Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

 

Minutes 27/ ProcÈs-verbal 27

 

Wednesday, 15 June 2005, 9:30 a.m.

le mercredi 15 juin 2005, 9 h 30

 

Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

 

 

Present / Présents :    Councillor / Conseillers J. Stavinga (Chair / Présidente), C. Doucet (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, E. El‑Chantiry, J. Legendre, M. McRae

 

Absent / Absent :       Councillor / Conseiller D. Thompson (City Business / affaires municipales)

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT      

 

No declarations of interest were filed.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification du procÈs-verbal

 

Minutes 26 of the Transportation Committee Meeting of Wednesday, 1 June 2005 were confirmed.

 

 

 

PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT

URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE

 

PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

POLITIQUE D'URBANISME, D'ENVIRONNEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE

 

1.         URBAN TRANSIT AREA REVIEW

EXAMEN DU SECTEUR DE TRANSPORT URBAIN

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0038                                                                                                   

 

At the outset, Chair Stavinga turned the Chair to Vice-Chair Doucet in order to fully participate in the discussion and consideration of the aforementioned item that affects particularly her Ward.

 

Appearing before Committee to give a presentation on this report was Dennis Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, Planning and Growth Management Services (PGM).  A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.  Also present to answer questions on the issue were Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager, PGM; Public Works and Services (PWS) staff, Michael Flainek, Director of Traffic & Parking Operations, Gordon Diamond, Director of Transit Services and Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Service Planning and Development.

 

The staff presentation encompassed the following points:

§         The current report is a follow-up to the report that was tabled in March 2005 and is a review of the results of the consultation that took place over that period of time, as well as presents recommendations arising out of that consultation on the issue of funding urban transit.

§         The report primarily relates to a policy decision on the appropriate model for funding public transit.

§         In the Urban Transit Area (UTA), where full transit service is provided based on transit service standards, most people are within 800 meters walking distance of all-day service and 400 meters during peak periods.

§         The area covered by the UTA was last updated in 2001 and reflects development occurred up to that point.

§         The total UTA levy, including both capital and operating components, is about $466 per year for a residential property assessed at $247,000.

§         The Rural Transit Area-A (RTA-A) receives rural express services, Para Transpo service, and some Park & Ride facilities.  Para Transpo fares are based on trip distance rather than fixed fares as used in the UTA, e.g. an off-peak Para Transpo trip anywhere in the UTA to Queensway Carleton Hospital is a $2.60 cash fare while it would currently cost $8.75 from Stittsville based on the distance traveled.

§         The RTA-A levy is about $66 for a residential property assessed at $247,000.  The levy relates only to the services provided in this area and does not reflect the overall costs of operating transit services.  This levy includes a small share that relates to covering that overall administrative cost.

§         The Rural Transit Area-B (RTA-B) receives only Para Transpo service and fares are distance based.

§         The RTA-B levy is about $10 for a residential property assessed at $247,000.

§         The RTA-A and RTA-B areas resulted from an extensive consultation that took place early in the life of this new City.  In addition, the service, the levy, and the services provided are based on that consultation and the express needs of the community.

§         The UTA review was a direction from City Council because of previous budget discussions.

§         The UTA is the primary source for funding the net-costs of transit (after grants, subsidies and fare box revenue are removed).

§         Everyone, including non-transit users, benefit from transit through the alleviation of congested roadways, reduced overall demand and therefore reduced costs for road infrastructure, and improved air quality through the reduction of vehicular trips in the urban area.

§         The Ottawa 20/20 Growth Management Strategy and the Long Range Financial Plan acknowledge these indirect benefits and recommend the distribution of costs of transit more evenly over a greater number of properties, as is done when funding other transportation-related infrastructure.

§         Funding models in other cities include a range of approaches; Toronto, Calgary, York Region, Gatineau, and Kingston all spread the costs of transit evenly over their entire tax base whether they receive transit services or not.

§         Last March, staff presented to the Committee several options for expanding the UTA and redistributing the net-capital costs of transits.

§         Staff were then directed to undertake a public consultation process regarding these different options and to report back before June 30th with the results of this consultation and any subsequent recommendations.

§         The public consultation process included five public open houses for communities most impacted by a potential expansion of the UTA.  Approximately 600 people attended these meetings, which were held in Barrhaven, Goulbourn, Leitrim, Notre-Dame-des-Champs, and City Hall.

§         The survey resulted in 221 questionnaire responses and generated an additional 116 written comments.  Most of the residents, who completed the questionnaire rarely or never, use transit.

§         There was strong support for maintaining the existing UTA and funding approaches.

§         Most of the responses were concerned about potential property tax increases.

§         Feedback also suggested that increases in taxes should be proportional to the amount of new services provided.

§         Frustration was expressed that service cannot be guaranteed, with reference to the recent elimination of route 163 in Stittsville last year.

§         Having listened to the consultation and reviewing the options that were in the earlier report, staff arrived at a series of recommendations that would change the model for funding transit to more accurately reflect the urban development taken place in the City as well as linking areas that are currently very close to developed areas, and could benefit from the use of, or the application of, the urban transit area standard levels.

§         In response to the clear demands that there be a connection between the level of service that would be provided and the levy, staff moved away from a concept that would have the entire urban area made subject to the urban transit levy.

§         It is recommended that the UTA be expanded to include urban areas adjacent to the existing UTA.  These areas are well connected to other similar urban areas within the UTA.  In these areas, regular service based on rural transit standard already exists, such as the Transitway Route #96 in Stittsville, and service can be easily extended.

§         The area along the Rideau River also receives, or has access to regular service along River Road from Route #145.  Service can also easily be extended into the adjacent urban areas.

§         Developed areas that are not adjacent or well connected to the UTA are not recommend to be included in the urban transit area at this time since additional services and improvements would be minimal and may not be cost effective, e.g. an area such as Notre-Dame-des-Champs should be excluded at this time and reconsidered at the time further development takes place in that area and makes it more connected to the existing urban development pattern.

§         Properties added to the UTA would experience a 2.8% increase in property taxes in 2006 with similar annual increases until 2010.  This phase-in approach represents annual increases of 25 per cent of the UTA levy starting in January 2007 until the full UTA levy is applied in 2010.  For a residential property assessed at $247,000, theses annual increases would range from $56 to $95 per year.

§         New service improvements would not be phased and would start in September 2006.

§         The additional net-operational annual cost of expanding the UTA is approximately $1.5 million.  By including additional areas within the UTA, the service standards need to be applied and there would be a different level of service provided than is currently provided in the Rural Transit Area.  Of the $1.5 million in net operating expenditures, approximately $550,000 would be required for Para Transpo service as a result of implementing the established fixed pricing model used throughout the UTA in the resulting new parts of the UTA.

§         10 new buses in the fleet would be required at a one-time capital cost of about $5-million.

§         New areas added to the UTA would contribute approximately $70 per year towards the net-capital costs beginning in January 2006 to purchase new buses and bus shelters for their areas.

§         Park and ride net-capital costs would also be re-distributed based on urban and rural park and ride usage rates so that 22% of park and ride net-capital costs are assigned to the rural areas.

§         This would result in an increase of approximately $8.72 in the rural transit levies for residential properties assessed at $247,000.

§         The remaining 78 percent of park and ride net-capital costs would be apportioned to the UTA, which would result in a decrease of approximately $1.50 for a similar property.

§         This report would rise to Council in July for consideration.  If approved, additional consultation regarding the new transit services in the resulting new parts of the UTA would occur later this year and in early 2006 as part of the annual Transplan consultation process.  Service implementation would begin in September 2006.

§         Staff reiterated that the primary point before Committee is to discuss how public transit is funded as a public service.  It should be considered in the context of how other elements of the transportation network are funded on a citywide basis regardless of usage or service provided.

 

The Committee then heard the following delegations speaking against the report recommendations:

 

Phil Sweetnam elaborated on his PowerPoint presentation, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.  The following are the points raised in his presentation:

§         No Full Urban Transit in Stittsville.  Stittsville deserves to be treated differently from other areas of the City with regard to transit taxation because of its 30-year history with public transit predicated on an appropriate service level balanced with fair taxation.

§         History of Transport: Pre-amalgamation supported public transit and chose to increase public transit as part of amalgamation.

§         Paying Fair Share: Originally users pay; now paying with taxes and fares and always willing to pay for services.

§         Amalgamation: Many cost savings promised: Few materialized and OC Transpo has been a success thus far.

§         Choice for Constituents: Stittsville has always understood its need for service; increased service should be requested, not forced.

§         One size fits all: NO!  Low density population; Full service is NOT needed.  The idea that a “one size fits all” approach will work is inappropriate and unfair.

§         Listen to the People: Public has spoken.  Do NOT want or need incorporation into the UTA.  Stittsville has a long-standing history with public transit, and has always recognized its needs.

§         OC Transpo in Stittsville – Background: Stittsville has a 30-year history with mass transit and originally a user-pay system.

§         Maturing Attitude: Balance of needed service and willingness to pay.  Steady increase in fees.

§         Terms of Amalgamation: Original public-private partnership; change to solely public; assured extension of UTA would be by request and paid for by Stittsville residents.

§         Needed Services: OC Transpo has a history of overestimating need for service, e.g. proposed rural service to Carp & Constance Bay.  The one size fits all approach is NOT appropriate; there is no late evening service, Sunday service – have to pay $1 extra.

§         Advantages of Amalgamation: Many cost savings promised.  Thus far OC Transpo relationship has been a success but imposing a 500% increase in rates would temper and severely jeopardize this support.

§         Call for Change: Imposition of service by urban councillors is not right; should come from rural councillors; and the level of service should be decided by residents of Stittsville.

§         Moving Forward: Renegotiate terms.  Costs for Park & Ride to be provided, as requested.  Willingness to pay for services rendered.

 

Dan McIsaac spoke against the expansion of the UTA and expressed concern about empty buses driving on the streets in Stittsville.

 

Ronald Nash feels that the idea of “one size fits all” approach is anti-democratic and inappropriate.  He also feels that the transit tax issue is a deplorable example of Council trying to force-feed a service onto a community that overwhelmingly does not want it, does not need it, and certainly does not want to pay for it.  Rural areas and communities like Stittsville are sick of this type of treatment.  He urged the Committee to let democracy prevails and recognize the views of the Stittsville Community in supporting the status quo.  A copy of Mr. Nash’s submission dated 10 June 2005 is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Peter Sevigny spoke against the report recommendation and advised that there is a distinct difference between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’.  He asked that Stittsville residents be given the services they want, not what Council thinks they need.  He also expressed concern about the public consultation process and noted that city staff did not listen to Stittsville residents at all.

 

Ann McCooeye submitted her presentation, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.  She and her family have lived in Stittsville for 52 years and have seen Stittsville grow over the years – some good and some not so good.  She feels that they have lost their independence as a community because of Council’s dictatorship that are forcing rules and services on them, regardless of their concerns and wishes.  Using a breakdown chart of average daily riders in September 2004 for the #96 bus, she demonstrated that the daily trips do not justify the cost of this service, and advised that very few people are ever on the #96 bus, day or night.  She spoke for many retirees on pension, whose incomes are not rising as working persons are, and who will not be able to afford the tax increase.  She said that many retirees and young families have already moved to Carleton Place and Almonte because they cannot afford the extra charges being imposed on them.  None of them can afford to pay this large expense for a service that more than 96% of Stittsville residents do not use.  To be cost effective, she suggested canceling some of the 17 runs each way of the #96, not promise to look at 15-minute runs instead of every hour, so that charging this large tax increase to the Stittsville area can be justified.  Amalgamating the #263 and #262 commuter service, or at least reducing the 8 trips in and out of Stittsville to 4 runs might also help.  She asked for a shuttle type service a couple of times a day.  She believes in paying fair share of city services and asked not to waste taxpayers’ dollars by continuing to provide a service that is not wanted and is not being used.  She said that the city is forcing many seniors and even younger people to fear they may have to give up the homes they worked so hard to pay for and maintain.  She will refuse to pay the transportation portion of her tax bill if this proposal is approved.

 

Jim McEwan expressed concern about having to pay for a tax increase for a service that he does not use and will not and never use.  He urged the Committee to respect the community rights for not wanting a transit service.  He also expressed concern about empty OC Transpo buses driven by drivers being paid overtime.

 

Clive Peterson feels that a tax increase is not acceptable.  He spoke against having to pay for a service that he does not use and does not want.  He said that the existing bus services in the community meets its current needs, and questioned the increase in service when the existing service is not even being fully used.  He urged the Committee to look at other options and not to approve the staff recommendation.

 

Zhichun Hua spoke against the staff report.  He disagrees with the statement contained in the report - ‘that increasing transit ridership reduces the costs of road infrastructure, reduces congestion on the roads and improves air quality.’  He stated that buses generate three times more pollution than cars.  He advised that there is no need for transit service and urged the Committee to respect taxpayers’ plea.  A copy of Mr. Hua’s submission sent by e-mail on 14 June 2005 is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Stephanie Christink, President, Granite Ridge Community Association elaborated on her submission sent to the Committee by e-mail on June 15, 2005 at 4:25 AM, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.  Her submission included files that she prepared to analyze and assess the impacts and reality of transit service in Stittsville and the financial implications of the proposed changes.  She also attached, for the Committee’s review and reference, a copy of the Granite Ridge Community Association's response to the 02 February 2005 Report and subsequent Public Consultation session.  On behalf of the Granite Ridge Community Association, she expressed vehement opposition to the proposed inclusion of Stittsville in the Urban Transit Area and the associated unacceptable transit levy increase.

 

Metin Akgun, Stittsville Village Association, Director for Public Transportation elaborated on his submission, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk.  He urged the Committee to reject the staff recommendation to include Stittsville in the UTA.  He said that being in the urban transit area would force Stittsville taxpayers pay for a service that they do not need and indeed will not be receiving.  He also said that the Stittsville community has not yet reached the level where it needs the level of bus service envisioned by the UTA. 

 

John Yarboro spoke against the staff recommendation and urged the Committee to reject it.

 

David Jenkins expressed concerns regarding the possible expansion of the UTA.  He feels that the staff recommendation defies logic and does not make sense.  He told the Committee that ignoring Stittsville public opinion and imposing urban transit area taxes on Stittsville will simply reinforce the belief that the City is locked into a one size fits all mindset.  He called the proposal nothing more than a two and half million dollar tax grab and wondered why the City bother to consult residents on the matter when it was ignoring their input.  He urged the Committee to reject the report recommendation.  A copy of Mr. Jenkins’ submission dated 10 June 2005 is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Mac Prescott, Chair, Land Development Committee, Hearts Desire Community Association spoke against the staff recommendation.  He said that he was getting quite disillusioned with the City and feels that this is being forced on them.  He concurs with the Stittsville residents for not wanting a bus service in their community and not being part of the UTA.  A copy of the Hearts Desire Community Association’s submission addressed to Councillor Harder is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Caroline Greger spoke against the staff recommendation and urged the Committee not to approve it.

 

Richard Fraser, Chairman, Carleton Dairy Producers Committee & Ottawa Farmers’ Business Association expressed concern about the recommendation before the Committee to increase the Rural Transit Tax to cover some of the costs of park and ride lots.  He pointed out to the Committee that this tax increase for rural transit area taxpayers, which includes rural Goulbourn, was being done without any consultation with the affected taxpayers.  He said that park and ride facilities should be operated on a user pay basis and the City should stop trying to get more taxes from rural taxpayers.  He appealed to the Committee to stop making the playing field more tilted against farmers by assessing farmers in the City of Ottawa with taxes that no other farmer in Ontario has to pay.  He said that this was endangering the viability of agriculture in the City.  He also said that it was not the dollar amount involved in this park and ride tax, namely about $8.72 for an average homeowner, but rather it was the principle involved in taxing rural residents and farmers for such transportation services.  He urged the Committee to reject the staff recommendation and asked that consideration be given, in the near future, to reduce Rural Transit Tax Area A to only include the rural villages that get some transit service.  He suggested that the village boundaries as identified in the Official Plan be used for this.  A copy of Mr. Fraser’s written submission is on file with the City Clerk.

 

Terry Otto, on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture expressed the same concern as Mr. Fraser, the previous delegation and urged the Committee to reject the staff recommendation.

 

The Committee also received the following correspondence in support of a fair, affordable transit system that respects the Stittsville community’s real needs, copy of which are on file with the City Clerk:

 

1.                  Memorandum dated 14 June 2005 from Dennis Jacobs, Director of Planning, Environment & Infrastructure Policy, Planning & Growth Management Department, Re. Transit in Stittsville, addressed to all Council Members, in response to questions from Councillor Stavinga regarding the UTA Review.

2.                  Email from Mark Turnbull dated 31 January 2005.

3.                  Email from Lambert Simonovich dated 28 February, 14 April 2005 & 2 May.

4.                  Email from Louise Beggs dated 24 March, 31 May 2005.

5.                  Email from Metin Akgun dated 25 April 2005.

6.                  Email from Denis Daley dated 4 April 2005

7.                  Email from Paolo and Lore Hervato dated 4 April 2005.

8.                  Letter from Stephanie Christink dated 7 & 26 April 2005 & 30 May 2005.

9.                  Email from Richard C Fraser dated 31 March 6, & 7 April 2005.

10.              Email from Brent Verhey dated 7 April 2005.

11.              Emails from Neil Barrett dated 7 and 8 April 2005.

12.              Emails from Keith Forgues dated 8 and 11 April 2005.

13.              Email from Ronald Lamothe dated 9 April 2005.

14.              Email from Kent and Mary-Ellen MacDonald dated 9 April 2005.

15.              Email from Dara OhUiginn dated 9 April 2005.

16.              Email from The Rukavina Family dated 10 April 2005.

17.              Email from Lyn and Jim Arsenault dated 10 April 2005.

18.              Email from Leigh Carroll dated 11 April 2005.

19.              Email from Angela and Bryon Tyler dated 11 April 2005.

20.              Email from Nick Tilgner dated 11 April 2005.

21.              Email from Margaret Millar dated 11 April 2005.

22.              Email from K.D. Campbell dated 11 April 2005.

23.              Email from Scott Smith dated 11 April 2005.

24.              Email from Dave Cashman dated 11 April 2005.

25.              Email from Heather Hudson Joneja dated 11,13,27 April, 5 May 2005.

26.              Email from Nicholas Kouri dated 12 April 2005.

27.              Email from Louise Beggs dated 12 April 2005.

28.              Email from Michelle Webb dated 12 April 2005.

29.              Email from Eric Plummer dated 12 and 14 April 2005.

30.              Email from Jas Michalski dated 12 April 2005.

31.              Email from Sue Allen dated 12 April 2005.

32.              Email from Jan Willem Van Weel dated 13 April 2005.

33.              Email from George and Beth Ada dated 13 April 2005.

34.              Email from Alex Golob dated 13 April 2005.

35.              Email from Doug DeFeu dated 13 April 2005.

36.              Email from Linda dated 13 April 2005.

37.              Email from Akash Sinha dated 13 April 2005.

38.              Email from Clive Peterson dated 13 April, 27 May 2005.

39.              Email from Robert J. White dated 14 April 2005.

40.              Email from Gilles R. Chasles dated 14 April 2005.

41.              Email from Frank Calkins dated 13 April 2005.

42.              Email from Allan dated 14 April 2005.

43.              Email from Rick Dalsilva dated 15 April 2005.

44.              Email from Wayne and Gloria Craig dated 15, 26 & 27 April 2005.

45.              Email from Jason Duprau dated 15 April 2005.

46.              Email from Bruce Webster dated 18 April 2005.

47.              Email from Ferrante Auto Body Ltd. dated 21 April & 5 May 2005.

48.              Email from Mr. Sevigny, (replied to 22 April 2005).

49.              Email from Virginia and Roy Markovich dated 24 April 2005.

50.              Email from Bill and Cindy Coleman dated 25 April 2005.

51.              Email from Nicky Rhodes dated 25 April 2005.

52.              Email from William Power dated 25 April 2005.

53.              Email from Yves Rochon dated 27 & 29 April 2005.

54.              Email from Robert White dated 26 April 2005.

55.              Letter from R.R. Nash dated 27 April 2005.

56.              Email from John and Nancy Feldbruegge dated 30 April, 24 May.

57.              Email from Phil Sweetnam/Sandra Scardocchio dated 4,5 May 2005.

58.              Email from Charles MacDonald dated 6 & 21 May 2005.

59.              Letter from Phil Sweetnam dated 9 May 2005.

60.              Email from Gerry Gray dated 19 & 20 May 2005.

61.              Email from Robert Campbell dated 19 &24 May 2005.

62.              Email from Joseph Guerrero dated 19 May 2005.

63.              Email from Dean C. Goodwin dated 19 May 2005.

64.              Email from Lorraine Smith dated 20 May 2005.

65.              Email from Craig Goodwin dated 20 May 2005.

66.              Email from Marion and Robert Howie dated 20 & 25 May 2005.

67.              Email from Reta Hamilton dated 20 May 2005.

68.              Email from David Haight dated 20 May 2005.

69.              Email from Mike Coogan dated 21 May 2005.

70.              Email from George Hollett dated 21 May 2005.

71.              Email from Helen and Dave Anderson dated 22 May 2005.

72.              Email from James Broomer dated 23 May 2005.

73.              Letter from R. Darbyson dated 23 May 2005.

74.              Email from Norman Said and Nancy Smith dated 22 May 2005.

75.              Email from Shad Qadri dated 24 & 31 May 2005.

76.              Email from Heather Roberts dated 24 & 25 May 2005.

77.              Email from Kevin Rene De Cotret dated 25 April 2005.

78.              Email from Neil Baxter dated 25 May 2005.

79.              Email from Russell Girard dated 25 May 2005.

80.              Email from Jim Gorman dated 25 May 2005.

81.              Email from Dean Taylor dated 25 May 2005.

82.              Email from Mickey Robinson dated 25 May 2005.

83.              Email from Tracee Smith dated 25 May 2005.

84.              Email from Courtney Owen dated 25 May 2005.

85.              Email from Greg Clouston dated 25 May 2005.

86.              Email from David Ritz dated 26 May 2005.

87.              Email from David and Carol Robertson dated 26 May 2005.

88.              Email from W. Gayle Rolfe dated 26 May 2005.

89.              Email from Sheldon Adams dated 26 May 2005.

90.              Email from Kevin Cornell dated 26 May 2005.

91.              Email from Larry and Ellen Drennan dated 26 May 2005.

92.              Email from Neil Farr dated 26 May 2005.

93.              Email from Sheri Cayouette dated 26 May 2005.

94.              Email from Robert Norris dated 26 May 2005.

95.              Email from Terry Moore dated 26 May 2005.

96.              Email from Darwin Thom dated 26 May 2005.

97.              Letter from A. Ricketts dated 26 May 2005.

98.              Email from Glenn Farnham dated 26 May 2005.

99.              Email from Janet van den Heuvel dated 27 May 2005.

100.          Email from Gary Cashman dated 27, 29 May 2005.

101.          Email from Jim and Pat Lampman dated 27 May 2005.

102.          Email from Don Barr dated 27 May 2005.

103.          Email from Barb Kramer dated 27 May 2005.

104.          Email from Rob Rennie dated 27 May 2005.

105.          Email from William Steadman dated 27 May 2005.

106.          Email from Jerry Farr dated 27 May 2005.

107.          Email from Jackie and Jim Bower dated 28 May 2005.

108.          Email from Elisabeth and Max Wesselingh dated 28 May 2005.

109.          Email from Brian and Margaret Powell dated 28 May 2005.

110.          Email from Anthony Pacaud dated 29 May 2005.

111.          Email from Shawn Sullivan dated 30 May 2005.

112.          Email from Kevin Cornell dated 30 May 2005.

113.          Email from Ken Weaver dated 30 May 2005.

114.          Email from Jackie Neuman dated 30 May 2005.

115.          Email from Carol A. Leach dated 30 May 2005.

116.          Letter from Jean Kerr dated 30 May & 3 June 2005 addressed to Mayor Chiarelli & Email from Jean Kerr dated 26 May 2005.

117.          Email from Peter Sevigny dated 30 May 2005.

118.          Email from David Ireland dated 31 May 2005.

119.          Email from Martin Edwards dated 31 May 2005.

120.          Email from Steven Pequegnat dated 31 May 2005.

121.          Email from Thomas B. Leach dated 31 May 2005.

122.          Email from Don Carter dated 31 May 2005.

123.          Email from Jean Owen dated 31 May 2005.  (Forward brother’s email – Keith Ferris dated May 27.)

124.          Email from Michael Pawlowsky dated 31 May 2005.

125.          Email from John Lord dated 31 May, 1 June 2005.

126.          Email from Elisabeth and Don Sequin dated 2 June 2005.

127.          Email from Don and Rose O’Grady dated 3 June 2005.

128.          Email from Trevor Dixon dated 4 June 2005.

129.          Email from Margaret Drennan dated 6 June 2005.

130.          Email sent May 27, 2005 from Neil Baxter.

131.          Email sent on May 31, 2005 from Don Carter.

132.          Email sent on June 1, 2005 from John Lord (Angry Stittsville resident).

133.          Email sent on June 8, 2005 from Mark Radke.

134.          Email sent on June 8, 2005 from Alan Sevigny, re. Transportation Tax Increase for Stittsville.

135.          Email sent on May 26, 2005 from Robert Norris.

136.          Email sent on June 8, 2005 from Jerry Horban.

137.          Email sent on June 8, 2005 from Krista Miller.

138.          Email sent June 8, 2005 from Glenn Farnham.

139.          Email sent on June 9, 2005 from Dara OhUiginn, President, FlashAlerts, Ottawa.

140.          Email sent on June 9, 2005 from Liam Mousseau.

141.          Email sent June 9, 2005 from Gilles R. Chasles and Danielle A. Bourgeois.

142.          Email sent June 9,2005 from H.H.Richardson.

143.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Jason Duprau.

144.          Email sent June 9,2005 from John Soar.

145.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Mervyn Hann.

146.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Josh Lemoine.

147.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Suzanne van Duynhoven.

148.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Doug Porter.

149.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Mark Hickey, Investment Advisor, CIBC Wood Gundy.

150.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Diana Tighe.

151.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Stephen Monkhouse.

152.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Rosanna Wilcox.

153.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Patricia & Kevin Newson.

154.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Joel Houde.

155.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Jackie and Jim Bower.

156.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Deborah Jackett-Simpson.

157.          Email sent June 9,2005 from Berta Aboud.

158.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Phil Sweetnam, Relocatable Homes Ltd.

159.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Colin Runions.

160.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Chris Chantler, Account Executive, Tomoye Corporation.

161.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Cyndi Messenger.

162.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Karen Chesterman.

163.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Clive Petersen.

164.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Amy McEwing, re. Increased bus service and taxes in Stittsville.

165.          Email sent June 10,2005 from Ted Wilson, re. Transit System.

166.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Sheryl Boggs, re. Stittsville Transit tax.

167.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Sharon & Arnie Boeyen, re. Transit Scheme and Stittsville.

168.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Ruth Bradley, re. City Transpo Plan.

169.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Ray and Ruth Julian.

170.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Phil Sweetnam, re. Transport Committee meeting on Stittsville.

171.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Paul Putinski, re. I do not support the current plan for expansion of the UTA.

172.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Mrs Debbi Burnie, re. Public Transit.

173.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Michel Tourigny, re. Transit Plan – Strong Objection.

174.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from John Riesenkonig, Dianne Buckland, Kyle Riesenkonig. Jake Riesenkonig and Johnny Riesenkonig.

175.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from John and Nancy Feldbruegge, re. OC Transpo Plans for Stittsville.

176.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Jim McCormick (concerned resident of Stittsville), re. Please do not expand the Urban Transit Area to Stittsville.

177.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Ian R U Fraser, re. Transit Surcharge – Stittsville.

178.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from George Barden, re. Transit.

179.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Geoff Ley, re. 500% tax increase.

180.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Eileen Turcotte, re. Tax Increase for Transportation.

181.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Dave Vesterdal.

182.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Edna Marlow, re. The Buses.

183.          Email sent June 10, 2005 from Britt Newell, re. His comments in lieu of his 10 minutes allocation to speak at the meeting.

184.          Facsimile from Bernard J. Muzeen dated 9 June 2005 re ‘A Constructive Recommendation”.

185.          Facsimile from R.R. Nash dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Urban Area Transit Review – Public Meeting Stittsville 25 May 2005.

186.          Email from Bruce Miller dated 10 June 2005 re ‘No To UTA’.

187.          Email from Ed Ziobrowski dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Costly Transit Plan’.

188.          Email from Pamela Mackay, President, Cedarhill Community Association Inc. dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Review, Transportation Committee, June 15 2005’ – in opposition to paying property tax to support public transit in Ottawa.

189.          Email from Peter Higgins dated 13 June 2005, re. Impact of UTA expansion to bus service on Johnwoods Street.

190.          Facsimile received by Councillor Stavinga’s office from George E. White dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Additional Taxes on OC Transpo Service to Stittsville, ONT’.

191.          Email from Madina, Adam & Tom Skrzeszewski dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Please hear the voice of Stittsville’ – in opposition to UTA proposal.

192.          Email from Terry Lalonde dated 10 June 2005 re ‘staff recommendation to expand the Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

193.          Email from Angela and Bryon Tyler dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Area Review’ – in opposition.

194.          Email from Beth Ronaghan dated 11 June 2005 re ‘Vote No To Increased Transit Taxes In Stittsville!!’.

195.          Email from Catherine Donnelly dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

196.          Email from Dan Williston dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Review Questions’.

197.          Email from Dave Hudson dated 11 June 2005, re ‘comments for the transportation committee’ – in opposition.

198.          Email from David G. Jenkins dated 10 June re ‘Transportation Committee-OC Transpo comments / concerns regarding the possible expansion of the Urban Transit Area.’

199.          Email from Debbie Young, Administrative Assistant, Canadian Merchant Service Guild dated 13 June 2005 re ‘TRANSIT PLAN’ – in opposition.

200.          Email from G. Brian Doxsee dated 19 June 2005 re ’OC Transpo’ – in opposition.

201.          Email from Joffre and Marion Feren dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Proposed Stittsville Bus Service’ – in opposition.

202.          Email from Judith Creamer dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of the Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

203.          Email from Judith Hodgson dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Transit Taxes in Stittsville’ – in opposition.

204.          Email from Ken Weaver dated 11 June 2005 re ‘Transportation Meeting, June 15th’ – in opposition.

205.          Email from Luc & Susan Casgrain dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Expansion’ – in opposition.

206.          Email from Lyn and Jim Arsenault dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Stittsville's Transportation issue’ – in opposition.

207.          Email from Marty Coney dated 11 June 2005 re ‘Stittsville transit’ – in opposition.

208.          Email from Pat & Arlene Beckett dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Transit System’ – in opposition.

209.          Email from Paula K Oke dated 12 June 2005 re ‘UTA’ – in opposition.

210.          Email from Perry Hart and Maureen Graham dated 11 June 2005 re ‘Transit Tax Hike’ – in opposition.

211.          Email from Richard & Jean Fraser & Family dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Area Review’ – in opposition.

212.          Email from Shirley and Anthony Tsoukanas dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Thank you.’ – in support of Councillor Stavinga (opposition to UTA expansion).

213.          Email from Steve and Allison Adam dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of UTA’ – in opposition.

214.          Email from Ms Terry Verlinden dated 12 June 2005 re ‘Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

215.          Email from Metin Akgun, Stittsville Village Association, Director for Public Transportation dated 10 June 2005 re ‘Inclusion of Stittsville into the UTA boundaries’ – in opposition.

216.          Email from Catherine & Gerald McInnes dated 10 June 2005 in opposition.

217.          Email from Geoff Ley dated 10 June 2005 re ‘500% tax increase’ – in opposition.

218.          Email from John and Gudrun Lundie dated 11 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of Urban Transit Area to Stittsville’ – in opposition.

219.          Email from Krista Keenan dated 9 June 2005 re ‘Demand Better - June 15 - Transportation Committee – Tell City Hall What You Think of Its Costly Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

220.          Email from Phil Sweetnam dated 10 June 2005 re ‘No "Full" Urban Transit for Stittsville’ – in opposition.

221.          Email from Sharon Shalla dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Demand Better - June 15 - Transportation Committee - Tell City Hall What You Think of Its Costly Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

222.          Email from Trevor & Tanya Pollard dated 12 June 2005 re ‘"We Demand Better"’ – in opposition.

223.          Email from Trudy Daley dated 13 June 2005 re ‘City's Newest Transportation Plan’ – in opposition.

224.          Letter from J. Brown dated 9 June 2005 in opposition to UTA expansion / tax hike.

225.          Letter from Frank T. and E. Helen Jackman dated 9 June 2005 in support of Councillor Stavinga’s position (opposition to the expansion).

226.          Email from Metin Akgun dated 13 June 2005 re previous correspondence and objection to UTA expansion.

227.          Email from Randolph & Sandra Sanderson dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Comments Concerning the Planned Inclusion of Stittsville in the Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

228.          Email from Susan Brownrigg-Smith, Director Government Relations, Orchard Estates Community Association dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Area Recommendations to Transportation Committee’ – in opposition.

229.          Email from Allan McCarville dated 14 June 2005 re ‘COMMENTS ON THE URBAN TRANSIT REVIEW’ – in opposition.

230.          Email from Bernie Boland dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Transit Scheme Objections’ – in opposition.

231.          Email from Bruce Randall dated 13 June re ‘Urban Transit Review’ – in opposition.

232.          Email from Debbie Barr dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Expanding urban transit area to Stittsville’ – in opposition.

233.          Email from Doris M. Sweetnam dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Stittsville transit’ - in opposition.

234.          Email from F & B Chevrier dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Demand Better - June 15 - Transportation Committee – Tell City Hall What You Think of Its Costly Transit Plan’, expressing support for Councillor Stavinga’s position.

235.          Email from Gordon Kirk dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of Urban Transit Area to Stittsville’ – in opposition

236.          Email from James Buchanan, Project Leader – CDSS dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Urban Transit Area Expansion’ – in opposition.

237.          Email from Jaimie, Alex and Andrew Wilson dated 13 June 2005, re ‘Comments to the City of Ottawa Transportation Committee’ – in opposition.

238.          Email from Jeff Belford dated 14 June 2005 re ‘City taxes’ – in opposition.

239.          Email from Jim & Johnette Keay dated 14 June 2005 re’ Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

240.          Email from Joan Dwyer dated 14 June 2005 re ‘TAXES’ - in opposition.

241.          Email from John Moore dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of UTA to Stittsville’ in opposition.

242.          Email from Kathie Hogarth dated 14 June 2005 re ‘NO MORE TAX’ – in opposition.

243.          Email from LCol RE (Bob) Thompson, NBCD 3 / J3 NBC 3 (Operations, Doctrine, Plans, & Training) dated 14 June 2005 re ‘No to the Transportation Report’ - in opposition.

244.          Email from Mac Prescott, Chair, Land Development Committee, Hearts Desire Community Association dated 14 June 2005 re presentation to Committee – in opposition.

245.          Email from Marlene Richardson dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Costly Transit Plan’ – in opposition.

246.          Letter from Matthew Covey re ‘Proposal to include Stittsville in the Urban Transit Area, thus increasing our property taxes over 20% and increasing already unused bus services’ – in opposition.

247.          Email from Monique Archambault & Harry Treffkorn dated 13 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

248.          Email from Robert Postma dated 13 June 2005 re’ Expansion of the Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

249.          Email from Robert Thompson dated 14 June 2005 re ‘City of Ottawa Transportation Committee’ – in opposition.

250.          Email from Scott Smith dated 13 June 2005 re’ Opposition to Urban Area Transit Review Recommendations’.

251.          Email from Sharon Foran dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of Urban Transit Area’ – in opposition.

252.          Email from Sylvia Stanghetta dated 13 June 2005 re ‘UTA’ – in opposition.

253.          Email from Tom Skrzeszewski dated 13 June 2005 in opposition.

254.          Email from Wendy & Phyllis Pratt dated 14 June 2005 re ‘BUS TRANSIT PLAN FOR STITTSVILLE’ – in opposition.

255.          Email from Wendy Drew-Clyne for Gordon Clyne dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Stittsville’ – in opposition.

256.          Email from Zhichun Hua & Hongyun Yu dated 13 June 2005 re Wrong transit expansion plan’ – in opposition.

257.          Email from Kathleen Naluzny dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Expansion of UTA’ – in opposition.

258.          Email from Shawn Sullivan dated 14 June 2005 re ‘Ridiculous Bus Taxes for Stittsville’.

259.          Letter dated 4 May 2005 from Michael Cotter, President, Heart’s Desire Community Association with copy of petition signed by residents of Heart’s desire in opposition to being included in the UTA.

260.          Email from Don Purchase dated 14 June 2005 re Urban Transit Area Proposal.

261.          Email from Kevin Pilon dated 14 June 2005 re UTA.

262.          Email from James Ferguson dated 14 June 2005 re Ottawa Transportation Plan-Stittsville Bus Service Plan.

263.          Email from Phil Sweetnam dated 14 June 2005 re OC Transpo in Stittsville.

264.          Email from Mihai Constantin dated 14 June 2005.

 

Councillor Stavinga also noted, for the information of the Committee, of an on-line petition signed by numerous residents.

 

During debate, the following points were made and are summarized below:

·        That the City’s attempt to include Stittsville in the UTA with its increased taxes will serve to destroy the growing and steady support for public transit that has been developing in Stittsville over the years.

·        That imposing the $400 tax increase on the 5,900 homes and 174 commercial & industrial taxpayers in Stittsville will turn people against the City and public transit.

·        That Stittsville residents are not looking for handouts from the City but that raising property taxes by 500 percent with regards to public transit will create far more problems than it solves.

·        That the City should have determined the real public transit needs of the Stittsville community before proceeding with this attempt to include the community in the UTA with its higher taxes.

·        That it is clear that the City wants to make sure that Stittsville assume the tax increase.

·        That the City would be seen as a “tax hiker” and as a body not interested in doing things in a flexible way if Stittsville is included in the UTA.

·        That over 280 letters and e-mails had been sent to City Councillors opposing this extension of the UTA.

·        That an on-line petition against the proposal had attracted over 1,000 names from Stittsville.

·        That a new Town Transit Levy specifically for Stittsville be established, so that Stittsville taxpayers would pay the full costs of any bus service provided to the community.

·        Staff as directed by Committee amended the net-capital cost options by adding contributions which account for park and ride facilities and other transit infrastructure that benefit rural residents.

·        90% of the residents of the City’s rural area are not farmers; the $8.72 annual charge would simply be having rural residents paying their fare shares of the costs of the park and ride facilities.

·        Statistics show that about 20 percent of the users of park and ride facilities in the City live in the rural area.

·        In both the Region of York as well as King Township in the Toronto area, the public transit area levy is assessed across the whole municipality, meaning that the City of Ottawa is not the only municipality to assess some transit taxes to rural residents.

·        Detailed planning of options for the new areas, including consultation with current customers and residents of the areas, would be carried out as part of the Transplan 2006 process.

·        Staff as directed by Committee & Council developed the appropriate methodology to expand the UTA and associated levy in the context of Ottawa 20/20 and the Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP).

·        The review indicated that there are several options to expand the UTA and fund the net-costs of transit that have advantages and disadvantages that should be discussed by the community prior to staff making a specific recommendation.

·        An overview of the UTA and transit levy components, including the advantages and disadvantages of these options were presented to Committee on March 2, 2005.

·        These options were very similar to the key recommendations previously outlined in the OC Transpo Comprehensive Review, an extensive report prepared by the KPMG/IBI group and presented to the Transit Services Committee in February 1999.

·        Stittsville is part of the urban fabric of the City and that as such must assume some of the burden of the responsibilities of being part of the City.

·        Full transit service is defined as being within 800 metres walking distance to a transit stop that is part of the all-day base route network. 

·        All citizens of Stittsville should support public transit, as it is a public good.

·        This is a ‘threshold issue’ and it is hard to make any distinction between Kanata, which pays the urban transit levy, and Stittsville, where the levy is not currently paid.

·        There is a benefit to all taxpayers from public transit whether they use the service or not.

·        Without public transit service, there would be congestion and demand for roads.

·        By investing in public transit, the City is saving money from building additional roads.

·        There are currently as many as 37,500 taxpayers in the City (almost twice the population of Stittsville), who are paying the urban transit levy and who are not getting the level of transit service associated with the urban transit area.

·        Stittsville residents would be getting additional transit service for the extra tax dollars.  Even if the benefit does not equal the service that a community receives, public transit goes well beyond that in the benefits that it provides to the City.

·        Not supporting any special transit levy for Stittsville would begin to ‘deconstruct’ the transit system of the City and set a precedent, as other areas of the City could then come forward wanting special transit levies for their areas as well.

·        Ramming a tax hike down people’s throats in Stittsville is not going to help public transit be accepted in the community.

·        Tax hikes should be for service improvements.

·        Transit service would be provided to Stittsville on the same basis as any other area where taxpayers pay urban transit levy taxes.

·        An average 420 people board or get off the Route 96 bus in Stittsville each day.  Route 96 is the extended bus that runs through Stittsville on an hourly basis during the day and on a half hour basis in peak period.  Route 96 makes 24 to 30 trips per day into and out of Stittsville.

·        Daily ridership of the 262 Express Service in Stittsville is 285 riders and the daily ridership of the 263 Express Service in Stittsville is 235 riders.

·        Should Stittsville be included in the UTA, new bus routes would be introduced to the community to begin in September 2006 following consultation with the community about what form the improvements should take.

·        These improvements would include reduced funding charges for the ParaTranspo service in the community.

·        Ten new buses at a capital cost of five million dollars will be purchased to provide the planned improved service to Stittsville.

·        Daytime transit service would be increased to every half hour as opposed to the present hourly service, which is not a ‘very attractive’ service for riders.

·        With proper promotion, public transit services in the community would improve so that transit becomes more of a household word in Stittsville.

·        As part of the UTA, Stittsville in large part would receive an efficient and cost effective public transit service.

 

Councillor Stavinga then introduced the following motions:

 

MOTION # 1 - Replacement Motion for 1a), b), c), d), and e)

Whereas the City of Ottawa must work constructively and collaboratively with its many diverse communities to effectively serve residents and to advance its long-term plans and priorities;

 

Whereas the recommendation to expand the UTA, and the plan to increase by 500% the transit taxes of more than 6,000 properties, overlooks the real needs of Stittsville and represents an excessive new cost for families, small business owners and other taxpayers; 

 

Whereas, in 2001 City Council created an innovative and responsive process to evaluate the real needs of outlying communities instead of simply expanding the urban system;

 

Whereas, after a year of public consultation the city introduced a system that meets the real needs of outlying communities and increases the stake of village and rural areas in the city’s vision for public transportation;

 

Whereas, the creation of a new Town Transit Area (TTA) in Stittsville would maintain the community’s steadily growing support for public transportation while still respecting its specific needs;

 

Whereas the creation of a new TTA would also ensure that Stittsville pays its way for the transit services provided to its residents without the financial assistance of smaller communities currently inside the Rural Transit Area;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Transportation Committee recommend to Council:

§         That a Town Transit Area (TTA) be created that aligns with the urban boundary of Stittsville;

§         And that a Town Transit tax levy be introduced so the taxpayers of Stittsville pay the full net costs of the transit services their community receives, as those services are defined today and redefined in the future through a consultative process;

§         And that the TTA and corresponding tax levy be introduced in 2006.

 

MOTION # 2 - Replacement Motion for 1f) City Wide Capital

Be it resolved that the capital portion of the Urban Transit Area levy be applied in full for properties within the Urban Area, as shown in Document 1, to begin in 2006.  (This motion was withdrawn after discussion and deliberation.)

 

MOTION # 3

Whereas the city has an interest in steadily building support for public transportation while measuring and meeting the real needs of its many diverse communities;

Whereas active and positive public involvement is crucial for the city to maintain support for its long-term priorities and serve its citizens effectively;

 

Be it resolved that every three years, starting in 2006, OC Transpo carry out a Town, Village and Rural transit review, modeled on its highly successful 2001 Rural Transit Review, during which staff will work in close collaboration with ward councillors, residents and business owners to evaluate the changing transit needs of town, village and rural communities and formulate recommendations for City Council to meet those needs and cover the costs.

 

Councillor McRae also introduced the following motion:

Be it resolved

§         That Stittsville be part of the UTA effective 2006;

§         That the levy increase in increments over the next 5 years to a maximum of half the full City UTA levy;

§         That the levy remain at half the UTA levy until the town population reaches 24,000 people at which time the levy would increase to the full UTA levy; and

§         That service levels would increase proportionately.  (This motion was withdrawn after discussion and deliberation.)

 

Councillor Stavinga pleaded with committee members for their support in rejecting the inclusion of Stittsville in the UTA urging them ‘to build bridges and not to burn what has so far been built’ in Stitttsville with regard to public transit.  She agrees that Stittsville residents should be paying the capital cost portion related to public transit in the City, which would be approximately $70 more in taxes per year.  But she is opposed to paying for the $400 more in transit taxes related to the operating costs of OC Transpo.

 

The Committee then considered the following motions:

 

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

 

Replacement Motion for 1a), b), c), d), and e)

 

Whereas the City of Ottawa must work constructively and collaboratively with its many diverse communities to effectively serve residents and to advance its long-term plans and priorities;

 

Whereas the recommendation to expand the UTA, and the plan to increase by 500% the transit taxes of more than 6,000 properties, overlooks the real needs of Stittsville and represents an excessive new cost for families, small business owners and other taxpayers; 

 

Whereas, in 2001 City Council created an innovative and responsive process to evaluate the real needs of outlying communities instead of simply expanding the urban system;

 

Whereas, after a year of public consultation the city introduced a system that meets the real needs of outlying communities and increases the stake of village and rural areas in the city’s vision for public transportation;

 

Whereas, the creation of a new Town Transit Area (TTA) in Stittsville would maintain the community’s steadily growing support for public transportation while still respecting its specific needs;

 

Whereas the creation of a new TTA would also ensure that Stittsville pays its way for the transit services provided to its residents without the financial assistance of smaller communities currently inside the Rural Transit Area;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Transportation Committee recommend to Council:

 

§         That a Town Transit Area (TTA) be created that aligns with the urban boundary of Stittsville;

§         And that a Town Transit tax levy be introduced so the taxpayers of Stittsville pay the full net costs of the transit services their community receives, as those services are defined today and redefined in the future through a consultative process;

§         And that the TTA and corresponding tax levy be introduced in 2006.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

Yeas (2):       Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Stavinga

Nays (6):       Councillors G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. McRae

 

 

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

 

Replacement Motion for 1a), b), c), d), and e)

 

Whereas the City of Ottawa must work constructively and collaboratively with its many diverse communities to effectively serve residents and to advance its long-term plans and priorities;

 

Whereas the recommendation to expand the UTA, and the plan to increase by 500% the transit taxes of more than 6,000 properties, overlooks the real needs of Stittsville and represents an excessive new cost for families, small business owners and other taxpayers; 

 

Whereas, in 2001 City Council created an innovative and responsive process to evaluate the real needs of outlying communities instead of simply expanding the urban system;

 

Whereas, after a year of public consultation the city introduced a system that meets the real needs of outlying communities and increases the stake of village and rural areas in the city’s vision for public transportation;

 

Whereas, the creation of a new Town Transit Area (TTA) in Stittsville would maintain the community’s steadily growing support for public transportation while still respecting its specific needs;

 

Whereas the creation of a new TTA would also ensure that Stittsville pays its way for the transit services provided to its residents without the financial assistance of smaller communities currently inside the Rural Transit Area;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Transportation Committee recommend to Council:

 

§         That a Town Transit Area (TTA) be created that aligns with the urban boundary of Stittsville

§         That future service and service standards be redefined through a consultative process with the objective of improving service over time and the understanding that when the community reaches a population of 24,000, Stittsville join the UTA.

§         And that the TTA and corresponding tax levy be introduced in 2006.

 

                                                                                                LOST

 

Yeas (3):       Councillors E. El-Chantiry, M. McRae, J. Stavinga

Nays (5):       Councillors G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre

 

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

 

Be it resolved that Stittsville be part of the UTA effective 2006; and that the levy increase in increments over the next 6 years.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Yeas (5):       Councillors R. Bloess, E. El-Chantiry, C. Doucet, M. McRae, J. Stavinga

Nays (2):       Councillors A. Cullen, J. Legendre

 

 

Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry:

 

Whereas there has been no consultation with the rural area regarding the Park & Ride tax, and this proposal is adding a business cost to Ottawa’s farmers that other farmers in Ontario do not have;

 

Therefore be it resolved that Recommendation 2 be deleted.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Yeas (4):       Councillors R. Bloess, E. El-Chantiry, M. McRae, J. Stavinga

Nays (3):       Councillors A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre

 

 

Moved by Councillor J. Stavinga:

 

Whereas the City has an interest in steadily building support for public transportation while measuring and meeting the real needs of its many diverse communities;

 

Whereas active and positive public involvement is crucial for the City to maintain support for its long-term priorities and serve its citizens effectively;

 

Be it resolved that every three years, starting in 2006, OC Transpo carry out a Town, Village and Rural transit review, modeled on its highly successful 2001 Rural Transit Review, during which staff will work in close collaboration with ward councillors, residents and business owners to evaluate the changing transit needs of town, village and rural communities and formulate recommendations for City Council to meet those needs and cover the costs.

 

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

 

That the aforementioned Stavinga Motion be amended to read – “….that every three years, starting in 2005, OC Transpo carry out a Town,….”

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

The Committee then considered the report recommendations as amended by the foregoing recommendations.

 

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:

 

1.         a.         The expansion of the Urban Transit Area to include urban areas adjacent to the existing Urban Transit Area, as shown in Document 1, effective September 2006.

 

b.         Direction to staff to undertake public consultation on transit service improvements in the resulting new parts of the Urban Transit Area, as part of the Transplan 2006 process, with new services and improvements to start in September 2006.

 

c.         Direction to staff to include in the draft 2006 operating budget sufficient part year funds ($500,000) to operate transit services in the resulting new parts of the Urban Transit Area under the same service standards that are used throughout the Urban Transit Area.

 

d.         A phase-in of the operational portion of the Urban Transit Area levy over a four-year period for properties added to the Urban Transit Area, as shown in Document 1, to begin in 2007.

 

e.         Direction to staff to include in the draft 2006 capital budget sufficient funds ($5.05 million) to acquire new buses and new bus shelters to be used to provide new services and service improvements in the new parts of the Urban Transit Area.

 

f.          That the capital portion of the Urban Transit Area levy be applied in full for properties added to the Urban Transit Area, as shown in Document 1, to begin in 2006.

 

2.                  The adjustment of the transit levy to allocate twenty-two per cent of park and ride and associated net-capital costs to the remaining Rural Transit Area A and Rural Transit Area B to reflect park and ride usage rates.

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended

Yeas (4):       Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, J. Legendre

Nays (3):       Councillors E. El-Chantiry, M. McRae, J. Stavinga

 

 

 

ROADS AND CYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Comité consultatif sur les routes et le cyclisme

 

2.         ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING FOR JULY 1ST FESTIVITIES

STATIONNEMENT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE POUR LES FESTIVITÉS DU 1ER JUILLET

ACS2005-CCV-RCA-0003

 

Following a brief discussion, the Committee heard from the following delegation:

 

Terry O’Shaughnessy, Vice-Chair of the Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee, and Chair of the Infrastructure Sub-Committee, spoke in favour of the report recommendation.  He commented on staff input on this report and questioned the $5,000 allocation referred to under the Financial Implications.

 

In response to questions from Committee members, staff provided the following clarifications:

·        This report was provided to staff less than two weeks prior to the agenda deadline.

·        There is not enough time to allow staff to participate with the cycling community to put in the proper facilities.

·        The amount of $5,000 is only an estimate provided on short notice and without any detailed analysis on the recommendation.  There would be costs involved for locating (possibly purchasing), and moving the required bicycle racks; if required, this estimate would also include staffing of a secured area.  Staff could look into minimizing these costs if given more time to proceed and to determine the demand.

·        Staff supports the initiative of providing amenities to encourage the use of bicycles over the single-occupant vehicle, but is concerned with timing and resources.  Staff working on other cycling projects would have to be re-allocated to this effort, thus creating a challenge.

·        At this late a time putting out bicycle facilities without an appropriate level of advanced notification for the majority of cyclists, who would be coming to this event, would probably result in the racks being under-utilized.

 

Chair Stavinga noted that, as part of the Advisory Committee Work Plan, a longer term strategy for increased bicycle parking at all festivals in the City is being looked at.

 

After discussion, the Committee considered the following motion, on the understanding that staff would be undertaking their best efforts this year for Canada Day 2005:

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:

 

That the report be referred to staff for implementation for July 1st 2006 Canada Day.

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council provide and promote additional bicycle parking for the Canada Day festivities in order to reduce congestion, facilitate movement, and reduce air pollution.

 

                                                                                                REFERRED TO STAFF

 

 

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

 

Councillor / Conseillère D. Holmes

 

3.         TEMPORARY FEE REDUCTION FOR PATIO ENCROACHMENTS FOR PUB ITALIA and LA VECCHia Restaurants

RÉDUCTION TEMPORAIRE DES DROITS CONCERNANT L’EMPIÈTEMENT DES TERRASSES DES RESTAURANTS PUB ITALIA ET LA VECCHIA

ACS2005-CCS-TRC-0005

 

Following a brief introduction by Councillor Holmes, the Committee heard from the following delegation speaking in favour of the temporary fee reduction:

§         Joe Cotroneo.

 

In response to Councillor Legendre’ question, Michael Flainek, Director of Traffic & Parking Operations, Public Works and Services advised that the recommendation to the reduce fees is a temporary measure until construction works are completed in area.  As such, it is anticipated that this decision will not have an ongoing effect on future revenue budget expectations.

 

The Committee then approved the following recommendations contained in Councillor Holmes’ report dated 6 June 2005:

 

1.         That the businesses located at 434 1/2 Preston and 228 Preston be charged the boulevard rate under Bylaw  2003 - 446 for their seasonal patio encroachments.

 

2.         That the approval of this reduced rate associated with these temporary encroachments continue until:

a)         completion of the Preston Streetscaping Project;

b)         completion of the reconstruction of Preston Street.

 

                                                                                                                        CARRIED

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

POINTS SUPPLEMENTAIRES

 

That the Transportation Committee approve the addition of the following item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Subsection 81(3) of the Procedure By-law (being By-law No. 2003-589).

                                                                                                                   CARRIED

 

 

4.                  LAURIER AVENUE CLOSURE FOR BLUESFEST

ACS2005-PWS-TRF-0023

 

Councillor McRae put forward the following motion for consideration:

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is considered one of Ottawa’s top major summer attractions attracting crowds in excess of 220 thousand people over the festival’s 11 days;

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is considered one of North America’s top musical events with a diverse concert line-up which attracts tourists from throughout Canada and all over the world to Ottawa;

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is celebrating its 11th year in the nation’s capital

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest has been held at Festival Plaza since 2002 and demands for more space are necessary for the success of the 11 day event;

 

Therefore be it resolved: that  Laurier Avenue from Nicholas Avenue to Elgin Street be closed at all hours for the duration of Ottawa Bluesfest provided the following conditions are met:

§        Pedestrian and cyclists have continued access to Laurier Avenue during the day and that access for concert hours be subject to the regular conditions set by concert organizers

§        That an emergency lane be provided at all times for fire, police, paramedic and city crews

§        That responsibility for any extra costs associated with the full time closure of Laurier Avenue be extended to the concert organizers

§        That the closure of Laurier Avenue for the Ottawa Bluesfest is effect only for the 2005 year and will be closely monitored by city staff

§        That Bluesfest concert organizers in conjunction with the City of Ottawa provide residents with detailed information about the Laurier Avenue closure including all conditions, hours, and alternative routes.

 

The Committee received an Information Report dated 14 June 2005 from the Acting Deputy City Manager.

 

Appearing before the Committee to answer questions on the aforementioned subject were Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager and Michael Flainek, Director of Traffic & Parking Operations, Public Works and Services.

 

The Committee expressed concern about the tardiness of this report being brought forward for consideration.  After discussion, the Committee directed that staff make every effort in looking at other options, such as the closure of Elgin Street instead, and to provide this information for Council next week when this matter will be considered.

 

The Committee then considered the following motions:

 

Moved by Councillor M. McRae:

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is considered one of Ottawa’s top major summer attractions attracting crowds in excess of 220 thousand people over the festival’s 11 days;

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is considered one of North America’s top musical events with a diverse concert line-up which attracts tourists from throughout Canada and all over the world to Ottawa;

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest is celebrating its 11th year in the nation’s capital;

 

Whereas Ottawa Bluesfest has been held at Festival Plaza since 2002 and demands for more space are necessary for the success of the 11 day event;

 

Therefore be it resolved that Laurier Avenue, from Nicholas Street to Elgin Street be closed at all hours for the duration of Ottawa Bluesfest provided the following conditions are met:

 

a)                  Pedestrian and cyclists have continued access to Laurier Avenue during the day and that access for concert hours be subject to the regular conditions set by concert organizers.

 

b)                  That an emergency lane be provided at all times for fire, police, paramedic and City crews.

 

c)                  That responsibility for any extra costs associated with the full time closure of Laurier Avenue be extended to the concert organizers.

 

d)                  That the closure of Laurier Avenue for the Ottawa Bluesfest is in effect only for the 2005 year and will be closely monitored by City staff.

 

e)                  That Bluesfest concert organizers in conjunction with the City of Ottawa provide residents with detailed information about the Laurier Avenue closure including all conditions, hours, and alternative routes.

 

CARRIED as amended by the following motion, with Councillor Cullen dissenting.

 

 

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

 

That Conditions a) be amended to read as follows:

“Pedestrian and cyclists have continued access to Laurier Avenue at all times.”

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:

 

Whereas Confederation Park is wired for public sound systems and landscaped for audiences;

 

Whereas Confederation Park was always intended to function as a twin to City Hall’s Festival Plaza as a festival site;

 

Be it resolved that Marcel Beaudry, Chairperson of the National Capital Commission be petitioned by Council to open up Confederation Park for festival activities.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

 

That Transportation Committee and Council receive the following information relevant to Bluesfest’s request to close Laurier Avenue between Elgin Street and Nicholas Street continuously from 7 July 2005 to 17 July 2005 to accommodate this year’s festival.

                                                                                                RECEIVED

 

The Committee agreed to forward this Report to City Council for its consideration on 22 June 2005.

 

 

5.                  WAIVER TO THE PRIVATE APPROACH BY-LAW 2003-447, ENCROACHMENT BY-LAW 2003-446, AND USE AND CARE OF ROADS BY-LAW 2003-498, FOR 137-143 GUIGUES AVENUE

DISPENSE AU RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL SUR LES VOIES D’ACCÈS PRIVÉES 2003-447, AU RÈGLEMENT 2003-446 SUR LES EMPIÈTEMENTS, ET AU RÉGLEMENT 2003-498 SUR L'UTILISATION ET L'ENTREIN DES VOIES ROUTIÉRE POUR 137-143 AVENUE GUIGUES

ACS2005-CCS-TRC-0007

 

Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:

 

That the Transportation Committee approve the addition of the aforementioned item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Subsection 81(3) of the Procedure By-law (being By-law No. 2003-589).

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Following a brief introduction and explanation of the urgency of this item by Councillor Bédard, the Rideau-Vanier Ward Councillor, the Committee considered the following recommendation contained in the Councillor’s report dated 15 June 2005:

 

That Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the waiver of Provision 25(s) of the Private Approach By-law 2003-447 to permit a private approach with a grade exceeding 2% for the first 6 metres within the private property; the waiver of Provision 3(2) of the Encroachment By-law 2003-446, to permit steps to remain on City road allowance; and the waiver of Provision 6 of the Use and Care of Roads By-law 2003-498, to permit retaining walls to remain on City road allowance.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

At the request of Councillor Bédard, the Committee agreed to forward this Report to City Council for its consideration on 22 June 2005.

 

 

 

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

 

A.        EXTENDING THE POP ZONE PRINCIPLE TO TRANSITWAY STATIONS

            ÉTENDRE LE PRINCIPE DE LA ZONE PDP AUX STATIONS DU TRANSITWAY

ACS2005-PWS-TRN-0006

 

The Committee received Memorandum dated 18 May 2005 from the Acting Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services on the aforementioned subject.

 

 

B.         THE IMPACT OF AIR QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH CRITERIA IN TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS  - PLANNING COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR REPORT TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

INCIDENCE DE LA QUALITÉ DE L’AIR ET CRITÈRES DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE DANS LES ÉVALUATIONS ENVIRONNEMENTALES CONCERNANT LES TRANSPORTS – DEMANDE DE RAPPORT AU COMITÉ DES TRANSPORTS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT

ACS2005-PGM-POL-0043

 

At the request of Councillor Legendre, the Committee agreed to schedule Memorandum dated 30 May 2005 from the Acting Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management on the aforementioned subject for a policy decision/discussion at the next meeting.

 

 

C.        ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESERVE APPOINTMENT – PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOMINATION D’UN MEMBRE SUPPLÉANT AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LES PIÉTONS ET LE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

ACS2005-CRS-SEC-0024

 

The Committee received Memorandum dated 2 May 2005 from the Chief Corporate Services appointing Laura Houston to replace Kelly McLellan, the resigned member on the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR ÉTUDE LORS D’UNE RÉUNION ULTÉRIEURE)           

 

Councillor Doucet brought forward the following motion as a Notice of Motion for consideration at the next meeting:

 

“Whereas the number one request from public consultations on the Bank Street reconstruction from Wellington to the Canal has been to have the hydro lines buried along the section of Bank where it has not already been done; and

 

Whereas the scope of the current project incorporates studying options that include burying the hydro lines;

 

Be It Resolved That staff study the options for burying hydro lines between Gladstone and Holmwood, including costs and streetscape alternatives as part of the current Bank Street reconstruction study.”

 

 

INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNEMENTS

 

On Street Parking Permit Policy

Councillor Doucet put forward the following inquiry, which was referred to the Deputy City Manager, Community & Protective Services and/or the Acting Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services, for response:

 

“What is the City of Ottawa’s policy regarding the issuance of on-street parking permits to residents?”

 

“What are the determining factors that dictate which streets allow residents to purchase on-street parking permits, and which streets do not?”

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

 

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

Original signed by                                                     Original signed by

Anne-Marie Leung                                                     Councillor Janet Stavinga

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Committee Coordinator                                             Chair