from the ISFP to ensure success of the RFP and the resulting program;
DEFERRED TO OCT 7
3. Limit advertising on street furniture elements to transit shelters and information and way-finding kiosks; and
NAYS (7): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, M. McRae
Chair McRae confirmed that the aforementioned recommendation would not be considered on October 7.
4. Direct staff to return to Council in the first quarter of 2010 for final approval of the preferred proponent.
RULED OUT OF ORDER
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Staff to prepare a report that will include direction as per discussion and Motions adopted above.
Moved by G. Bédard
BE IT RESOLVED that the Downtown Rideau BIA area remain a restricted area for advertising on street furniture (except Transit Shelters), as is the current status.
DEFERRED TO OCT 7
Moved by C. Leadman
That with the elimination of item 3 of the report that consultation with BIAs on the elements that would be acceptable to those BIAs be included in the report.
DEFERRED TO OCT 7
The report was then CARRIED, as amended.
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Councillors Leadman, Bédard, Doucet and Wilkinson to work with staff to refine these motions and the results of them. Any other member of the Transportation Committee is welcome to work with staff if they so wish.