1.             2011 DRAFT BUDGET – ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

 

                BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, approve the Environment Committee portion of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement pages 29 and 30 of the 2011 Environment Committee Document; and

 

1.         That the request of $500,000 and the spending authority request for 2012 to 2014 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Long Term Planning be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget and that a transfer of $500,000 of unspent authority and funding from 900351 Waste Management Alternatives be authorized to provide funding for the Solid Waste Planning Long Term project; and

 

2.         That the 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget.

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité

 

Que le Comité, siégeant à titre de Comité plénier, approuve la portion des Budgets d’immobilisations et de fonctionnement de 2011 du Comité de l’environnement, telle que modifiée par le remplacement des pages 29 et 30 du Document du Comité de l’environnement de 2011; et

 

1.         Que la demande de 500 000 $ et la demande d’autorisation de dépenser pour la période de 2012 à 2014 relativement au projet d’immobilisations 902970, Planification de la gestion des déchets solides à long terme, soient retirées du Budget d’immobilisations préliminaire de 2011 et que le transfert de 500 000 $ de fonds non dépensés et de financement provenant du projet 900351, Solutions de rechange à la gestion des déchets, soit autorisé en vue de servir de fonds au projet de Planification de la gestion des déchets solides à long terme.

 

                                                                                               

2.         Que la demande du Budget de 2011 de 200 000 $ pour le projet d’immobilisation 904575, Déchets solides organiques, soit retirée du Budget d’immobilisations préliminaire de 2011.

 

 


Documentation

 

1.                  Environment Committee Coordinator’s report dated 17 January 2011 (ACS2011-CMR-ENV-0001);

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes of the Environment Committee meeting of 15 February 2011 immediately follows the Environment Committee Coordinator’s report;

 

3.                  Deputy City Manager, City Operations, report entitled 2011 Vehicle Growth - Annual Report - Information Supplemental to the Budget Estimates and dated 8 February 2011 (ACS2011-COS-PWS-0005) is attached as Annex 1;

 

 


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Environment Committee

Comité de l’environnement

 

31 January 2011 / le 31 janvier 2011

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Committee Coordinator /

Coordonnatrice du comité

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Carole Legault

Committee Coordinator / Coordonnatrice du comité

(613) 580-2424 x-28934    CaroleA.Legault@ottawa.ca

 

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2011-CMR-ENV-0001

 

 

SUBJECT:

2011 DRAFT BUDGET – ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

 

 

OBJET :

BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Environment 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.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité de l’environnement 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.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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. 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The 2011 Environment 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.

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Environment Committee will review and make recommendations on those portions of the budget with Rural Implications.

 

CONSULTATION

 

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).  

 

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

N/A

 

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations int his report.

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

N/A

 

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

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.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

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 Environment Committee Draft Operating and Capital Budgets (issued previously to all Members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk)

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

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.

 

 



 

1.         2011 DRAFT BUDGET – ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

            BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

ACS2011-CMR-ENV-0001

 

Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, John Manconi, General Manager of Public Works, Wayne Newell, General Manager of Infrastructure Services, Joanne Levesque, Director of Community Sustainability and Dixon Weir, General Manager of Environmental Services provided an overview of the budget.  A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.  The main points of the presentation are outlined below:

 

Overall 2011 Budget

·         2011 Budget Change Summary

·         Summary of Capital Authority

·         2011 Capital Funding Source

 

Public Works

·         Forestry Services

·         Services Ottawa – Smart Energy Program

·         Capital Program

 

Infrastructure Services

·         Areas of Review

·         Municipal Street Occupation Agreement

·         Management Efficiencies

 

Community Sustainability

·         Areas of Review

·         Environmental Strategy

·         One-Time Funding

o   Choosing our Future

o   Neighbourhood Sustainability Planning

 

Environmental Services – Solid Waste

·         Waste Diversion and Recycling

·         Regular Garbage Collection

·         Waste Disposal and Landfill Operations

 

After the staff presentation, a technical amendment was brought forward to Committee’s attention for consideration.

 


Moved by D. Chernushenko,

 

That the Environment Committee replace pages 29 and 30 of Document 2 of the 2011 Environment Committee Draft Operating and Capital Budgets Report.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

At the request of the Chair, two proposed motions were presented to Committee.

 

Councillor Moffatt introduced the following motion:

 

WHEREAS the Solid Waste Services Branch of the Environmental Services Department submitted a 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics to pilot the Green Bin Program into multi residential apartment units; and

 

WHEREAS sufficient unspent authority already exists within capital project 904575 to fund this apartment pilot.

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget.

 

Councillor Hubley read the following motion:

 

WHEREAS the Solid Waste Services Branch of the Environmental Services Department submitted a 2011 Budget request of $500,000 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Planning Long Term; and

 

WHEREAS Solid Waste staff have since reviewed existing unspent authority within the current approved Solid Waste Capital Program and sufficient unspent authority exists within capital project 900351 Waste Management Alternatives to fund the original request that was identified in Project 902970;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the request of $500,000 and the spending authority request for 2012 to 2014 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Long Term Planning be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget and that a transfer of $500,000 of unspent authority and funding from 900351 Waste Management Alternatives be authorized to provide funding for the Solid Waste Planning Long Term project.

 

The Chair confirmed with staff that services would not be affected if the above motions are approved. 

 

At this time, Committee heard from the following public delegations:

 

·         Janice Ashworth and Bill Baser of Ecology Ottawa

·         Sabrina Bowman and Bill Toms, Members of the Environmental Advisory Committee

·         Nicole Parent and Heather Hamilton, Chair and Vice-Chair of Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee

·         John Walker, member of the public

 

The Committee also received written submissions from the following.  Written submissions and presentations are held on file with the City Clerk.

 

·         Ann Coffey, School Grounds Greening Design Consultant

·         Lowertown Community Association

 

Below are brief points and recommendations from each delegate.

 

Ms. Janice Ashworth and Bill Baser, Ecology Ottawa

 

·         Develop and implement a program to retrofit the energy efficiency of Ottawa’s low-income housing over a 5 year period

·         Introduce a Pay As You Save (PAYS) financing for energy efficiency improvements using the property tax system:

·         The City of Ottawa make the development of a PAYS financing program for housing and building energy improvements a priority component of the proposed Smart Energy Initiative or the Environmental Initiatives in the 2011 Budget.

·         The City of Ottawa provide sufficient resources to city staff to prepare a report outlining the components and design of an Ottawa PAYS program, working closely with Ottawa Hydro to make the program contribute to and complement the utility’s Conservation and Demand Management targets and programs.

·         The City of Ottawa approach the Government of Ontario at the political level to make the following regulatory changes to the Municipal Act that would permit a PAYS program in Ottawa and Ontario.

·         Approve the use of city facilities for community power when a decision comes before this Committee and Council.

·         Increase the building standards for new City buildings and facilities to LEED Gold, and begin discussions with Stakeholders on the introduction of incentives for the construction of green buildings.

 

Councillor Desroches clarified that housing issues were not part of the Environment Committee’s mandate, but noted that the City is making investments in the housing strategy.  He advised that a meeting has been scheduled with Ottawa Community Housing to review the work that is being done. Ms. Ashworth indicated that there is an opportunity for the city to help low income housing by saving energy for their retrofits on their buildings.  

 

Councillor Egli referred to the PAYS Program and questioned if any other cities in Ontario were doing the same thing and whether there was a move to approach the Provincial government to work collaboratively on this program.  Ms. Levesque advised that this program will continue in 2011, although because the City is currently not authorized to make changes, staff is only monitoring at this stage. In a follow up question by the Councillor, Ms. Ashworth advised that there are approximately twelve municipalities, including Ottawa, that are working collaboratively through the David Suzuki Foundation.

 

Councillor Holmes posed a question to Councillor Hume, as the head of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), inquiring if he could provide more information about solar water heating and if AMO is working on such an amendment.  Councillor Hume indicated that AMO’s focus was currently on waste but he would inquire and report back to Committee. 

 

Bill Toms and Sabrina Bowman of the Environmental Advisory Committee

 

·         Support the $500,000 general Environmental Management request (Page 4, line item 902560)

·         Support funding for the SIEP Smart Energy Program (Page 4, line item 905733)

·         Support continued efforts to reduce community and corporate greenhouse gas emissions (Page 22 – under Performance/Outcome Measures, no specific line item)

·         Support continuing work on the air quality mapping project  (page 27, under 2011 Pressure Category/Explanation, “Maintain Services”)

·         Support upcoming one-time budget requests for Choosing our Future and Neighbourhood Planning (page 22, 2011 Budget Risks/Other Considerations)

·         Increase CEPGP funding to $75,000 (page 25, under Expenditure by Type, item “Transfers/Grants/Financial Charges”)

·         Support the $500,000 request for creating longer-term waste reduction strategy (page 4, line item 902970)

·         Continue support for the Green Bin (page 53, line item 904575)

·         Increase research efforts on reducing ICI waste (page 53, line item 904423)

·         Possibility of creating a solid waste commission

 

Councillor Desroches questioned if the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) was generally supportive of the budget.  Both delegates confirmed that EAC supports the budget, although noted that there is always room for improvement and staff should be encouraged to do more. 

 

Nicole Parent and Heather Hamilton, Chair and Vice-Chair of Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee

 

·         Allocate adequate funding in every annual budget for effective implementation of policies and strategies regarding the Emerald Ash Borer.

·         OFGAC support the draft budget lined-item of $1.5M operating funds 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. 

·         OFGAC support the $1.175M in capital funding for the Tree Lifecycle Renewal program (new trees, Trees in Trust and Green Acres Rural Reforestation).

·         They encourage staff in future budgets to substantially increase the above-lined items to ensure that the Forestry department can more aggressively and successfully attack such problems. 

·         OFGAC will continue to assist City Forestry staff and outside partners to develop and implement a coordinated emergency plan to address the Emerald Ash Borer threat more forcefully.

·         Include the two FTEs that was part of the Urban Tree Conservation By-Law approved in 2009.  Lack of adequate staff makes it difficult to fully carry out the implementation of the by-law.

·         Maintenance budgets for existing trees and forests need to be bolstered. 

·         The Urban Natural Features Strategy is not included in this year’s budget nor is the implementation of the Greenspace Master Plan.  Although the McRae/Tierney motion to Council to direct surplus year-end funds to an Environmental Lands Reserve and the Tree Planting Capital Fund is appreciated as a partial measure, but in addition, OFGAC is requesting actual budget allocations for purposes of acquiring urban natural features and special environmental lands. An account, created in 2007, already exists for this purpose, but is currently depleted because Council has not allocated annual funds to it as per the original approved Urban Natural Features Strategy. 

·         For next year’s budget discussions, OFGAC is proposing to work with city staff to develop an efficient and effective Tree Canopy Master Plan with a Cost-Benefit Analysis that could help guide the city’s future policy directions and ultimately enhance the health of our urban and rural forests.

 

Responding to a question from the Chair, Ms. Levesque informed the committee that staff are currently working on the Urban Natural Feature Strategy in conjunction with the Planning and Growth Management staff on a report for consideration later in the year. 

 

John Walker

·         Reduce greenhouse gases within the next few decades

·         Reduce the fossil fuels subsidies

·         Raise thermal efficiency on houses

·         Explore a membership with C40 cities that are currently developing sustainable methods for greenhouse gases

·         Encourage the greener BRT option with quick charge batteries

·         Recommendation that Hydro Ottawa include the amount of greenhouse gases associated with each hydro bill on the monthly billing

·         Calculate annually the gases for each department and add on the City’s website

 

Chair McRae thanked the delegations for their presentations.  The Committee proceeded with questions to staff.

 

Councillor Hubley questioned the City Treasurer with respect to the $834,000 in management efficiencies and requested examples of the efficiencies and if they were achievable.  Ms. Simulik, City Treasurer explained that the $834,000 is a small subset of the $17M that the City has to achieve in efficiencies in this year’s budget.  But she believed that the management team is confident that it could be achieved and suggested Mr. Manconi provide an overview of the Smart Energy Program, which is a major factor in achieving that target.

 

Mr. John Manconi explained that the Smart Energy Program is budgeted for $2.4 in expenditures.  He referred to the list of 56 facilities that are targeted in 2011 such as fire stations, administrative buildings, City Hall, arenas, public works facilities and community centres, and advised that they are slotted for minor or major retrofit renovations, which in turn will generate half a million dollars in savings.  Staff are confident in these measures, with the paybacks ranging from one year to a maximum of six years depending on the scope and scale of the initiative.  If the City continues to invest, it will see a $2.5M reduction on the energy bill. 

 

Councillor Egli inquired about expanding the Green Bin Program into commercial establishments such as restaurants.  Mr. Weir advised that there have been preliminary discussions with some of the waste haulers to understand the interest in expanding that program.  The current level of service is non-plastic which has not been well received in the IC&I sector.  Staff are exploring smaller opportunities that would allow treating non-plastic material within the limitations of the Orgaworld facility.

 

Councillor Egli advised that community associations in his ward have access to green bins but unfortunately they do not get picked up.  Mr. Weir advised that staff are in the process of examining the different areas, but added that any changes to the current program would require Council approval.

 

At the request of Councillor Desroches, Mr. Weir explained that an environmental assessment was done a few years ago at the Trail Road landfill on how to deal with leachate.  He added that the capital authority that staff are seeking in the budget is the preliminary stages of a full on-site leachate treatment facility.  In response to a follow up question, Mr. Weir confirmed that pipe line is not part of this plan. 

 

As suggested by Councillor Desroches, Mr. Manconi advised that Forestry Services have been actively removing emerald ash trees on streets and in neighbourhoods..  They started a proactive program a few years ago and continue to invest in that program.  Staff are also replanting newer trees on residential properties to have it back to its original glory.  He believed that Council made a healthy investment in forestry given that it was $4.4M in 2005 and now it currently stands at $12M in operating and will continue to invest. 

 

Mr. Manconi added that the budget allows for a city-wide tree planting for the road allowance, parks and areas where ash trees are being moved on city property.  With respect to the Tree Giveaway Program that has been in use for a number of years, staff will use the remaining resources from the Works In Progress (WIP) funding, and then bring forward new initiatives in 2012. 

 

Acting Chair Moffatt praised staff for their efforts in mitigating any future factors by planting a variety of trees as opposed to one species in order to ensure that the same devastating situation does not occur in the future. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Desroches regarding the WIP budget, Ms. Simulik explained that departments review their existing authority in the WIP budget as part of developing the upcoming year’s budget to assess if they are required to request for more funding.  A full comprehensive review is done in the first quarter of every year to allow any adjustments that are required as there is a disconnect with the timing in the budget process.

 

Councillor Chernushenko asked for clarification on some areas in the budget, specifically on:

-  Broad spending envelopes such as $500,000 on capital funding for new environmental initiatives,

-  $2M annually for the next four years on remediation programs from old landfill sites. 

 

Ms. Simulik responded that Realty Services branch is responsible for a number of city-owned sites that are contaminated.  The $2M would be for ongoing environmental remediation on these sites. 

 

In response to the Councillor’s question regarding $500,000 on capital funding for new environmental initiatives, Ms. Levesque explained these funds are for the environmental strategic initiatives.  More specifically, $300,000 is allocated for environmental management initiatives in areas related to air quality and improvement, reducing energy use and the consumption of resources.  Funding is also used to leverage programs such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal fund.  The priorities for that funding will be brought to the committee as part of the 2011-2015 environmental strategy.

 

With regards to the remaining $200,000, the funding is allocated to the preventative maintenance work for the Stream Restoration Program for Saw Mill Creek, Mud Creek, Cardinal Creek, Pinecrest Creek and Billberry Creek.

 

In terms of snow removal, park maintenance and tree cutting, Councillor Chernushenko inquired about the level of staff training that is provided.  He also wondered if residents wanted to provide feedback and if a suggestion box is available for that purpose.  Mr. Manconi highlighted that Service Ottawa has a team who consults with both unions (CUPE and CIPP) and regularly reviews suggestions provided by various sources, both internally and externally.  He suggested that the Councillor forward any suggestions to this area.  Regarding damages to the trees during maintenance and snow removing, Mr. Manconi acknowledged that it is a problem that they continue to deal with.  His team as well as Forestry Services have been providing extensive training and send reminders to drivers and seasonal staff regularly.  He offered to provide information on the dedicated mailbox to the councillors, as suggested.

 

Referencing page 29, Councillor Holmes questioned if the Community Tree Planting Program has been discontinued in order to carry out the emerald ash borer strategy.  Mr. Barkley explained that they are using the WIP program to fund the remaining of the tree program and requests, including the school yard re-greening program.  Councillor Holmes commented that the problem has to be resolved in terms of the tree planting program as it is continuing to be a waste of money given that trees are planted, then destroyed by grass cutters in the summer. 

 

Councillor Holmes referred to the expansion of the Green Bin Program in residential apartment buildings and suggested that $200,000 appeared to be a small amount for this initiative.  Mr. Weir explained that they are working with owners, operators and residents on the initial steps at a number of sites to identify where this program would be a guaranteed success prior to expanding the programs in other buildings.

 

Returning to the subject of the Tree Planting Program, Councillor Fleury inquired if residents could request for more than one tree per household.  Mr. Weir advised that the program was coming to an end; therefore residents who previously applied will receive their trees up until the supply is exhausted.  At this time, staff are no longer accepting applications.  He added that they would look at the successes of that program and build on similar initiatives that could be brought forward in coming years.

 

Councillor Fleury requested for a breakdown of how staff intend to save an overall of $444,000 in efficiencies on the Smart Energy Program.  Mr. Manconi offered to provide a breakdown to all Members of Council and sort it by ward.  He highlighted that 55 facilities are targeted for retrofitting in 2011.

 

Councillor Fleury appreciated the challenges of expanding the Green Bin Program in apartment buildings, but questioned if the program would be adaptable.  Mr. Weir acknowledged that not all buildings were alike, which is the reason that they will meet with the property owners to understand the needs and how to get the best result for each building.  He added that a progress report will come forward to committee with results and how best to move forward and expand the program. 

 

Councillor Fleury referred to page 43, specifically the Solid Waste Long Term Planning and asked how staff intended to have a 30-year plan when there are constant changes. Mr. Weir commented that failing to plan for the future would bring its own problems, which is why a Waste Management Masterplan is so important.  It is equally imperative to be transparent on future plans with Members of Council and the public. 

 

In response to a follow up question, Mr. Weir advised that the Life Cycle Renewal Fleet is based on current infrastructure and assets and the $1.1M is towards trucks, compactors and other vehicles.

 

On page 35, Councillor Egli questioned if there were any changes anticipated regarding the expenditure programs for the regular garbage collections and solid waste diversion recycling.  Mr. Weir clarified that the figures on page 35 is based on the level of service at this time.  Any potential changes will occur in mid-2012; therefore no changes will affect this year’s budget. 

 

Councillor Egli touched on the current public consultation sessions and the different scenarios that have been provided, and inquired if there is a cost associated to the scenarios and if not, then what formed the basis of the options.  Mr. Weir explained that the public consultation sessions were based on gaining a full understanding of customer’s willingness and service level expectations.  He noted that as a result of the sessions, a more comprehensive report will be prepared for committee’s consideration, which will include service input and costs associated with any service changes.

 

Chair McRae advised that information will be available for the council/media briefing.  Having no other questions, the committee considered the following motions:

 


Moved by S. Moffatt,

 

WHEREAS the Solid Waste Services Branch of the Environmental Services Department submitted a 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics to pilot the Green Bin Program into multi residential apartment units; and

 

WHEREAS sufficient unspent authority already exists within capital project 904575 to fund this apartment pilot.

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Moved by A. Hubley,

 

WHEREAS the Solid Waste Services Branch of the Environmental Services Department submitted a 2011 Budget request of $500,000 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Planning Long Term; and

 

WHEREAS Solid Waste staff have since reviewed existing unspent authority within the current approved Solid Waste Capital Program and sufficient unspent authority exists within capital project 900351 Waste Management Alternatives to fund the original request that was identified in Project 902970;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the request of $500,000 and the spending authority request for 2012 to 2014 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Long Term Planning be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget and that a transfer of $500,000 of unspent authority and funding from 900351 Waste Management Alternatives be authorized to provide funding for the Solid Waste Planning Long Term project;

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

The Committee approved the staff report as amended.

 

That the request of $500,000 and the spending authority request for 2012 to 2014 for Capital Project 902970 Solid Waste Long Term Planning be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget and that a transfer of $500,000 of unspent authority and funding from 900351 Waste Management Alternatives be authorized to provide funding for the Solid Waste Planning Long Term project;

 

That the 2011 Budget request of $200,000 for Capital Project 904575 Solid Waste Organics be removed from the 2011 Draft Capital Budget;

 

That the Environment Committee consider the relevant portions of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement pages 29 and 30 of the 2011 Environment Committee Document.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended

 

 

 

 



ANNEX 1

Report to/Rapport au:

 

Environment Committee

Comité d’environnement

 

15 February 2011/ 15 février 2011

 

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint, City Operations/Opérations municipales

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, General Manager

Public Works/Travaux publics

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

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville     

Ref N°: ACS2011-COS-PWS-0005

 

SUBJECT:

2011 vehicle growth Annual report - INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE BUDGET ESTIMATES

 

 

OBJET :

AUGMENTATION DES DEMANDES DE VéHICULES DE 2011- Renseignements supplémentaires aux prévisions budgétaires

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Environment Committee receive this report as supplemental information to the 2011 Draft Budget.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité d’environnement prenne connaissance de ce rapport à titre d’information supplémentaire au budget préliminaire de 2011.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In January 2005, Council carried motion 27/139, which directed staff to provide pre-budget reports in advance of the draft budget for the purchase of any new fleet.  The pre-budget reports detail the following information:  proposed vehicles to be purchased, programming rationale for purchase, expected cost and expected savings through strategic procurement.

The Fleet Services Branch prepares the Annual Fleet Growth and Replacement reports respectively, on behalf of its clients, based on client-identified requirements.  In preparation, the respective client groups identify their growth and/or replacement requirements and the Fleet Services Branch prepares minimum vehicle specifications to meet the requirements in the most cost effective way.

Growth Reports are prepared and presented to each of the following five standing committees: 

 

Only three reports are required this year since clients represented by the Finance and Economic Development Committee and Planning Committee have no vehicle growth requirements for 2011.  Each of the remaining four three reports contains specific data relative to the respective client groups under each committee. 

As described in Document 1 (attached), this report provides the Environment Committee with the 2011 Vehicle Growth requests for the Forestry Services Branch, which reports this committee.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The City’s fleet is an integral component in achieving corporate operational objectives.  As a result, a significant portion of the City’s annual Capital Budget is expended on the procurement of new fleet.  In order to maintain an operationally efficient and cost effective fleet, it is critical that vehicle and equipment build-out and delivery deadlines are met each year.

 

The process to acquire fire trucks, heavy vehicles and ambulances is between twelve months and two years, while light vehicles can take up to twelve months if the spring manufacturing deadlines are not met.  Vehicle manufacturers have a typical last-order or “build-out” date in March of every year.  This date is in place to ensure the manufacturer has capacity to manufacture the requested units before re-tooling for the production of subsequent models in the fall.  If the March build-out date is missed, the manufacturer no longer accepts orders on the current tendered model and the only option is to re-tender for the fall model.

 

In the past, Fleet Services has been permitted to issue a request for tender or proposal in advance of the approval of the Annual Capital Budget and order the vehicles immediately following budget approval.  This practice will be reinstated, which will permit the City to provide for a more timely delivery of vehicles

 


Fleet 2011 Vehicle Growth Analysis

 

Fleet 2011 Total Vehicle Growth

 

The Fleet 2011 vehicle growth requests for all three Committees totals $3.7M in capital costs with an annual operating cost of$1.124M.  Only a prorated portion of the annual operating costs of $913,437 will be required for 2011 based on the planned in-service date of related vehicles and equipment; the remaining $210,257 will be requested in 2012.  The Draft 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets to be tabled for approval with Council will include these expenditure items.  The purchase of these vehicles and the associated costs are subject to the approval of Council during the 2011 budget process.



 

Environment Committee 2011 Growth

 

The Environment Committee – 2011 Vehicle Growth Requests Information Report attached as Document 1 details the 2011 vehicle and equipment requests along with the models and specific unit acquisition justification for the Forestry Services Branch.

 

The report details the estimated capital cost and the operational impacts for the requested units. The operating impacts are the costs associated with operating the units including maintenance, fuel and depreciation.

 

Forestry Services is requesting three (3) new vehicles to meet its 2011 operational requirements including:  one (1) pickup truck, one (1) crane truck and one (1) bucket truck.  The total capital cost of these units is $488,703 with an annual operating cost of $102,484. 

 

For the Environment Committee, the total Capital costs for 2011 fleet Growth is $488,703 with a total annual operating cost of $102,484. 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no rural implications as the result of implanting the recommendations contained within this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

No public consultation was required.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

This is a city wide report.

 


LEGAL RISK MANAGEMET IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to receiving the recommendation in this report.

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

There are no implications to the City Strategic Plan as a result of implementing the recommendations contained in this report.

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no technical implications to implementing the recommendations in this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The 2011 vehicle growth requests will form part of the Draft 2011 Operating and Capital estimates that will be considered by the respective Committees and Council during the budget process.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 - Environment Committee - 2011 Vehicle Growth Requests

 

DISPOSITION

 

Upon approval of this report, the Public Works Department - Fleet Services Branch will implement the recommendations outlined in this report.

 


DOCUMENT 1

 

Branch/

Division

Vehicle Description

Qty

Estimated Capital Cost

Operating Impact

2011 Requirement Prorated

2012 Balance

Programming Rationale

Forestry

1/2 Ton PU Trucks -c/w A/C ( 4x2 ) - ( similar to B2-2356 )

1

$25,695

$11,311

$11,311

$0

Vehicle is required for superving staff and contracts to implement tree trimming and removal programming.   Council approved report: ACS2010-COS-PWS-0011.

 

Crane Truck-  ( similar to 40-3155 )

1

$234,048

$54,091

$54,091

$0

Vehicle is used to assist with tree removal, wood pick-up as a result of tree trimming and removal work across the City in addition to assisting with the moving of trees in the tree planting operation.   Council approved report: ACS2010-COS-PWS-0011.

 

Bucket Truck-  ( similar to 57-3445 )

1

$228,960

$37,082

$37,082

$0

Vehicle is used as part of the tree trimming and tree removal program for accessing large trees along streets and in parks.   Council approved report: ACS2010-COS-PWS-0011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

3

$488,703

$102,484

$102,484

$0