|
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
|
Committee Recommendations as amended
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. 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.
Recommandations modifiées du comité
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.
Documentation
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 :
Transportation Committee
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
10 August 2009 / le 10 août 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and
Community Sustainability
Services d’infrastructure et
Viabilité des collectivités
Contact/Personne-ressource: Michael Murr, Acting Director/Directeur intérimaire,
Community and Sustainability Services/Services de viabilité et des
collectivités
(613)
580-2424, 25195 michael.murr@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref
N°: ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0020
|
SUBJECT:
|
Integrated Street Furniture
Program – City of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy AND Design
Guidelines AND Request For Proposal Strategy
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
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
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
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.
Executive Summary
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.
Résumé
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.
Background
Overview
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
·
benches
·
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.
Actions Taken
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.
Discussion
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 Strategy
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
Evaluation Criteria
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:
·
qualifications
·
technical, functional, and design
·
financial
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.
Selected Proposal
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.
Preferred Proponent
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.
Continued Consultation
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.
Consultation
Legal/Risk Management Implications
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.
Financial Implications
The ISFP is on target and does
not foresee any need for additional funding to support this project.
Supporting Documentation
Document 1 City
of Ottawa Integrated Street Furniture Policy and Design Guidelines (Previously
distributed to all members of Council and issued separately)
Disposition
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.
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.
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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).
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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.
LOST
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.
LOST
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
LOST
YEAS (0):
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.
