2. 2011 DRAFT BUDGET -
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 –
COMITÉ DES SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION |
That Council, sitting as Committee of the
Whole, approve the Community and Protective Services Committee portion of the
2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement of pages 147
and 148 of the Community and Protective Services Committee Budget document and the
addition of pages 181 to 195 with
the exception of page 193 referring to the Housing Reinvestment Project
(906216), which has been considered by Planning Committee at its meeting of 8
February 2011.
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES 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 des services
communautaires et de protection telle que modifiée par le remplacement des
pages 147 et 148 du document budgétaire du Comité des services communautaires
et de protection et l'ajout de pages 181 à 195 à l’exception de la
page 193 faisant référence au projet d’investissement dans le
logement (906216), déjà abordé par le Comité de l'urbanisme lors de
la réunion du 8 février 2011.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Committee Coordinator’s report dated
10 February 2011 (ACS2011-CMR-CPS-0003)
2. Extract of Draft Minutes of the
Community and Protective Services Committee meeting of 17 February 2011
3.
Deputy City Manager, City Operations, report entitled 2011 Vehicle Growth - Annual Report - Information Supplemental to the Budget Estimates and dated
17 February 2011 (ACS2011-COS-PWS-0006) is
attached as Annex 1.
4.
Deputy City Manager, City Operations, report entitled
Early Learning Update - Information Supplemental to the Budget Estimates and dated 17
February 2011 (ACS2011-COS-CSS-0001) is
attached as Annex 2.
5.
Deputy City Manager, City Operations, report entitled
Ottawa Paramedic Service 2009 Annual Report and 2010 Performance Trends Report -
Information
Supplemental to the Budget Estimates and dated 17 February 2011 (ACS2011-COS-EPS-0006) is
attached as Annex 3.
Community and Protective Services Committee
Comité des services
communautaires et de protection
and Council / et au
Conseil
10 February 2011 / le 10 février 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Committee Coordinator / Coordonnatrice du comité
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Marc Desjardins,
Committee Coordinator/Coordonnateur du comité
City Clerk and Solicitor/Greffier
et Chef du contentieux
(613) 580-2424 x, 28821, marc.desjardins@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
2011 DRAFT
BUDGET - COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE |
|
|
OBJET :
|
BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DES SERVICES
COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION |
That the Community and Protective Services 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 des services
communautaires et de protection 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 Community and Protective Services 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 Community and Protective Services 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 – COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE
SERVICES
COMMITTEE
BUDGET
PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DES SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION
ACS2011-CMR-CPS-0003 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Chair Taylor welcomed those present and gave a brief synopsis of the process for the day’s meeting and budget deliberations in general.
Chair Taylor noted there was a technical amendment to the budget before the Committee that must be presented before proceeding.
Moved by S. Qadri
WHEREAS the Standing Committee Budget books
were aligned with Standing Committees based on the former Terms of Reference;
and
WHEREAS on 26 January 2011 Council directed
that staff review the Books to ensure that the budget items are addressed by
the Standing Committee with the mandate under the new Terms of Reference; and
WHEREAS the City Treasurer, in conjunction
with the City Clerk and Solicitor and affected Committee Chairs, were delegated
the authority to route budget pages to the appropriate Standing Committee;
WHEREAS in a memo dated 31 January 2011 the
aforementioned budget pages were distributed to all members of Council;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT pursuant to
Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being By-law No. 2006-462), the
Community and Protective Services Committee consider the additional pages
reflected in the memo to members of Council with the exception of page 193
referring to the Housing Reinvestment Project (906216), which has been
considered by Planning Committee at its meeting of 8 February 2011.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT amended pages
147 and 148 be received and considered.
CARRIED
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager Operations stated that he would give an overview of the entire portfolio of Community and Protective Services. He introduced his staff that would assist in the presentation and answer any questions:
·
Susan
Jones, General Manager Emergency and Protective Services
·
Aaron
Burry, General Manager Community and Social Services
·
John
Manconi, General Manager Public Works
·
Dan
Chenier, General Manager Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
He noted that Community and Protective Services has the largest share of a net budget of the entire City Budget of about $500 million with an increase of just over $17 million. He stated there is an increase and would go through the increases during his PowerPoint presentation. A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Before moving on to delegations, Chair Taylor entertained high level questions from the Committee members on the PowerPoint presentation.
Councillor Holmes inquired on the City-Wide Guide and how will people access information if they don’t have computers. Dan Chenier said that the City would continue to print specifically in Councillor Holmes’ ward a brochure for McNabb, Jack Purcell and for Dalhousie and ways of combining and providing broader distribution for those publications as well as new tools. However, hard copies will be provided on a neighbourhood basis or multi-neighbourhood basis.
Councillor Holmes noted that the City is bringing on 2 new fire stations but not removing the 2 surplus stations we presently have. Susan Jones responded by saying that the 2 new stations are to accommodate growth and a study that was done a couple of years ago recommended expanding not closing. Another study would be needed to assess if any surplus stations exist and this has not been planned for at the moment.
Councillor Holmes stated she was concerned with regards to the $10 million for housing and that it may get spent on small programs here and there and not on the major issues and concerns. Aaron Burry stated that they have been working with 2 coalitions, one through the Poverty Reduction Steering Committee and the other being a group of housing providers in the City and all groups are concerned with housing and making sure there is a balanced approach that addresses housing issues. Councillor Holmes asked when a report will be coming to Committee on housing. Aaron Burry responded by saying that it is hoped that a report would be ready in early April 2011.
With regards to the Fee Assistance Subsidy Program, Councillor Holmes asked if $100,000 was being removed from that program. Steve Kanellakos stated that they were adding $100,000 to the program. The Councillor asked if there was a move to subsidize not just individuals but groups as well. Dan Chenier responded by saying that they are looking at a variety of options one being taking a program subsidy approach as opposed to individual subsidies. As well they are looking at universal access to some programs. Steve Kanellakos commented that within the housing issue they would look at a broader approach of engaging the community and children and getting the kids to pools, etc…
Councillor El-Chantiry asked on the Park growth for 2011 what is meant by the expenditure outside the greenbelt. Dan Chenier said it is development charge money for new growth areas outside the greenbelt area.
With regards to the Recreational Guides, Councillor El-Chantiry noted that it was not just the inner City areas that might struggle with computer access but the rural areas as well. How will this be addressed? Dan Chenier said that the shift from a City-wide guide to a more local publication and the internet will require a transition strategy. The guides that currently exist in some rural areas will continue and get enhanced. Councillor El-Chantiry commented that staff should also seek out rural businesses that may want to sponsor or advertise in the rural booklets.
Councillor El-Chantiry inquired on the amount being spent on the corporate radio system. Steve Kanellakos responded by saying that the City is reaching the end of the life cycle of the present system and the Paramedic Service and especially Fire and Police drive the standards for this system due to their requirements. There is a working group set up with the Police and his staff to see where the City goes to next for an optimal and reliable system. In 2015 the standards will change and the City will be required to switch its system.
The Committee heard from the following delegations:
1) Kathleen Fortin and Adrian Profitos, ACORN
2)
Marcel
Gibeault, Le Réseau des centres d'aînés francophones d'Ottawa
3)
Johanne
Lacombe, le Centre Séraphin-Marion d'Orléans
4) Saixue Gao and Houria Fayekh, CAWI
5) Sue Garvey, Cornerstone Housing for Women
6) Jay Koornstra, Ottawa Supportive Housing Network
7) Jim Devoe, Coalition of Day Programs
8) Mary-Martha Hale, Anglican Social Services - Centre 454
9) Claude Lurette, Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
10) Michael Maidment, Chair, Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
11) Sheila Perry and Perry Marleau, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
12) Randy Cruz, JP Melville and Jacqueline Nyiramuwende, The Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization
13) Ray Sullivan, Ottawa Social Housing Network
14) Dale Harley, National Capital Heavy Construction Association
15) Paul Durber, Put a Roof on Poverty, Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church
16) Carol MacLeod, Citizen
17) Pamela Burr, Citizen
18) Shellie Bird, Union Education Officer CUPE Local 2204
19) Jocelyne Constant and Linda Assad-Butcher, Coalition of Community Health and Resource Centres
20) Trevor Hache, Ecology Ottawa
21) Robert Vatcher and Cheryl Andrew Cooper, ‘Hand in Hand’ Bayshore Committee
22) Beth Gibeault and Sylvie Manser, Ottawa Coalition of Community Houses
23) Bruce Roney, Ottawa Humane Society
24) Bob Hatfield, Workers’ History Museum
25) Jenny Gullen, People for a Better Ottawa
26) Dan Sabourin, Alliance to End Homelessness
27) Brian C. M. Barrett, Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
28) Peter Honeywell and Meg Hamilton, Ottawa Council for the Arts & Council of Heritage Organizations in Ottawa
29) Clarence Dungey, Citizen
30) Sanna Guerin and Ken Clavette, Citizens
The majority of delegations provided their presentations in writing to the Committee Coordinator and they are held on file with the City Clerk’s office. The following are a few brief points on each presentation.
The Committee also received a written submission from Canadian Mental Health Association which is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Kathleen Fortin and Adrian Profitos, ACORN
· 10 million dollars for poverty reduction, which we hope is dedicated to the poverty reduction strategy, is a good start but doesn’t nearly address poverty in our city
· Would like to see the uploading surplus of which was over $25 million dedicated to social services and more towards poverty reduction
· Believe transit should be free for those living on social assistance and geared to income for low income earners
· Recreation needs to be free at certain level for low income earners and with more than the current 75% coverage for families who cannot afford the cost
· Clear strategy and incentives to bring about significant changes in our fight to reduce poverty among low income families in Ottawa
· Create more affordable housing, increasing affordable units by 1000 each year and reinvesting $80 million by 2018 in new affordable housing and social services
Chair Taylor stated that it is the role of the Committee and members on it are passionate about helping folks.
Councillor Holmes asked if the total upload from the Province was $25 million and the City is spending $14 million so what happened to the $11 million. Aaron Burry stated that the balance is distributed through the City Budget. Steve Kanellakos said that the upload dollars for the next few years is as follows: 2012 - $2.8 million; 2013 - $5.5 million; 2014 - $5.5 million for a total of $13 million during this term of Council.
Marcel Gibeault, Le Réseau des
centres d'aînés francophones d'Ottawa
· Reiterate the importance of the Renewable Community Funding Program that supports the great contribution of our senior centers to the well-being of citizens of the City of Ottawa
· the City must provide equitable funding for both senior centers such as those in the west which are financed and operated by Parks and Recreation for the City since the three centers east of Ottawa must assume the entire cost of operation and functioning of their facilities
· Recent studies by the City indicate that there are historical differences (before amalgamation) and that funding in some areas does not follow the population density and population growth in suburban and rural areas. Their centres contribute substantially to reduce these gaps and meet the needs of seniors in their respective sectors.
Councillor Fleury inquired if the delegation felt that the City was doing a good job with seniors and its programs. Mr. Gibeault responded by saying that the City does work well but that many seniors find it difficult to get information. Dan Chenier stated that since amalgamation there have been many models ranging from completely City run to completely independent community run. At present time there is a variety of services being offered from City run programs to the City offering grants to community groups. The upcoming Recreation Master Plan hopefully will resolve many outstanding problems.
Johanne Lacombe, le Centre
Séraphin-Marion d'Orléans
· Given the influx of retired baby boomers, the great majority of those consulted deplore the lack of space and our inability to offer a more diverse range of activities, especially in the field of health promotion
· They want to recognize the annual contribution from the city of Ottawa of over $40,000, but mostly their desperate need of space. They are the only center for the elderly that also works in confined spaces. Their needs are mostly in infrastructure
· Their immediate needs to fulfill our project:
a) gymnasium with locker rooms equipped with toilet and showers,
b) administrative offices and
c) a dozen activity rooms.
Councillor Fleury asked if in the short term we addressing the problems faced by this and other groups. Aaron Burry responded by saying that the presenters are not the only group faced with facilities issues, financing and needed programs. Unfortunately the City by itself cannot address all the problems being faced by all groups due to budgetary pressures and the costs involved.
Saixue Gao and Houria Fayekh, CAWI
· CAWI are pleased that the City is using the “upload” dollars to invest in social services
· They are concerned by the fact that the $10 million must be shared between housing and poverty reduction. It's good that the reduction of poverty is mentioned in the budget, but if it refers to the strategy of poverty reduction, Council should allocate additional money to implement the 16 recommendations of the plan
· They are pleased that the city is investing the $750,000 in non-profit community childcare for capital improvements to support the transition. They know that next year there will not be enough funds to keep existing childcare centres.
Sue Garvey, Reverend David Seltzer of the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa and Margaret Lister, Cornerstone Housing for Women
· They see 80 homeless women a day and about 400 per year and feel that supportive housing is the answer to homelessness.
· They have a new project which has 42 units of affordable supportive housing and should be opened in June 2011.
· The $10 million for affordable housing is critical and appreciated but more needs to be done.
Councillor Holmes stated that this group has worked hard in raising funds and are to be congratulated.
Jay Koornstra, Housing Plus, Ottawa Supportive Housing Network
· The group supports about 1,200 people with about 2,000 on a waiting list.
· Supportive housing is a cost effective solution that reduces pressure on the more costly services.
· They are thrilled that the new Mayor and Council are supportive of affordable housing.
Jim Devoe, Coalition of Day Programs
· In 2010, they faced many new and some not so new budget pressures. For instance, the new Harmonized Sales Tax has had an impact on their programs and the people who access their programs. As well, their ability to retain staff is impacted since they are able to offer only modest salaries to their staff
· Request for an increase in their City of Ottawa grant in an effort to maintain the current level of service. The significant budget pressures identified an increase in the per diem rate of just $1.00
· They understand that under the community agency sustainability funding $450,000 per year has been historically set aside for budget pressures. This funding is currently not in the 2011 draft budget for the City of Ottawa. They ask that this funding source be re-established to help agencies such as theirs be able to continue supporting the people they serve
Councillor Holmes asked staff if it was $300,000 that would have to be put back into the Budget for the Sustainability Fund. Steve Kanellakos said that it depended on how you characterize it since there is no reduction in the budget since the base is still there however the difference between the cost of living increase that is in the proposed budget and the proposed increase to the Sustainability Fund is about $347,000. The Councillor asked if most of the Day Programs were expecting to get the annual increase as has been the practice over the past few years. Steve Kanellakos said that the original motion was for a 10 year plan to close the gap on sustainability based on 2007. The base has been increased by $2 million but it has always been understood that the amount for the Fund has been an addition to the Annual Operating Budget to be approved by Council, it was never pre-committed.
Mary-Martha Hale, Anglican Social Services - Centre 454
· Centre 454 has provided community based support to people with significant barriers as they navigate the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) application process
· This program has been funded by the City of Ottawa for the last five and a half years. In 2010, City Council approved the Poverty Reduction Strategy that had as its first recommendation an expansion of this program to three workers enabling Centre 454 to extend the reach of the services to those in the outer urban, suburban and rural parts of the City. However, the funding was approved for only 2010
· That on-going funding for this program be included in the 2011 budget and beyond. The annualized amount for 2011 is $182,000.
Claude Lurette, Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
· One concern that they have is the summary cancellation of the Community Sustainability Fund
· The Health and Social Services Advisory Committee suggests that City Council reinstate the Community Sustainability Fund, and carry out the five year evaluation as originally planned
· That $14 million be put directly into affordable housing, including new units, major repairs to existing stock and the development of much needed supportive housing
Michael
Maidment, Chair, Poverty Issues Advisory Committee
·
Michael is also a member of the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Steering Committee
·
Poverty is one of the greatest challenges being
faced by the City of Ottawa with approximately 167,000 living in poverty.
·
The $14 million proposed for poverty reduction
and housing goes a long to start the process in reduction of poverty and aligns
with the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
·
The City of Ottawa is showing leadership in
Ontario and Canada by dedicating these dollars.
Sheila Perry and Perry Marleau, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
· Recommendations:
1) Public Relations – promotion of our good resources, programs, good news stories monthly
2) Support for Capital funding, maintenance and renovations ie. facilities, upgrades
3) Before and After School program links with the community school – encourage this partnership with all schools in the Ottawa community and the promotion of child and youth activity
4) Helmet budget, ongoing promotion and policy links with Health and Recreation
5) Subsidy Satisfaction Survey – monitor the participation and need of clients
6) That City Council find reasonable solutions for increasing recreation and community use of our public assets ie. Lansdowne / Baseball Stadium
7) That the Master Plan includes an annual inventory of all parks, sites, facilities and recommendations for future needs in all communities.
8) That budget equity for urban intensification and rural growth. Demographics and greenspace need to be considered in long range planning for recreation sites.
9) That Health and Recreation work closely together for the benefit of all citizens, communities and operations.
Randy Cruz, JP Melville and Jacqueline Nyiramuwende, The Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization
· Direct Poverty Reduction Strategy to Community Funding – target community based recreation activities, increase $150,000 and # 17 projects seniors recreation
· Direct Essential Health and Social Supports to health training in culturally diverse seniors communities, 2.0 fte for 2011-2012 outreach and education
· Reconsider Contingency: Recreation Facilities – plan for delivery in other than City existing infrastructure (granting)
· Any user fees in transit recreation are already a barrier to use of existing facilities – no increase in fees, room rental rates should be frozen
Ray Sullivan and Janis Lacroix, Ottawa Social Housing Network
· Congratulations on a balanced and responsible budget especially on issues of affordable housing.
· Stressed the importance of the City taking a leadership role in leveraging more funds for affordable housing from both the Province and Federal governments.
· Affordable housing reduces the cycle of poverty.
Dale Harley, National Capital Heavy Construction Association
· Since amalgamation the City has put off fixing and renewing the City’s infrastructure to help meet the pressure for balanced municipal budgets without large tax increases. Over the next 10 years, this funding gap is projected to be $1.2 billion, which eventually will need to be funded from taxation or other sources of revenue.
· 2011, we are proposing to spend only 79% of what we spent last year on renewal. In 2011, we are proposing to spend only 70% of what we spent during the previous 4 years. Investment in renewal is going the wrong way.
· Increase expenditure on road infrastructure renewal by $20 million. 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.
Paul Durber, Put a Roof on Poverty, Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church
· The average homeless person costs the emergency and health systems between $185,000 and $225,000 a year
· Urge this Committee to ensure that a considerable portion of the moneys be dedicated to supportive housing
· Keep both the human and economic gains from supportive housing, and ensure that a considerable portion of the $14 million is dedicated to housing that includes professional supports to the homeless.
· The average cost to the City for a homeless person is between $180,000 and $225,000 for emergency services, health services, etc… and the average cost of supportive housing is about $23,000. Investing in human infrastructure!!
Councillor Holmes wondered if the City had a list of the City’s most expensive clients such as some cities do in the US and then go after those 10 most expensive to offer supportive housing and support services. Steve Kanellakos responded by saying that a few years ago this Committee had asked to look at the concept of “Million Dollar Murray” and what the cost might be in Ottawa to provide daily services to homeless clientele. A top ten list was not developed but a costing was done and it was estimated at about $100,000 per person on the value of services they receive when homeless.
Steve Kanellakos will take it as
direction from the Committee to check and see what would be involved in getting
a list of top priority clients and report back to Committee.
The Committee recessed for lunch at 12:00 and reconvened at 12:45.
Carol MacLeod, concerned citizen
· Has a concern on Line 906232, Sportsfield Development – Lansdowne Dome Relocation.
· The total Parks budget proposed for 2011 is $95 Million. The amount at Line 906232 constitutes 3% of the total budget and a considerably higher percentage of the park budget inside the greenbelt
· The only reason Coliseum – Sports and Recreation Centre needs to move its highly successful installation is to make way for construction at Frank Clair Stadium and Lansdowne Park. The charge properly belongs among the costs to the citizens of Ottawa of the Lansdowne project, not in the Parks, Recreation and Culture budget.
Councillor
Fleury requested staff comment on the presentation. Dan Chenier stated that part of the file
belongs with the Property Division who have also been dealing with this and the
reason why the $3 million is in the Parks and Recreation Budget is that one of
the strategies that is being contemplated to resolve the leasing issue at
Lansdowne Park is to create an artificial turf field that would be available to
the City during non-dome time such as April to October. With regards to location the Property group
and Legal Services are working on that aspect.
Pamela Burr, concerned citizen
· Would like to see the city act on staff recommendations to build a new winter facility for the swans
· The current wintering facility was built 44 years ago in 1966/67, and reached the end of its lifecycle in 2008/09
· Urge the this city council to take the action required to safeguard the health and well-being of swans by allocating funding this year to build new safe and appropriate wintering facilities in time for the 2011/12 wintering season
Shellie Bird, Union Education Officer CUPE Local 2204
· Urge CPS to make it a priority to meet with the child care community to talk about how we work together to apply the necessary pressure on senior levels of government to get the funding city’s need to deliver on the programs and services that support the residents you were elected to represent
· Concern about the Mayor’s pledge to keep tax increases to 2.5% each year over the next four years because we all know that a year over year 2.5% tax increase will not protect services like early learning and care, recreation, mental health and community supports from the butchers block in future budgets.
Jocelyne Constant and Linda Assad-Butcher, Coalition of Community Health and Resource Centres
· Concerned that the $450,000 Community Agency Sustainability Fund would be deferred or even cancelled under the draft budget. This fund was designed to be responsive to changing staffing and budgetary pressures for existing community programs. It was created after a long and successful process between community groups and City staff. This Fund has apparently been deferred without any consultation with community groups.
· Concerned about the transit system in Ottawa, its affordability and quality and the cancellation of some routes
· If the City continues to limit tax increases to 2.5 percent, programs and services will come under more severe pressure next year and in years to come, making this year's respite all too brief.
Trevor Hache, Ecology Ottawa
· Include a major program to assist Ottawa low-income to families upgrade the energy efficiency of their housing as part of the proposed $10 million Housing and Poverty Reduction Envelope.
· “Pay As You Save” financing for energy efficiency improvements in housing and businesses using the property tax system.
· Make the roofs of City facilities available for community power investment.
· Provide leadership by increasing the standard for city facilities to LEED Gold and providing incentives for green buildings.
Robert Vatcher and Cheryl Andrew Cooper, ‘Hand in Hand’ Bayshore Committee
· Priority is to secure an accessible community facility in the heart of Bayshore and operating funds to support outreach and program coordination.
· Bayshore lacks the facilities and staffing that exist in other low-income neighbourhoods in Ottawa. A neighbourhood facility with programs, services and staffing to make referrals would go a long way towards improving neighbourhood health and linking people with employment.
· Include the Field House renovations outlined in their proposal as a part of the capital review in 2012, and that ultimately, support the project through the review process.
Councillor
El-Chantiry asked if it was possible that their proposal be in the long-range
financial plan. Dan Chenier responded by
saying that the fieldhouse is old and inadequate for anything other than the
park program. They have looked at a
replacement scenario of a building of about 4,000 square feet at a cost of
about $1.9 million and this would be included in the long term plan.
Beth Gibeault and Sylvie Manser, Ottawa Coalition of Community Houses
· Community Agency Sustainability Funding - 2007 Community Houses started receiving funding through this envelope. It has allowed their organizations to offer competitive wages to ensure staff retention and provided them with funding to cover operational expenses (financial audits, insurance, supplies & equipment)
· Reinstate the Community Agency Sustainability funding in the 2011 budget
· Increases the quality of life for residents of Ottawa, improves sustainability and stability of community organizations, increases efficiency of social services agencies and considering there’s a scheduled review following 2011 on this 10 year plan, it makes financial sense to not lose 4 years of investment
Bruce Roney, Ottawa Humane Society
· He was here to thank the Councillors and give an update on their building program.
· They are 60% done on construction of the new facility to replace the 40 year old building they are presently in.
· They have received seed money from the City, Federal infrastructure funding and a modest gift from the Province.
· The proposed date is May 25th
Bob Hatfield, Workers’ History Museum
· The Workers’ History Museum is seeking funding through Ottawa’s Museum Sustainability Plan (MSP).
· In 2003 the Ottawa 20/20 Arts and Heritage Plan identified workers’ history as an important area to address in telling the complete story of Ottawa.
· They request operational funding for the Workers’ History Museum of $124,000
Councillor El-Chantiry asked if the group has generated funds from the general public and supporters. Mr. Hatfield answered in the affirmative through individual and some unions who have joined. The Councillor would like to know what the City money would be used for at this time. Mr. Hatfield said it would essentially be for staff at this time. The Councillor is concerned that this service would be duplication with what is happening at the Ottawa Workers’ Heritage Centre operated by the Ottawa and District Labour Council.
Councillor Qadri asked if the $121,000 in the Museum Sustainability Fund has already been allocated to any specific group or museum. Steve Kanellakos said that there is museum funding for a set number of museums. The monies which had previously been allocated to this project have been returned to the Fund. Any group wanting to access this fund would have to meet the eligibility criteria and this group presently does not qualify or meet the criteria.
Councillor Holmes asked why the last group that tried to establish this museum lose the funding. Dan Chenier stated that there were a number of factors such as taking the lease and renovate Gammon House in Vanier which never took place. They received funding for 3 years but nothing transpired. The Councillor noted that this new group was the phoenix rising from the flames and it appears that labour groups are quite fractured over this project. Dan Chenier commented that this group does not appear to have a business plan nor would they presently meet criteria for funding.
Jenny Gullen, People for a Better Ottawa
· Their concern is the summary cancellation of the Community Sustainability Fund. Important to the City’s community partners who work to provide health, social and other crucial services to the Ottawa population, particularly to our most vulnerable residents.
· The second concern that $14 million be put directly into affordable housing, including new units, major repairs to existing stock and the development of much needed supportive housing.
Dan Sabourin, Alliance to End Homelessness
· They applaud the $10 million in new money in a Housing and Poverty envelope in the proposed budget. This money can make a real difference only if it is used for new opportunities and not dwindled away to deal with previously funded items that help the most vulnerable in our community
· Two budget omissions take the community one step back. The Budget does not include the annual $450,000 fund for Community Agency Sustainability and the $182,000 for the ODSP application program.
Brian C. M. Barrett, Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
· It is unclear that the freeze on user fees applies to both recreational and cultural facilities/services, they would like to see fees and other applications of the proposed budget looked at through an equitable lens. (e.g. Increase Cost of Living Allowance provision from 2.0% to 2.5% for Recreation Community Funding Grants) applied to any grants/contributions to Arts/Heritage and Culture
· The decision to “reduce production and eliminate distribution of the cultural guide” is commendable for paper reduction – what is the anticipated impact on people who do not have access to the internet (low-income citizens; tourists, etc)
Peter Honeywell and Meg Hamilton, Ottawa Council for the Arts & Council of Heritage Organizations in Ottawa
· They represent about 120 arts groups and over 200 individual artists.
· They see a remarkable difference over the budget process of 2 years ago and this process makes it much easier to plan.
· All arts groups have had financial struggles especially with the introduction of the HST and would like to see a cost of living increase to many groups in the budget.
Clarence Dungey, concerned citizen
· Urge Committee members, to not support this group calling itself the Workers’ History Museum (WHM).
· this organization wants to duplicate a service with taxpayers’ money that is already well in hand by the labour movement as a whole
· The Workers’ Heritage Centre (WHC) continues to operate as it has done since 1993, with the full support of the Ottawa and District Labour Council and its affiliated unions, in addition to many other community organizations
Sanna Guerin and Ken Clavette, concerned citizens
· Ask to support the funding of the Workers' History Museum through the Museum Sustainability Plan.
· In the Museum Sustainability Plan, there is $124,000 reserved for a museum that will work to preserve and present this history, and this money should continue to be earmarked for this purpose. The Workers' History Museum is the best candidate to fulfill that mission.
Chair Taylor thanked all groups for attending and taking the time to give their presentations.
The
Committee then began a section by section examination.
Emergency and Protective Services
Councillor Clark mentioned that on page 2 it
shows 146.56 new staff and felt that not enough scrutiny has been given on how
much staff are actually needed. He noted that part of it is that Fire Services
is related to Emergency and Protective Services. He stated that he will make a motion at
Council and suggests that Committee members ought to examine these 146 new
staff members very carefully to make sure that they are justified.
Councillor Fleury referenced page 31 on batteries
and equipment asking if the City was smart doing this as the since the City is
probably going to change this equipment in less than four years. Chief deHooge
responded by saying that it was taking portable radio batteries from nicad to
lithium where there is a life cycle of portable radios around 15 years. The
batteries typically don’t last that long and they have to be cycled more
frequently.
Councillor Fleury referencing page 34 asked
if the $200,000 was based on the new facilities being built or Facility
Equipment Replacement. Chief deHooge
responded saying it was replacement of existing furniture in the stations that
we currently have.
Councillor El-Chantiry mentioned that he
earlier he had asked Susan Jones, General Manager, Emergency and Protective
Services on the policy regarding call response and what City services respond
to calls. He asked what the protocol was at present time. He mentioned an example of an accident on
Laurier and if it doesn’t really require ambulance and should police and fire
get to the scene first, are they able to cancel the call to the ambulance if it
is not needed? Chief DiMonte responded by saying that if there was no patient
and that information was relayed to Paramedics and they could stand down the
resources. In reality what happens is that by the time that information is
assessed often the resource is there and then they cancel once they are on
scene. So yes there is an opportunity to cancel and cancel any of the services
if enough notice is given. Councillor El-Chantiry asked if there was a way to
streamline the three responses. Chief
DiMonte said that there is a challenge when receiving multiple calls about the
same incident. The multiple calls with limited information and what happens in
the response protocol when a patient is trapped or vehicle is burning; all the
first response units are sent. As soon as the first asset is on scene, whether
it is paramedics, fire or police, generally we can assess the situation more
clearly and transmit that information. I want to re-assure you that for
instance if we have multiple resources going to a scene as soon as the first
asset on scene identifies that it is not necessary, we can cancel off those
resources. To your earlier question regarding removing assets from the rural
area for instance, we’re able to do that quite quickly actually.
Councillor El-Chantiry wanted information on
the off load at the hospital and the nurse pilot project and he realizes it has
been very successful. Are we going to be asking for this position to be
permanent at the hospitals? What steps are you taking from the pilot
project? Chief DiMonte stated that they
had identified several years ago this challenge and it has been a debate in
Committee and Council on this issue. The
Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Health immediately reacted and
began this pilot project which as the Councillor says and the report mentions,
has been very successful. They continue to be very supportive. That said, it
continues to be only a pilot project. In the view of the Ministry of Health
they wish to resolve the structural issues in the health care system and
offload so while they are working on that they continue to fund us on a
year-by-year basis, on a business case request. He can assure Committee that the
City’s request has always been generously received and supported and the City
has made the request for this year and what he is hearing is that it should not
be a challenge and he think that funding will continue. He doesn’t think the
Province will make it permanent. Councillor El-Chantiry asked the Chief if he
has reviewed the numbers on what it means for an offload nurse to relieve
ambulance and staff so the City can make the case to the Ministry so they could
at least look at it for a permanent basis. Chief DiMonte responded by saying that they
have been working with their colleagues through the Association of Municipal
EMS Services of Ontario. It continues to be the position of the Ministry that
it is a pilot while they work on the greater challenge of Health Care. They
have brought forward the case and again this year they have asked for almost
double their sourcing from a financial perspective to increase significantly
the number of nurses. The Province wants to resolve the complex health care
issues and they’re working on that with expert panels and very senior medical
experts to resolve the whole challenge of offload delay and emergency room
overcrowding. Susan Jones remarked that in 2009 the offload nursing program
created almost 14,000 hours of paramedic time, putting them back out into the
field.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated the City has
burning permits at a cost of $13 and when the City had this program a few years
ago there was to be an evaluation of this specific program since having burning
permits means people won’t be calling randomly to the fire station. The studies
show we are saving money and the $13 is not a cost recovery. If we want to do
cost recovery it has to be minimum $25 or more. Why are we increasing it
instead of encouraging people and advertising more to the public to be able to
access the program? Chief deHooge responded by saying that the intent is to be
able to do this online and simplify the process for the residents and thereby
freeing up much of their time to be devoted to other things that are
significantly more important. Susan Jones said the City has to spend more time
making it an incentive to obtain the permit and understanding the benefits to
that and certainly the ability to go online and make it as convenient for people
and she recognizes that not everybody may have access to computers but as they
move forward residents can go to their local library and be able to get a
permit and make it as easy as possible.
Councillor Clark noted that on pages 7 and
23, it shows the Fire Services going up by $8.3M, $7.5M in operations, 6.7%
overall. He said it is quite the jump and therefore worth examining. At Council
he will table a motion pointing out that in the early 1990s the then City
Manager of the City of Ottawa tabled a report declaring there were two surplus
fire stations and in 2006 the Office of the Auditor General indicated that in
the audit of the Fire Services branch indicated there were two surplus Fire
Stations and whereas in the 2011 Draft Budget two new fire stations are being
added to serve areas that are not quite serviced to some standard or other and
to begin a process of buying land in the east urban growth area to add another
one. He agrees that with the growth in those outlying areas you have to work
out how to provide services but since no rationalization of the Fire Services
occurred be it resolved that no new staff be hired for new facilities until
this rationalization occurs and the closure of surplus fire stations provides
the staffing and equipment for the new stations. He will present this at
Council. Steve Kanellakos responded by saying that he can give a complete
background on the staffing of Fire Services since 1991 right up to
amalgamation, what has happened and what that means in terms of staff and the
efficiencies that have been gained by the Fire Services over the years. He
stated he could deal with Councillor Clark’s motion now or deal with the
background. Councillor Clark pointed out that since he is not a Committee
Member he has no right to put motions forward at Committee. Chair Taylor recommended that perhaps between
this meeting and the Council date, Mr. Kanellakos’ office and Councillor Clark
could discuss the issue.
Councillor Clark referenced page 25 and the
increased cost of fleet services due to higher management fees. He wondered
why. John Manconi, General Manager Public Works stated that as the fleet grows,
which is does, there are maintenance costs associated with maintaining all the
vehicles so these are higher maintenance costs and fleet is a fully cost
recoverable operation that we charge out to all operating departments.
Councillor Clark inquired on the compensation
over budget due to unrealized productivity due to the Barrhaven South station.
Chief deHooge responded by saying that this goes back to 2008 where there was a
direction by Council to realize some $3.1 million in productivity savings with
the delays in building and staffing and stations. 1/3 will be realized in 2011 and two/thirds
in 2012 making up the $3.15M.
Councillor Clark referencing page 26 on
increase in fleet cost related to legislative Provincial training requirements.
How can the training requirements cause an increase in fleet? John Manconi
stated that they provide fleet training to some of their client departments and
he believes this one has to do with the aerials and some of the training
associated with the fire aerials and increased legislative requirements in that
regard.
Councillor Clark said on page 27 there are 45
new FTEs which he disagree with. As well on page 32, there are a series
9066967, 9066968, 9066969 dealing with annual replacement products such as hand
tools. Chief deHooge commented that they
have about 110 vehicles in service and certainly a significant number of
emergency responses, some of it is due to wear and tear and others are due to
breakage and loss of equipment at emergencies. As the City has an aging fleet
and aging equipment there is a need to replace them as they wear out, get lost
or broken. The Chief stated that they
have about $30 million in assets. The nature of their business is that
equipment is often abused in an extreme sense and in an extreme environment and
they require lots of hose, lots of hose keys, specialized equipment. Councillor
Clark noted that it’s the quantity that bothers him and the lack of description
of why that quantity is needed.
Councillor Chiarelli asked if there is a
standing offer or purchasing agreement for all this type of equipment so that
we’re locked into purchasing a certain amount each year, and as each of the
replacement pieces comes due they come in a kit in lots of different pieces of
equipment or is it just a single part. Chief deHooge responded by saying that
there are standing offers for a good number of equipment. For example, personal
protective equipment, the bunker gear that they have the helmets that they
wear, the gloves, the boots, the auto extrication equipment and those processes
ensure that they achieve the most efficient pricing on that equipment.
Certainly when they purchase apparatus they are moving towards having that
apparatus fully equipped so that everything you would expect would come with
that apparatus to again create some of those efficiencies.
Councillor Clark inquired as to why there are
no development charge allocations to the Fire Service? Steve Kanellakos responded by saying that the
only development charge allocation is on the new facilities in our growth
areas. It’s not applicable to the life cycle replacement equipment that has a
short life span like that. Councillor
Clark noted that some of the increases are caused by the fact that we have more
territory that we are covering and wearing down the machinery more quickly
which is why you want to go to Barrhaven South, so why wouldn’t some of that be
eligible to be taken from the development charge pot? Steve Kanellakos said that his understanding
is that it’s not eligible. Greg Tokessy, Account Manager, Finance Department
stated that for growth stations, the station projects already have equipment
comprised in those budgets and those budgets are funded by development charges
and according to the development charge by-law you can only charge development
charges for the initial growth. Once the station or apparatus are required it
becomes replacement, which is tax supported.
Councillor Clark referenced page 36 and asked
why are we replacing so many fire alarm systems at once? Are they all not
functional? Chief deHooge stated that
this was a Facilities question for response. Steve Kanellakos commented that
Wayne Newell, General Manager, Infrastructure Services would be the one to ask
and we can ensure he will be there for Council.
Councillor Clark referencing page 37 stated
that there was an advance $3M of the 2011 funding for unit deliveries. John Manconi responded by saying what we did
starting last year, in order to get our bill dates in place for key pieces of
equipment, fire being one of them, we brought forward a report to Council
asking permission for to pre-commit a portion of the overall renewal envelope.
That way we get our vehicles in time.
Councillor Clark noted that before leaving he
wishes to comment on the Social Services budget and the Committee will speak to
shelter beds being closed. I believe we should actively close shelter beds and
actively take that money and put it into supportive housing. If you think of
the people who came in front of you today on supportive housing and how they
can’t find any money, well there is a source for it.
Chair Taylor asked the Committee if we could
now carry the Emergency and Protective Services section of the budget, pages
2-64
That the Emergency and Protective Services
budget be approved as presented.
CARRIED
Community and Social Services
Councillor Holmes stated that she has a motion
to introduce regarding page 115 as it relates to the $450,000 cut to the
Community Agency Sustainability Funding. She said that her motion would ask
that $347,000 be returned to that envelope so that the City continues its
commitment to a ten year funding program which began in 2007, which adds 0.315%
to the tax rate which takes us from 2.45% to 2.48 as a tax rate, still within
the 2.5% tax rate that we had all said we would adhere to. Councillor El-Chantiry noted that each
Committee must stay within their own budget envelope. Should something change
the Committee would have to remove funds from another area and reallocate
it. Chair Taylor also stated that the
Committee would need to identify where it would like to take that money from
within the Committee’s own envelope.
Councillor Holmes then stated that she will be voting for two fire
stations to be deleted which will give us several million dollars, however,
that will come to the Council debate.
Councillor Chiarelli inquired with regards to
the move of all day learning and childcare services, is the City intending to
vacate or not renew any leases it has concerning childcare at this point. Aaron
Burry responded that the City operates less than 10% of all childcare spaces
and if anything occurred with regards to spaces it occurred last year.
Therefore, only if the City were impacted would it be looking at reducing or
changing its footprint. Councillor
Chiarelli added that especially if they are located in schools you’ll have what
used to be daycare taken over by kindergarten, going from five adult
supervisors to one, but is the City going to vacate that lease, how does that
work? Aaron Burry responded by saying
that it really is on a case by case basis, so in some instances that where the
City typically operates in low-income neighbourhoods, in those instances the
school board and the City are having to maintain the before and after school
components. There is nothing in the
Budget that would shut down our leases or operations.
Moved by R. Chiarelli
That the Community and Social Services budget
be approved as presented with supplemental information.
CARRIED
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services /
Parks, Buildings and Grounds / Supplemental Information
Councillor Holmes stated that she would be
introducing another motion as it relates to the Worker’s History Museum. She
said it is a concern of hers that there is $121,000 originally earmarked for
this project and is still sitting in the budget, unallocated but soon to be
allocated. She noted that once it is allocated to other museums it’s not going
to be available should their business plan be to the satisfaction of the
department and should this group be able to come forward with presenting a plan
for Worker’s History. She would hope that the Committee would look at the
possibility of providing the money to this group, should they meet the staff’s
criteria of what this history museum should be doing and I would expect that
there will be a report back to us on that at some point after discussion with
this group. Councillor Qadri asked a
question on the motion to staff. He noted that there was a mention earlier that
it has to be applied for through a criteria defining what a museum is and
wanted to know if that $121,000 is currently committed to any other
museums. Dan Chenier responded by saying
that they haven’t reached the part in the process where commitments have been
made to anyone. The requirements for the
Museum Sustainability Funding is Council approved and in essence does require the
operation of an actual museum and these were approved back in 2005. He
commented that some of the things that presenting group proposed today do fall
well into the project funding stream and they have applied there. However, at
this point it’s hard to see how they are going to meet the criteria, but they
will work with the group and see what can be done.
Councillor Qadri asked if the motion affects
the operation in terms of museum funding. Dan Chenier stated that in the
immediate future it will reduce the pool of money and unsure if the Committee
is contemplating holding back the entire $121,000. Councillor Qadri commented
that basically we are putting the cart before the horse by not having some kind
of a plan or some kind of a framework to go forward with before we assign the
funding to this. Dan Chenier agreed. He
said that Council’s intent in structuring the funding mechanism the way it was
is to have a group incrementally prove itself through project grants and then
one year renewable grants, three year renewable grants and finally sustaining
grants. This group, much like the one that proceeded it, is asking to jump to
the end of the line and become a sustaining operation before they’ve actually
demonstrated that there is something to sustain, so from staff viewpoint it is
very difficult to evaluate because the criteria that Council approved is really
based on having a museum that is operating and that it has shown that it has a
viable business plan, attracts a clientele. However, none of those things exist
with this group that he is aware of at this point.
Councillor El-Chantiry recommended that he
would refer the motion to staff. Dan Chenier said they will do as directed. He
noted that the delegation was looking for a political solution because they
recognize that they do not meet the criteria.
Chair Taylor stated that we now have a motion
to refer Councillor Holmes’ motion to staff to have them examine it.
Councillor Chiarelli on the referral asked
what exactly would be gained by a referral since he believes the Committee has
not received any information that would substantiate the funding going ahead in
the first place. He would prefer to see the substance of it before the referral
stage. Councillor Fleury felt that the original motion is to protect the money
so that if the proposal becomes acceptable under policy that that the money
would be available.
Councillor Chiarelli asked if the Committee
defeats the referral motion and then defeats the main motion what impact does
that have on budget. Chair Taylor stated that the $121,000 would stay in this
sustainability fund. Dan Chenier
commented that the money would stay and be part of the pool of money that the
assessor would look at to distribute to the museums.
Councillor Hobbs asked if there were other
museums that were in the line up for this money that if we reserved it would be
affected. Dan Chenier responded by saying that there are some viable other
proposals before the City to look at as part of this year.
Moved by E. El-Chantiry
That
Councillor Holmes’ motion on the Workers’ History Museum be referred back to
staff.
LOST
YEAS (1): E. El-Chantiry
NAYS (6) R. Chiarelli, M. Fleury, K. Hobbs, D.
Holmes, S. Qadri, M. Taylor
Moved by D. Holmes
WHEREAS
Council recognised the value of preserving and promoting the history of
Ottawa’s working people in the 20/20 arts and Heritage Plan; and
WHEREAS
City staff at the 3 June, 2010 meeting of the Community and Protective Services
Committee assured Committee members that staff would be open to discussing
proposals with any proponents of preserving and protecting Ottawa’s working
class history, and that a group of volunteers, including many with relevant
experience, has established an organization, the Workers’ History Museum,
dedicated to this end; and
WHEREAS
funds in the amount of $121,000 are available within the current draft budget,
so that the Workers’ History Museum may be included in the Museum
Sustainability Plan without any new money being required,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Workers’ History Museum receive annual Museum
Sustainability Plan (MSP) operating funding of $121,000 per year and that staff
be directed to work with the Workers’ History Museum to develop a service
agreement,
AND
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Workers’ History Museum present a business plan
to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Operations, before any funds
are released.
LOST
YEAS (1): D. Holmes
NAYS (6) E. El-Chantiry, R. Chiarelli, M. Fleury,
K. Hobbs, S. Qadri, M. Taylor
Councillor Fleury referencing page 147 stated
that he is aware that some rinks have high usage and some have very low usage.
With regards to the allocation of shovels and boards in some facilities that
have high usage, is this considered in the $300,000? We are saying it’s the responsibility of the
community groups for maintenance but it is not saying if we as a City are
considering the usage of these facilities based on participation. Dan Chenier responded by saying that this
funding is for very specific things. At amalgamation different municipalities
had different rink models. Many of the municipalities had community run rinks,
such as the City currently has, but some had direct City delivered rinks where
for the most part Public Works staff would drive around and create and maintain
the rinks. The infrastructure to bring all the rinks in line with the community
model requires things like heated bunkers for hoses for parks that don’t have a
building and require water sources for most cases. It’s a targeted program to
move from a direct City delivery to a community delivery model.
Councillor Qadri inquired if the City has
looked at an area revenue generation for the outdoor rink funding program like
sponsorship of the boards. Dan Chenier stated that there have been successful
attempts to do that. Most notably two or three years ago an outside enterprise
had agreed to put up and take down our boards in return for sponsorship
considerations. A lot of the community groups that run the rinks go out and get
neighbourhood sponsorship for things like their community carnivals. The City
does a small amount of sponsorship search but for the most part as the rinks
are community operated that is left up to the community operators. The City
does receive some sponsorship for some of the overall initiatives that it does,
but signage in residential areas has not been a popular one. Councillor Qadri
said that he would encourage more sponsorship.
He understands the aspect of local community associations, going out and
getting funding for their programming, but if they’re allowed to put signs on
the boards why can the City not offer that service to a large corporations and
they can work with the community associations in return to help sponsor some of
those programs.
Councillor El-Chantiry mentioned that he had
spoken with Steve Kanellakos about sponsorship for community outdoor rinks, and
the recreation program and the City has always been asked by people to expand
that. When are we going to have a policy on corporate sponsorship? This way we
can use it in many areas, like P3 partnerships, recreation guidelines or
outdoor rink or many other recreation activities. Steve Kanellakos responded by
stating that there is a report going the first week in March to Finance and
Economic Development Committee, it is a sponsorship and advertising report.
Donna Gray is now meeting with Committee Chairs and other Councillors to give
background. There are approximately 12 different categories of sponsorship that
are identified that would open up avenues for us to look at these types of
things in a much more coordinated consistent way for the City to generate
revenues and to do develop partnerships and relationships with commercial
enterprises. Dan Chenier noted that once the corporate policy that Donna Gray is
working on is done, they will be taking their cue and as part of the Master
Plan, one of the 19 reports is the recreation sponsorships and that will be
coming back in the fourth quarter of 2011, so it will compliment the corporate
one. Steve Kanellakos noted that the report was based on a motion that was
moved by Councillor Bloess at the last term of Council and it considers all
City assets. They have now narrowed it
down and have done market testing to see what the City owned assets are that
the private sector is interested in. The
report will shape that in terms of where can the City can generate revenues and
there are revenue projections based on that over the next four years of over
$12 million.
Councillor El-Chantiry stated that in 2005 he
moved a motion that for any vehicle status in any department it should come to
the appropriate Standing Committee of that department. Therefore, if someone on
Council moves a motion to eliminate certain vehicles will that come back to the
appropriate Committee? Steve Kanellakos responded by saying that all the growth
reports for Fleet do come to the Committee and then they’re forwarded onto
Council, but that motion basically directed that the Fleet reports come back to
the standing committee that had responsibility of the department. However, in
fact once it goes to Council, Council being the supreme authority can make the
changes to the budget. It wouldn’t come back to Committee.
Councillor Hobbs referenced page 135 with
regards to Tom Brown Arena. There have been some discussions in the community
about building stairs on a hill where the arena is. Would that be part of this
budget or apply more to LRT because the steps are what people use to get across
to the station? Dan Chenier said that he is aware of that steep area at the
back and especially since the O-Train station has opened there has been a lot
of interest from our clients and from people that park in our parking lot that
take the O-Train to have stairs put in there. OC Transpo and Public Works have
looked at this and the area is so steep that there didn’t appear to be real way
to winter maintain that sufficiently. They looked at various options of ramping
it and doing something quite different and is not sure there is a solution at
this point.
Moved by M. Fleury
That the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services; Parks, Buildings and Grounds; and Supplemental Information budget be
approved as presented.
CARRIED
Councillor Chiarelli commented that on behalf
of the members of the Committee he wanted to congratulate Chair Taylor on
conducting the hearing on budget extremely well.
Chair Taylor responded by saying that it’s a
testament to his fellow members of the Committee, the delegations and of course
City staff who support Councillors every day that they manage through this
budget process in a much more collaborative fashion.
WHEREAS
the Standing Committee Budget books were aligned with Standing Committees based
on the former Terms of Reference; and
WHEREAS
on 26 January 2011 Council directed that staff review the Books to ensure that
the budget items are addressed by the Standing Committee with the mandate under
the new Terms of Reference; and
WHEREAS
the City Treasurer, in conjunction with the City Clerk and Solicitor and
affected Committee Chairs, were delegated the authority to route budget pages
to the appropriate Standing Committee;
WHEREAS
in a memo dated 31 January 2011 the aforementioned budget pages were
distributed to all members of Council;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being
By-law No. 2006-462), the Community and Protective Services Committee consider
the additional pages reflected in the memo to members of Council with the
exception of page 193 referring to the Housing Reinvestment Project (906216),
which has been considered by Planning Committee at its meeting of 8 February
2011.
FURTHER
BE IT RESOLVED THAT amended pages 147 and 148 be received and considered.
CARRIED
That the
Community and Protective Services Committee consider the relevant portions of
the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets (as amended above) 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 as amended