Declarations of Interest

dÉclarations d’intÉrÊt

No declarations of interest were filed.

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson

WHEREAS the change in meeting date from Tuesday, November 20 to Monday, November 19 and Tuesday, November 20 coupled with a holiday Monday on November 12 resulted in staff being unable to finalize, print and distribute to members of Council the CSEDC Agenda 18 and the CSEDC Confidential Agenda 9 in time to meet the requirements outlined in Section 77(11) of the Procedure By-law, being By-law 2006-462;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee suspend to rules to consider all the items listed in CSEDC Agenda 18 and CSEDC Confidential Agenda 9 at its meeting of November 19 and 20, 2007.

CARRIED

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

1. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - BILL 130 - REVISED MANDATE

BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL - PROJET DE LOI 130 - MANDAT RÉVISÉ

ACS2007-OAG-0001 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Councillor McRae asked that Committee deal with items 1 and 6 of the agenda together because she felt these items had many common elements.

Councillor McRae wanted to congratulate and thank staff for these reports. She remarked that she had been expressing concerns about some of the issues raised in these reports with respect to accountability. She drew Committee’s attention to Appendix D, on page 22 of the agenda package, which defined and described current local boards. She noted that a lot of money was being granted to many organizations, which may not be as readily reviewable as they would be if the funds were given to a local board. She inquired as to the Auditor General’s intentions with respect to looking at some of these grant monies for next year. Mr. A. Lalonde, Auditor General, noted that he could not review all of them. He indicated his intention was to select and work on a sample of them, some large, some small and in various areas. Furthermore, he explained that in addition to looking at how they managed money, he would be reviewing the governance aspect of the organizations. He referenced the different types and sizes of organizations, indicated he did not expect that they would all have the same kind of governance structure and that therefore, he would use some common sense in the approach. However, in his opinion, everything was on the table. In closing, he remarked that he would continue to meet with members of Council to get their input on what should be audited.

Councillor McRae noted that members of Council had been hearing complaints with respect to governance issues with some organizations. She wondered, in the wake of Bill 130, if staff would be prepared to go out to the organizations receiving large grants from the City and explain to them the implications of Bill 130 and of a review by the Auditor General. Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, indicated staff would be pleased to do this on whatever basis Council requested. He advised staff had already met with the City’s Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) to inform them of the requirements, as local boards, under the new legislation. He explained they had been working with the BIAs with respect to procedure by-laws and policies they would be required to enact. He indicated they would be happy to do the same with grant recipients and any other groups.

Councillor McRae was surprised to learn that, under the new legislation, the City could be held responsible for any rules and regulations not followed by local boards. Mr. O’Connor confirmed this, adding that under Bill 130, the municipality holds the ultimate responsibility with regards to governance issues, accountability and transparency issues, as well as financial ramifications.

Responding to a question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to financial implications, Mr. Lalonde explained that on an annual basis, his office was doing 20 to 25 reviews just on the City and that, if they had an increased mandate with respect to local boards and organizations, there would be less audits on the City’s activities. He confirmed that he would be staying with the current budget of 0.08%.

In response to further questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Lalonde confirmed that he would continue to take his direction from Council and that he would also continue to meet with individual members of Council.

With respect to the City’s self-insured policy, Mayor O’Brien wondered if the Auditor General had spent any time reviewing the assets that had fallen into the lost category. Mr. Lalonde indicated he had not look at this.

Councillor Deans referenced recommendation 4 of the report. She felt it made more sense for the audit committee to be a sub-committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) rather than a standing committee of Council, and she wondered as to the rationale behind the recommendation. Mr. O’Connor explained part of the rationale related to the way the Auditor General’s by-law was currently drafted. He referenced various previous permutations as well as the current structure, which reported through the CSEDC. However, he assured Committee that various options would be explored and a recommendation would be brought forward next year as part of the mid-term governance review.

Councillor Deans noted that at the beginning of this term of Council, there was a decision made to reduce the number of Standing Committees. Therefore, she did not believe Council would want to start moving in the opposite direction. She indicated she would be more comfortable with a Sub-committee of the CSEDC and the elimination of the current working group. She wondered if this amendment required a motion. Mr. O’Connor indicated a motion was not necessary and that staff look at all the options in the context of the mid-term governance review.

Following a further exchange on this issue, Councillor Deans moved that recommendation 4 of the report be amended, which Committee voted to approve.

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

That recommendation 4 of the report be amended to “consider the creation of an Audit Committee as a Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee”.

CARRIED

Councillor Hume referenced the rationale provided for recommendation 9. He indicated he had no quarrel with the explanation relative to added responsibilities. However, he noted that the report talked about the recommendations contained in the 2004 Desautel report and he wondered why the Auditor General had not tested the market to bring forward some comparators with respect to other positions across the country. Mr. Lalonde explained that when he wrote the report, it was based on the Desautel recommendations. However, he indicated he could provide comparator information within the next week.

Councillor Hume felt this would be helpful because it would provide some level of comfort that what Council was approving related to the market.

Councillor McRae referenced a discussion she had with the Auditor General prior to the start of the meeting with respect to the auditing of his accounts and expenses and she asked him to share this information with Committee. Mr. Lalonde indicated recommendation 8 of the report was taken from the Cities and Towns Act of the Province of Quebec. He explained that he thought it would be beneficial to include it in this report as it would provide a level of oversight and accountability not presently in place. More importantly, he submitted that the tabling of these reports would give Council an opportunity to ask questions regarding his office.

Councillor McRae felt this showed strong, transparent, and open willingness on the part of the Auditor General to be thoroughly scrutinized and raised to the same standards that he, himself, would expect of other departments in the Corporation.

Responding to a question from Councillor Jellet with respect to recommendation 3, Mr. Lalonde indicated the Desautel report had recommended a seven (7) year term of the Auditor General, based on Council’s own three (3) year terms. However, now that Council’s terms had increased to four (4) years, he felt the Auditor General’s term should also be increased to ensure the Auditor General be in place for two (2) terms of Council.

Councillor Jellet referenced recommendation 9 of the report and the recommendations contained in the 2003 Desautel report. He recalled that, at the time, Council had rejected the Desautel recommendations. He wondered if the City Solicitor remembered the reasons. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that the Council of the time had rejected the Desautel recommendations with respect to remuneration, though he could not recall the reasoning.

In light of Mr. Lalonde’s commitment to bring forward market comparators, Councillor Jellet felt it would be premature for Committee to deal with recommendation 9. Therefore, he recommended it be referred to Council for its consideration, by which time members would have received the additional information from the Auditor General.

Councillor El-Chantiry referenced page 6 of the report and requested clarification with respect to the Auditor General’s confidentiality duty. Mr. O’Connor explained that by making Mr. Lalonde the statutory Auditor General for the City of Ottawa, he would be exempt from requests made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Under this legislation, he also could not be compelled as a witness in a civil litigation matter. Essentially, this meant one could not compel information that the Auditor General was not prepared to disclose publicly. Having said that, he indicated the Auditor General would not be exempt from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in terms of the running of his office or his attendance at a conference.

With all the talk about accountability and transparency, Councillor El-Chantiry was surprised to learn that, if there was a whistle blower, Council would not be able to find out the truth about the source or basis of an investigation. He noted the regularity of disputes over Auditor General recommendations and maintained that, as a decision-making body, Council could not make a decision if it did not have all the information.

Mr. O’Connor indicated most integrity positions at the Provincial and Federal government had this type of legislative protection. Therefore, this was a common practice.

Mr. Lalonde discussed the current practice at the City in terms of resolving disputes between his office and management with respect audit recommendations in that both sides were clearly laid out in the audit report and both sides met with the Council Audit Working Group.

Responding to questions from Councillor Desroches with respect to his mandate, Mr. Lalonde assured Committee that the way in which he conducted his business would not change. He would continue to follow his audit plan and initiate audits based on discussions with members of Council and/or management. The only difference related to scope in that his office’s workload would henceforth include local boards, municipally controlled corporations and grant recipients.

Moved by Councillor R. Jellett

That consideration of recommendation 9 of the report be referred to Council.

CARRIED

Committee then voted on the report as amended.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the changes to the mandate of the Office of the Auditor General by deeming the City's current Auditor General to be the statutory auditor general for the purposes of Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended.

2. Grant the required two-year extension to the current term of the Auditor General, bringing it to 31 December 2013.

Recommend that a future Council consider that the term of the next Auditor General be set at ten-years non-renewable.

4. Consider the creation of an Audit Committee as a Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee in the mid-term Governance Review.

5. Approve that the reporting protocol for the Annual Report be as follows:

a) Notice of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;

b) Tabling at following meeting of Council and initial questions;

i. Release of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of tabling,

ii. Concurrent with the release to the media, the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing session, open to the media and the public, on the Annual Report for all Councillors,

iii. Following tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any further questions from Council or the media;

c) Referral of the Annual Report to the appropriate Standing Committee to allow for public delegations only;

d) Referral of the report resulting from the Standing Committee to subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General will be available for final questions; and,

e) Referral to the appropriate Committee for on-going monitoring.

6. Approve that, for any audit of a confidential nature being conducted by the Auditor General (e.g. as a result of a Fraud and Waste Hotline call), the resulting audit report be provided to Council at an in camera session coinciding with the release of the Auditor General's Annual Report.

7. Direct that those audit reports completed during 2006, which were not presented to Council, be provided as part of the 2007 Annual Report in accordance with the reporting protocol for confidential reports outlined in Recommendation 6.

8. Direct the inclusion of a separate audit report of the financial accounts of the Office of the Auditor General within the annual external audit of the City's financial statements.

9. Refer to Council for consideration, an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in 2008, in accordance with the salary scale established for the Deputy City Manager position and that progression within the pay-band for the position be set at an annual rate of 5%, subject to the AG successfully completing the annual audit plan.

CARRIED as amended

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

CITY CLERK'S BRANCH

DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL

2. MEMBER SERVICES COMMITTEE

COMITÉ DES SERVICES AUX MEMBRES

ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0023 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Councillor McRae referenced the report recommendation for five (5) members; three (3) from the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) and two (2) at large. She noted that seven (7) members of Council had expressed an interest in sitting on this Sub-committee; four (4) from the CSEDC and three (3) at large. She inquired as to the possibility of appointing all seven (7) members. She noted Councillor Jellett had prepared a motion to that effect and she expressed her support for it. She felt that if seven members of Council were willing to give of their time to serve on the Committee, they should be allowed to do so. She noted the interested members were Councillors Bloess, Chiarelli, Deans, El-Chantiry, Cullen, Feltmate and Leadman. She believed this group provided a good balance.

Although he understood the purpose of such a motion, Councillor Bloess felt less would be better in this case. He noted that in the last two terms, this Sub-committee’s meetings had been very effective and efficient and he feared that increasing the membership would cause it to get bogged down. Therefore, he indicated his preference was to support the staff report and approve five members.

Councillor Jellett acknowledged Councillor Bloess’ concerns and sought comments from staff with respect to whether or not a larger membership would cause the Sub-committee to become unwieldy. Ms. L. Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk, indicated that because the Members Services Sub-committee was an adhoc committee, scheduling could be a challenge, though she submitted it was not impossible.

Councillor Harder echoed Councillor Bloess’ concerns, noting that during the two previous terms of Council, Member Services Committee worked well. She submitted this Committee was more about hearing from the respective Council members, that a smaller membership was better, and that any member of Council was welcome to attend meetings and speak to the Committee. She referenced the Deputy Clerk’s comment about meetings being a challenge to schedule and she urged Committee to limit the membership.

Councillor McRae applauded Councillor Jellett’s motion and indicated she had no problem increasing the membership to seven. She noted that when Council appointment members to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, a membership of nine was being recommended but because more Councillors wanted to sit on the Committee, its membership was expanded to 11. She re-iterated her belief that the members who had expressed an interest in sitting on the Member Services Sub-committee represented a balance in terms of geographic representation, skills, experience and strengths and she was confident that, as a team, they would do a good job.

Councillor Jellett felt that if seven Councillors wanted to sit on the Sub-committee, they should be allowed to do so.

Councillor El-Chantiry indicated that if there was consensus to approve an increase in membership, he would support it, but that if there was to be a discussion about eliminating some of the names from the list, he would recommend referring the matter to Council for a vote in order to be fair to Councillors who were not present to speak to the matter.

At this juncture, Mayor O’Brien called for a vote on Councillor Jellett’s motion.

Moved by Councillor R. Jellett

That the Member Services Sub-committee consist of seven (7) members; four (4) members of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and three (3) At-Large, and that the following membership be recommended to City Council:

Councillor Eli El-Chantiry (CSEDC member)

Councillor Rainer Bloess (CSEDC member)

Councillor Diane Deans (CSEDC member)

Councillor Rick Chiarelli (CSEDC member)

Councillor Christine Leadman

Councillor Alex Cullen

Councillor Peggy Feltmate

CARRIED

Immediately following the vote, Councillor Bloess asked that his name be removed from the list.

The Deputy City Clerk cautioned that because this was a Sub-committee of the CSEDC, a majority of its membership had to be members of the CSEDC.

In light of this intervention and the Committee’s vote, Mayor O’Brien suggested that the matter be resolved when the report was considered at Council.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The establishment of the Member Services Sub-committee with a panel of seven (7) members of Council, a minimum of four (4) of which shall also be members of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee;

2. That four (4) members of this panel shall form quorum for the Member Services Sub-committee;

3. That the members of the Members Services Sub-committee be Councillors Eli El-Chantiry, Rainer Bloess, Diane Deans, Rick Chiarelli, Christine Leadman, Alex Cullen and Peggy Feltmate; and

4. That the Member Services Sub-committee be tasked with establishing clarity around a Code of Conduct for Members of Council; and report back to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council.

CARRIED as amended

CITY CLERK'S BRANCH & LEGAL SERVICES

DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL & SERVICES DES CONTENTIEUX

3. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY POLICY

POLITIQUE SUR LA REDDITION DE COMPTES ET LA TRANSPARENCE

ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0021 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the Accountability and Transparency Policy attached in Document 1.

CARRIED

4. DELEGATION OF POWERS POLICY

POLITIQUE SUR LA DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIRS

ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0022 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Committee recommend Council approve the Delegation of Powers Policy attached in Document 1.

CARRIED

5. CLOSED MEETINGS AND MEETINGS INVESTIGATOR

RÉUNIONS À HUIT CLOS ET ENQUÊTEUR AUX RÉUNIONS

ACS2007-CMR-CCB-0020 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Responding to questions from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to criteria for the Meetings Investigator, Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, noted that as part of the process and procedure to ensure the integrity and the arms length of this position, the report set out statutory criteria to which Council had to have regard when appointing a Meetings Investigator. In addition, staff had set out a number of bullets, which they felt would be important criteria for Council to also include in this hiring process. He confirmed that a candidate could be a legal mind, though it could also be someone who had experience in dealing with procedural and statutory issues, such as a former municipal clerk.

In reply to a question from Councillor Jellett, Ms. Donnelly expressed staff’s belief that the $25,000 budget outlined in the report was an over-estimate given this City’s history of open meetings.

Following this brief exchange, Committee voted unanimously in support of the report recommendations.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve that:

1. The Procedure By-law be amended to incorporate the Notice provisions for City Council meetings, in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Act, 2001 as outlined in Appendex D;

2. The City appoint a Meetings Investigator for the City of Ottawa pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001;

3. The City Solicitor be delegated the authority to hire the Meetings Investigator in accordance with the criteria outlined in this report, and prepare an appointment by-law and agreement; and

4. The interim process for accepting and investigating complaints outlined in this report be adopted and publicized pending the development of a formal process to be brought forward by the Meetings Investigator in early 2008.

CARRIED

6. BILL 130 - A REVIEW OF OTTAWA'S AGENCIES,
BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS

PROJET DE LOI 130 - EXAMEN DES SERVICES, DES CONSEILS,
DES COMITÉS ET DES COMMISSIONS D'OTTAWA

ACS2007-CMR-LEG-0007 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Councillor McRae asked that Committee deal with this item together with Item 1 of the Agenda together - Office of the Auditor General - Bill 130 - Revised Mandate (ACS2007-OAG-0001). Please see Minutes of Item 1 for a summary of the discussion.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

FINANCIAL SERVICES

SERVICES FINANCIERS

7. TAX POLICY ISSUES - VERBAL UPDATE

QUESTIONS DE POLITIQUE FISCALE - MISE A JOUR VERBALE

City Treasurer / Trésorière municipal CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Ms. M. Simulik, City Treasurer and Mr. K. Hughes, Manager of Revenue, provided a PowerPoint presentation in which they: reviewed a new residential tax bill presentation and sought direction from Committee on same; updated Committee on aspects of the Provincial budget affecting municipal tax policies in terms of a reduction of business education tax, the timing of assessments, anticipated changes to the assessment appeal process and impacts of assessment phase-in; outlined issues with respect to Payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILT); and discussed other tax policy issues such as the low income deferral program and farm taxes. A copy of their presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Responding to questions from Mayor O’Brien with respect to the proposed new residential tax bill presentation, Ms. Simulik indicated that general administration costs were captured in the line “All other City services”. However, she advised that an additional line could be added for “general administration” costs.

In response to further comments from Mayor O’Brien, Ms. Simulik confirmed that there was room for additional lines and therefore, staff could mirror the breakdown reflected in the 2006 City of Ottawa Annual Report in terms of the various cost areas.

When asked about tax bills for rural residents, Ms. Simulik explained that the sample used was an urban residential tax bill. She advised that staff prepared separate tax bills for urban, suburban and rural residents and she confirmed the rural tax bills would show any charges that applied to the rural areas.

As a result of suggestions from Committee members, Ms. Simulik took direction to include lines for “Provincially Mandated Programs and Services” as well as “Provincial Education Tax” and to list the various lines from the highest percentages to the lowest.

In reply to questions from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Hughes explained the 3-tiered response system set-up in the Revenue Division. He confirmed that staff had contemplated the fact that these changes would result in increased call volumes and that the Division was ready and able to respond to them.

Having responded to members’ questions and comments with respect to the proposed new residential tax bill presentation, Ms. Simulik indicated staff would take Committee members’ suggestions and would come back with a revised sample in April, when Committee would be dealing with the tax report.

With respect to the impacts of re-assessment phase-in, Councillor Wilkinson noted the Province was saying they were phasing-in the increase but that decreases would be effective immediately. She referenced the analysis provided in the staff presentation and suggested the Province was misleading taxpayers. Ms. Simulik indicated staff had been meeting with Provincial officials over the summer months. She advised the Province’s position was that they were not misleading taxpayers because they talked about phasing-in assessments and not about phasing-in taxes.

Councillor Hume re-iterated that the Province was phasing-in assessment increases, not taxes. He noted this would actually affect only about 3% of homeowners since 97% of residential properties would see increases in their assessments.

Responding to questions from Councillor Hume on this issue, Mr. Hughes estimated that, of the 260,000 homeowners in Ottawa, this would affect between 6,000 and 7,0000. He could not provide an estimate of the impact in terms of dollar value.

In response to further comments from Councillor Wilkinson on this issue, Ms. Simulik drew members’ attention to the back of the sample residential tax bill, noting there was a section designed to show residents how much of their tax increase was the result of re-assessment.

In answering additional questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Simulik confirmed that the City lost some revenue due to assessment appeals and that this was the reason for maintaining a rather large budget for remissions every year.

In reply to questions from Councillor Hume with respect to farm taxes, Mr. Hughes explained that farm taxes only applied to farmland and not to farm houses. Furthermore, he confirmed that the City of Ottawa had the third lowest tax rate for farmers in the Province and the two municipalities that were lower were very close to Ottawa’s.

Responding to a question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to park and rides and where they fit into the taxes, Ms. Simulik suggested the issue would be best addressed at budget time or when Committee and Council dealt with the tax policy report.

Speaking to the issue of Payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILTs), Ms. Simulik submitted time was of the essence and that staff needed some direction. Therefore, she indicated staff would draft a motion and bring it forward at the next Council meeting.

Responding to a final question from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Simulik advised this item would not be rising to Council since staff had not prepared a report. However, she indicated staff would circulate a copy of the presentation, along with speaking notes, to all members of Council for their information.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive this verbal update for information.

RECEIVED

8. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - CONTRACTS
AWARDED FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 2007

DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIR - CONTRATS ACCORDÉS
POUR LA PÉRIODE DU 1er AVRIL AU 30 JUIN 2007

ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0033 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee table this report to be received and discussed at the next scheduled meeting of CSEDC, and then forwarded to Council for information.

CARRIED

9. REVISED REPORTING TO COUNCIL FOR PURCHASING ISSUES

MODIFICATION DU PROCESSUS D'ÉTABLISSEMENT DE RAPPORTS
AU CONSEIL SUR LES ACHATS

ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0031 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry with respect to the definitions contained in the report and a breakdown of the money spent in 2006, Ms. Simulik circulated a hand-out, which served to demonstrate the various categories of professional and consulting services and the amounts spent in each category in 2006 as well as in each of the first two quarters of 2007. She then walked Committee through the hand-out noting that: of the $78M spent in 2006 on professional and consulting services, $69M was for professional services and $9M was for consulting services; and of the $69M spent on professional services, $52M related to outsourcing based on the business model, approximately $15M was for specialized expertise, $343,000 was for independent 3^rd party oversight, $481,000 was related to regulatory requirements and approximately $836,000 was related to workload or lack of internal resources. With respect to the $52M for outsourcing based on the business model, she indicated this primarily related to Infrastructure Services and she reminded Committee that at amalgamation, a decision was made to not have all engineers in-house so that the majority of these services would be contracted out. A copy of Ms. Simulik’s hand-out is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor El-Chantiry referenced the $52M related to outsourcing based on the business model and wondered if the time had come where it might be beneficial to have in-house staff instead of outsourcing. Ms. Simulik indicated that Legal Services had conducted a review a couple of years prior and as a result, a decision had been made to have more in-house lawyers instead of outsourcing. She advised that the Infrastructure Services Branch was undergoing a similar review and a report would be coming forward in the first quarter of 2008.

Responding to a further question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Simulik referenced page 119 of the agenda package, where staff provided definitions for “professional services” versus “consulting services”.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that on one hand, the City was often criticized for the amount of money spent on consulting services while on the other hand, it was being told to do more outsourcing. She maintained the two were effectively the same and she wondered if there was a way to get information to the public so that they could understand it. Ms. Simulik indicated the intent of the present report was to better define the various terms used in order to clarify what the City purchased and why it did so. She maintained this report represented staff’s best attempts at clarifying the language.

Responding to a question from Councillor McRae, Ms. Simulik indicated that engineering contracts used to contain 10% contingencies but that, pursuant to a recommendation of the Auditor General, they now contained 5% contingencies. She explained contingencies were included so that, if additional work needed to be done, it had to be done within that 5%. She also advised that each year, staff looked at the entire capital projects list, closed all completed projects and returned any unused funds to the source.

Councillor McRae wondered what happened if a company was awarded a contract and then discovered it had made a mistake and could not fulfill the contract for the specified dollar amount. Mr. P. Andrews, Manager of Purchasing, explained that the City’s contracts with engineering professionals incorporated a level of effort plus per diem with an upset limit. Therefore, a contract would specify a deliverable and, although the consulting firm would commit to a level of effort and a per diem rate, they accepted the risk of any extra cost they may need to invest.

In response to a further question from Councillor McRae, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that at amalgamation, there were 15 different legal firms providing services to the 12 different municipalities. Through the process of convergence, the number was brought down to 8, which Mr. O’Connor had further reduced to four (4). He noted that at this level, the City was able to get a lower blended rate. He referenced his previous commitment to find $35M in savings from purchasing and re-iterated his intentions to review all City purchasing, including purchasing services.

Councillor McRae felt this was good news. She submitted it may be that the City was getting good value for money. However, she noted the public perception was otherwise and she indicated she looked forward to hearing more about the review referenced by the City Manager.

On the last point, Councillor Jellett cautioned that when looking at lower blended rates, the City might inadvertently eliminate the ability for small firms to compete for City contracts because they may not have the resources to meet the needs of city-wide projects. He submitted that sometimes, smaller was better.

Speaking to beliefs and perceptions, the Councillor thought the City generally believed that the industry was providing the municipality with a valued service when providing an engineering report. However, he felt there was a public perception that the City was being gouged; that when working for a government, engineering firms were charging a higher fee than they would charge a private sector client. He wondered how this perception could be dispelled. Mr. Andrews submitted that the City trusted in the marketplace. He explained that a certain component of staff’s evaluation criteria related to financials and that they had to rely on the marketplace to respond accordingly. He indicated that in evaluating proposals, staff considered technical skills, expertise, experience and cost and that, pursuant to a recommendation of the Auditor General, the City required bidders to confirm the best rate to clients. He submitted that, based on staff’s experience and market research, the City did reasonably well.

Responding to a further question from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Andrews confirmed that staff would sometimes go back to a preferred vendor to negotiate a lower price. However, he indicated staff would not negotiate with two or three vendors and play one against the other.

Councillor McRae suggested having this listed on a future agenda so that Committee could have a fulsome debate, based on facts, on the issue of consultants and purchased services.

Responding to questions from Councillor Desroches, Ms. Simulik indicated the figures provided in staff’s reports did not include GST because the City received a full rebate on any GST it paid. However, she advised that the figures included PST because it was not recoverable and had to be included in total costs. With respect to an upcoming contract to be awarded related to the organics program, she explained this would not be considered a professional service. It would be treated the same way as the City’s garbage pick-up contracts.

Following this exchange, Committee approved the report recommendations.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend to Council that By-law No. 50 of 2000, the Purchasing By-law, be amended in the form contained in Document 1 to revise the reporting to City Council for purchasing contracts.

CARRIED

10. TAX EXEMPTION FOR LAND USED AND OCCUPIED BY VETERANS FOR MEMORIAL HOME, CLUBHOUSE OR ATHLETIC GROUNDS

EXEMPTION D'IMPÔTS FONCIERS POUR LES ORGANISMES D'ANCIENS COMBATTANTS QUI UTILISENT OU OCCUPENT UN TERRAIN POUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT D'UNE RÉSIDENCE COMMÉMORATIVE, D'UN PAVILLON OU D'UN TERRAIN D'ATHLÉTISME

ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0032 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Enact a by-law in the form attached as Document 2 to exempt certain veterans organizations from all municipal property taxes including the school portion of such taxes for a period of ten years commencing in the 2008 taxation year, and

2. Subject to the approval of paragraph (a), the existing by-laws that exempt such veterans organizations from only the municipal portion of the taxes be repealed as of January 1, 2008.

CARRIED

11. MUNICIPAL CAPITAL FACILITY AGREEMENT -
OTTAWA COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION'S
HEAD OFFICE - 39 AURIGA DRIVE

ENTENTE SUR LES IMMOBILISATIONS MUNICIPALES -
BUREAU PRINCIPAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DE LOGEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE D'OTTAWA - 39, PROMENADE AURIGA

ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0035 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The designation of the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) head office municipally known as 39 Auriga Drive, as a Municipal Capital Facility as permitted under section 110 of the Municipal Act, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 603/06, as amended;

2. The authorization that property taxes, both municipal and education, be exempted under the Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement;

3. That this designation be implemented by way of a standard form Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement with the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and subsequent enactment of a by-law in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act, as amended, drafts of which are attached to this report as described in documents 1 and 2; and

4. That the City Treasurer be delegated the authority to finalize and execute the Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement on behalf of the City.

CARRIED

12. OPERATING STATUS REPORT - SEPTEMBER 30, 2007

RAPPORT D'ÉTAPES DES DÉPENSES DE FONCTIONNEMENT -
AU 30 SEPTEMBRE 2007

ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0034 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.

CARRIED

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES
& PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICES

SERVICES DE TRANSFORMATION DES ACTIVITÉS
& SERVICES DES TRAVAUX PUBLICS

13. RECYCLE CONTAINERS AT CITY LOCATIONS -
RESPONSE TO 27 JUNE 2007 MOTION OF COUNCIL

BACS À RECYCLAGE SUR DES TERRAINS APPARTENANT À LA VILLE - RÉPONSE À LA MOTION DU CONSEIL ADOPTÉE LE 27 JUIN 2007

ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0044 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Mr. B. Robinson, Acting Director of Real Property Asset Management, provided Committee with a brief overview of the report, noting that it dealt with parks, City facilities and special events.

Councillor Wilkinson referenced facilities in her ward where the City paid someone to pick up recycling materials but the contractor had nothing to pick up because there were no containers where people could put their recyclables. She indicated she really wanted to give direction to staff to get some recycling going in City facilities, even if it was simply the addition of a few blue boxes.

The Councillor suggested that, to pay for the containers, the City could do as it had done with park benches and have advertising on them. Mr. Robinson indicated staff would welcome that direction and could report back to Committee and Council on that option.

Councillor Hume indicated he was interested recycling at City Hall and City facilities. He expressed a desire to have recycling in community centres, arenas and other City facilities. Based on the figures provided in the report, he surmised that proceeding with increased recycling at City Hall and City facilities would cost $80,500. Mr. Robinson confirmed staff had identified $70,000 for staggered entry at City facilities. He maintained this would not provide for recycling at every facility. He noted that the City had over 1,000 facilities but that recycling was currently available at 200 of these.

Responding to a question from Councillor Hume with respect to the business case, Mr. Robinson explained that the figures outlined in the report represented net costs associated with moving the program forward; they factored in revenue potential as well as disposal costs.

In response to further questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Robinson confirmed that staff was looking for direction from Committee and Council and that any recommendation to move forward would result in an additional pressure as part of the 2008 budget process.

Responding to questions from Committee members with respect to the proposed public awareness campaign, Mr. Robinson explained staff was not contemplating a full-blown public awareness campaign but that some wayward signage and container labeling would be required.

With respect to special events, Councillor Jellett suggested working with event organizers and simply telling them that if they were going to hold an event on City property, they were responsible for providing recycling containers. Therefore, he did not see the need to spend $40,000 for recycling at special events.

In response to a question from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Robinson provided further information on what was contemplated as a public awareness campaign. He used the example of a recent initiative to recycle fluorescent tubes whereby the City was able to divert 15,000 tubes from the landfill.

Councillor Desroches read a motion submitted by Councillor Hume with respect to giving staff direction to move forward with additional recycling at City Hall and City facilities to a maximum cost of $80,5000.

Mr. Robinson indicated staff would welcome that as a beginning because it would get the program moving in the right direction.

Moved by Councillor P. Hume

That staff be directed to proceed with increased recycling at City Hall and other City facilities to a limit of $80,500.

CARRIED

Committee then voted on the item as amended.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council receive this report for information; and

That staff be directed to proceed with increased recycling at City Hall and other City facilities to a limit of $80,500.

CARRIED as amended

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES

SERVICES DE TRANSFORMATION DES ACTIVITÉS

REAL PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT

GESTION DES ACTIFS DES BIENS IMMOBILIERS

14. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
TO COUNCIL Q3 JULY - SEPTEMBER 2007

RAPPORT DE RENDEMENT TRIMESTRIEL PRÉSENTÉ AU
CONSEIL POUR LE 3e TRIMESTRE- JUILLET - SEPTEMBRE 2007

ACS2007-BTS-EXD-0009 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

1. That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive the attached report and refer it for further review and discussion at the following standing committee meetings:

· Transit Committee - January 16, 2008

· Community and Protective Services Committee - January 17, 2008

· Planning and Environment Committee - November 27, 2007

2. That discussion of the report takes place at the CSEDC meeting on January 15, 2008; and

3. That Council receive the report for information on January 23, 2008 once it has been reviewed by standing committees.

CARRIED

15. 2008 CITY OF OTTAWA MUNICIPAL ACCESSIBILITY PLAN

PLAN D'ACCESSIBILITÉ MUNICIPAL 2008 DE LA VILLE D'OTTAWA

ACS2007-BTS-EXD-0008 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Mayor O’Brien took the opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in this plan.

Councillor Wilkinson added her recognition with respect to the amount of work that had gone into the plan and the fact that a volunteer Committee had put so much work into it. She wanted to commend them.

Following this brief exchange, Committee voted unanimously in support of the report recommendations.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend City Council approve:

1. Subject to the 2008 budget process, the 2008 City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP) for implementation, as required by the Province's Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA); and

2. Subject to the 2008 budget process, the human resourcing required to support compliance with new provincially legislated accessibility standards by establishing of a full time position located in Client Services and Public Information branch, Business Transformation Services, with primary responsibilities as outlined in this report.

CARRIED

16. ABANDONMENT OF EXPROPRIATION AND
PROPERTY ACQUISITION - 4386 RIDEAU VALLEY DRIVE

ABANDON DU PLAN D'EXPROPRIATION ET
ACQUISITION DE TERRAIN - 4386 PROMENADE RIDEAU VALLEY

ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0037 Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Declare that seven (7) parcels of vacant land, consisting of approximately 3184.5 m2, (34,278.0 ft2) being parts of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 1, Rideau Front, and Parts of Lot 2, Concession 2, Rideau Front, geographic Township of Nepean, now in the City of Ottawa, described as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on Expropriation Plan CR632213, as shown on Annex "A" attached, be hereby abandoned; and

2. Approve the acquisition of a parcel of vacant land, consisting of approximately 653.6 m2 (7035.4 ft2), in the geographic Township of Nepean, now in the City of Ottawa as shown on Annex "B" attached to this report required for the widening and rehabilitation of the intersection at Rideau Valley Drive and Bankfield Road, from Percy Neil Stinson for the total consideration of $32,010.00 plus reasonable professional fees (legal, appraisal,) related to this transaction.

CARRIED

17. SURPLUS SCHOOL PROPERTIES - 3071 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND 2720 RICHMOND ROAD - OWNED BY THE OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

EXCÉDENT DE PROPRIÉTÉS SCOLAIRES - 3071, PROMENADE RIVERSIDE ET 2720, CHEMIN RICHMOND - APPARTENANT À LA OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0042 Bay (4), River (16)

Appearing before Committee on this item were Mr. S. Finnamore, Executive Director of Business Transformation Services and Mr. G. MacNair, Manager of Real Estate Services. Mr. Finnamore provided Committee with a brief overview of the staff report, noting some of Committee’s discussions on this topic would need to take place In Camera. Mr. MacNair then described the two subject properties for Committee’s benefit.

Committee heard from the following public delegations.

Ronald Caza, Centre multi-services franc ouest (CMFO), referenced the City’s policy on purchasing surplus schools, noting its objective was to prevent having such sites fall into private hands. He indicated the issue before Committee today was whether or not to recommend the purchase of the Grant school. He submitted that the Grant school would be a good investment for the City. He discussed: its construction date and therefore its historical value; its natural environment and the trees and greenspace to be preserved; and the fact that the francophone community was in need of such a site. For these reasons, he urged Committee and Council to seize the opportunity to purchase the Grant school and to proceed, in so doing, to ensuring that Francophones in Ottawa’s western regions had a place where they could live in French and preserve their language and their culture. He referenced the growing numbers of Francophones and Francophiles in Ottawa’s west end, as demonstrated by the growing number of French and French-immersion schools in the area, and submitted that they currently did not have a place where they could live in French and participate in activities in French. Without getting into details of the CMFO project, he advised that a number of organizations were already on side and that $450,000 had been collected to make the project a reality. He re-iterated his request for Committee and Council to seize the opportunity to purchase the Grant school, submitting it would be an investment because the CMFO project would not cost the City any money. It would be self-sustaining and it would be successful.

Jocelyne Chenier, Centre communautaire franc oust (CCFO), spoke on behalf of her organization as well as all the other partner organizations of the CMFO. She indicated her organization served approximately 2000 families and she strongly encouraged Committee and Council to proceed with the purchase of the Grant school site. She indicated it was not easy for community organizations in Ottawa’s west end to reach and serve Francophones and Francophiles, which were spread out throughout the area. Therefore, she submitted it was essential that all such organizations be gathered under one roof. She believed that by working together under one roof, these organizations would be able to create a synergy, which would allow them to become more efficient in providing their services. She then discussed the difficulties currently experienced in finding suitable and affordable space in the area, noting that in the past five years, the CCFO had moved three times and would be moving again in the coming weeks. She discussed similar problems being experienced by other francophone service organizations in the west-end and submitted that the City’s purchase of the Grant school would provide an opportunity to solve all these problems. She felt it was essential for Ottawa’s west-end francophones and she urged Committee and Council to proceed with the purchase.

Gérard Savoie, Hôpital Montfort, advised that, as a full partner of the CMFO, the Hôpital Montfort was supporting the City’s purchase of the Grant school site. He noted that, despite being located in the East end of the City, Montfort served all of Ottawa’s francophones. He discussed the importance of establishing various forms of health care service delivery throughout the community and the current state of the health care system and he submitted that it was essential to set-up a family medical service team to serve the 21,000 Francophones in Ottawa’s west end. He felt the CMFO would be part of the solution in resolving health care problems and he indicated that Montfort would work with the CMFO to establish its family medical service team. He then discussed the partnership between Montfort and the University of Ottawa in terms of training health care professionals and advised that the family medical service team located with the CMFO would be a teaching facility. In closing, he suggested this school site purchase represented an opportunity for the City to have a part in the solution.

Serge Brousseau, La Cité Collégiale, reminded Committee that La Cité Collégiale was created in 1990 in order to give Francophones better access to quality post-secondary education. He noted that most of the schools’s students came from central and eastern Ottawa. However, he believed that if La Cité Collégiale had facilities in the west end, they would attract more Francophone students from the area. He advised that, although La Cité Collégiale had no intention of setting up a campus in the West end, it would be interested in providing, in collaboration with the CMFO, a point of service for the growing Francophone population in the area. He then discussed various ideas in terms of programs and services La Cité Collégiale could provide at the CMFO facility. For these reasons, he expressed the school’s interest in entering into a partnership with the CMFO and he urged Committee and Council to proceed with the purchase of the Grant school site.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Caza confirmed that 55 Francophone organizations were partnering with the CMFO. He submitted a book of letters of support from various organizations, representing 108,000 individuals. A copy of this submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Henry Swiech, President of the Queensway Terrace North Community Association, expressed his organization’s support for the City’s policy to purchase surplus schools as they became available because of the increasing pressure on communities within the boundaries of the old City of Ottawa in terms of increasing rarity of properties for public use. He listed a number of community organizations in the area of the Grant school property as well as several potential uses for the facility. Based on this information, he submitted the City would have no problem utilizing the property and that staff could put together several viable business plans for Council’s consideration. A copy of Mr. Swiech’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Michael Salhani, Parish Councilor at St. Elias Cathedral, noted the Bayview Public School site was located one block south of the Cathedral, which had a membership of 1,500 families scattered throughout Ottawa. On behalf of the congregation, he expressed support for the proposed acquisition of the site, noting it was reasonable to expect that City Council should protect and preserve the public investment as much as it was financially practical to do so. He submitted that allowing the property to be offered on the open market would defeat any hopes of preserving even part of the site for institutional or recreational uses. Because he also recognized the City’s financial challenges, he expressed support for selling off part of the site to private interests in order to recuperate costs. Furthermore, he advised that St. Elias Cathedral was interested in the school building for conversion to a retirement home for the aged and perhaps a licensed daycare for pre-school children, which would be operated and owned by St. Elias Cathedral but would serve the general public.

Responding to questions from Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Salhani confirmed that St. Elias Cathedral had money set aside and was prepared to invest into the facility. However, he noted it would be subject to some due diligence with respect to building inspections and so on.

Councillor McRae advised that she had met with the Parish Council of St. Elias and she confirmed that Mr. Salhani’s presentation reflected the City’s policy, which was to save the site for a particular interest. She indicated the Parish would like to see the City follow through on its policy. She further noted that the Parish had been told they would have to develop a business case for their proposal.

Bill Smith, President of the Riverside Park Community and Recreational Association (RPCRA), expressed his organization’s support for the purchase of the Bayview school property, noting the site was an integral part of their community. He discussed the property’s greenspace, which was used for sports and play activities and enjoyed as general open space. In particular, he indicated that for 25 years, the Association had maintained and operated an open-air skating rink on the site. He felt it was important for the City to maintain such open and green space and he submitted that the retention of this open space would be a natural extension of the Mooney’s Bay Park. He assumed that, should the property be sold to any entity other than the City, the open areas and sports fields would be lost to the community. Therefore, he submitted this was a one-time opportunity for the City to acquire the site and ensure that its use remained consistent with the character and nature of the neighbourhood.

Councillor McRae noted Committee was in receipt of a letter from the RPCRA. Furthermore, she advised that the organization had held their annual general meeting the previous week and had engaged in an open discussion on this issue. Therefore, Mr. Smith was not only representing his organization, but also his community.

Riley Brockington, resident of the Mooney’s Bay community and School Board Trustee for Zone 11 - River Ward, indicated the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) had accepted its staff’s recommendation to pursue negotiations with the City of Ottawa with respect to the sale of both the former Bayview Public School site and the former Grant Public School site. He advised that, after trustees closed Bayview School on August 31^st, 2007, deemed the site surplus to the School Board’s needs and commenced a disposal process, all local public entities were approached under Ontario Regulation 444-98. He indicated his opinion was that the spirit of such regulation was to keep public sites in public hands. He noted the City was the only entity to express interest. He firmly believed there was significant demand within Riverside Park to make the acquisition feasible for the City and that this was truly a win-win proposition. The School Board would get approximately fair market value for the site, the City would retain it for public use, and the local community would continue to use much-needed greenspace, recreational sites and a community facility. He reported that for years, as speculation increased that the School Board would once and for all tackle the declining enrollment issue in the community and close the school, multiple local community groups had approached him asking how they could lease, rent or acquire the building. He submitted that demand existed for community centre space, community service centre space, seniors’ recreational space, seniors’ long-term care facility space, daycare space and other specific needs. He indicated the purpose of his presentation was to ensure Committee and Council were cognizant of the overwhelming support that existed in the area for the site to remain in public hands, for much-needed greenspace to be retained for ice skating, soccer, baseball, etc. He said he was aware of Council’s fiscal challenges. He submitted that, as Chair of the School Board’s Budget Committee, he was no stranger to difficult budgets. However, he urged Committee and Council to consider the long-term effect of their decision and to not reject the proposal simply because of the price. He asked that members consider the long-term benefits that would be retained for the community for years to come. He reported it was very likely that if no deal was reached, trustees may consider selling the site on the open market. If this happened, he believed greenspace and a community building that had existed for decades and had served thousands of local residents, would be lost forever. He noted the annual operating costs were low for maintaining ice rinks, soccer pitches and ball diamonds and that this was a good deal for the City of Ottawa, the residents of Riverside Park and the greater community. He urged Committee and Council to accept the staff recommendation to acquire both the Bayview Public School and Grant Public School sites. He opined that it may be odd for the seller of the building to appear before Committee to urge the City to accept staff’s proposal. However, he maintained it was about retaining a public good in public hands. He remarked that many trustees believed the School Board could get more money on the open market for the Bayview site. He re-iterated this was a once-in-a-life time opportunity to retain a public good for public use and he urged the City to work with the School Board for a win-win solution.

Councillor Deans referenced a situation in her ward a few years back when the City had expressed an interest in acquiring land at Cahill Drive and Hunt Club Road for the South-Central District Library. She recalled that the Ottawa Board of Education (OBE) would not entertain the City’s offer, which would have retained those lands in the long-term public interest. As a result, the City found an alternate site for the Library and a few months later, the OBE sold the preferred site into public ownership for housing development. She agreed with retaining public sites for public uses. However, she maintained that all sides had to cooperate in order to make things happen. She referenced the delegation’s comments with respect to the School Board getting “approximately fair market value” and she wondered, if the City was to retain the site as greenspace, if he would be prepared to advance a motion to give the City a break on the purchase price, in the interest of working together to retain the site as greenspace for the future of Ottawa’s residents. Mr. Brockington responded that, as one trustee, he was certainly prepared to be engaged in the thorough discussion, when the discussion was held at the School Board table. He indicated he shared many of the concerns of local residents and members of Council about the value of retaining the site within the community. However, he indicated School Board trustees would not sell vacant or surplus land to the City for a dollar, or some very nominal fee. This was why he suggested that if there could not be an agreement, that the City not reject it outright because it was about a negotiation. The parties were trying to compromise with each other and go back and forth until they could come to some sort of agreement. He indicated he was prepared to entertain any logical or rational offer being made and to articulate the concerns of his constituents and of the district. He cautioned that he could not answer specific questions about what he thought the School Board would do because that was also up to his colleagues. However, he reported that when they had the discussion at the School Board table, he had been very positive and supportive of retaining the site. He re-iterated that he would not support selling the site for one dollar and that there had to be a fair offer put on the table because, like the City, the School Board had its own challenges to address.

Councillor Deans wondered, if the City ended up paying “approximately fair market value” for the site, whether it was the delegation’s intention to ensure that the Board did not put any restrictions in the agreement with respect to the property’s use. Mr. Brockington indicated it was difficult for him to comment publicly, noting that the parties were in negotiations. He advised that, like the City, the School Board handled its negotiations In Camera. He reported the only thing he could say was that he was an active participant in these discussions with his colleagues at the School Board, that they had thus far had thorough discussions, and that they would continue to do so as needed. Furthermore, he re-iterated that he would advocate on behalf of his constituents for all sorts of rational, logical offers before the Board. He did not want to commit to what offers he would or would not buy into without first hearing from the School Board’s own staff. In closing, he re-iterated his desire to see the site retained for public use.

Councillor Desroches submitted these were lands already owned by the taxpayers. Therefore, he felt the policies, at all levels, should be to facilitate the transfers of those lands. He wondered if the School Board would entertain a proposition to sell the land to the City at the price the School Board had paid for those lands.

Mayor O’Brien believed Mr. Brockington was supportive of having the lands remain in public trust but that at the same time, he wanted to have the money to carry on and invest in the School Board’s own infrastructure. For these reasons, he believed the School Board was looking for fair market value. Mr. Brockington responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Bloess noted that these lands were acquired with taxpayers’ dollars in the first place. He believed there were more fundamental issues at play here in terms of public uses for public spaces. He felt there should be a formula to make it more affordable for the City than to pay market value to a School Board and he indicated he would encourage staff to drive a hard bargain in these negotiations and to call upon the social conscience of the School Board to give the City a fair price.

Councillor Cullen believed the legislation governing the disposition of surplus schools provided a priority ranking to public facilities, but at the same time, gave the Board the right, in dealing with the City, the Provincial Government or the Federal Government, to get market value for the land. Mr. Brockington indicated his understanding of the legislation was that, when a School Board deemed a site surplus to its needs and agreed to dispose of the site, an Ontario regulation stipulated that the School Board had to offer “first dibs” to other local public entities. For this reason, the School Board approached the City, the Province, the Federal Government, local colleges, universities and the other local School Boards to advise of the surplus sites and to request any offers within 90 days. He remarked that, should these other local public entities choose to make an offer, it did not have to be fair market value. However, he noted the School Board had the sites appraised and he believed the City had done the same. Should no offers be made, he reported that School Board staff usually recommended proceeding to the open market. He advised that some trustees believed the School Board could get a lot more money for these sites on the open market but that the will of the majority was to work with another public entity with the goal of retaining the properties in public hands and get a fair price at the same time.

Responding to a further question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Brockington indicated it was not his preference to get into the intricacies of the contract between the School Board and the City. He assumed Committee would have such discussions In Camera. However, he expressed his belief that the offer before the City was a good and fair deal and he hoped Committee would accept staff’s recommendation to acquire both sites.

Pierre Duval, a resident of Mooney’s Bay, described his property’s proximity to the Bayview site, noting that for the past 17 years, he had seen school buses going in and out of the school property. He indicated his main concern pertained to the site’s zoning, which he hoped would not change.

Marie Louise Cassis, CCC # 585, indicated she represented 87 families, located just south of the Bayview School property. She expressed discomfort that the City even had to make this decision. She advised that her community had been very vocal about the disposal of the property, about the lack of procedure followed by the School Board, and about the fact that the Provincial authority had asked them to go back to the drawing board to review their procedure. She understood that the City was in a difficult position regarding the acquisition of this property in terms of the clauses or circumstances the School Board may try to impose. She felt it was disturbing that a school with full enrollment had been shut down and that the School Board viewed this situation as a “win-win”, given the fact that any money earned from selling this property would only be used to open another school in another area. She argued this was not a win-win for her community. She indicated that she understood the financial obligations and she expressed support for Councillor McRae’s efforts to keep this site a part of her community. We trust the City would do what was needed to keep the area beautiful. She submitted the Bayview School site was an exceptional piece of property and that the City need not worry about recovering its investment.

Responding to a question from Councillor McRae, Ms. Cassis indicated she believed the community wanted to see part of the land maintained as greenspace and she submitted that public consultation with respect to the site’s future would be paramount.

In response to questions from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Finnamore advised that, with the exception of lands needed for road widenings or for the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, the City did not acquire a whole lot of land. Mr. MacNair indicated there was not a budget allocated in connection with the Surplus Schools Acquisition policy.

The following groups and/or individuals provided written submissions in support of the purchase of the subject schools, all of which are held on file with the City Clerk:

At this juncture, Committee moved In Camera to consider a corresponding Confidential report.

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

That the meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Procedure By-law to consider the following report:

Surplus School Properties – 3071 Riverside Drive and 2720 Richmond Road – Owned by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board - In-Camera – Proposed Acquisition of Land by the Municipality – Report Out Date: Following Conclusions of Negotiations, Information Will Be Reported

CARRIED

Resuming in open session, Mayor O’Brien advised that staff had provided a motion to replace the staff recommendations, which Councillor Desroches had offered to move.

Moved by Councillor S. Desroches

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend to Council:

1. That staff be given direction to pursue the acquisition of 3071 Riverside Drive and 2720 Richmond Road from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board within the parameters established by Committee and Council;

2. That staff be directed to return with an appropriate redevelopment plan for these two properties in 2008, should the acquisitions be finalized; and

3. That staff provide a funding recommendation to Council at its next meeting.

CARRIED as amended

18. MAPLE GROVE WORKS OPERATION
WITHIN KANATA WEST CONCEPT PLAN

LE DÉPÔT MAPLE GROVE DANS
LE CADRE DU KANATA WEST CONCEPT PLAN

ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0006 STITTSVILLE - KANATA WEST (6)

Councillor Wilkinson introduced a motion on this item on behalf of Councillor Qadri.

Mr. S. Finnamore, Executive Director of Business Transformation Services, confimed that staff was in agreement with the motion.

Moved by Councillor M.Wilkinson

WHEREAS City staff are recommending that the Maple Grove Works Operation needs to be upgraded and modernized;

AND WHEREAS Capital funding will be required to fund the construction and relocation of the existing facilities;

AND WHEREAS the recommendation includes the potential disposal of 12 hectares known as “Parcel 3”;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff bring forward a report to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee by Q4 of 2009 on the proposed disposal of “Parcel 3” with options for the proceeds of the sale to be applied to the debt-financing fund used for the construction and relocation of the works operation on the property or that it be used to fund the site acquisition, design and construction of the alternate snow dump.

CARRIED

Committee then voted on the report as amended.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve confirmation that a minimum 16 acre parcel will be retained by the City for the continued operation and redevelopment of the Public Works and Services (PWS Works Facility) at 1655 Maple Grove; and

2. That staff bring forward a report to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee by Q4 of 2009 on the proposed disposal of “Parcel 3” with options for the proceeds of the sale to be applied to the debt-financing fund used for the construction and relocation of the works operation on the property or that it be used to fund the site acquisition, design and construction of the alternate snow dump.

CARRIED as amended

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES &

COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

SERVICES DE TRANSFORMATION DES ACTIVITÉS &

SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION

19. MANOTICK MILL QUARTER -
THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LAND

QUARTIER DU MOULIN DE MANOTICK -
L'ACQUISTION DE TERRAIN PROPOSE

ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0045 Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Councillor Hume wondered if Committee could deal with this item before recessing for the day.

Councillor Desroches indicated the item had been timed for consideration on the next day.

Councillor Hume assumed the item had been timed for the convenience of the ward Councillor and indicated that if it suited Councillor Brooks, he would be happy to deal with the item.

The Committee Coordinator indicated there was one public delegation registered to speak on the item and that this person had been advising of the item’s timing.

Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Bloess, the Committee Coordinator confirmed that the delegation had registered to speak in support of the report recommendations.

Councillor Hume indicated he would be happy to carry the item and that Councillor Brooks could advise his community accordingly.

Councillor Brooks expressed concurrence.

At this juncture, Committee voted to approve the report recommendations.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee consider recommending that Council:

1. Approve the establishment of a Manotick Mill Quarter Corporation (holding company), as described in this report, in accordance with the Business Case Study set out in Document 1 attached hereto;

2. Approve the acquisition in fee simple of two (2) parcels of land consisting of a combined land area of approximately 4056 sq. m. owned by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) and known as the Dickinson House, the Carriage House and Weaver's House being Parcel "A" and the Ayer's Building being Parcel "B", as shown on the Annex "A" sketch attached to this report, for the consideration of $1,400,000 plus GST subject to final adjustments on closing and the following condition. The RVCA would be required to enter into a heritage easement agreement with the City for the Watson's Mill property, being Parcel "C", as shown on the Annex "A" sketch attached to this report, and to agree to transfer the Watson's Mill property to Watson's Mill Manotick Inc. for $1 subject to the City being provided with an option to purchase this property for $1 if Watson's Mill Manotick Inc. at any time offers the Mill property for lease or sale;

3. Approve the acquisition in fee simple of a 2144 sq. m. parcel of land, owned by the Estate of Anna Dorothy Clapp, described as Part of Lot 1, Concession A, Broken Front, North Gower; Part Lot 1 N/S Bridge Street, Plan 15 As In NG13177; City of Ottawa (PIN: 03903-1114) and being Parcel "D" as shown on the Annex "A" sketch attached to this report, for the consideration of $590,000 plus GST subject to final adjustments on closing;

4. Approve the acquisition in fee simple of a 1648 sq. m. parcel of land, owned by Maurice Holloway, described as Part of Lot 1, Concession A, Broken Front, North Gower, As In NG10893; City of Ottawa (PIN: 03903-1158) and being Parcel "E" as shown on the Annex "A" sketch attached to this report, for the consideration of $250,000 plus GST subject to final adjustments on closing;

5. Approve the transfer of the properties, shown as Parcels "A", "B", "D" & "E" on the Annex "A" sketch attached to this report to the Manotick Mill Quarter Corporation subject to the repayment and heritage and easement conditions and the public use covenants set out more particularly in Document 2 of this report;

6. Direct staff to continue to pursue with Watson's Mill Manotick Inc., Energy Ottawa and Parks Canada, the potential for and economic viability of generating electrical power at Watson's Mill; and

7. Approve a grant to Dickinson Heritage Management Inc. (DSHMI) in an amount not to exceed $25,000 to be used to offset the actual costs incurred by DSHMI in the preparation of its business plan as described in this report.

CARRIED

Having dealt with all but Items 17 and 20 of the Agenda, Committee recessed the meeting at 4:25 p.m. on Monday, 19 November, to reconvene the following morning at 10:00 a.m.

Upon reconvening the meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 November 2007, Councillor Deans raised a point of order. She noted that item 19 had been timed for consideration on the second day of the two-day meeting and that, like several other members of Committee, she had left the previous day’s meeting at 4:00 p.m. because of another commitment only to find out that just before recessing the first day of meeting, Committee had moved the item up and dealt with out. Although she indicated her intention to support the item, she maintained that she would have liked to hear from the public on it and to participate in the debate.

Responding to a question from Mayor O’Brien, the Committee Coordinator confirmed that the item had been timed for consideration on the second day of the two-day meeting. She believed this had been done at the request of the ward Councillor and with the acquiescence of the Committee Chair. She advised that the timing of the item had not been published but that it had been communicated through an e-mail to members of Council.

Councillor Hume stated that at the end of the previous day’s meeting, he had asked that the item be brought forward and dispensed with. He noted Councillor Brooks had been present and had consented to this because his residents intended to come forward and speak in support of the report recommendations. He indicated his intentions were to streamline the Committee’s work and that the members who were present had agreed.

Councillor Desroches indicated he had been chairing the meeting when Committee dealt with the item and he confirmed the explanation provided by Councillor Hume.

Mayor O’Brien asked for a comment from the City Solicitor in terms of moving forward.

Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, also confirmed that events had transpired as outlined by Councillors Hume and Desroches. He indicated it had been the will of Committee to deal with the item and that it had been unanimously approved. He offered a couple of options with regards to resurrecting the matter, appreciating that the public delegations may not be present to speak to it and noting that the final decision would be made at Council the following week.

Councillor Deans indicated she did not wish to have the item revisited. However, she referenced the community’s interest in this item and she maintained the importance of keeping to the schedule when items were timed for consideration at a specified time.

Mayor O’Brien felt this was a good point and he invited the Ward Councillor to make some closing comments.

Councillor Brooks acknowledged Councillor Deans’ comments and he expressed appreciation for her support of the item. However, he indicated he had contacted the people who would have attended the meeting to speak to the item and he advised that they were delighted to not have to make the trip into the City. He re-iterated his acknowledgement of Councillor Deans’ concerns, but he thanked Councillor Hume and Committee members for moving the item forward because it would save time during the second meeting day.

COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION

CULTURAL SERVICES AND COMMUNITY FUNDING

SERVICES CULTURELS ET FINANCEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE

20. COMMUNITY CONCERT HALL

SALLE DE CONCERT COMMUNAUTAIRE

ACS2007-CPS-CSF-0013 SOMERSET (14)

Appearing before Committee on this item were Colleen Hendrick, Director of Cultural Services and Community Funding and Dave Donaldson, Real Estate Officer.

At the outset, Ms. Hendrick provided an overview of the staff report and of the background on this matter. In particular, she noted that the Community Concert Hall was identified as one of the five top cultural infrastructure priorities in the Arts and Heritage Plan adopted by Council in 2003 and that it also impacted two other areas of the City’s existing strategic directions, as outlined in a memo issued separately to Committee members.

Responding to questions from Councillor Chiarelli with respect to the impact on the rest of the agreement with Morguard, should the community concert hall project not go forward, Mr. Donaldson indicated Morguard owned the property. However, he explained the City had until February 28, 2008 to determine whether or not the project would include a community concert hall. Should the concert hall project not go forward, the City had the option of leasing or purchasing the space at market value for some other project. However, if neither of those things happened, Morguard could proceed with a redesign of the space, though they would have to construct a building that was consistent with the site plan and design already approved by Council and consistent with their agreement with the City. He noted there were 16,100 square feet of space for public community benefits, which currently was proposed to include the concert hall, winter garden and panoramic foyers on the second and third floors. He understood there was no other use, fundable from the City’s standpoint, for the space. Therefore, he suggested that if Council decided to pull the funding for the concert hall, the City should also advise Morguard that it did not have any other use for the space.

Councillor Chiarelli inquired as to Morguard’s progress in attracting tenants. Mr. Donaldson indicated they had been marketing the complex. He explained that the residential component would remain as rental units. However, he noted the difficulty in leasing the office and retail spaces dependent on whether or not the concert hall project moved forward. He submitted that, in the marketplace, it was difficult to bring in retail and business tenants if Morguard could not confirm the other major use.

In response to further questions from Councillor Chiarelli, Mr. Donaldson indicated Morguard wanted the concert hall to proceed but that, in the event it did not, they had started looking at other opportunities to have a tenant in place to utilize the space. He briefly reviewed the proposal’s evolution, re-iterating that Morguard owned the property and was waiting to know the outcome of the concert hall project so they could move forward and develop a site that had cost them $7M to date.

Councillor Deans reviewed the property’s history, recalling that the Council of the former City of Ottawa had chosen to keep the site in the City’s ownership so the new City of Ottawa might use it for something important to a Nation’s capital. She noted an up-lift in the property’s value had afforded an opportunity to leverage community funds and upper tier governments’ funds to create a community concert hall. She viewed it as an opportunity to make a dream happen for the arts community and to have a facility, which should this opportunity be lost, the City would likely never be able to have. She indicated Council had always known it would be a significant challenge to get all the pieces in place to make this project a reality. That being said, she wondered why the City would not give this opportunity until the very limit. She submitted that if there were three more months, then there was still hope.

Mr. K. Kirkpatrick, City Manager, submitted that, given the decisions Council would have to make in the coming weeks with respect to the City’s strategic initiatives capital projects, he was recommending Committee and Council deal with this as a policy issue so the funding could be put back on the table for Council to re-prioritize in the context of the budget. He indicated it was his view that this project was not going to happen, even if given another extension. He referenced two issues: the Ottawa Chamber Music Society’s (OCMS) ability to do the community fundraising, which had not been successful to date; and the Federal government funding. With respect to the Federal government funding, he explained there were two components: the staff-level application to a funding stream of the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, which was in process; and the political support. Should Committee decide to grant an extension, he suggested there be a request or an expectation of political support from the Federal government.

Responding to a question from Councillor Deans with respect to the status of the funding application to the Federal government, Ms. Hendrick confirmed that the OCMS had submitted a revised application and that the national review panel had done a preliminary review of it. She indicated the feedback from Federal staff was that they were awaiting further details from OCMS with respect to their sponsorship and naming rights before taking the application further. She noted once this was in hand, the application would still require an approval decision from the Minister. That being said, she advised that the OCMS had submitted their application, had attended a number of interviews and meetings with Ministry staff, and had complied and submitted everything they needed to submit in support of their application, but that they needed to demonstrate significant advancement on the sponsorship and naming rights of their proposal.

Councillor Deans re-iterated that Council always knew this would be difficult and she believed the project should be given every possible opportunity. She suggested that perhaps Council should put some pressure on the Federal government to come to the table and make a commitment for their share of the funding to move this project forward. In closing, she indicated she would work with staff on wording for a motion.

Responding to a question from Mayor O’Brien, Ms. Hendrick confirmed that staff had received a copy of the OCMS application to the Federal government and that it would fit within the Federal priorities. Furthermore, she noted there was some recognition that, in this community, not a lot of cultural infrastructure had been supported by the Federal government in the past.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that Council was not locked into any budgetary decision made for the future. However, he re-iterated his view that, in the absence of Federal political support, this project would not move forward. He further confirmed that Committee and Council could agree to an extension and at the same time, outline a “plan B”. However, he re-iterated what Mr. Donaldson had indicated earlier with respect to there not being a previously identified project that could fit into the space. Therefore, there was no “plan B”.

Councillor Wilkinson referenced earlier discussions with respect to Morguard’s position and she advised she had received an e-mail in which the company’s Senior Vice-President of Development, Ms. Margaret Knowles, expressed Morguard’s continued support for the OCMS and its efforts to secure a new first class community concert hall facility at 150 Elgin Street.

Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Hendrick indicated she felt the report demonstrated the long history of the needs in Ottawa for a facility of this type, which would be responding to needs across the community in terms of arts and music organizations and various arts groups. She submitted the report before Committee responded to a direction given to staff to bring forward a report on the status of the project’s funding before the end of November.

Councillor Wilkinson referenced Item 21 of the Agenda, with respect to City funding for the expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre. She noted that report talked about a multiplier effect in terms of the City’s investment generating growth and economic benefits. She wondered if a similar multiplier effect had been determined for the concert hall. In response, Ms. Hendrick referenced a 13 October 2004 report on the proposal, which provided a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits. The construction multiplier was estimated at approximately $50M. Staff identified the indirect impact of the concert hall, which was expected to bring millions of dollars into the city from foundations, donors and corporate sources through the OCMS fundraising activity. The broadcast from the hall would reach an annual radio audience of between 100-200 million and an annual television audience of 200 million. She noted the report had looked at both the economic impact and the broader impact in terms of positioning this City and this community internationally.

Councillor Wilkinson asked whether any value was given to the fact there would be millions of people in Ottawa, noting it would be beneficial for the Congress Centre. Ms. Hendrick indicated staff did the initial estimates on the construction value but did not put a dollar value on that impact.

Mayor O’Brien asked if the Director had an understanding of the organization’s current fundraising situation. Ms. Hendrick confirmed that staff had received the financial submission the OCMS submitted to the federal government, which included an updated fundraising plan (attached as an annex to this report).

Responding to questions posed by Councillor Holmes with regards to when Morguard planned to start construction, Mr. Donaldson re-iterated Morguard had supported the requested extension by the OCMS and had given a timeframe of the end of February 2008 to start construction, whether or not the concert hall proceeded.

The councillor understood approvals were in place and wondered whether Morguard was waiting for a proposal call for new federal buildings coming on in order to fill their commercial space at this site. Mr. Donaldson confirmed they would potentially look at this if the concert hall space became available. However, given the investment in this project, they would prefer to include the concert hall. He made note of the fact that if the OCMS went ahead with the current proposal, Morguard would not have enough space to accommodate because they only had about 80,000 square feet of office space and the tender call for the federal government would be between 300,000 and 400,000 square feet. He reiterated that Morguard was working very cooperatively and had been extremely supportive of the OCMS.

Councillor Holmes made note of the different funding amounts the federal government appeared to give Ottawa versus other major cities such as Toronto. The Director explained that Cultural Spaces Canada had a maximum funding envelope from which cities could draw and she expected some of the other cultural infrastructure projects across Toronto and Montreal had accessed that funding stream and potentially other Infrastructure Canada initiatives as well in terms of being able to bring forward and secure their funding requirements. She referred to a study done several years ago, which clearly illustrated that for Ottawa, the per capita investment by the Federal government in cultural infrastructure was very low. At that time, Ottawa was probably the lowest amongst other major Canadian cities on a per capita investment basis. She believed the capacity for other organizations to secure additional funds reflected whether or not they had been able to secure funding from both Cultural Spaces Canada and Infrastructure Canada sources.

The Councillor presumed, therefore, that the OCMS could access other Federal funding envelopes in addition to the Cultural Spaces envelope. The Director explained that was the case at one point, but the minimum requirement was higher than what they were seeking so they became ineligible for the other funding stream.

While he appreciated that fundraising challenges existed, Councillor Desroches wanted to understand how much of the initial $500,000 investment had been used and, should Council agree to an extension, whether there would continue to be a drawing down from those funds. Ms. Hendrick indicated the City advanced the referenced amount in 2006 as part of the provincial contribution, on the basis that they needed to secure additional resources to conduct the overall project management as well as work on design and development. The funds were for the purposes of being able to facilitate and help them to mobilize bringing the project forward in tandem with Morguard’s development. Depending on what was approved by Council, she indicated staff would work with the OCMS to identify the unexpended funds, though she did not have that figure readily available. The expectation would be to review their committed requirements against that fund and then look for reimbursement back to the City on the unexpended funds from the account.

The Councillor asked if the amount had been frozen or whether there would continue to be a draw down on them if there was an extension. Ms. Hendrick understood the OCMS would continue to have obligations against the $500,000, until such time as a different Council direction was taken.

Given the time of the year, Councillor Desroches questioned their intention to conduct fundraising efforts. Ms. Hendrick explained that as was presented in the overall status of their fundraising, the major piece needing resolution related to the sponsorship naming rights. Having that in hand would significantly change their fundraising situation. Furthermore, she noted they also planned to launch a major fundraising initiative for individual donors as part of their programming. Their fundraising consortium had provided expert advice with regards to what they should be doing and when. She referred to the report, which outlined the significant discussions the OCMS was having with a major financial organization on the matter.

Councillor Desroches inquired how long the federal government had been engaged in this matter. Ms. Hendrick advised that the OCMS initiated their first application in 2005, followed by a number of additional requirements they had to submit to them. As stated previously, they had some initial feedback that potentially they could apply through a different program, but they were redirected back to Cultural Spaces Canada.

Mayor O’Brien asked whether staff had been in touch with the local Member of Parliament with regards to assisting with the federal government application. Ms. Hendrick confirmed there had been a number of ongoing communications and contacts by OCMS with provincial and federal members of Parliament looking for support for their proposal.

Following on the latter comments, Councillor Harder asked if staff had heard whether there might be support from the senior levels of government. Ms. Hendrick explained that, at a staff level in the Department of Canadian Heritage, they had met with the OCMS a number of times to clarify the application and staff understood it was currently on hold until such time as the OCMS could demonstrate some significant step forward on their sponsorship and naming rights. Ministry staff wanted to see that in place before making final decisions and then it would require approval by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Councillor questioned the Federal government’s intention to support this project. Should Council reject the requested extension, she suggested it would not reflect well on the City. She further wondered where the “champions” were for this project, recognizing the OCMS was not asking the City for any money it had not already pre-committed.

Councillor Jellett indicated he would prefer to have the issue of Federal government support resolved prior to Council’s consideration of this matter and hoped the OCMS representative would be able to answer questions on how the $500,000 had been spent as well as the amount of cash the organization had in the bank.

The Committee heard from the following public delegations.

Mary Partington, Canadian Federation of University Women, spoke in support of the request for the three-month extension for the following reasons:

· Such a facility did not exist in Ottawa and would be ideal for producing recordings as well as housing local music festivals and community choirs.

· Over 30 groups had confirmed an interest in using the concert hall on a regular basis.

· The largest proportion of funds would come from the public and would be more easily obtained with commitment from the City and federal government.

· The hall would raise Ottawa’s profile to a national and international audience and would be a major tourist attraction.

· It would stimulate the economy and play a major role in revitalizing the downtown.

Councillor McRae asked the delegation why she believed the OCMS would be more successful in the next 90 days than they had been in the past three years in terms of obtaining a firm commitment from the federal government. In addition, she asked what the Federation had done to lobby the federal government to come forward with support. Ms. Partington acknowledged that the change of leadership at the OCMS had affected their progress and she advised that her organization had written to local MPs and MPPs to encourage their support, though no responses had been received.

Colin Cooke, President & Chair of the Ottawa Chamber Music Society (OCMS) encouraged the Committee to approve their request for a three-month extension. The more salient comments made were as follows:

· He understood the challenges of limited resources, but believed that in order to achieve great things, some risks needed to be taken and he was asking the Committee to risk nothing more than what had already been generously offered, and only for a short time.

· Given unforeseen circumstances, the OCMS acknowledged the fact that they are several months short of time to complete what the Committee gave them support to achieve; however, they were working closely with a potential naming sponsor to reach an understanding and to get the backing of a national company for the concert hall.

· The Committee had an opportunity to leverage the $6M the City received for the land at 150 Elgin Street and to turn it into a $33M concert hall.

· The City had the opportunity to support local festivals, arts groups, professional touring companies, et cetera. All, including local businesses, stood to benefit from this concert hall because it would enhance tourism and would be a welcome complement to other efforts the City was undertaking, such as the expansion of the Congress Centre, the Orléans Arts Centre and the expansion to Centrepointe Theatre.

· If, by the end of February, they were unable to proceed, they would admit defeat.

In closing, Mr. Cooke submitted that the arts community went a long way towards defining a city and that its vibrancy was desperately needed to make the city special and a destination for others to visit. He believed it would be a tragic mistake to lose this opportunity because it would add life to the city’s core.

Councillor McRae asked how much fundraising had been done, in terms of actual tangible assets. Mr. Cooke indicated they had not been actively seeking cash to date, though they had received more than $1M in pledges. He explained that the advice given to them by the fundraising consortium was to not start raising funds from the community at large until they had the various other pieces in place. He noted the federal government’s unwillingness to commit until the OCMS showed them their fundraising.

Given the financial commitments by the province and the City, the Councillor suggested the OCMS move to private sector fundraising as their next step. Mr. Cooke re-iterated that this was contrary to the advice they had received from the fundraising consortium. However, in light of the situation, he expressed a willingness to proceed immediately with the community fundraising campaign.

Responding to a question with respect to the potential naming sponsor, Mr. Cooke indicated the OCMS was engaged in discussions with a national corporation capable of supporting the concert hall to the dollar value they had been seeking and he was confident these negotiations would come to a successful conclusion within three months.

Councillor Wilkinson referred to a motion approved in February that directed the OCMS to provide a fundraising plan in 30 days and, while she recognized they had experienced internal difficulties, she thought their priorities got a bit skewed because they had hurt their opportunities by not following through. She suggested that if the OCMS could show some fundraising success prior to the present report rising to Council, it would give some evidence of their effort. She indicated she believed this project could come to fruition. However, she stressed the need to create some momentum and galvanize support. Mr. Cooke assured Committee that the OCMS would get its fundraising started immediately.

Councillor Wilkinson encouraged the OCMS to reach out to the business community in order to gain their support for the project and to seek their assistance in approaching the federal government to secure its commitment. Furthermore, she indicated that, should Council grant this extension, she would like to see monthly reports on the organization’s fundraising activities and the project’s status.

Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Cooke acknowledged that the organization could have started fundraising with the understanding that, should the project no go forward, any funds collected would be returned to the donors. However, he expressed concerns with respect to issuing charitable receipts in one fiscal year and having the project cancelled in a subsequent year. He noted this complication was not insurmountable, however it was a concern. He re-iterated that to date, on the advice of the fundraising consortium, the organization had been seeking pledges rather than cash donations. That being said, he acknowledged Committee members’ comments and concerns and he repeated his promise to immediately kick-off the community fundraising campaign.

Councillor Chiarelli referenced the OCMS’s internal difficulties and he wondered why Council should not view those difficulties as good reason for not advancing the money and for withdrawing its support for the project. Mr. Cooke characterized their difficulties as growing pains. He submitted that their internal challenges over the past year had resulted in a strengthened organization and had served to ensure that it had the capacity and the capability to manage this project and be stewards of the facility. He indicated he was very confident that the new administration had the experience and the contacts, in both the arts and the business communities, to ensure the concert hall would be a viable success.

In reply to a further question from Councillor Chiarelli with respect to some way of strengthening Council’s impression of the OCMS, Mr. Cooke indicated they would be creating a “Friends of the Concert Hall” group in order to bridge a large number of organizations in the community; organizations that would be made privy to the plan and its status and would become an integral part of it. He pledged that this would become a community effort and that the OCMS would be encouraging and welcoming all the other arts groups and all other interested parties to come to the table to make this project a success.

Responding to questions from Councillor Bloess with respect to rising project costs, Mr. Cooke began by noting that the $10M increase provided for a larger facility, a refinement of the original estimates, and an inclusion of the GST. He explained that the original figures provided to Council by Morguard, PCL and the OCMS in 2004 were estimates. As they had gone through a refinement process with acousticians, theater designers and builders, those numbers had been refined. Not only were there inflationary concerns, but they also increased the floor space. In addition, there was a mistake in the original figures in that GST was not included because the OCMS had been told that, as a charitable organization, it would be exempt. This turned out to not be the case and the corresponding value was added into the estimates. Therefore, he submitted that although the increase was still significant, it was closer to $5M than $10M.

Councillor Bloess felt the fundraising efforts had been less than stellar. However, he submitted this really came down to the need for the federal government to step up to the plate and commit their funding.

Speaking to the issue of federal funding, Mr. Cooke explained the City of Toronto had applied to a large infrastructure program available at the federal level but that the OCMS had gone to the Cultural Spaces Program because of this project’s size. However, he noted that in terms of funding under the Cultural Spaces Program, the OCMS proposal was pushing the envelope and going right to the maximum amount acceptable under the program. Therefore, he believed this was part of the reticence and the federal government’s desire to ensure the project had all its community and corporate support confirmed before making its own commitment.

Responding to a question from Councillor Jellett with respect to the status of the $500,000 already advance by the City, Mr. Cooke indicated he did not have exact figures on hand. However, he advised that the organization had spent a considerable amount on fundraising experts, theater design, acousticians and architects. That being said, he felt this raised an interesting point in that, for the past 18 months, the City had been sitting on the $6M Provincial government’s contribution, which he assumed had been generating some revenue. He submitted that the interest earned on the $6M would go a long way towards underwriting the OCMS’s efforts as well as Council’s generous support of this initiative.

Councillor Jellett suggested the $6M Provincial government contribution and whether or not the City had access to any revenue generated by it was something the City Treasurer could speak to. However, prior to the present report rising to Council, he asked that the OCMS provide a detailed breakdown of how the $500,000 had been utilized to date and how much of it was left, if any.

Anne Cure, President of the Gloucester Music Teachers’ Association, urged Committee to extend the deadline for funding for the community concert hall. She submitted this project was part of the great cultural life of this great City, and that it needed time. She noted so much was in place; so many elements of funding and support were poised to move forward. She maintained the OCMS was not asking for more money, it was only asking for time. She referenced the benefits the facility would bring, humanly, economically, culturally, and submitted it seemed only sensible to wait and work as long and as hard as possible. She felt there were neither costs nor risks to Council for waiting. She believed the concert hall would benefit the arts, which would in turn benefit the entire community. She urged Committee and Council to give the concert hall a chance.

William Teron felt this concert hall would be important to the downtown area and that there was no other site where the City could potentially have a facility of this type. He talked about its link with, and importance to the Congress Centre, noting Committee had just approved a report dealing with the City’s support of that project. He believed the concert hall would be a major attraction for Ottawa residents as well as meeting and conference delegates and tourists. He noted that the City of Montreal was investing $120M to invigorate its entertainment center around the Place des arts because that city realized the importance of having a vibrant evening scene. He indicated that, if the project went forward, he would be a supporter of the concert hall. However, he discussed the terms of the agreement with Morguard and he advised that, should the project not go forward and the site be put back out to tender, he would be submitting a proposal.

Sandy Bason, Past-President of the Ottawa Chorale Society, asked that Committee and Council grant an extension to the OCMS until the end of February 2008. She discussed the need for the concert hall, noting that the Ottawa Chorale Society (OCS) had been a supporter of the project since the beginning. She felt this remained a relatively inexpensive structure and that half of the funding was in place, thanks to the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario. She indicated she first contacted the Minister of Canadian Heritage when the Liberals were in power. Noting the change in government since then, she advised that John Baird had said he would not support releasing any funds for this project until after a major corporate sponsor had been announced. She supported the idea of the City putting pressure on the federal government to commit funding for the project, should the OCMS be able to get a major sponsor lined up and signed up. She noted that the naming sponsor had not been confirmed, although the OCMS indicated they were very close. She submitted the organization just needed the extra three months to finalize negotiations with the naming sponsor, secure a commitment from the federal government and move on with their public and private fundraising campaign. She believed everyone in the room wanted to make Ottawa a first class city and she submitted that the concert hall would help towards this goal.

Alan Bowker, AdHoc Committee of Community Concert Hall Stakeholders, noted no one seemed to have any serious criticism of the idea of the concert hall, of where the funding would come from, of the business plan or anything else other than the timing and whether the pieces could be put in place. He further noted no one questioned that losing this project would be a terrible loss for the City. He referenced earlier comments suggesting there was no alternative use for the space. Therefore, he submitted the choice was between the concert hall and nothing. He also reminded Committee members of Mr. Cooke’s commitment that if everything was not in place by February 28, 2008, the OCMS would declare the project dead. All that being said, Mr. Bowker maintained all they were asking for was a fair fighting chance to make this project a success, noting the City would share in that success. He submitted that if Committee and Council pulled the funding, the dominos would collapse. There would be no concert hall, no venue for performances by local and international artists, and no centre attracting visitors to Ottawa. There would be only an empty box, a failed vision, and another “might have been” for Ottawa. He wondered why City Council would do that without going to the last limit of opportunity to make this dream a reality. He referenced the great success of the Ottawa Chamber Music Festival and the many qualities that exemplified Ottawa; its diversity, prosperity and freedom, its vibrancy of culture, its commitment and its ability to engage people from all parts of Canada. He submitted this concert hall was not just a building, it was a vision of what people in Ottawa could do and what they could be when they had vision and when they worked together to achieve that vision. He advised that he and his wife had decided they would make the largest single charitable donation they had ever made and that, as soon as the OCMS began translating its pledges into cash, he would be writing them a cheque. Until then, they had made a pledge. He submitted that the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario had also made pledges and that this had become a game of chicken and egg. Speaking to the issue of fundraising, he noted the OCMS had raised over $1M in pledges without a fundraising campaign. Therefore, he wondered what they could achieve when they actually launched a formal fundraising campaign. He maintained fundraising was not the issue. He submitted the only issue on the table was whether or not City Council was prepared to pull the plug on this project and kill it before it had a reasonable opportunity to succeed.

Councillor Deans introduced a motion asking:

1. That the City’s endorsement and funding deadline for the Community Concert Hall project be extended to February 28, 2008;

2. That City staff be directed to advise Morguard that, in the event the Community Concert Hall did not secure the necessary funding by February 28, 2008, the City would not be exercising its options to lease or purchase the space for another municipal cultural facility and that the City and Morguard would negotiate and enter into a new agreement for the redesign and construction of the space for alternative public benefit uses in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement between Morguard and the City dated 21 December 2005;

3. That City Council request an expression of political support from the federal government for the Community Concert Hall project prior to City Council’s meeting of November 28, 2008; and

4. That the federal government be requested to expedite its review of the Ottawa Chamber Music Society’s application for funding.

Speaking to her motion, the Councillor indicated she wanted to see this project succeed. She felt it was a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City to realize the dream of having a concert hall. She noted this project was using the value of a piece of legacy property and leveraging it to secure community, provincial and federal dollars to bring a much needed community concert hall to Ottawa. She felt the facility would be an asset to the City for many years to come. Referencing the Congress Centre project, she submitted it was ironic that the City had set aside $25M eight years ago to allow the Congress Centre expansion project to proceed whereas the OCMS had been given two years and that currently, all they were asking was for a three month extension. She maintained it was not unreasonable to grant them three extra months. She urged her colleagues to ask themselves why they would want to kill the dream of a community concert hall when the problem was with the federal government and its apparent reluctance to make a commitment to the project. She felt it would be premature to pull the plug when there were three months left in which to make this project a reality.

Councillor McRae submitted the issues related to a lack of federal government support as well as confidence in the organization’s ability to raise the necessary private and public funds. She indicated she was not prepared to watch the proposal die. Therefore, she moved that the item be referred to Council for a full discussion at its meeting of November 28 and that the City of Ottawa ask the federal government for a definitive commitment to fund $10M of the total cost of the concert hall construction and that this commitment be communicated to the City and all interested parties by November 28, 2008.

She believed this item deserved the full discussion of Council. She re-iterated that she was not prepared to watch the project die at Committee. She also felt the City needed to put pressure on the federal government.

Mayor O’Brien ruled that, because Councillor McRae’s motion was procedural in nature, Committee would deal with it first.

Before debating the motion, Councillor Bloess asked for clarification on a comment made by a delegation with respect to Morguard’s ownership of the property and it going back to tender if the concert hall project did not go forward. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated the referenced statements were inaccurate. He maintained that, although there were conditions in the agreement with respect to their requirement to begin construction before a certain point in time, Morguard owned the property. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the concert hall project went forward, this property would not be subject to a further RFP process.

Councillor Wilkinson asked that the motion be divided. She felt it dealt with two separate and distinct issues. With respect to the second part of the motion, she expressed a preference for some of the wording contained in Councillor Deans’ motion with respect to asking for an expression of a political commitment from the federal government.

Councillor McRae indicated she would accept that as a friendly amendment and would substitute the second part of her motion with wording consistent with Councillor Deans’ motion, but with a deadline of November 27, 2008 so that any response might be received prior to the next Council meeting.

Councillor Holmes stressed the importance of this matter and the fact that, when the City sold the property, there was deemed to be a necessary public benefit. She was interested to learn that M.P. Poilievre had expressed support for the project and that, therefore M.P. Baird remained as the primary target. She also noted that money would have to come from the private sector naming sponsor before Mr. Baird would express support. Therefore, she hoped Committee was not putting, as a condition, that by November 27, a naming sponsor had to be named so that Mr. Baird might express his support. She hoped the organization would continue to have until February 28, 2008 to finalize these pieces.

Councillor Cullen spoke against referring the matter to Council, noting it was the work of Committee to go through the public delegations and to make a recommendation to Council. He argued that referring it only meant Committee was avoiding a vote, which he felt was unfair to the participants. Having said that, he echoed the comments made by Councillor Deans, noting there was no obligation to pull the plug. He urged Committee to give the OCMS time to secure their sponsor and then turn the pressure onto the federal government to come up with their share of the funding.

Mayor O’Brien referenced the City’s commitment, the Province’s commitment, the lack of commitment from the federal government and the lack of progress in terms of private and public fundraising. He indicated he was not convinced this project was dead. However, he felt it was close. He summarized the day’s discussions on the matter and expressed support for referring the report to Council and, in the interim, asking the federal government for an expression of commitment.

Councillor Deans believed everyone recognized that realizing the dream of a community concert hall was an uphill battle. However, she felt that, in asking for a federal government commitment to the project, the City should be as strong as possible in its own commitment. She took the motion to refer the matter to Council as a less-than-stellar endorsement by this Committee. Therefore, she asked her colleagues to not refer the report to Council but to vote down the referral motion and to support her motion instead.

Councillor Jellett indicated he agreed with Councillor Deans’ arguments. However, he did not believe there were the votes needed at Committee to support her motion. Therefore, he felt the referral motion was a compromise.

At this juncture, Committee voted on the first part of Councillor McRae’s motion.

Moved by Councillor M. McRae:

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:

1. Refer the Community Concert Hall report to City Council for a full discussion at its November 28, 2007 meeting.

CARRIED

Yeas (7): R. Bloess, G. Brooks, S. Desroches, P. Hume, R. Jellett, M. McRae, Mayor O’Brien

Nays (2): D. Deans, M. Wilkinson

Committee then unanimously approved the second part of Councillor McRae’s motion as well as the item, as amended.

2. Ask the Mayor to request a definitive commitment from the Federal Government to fund $10 million of the total cost of the Concert Hall construction and that such commitment be communicated to the City of Ottawa and all other interested parties by November 27, 2007.

CARRIED

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:

1. Refer the Community Concert Hall report to City Council for a full discussion at its November 28, 2007 meeting; and

CARRIED as amended

PLANNING, TRANSIT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

SERVICE DE L'URBANISME, DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

21. CITY OF OTTAWA SUPPORT FOR OTTAWA

CONGRESS CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

APPUI DE LA VILLE D'OTTAWA POUR LE PROJET DE

RÉAMÉNAGEMENT DU CENTRE DES CONGRÈS D'OTTAWA

ACS2007-PTE-ECO-0023 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Appearing before the Committee on this matter were Rob Mackay, Director of the Economic and Environmental Sustainability Branch (EES); Dave Powers, Consultant, Economic Development Division; Jim Durrell, Chair of the Ottawa Congress Centre Board of Directors; Pat Kelly, President of the Ottawa Congress Centre; and, Graham Bird, Congress Centre Development Advisor.

Mr. Mackay briefly spoke to a PowerPoint slide presentation, which served to provide the Committee with an overview of the staff report. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Speaking to the item, Mr. Durrell indicated he could not recall a project of this magnitude receiving such overwhelming support, noting that very large projects normally elicited all sorts of opinions from all sorts of people. He reported that the Ottawa Congress Centre (OCC) Board and management were delighted to receive an overwhelmingly positive response from the public at large when they announced this project. From this response, they concluded that they had done their homework. He felt this should be a very important consideration for Council. He maintained this was not a group of ideologues. It was a group of men and women from various backgrounds with a long tradition of public service in this City. He discussed the state of the project when it was inherited by the current OCC Board and he submitted that what had transpired in the past year should give Council some comfort. He referenced the recently announced Provincial and Federal government contributions for a total of $100M and the eighty-year lease agreement with Viking Rideau for $1, which would allow the OCC to run its business for the next 80 years. He acknowledged that Viking would benefit from the Congress Centre expansion, however he felt the agreement was a huge vote of confidence from the private sector and a major step forward for the OCC Board. Mr. Durrell talked about the support demonstrated by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and City staff in moving this project forward, noting it had given the two organizations an opportunity get together to implement their urban design strategy to make Ottawa’s downtown a more livable place. He then discussed the support shown by the local tourism industry. In conclusion, he explained he mentioned the support of these various groups and organizations because he believed that whenever so many diverse groups came together to unanimously support a project, it suggested something right was happening. He acknowledged that it was not perfect and there would be issues as it moved forward. However, he assured Committee that there was a sound thought process and a strong team behind this process and that it would be brought in under budget and within its schedule.

Mr. Kelly discussed topics, which he hoped would give Committee and Council a strong level of comfort and confidence with respect to this project; the current state of Ottawa’s tourism industry; market opportunities; and the OCC business case.

He submitted that prior to bringing this project forward, Ottawa’s tourism industry was somewhat fragmented. However, he report that with the help of the Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association and Ottawa Tourism, the lines of communication had been opened, industry representatives were working together and a strong element of trust had developed. He advised that in addition to tourism industry representatives, this project had united various groups and organizations such as: the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI), The Ottawa Partnership (TOP), the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, and Viking Rideau Corporation. Furthermore, he indicated the OCC’s employees and union were fully supportive of the plan and that they had negotiated a transition arrangement for their employees.

With respect to market opportunities, Mr. Kelly submitted that with its current 70,000 square feet of convention space, the Congress Centre could only deal with a very limited slice of the Canadian convention market. He explained that as a city and as the Nation’s capital, Ottawa had finer attributes than any other tier two convention destination in the country in terms of its world class airport, flights from many cities across North America and Europe, quality and quantity of hotel rooms, greenspace, and cultural and entertainment attractions. However, he maintained that Ottawa’s current tier three convention centre caused it to leave a tremendous number of business opportunities on the table in terms of its ability to compete in the convention market. He stressed that this project would enable the Congress Centre to run small to medium-sized conventions concurrently and to accommodate large conventions, which it currently could not do. He discussed the fact that the OCC would be able to continue to serve its current market at the same time as it would be able to pursue a much larger market, such as national and international conventions, of Canadian, American and international groups, as well as political events. He noted that a large number of organizations made it a habit of meeting in capital cities around the world and he submitted that with this expansion, Ottawa would become an option for such groups. He advised that local associations, departments of federal government and university faculties would work with the OCC to sponsor organizations to meet in Ottawa from Europe and other parts of the world. He announced the recent hiring of a new Vice-President of Marketing, who was a seasoned industry veteran, and advised that the new President of Ottawa Tourism also had a tremendous amount of experience with respect to running destination marketing organizations.

Mr. Kelly noted that the construction period would run from September 2008 to April 2011 and reported that currently, the OCC had 15 conventions booked for that time period. To put this in perspective, he advised that for the same time period, Quebec City had 47 conventions on the books and Edmonton had 40. He maintained that this demonstrated the degree to which Ottawa was missing out on business opportunities. He submitted that there was tremendous pent-up demand for a larger and a new facility and indicated that, since their announcement on September 18, the OCC had been approached by numerous organizations about the prospect of holding their conventions in Ottawa post April 2011. As a result, he reported that, pending approval of the redevelopment plan of the Ottawa Congress Centre, there were 51 conventions tentatively booked from April 2011 to the end of 2014. In closing, he stated that Ottawa had the potential to be amongst the finest convention destinations in North America and the world, that the OCC had a plan, and that the time was right to put it into place.

Wrapping up, Mr. Durrell referenced December 7, 1983, the day the current Ottawa Congress Centre opened its doors. He recalled that these were heady days and that there was an enormous sense of pride because the OCC suddenly made Ottawa a world-class City and it heralded an incredible period of growth in the downtown. He noted much had happened in the last 25 years. He submitted that the beautiful, glorious building had ostensibly slid down the mountain and that Ottawa’s downtown had not grown the way many would like to see it grow. He referenced social and development issues in the downtown and he indicated he believed the new Congress Centre would do for Ottawa today what the current Congress Centre did for it 25 years ago. He suggested members of Council would have very few opportunities to make legacy votes, but that they had such an opportunity with this project.

Councillor El-Chantiry saw the project’s benefits. However, he was concerned about funding sustainability. He noted that the City would have to issue debt in order to contribute $40M, which would result in an annual pressure on its operating budget. He further noted that the Ottawa Congress Centre did not pay property taxes to the City. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated the Ottawa Congress Centre was a crown agency of the Provincial government and that under Section 10.1 of the Ottawa Congress Centre Act, 1988, it was exempted from municipal property taxation. He also confirmed that if the City’s contributed was funded through a 25-year serial debenture, there would be an annual debt servicing cost of approximately $2.9M, assuming interest rates remained constant.

Councillor El-Chantiry referenced the amount of property taxes that would be generated through this facility and he wondered if the OCC Board would agree to asking the Province to lift the provision of the Act with respect to municipal taxation exemption, at least partially, so that the City could recover some of its contribution.

At this juncture, Mayor O’Brien suggested talking about the incremental taxes that would flow to the City as a result of this expansion in order to get a better perspective of the two budget pressures.

Mr. Durrell felt Councillor El-Chantiry had raised a valid point. He recognized that every time the City borrowed money, the question had to be asked as to whether or not there was a payback. He noted that when the City built a new arena or community centre, those dollars were invested in bettering the community. Therefore, in the weighting of all things, the weight for economic benefit was put aside in recognition of the other benefits. He submitted that in this case, the weighting went further than the economic benefit. He indicated the Rideau Centre was the highest single tax payer in the City of Ottawa and, as a result of this project, it would embark on its own expansion, generating approximately $2.5M to $4M in additional property taxes. He referenced the Westin Hotel, which paid $3M in property taxes, and noted that as a direct result of this project, one or two new hotels would be built, generating additional tax revenue for the City. Therefore, he submitted that even without considering all other economic development benefits associated with this project, and solely based on the additional, incremental tax revenues that would be generated, the City could easily justify the debenture costs associated with the City’s contribution.

Mayor O’Brien felt this needed more clarification. He referenced page 364 of the agenda package, which talked about ongoing municipal taxes of $19.5M. He understood these figures were based on an independent report and he asked staff to elaborate on it. Mr. Mackay indicated a separate report was completed by the Market Research Corporation and it identified that, given the economic impact across the various business sectors of this many delegates (160,000 per year) coming into Ottawa would cause businesses to expand their operations and therefore pay additional property taxes. He explained the report looked at all business sectors that would be affected, including retail, hotel, restaurant, transportation and service industries. Therefore, of the approximately $19.5M in ongoing annual municipal taxes, approximately $9M would come from the expansion of related business sectors. Mr. Mackay further advised that, as part of their due diligence and in order to verify these findings, staff reviewed this report with the Market Research Corporation and then again with KPMG, which was the City’s consultant.

Councillor El-Chantiry was concerned by the $2.9M annual debt servicing charge the City would be carrying as a result of this contribution and he wondered if ways had been explored to recover this on an annual, sustainable basis; either a room levy, asking the Province to pay a portion of the property taxes that would otherwise be charged to the OCC, or some other means. He felt staff had prepared a good report. He was pleased that jobs would be created. However, he maintained the City would still have to come up with $2.9M from its taxpayers each year for a number of years in order to service the debt related to its contribution.

Mayor O’Brien directed the Councillor’s question back to the explanation provided by Mr. Mackay; that the Congress Centre would create an incremental $9M in property taxes. He submitted that even if this estimate was too optimistic by 300%, it would still generate enough additional tax revenue to cover the City’s ongoing debt servicing costs.

Councillor El-Chantiry maintained that growth cost the City. It did not pay for itself. Therefore, he was looking for some idea to help the City offset these costs. Mr. Kirkpatrick acknowledged that staff often talked about growth not being in the City’s best financial interest. However, he indicated this typically related to residential growth. He explained the kind of assessment growth identified in the referenced study was commercial assessment, which would be on the plus side versus residential growth where the City could never generate enough taxes to support the related operating costs and debt servicing costs.

Councillor Wilkinson inquired as to the GST and PST that would be paid to the Federal and Provincial governments once the new Congress Centre was operational. Mr. Kelly indicated the OCC currently generated annual revenues of approximately $10M and that, post-expansion, its revenues would be between $20M and $25M annually. He did not have figures with respect to what this would represent in terms of GST and/or PST revenues to the upper levels of government.

Councillor Wilkinson reported hearing that the Provincial and Federal governments would have their $50M contributions entirely repaid to them within 3 to 5 years from the additional PST and GST raised directly through the Congress Centre. Mr. Kelly confirmed this.

Speaking only to the direct operations of the Congress Centre, Councillor Wilkinson noted that the Provincial and Federal governments would also be receiving income tax whereas the City would only receive payment for the facility’s water bill, which was directly related to its usage. Therefore, again speaking only to the direct operations of the Congress Centre, she maintained that the City would get nothing. Mr. Kelly confirmed this.

Councillor Wilkinson submitted spin-offs happened with any economic development. Although she acknowledged that this project had a higher multiplier effect, she disagreed with the valued given to the multiplier effect in this case. She indicated it had been pointed out that new development had a cost. She noted that jobs would be created and she argued those people would need housing, which would have to be subsidized from the tax base. She acknowledged that it would probably happen in time, but she maintained it was all theoretical and she had difficulty with giving $40M when the City could not afford to fix its own roads and buildings. She stated that, because of the problems with which they would be wrestling over the coming weeks, this was difficult for members of Council.

Mr. Durrell recognized the challenges faced by City Council and the fact that a project of this magnitude could not be treated lightly, either by Council or by staff. He referenced the City Manager’s report, noting staff could have easily pushed this off. However, he stressed that despite these very difficult times, staff had come forward with a very positive report. He noted the comments made with respect to the direct financial benefits to the upper levels of government. However, he maintained that, even if the multiplier effect was cut in half, the payback to the City would be enormous. He submitted he was optimistic that the City would get its money back in two to three years and that even if he were pessimistic, he would estimate the City would get its money back in four to five years. He stressed the impacts were there and that the referenced paybacks did not include the expansion of the Rideau Centre or the construction of a new hotel, which he was sure would happen.

Councillor Wilkinson argued the scenario also did not include the cost of municipal services, which the Congress Centre would need, such as policing.

Mr. Durrell suggested development fees would cover the Centre’s service needs.

Councillor Wilkinson maintained that development fees would not pay for the City’s on-going operating costs relative to this facility or additional downtown development. She noted that when Scotiabank Place was built, it was done without a financial contribution from the City. She also noted that during the second day of the present meeting, Committee would be dealing with a proposal for a community concert hall, which was also an economic development generator but was being treated differently from this one. She wondered how one could differentiate between one project and the other in terms of how they were being treated.

Mr. Durrell indicated he would let the Ottawa Chamber Music Society speak for themselves with respect to the concert hall project. However, with respect to the OCC project, he advised that the Congress Centre would be debt financing $40M for its own portion of the project costs and that the project would not go forward unless they could generate upwards of $3M annually to offset lifecycle and debt servicing costs. Although he was acutely aware of the level of government funding being contributed to this project, he maintained there was also a significant level of private sector support as well as self-financing involved.

Councillor Wilkinson read a motion into the record calling on the Congress Centre and the City to work together to identify potential sources of revenue from the Centre to repay the City’s $40M investment in the project. She submitted that a series of options could be explored, which would help members of Council justify this contribution to municipal taxpayers. She wondered if the delegation could comment on it.

Mr. Durrell indicated he had no great difficulty with the motion as he felt it was a reasonable request.

Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess with respect to the potential incremental tax revenue from hotel expansion and/or the construction of new hotels, Mr. Kelly indicated there was already considerable interest because of the OCC expansion. He believed a hotel deal would likely be accomplished before the new Centre opened its doors, with construction running concurrently towards the latter part of the OCC construction project and a new hotel opening its doors approximately one year afterwards.

Based on this response, Councillor Bloess noted there was not a pure link, as suggested in the report and the presentations. There would be some lag time before the City would start seeing incremental increases in revenues.

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Durrell re-iterated information provided previously with respect to current market share with the existing facility versus potential market share with the new proposed facility and the OCC’s requirement to come up with enough funds to cover its own needs in terms of lifecycle maintenance and debt servicing costs in order for the project to go ahead. In addition, Mr. Durrell assured Committee that the OCC was a Provincial Crown agency and that therefore, the City would not be responsible for any of its operating costs.

Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess with respect to the transit linkages, Ms. N. Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Planning, Transit and the Environment, indicated it was far to early to know where there might be a connection or what it might cost. Although she could not provide costing for a station on the Mackenzie King Bridge, she believed it would be in excess of $10M to $15M.

Responding to a question from Councillor Desroches with respect to the total costs to the City for this project, Mr. Mackay re-iterated that the $40M capital contribution would result in a $2.9M annual debt servicing cost. He advised that costs had not been quantified in terms of additional municipal services to the Centre.

In reply to a further question from the Councillor, Ms. S. Simulik, City Treasurer, indicated Council would not be displacing any projects. She indicated her understanding was that Council was looking to defer $15M worth of other capital works in order to make room for this project and that this was on top of what was already in the next three years’ capital budget.

Councillor Desroches wondered why the OCC could not simply renovate its existing facility or have a project on a more economical scale. Mr. Durrell indicated the board had carefully reviewed and considered the possibility of renovating the current facility. However, the existing site had fallen into such a state of disrepair that in the end, the Board felt it made more sense, from a financial perspective and in terms of a construction timetable, to demolish and rebuild.

Adding to this, Mr. Kelly advised that the previous model, which sought to incorporate the existing facility, ended up being a vertical model, more than five floors in height and convention planners advised that they generally preferred horizontal space, which the current model provided.

Councillor Desroches asked for a further comment on the notion of overall benefits to the City, not just the downtown. Mr. Bird indicated that in the short-term, there would be a net benefit of approximately 6,000 jobs over the three years of construction and in the long-term, the new Centre would then generate approximately 3,800 jobs across the hotel, restaurant, transportation and support services industries. He noted that OCC representatives were working with the Labour Council on an initiative to use this project as a great example of their work, which would tie in to the Algonquin College project. Furthermore, based on the OCC’s work with the tourism industry, convention organizers and marketing groups, he submitted that the new convention centre would bring new revenues to this region of approximately $150M to $200M per year. He then discussed the visual appeal of the proposed design, noting it would make the area friendlier and that it would enhance the entry into Ottawa.

Responding to a question from Councillor Desroches with respect to the impact of the Canadian dollar on the OCC’s projections, Mr. Kelly indicated the decline in American tourism to Canada had been widespread over the past five years. Therefore, he submitted that it had nothing to do with the strength of the dollar. In any event, he maintained that, although the OCC would be able to bring in more business from the United States and Europe, its primary market would continue to be Canada.

Councillor Deans noted the current proposal was a vast improvement over the previous version. She believed all members of Council would agree on its value and be very happy to see it move forward. However, she felt the debate came down to a question of who paid for what and whether it was reasonable to ask the municipality for an additional $15M over its previous $25M commitment. Based on a $40M contribution and the corresponding $2.9M annual debt servicing cost over 25 years, she surmised that the cost to the City would actually be closer to $75M. Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that this was correct, if one ignored the time value of money. However, he submitted this would be discounted by the time value of $40M over those 25 years.

Mr. Bird submitted that the $40M included money for the transitway, which would tie in, and approximately $3.5M to $4M of development and building permit fees, which would be factored back in. He estimated the project would move to a proposal call in the spring, which would call for constructors along with a finance team and the finalization of the design and architecture. This would wrap up the need for short-term financing through 2011/2012. Beyond that, mortgaging would be put in place. Therefore, he suggested the figures referenced by the City Manager pertained to the post-construction mortgage payments.

Councillor Deans maintained she was looking at the total investment from Ottawa property taxpayers to the new Congress Centre. She noted that the Federal government was contributing $50M but that, presumably it would be taken from their surplus so they would not be debt-financing. She stressed that because the City did not have cash to contribute to the project, its portion would end up costing more. The Councillor referenced an e-mail she received from a constituent with respect to a convention center project in the City of Vancouver, noting in that case, the Province was contributing 60% of the full cost, the Federal government 25% and the tourism authority was picking up 9% of the costs. She noted that in Ottawa, the tourism industry was being asked to contribute some operational dollars but they were not being asked to contribute to the capital costs of the project. She referenced the fact that the Provincial and Federal governments would get full returns on their investments through taxation in three to five years, the suggestion that the City would get an uplifting of taxes from abutting commercial properties and the cost to the City of development in the downtown area in terms of corresponding infrastructure, transit and service needs and she asked that someone present a good argument as to why the City should make this level of contribution when it seemed out of balance with the overall benefit.

Mr. Durrell felt it came down to whether Council viewed this as an investment or as an expenditure. With respect to the true cost of the contribution being close to $75M, he submitted he could argue that the City got over $500M in property taxes over the same period of time, excluding any form of inflation. He indicated that, if an investment counseller asked him to invest $75M today for a $500M return on his investment in 25 years, he would view it as a no-brainer. He re-iterated that members of Council either viewed this as a positive project for the downtown and an investment into the City’s future, or they did not. He maintained that this was a good investment.

Councillor Deans re-iterated that for her, this came down to a balance with respect to the contributions of the various stakeholders and the returns to those same stakeholders. She referenced the Vancouver model, where the Province was paying a larger proportion of the project costs, the fact that the upper tier governments had much more ability to pay, and she wondered why the OCC Board had not asked the Provincial and Federal governments to contributed a larger portion.

Mr. Durrell felt this was a fair argument. However, he suggested, based on his municipal experience, that unless a municipality invested in its infrastructure, it would find itself in an ever-increasing downward spiral. He maintained that the real beneficiaries of this project would be the City of Ottawa and its citizens.

Councillor Deans wondered if the delegation would support a municipal campaign to get 1% of the GST, which would be invested in local infrastructure. Mr. Durrell felt this had always been a very good issue and that, personally, he would support it.

Responding to a final question from Councillor Deans, Mr. Durrell assured Committee that, because the OCC was a Provincial Crown corporation, should there be any cost overruns associated with this project or the Centre’s operations, the Province would be responsible. No additional money would be requested from the City.

Councillor Chiarelli acknowledged the financial arguments made with respect to the proportions being contributed by the three levels of government versus each one’s ability to pay. However, he maintained the issue came down to City Council’s responsibility to fulfill its economic development mandate. He asked Mr. Durrell, based on his own municipal experience, to comment on how a municipality’s economic development responsibilities got catapulted to the forefront during times of recession and how important such decisions became in a slightly different economic context. Mr. Durrell re-iterated that when a municipality stopped investing in infrastructure, it began a downward spiral. He discussed the different ways in which municipalities could generate additional revenues; increased taxes, increased user fees, and increased new opportunities. He maintained this was a new opportunity, which would benefit the City for years to come.

Responding to a question from Councillor Hume, Mr. Durrell indicated all funding for this project was conditional on a number of aspects falling into place. He confirmed that if the City did not approve the requested $40M, the project would not go forward because the Federal funding was conditional on each of the three levels of government contributing its share. .

Mayor O’Brien asked the City Manager to explain staff’s reasons for supporting this project.

Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed staff was recommending Committee and Council approve this proposal. He acknowledged that the Provincial and Federal governments would get more return on their investment than the City would. He noted Councillor Deans’ reference to the Vancouver situation and the fact that the Province of British Columbia was contributing a greater portion of their project costs. He maintained this was not the situation in Ontario, nor did he believe it would change. He explained that this was a tri-level funding arrangement and that the municipality’s contribution was necessary in order for the project to move forward. Beyond that, he discussed the business case, which he submitted was quantitative as well as qualitative. On the quantitative side, he indicated he had reviewed the Market Research study and he believed there would be enough increase in incremental tax revenues to justify the investment. On the qualitative side, he discussed the Centre’s design and the fact that it would change the esthetics of this part of the downtown, which he believed would have an impact on a lot of the social issues that were of concern to Council. He felt this project would have a major impact on the City’s livability and on the way people experienced it.

Councillor Deans inquired as to the funding arrangement for the Toronto Convention Centre. Neither Mr. Kirkpatrick nor Mr. Mackay had that information on hand.

Councillor Deans noted the number of public delegations registered to speak on this item and the fact that Committee would not likely vote on the recommendations for some time. She asked that the information be provided prior to Committee voting on the item.

At this juncture, Committee heard from the following public delegations.

Ms. Gail Logan, President of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, suggested a new Congress Centre would put Ottawa on the map as an international convention destination and the City and the community would reap the rewards for years to come. Furthermore, she believed this project fully met the criteria for smart economic development. She indicated the Chamber was proud to endorse the project. Although she acknowledged the City’s budgetary difficulties, she encouraged Committee and Council to approve the contribution. She submitted that Council had to look at the long term and what this investment would mean for Ottawa. She felt this was a solid capital project and that it would produce a myriad of benefits for the City and the community at large. A copy of Ms. Logan’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Dick Brown and John Jarvis of the Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association (OGHA), representing 45 members in Ottawa and 7 in Gatineau, expressed agreement with respect to cities being this country’s economic generators. Mr. Jarvis noted that tourism was a major economic generator in Ottawa because it brought new money into the City. He discussed the many and variety business sectors impacted by tourism, noting that these were all extremely affected by the Toronto SARS incident. He submitted that in addition to creating jobs, the tourism sector also created social dynamism. From an economic point of view, he believed Ottawa was lacking one important piece in its infrastructure; an adequate sized convention centre. Although this project would result in a two and a half year period without the ability to host large conventions, the OGHA recognized the long-term benefits to the industry, its partners and the City. He advised that, through a destination marketing fee (DMF) collected by 41 of its members, the OGHA funded all of Ottawa Tourism’s operating expenses, which was required to sell Ottawa as a destination for tourism and conventions. In addition, of the more than $6M in marketing investments made with DMF funds, more than $1.3M was dedicated to marketing for conventions and meetings in Canada, the United States and Europe, with the Ottawa Congress Centre being the centerpiece for these marketing efforts. Furthermore, he reported that hotels hosting delegates had agreed to contribute funds to the convention incentive fund; a $500,000 fund used by Ottawa Tourism and the Congress Centre to attract major meetings and conventions to the City. In closing, he indicated the OGHA and its Board had agreed that the OGHA would participate in a tourism industry work group to identify how the industry could generate an ancillary revenue stream for the redevelopment of the Ottawa Congress Centre. He encouraged Council to make the necessary investment to redevelop the Ottawa Congress Centre and, in so doing, help stimulate the economy and improve Ottawa’s downtown core.

Responding to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry with respect to whether or not the OGHA would support calling on the Province to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act to allow the City to receive some property tax revenue from the facility, Mr. Brown submitted this was beyond the purview of the hotel association. However, he indicated that personally, he would support any efforts to improve the City’s financial circumstances, not only with respect to the Congress Centre, but with respect to the distribution of revenues in general between the three levels of government.

In reply to a series of questions from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Brown confirmed that the OCC expansion would result in a 3% to 5% increase in the hotel occupancy rate. Although he had not done any calculations with respect to what this would represent in terms of dollars, nor did he have figures on hand with respect to total hotel revenues, he advised that this year, the OGHA generated $7M in DMF revenue, which represented about 3% of their total room revenues.

Based on these figures, Councillor Jellett estimated the increased hotel occupancy rate would generate an additional $7M to $10M in revenues for the hotels and he wondered if some of it could be contributed to the capital fund.

Mr. Brown noted that each of the new hotels would then be contributing to City property taxes as well as their own financing and mortgages.

Councillor Jellett discounted the notion of “new” hotels because there were no assurances there would be new hotels. With the current hotels generating increased revenues as a result of a higher occupancy rate, he wondered why the hoteliers in this City could not put some money forward to help build the OCC. Mr. Brown indicated he did not know of any jurisdiction where the private sector hotels had invested in a publicly owned piece of infrastructure, nor did he know how it could be done. He noted that hotels in Ottawa, like in most centres, were owned by individuals and corporations, most of whom were not headquartered in Ottawa. Therefore, he submitted that he could not contemplate them treating Ottawa differently and finding a way, as private businesses, to contribute to this piece of infrastructure.

Responding to a question from Councillor Jellett with respect to the tourism industry in Vancouver contributing 9% towards the cost of that city’s convention center, Mr. Brown indicated he did not know the details of the arrangement. However, he noted that the Vancouver tourism and convention center had received an enormous influx of money associated with the 2010 Olympics and their conference center expansion was part of that. Furthermore, he remarked that in British Columbia, the tourism and hotel industries operated differently because of a hotel room tax and that there was no such provision in Ontario.

In response to further questions from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Brown confirmed that the OGHA had implemented a voluntary marketing fee. He indicated that to convince hotels to add 3% to their room rates and then to send this off to a third party in good faith, required that the OGHA come up with very clear and specific terms in those 41 individual contracts. He explained the terms of those contracts, which required that all the money must be invested in destination marketing. Therefore, it could not be used for capital or operation costs of the OCC or any other piece of infrastructure. Furthermore, he advised the agreements also specified that, in the event there was an increase in taxes on hotels, the program would die. He maintained this would deprive the OGHA of the $7M to $8M a year now used to enable Ottawa to compete in terms of attracting visitors and conventions.

Councillor Chiarelli indicated he had talked about introducing a motion to deal with a hotel room tax, which had been reported in the media. However, he advised that he would not be introduction such a motion now, though he may raise it at another time. He recognized that there were many discussions to be had around this issue and many details to be addressed and he wondered if the OGHA would participate in such discussions in due time. Mr. Brown and Mr. Jarvis responded affirmatively.

Daniel Laliberté, Chair of Ottawa Tourism, expressed support for the OCC expansion, submitting that for too long, Ottawa had been losing out on opportunities to hold large meetings and conventions. He discussed the wealth of infrastructure already in place in Ottawa in terms of museums, parks, the Rideau Canal and other attractions. However, he maintained the convention center was simply too small and it had an awkward lay-out, an unwelcoming façade and a dated design. He indicated Ottawa Tourism did its best with what it had, noting that last year, they had been able to book 73,000 room nights for future business, representing an economic impact of $50M. He urged Committee members to imagine all the benefits to the community, if Ottawa had an expanded conference center. He reported that Toronto, Montreal, Whistler, Winnipeg and Edmonton all had expanded conference centers and that projects were underway to expand the centers in Victoria and Vancouver. He noted even Quebec City and Calgary, which were smaller cities than Ottawa, had larger conference centers than the OCC. He indicated there were currently more than 65 projects underway for new or expanded conference centers across North America and Canada, representing 20 million square feet of new exhibit and convention space within the next five years. He maintained that if the City of Ottawa did nothing, it would lose out. He re-iterated that the OGHA, through a voluntary marketing fee, was raising approximately $8M annually to market Ottawa as a tourist destination. He noted this may seem like a lot, however he advised that in comparison, Quebec City spent $12M, Toronto spent over $25M, Calgary spent over $10M, Vancouver spent over $15M and Montreal spent close to $30M annually for the same purpose. Furthermore, Mr. Laliberté reminded Committee that a few years ago, the City stopped contributing $2M annually to Ottawa Tourism operations. He indicated Ottawa was the only large City in Canada not contributing directly to promote tourism and he asked that Council contribute the money saved from Ottawa Tourism operations to finance its portion of the OCC expansion.

Noel Buckley, President and CEO of Ottawa Tourism indicated the enhance OCC would be one of the key elements of success for the local tourism industry. He suggested Ottawa Tourism’s Meetings and Convention department had the contacts and the expertise to spread the word about this new facility to pre-meeting planners and convention organizers around the world. He re-iterated that many contacts had been patiently awaiting a firm announcement so they could explore hosting their next meetings in Ottawa. He explained that the typical planning process for conferences was literally years ahead of the actual conference date. Therefore, Ottawa could begin selling the new space immediately. He submitted that this pre-booked business would provide a base of business from which the entire city would benefit. As a G8 capital city, and with the right facility, Ottawa would be a natural location for groups to gather. He referenced the increasing air links, the availability of a wide range of accommodations, the research facilities and universities, the bilingualism and multi-culturalism, the first rate attractions and the compact downtown core, and he maintained that Ottawa had everything to offer. The only thing missing was a conference center that reflected the needs of modern meetings and conventions.

Paul Benoit, President of the Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA), stated his organization’s strong support for the Ottawa’s Congress Centre’s $15 million funding request from the City. He advised that the direct economic impact of the Ottawa International Airport was in excess of $1 billion a year. Less than 5 years ago, the old airport was considered an impediment to growth but that the region was currently served by a state-of-the-art terminal, which rivaled airports worldwide and continued to grow significantly. He briefly described some of the ways in which the airport continued to grow, which he believed were signs of the confidence in Ottawa as a destination. Similarly, he submitted that for many years, the OCC had been an impediment to this City’s economic growth. Ottawa had sat back and watched as more and more of the lucrative meeting and convention market went to other Canadian cities. Like the previous speaker, he believed Ottawa had a lot to offer but that without a proper meeting and convention facility, it would not achieve its potential. Having visited cities around the world and having seen many convention facilities, he submitted there was an untapped market and that Ottawa was missing the boat. He recalled that when the two national political parties wanted to hold their conventions, they by-passed Ottawa because its facilities were not in the big league. He maintained that with a fully developed destination product, including a state of the art convention facility, Ottawa would be successful in attracting new business and new visitors from around the world. Mr. Benoit indicated the OIAA’s Board of Directors had recently passed a motion to participate in discussions related to the development of an industry-led revenue stream, which would be used to service the debt the OCC would need to take on for this project and to fund capital reserves to cover lifecycle costs on an on-going basis. He suggested the City’s investment in this redevelopment was smart long time strategy and that it was an opportunity for this Council to show the leadership needed to bring the project to life.

Councillor Hume referenced the parallels Mr. Benoit had drawn between the airport and the OCC and he asked how the airport expansion had been funded. Mr. Benoit indicated it had been funded through an airport improvement fee.

Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Hume with respect to the possibility of a similar funding mechanism for the OCC expansion, Mr. Benoit cautioned that conventions were extremely price sensitive and that if Ottawa imposed a fee on convention delegates and a competing city did not, the business would go to the other city.

April Taylor, President of Taylor & Associates Marketing Planners, stressed that Ottawa needed a new convention center. She believed the team put in place to advance this project was very professional and very thorough. Their plans dealt with all the requirements for the number of associations, large corporate conventions, political conferences that currently could not meet in Ottawa because of lack of space. She noted most conferences were substantially bigger than they were 25 years ago and that Ottawa had been consistently losing market potential due to its inability to address the industry’s requirements. She maintained that Ottawa needed to be able to operate as a truly world class capital city and showcase its resources and its facilities. She acknowledged the City’s budgetary difficulties. However, she submitted this was a situation where there would be a return on the investment. She indicated convention planners had been waiting for the opportunity to finally meet in Ottawa and she felt it was about time Ottawa acted like a capital city.

David Jeanes suggested the new Congress Centre would fill a large gap between the National Arts Centre and the Conference Centre. He discussed the surrounding area’s history and architecture and submitted that the building’s modern style would complement the area’s diversity, noting that it would also be prominent when viewed from Sparks Street, Slater at Elgin and Festival Plaza at City Hall. He felt the Congress Centre was in an ideal setting for tourism, hotels and access to downtown commercial facilities. He noted it would constitute a new major urban facility, as defined in the City’s Official Plan, which required that such facilities be at rapid transit stations. He then discussed the new facility’s links with the Mackenzie King transit station and any future bus tunnel through downtown. He urged the City and the Congress Centre to work together to ensure that the construction would not preclude a downtown tunnel and that a station could be constructed at the Congress Centre, as required by the Official Plan. In closing, he indicated he would look for a strong focus on the Congress Centre project from the upcoming transit tunnel environmental assessment (EA). A copy of Mr. Jeanes’ written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Darlene Kelly-Stewart, Meeting Professionals International, urged Committee and Council to approve the funds required to bring the Ottawa Congress Centre into the 21^st Century. She indicated she made this request on behalf of the nearly 300 meeting planners and industry suppliers who made up her organization’s membership in the Ottawa area and on behalf of the tens of thousands of Ottawa residents who would be part of the economic benefits flowing from the Congress Centre expansion. She maintained the expansion project was long overdue and it came at a time when Ottawa was falling off the map as a serious conference destination. She reported that convention delegates spent a lot more per capita than the average visitor. They visited local restaurants and shops, museums and other attractions. They often arrived with their families and stayd for a few days after their meetings. She maintained all of those benefits would come back to the local economy. She felt the OCC was one of the best investments Council could make to keep the local economy strong and sustainable for years to come. On behalf of her organization, her business colleagues, her neighbours and her community, Ms. Kelly-Stewart urged Committee and Council to be part of this project.

Richard Hayter, Construction and Building Trades Council, suggested the Ottawa Congress Centre redevelopment project would be giving back to the community long before its doors officially re-opened in April 2011. He noted the construction of this unique facility would provide a wealth of economic benefits for the local labour market. Through 3 years of construction, more 2800 workers would be involved in the project, creating opportunities for 14 trades, comprising 66 job activities. He advised that, as one of North America’s safest and most beautiful destinations, Ottawa’s building trades had been unable to attract, host and/or invite their international conventions to Ottawa. He reported that a motion was being moved in Texas to host an ironworkers’ conference in Ottawa in 2012 and that the local building and construction trades looked forward to proudly displaying this new high-tech facility, to be built by hard-tech professionals. He noted that this multi-year construction project would provide safe, stable jobs for hundreds of community trades persons, who would in turn use their paychecks to stimulate the local economy. He submitted that for every $1M invested in non-residential construction, 15 to 20 person years of work were generated, replacing some of the work lost in the cancellation of the light rail transit system project. Mr. Hayter referenced Council’s recent decision to support an expansion project at Algonquin College and he suggested that construction projects such as the OCC expansion represented direct and tangible ways in which the community could demonstrate its commitment to apprenticeship training. In closing, he encouraged Committee and Council to move forward on the OCC expansion project.

Responding to questions from Councillor McRae, Mr. Hayter explained that his organization’s Secretary-Treasurer was attending a conference in Texas and, coinciding with his own presentation before Committee, his colleague was introducing a motion to host a large international conference in Ottawa in 2012, which would bring approximately 4,800 delegates to this City.

Speaking on behalf of Council’s representatives on the Ottawa Congress Centre Board, Councillor Bédard attested to the due diligence carried out by the existing board. He indicated when he arrived on the OCC Board, the whole concept was simply to keep the existing building and build up from there. In discussing the proposal, it became fairly obvious that this did not make much sense. He advised that a consulting firm was hired to look at various options. He attested that they had looked at every option and he congratulated the consultant and the Board for really looking into the matter and doing some hard number crunching, not only with respect to the construction, but also with respect to long-term operations and lifecycle maintenance. As a result, the Councillor indicated he was very confident about what was being presented. He listed some of the many attractions drawing visitors to Ottawa and he stressed the need for an appropriate meeting and convention facility. Speaking to the question of whether or not Ottawa could afford to pay for this, Councillor Bédard submitted the City could not afford to not pay for it. He talked about efforts made to date to redevelop and revitalize the downtown area and he advised that, as a result of this project going forward, other projects were being planned and also moving forward. Therefore, he attested to the arguments made earlier and in the report with respect to incremental development and incremental tax revenues. He referenced the fact that this project would create jobs, noting some of the poorest members of the community would benefit. In closing, the Councillor encouraged his colleagues to look at this as a project for the future.

Councillor Wilkinson agreed that this was a strong economic development project for the City. However, she also recognized that Council had real difficulties in financing a lot of the things the City needed to do. Therefore, she expressed a desire to find some middle ground and advised that she would be moving a motion calling on the Congress Centre to work with the City to find ways of repaying the City’s investment. She indicated she did not want her motion to prevent the project from moving forward. However, she felt strongly that all possibilities should be explored to recover the City’s investment in this project.

Councillor Bloess felt the additional $15M being requested would give the City a sizable investment in its downtown; an investment that would pay off in terms of revenue flow. He referenced the $50M committed by each of the upper levels of government and the private sector contributions being made to the project and he indicated he believed this was the right thing to do.

Councillor Chiarelli referenced the City’s responsibilities with respect to economic development and the fact that, during difficult economic times, economic development decisions became particularly important. He suggested that at some point in time, this Council would be summed up in terms of the picture it painted during its four-year term. He noted the various elements coming together to make this project happen and he submitted that Council could not afford to pass up an opportunity to advance a project that would define the City’s economic development for the next 30 or 40 years. In closing, he urged his colleagues to rise to the occasion.

Responding to a question from Councillor Deans, Mr. Kirkpatrick advised that when the City Treasurer tabled the City’s Draft Budget on November 14, she provided a report identifying some strategic initiative capital projects, which had not been included in the budget. He indicated this project was on that list. He confirmed that the present report would rise to Council on November 28 and he explained that, based on the wording of the report recommendations, if Council approved the report, they would be approving a pre-commitment against the 2008 budget. He stated it was important to recall that this project, and several others on the aforementioned list, would qualify as legacy projects, as defined in Council’s Fiscal Framework policy. Therefore, funding for this project would not be competing for a portion of the $60M capital budget identified in the budget directions for strategic initiative capital over the next 3 years.

Councillor Deans expressed agreement with Councillor Wilkinson’s motion. She thought everyone believed this project should go forward. However, she maintained the issue came down to money and who paid what. She was of the opinion that the City was not getting as good a deal as the Provincial and Federal governments, which would have their investments returned in three to five years. She noted the City would have to debenture its contribution, which would end up costing more. Furthermore, she felt the returns on the City’s investment were not as clear. She agreed that this was a legacy project and would be of value to the City. However, she did not want that legacy to be one of debt. She remarked that by making their funding contingent on the City’s contribution, the Provincial and Federal governments had put the City in a difficult position. In closing, she indicated she was prepared to take the City Manager’s advice to move forward, but that she would also support Councillor Wilkinson’s motion in order to improve some of the return to the municipality.

Councillor El-Chantiry echoed many of the thoughts and concerns expressed by Councillors Deans and Wilkinson, discussed the on-going operating pressure this contribution would create for the City and indicated he would be moving a motion to request that the Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association contribute $2M of their voluntary room charge to the City to cover a portion of the cost of servicing the debt incurred for the Congress Centre expansion project. The Councillor submitted that if this industry was going to be the biggest beneficiary of the expansion, it would be a good business move for them to contribute to help offset these costs. However, he indicated he did not wish to make this a condition of the project moving forward.

Responding to a question from Mayor O’Brien, Councillor El-Chantiry indicated he would submit his motion as a Notice of Motion.

Mayor O’Brien referenced the motion submitted by Councillor Wilkinson. In response to questions from members with respect to whether or not the motion would result in the City’s funding being conditional, Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, indicated her read the motion as being non-conditional.

Councillor Deans followed-up on her request for information with respect to the funding model for the Toronto conference center. Mr. Mackay confirmed that he had asked for the information but that he had not yet received a response from his office.

Mayor O’Brien suggested that Committee move forward with the vote and he asked that the information be provided prior to the item rising to Council.

At this juncture, Committee voted on the motion submitted by Councillor Wilkinson.

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson

That the Ottawa Congress Centre work with the City of Ottawa to identify potential sources of revenue from the Centre that would repay the $40M investment by the City for the capital construction of the Centre – such sources of revenue could include:

1. A portion of any revenues over expenses of the Centre;

2. Having the Province provide grants in lieu of taxes for the Centre until the grant is repaid, including any interest costs incurred by the City;

3. Negotiating a share of GST and/or PST paid for services at the Centre until the grant is repaid;

4. Other possibilities.

CARRIED

Committee then voted on and approved the report as amended.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

1. Support the Ottawa Congress Centre (OCC) planned reconstruction and expansion as a Strategic Priority Initiative and reconfirm City Council's commitment as per Motion No. 57/4 (Document 1) to provide $25 million for the capital construction costs to be financed by a debenture in that amount;

2. Contribute an additional $15 million as a Strategic Priority Initiative for the OCC's planned reconstruction and expansion and authorize debt financing in the same amount, subject to Council's deliberations of the 2008 budget;

3. Withdraw its total funding contribution of $40 million to the OCC project if the City has not received written confirmation that all project funding is secured and a conditional building permit has been released for the project by December 31st 2008; and

4. Delegate responsibility to the City Manager to negotiate, approve and execute a contribution funding agreement with the OCC upon satisfactory completion of conditions that include but are not limited to the following:

a. The City receiving from the Government of Ontario its assurance, in a form satisfactory to the City, that the Province is the sole owner of the OCC and assumes the continuing full and final financial responsibility for the OCC, as it is currently constituted or any permitted successor thereof.

b. The City receiving written confirmation from the Government of Ontario that it has issued to the OCC $30 million for the reconstruction of the Ottawa Congress Centre in keeping with its previous funding commitment.

c. The City receiving a copy of the fully executed funding agreement between the OCC and the Government of Ontario detailing and committing its additional $20 million contribution to the project.

d. The City receiving a copy of the fully executed funding agreement between the OCC and the Federal Government detailing and committing its $50 million contribution to the project.

e. The City receiving written confirmation from the OCC that sufficient debt financing from their lenders of no less than $30 million to an upset of $40 million, over and above the Municipal, Provincial and Federal Government project funding requested herein, has been unconditionally committed and will be secured by the Government of Ontario for the Ottawa Congress Centre project.

f. The City receiving executed legal agreements between the OCC and organizations such as the Ottawa Airport Authority (OAA) and the Ottawa Gatineau Hotel Association (OGHA) that specifies a combined annual payment with a minimum term of 25 years of $1.5 million that is to be indexed for inflation to ensure the financial sustainability for the OCC operations.

g. The City receiving written assurances from the Government of Ontario together with any necessary approvals by the Minister of Finance in a form satisfactory to the City, that it assumes ultimate ownership of the OCC and that any operational shortfalls and/or debt under the current OCC governance model or under any future governance model of the OCC will be appropriately addressed by the OCC and the Government of Ontario, and not by the City.

h. That a new building design and road design concept for Colonel By Drive be developed by the OCC for review and written approval by both the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the City of Ottawa.

i. That the OCC design meets the requirements of the "Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy".

j. The City receiving and being satisfied with the terms of the final executed amended and restated lease between the OCC and the Viking Rideau Corporation (VRC) and with the final executed development and Construction Agreement between the same parties, and receiving non-disturbance agreements from all of VRC's current mortgagees.

k. The City receiving written assurances from the OCC and Province, that they shall not change the use of the facility, or assign or transfer charge or mortgagee, the leasehold interest in all or part of the new facility for the duration of the lease with the VRC, without prior written consent of the City.

l. The OCC demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City that it will use reasonable commercial efforts to achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver certification for the Ottawa Congress Centre Building and that Green Roof technology be incorporated where possible.

m. The OCC agreeing to direct 1.5% of the final construction budget (currently estimated at $159 million) for the OCC project towards implementing the City's Transit Oriented Development Guidelines. Such funding will be used to integrate the downtown transit network, into the Congress Centre project and improve transit services to and from the building.

n. The OCC agree that the release of the City's funding of $40 million for the project be conditional on all required approvals and/or permits under the Planning Act and Building Code Act for the projects development have been obtained including any required approvals from the Provincial and Federal Governments.

o. The City receiving from the OCC its written confirmation that it shall use a competitive process, as pre-approved by the City, to acquire all equipment, services, supplies and for construction.

5. That the Ottawa Congress Centre work with the City of Ottawa to identify potential sources of revenue from the Centre that would repay the $40 million dollar investment by the City for the capital construction of the Centre – such sources of revenue could include:

a) a portion of any revenues over expenses of the Centre;

b) having the Province provide grants in lieu of taxes for the Centre until the grant is repaid, including any interest costs incurred by the City;

c) negotiating a share of G.S.T. and/or P.S.T. paid for services at the Centre until the grant is repaid;

d) other possibilities; and

6. That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive a report on progress made on these initiatives on at least an annual basis.

CARRIED as amended

YEAS (10): R. Bloess, R. Chiarelli, D. Deans, S. Desroches, E. El-Chantiry, P. Hume, R. Jellett, M. McRae, M. Wilkinson, Mayor O’Brien

NAYS (0):

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

22. MOTION - OUTREACH TO YOUTH AND FIRST TIME VOTERS

MOTION - SENSIBILISATION AUPRÈS DES JEUNES ET DES NOUVEAUX ÉLECTEURS

ACS2007-CMR-CSE-0015 City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law.

CARRIED

Mayor O’Brien indicated his office had been blessed to have a young co-op student working with them and providing a youthful insight. He advised that this student, Frank Ferris, was coming to the end of his co-op period and had been working on a motion, which he wished to bring forward to Committee with respect to outreach to and involvement of youth and first-time voters in the political process.

At Mayor O’Brien’s request, Mr. Ferris read his motion into the record.

Responding to a question from Councillor Deans with respect to the motion, Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor confirmed that there was a provision in the legislation, which allowed voters to take time off work in order to participate in an election. However, he believed Mr. Ferris’ motion was broader in terms of providing more of a level of participation and volunteerism with regards to a host of matters surrounding the municipal election.

Following this brief exchange, Committee unanimously approved the motion, moved by Councillor Bloess on behalf of Mr. Ferris.

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

WHEREAS the turnout of youth eligible to vote is very low and still decreasing;

AND WHEREAS students in high school who are not yet eligible to vote need to be better educated about the electoral process in order to be more prepared to vote once they are 18 years old;

AND WHEREAS first time and young voters aged 18 to 25 years old need to be encouraged to learn more about their local candidates, political parties and their platforms;

AND WHEREAS first time and young voters aged 18 to 25 years old need to better understand the importance of local government and be encouraged to vote in municipal elections;

AND WHEREAS students are often preoccupied with school and part-time employment and do not have time to vote, participate in the election process and learn about the issues and platforms of their candidates;

AND WHEREAS a Professional Development Day in November where students in most schools in Ottawa have no school is usually near the Election Day on the second Monday of November;

AND WHEREAS the Manager of Municipal Elections and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), Shane Kennedy, has indicated that students in schools which have polling stations may be “unsafe” due to the public walking through their schools during class times;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Elections Ottawa staff be directed to work with non-partisan, youth oriented groups in Ottawa such as Child and Youth Friendly Ottawa (CAYFO) and the Ottawa Youth Commission (CJOYC) to develop better youth outreach initiatives to promote the importance of youth participating in the electoral process;

AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council request that the Manager of Municipal Elections and Municipal Freedom of Information (MFIPPA), Shane Kennedy, ask school boards in Ottawa to work with the City of Ottawa in an effort to harmonize a Professional Development Day with Election Day to encourage youth voter turnout and participation in the election process;

AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the results of these consultations be reported back to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council in advance of December 31, 2009.

CARRIED

CONFIDENTIAL AGENDA 9

ORDRE DU JOUR CONFIDENTIEL 9

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

That the meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Procedure By-law to consider the following reports:

1. Appointment to the Accessibility Advisory Committee - In Camera - Personal Matters About Identifiable Individuals - Reporting Out Date: Following Council Approval; and

2. Trim Road Inc. Development Charge Appeal - In Camera – Solictior-Client Privilege - Reporting Out Date: After Completion of the Litigation Concerning the Expropriations

CARRIED

NOTICE OF MOTIONS (For Consideration at a Subsequent Meeting)

AVIS DE MOTIONS (pour examen lors d’une réunion subséquente)

Councillor / Conseiller E. El-Chantiry

That the City of Ottawa request the Ottawa-Gatineau Hotel Association to contribute $2M of their voluntary room charge to the City to cover a portion of the cost of servicing the debt for the Congress Centre.

Councillor / Conseiller R. Bloess

That staff brief the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee, at its next meeting, on the status of contract negotiations with the Ottawa Firefighters’ Association.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The Committee recessed the Monday portion of the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

The Committee adjourned the meeting on Tuesday at 3:40 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

D. Blais Mayor L. O’Brien

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 18 / Procès-verbal 18

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest