|
1. 2011 DRAFT BUDGET – AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES AFFAIRES
RURALES |
That
Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, approve the relevant portions of
the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets with respect to the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee.
Recommandation du ComitÉ
Que le
Conseil, siégeant à titre de Comité plénier, approuve la partie des budgets de
fonctionnement et d’immobilisations de 2011 relative au Comité de l’agriculture
et des affaires rurales
DOCUMENTATION
1. Committee
Coordinator’s report dated 24 January 2011 (ACS2011-CMR-ARA-0002)
2. Extract
of Minutes of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of 10 February 2011 immediately follows the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Coordinator’s report.
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales
24 January 2011 / le 24 janvier 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Committee
Coordinator /
Coordonnateur du comité
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Christopher Zwierzchowski
Committee
Coordinator / Coordonnateur du comité
(613)
580-2424 x-21359
Christopher.Zwierzchowski@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2011-CMR-ARA-0002 |
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET |
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee consider the relevant portions of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets and forward its recommendations to Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, for consideration at the meeting to be held March 8 to 10, 2011, as required.
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales examine les
sections pertinentes des Budgets d’immobilisations et de fonctionnement de 2011
et qu’il présente ses recommandations au Conseil, siégeant à titre de Comité
plénier, aux fins d’examen lors de sa réunion prévue du 8 au
10 mars 2011, au besoin.
City
Council, on December 8, 2010, while considering
the 2010-2014 Council Governance Review report, approved the 2011 Budget
process which indicated that the individual Committees, Board and Commission
would hold meetings to listen to public delegations, review their respective
budgets and make recommendations to Council.
At that meeting, Council also approved a motion
directing the City Treasurer to report back to Council on 15 December 2010 with
a more detailed timetable, including suggested Standing Committee review dates,
and budget development guidelines.
On December 15, 2010 Council considered and approved
the City Treasurer’s report entitled “2011 Budget Timetable and Process”,
together with the following motion:
MOTION NO. 2/9
Moved by Mayor J. Watson
Seconded by Councillor S. Desroches
WHEREAS this
Council is committed to promoting a culture of fiscal responsibility at City
Hall; and
WHEREAS this
Council wishes to proceed with the development of its 2011 Budget as soon as
possible; and
WHEREAS
budget directions with respect to any taxation target have not yet been
provided to either staff or Standing Committees responsible for preparing and
reviewing budget submissions; and
WHEREAS City
Council’s first budget will set the pace and tone for all four budgets we will
fashion together; and
WHEREAS
Council is mindful of the tough choices many of its citizens must make every
day in this economy and is prepared to make the same tough choices when
deciding how to spend taxpayers’ dollars in 2011 and beyond; and
WHEREAS the
Long Range Financial Plan that is to be developed after the adoption of the
2011 budget provides a term of Council forecast of the City’s financial
situation;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the 2011 Draft Budget for all of the City’s tax-supported
programs be prepared on the basis of a maximum 2.5% total tax increase; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager present a budget overview
report to Council that details how that tax target objective can be achieved at
a Special Meeting on January 19, 2011; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council direct each Standing Committee to work
within the funding envelope for the budgets in their mandates, and that any additions to the budget will require
offsetting reductions; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council request the Ottawa Police Services Board and
the Ottawa Public Library Board deliver budgets that would have no more than
2.5% increase on their tax requirement;
and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Long Range Financial Plan be developed with a maximum
tax increase of 2.5% for the years 2012 to 2014.
CARRIED
Of particular note to Committees is the second
resolution of this motion, namely:
“BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that City Council direct each Standing Committee to work within the
funding envelope for the budgets in their mandates, and that any additions to
the budget will require offsetting reductions;"
City Council, at its meeting of 19 January 2011, tabled the 2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets and referred the budgets within each Standing Committee's mandate, to that Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council.
The 2011 Finance and Economic Development Committee Draft Operating and Capital Budget is now before the Committee for the purpose of hearing from public delegations and to consider and make recommendations to Council.
The Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee will review and make recommendations on those portions of the budget with Rural Implications.
This meeting was advertised in the three daily newspapers and public delegations will be received by the Committee. As well, there will be five multi-ward bilingual budget consultation meetings held in late February and early March, 2011 (i.e. in advance of Council's consideration of the Budget to be held March 8 to 10, 2011).
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations int his report.
Financial Implications are identified in the 2011Draft Operating and Capital Budgets, as well as in the City Treasurer's Transmittal Report dated 17 January 2011 and entitled "2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets - Tax Support Programs", tabled with Council on 19 January 2011.
Document 1 - City Treasurer's report dated 17 January 2011,
entitled 2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets - Tax Support Programs (issued previously to all Members of Council
and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 2
- 2011 Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee Draft Operating and Capital Budgets (issued previously to all Members of Council and held on file with the
City Clerk)
The Committee Coordinator will forward the Committee's
recommendations to Council for consideration, at the meeting of March 8 to 10,
2011. Budgets will be amended as per
Council deliberation and adoption.
2011 DRAFT BUDGET – AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET
DES AFFAIRES RURALES
ACS2011-CMR-ARA-0002 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
At the outset, Mr. John Moser, General Manager, Planning and Growth Management (PGM), Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability (ISCS), spoke to a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which served to provide the Committee with an overview of the tax-supported draft Operating and Capital budget for PGM’s components relating to the Development Review, Rural Services Branches and Rural Affairs Office (RAO).
Mr. Moser noted the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee’s (ARAC) portion of the 2011 Budget had been increased by $19,000.00, representing a 0.57 per cent increase from 2010, largely reflective of adjustments to contract settlements and benefit changes (primarily the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System). This is to be balanced through management efficiencies including a $28,000.00 reduction in professional consulting services in the area of Development Review, to result in fewer external peer reviews of applications, and a greater reliance on in-house resources. Mr. Moser also addressed a summary of Capital Authority and funding sources (primarily Reserves and Development Charges [DCs], with no tax-support debt). Touching on Capital highlights for rural wards (which include City-wide projects reporting to other Committees), Mr. Moser outlined that the Budget includes road resurfacing and reconstruction, a structures and culvert program, rural road ditching and gravelling, buildings and parks renewal, traffic control signals, and a Rural Servicing Strategy to establish a long-term program for servicing the rural area.
Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry regarding $6 million dedicated to road resurfacing and reconstruction, Mr. Wayne Newell, General Manager, Infrastructure Services, ISCS, confirmed that $6 million would be dedicated to work on rural roads, out of an $11 million overall resurfacing program for the current year. Noting previous Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) reports, which had placed Ottawa at almost $117 million behind other municipalities in terms of spending on roads in general, the Councillor asked about Ottawa’s current OMBI standings. Mr. Newell suggested it might be better to relate to what staff had identified as the City’s actual needs. He outlined that for a road network (including bridges, sidewalks and road rights-of-way) with an estimated value of $10 billion, the City should be spending approximately $130-140 million per year. Mr. Newell said that in the past few years, annual spending had been in the area of $60-65 million, with the current budget proposing expenditures of $35 million. He added that it was hoped this gap would be addressed as part of the City’s Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) exercise, slated for the Spring.
PUBLIC
DELEGATIONS
Mr. Lyle Steele, President, National Capital Heavy Construction Association (NCHCA) was accompanied by Mr. Dale Harley, Special Advisory, NCHCA. Mr. Steele provided a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) to illustrate his points, emphasizing that because motor vehicles are the primary mode of transportation in rural areas, the City has an obligation to maintain roads and infrastructure. He said taxpayers expect to see their major investments protected with regular, preventive maintenance and replacement, but that since amalgamation, the City had put off maintaining its infrastructure to help meet pressures for a balanced budget without large tax increases. He added that this had led to a ‘snowballing’ of costs over the years, creating a funding gap which he projected could total $1.2 billion over the next 10 years, and which would eventually will need to be funded from taxation or other sources of revenue.
In summary, Mr. Steele recommended that
Council:
1. Review the list of Capital projects to remove questionable operational projects;
2. Review unspent Capital projects and reallocate money to infrastructure renewal;
3. Establish appropriate standards for rural, suburban, and urban construction;
4. Ensure that there be no new services that are not funded by reductions elsewhere;
5. Increase expenditure on road infrastructure renewal by $20 million; and,
6. Reallocate money from the following sources to finance the $20 million:
· Surplus from the 2010 snow removal budget
· A portion of the provincial uploading
· A portion of increased assessment
· Cut back on new spending and focus on core services
· Reduce hiring of new employees (vacancies & new positions)
· Debt finance the balance of the required funding.
Chair Thompson believed most Councillors, especially those in rural wards, were aware of the NCHCA’s message regarding the importance of roads and infrastructure maintenance, and that more needed to be spent. He offered that Council would have to determine, over the next few weeks, how to allocate the funding to be able to implement such suggestions. Chair Thompson said he appreciated that Mr. Steele was not only lobbying to promote himself, but also as a concerned taxpayer, and an expert in his field.
Mr. Harley added that during budget deliberations, the NCHCA would like to see a Motion requesting an increase in expenditure on road infrastructure renewal by $20 million. Acknowledging that the LRFP was an obvious place to start correcting the infrastructure spending imbalance, he felt this issue should be addressed as soon as possible in the short term, to preclude much higher costs down the road.
Referring to the speaker’s suggestion to use a portion of the surplus 2010 snow removal budget to offset infrastructure pressures, Councillor Blais pointed out that three years earlier, $16 million had been reallocated from the infrastructure budget to deal with snow removal, as there had been no remaining surplus for that area. He felt it inappropriate to use funds designated for one area to compensate for shortages in another, and that this was a practice which, if continued, would result in the same problems being repeated. Mr. Harley concurred, but said he felt the money would have been better spent on infrastructure three years ago, and that the NCHCA’s suggestion would only help restore the funds to their originally intended use.
Ms. Nicole Parent, Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC), spoke from a prepared statement outlining OFGAC’s views on its mandated issues related to trees, forests, greenspaces and biodiversity. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
In summary, OFGAC:
· supported the proposed draft budget allocation for the Growing a Healthy Forest Initiative, to continue the Emerald Ash Borer Management Strategy and, to continue implementing the Trees and Forest Maintenance Strategy, and the Tree Lifecycle Renewal Program for Trees in Trust and the Green Acres Rural Reforestation;
· questioned how the City can set a target goal of 30% tree coverage when it has no knowledge of its current inventory; and further questioned whether money will be set aside to complete the database and mapping;
· asked whether money will be available and whether a working group will be created to help solve identified problems within urban neighbourhoods due to infilling and intensification (“Study of Small-Scale Infill Housing in Mature Neighbourhoods”);
· believed there is insufficient By-law support and enforcement in the review of tree-cutting applications and Tree Conservation Reports for properties larger than one ha.;
· asked why there is no annual funding as per Council-approved (2007) 10-yr. Natural Features Strategy to address a loss of Urban Natural Features and Open Spaces;
· asked why there is no incremental annual funding to support the City’s Natural Environment Area (Rural) Acquisition Program, funding for which was first allocated in 2007 to purchase lands designated as Natural Environment Areas (i.e., South March Highlands, Carp Hills, Constance Bay and Marlborough Forest).
Chair Thompson thanked Ms. Parent for OFGAC’s suggestions. He noted that the City’s numerous Conservation Authorities were very active in terms of the planting and overall protection of trees, and that much was being undertaken behind the scenes to protect and encourage the planting of new trees as well.
Councillor Moffatt pointed out that in terms of the City’s Lifecycle Renewal Program, the Environment Committee had set aside $1.5 million in 2011 towards dealing with the problem of the Emerald Ash Borer. Further to this, when dealing with the resultant clear-cut removal of Ash trees in affected areas, the City was replacing such trees with a variety of different tree species to minimize similar future impacts on the landscape.
Responding to a query from Councillor Blais regarding a tree canopy review to determine where the City was in terms of meeting its Official Plan (OP) targets, Mr. Moser said he could not immediately provide an answer as to how long such a review would take, and at what cost, but that he could do so in time for budget deliberations.
Mr. J.P. Melville, whose background includes over 20 years’ work in rural planning and community and economic development, both internationally and abroad, spoke from a prepared statement (held on file with the City Clerk), which focused on agriculture, food and Ottawa’s economic growth. Mr. Melville noted that the budget summary seemed to focus on infrastructure, and he felt it was important to address the perspectives of economic growth, and reciprocal support for growth between the rural and urban sector economies, as the urban sector is the market for food production. Noting the draft budget spoke to a six per cent increase in the area of Information Technology (IT) whereas it proposed only a 0.6 per cent increase for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, he suggested that funds be reallocated to support the special role of agriculture and the development of business as a part of the rural economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Melville also recommended that Council:
1. Maintain an investment in Rural Summit III;
2. Reallocate funds for 1 FTE
(Full-time Equivalent) from Community Sustainability to Rural Affairs, and
target economic development rather than infrastructure;
3. Reallocate funds for 1 FTE from
the City Manager’s Office to Rural Affairs;
4. Request clarification of how IT
growth of six per cent benefits rural
5. Review Real Estate Acquisitions
for local farmers markets.
Chair Thompson agreed with the need to focus on rural business development to help ease transportation woes and to enhance local employment opportunities.
Referring to a
proposed budget change to reduce professional consulting services to the RAO by
$28,000.00, Councillor El-Chantiry noted the belief that this would reduce staff’s ability to help plan
for Rural Summit III, and he asked
whether there had been any direction from Council to undertake a third Rural Summit. Mr. Moodie explained that when the first Rural Summit was conducted in 2005, a
general direction was given that the City should pursue chances for such an
enhanced dialogue, once per term of Council.
Mr. Moodie said that going forward, staff
viewed the pursuit of such opportunities as a chance to talk with the rural
community in a comprehensive manner about services and matters of importance
and to address issues of concern before they became significant.
The Councillor offered that if there was an
intention to pursue a third Rural Summit,
the City should undertake an inventory of how it had progressed on rural issues
from the conclusion of the last ones. He
suggested the services of a consultant would not be necessary, believing that
there was sufficient knowledge in-house to provide such an inventory and to bring
forward a report for Committee’s and Council’s consideration to showcase the
City’s achievements since the time of the first Rural Summit. Mr. Moodie
concurred, and said that staff would support such an initiative.
Councillor El-Chantiry referred to page 14
of ARAC's Draft Budget book with regard to Transportation Services - Rural
(Roads - Ditching and Gravelling), and asked whether the numbers in the
documentation pertained to City-wide works.
Mr. Newell confirmed that the figure contained therein was a City-wide
number, and explained that the ARAC Budget book contained only a portion of
some of the works on rural roads, as there is a degree of crossover with the
Transportation Committee.
The Councillor then referenced page 16, Fire
Services - Rural (Rural Water Supply Requirements - 2011), wherein it stated, “This project involves the establishment of
rural water supply facilities at strategic locations throughout the rural
non-hydrant locations. With the installation of guaranteed water supply sites,
fire protection is improved and residents will be able to maintain the benefits
of better fire insurance rates from the various insurance carriers…”. Councillor El-Chantiry noted that the City
continued to spend more in this area every year, but felt that not enough was
being done to publicize such information to allow affected residents to take
advantage of lower insurance rates.
Paul Hutt, Chief, Rural Sector, Fire
Services Branch, Emergency and Protective Services, City Operations, explained
that this program provides a benefit to rural residents for fire insurance
purposes. He said staff had not yet
proceeded to publicize such information, noting the obligation was for
insurance companies to share such information with their clients. He further noted that accreditation letters
were sent to insurance companies in areas serviced by means other than by
connection to a municipal water system, so that these areas could receive a
rating equivalent to that of an area with hydrant availability. However, Chief Hutt felt the Councillor’s
point a valid one, and said that Fire Services would be willing to send
publications to the various insurance companies. Councillor El-Chantiry asked if Fire Services
could provide such information to rural residents officially, either with their
tax bills or by other means, to make them aware of their ability to potentially
negotiate lowered insurance rates, as he felt the insurance companies were
unlikely to share such information openly.
Chair Thompson said a new communications
strategy was being developed, and that such information could be shared through
a rural newsletter as a part of this strategy, working in tandem with Corporate
Communications.
Councillor
El-Chantiry then asked about funding for the Carp Fire Hall, previously a joint
effort between Fire Services and the Paramedic Service. As this building was no longer suitable to
accommodate both, he asked whether outstanding issues had been resolved that
would allow for an expansion of the Carp facility. Chief Hutt said he was aware of the project,
but did not have sufficient information to provide a suitable answer. He informed that Chief Gerry Pingitore was
the project lead, and that discussions were ongoing.
Councillor Qadri also referenced page 16,
highlighting “Unspent Previous Authority”.
He pointed out that the requests for 2011, 2012 and 2013 showed
Authority of $80,000.00, $160,000.00 and $160,000.00
(respectively), but that $125,000.00 in Unspent Authority was not shown as going forward in the 2011
Budget. He asked for clarification, as
he had noted similar discrepancies on pages 20, 26 and 27. Ms. Nancy Wynands, Account Manager, Financial
Services Unit, Deputy City Treasurer Controller Branch, Finance Department,
explained that typically, such figures are included, but had been omitted in
error. She confirmed that the unspent
balance should be included in 2011 spending.
In response to the Councillor’s question as to whether updated numbers
would be provided to include such unspent authority, Ms. Wynands said she would
look into the matter to provide a response.
She confirmed that as pertained to the Rural Water Supply Requirements,
the spending for 2011 would be $205,000.00, consisting of $125,000.00
in Unspent Authority plus the $80,000.00
forecasted Authority.
Ms. Wynands provided the following
information to all Committee members by email on 11 February 2011; “In response to Councillor Qadri’s question as to whether or not the
budget document will be amended to reflect corrected spending plans (Page 16
Rural Water Supply Requirements – 2011, and Page 20 Structures – Rural), the
budget document will not be amended. However, Committee and Council are
provided with quarterly status reports and an annual Capital Adjustment and Closure
allowing opportunity for questions in the case of the quarterly status updates
and confirmation that excess authority is not being accumulated in the case of
the capital close report.”
In reference to the presentation by the NCHCA, suggesting that funding could be drawn from other sources, Chair Thompson asked whether Mr. Newell could provide comment or suggestions as to where Council might find more money for Infrastructure. Mr. Newell explained that working within the renewal budget required an overall financial approach, working with an amount of approximately $35 million, to be balanced between the roads component of the integrated program (road and sewer), the resurfacing program, the structure program (including all bridges and culverts), and rehabilitation
programs (sidewalks). He said staff had done their best to achieve a balance within this envelope. In terms of finding funds elsewhere, Mr. Newell suggested it would be necessary to examine the City’s overall finances on a Committee-by-Committee basis.
At Chair Thompson’s request, Mr. Alain
Gonthier, Manager, Asset Management, Infrastructure Services Department, ISCS,
commented that Mr. Newell’s view was essentially correct, in that staff would
do their utmost to maximize how funds were allocated, but where the funds were
to come from would be Council’s decision to make. Mr. Newell said staff would be willing to
meet to discuss opportunities to use additional funding for infrastructure,
should they become available. He
suggested that in the short term, such funds might best be used for road
resurfacing, to ensure that roads were taken care of before it was necessary to
undertake a complete road reconstruction.
In response to a question
from the Chair regarding an assessment of the state of repair of the City’s
bridges, Mr. Newell said that as a legislated requirement, the City is
obligated to inspect each of the City’s approximately 700 bridges (with an
estimated worth of almost $2 billion) on a minimum basis of every two years. He said that when the assessments are
undertaken, evaluations are made to determine what needs to be done to ensure
that the bridges are maintained in good condition. Responding to a question from Councillor
El-Chantiry as to whether Federal Stimulus funding had helped alleviate some
budgetary pressures, Mr. Newell said that through the Stimulus funding program,
the City had received no money specifically
for resurfacing, although some minor funding had been allocated for
Transitway-related resurfacing. He
explained that the renewal dollars that the City had received under the Program
had been directed towards the integrated program, where some rural road
upgrades had been undertaken. Mr. Newell
pointed out that for the current year, the resurfacing portion of the Budget,
City-wide, was approximately $11 million.
He noted that in previous years, the amount had been around $20 - 22
million, but that a needs analysis of what the City should be spending had put the figure closer to $40 million. He emphasizes that, as part of the LRFP, the
City needed to come up with a plan to ensure the continued maintenance of its
infrastructure, and that it be sustainable.
There being no further discussions, the Committee approved the report recommendation as presented.
That the Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee consider the relevant portions of the 2011
Operating and Capital Budgets and forward its recommendations to Council,
sitting as Committee of the Whole, for consideration at the meeting to be held
March 8 to 10, 2011, as required.
CARRIED