|
2. 2011 DRAFT bUDGET – PLANNING cOMMITTEE BUDGET PROVISOIRE 2011 –
COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME |
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That
Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, approve the Planning Committee
portion of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement
pages 41-46 of the Planning Committee Budget document and as amended to assign
the authority for the $4M capital Housing Reinvestment Program (906216) to the
Planning Committee.
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité
Que le Conseil, siégeant à titre de Comité
plénier, approuve la partie des budgets de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations
de 2011 relative au Comité de l’urbanisme telle que modifiée par le
remplacement des pages 41 à 46 du document budgétaire du Comité de l’urbanisme
et telle que modifiée afin de déléguer le pouvoir au Comité de l’urbanisme en
ce qui concerne le Programme de réinvestissement dans le logement (906216) d’un
montant de 4 M$.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Committee Coordinator’s report dated
31 January 2011 (ACS2011-CCS-PLC-0003)
2. Minutes of the Planning Committee
meeting of 8 February 2011
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
31 January 2011 / le 31 janvier 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Committee Coordinator / Coordonnateur du comité
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Caitlin Salter MacDonald, Committee Coordinator
City Clerk
and Solicitor/Greffier et Chef du contentieux
(613)
580-2424 x 28136
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
That the Planning Committee consider the relevant portions of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets and forward its recommendations to Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, for consideration at the meeting to be held March 8 to 10, 2011, as required.
Que le Comité de
l’urbanisme 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 resolutionof
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 Planning 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 Planning 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 Planning 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 – PLANNING
COMMITTEE
BUDGET
PROVISOIRE 2011 – COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME
ACS2011-CCS-PLC-0003 CITY
WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Marian Simulik, Treasurer; John Moser, General
Manager of Planning and Growth Management and Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building
Official provided an overview of the draft tax-supported budget under review by
the Planning Committee. They did so by
means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the
City Clerk.
Committee then heard from the following public
delegations:
Nicole Parent, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace
Advisory Committee (OFGAC)
spoke to the maintenance and funding of the City’s natural green infrastructure
assets. After briefly reviewing OFGAG’s mandate and key 2007-2010 milestones,
she spoke briefly to the issue of the Emerald Ash Borer and the forestry
services budget, which is administered by the Environment Committee.
She then outlined several other obstacles to
maintaining the City’s tree cover:
1.
Intensification
and infill – Mature trees are often removed to allow for urban infill, while
new subdivisions are being created without adequate room for trees.
2.
By-law
support and enforcement – There is inadequate staffing to support enforcement
of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law, and the previously-promised allocation
of two FTEs for that purpose were not carried forward in the 2010 budget.
3.
City tree
maintenance practices – The current allocation for maintenance of existing
trees and forests is inadequate.
4.
Urban
Natural Features - More must be done to implement the Urban Natural Features
Strategy and Greenspace Master Plan. The
recent Council motion to direct surplus year-end funds to an environmental land
reserve and tree planting capital fund was welcome as a partial measure;
however, OFGAC would like to see actual budget allocations for the purpose of
acquiring urban natural features and special environmental lands. The account established for this purpose depleted
as no annual funds have been allocated in recent years in accordance with the
original strategy.
Ms. Parent reviewed the benefits and business
model for urban trees, suggesting the benefits of trees were real and
quantifiable both ecologically and economically. She reviewed the impacts of
trees on property values, noting they also have ecological and heritage
values. She stated that, although the
City is targeting increasing tree canopy coverage to 30 per cent, the
combination of Emerald Ash Borer, intensification pressures, and low tree
survival rates was resulting in an annual net loss of tree cover.
She proposed that for the next year’s budget
discussions, OFGAC work with Councillors and staff to develop an efficient and
effective tree canopy master plan, with a cost-benefit analysis to help guide
the City’s future policy directions.
She noted that maintaining and enhancing tree
cover was crucial to maintaining the city’s attractiveness and the quality of
life of its residents.
OFGAC also provided a detailed written
submission, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from Councillor Harder
about the inventory of tree cover, Ms. Parent stated that there was a need for
an updated inventory of existing city trees, noting that the current inventory
was from the former old City of Ottawa and was not complete. She suggested it
was difficult to plan without the appropriate data. Chair Hume noted that this was within the
mandate of the Environment Committee.
Mr. Moser suggested that inventory could fall within the mandate of the
Forestry branch or his department, and that he was prepared to follow up on
it. Councillor Harder encouraged Ms.
Parent to speak to the Environment Committee, and she indicated that she would.
Dan Sabourin, Alliance to End Homelessness spoke to the issue of affordable and
supportive housing. He noted that there
were currently 7500 individuals staying in shelters. He stated that the Alliance urges the
Planning Committee to give priority in executing its budget to seizing
opportunities for affordable housing and supportive housing.
He referenced that the Alliance’s report card
for the previous year, which spoke to human rights in rental housing, suggested
it could be valuable information when looking at Zoning in the context of
community concerns about certain uses.
He noted that the Ontario Human Rights Code now prohibits such things as
adding additional requirements for consultation and input for certain projects,
restricting certain projects from neighbourhoods, or defining dwellings based
on characteristics of residents.
He wanted to applaud Council and the Mayor for
looking at the needs of vulnerable population and making operating and capital
budget commitments towards this end. He
indicated that the Alliance looked forward to working collaboratively with both
the Planning Committee and Community and Protective Services Committee to
address homelessness.
The Alliance to End Homelessness also provided
a detailed written submission, a copy of which is held on file with the City
Clerk.
Janice Ashworth and Roger Peters, Ecology
Ottawa, spoke to the issue of
energy efficiency and Ecology Ottawa’s proposal for pay-as-you-save financing.
They raised four main recommendations that they believed would reduce energy
costs for Ottawa families and small businesses, create green jobs in Ottawa,
and help the City honour its commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
They were as follows:
1.
Energy
efficiency retrofits for low income housing - Ecology Ottawa is recommending
that the City of Ottawa immediately begin discussions on the implementation of
major program to assist Ottawa low income families upgrade the energy
efficiency of their housing as part of the proposed $10 million Housing and
Poverty Reduction Envelope.
2.
Pay
as you save financing of major energy efficiency retrofits - Ecology Ottawa
proposes that the City of Ottawa be the first municipality in Ontario to
introduce pay as you save (PAYS) financing for energy efficiency improvements
using the property tax system, including:
· That the City 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.
· That the City 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.
· That the City approach the provincial
government at the political level to make regulatory changes to the Municipal Act that would permit a PAYS
program in Ottawa and Ontario.
3. Use of City Facilities for Community
Power Projects - Ecology Ottawa asks that Councillors will approve the use of
city facilities for community power when a decision comes before Committee and
Council.
4. Incentives for green buildings -
Ecology Ottawa is recommending that the City increase the building standards
for new City buildings and facilities to LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Gold, and begin discussions with stakeholders on the
introduction of incentives for the construction of green buildings.
Ms. Ashworth noted that they had
already met with some members of Council on these issues and hoped to meet with
the rest of Council in order to work together to meet the above priorities.
Ecology Ottawa also provided a detailed written
submission and an overview of their Pay as you save financing proposal. A copy of these submissions is held on file
with the City Clerk.
Chair Hume noted that a number of
Ecology Ottawa’s proposals crossed the mandates of Planning Committee and
Environment Committee. He encouraged the
delegation to speak to Environment Committee, and indicated that their written
submissions would be provided to the members of Environment Committee for their
budget debate.
Ishbel Solvason-Wiebe, Ottawa Social Housing
Network, and Ray Sullivan,
Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC,) spoke to the issue of
affordable housing on behalf of the Ottawa Social Housing Network. Ms. Solvason-Wiebe congratulated the city for
a responsible, leading and balanced draft budget.
She suggested it was an opportunity for Council
to show leadership. She noted that the network represented 56 social housing
providers and advocacy agencies, and briefly reviewed the mission of the
network.
Mr. Sullivan reviewed the mission and mandate
of CCOC, a member of the Social Housing network and Ottawa’s largest private,
non-profit landlord. He raised the issue
of wait times for social housing, which can be upwards of five to seven years,
and very discouraging to those seeking housing. He noted that the previous
provincial government had downloaded the responsibility for housing and other
social services to the municipality, and in the past few years most had been
uploaded to the provincial, with the exception of social housing. He suggested this was a clear signal that
housing is a clear city responsibility for the existing social housing stock
and a responsibility to increase the stock.
Mr. Sullivan expressed that the proposed $4
million/year capital investment was an important commitment, and strong
recognition of the City’s primary role for housing. He spoke to what the $4
million commitment could do, including vital replacement and repairs, keeping
the high quality of life in existing buildings, and allowing for the building
of new affordable housing. He cited the
Beaver Barracks project as an example.
He noted that in order to maintain the current stock of affordable
housing in good condition with a high quality of life, there was at least a $19
million gap per year for the next three decades. Mr. Sullivan thanked Council for the
commitments in the budget, and offered their support and cooperation to work
with Council to improve both the quality of existing and the provision of
future affordable housing.
Ms. Solvason-Wiebe indicated that the Ottawa
Social Housing Network he was looking forward to working with Committee and
staff as they had in the past. In
conclusion, she spoke to the fact that the waiting list for housing seemed to
never get smaller. She noted that, even
as people come off the list into affordable housing, even greater numbers
apply. She maintained there is not enough housing stock to meet the ongoing
needs and demands.
In conclusion, she encouraged Committee and
Council to endorse the opportunities available.
Councillor Hume reminded Committee and the
delegations that the responsibilities for housing were split between the
planning Committee and the Community and Protective Services Committee, with
the former responsible for policy and the determination of new investments, and
the latter responsible for income support, rent supplements and the capital
investment in existing social housing stock.
In response to questions from Councillor Hubley
as to how many agencies were involved in this issue, Mr. Sullivan indicated
that there are 56 members of the Social Housing Network. In addition, many
groups who were previously specializing in shelters and outreach services are
also providing transitional and long term housing.
Councillor Hubley wondered if there any savings
to overhead by consolidating the number of providers and agencies, in order to
reallocate resources to reducing the waiting list. Mr. Sullivan noted that had been explored by
the provincial housing association and was happening in some service manager
areas. He noted that each of the
organizations was accountable to its own board, so the city might want to
broker between the various groups. Ms.
Solvason-Wiebe noted that the Social Housing Network’s Committees were looking
at bulk purchasing and other best practices. She indicated that they welcomed
all comments and questions, and suggested there was room for many components to
the solution. On the issue of the
waiting list, it was noted that often people don’t move out of affordable
housing once they obtain it, and sometimes when spaces become available it is
in the wrong area of the city for that particular family. Ms. Solvason-Wiebe indicated she would be
interested in meeting with the Councillor to discuss his ideas.
In response to questions from Councillor Blais
with respect to investing in new housing stock vs. providing rent supplements
to renters going into the private market, Mr. Sullivan suggested any balanced
strategy should include both aspects. He
noted that, while some people strictly need income support to afford their rent
if they are adequately and safely housed, there is also a need to increase the
supply of adequate and safe, good quality housing. As to how to balance the need for new stock
with the need to maintain existing stock, Mr. Sullivan suggested that each new
building should come close to paying for itself; therefore new construction
should not take away from existing if done properly.
Roberta Della-Pica and Fozia Abdillahi, City
for All Women Initiative (CAWI)
spoke to social services and housing. Ms. Della-Pica indicated that they were
pleased the City was using the provincial “upload” money to invest in social
services. However, she expressed concerns that this would not be able to
continue while retaining a 2.5 per cent tax increase over the next four years.
She indicated that CAWI, along with the Coalition to Move Ottawa Forward,
wanted work with Council to call on the provincial and federal government to
provide more funds for cities.
Ms. Abdillahi thanked Council for the $14
million being contributed to social housing, given the number of families on
the waiting list. She noted that she had
spent time in a shelter and was now a resident of affordable housing. She expressed that finally having housing had
a big impact on her studies and professional plans. She suggested that
affordable housing was a good investment, as it is cheaper to move people out
of poverty through affordable housing than to keep them in a cycle of
homelessness where they rely on emergency services such as shelters.
She expressed concern that the $10 million
investment must be shared between housing and poverty reduction, and suggested
that additional money needed to be invested to implement the 16 recommendations
of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Ms. Della Pica indicated that, as an Aboriginal
woman actively engaged in numerous community groups, she was speaking to affordable
housing as a basic human right and a concern to all citizens of Ottawa. She noted that $4 million had been earmarked for capital
investment, including new housing, and retrofitting existing ones. She noted that, after five years living in an
Ottawa Community Housing project, she new how important retrofitting was.
While she thanked the City for
their budget commitment, she acknowledged it was just a “drop in the bucket.”
She invited the City to use these funds to leverage
additional monies from higher levels of government, and suggested CAWI and other
organizations would be prepared to join in this endeavour. In
conclusion, she thanked the City for investing the $14 million in housing,
while recognizing that the 16 recommendations of the Poverty Reduction Strategy
would require additional funding.
CAWI also provided a detailed written submission, a copy of which is held on
file with the City Clerk.
Dale Harley, National Capital Heavy
Construction Association,
spoke to the issue of investments in infrastructure. He did so by means of a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He raised the following points:
·
He noted
that the City was responsible for maintaining a variety of major
infrastructure, with an approximate replacement value of over $34 billion, including
roads, water and sewer networks, public transit, buildings, buses and paramedic
vehicles.
·
He
lamented that since amalgamation the City had delayed fixing and renewing the
City’s infrastructure to help meet the pressure for balanced budgets without large
tax increases, creating a funding gap.
·
He noted
that investment in Capital projects has declined, and in 2011 the City would be
investing only 83 per cent of what was invested in 2010 and only 64 per cent of
what we invested on average over the past term of Council.
·
On the
issue of the renewal budget, he noted that the City was planning to only spend
79 per cent of what was spent in 2010, or 70 per cent of the average of the
previous term. He pointed to the resurfacing budget and example of the lack of
renewal funding.
·
On roads
specifically, he suggested that the City should invest approximately $140
million annually to maintain roads at the current condition; however, the
percentage of funding has been decreasing.
·
He noted
that a 2010 survey showed that Ottawa voters identified infrastructure as the
second most important issue for the municipal government.
·
He argued
that if infrastructure was not properly attended to it would cost the City more
later.
·
Although
he valued the “softer services” such as arts, culture and daycare he suggested
that responsible choices today with respect to hard services such as roads, so
that you can afford to fund the soft services tomorrow.
·
He
proposed the following recommendations on behalf of the association:
1.
Review
list of Capital projects to remove questionable operational projects from the
list.
2.
Review
unspent Capital projects and reallocate this money to much needed
infrastructure renewal projects.
3.
Establish
appropriate construction standards to reflect rural vs. suburban vs. urban
requirements.
4.
No new
services that are not funded by a reduction elsewhere.
5.
Increase
expenditure on road infrastructure renewal by $20 million.
6.
Reallocate
money from the following sources to finance the $20 million:
7.
Surplus
from the 2010 snow removal budget
8.
A portion
of the provincial uploading
9.
A portion
of increased assessment
10.
Cut back
on new spending and focus on core services
11.
Reduce
hiring of new employees (vacancies & new positions)
12.
Debt
finance the balance of the required funding.
Copies of Mr. Harley’s remarks and presentation
are held on file with the City Clerk.
Paul Durber, on behalf of the “Put a Roof on Poverty” campaign of the United Church, spoke to the importance of provisions in the proposed City of Ottawa 2011 Budget in respect of housing. Mr. Durber also provided a detailed written submission, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.
He noted that, in his experience with the United Church he had rarely seen as much spirit and interest in the issue of homelessness as he had seen in parishes in Ottawa. He further indicated that there had been no dissenting voices among the Ottawa presbytery on the importance of speaking to Council on the issue of homelessness
Mr. Durber applauded the $14 million that is in the current budget, which would go help people who are often invisible and forgotten, and who are finally getting some housing. He wished to add his voice to those who hope that Councillors will add their voices and votes to supportive housing. He suggested the budget was a good beginning towards healing homelessness, and hoped that $14 million would continue to be in the base budget going forward.
He noted that there are more than 1400 people homeless, in Ottawa. He cited a figure that the average homeless person costs the emergency and health services of the City between $185,000 and $225, 000 per year. He hoped those costs would be considered when Council looked at the issue supportive housing. He thanked Committee for their commitment now and into the future.
In response to questions from Councillor Hubley, Mr. Durber explained that the figure for the costs of homeless person to health services had come Dr. Jeff Turnbull’s experience with the Inner City Health project, and represents an average cost to police, ambulance and hospital emergency rooms. He noted that the data indicates an even higher cost in the United States. He therefore suggested it was short sighted to focus on the cost of housing and forgetting about the other tangible economic and human costs of homelessness.
Councillor Hume estimated that to provide supportive housing was about $20-25 thousand a year per person, making a clear business case for tackling homelessness. He noted, however, that the City had not yet been prepared to pursue that and make that investment. He noted that the savings achieved from providing affordable housing would accrue over time, and would accrue to both the provincial and municipal government; thus, it was a complicated business case, one that would be before Council to contend with
The Chair referenced a report prepared by the Leadership Table on Homelessness that identifies the issue. He further noted that the approach come out of an approach championed by Phillip Mangano, head of the American Round Table to Abolish Homelessness. He encouraged members of Committee to learn more about this, and indicated that he would provide the relevant links and information to all members of Committee.
Jenny Gullen, People for a Better Ottawa, also spoke to the issue of housing. She noted
that people for a Better Ottawa was a member of the larger Coalition to Move
Ottawa Forward that includes the Alliance to End Homelessness and the Ottawa
Social Housing Network. She noted that
People for a Better Ottawa supports the “Housing Answer” statement put forward
by these groups, which calls for an investment of $15 million per year to address
the issue of housing and homelessness in the city. She suggested provincial
upload dollars would make this proposition quite feasible, suggesting the money
could further be used to leverage funding from other levels of government and
the private sector to build new homes and maintain our existing stock of social
housing.
Ms. Gullen noted that in 2007 the City had formally
approved its commitment to a “triple bottom line” approach to the budget, which
takes into consideration social/cultural, environmental and financial
sustainability. She suggested the “Housing Answer” addresses the need for
social/cultural and financial sustainability. She indicated that investment in
affordable would reduce shelter costs, and in the long term would promote greater
physical and mental health, financial stability and productivity in individuals
and families, resulting in savings to the City’s hospital, social services and
justice system costs.
She suggested that affordable housing was an
engine for prosperity for the following reasons: it attracts immigrants, key
workers and a skilled labour force; it encourages businesses to locate and
expand locally; it creates between 2,000 and 2,500 person years of employment
for every 1,000 units of affordable housing built and it costs less on average
that use of emergency shelters, jails and hospitals by the homeless.
She stated that the Draft Budget commitment of $4
million in a capital investment fund for housing was a good start to addressing
the need for new units and the repair and maintenance of Ottawa’s existing
social housing stock. She noted that
the draft budget included $14 million for housing, including a $10 million
investment in Housing and Poverty Reduction initiatives and $4 million in
capital investment for housing. She suggested, however, that the mayoral
campaign had committed to a full $14 million investment in affordable housing,
and was unclear whether that promise had been kept. She noted that the implementation of some of
the 16 recommendations of the Poverty Reduction Strategy report would require a
fairly substantial investment of funds in order to be addressed. She suggested that Council should commit the
full $14 million to directly address the affordable housing issue in our City,
and commit a separate amount to begin to implement the City’s Poverty Reduction
Strategy.
A detailed copy of Ms. Gullen’s remarks is held on file with the City Clerk.
Bill Driver wanted to thank the Councillors who were re-elected, and to the newer
members of Council suggested it would be very hard to surpass the record of the
last Council and staff. He noted that he
had warned Council in a previous budget presentation that the citizens were
very angry, and suggested that the number of new Councillors and new mayor was
proof of how angry they were. He hoped
Council would get the message to listen to its citizens and listen to their
needs.
He raised two concerns with respect to the
budget for Planning Committee. The
concern was with respect to the number of Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
hearings. He suggested Council was in
the best position to make decisions on planning matters, and therefore wondered
why they would ask another body to make those decisions for them. He noted that
appeals were costing a lot of money, and were not a good use of funds given
that Cities must get as much value out of every tax dollar.
His second concern was with respect to the
housing portfolio. Noting he was a
former owner of residential investment property, he suggested the city’s social
housing properties were not properly managed and had property standards
problems. He suggested partnering with a group like CCOC to work to address
this.
Having concluded all public delegations,
Committee proceeded to review and consider the 2011 Draft operating budget for
Planning Committee.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (pages
5 to 26)
Councillor Bloess inquired about Community
Design Plans (CDPs). In particular, he referenced the lack of a CDP for the
East Urban Community, the kidney-shaped CDP area across from the proposed
health hub on Mer Bleue Road. He
expressed his concern with the fact that developments could not proceed in that
area due to the lack of a CDP. Mr. Moser
acknowledged that this CDP had not been done, and was not contemplated in
2011. He indicated that, while it was
not yet scheduled, it was contemplated to be done by the end of the term of Council.
Councillor Bloess noted that his area had
employment and mixed-use lands, and expressed concern that the lack of a CDP
could be impeding economic growth by stopping things from proceeding. He noted that the 2011 draft budget did not
have any provision for that CDP to go forward.
He wondered if a front-ending scenario could be considered to allow it
to proceed.
Mr. Moser said that they had briefly explored
the possibility of front-ending with the landowner that morning. He indicated
that the City would be prepared to pursue an agreement whereby the developer
would pay for the CDP and be paid back when it is scheduled in the budget. The Chair asked Mr. Moser to discuss the
matter with the proponents before Council considered the budget, so that
Councillor Bloess would have the required information to move a motion at
Council, should that be necessary.
Direction to Staff:
That the following information be provided to
the appropriate Ward Councillors prior to Council’s consideration of the draft
budget: Further information on the possibility of pursuing a front-ending
agreement with the developer to accelerate the Community Design Plan for the
East Urban Community.
Councillor Harder noted that the South Nepean
Town Centre Community Design plan had been approved in June 2006, and had
included the Light Rail corridor going through it. She wondered if there was an
opportunity for a review of that plan in light of the new rapid transit
strategy, and how much that would likely cost.
Mr. Moser suggested the same general land-use principles would apply in
that area, but they could go look at it.
He suggested that the costs could be in the neighbourhood of $200,000,
depending on the size of the area. He
indicated that reviewing that plan would be part of staff’s work plan in the
near future. Councillor Harder asked Mr.
Moser to provide information to her before the Council meeting on how they
would fund such a review, how much it would cost, and how long it would take.
Direction to Staff:
That the following information be provided to
the appropriate Ward Councillors prior to Council’s consideration of the draft
budget: Information on the estimated cost and time required to refresh the
South Nepean Town Centre Community Design Plan.
Committee then approved the Planning and Growth
Management budget as presented, with the exception of Building Code Services,
which was discussed separately.
BUILDING CODE SERVICES BRANCH (pages 27 to 37)
Chair Hume noted that the budget contained a
provision for reinstating the summer student inspection program, noting that
the Auditor General had expressed concerns about the original program. Ms. Grégoire confirmed that the program had
been amended, and the requirements set out by the province would be adhered to.
In response to further questions from Chair
Hume, Ms. Grégoire confirmed that the City was meeting all its legislative
requirements for inspections. They were
managing the demand though various means, including much overtime and having
program managers undertaking inspections.
Councillor Qadri inquired about the potential
drop in revenues a result of the new fee methodology to be introduced in 2011.
Ms. Grégoire noted this was dependant on the type of construction activity, but
it would likely have minimum impact.
Based on staff’s analysis, she suggested that drops in revenues should
be able to be offset through the stabilization fund until equilibrium is
reached in a year or two. She suggested
that this would not result in a tax pressure due to the use of reserves.
Committee then approved the Building Code
Services budget, as presented.
HOUSING SERVICES BRANCH (pages 38 – 43 of the
amended pages)
Moved by Councillor J. Harder:
WHEREAS
the capital program associated with Affordable Housing services fall within the
mandate of Terms of Reference of the Planning Committee;
AND
WHEREAS the capital authority request for the Housing Reinvestment Project
(906216) was erroneously assigned to the Community and Protective Services
Committee via the Budget Document Amendments motion approved by Council at its
meeting of January 26;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the authority for the $4M capital Housing Reinvestment
Program (906216) be assigned to the Planning Committee.
CARRIED
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 Planning Committee consider the amended pages
reflected in the memo to members of Council.
CARRIED
The Housing Services budget was approved, as
amended.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - FOUR-YEAR FORECAST/WORKS
IN PROGRESS LISTING (pages 44-46 of the amended pages)
Councillor Qadri spoke with respect to the
total unspent balance listed for the Capital Works in Progress, and asked
whether that money would be spent before the 2011 budget comes into
effect. Mr. Moser indicated that much of
that balance had been spent since the listing had been prepared. Ms. Simulik
confirmed that once a project is closed, any unspent balances are returned to
the reserves. She noted that staff
prepares a report in the first quarter of each year that reviews all Capital
Works in Progress. At that time, any
projects that can be closed are closed, and for any with excess funds, the
allocations will be reduced to bring them in line with what is actually
required.
Councillor Hubley asked for more information on the Carp River Restoration project (Project 903940). Mr. Moser noted that this work was tied to the finishing of various related EAs and they would move forward with the project once those were in place. It was confirmed that the unspent balances would not be moved out until the project was closed and the money was no longer needed. The Councillor asked for a more detailed breakdown on that project, and staff indicated that they would provide this.
Direction to Staff:
That the following information be provided to
the appropriate Ward Councillors prior to Council’s consideration of the draft
budget: A more detailed breakdown for the Carp River Restoration project
(Project 903940) listed under Capital Works in progress.
Councillor Bloess inquired about the
Development Charge By-law review project listed under the four-year forecast.
Mr. Moser confirmed that the $900 thousand was for the full four years of
work. Ms. Simulik indicated that the
previous review had cost just under $1 million.
Councillor Bloess noted two items on the
Capital Works in Progress listing (TRANS Model Development and Heritage Study)
that had gone well over the amount of authority allocated. He wondered how Council is informed when, how
and why a project goes over budget. Ms. Simulik noted that the aforementioned
capital closings report provides a description and status of each. She indicated that this report would be
coming forward in early April. With
respect to the two projects mentioned, she suggested there might be a revenue
component that is not reflected.
Committee then received the supplemental
information.