dÉclarations d’intÉrÊt
Mayor O’Brien read into the record the
following Declaration of Interest with respect to Item 6 of the agenda:
I, Mayor Larry O’Brien, declare a potential, indirect pecuniary
interest on Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Agenda 41,
Item 6, Delegation of Authority – Contracts Awarded for the Period October 1 to
December 31, 2008, Sponsorship and Advertising, Legal Outsourcing Costs and
Payment Without Reference and 2008 Consolidated Annual Summary, as a company on
which I serve on the Board of Directors, Calian Technologies Ltd, was awarded
contracts during the period of this report.
CITY
MANAGER’S OFFICE
BUREAU
DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL AUDIT WORKING GROUP
That the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Receive for information
the ongoing action status tracking report for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
audit recommendations as of December 31, 2008 as outlined in Documents 1 - 4;
and
2. Approve the changes with
respect to implementation for the following 2006 audit recommendations as
outlined in Document 5, specifically:
a. Fire Services Audit recommendations
no. 12, 15 and 19b); and
3. Approve the changes with
respect to implementation for the following 2007 audit recommendations as
outlined in Document 6, specifically:
a. 3-1-1 Audit
recommendations no. 7 and 10
b. Labour Relations Audit
recommendations no. 10, 11 and 18
c. Staffing Relations Audit
recommendations no. 6 and 8
d. Food Safety Audit
recommendations no. 2 and 10
e. Pesticide Use Policy Audit
recommendation no. 5
f.
Parks and Recreation Branch Audit recommendations no. 6, 15, 17 and
21
CARRIED
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee recommend Council:
1.
Declare a parcel of vacant land
shown hatched on Document 1 attached, containing an area of approximately 3,219
m2, described as Blocks 62 and 63, Registered Plan 4M-768, City of
Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs; and
2.
Approve the sale of the land
outlined in Recommendation 1, subject to any easements that may be required, to
Bettina Welsch and Johannes Welsch for $12,000.00 plus GST, pursuant to an
Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.
CARRIED
4. Sale
OF LAND – CLOSED PORTION OF BRUNSWICK STREET ADJACENT TO 146 LEES AVENUE
That the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Declare
a parcel of vacant land containing an area of 203.6 m2, subject to
final survey, described as part of the westerly half of Brunswick Street
approved for closure, Registered plan 97162, City of Ottawa, shown hatched on
the attached Document 1, as surplus to the City’s needs; and
CARRIED
Ms. Marian Simulik,
City Treasurer, indicated staff would be presenting Committee with changes that
would be made to the report process due to concerns expressed by Councillors
and the public. Ms. Simulik then introduced
Mr. Jeff Byrne, Manager of Strategic Projects and Mr. Dan Farrell, Program
Manager of Purchasing.
Mr. Byrne spoke to a
PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with an overview of
the report and of changes that would be made to the report process. A copy of the presentation is held on file.
Councillor
El-Chantiry referenced the media and public reaction that had occurred when the
report was released and he asked why a summary had not been attached to the
report to properly explain the figures and put things in perspective. Mr. Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager, felt the
Councillor raised a good point and agreed that in the future, the staff should
attach a short summary or press release to properly explain all controversial
reports or all reports that staff felt were potentially newsworthy to ensure
that these were accurately reported in the media. He also believed members of Council should have the benefit of
that high level information prior to being put in the position where they had
to answer questions from the media.
Committee members
expressed support for the idea.
Following these
exchanges, Committee voted on the item.
That the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve the 2009 budgets and
special levies, as presented in Document 1, for the following:
Bank Street BIA;
Barrhaven BIA;
ByWard Market BIA;
Carp BIA;
Glebe BIA;
Manotick BIA;
Orleans BIA;
Preston BIA;
Rideau BIA;
Sparks Street BIA;
Sparks Street Mall
Authority;
Somerset Village BIA;
Somerset Chinatown BIA;
Vanier BIA;
Wellington West BIA;
Westboro BIA; and
2.
Enact the BIA levy by-laws and the
Sparks Street Mall Authority by-law for the BIAs and mall authority listed in
Recommendation 1 once the 2009 tax ratios are approved.
CARRIED
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the 2009 general and
special levies as presented in Document 1 for the following:
1.
Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority;
2.
South Nation Conservation
Authority; and
3.
Mississippi Valley Conservation
Authority.
CARRIED
9. 2009
Tax ratios and other tax policies
Ms. Marian Simulik,
City Treasurer, began by introducing Mr. René Bisson, Manager of the Billing
and Tax Policy Unit.
Mr. Ken Hughes,
Manager of Revenue, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide
Committee with an overview of the report and its recommendations. A copy of this presentation is held on file.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Hughes confirmed that, as a result of the
commercial levy restriction, the residential tax class shouldered the lion’s
share of the tax increase that would have normally come from the commercial
sector and that, because other communities had assessment increases higher than
those in Ottawa, the City was getting a benefit on the education portion. With respect to the multi-residential tax
ratio, he submitted that the actual neutral ratio for the multi-residential tax
class was marginally higher than what was being recommended but that staff was
recommending it remain the same as the previous year to conform with a
direction given by Council to reduce it to 1.75. He noted that this cost about $217,000 of burden, which was
shifted from the multi-residential tax class to residential. As to why staff was not recommending a
larger decrease, Mr. Hughes indicated staff saw the benefit to Council pursuing
neutral ratios because it was felt that by 2011, Council would be able to
eliminate the levy restriction and tax completely into the commercial property
tax class. Further, he noted that any
further reduction in the multi-residential tax ratio had not been requested by
Committee or Council.
Councillor Wilkinson
referenced a newspaper article that encouraged residents to contact the Revenue
office if they were having trouble paying their taxes. She noted one resident who had called the
office was disappointed to learn that all staff was offering was the pre-paid
plan. She submitted that the newspaper
article had implied staff could offer more by way of assistance. Mr. Hughes maintained that under the current
Council-approved by-law, the Revenue office had to charge interest on any
unpaid balances. He explained the
purpose of coming forward and asking Council to endorse a more flexible
collection process was really to remove any anxiety property owners may have
about the risk of losing their property.
He noted that the Municipal Act did not allow a municipality to take the
extreme collection measures of selling a property for non-payment of taxes
until after three years of property taxes were in arrears. He reported that for the most part, staff
and residents were able to arrive at mutually acceptable repayment arrangements
but that full interest did apply.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to neutral tax ratios for the
multi-residential tax class, Mr. Hughes explained that neutral ratio was a tax
term meaning ratios that would mean the tax burden in a new year would be
equivalent to the tax burden in the previous year in spite of re-assessment.
Councillor Wilkinson
indicated she had been told that if the City went down to 1.7 instead of 1.75
for multi-residential, landlords would not be able to pass on a rent increase
because of rising taxes. She wondered
if this information has been provided to staff. Mr. Hughes indicated he had seen the submission from the Eastern
Ontario Landlord Organization (EOLO) just prior to the meeting.
Councillor Wilkinson
said she would be introducing a motion to reduce the multi-residential tax
ratio from 1.75 to 1.7. She had a
problem with the fact that new multi-residential properties were taxed at a
ratio of 1 whereas old multi-residential properties were taxed at a ratio of
1.75. She wondered if anything was
being done to address this issue with the Province. Mr. Hughes reported having discussions with the Province about
the difficulty of coming up with what is a fair measure of tax burden. He noted these two classes were valued on a
different basis; residential properties based on market sales and multi-residential
properties based on cash flow. He
remarked that there was disagreement between all of the communities as to what
was an indication of fairness. With
respect to the difference between new multi-residential and old
multi-residential, he explained that the new multi-residential tax class was
created to encourage the construction of new multi-residential properties and
that the Provincial legislation did not allow Council to increase the new
multi-residential ratio up to match that of the old multi-residential ratio.
In response to questions
from Councillor Bloess with respect to capping and claw back provisions and the
parameter being proposed in recommendation five of the report, Mr. Hughes
explained that capping was initially introduced as a temporary measure and was
supposed to be phased-in over three year, after which all properties would be
paying their full current value assessment (CVA) tax. He indicated capping had been extended indefinitely and, under
the current regime, some properties would take in excess of 20 years before
paying their full CVA taxes. He
reported that municipalities had been asking for some of the parameters
introduced in order to progress properties through the capping program more
quickly because if some property owners were paying less, others were paying
more. Within each tax class, property
owners that were entitled to reductions were seeing their reductions clawed
back in order to make up for the taxes not being paid by properties that were
capped. He confirmed that the
properties being protected the most were some of the largest in the City and
that, in recommendation five, staff was proposing Council adopt all of the
parameters available under current legislation.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Hughes indicated it was possible for
some properties to go back and forth from being clawed back to being
capped. However, he explained that the
new parameter would allow a municipality to take any properties that got within
$250 of their CVA, either through progression or through an assessment, and
remove them from the capping program.
Therefore, if Council adopted this parameter and a property went from
being capped last year to reaching its CVA taxes this year, that property would
never again be part of the capping program.
In reply to follow-up
questions from Councillor Legendre, Ms. Simulik indicated the
multi-residential, commercial and industrial tax classes were all included in
the capping program and therefore the new parameter was being recommended for
all three classes. However, she
confirmed that Council could choose to exclude one of these classes from the
recommended parameter.
Councillor
El-Chantiry posed questions with respect to the lost revenue, or potential lost
revenue, as a result of federal government buildings being sold to private
sector ownership. Mr. Hughes indicated
that to date, about $4M of education tax had been lost when properties were
sold by the federal government to private interests, that approximately 40 more
buildings were identified for sale and once sold, these would result in another
$21M of lost education tax. He
explained that initially, the schedule for the sale of these properties was to
be over seven years and in the last budget, the federal government indicated
they would continue with this plan. He
indicated staff continued to discuss this situation with the Province because
the loss to the City was found revenue to the Province and they believed that
this was something that could and should be fixed. The question remained as to how it would be fixed.
Councillor
El-Chantiry noted that the last assessment was done in 2008 and that these
values would be used for the 2009 to 2012 taxation years. He remarked that property values had
declined since the aforementioned assessments and therefore, he wondered if
these would be reviewed. Mr. Hughes
explained that all properties in Ontario were assessed at the same date and,
although the market had decreased since then, all taxpayers were taxed using
the same valuation date. He maintained
this was a principle of taxation used in every jurisdiction and therefore there
were no plans to do another assessment.
By way of example, he submitted that if it was determined that property
values had decreased by 20%, then everyone’s property would drop 20% and the
tax rate would adjust accordingly.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Chiarelli, Mr. Hughes indicated that under existing
legislation, nothing could be done in terms of special tax treatment for
private schools. He explained that currently,
private schools were seen as businesses and were taxed in the commercial tax
class, unless their ownership was structured as a not-for-profit, in which case
they were taxed in the residential property tax class. He informed Committee that this issue had
been raised with contacts at the Province but he was not aware of anything in
the works to change this situation and the only way it could be addressed was
through Provincial legislative changes.
Councillor Jellett
referenced a motion that had been circulated to reduce the multi-residential
tax rate from 1.75 to 1.7 and he inquired about the corresponding impact to the
residential rate. Mr. Hughes estimated
the impact would be to increase the urban tax increase from 4.1% to about 4.15%
and the rural tax increase from 4.6% to about 4.64%.
Mr. John Dickie,
Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization, spoke from a written submission, a copy of
which is held on file. He began by
providing a brief overview of the organization he represented. He then explained how property taxes were
transferred from landlords to tenants through the rents they paid and why EOLO
cared about the taxes paid by their tenants.
He referenced Council’s past decisions with respect to multi-residential
tax ratios and in particular, Council’s 2005 direction to staff to develop a
2-year phase-in strategy to achieve a multi-residential tax ratio of 1.8,
representing an equivalent property tax burden compared to similar residential
properties. He believed the thrust of
that direction was not the 1.8 tax ratio but rather the equivalent tax burden
on the two groups of properties. He
suggested that 1.8 had been merely an estimate based on two pairs of
properties, one condominium and one rental.
He maintained that if the City looked at those two pairs of properties
today, an equal burden would be 1.32 or 1.53, depending on which pair, for an
average of 1.42. Therefore, he
submitted that the estimate was brought up to date. With two assessment cycles having since changed the properties’ values,
the directive would be to move to 1.42.
He stated that at a ratio of 1.75, he had no doubt that tenants were
paying more than an equivalent tax burden.
He indicated EOLO’s position was that tenants and homeowners should be
taxed at the same rate. Therefore, he
asked that Committee recommend a reduction to Council. Given that the goal had previously been to
take easy steps, he proposed 1.62 as a multi-residential tax ratio for
Committee’s and Council’s consideration.
However, if the City wished to be more modest, he recommended a move to
1.7, which would eliminate above-guideline increases at a cost to the City of
about $3M.
Councillor Bloess
referenced the previous year’s rate decrease for the multi-residential tax
class and he wondered how many property owners had applied for many
above-guideline increases. Mr. Dickie
explained the cycle with which such increases happened. He indicated his office handled many of them
but that he did not recall handling very many above-guidelines increases specifically
for taxes, though they handled many for capital expenditures.
Councillor Bloess
noted that the same debate was held every year and whereas he believed the City
was reaching a level of fairness at 1.75, the EOLO was presenting a whole new
set of numbers this year. Mr. Dickie
explained the numbers had changed because of re-assessment and the property
values shifting.
Councillor Legendre
noted that the delegation had made reference to studies having been
updated. He wondered if staff had reviewed
these to see if the earlier conclusions were still valid and whether or not the
target of fairness should be revised.
Mr. Hughes indicated he had received the document just prior to the
meeting and had not had a chance to review it.
Councillor Legendre
presumed it would be reasonable to ask staff to review the updated study and
bring forward a report, on a policy basis.
He expressed a desire to move to real fairness and he wondered whether a
review could be completed for this year’s tax ratios. Ms. Simulik explained that the tax ratios and by-laws would be
rising to Council within two weeks because of the timelines needed to produce
final tax bills and mail them to property owners. Therefore, she confirmed that staff could and would undertake a review. However, she submitted that there would not
be time to complete it for this year’s tax ratios.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Dickie explained the ways in which
tenants benefit from multi-residential tax reductions and the processes that
must be followed to ensure tax reductions are passed onto the tenants, as
outlined in his written submission.
Councillor Jellett
wondered, if the tax ratio dropped from 1.75 to 1.7, whether the difference
would be so negligible that it would not be passed onto the tenants. Mr. Dickie responded in the negative, noting
that it related to averages. He
explained that if Council reduced the ratio, it would reduce the building that
had a 10% tax increase down to a 7% tax increase and the landlord would be able
to pass through the difference between 2.5 and 7, not 2.5 and 10, which would
reach the tenant in the form of a lower than otherwise tax increase.
Councillor Jellett
maintained that Committee had no information to determine how many buildings
would be affected in this way. Mr.
Dickie submitted staff probably had the number but had not analysed them in
this way. He maintained that there was
a range of buildings, particularly in a re-assessment year. Some landlords would be reduced from a big
rent increase to a smaller one, others would be reduced from a moderate
increase to zero and others would have a cost decrease.
Councillor Jellett
submitted that in order to get the average down, Council would have to lower
the ratio to about 1.6. Mr. Dickie
responded affirmatively.
Mr. David Lyman,
representing Minto and Transglobe, introduced Mr. Pierre Azzi of Cushman and
Wakefield Property Tax Services, and provided copies of a report titled “A
Study of Equal Tax Burden – 2009; Residential vs. Multi-Residential
Comparison”. Mr. Lyman discussed the
scope and methodology of the study, which was originally done in 2006 for the
2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years and recently updated for the 2009 to 2012
taxation years. He indicated the study
concluded that the necessary ratio had fallen and an equal tax burden would
only come about if the ratio was between 1.3 and 1.45.
Councillor Legendre
took the speaker’s point with respect to a new tax ratio being needed in order
to achieve fairness. However, he
wondered who would be hurt if Council lowered the multi-residential tax
ratio. Mr. Lyman indicated that the
residential and commercial tax classes would bear the costs of lowering the
multi-residential tax ratio.
Mr. Rob MacDonald,
Housing Help, indicated his organization was a small, non-profit agency that had been
around for 20 years and helped people look for and/or maintain housing. He discussed the current vacancy rate and
economic climate, noting that as the economy had worsened, the vacancy rate and
decreased and rents increased. He
reported that in the past year, the vacancy rate had gone from 2.3% to 1.4% and
rent on a one-bedroom apartment had increased from $798 to $827. In terms of helping people find housing, he
indicated these changes had made his agency’s work that much more
difficult. In terms of helping people
maintain housing, he reported that the agency was doing more work at the
landlord tenant board around evictions due to rent arrears because tenants were
struggling to survive. He maintained
that tenants had less than half the income of homeowners and needed whatever
help they could get from the City yet they continued to pay a disproportionate
amount of their income on property taxes through their rent. In terms of fairness, he requested that the
City continue to strive toward parity by reducing the property taxes on
multi-residential buildings and that any tax reduction should be applied in
such a way that the tenant benefits from the savings. He submitted that any time the City helped tenants save money on
rent, it helped take pressure off already overtaxed services such as food
banks, rent banks and shelters.
Mr. Geoff Younghusband, Tenants
and Landlords for Fair Taxation, indicated he was a landlord representative and his message was a
follow-up to what Mr. Dickie and Mr. Lyman had said. He maintained that it was obvious tenants paid property taxes
through their rent and with the current tax ratio for multi-residential at
1.75, tenants were paying almost twice as much as homeowners. He referenced a 2005 report, which put the
average annual income for homeowner families in Ontario at $101,600 compared to
the average annual income for tenant families at $48,700. He noted that members of Council had
complained the Provincial property tax system was regressive because it was
based on property values rather than ability to pay. He submitted the fact that the City charged a higher tax rate to
its lower income households was by far the most regressive aspect of this system. He expressed appreciation for the small
steps taken in the past and asked that Committee and Council continue in this
course so that eventually, the ratio for tenant taxpayers would be the same as
for homeowners. He reminded Committee
that any property tax decreases had to be passed on to the tenants in the form
of reduced rent.
Ms. Estel Myhall, Tenants and Landlords for
Fair Taxation, indicated she used to be a homeowner but was
not a tenant. Speaking to the issue of
fairness, she noted that a lot of immigrant families, seniors and students were
among the tenant population and that these residents were less capable of
earning extra income if needed. She
appreciated that the City was moving towards lowering the ratio for
multi-residential properties and she encouraged them to continue on this
course. She maintained that those with
less income had less ability to pay.
Taking this into consideration, she asked for fairness across the
residential sectors.
Councillor Wilkinson introduced a motion to
reduce the multi-residential tax ratio to 1.7.
She referenced having been told that at this rate, landlords would not
be able to pass the tax increase on to the tenants and she submitted this was
the next gradual step in making sure Council did not cause a lot of hardship
for lower income residents.
Responding to a question from Councillor Deans,
Mr. Hughes stated that last year, the multi-residential tax ratio was set at
1.75 and this year, staff was recommending it remain at 1.75.
Councillor Cullen referenced the presentations
made with respect to the differential between residential and multi-residential
and the fact that tenants had half the income of homeowners. He noted that year-by-year, this Council had
taken steps to acknowledge the unreasonableness of this gap and to reduce
it. He asked his colleagues to continue
in this vain because there was no good argument to maintain the
unfairness. He maintained that it was
the only way to get to a point of equity and fairness between taxpayers. He referenced a commitment from the Eastern
Ontario Landlord Organization to pass on the savings to their tenants and the
threshold that would legally trigger such passage to tenants. He believed what was being proposed would
not reach the aforementioned threshold.
He reminded Committee that 40% of the City’s residents were tenants,
including seniors, young families and immigrant families and that most of them
were lower income. In closing, he
re-iterated his request for Council to continue to move towards fairness with
respect to the residential and multi-residential tax ratios.
In response to a question from Councillor
Bloess, Mr. Hughes indicated that approved the motion would result in
approximately a $3M shift in tax burden.
Councillor Bloess submitted that a one-to-one
ratio would actually be very unfair to the residential tax class and he
inquired as to the various studies on this issue, one of which was based on a
very small sample and had result in a ratio of 1.8. Mr. Hughes indicated there had been another study done, based on
a much larger sample and again, when the results were presented, the various
groups argued with respect to the quality of the data and the reasonableness of
the assumptions. He maintained that an
appropriate ratio is only at a particular point in time and he indicated staff
would review the study produced by Cushman and Wakefield.
Councillor Bloess felt Committee was being
asked to change the ratio on a hunch.
He acknowledged everyone’s desire to achieve fairness, but he believed
this had to be based on substantive information. Further, he noted that maintaining the current 1.75 ratio already
represented a shift in tax burden from multi-residential to residential and
therefore, in the absence of a staff analysis of the study introduced by the
delegations, he indicated he would be voting again the motion.
Responding to a question from Councillor
Desroches, Ms. Simulik confirmed that, when filing their income taxes,
landlords could claim property taxes as an expense.
Councillor El-Chantiry noted that the motion
would result in a tax burden shift from one group of taxpayers to another. He also did not believe Committee should be
doing this in the absence of an analysis by staff. Therefore, he indicated he would not be supporting the motion.
Councillor Cullen reminded Committee that any
multi-residential building constructed since 2000 was being taxed at the
residential tax rate. Therefore, he
wondered how Council could perpetuate a system that everyone acknowledged was
unfair to tenants in older multi-residential units. He re-iterated that this Council had consistently taken steps to
reduce the gap and he asked that Committee support the modest recommendation
put forward by Councillor Wilkinson in this regard.
Councillor Wilkinson argued that this change
was not being proposed on a whim. She
noted that Council had been dealing with this issue year after year. Last year, staff recommended a ratio of 1.8
and Council reduced it to 1.75. She
submitted the same thing was happening this year and that it was partly due to
the fact that the City, as a whole, was facing such a large rate increase. She maintained that her motion was intended
to get to a level where the landlords would still pay the taxes and write them off
as a business expense but the tenants would not have a rent increase. She felt going down to 1.7 was modest. She noted this was a city-wide issue and it
was an issue with respect to how the City treated people. She believed Council should be moving in
this direction and she asked Committee to support the motion.
Following these
exchanges, Committee voted on a motion introduced by Councillor Wilkinson.
Moved by Councillor
M. Wilkinson
That the multi-residential tax ratio be set at
1.7.
LOST
YEAS (3): R. Chiarelli, D.
Deans, M. Wilkinson
NAYS (5): R. Bloess, E.
El-Chantiry, R. Jellett, S. Desroches, Mayor O’Brien
At this juncture,
Committee voted on the report recommendations.
That the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council
approve:
1. The adoption of the following optional
property classes in 2009:
· Shopping
centre commercial property class
· Parking lots
and vacant lands commercial property class
· Office
building commercial property class
· Large
industrial property class
· New
multi-residential property class
· Professional
sports facility class
2. The adoption of the following tax ratios for
2009:
Tax Class
|
Ratios
**
|
|
Residential
|
1.000000
|
|
Multi-Residential
|
1.750000
|
|
New Multi-Residential
|
1.000000
|
|
Farm
|
0.200000
|
|
Managed Forest
|
0.250000
|
|
Pipeline
|
1.541308
|
|
Commercial Broad Class
|
2.163992
|
|
- Commercial
*
|
2.056746
|
|
-
Office Building *
|
2.484783
|
|
-
Parking Lots and Vacant Land – Commercial *
|
1.347621
|
|
-
Shopping Centre *
|
1.710810
|
|
-
Professional Sports Facility *
|
N/A
|
|
Industrial Broad Class
|
2.540952
|
|
-
Industrial *
|
2.699959
|
|
-
Large Industrial *
|
2.318571
|
*
including new construction classes for BET purposes
** Subject to final minor revisions upon OPTA
close-off
3. The adoption of the following tax ratios and
by-laws for the mandatory property subclasses and the tax rate percentage
reduction for farm land awaiting development:
· Commercial excess land (i.e. commercial, office
and shopping centre tax classes) - 70% of the applicable commercial property
class tax ratio
· Vacant industrial land, industrial and large
industrial excess land - 65% of the applicable industrial property class tax
ratio
· Farm lands awaiting development subclass I -
75.0% of the residential property class tax ratio and the corresponding tax
rate percentage reduction for the awaiting residential, multi-residential,
commercial and industrial property classes; and Farm lands awaiting development
subclass II - no tax rate reduction
4. That the tax rates for 2009 be established
based on the ratios adopted herein.
5. a) That
the 2009 capping parameters be approved at the higher of 10% of the previous
year’s annualized tax or 5% of the 2008 Current Value Assessment (CVA) taxes;
b) That
for 2009 capped/clawback properties whose recalculated annualized taxes fall
within $250 of their CVA taxation be moved to their CVA tax for the year;
c) That
for 2009, properties which have reached CVA during 2008 and/or crossed over
from the clawback to the capping category or vice versa in 2009 remain at CVA
taxes and be excluded from any further and future capping/clawback adjustments.
6.
That the tax level for “new construction”
properties be set at a minimum level of 100% of their CVA taxes for 2009 and
future taxation years.
7.
That the property tax mitigation programs
currently in place and detailed in this report be continued for 2009, including
the Farm Grant Program and the new Low Income Seniors and Disabled Persons
Complete Tax Deferral Program and the due date for the low-income seniors and
disabled persons complete tax deferral program be changed to February 28 of the
relevant tax year.
8.
That Council endorse a risk-based flexible
collection process with respect to repayment options for those property owners
in arrears.
9. That a budget adjustment of
$5.0 million between taxable revenues and payment in lieu of taxes be recorded
to reflect the change in classification of Federal properties that were sold
and leased back.
10. That a budget adjustment of $2.5 million
between taxable revenues and tax remissions be recorded to reflect the delay in
assessment changes that won’t be processed until after the final tax billing.
Mr. Richard Lebel, La Nouvelle Scène, talked about the history and mandate of the theatre La
Nouvelle Scène, the support it enjoyed in the Francophone community, and the
proposed project to expand and renew its premises. In closing, he asked that Committee support the inclusion of this
project on this of Ready-to-go Infrastructure Projects Funding Request and
increase the amount noted on the list from $1M to $1.7M. A copy of Mr. Lebel’s written submission is
held on file.
Mr. Peter McBride, Expansion Committee Chair, Rideau Canoe Club spoke on behalf of the Rideau Canoe
Club’s inclusion on the infrastructure list.
He indicated the group had been around since 1902. In 1980, the City, the Province, the NCC and
the Rideau Canoe Club members established the current location at Hog’s Back, a
City-owned facility. That project was a
very successful one in as much as the foundation that was laid in 1980
established a number of opportunities to develop programs delivered by the
Rideau Canoe Club for the City of Ottawa.
Those programs, which deal with water safety, summer camps and water
sports, touch children from across the City.
The group is also pre-eminent with the National Capital Dragon Boat
Festival, one of the largest dragon boat festivals in the world. Mr. McBride discussed some of the programs
offered at the Canoe Club and the ways in which these benefited residents. He indicated that the Club was past its
lifecycle and well beyond its capacity to deliver the services. He discussed the facility’s infrastructure
needs, from leaking washrooms to mould and health issues. He felt this request was an opportunity for
the City to repair existing problems and broaden the scope of programs
currently offered at the Canoe Club, noting that it was currently turning away
children from its programs and day camps.
He submitted that for a sensible investment leveraged against the
infrastructure fund, this project would be a tremendous benefit to the City.
Mr. John Edwards, Domestic
Development Director, Canoe Kayak Canada, indicated the Rideau Canoe Club (RCC) was one of the top ten clubs in
the country. He explained that it was a
not-for-profit charitable organization and the national sport organization for
paddling in Canada. He felt what was
important about the RCC was that it followed a leading model of how to develop
sport in Canada; by reaching out to communities. He noted that the Club had a very good reputation and that this
was built on a foundation of clubs around the country reaching out to communities. He maintained that canoe clubs should be
community centres of paddling. To that
end, the organization had developed and supported programs such as canoe kids
programs and learn-to-paddle programs.
He indicated dragon boat paddling had been a key part of the expansion
of canoeing. He noted that the Canoe
Club had partnered with the City to deal with issues of teenage obesity as well
as health and wellness. The organization
had also developed paddlers with a disability program. He advised that the club ran its coaching
programs in accordance with the national coaching certification program, which
was how it ensured excellence. In
closing, he noted that the water was free.
Once a club was set-up, there was no maintenance; no grass cutting or line
marking.
Ms. Frances Sanford-Smith, Team Coordinator, Busting Out Dragon Boat Club, explained that she represented a
breast cancer survivor dragon boat team in its 12th season. She indicated the Rideau Canoe Club had been
providing her club with facilities since the start of the team, as well as a
venue for the breast cancer action Mutual Life walk, which was the main
fundraiser for Breast Cancer Action Ottawa.
She outlined how a renovated clubhouse would be appreciated by the women
on the team in terms of cleanliness and larger locker rooms that would not have
a line of sight directly into the locker room from the whole of the club, an
expanded exercise area for winter exercise classes, better accessibility for
members with mobility issues, and a healthier environment free of mould. She hoped that a more attractive venue for
the Breast Cancer Action walk would attract more people to the event.
Ms. Yvonne Dionne, Board President for Charlotte Birchard Centres of
Early Learning, spoke in
support of her organization’s project, found on the priority list. She indicated that The Children’s Centre, at
407 Hilson Avenue in Westboro, was an exceptional facility, providing early
childhood education and care for 136 children, aged 18-months to 10 years of
age. She explained that the Centre was
attached to Hilson School and had been renting four classrooms from the school
for 65 children in its school-aged program.
She advised that the facility had been rebuilt in 1999 but that its
completion had been put on hold due to lack of funding. She stated that the tangible output of the
project was new construction of a second story onto the existing facility,
which would be specifically designed for the early years. It would be multi-use, flexible space for flexible
program delivery. She reported that it
would also provide increased accessibility with an elevator. She maintained that this was a validated
project that had been awaiting funding for many years and that it could be
started and completed within the prescribed timeframe. However, she suggested that the results of
the project went far beyond tangible construction in that it would provide
neighbourhood children and their families with a secure space, create 30 new
licensed spaces for toddler, preschool and school-aged children and the
opportunity for extended services such as part-time programs and family
resource services. It would also create
five to seven new permanent jobs for early learning educators and provide an
excellent continuum between early childhood care and the school system. She submitted that because the roof was
leaking and the Hilson Avenue Public School was filling up, time was of the
essence.
Mr. David Myers, Charlotte
Birchard Centre for Early Learning, indicated he endorsed this project because he felt it was a worthy
cause. He re-iterated that the project
was shovel-ready and that it would create jobs. He referenced the issue of emergency management and the fact that
the Centre was adjacent to Hilson Avenue Public School and he submitted that in
the event of a crisis, this addition to the school infrastructure would provide
a welcome addition in terms of emergency space.
Responding to a question from
Councillor Bloess with respect to the project funding, Ms. Dionne confirmed
that through due diligence, careful management and fundraising, the
organization had accumulated funds for its share of the costs.
Ms. Grace Xin, Executive
Director, Somerset Street Chinatown Business Improvement Area, was pleased that the Chinatown Gateway
project was on the City’s Ready-to-Go Infrastructure List. However, having
reviewed the report, she was concerned with that the way the project was
described might jeopardize its chances of getting federal government support. She noted that the report described the
project as being “not a City project”.
She noted that this was a twin-City project, being undertaken in
partnership with the City of Beijing.
Further, she advised that the City of Beijing was going to help with the
redesign of an authentic gateway, donate all the decorative material, help with
the transportation and donate a pair of lions and send technical advisors to
help during the installation. She also
asked that the City reveal the job creation numbers. She noted that even though the budget for the Gateway project was
not big, it was a delicate and complicated project and would create jobs. Therefore, also she was grateful that the
project had been included on the list, she asked that its description be
amended in the report to read “Twin-City project in partnership with the
private sector and the City of Beijing, China”.
Responding to a question from
Councillor Desroches as a follow-up to the presentation, Mr. K. Kirkpatrick,
City Manager, confirmed that staff would amend the project description prior to
the report rising to Council
In response to a question from
Mayor O’Brien, Ms. Xin confirmed that the BIA had been talking to the Federal
and Provincial governments with respect to support for this project.
Mr. Angelo Filoso, spoke in support of a project to reconstruct
the Piazza Dante, which he described as the historic heart and soul of Ottawa’s
Italian Community. Mr. Filoso described
the park and its history, he talked about partnership programs to help fund the
project, he discussed the usage of the Piazza and the work done to date and the
listed the associations supporting this project. In closing, he expressed the hope that the reconstruction of the
Piazza Dante would be made possible through the infrastructure funds. A copy of Mr. Filoso’s written submission is
held on file.
Ms.
Fauza Mohamed, Rochester Heights Community, spoke in support of the redevelopment plan
for Piazza Dante. She talked about the
park’s significant importance to the Italian community in Ottawa and its
current state of neglect. She felt the
addition of an open area for social events, shaded structure, splash pad and
tables for social gatherings would enhance and beautify the park and inspire
the surrounding community to take pride in it.
She expressed a need for a gathering place for area-families, a fund and
safe place for kids, sufficient lighting to deter any criminal activity, and an
opportunity for community involvement.
She maintained that this could only have a positive impact on the
neighbourhood.
Mr. Tim Vizena, President of the National Capital Heavy Construction
Association, began by
congratulating the Mayor and the City for forming a committee through which the
City and the industry would work cooperatively to ensure that shovel-ready
projects were identified, tendered and completed by the Federal government’s
March 31, 2011 deadline. He felt it
would also be important that the City work closely with the Ministry of the
Environment to encourage them to provide timely approvals and to gain the
co-operation of various utilities, including hydro, gas, phone and cable
companies to make sure they had the resources required to respond to increased
workloads. He urged Committee and
Council to do everything in their power to identify priorities and get
applications in to the Federal government as soon as possible. He advised that because of slowdowns in the
residential and commercial sectors, the industry had the capacity to undertake
these projects now but that if they were delayed too long, the industry would
have difficulty getting them completed by the March 31, 2011 deadline. He suggested that the City think outside the
box, including tendering specifically identified high-priority projects with
awards being subject to financial approval and/or tendering projects at 60%,
70% or 80% design completion. Also he
asked that the City examine ways to reduce the time from contract closing to
the award date. He felt these
initiatives would be a benefit to all involved and help to fully utilize the
opportunity presented.
Mr. John Higgins, Co-Chair of
the Elgin School Council,
talked about the Jack Purcell and St-Luke’s Park redevelopment, noting that the
park was heavily used by the surrounding community and area schools. He submitted that this was shovel-ready in
that, for the past two years, there had been extensive rounds of community
consultations and plans had been finalized.
He believed it was on the budget list last year but had been turned down
for funding at that time. He explained
that the project was needed because of multiple users in the parks, who were
sometimes in conflict with one another; basketball players, tennis players, dog
owners and/or parents with children. He
submitted that the redesign would address the various needs of the park’s
community users.
Mr. Scott McKenzie, Past
Co-Chair of the Elgin School Council, explained that in the initial meetings on the redesign plan, there had
been some acrimony between the park’s various users. However, through a lot of good work, people had come together and
formed a consensus as to how the park should be redeveloped. Therefore, there currently was strong
agreement amongst all the stakeholders.
Mr. Roddy Bolivar, West Ottawa
Economic Development Association,
made reference to the Mayor and the City Manager representing the
infrastructure list as a menu going forward from which the Provincial and
Federal governments would pick and choose the projects they wanted to
fund. He submitted that a menu had to
have lots of selection. In looking at
the projects being brought forward, he acknowledged that they represented the
City’s priorities and that a lot of hard work had gone into putting the list
together. However, he submitted what he
did not see were projects related to water and sewers. He indicated he was a strong proponent of
water and sewers and of rural economic development. He noted that the Carp Road corridor was the only Official Plan
(OP) designated employment area in the City of Ottawa with over 2000 jobs in a
number of business parks along the corridor.
He advised that the area had a long-standing interest and desire for
water service extension. Companies in
the area would benefit from a reliable and safe
water supply for their day-to-day operations as well as for fire insurance and
on-site fire protection. He indicated
he had not come forward with a shovel-ready project. However, he asked that the City consider expanding the menu of
projects being put forward. He
submitted that a water project in an OP identified economic development area
may not only deliver short-term economic stimulus, it may also promote
long-term economic stimulus in the industrial area. This would provide a good opportunity to have serviced industrial
land at a key transportation intersection, and possibly obtain some
funding.
Responding to a question from
Councillor Desroches with respect to shovel-readiness, Mr. Bolivar confirmed
that although the intent of his presentation was to raise the idea of expanding
the menu so the Federal and Provincial governments could see a range of
projects, he submitted that the water project to the Reid industrial park, and
other areas, could quickly be designed and tendered in a couple of months
because as the technical feasibility has been examined and extension of water
main within a right of way is a Schedule “A” project. Extensions of water mains can proceed very quickly.
In response to a follow-up question
from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Bolivar explained that a Schedule “A” project,
if defined as a water main extension within a right of way, was pre-approved
under the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. He noted that the Reid Industrial Park existed, the water main
existed and the road in the park existed.
Therefore, if the project was defined that way, it would be pre-approved
using the Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment
Process.
In reply to questions from
Councillor El-Chantiry as to where or whether Mr. Bolivar’s suggestion could be
added to the list, Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that members could move additions
to the list and he suggested if there were other projects that had not been
identified and/or had not made their way onto the list, staff would need to
know what they were and whether they met the eligibility criteria. However, he re-iterated that Mr. Bolivar had
not proposed a shovel-ready project. He
reminded Committee that staff had built the list in accordance with the
direction given by Council and in consultation with members of Council in that
it represented the infrastructure spending the City believed would meet the
eligibility criteria, the main one being shovel-readiness.
Mr. Phil Sweetnam, appeared on behalf of the Kanata Chamber of
Commerce and the Stittsville Village Association to support the inclusion of
Hazeldean Road as part of the infrastructure funding. He reminded Committee that this project was originally scheduled
for 2008 but under the reduced tax increase formula, it was put off in phase
one and was now deferred until 2011. He
indicated this took the road as far as Iber Road. He submitted that this road was a vital part of the
transportation plan in the East/West connection for Stittsville and noted that
it was also part of the transportation corridor for buses going to
Stittsville. He noted that since
amalgamation, Hazeldean Road had not benefit from any work done on it other
than some pothole repairs. Every time a
development was approved in the area, there was a cry from residents for the
reconstruction of Hazeldean Road. He
remarked that there were a number of development plan underway in the area and
that this piece of infrastructure was sorely needed so to the extent that
funding was available, he urged Committee and Council to consider supporting
this project as an important part of its infrastructure program.
Councillor Wilkinson introduced a
motion on behalf of Councillor Qadri to add three projects to the Recreation
Infrastructure Project List for Coyote Park Development, a Basketball Court at
the Stittsville Arena, and at Splash Pad for Jackson Trails.
Councillor Deans introduced a
motion on behalf of Councillor Holmes to increase the Social Housing
Infrastructure Project List for Ottawa Community Housing from $40,294,507 to
$137,578,611.
Councillor Deans introduced a
motion to increase the amount for the La Nouvelle Scène projects from $1M to
$1.7M.
Councillor Desroches introduced a
motion to add incomplete components of the parks in Findlay Creek to the
Recreation Infrastructure Project List.
Speaking to her motion, Councillor
Wilkinson reported that Councillor Qadri had met with staff and staff had
agreed with the additions listed in the motion, which would be added to the
recreation envelope.
Councillor Bloess wondered what the
City could expect in terms of the total funding envelope. Mr. Kirkpatrick, believed all members of
Council were aware of a joint letter issued the previous Friday, which provided
some formal details about how the funding would work but stopped short in that
it indicated is may work differently in every province. That being said, he explained that if the
funding were allocated on a per capita basis, the City could anticipate
something in the order of $300M, not including the Social Housing
component. However, it would more likely
be based on a project-by-project approval process.
Councillor Bloess noted that the
list being put forward already exceeded the expected envelope and there were a
number of motions to add to the list.
He submitted that Committee was seized with a list that had been refined
over the last month or two. Staff had
gone through it. Members of Council had
gone through it. It had gone through a
fairly intense process and he wondered what it would to do to the list if, at
this last stage of the process, Committee started piling on projects. He wondered if it would render the list
useless to the Federal and Provincial partners. Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that for the most part, the motions were
adding to the Recreation Infrastructure Projects list, which was already in
excess of what he expected the City would get in terms of funding. He submitted the real issue was to the
extent to which Council may want to change the priority. He explained that the list was presented in
the order staff would recommend Council adopt as the priorities for these
projects. Therefore, if the motions
were to add to the bottom of the list, this would not make the upper tiers’ job
any more difficult.
A discussion ensued with respect to
the process followed to get to the current point, the impact that any addition
to the lists would have on the identified priorities and how to deal with the
motions before Committee.
Mr. Aaron Burry, General Manager of
????, confirmed that the motions introduced to add items to the Recreation Infrastructure
list would result in those projects being added to the bottom of the list.
Mayor O’Brien referenced the
discussion and the fact that two of the motions did not fall into the same
category, namely the increase for social housing and the adjustment of the
amount of La Nouvelle Scène. As a
result, Committee voted on the following motions:
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS the Housing Needs Report submitted to Council in 2007 outlined
the need to repair and renew existing social housing;
AND WHEREAS Ottawa Community Housing Corporation recently completed a
building condition assessment that identified a 5-year capital expenditure plan
for the repair and renewal of properties that exceeds $340M;
AND WHEREAS the City Housing Strategy supports the need for affordable
housing in good repair;
AND WHEREAS Ottawa Community Housing Corporation has identified a 2-year
capital summary of projects totaling $137,578,611;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee recommend Council approve an increase from $40,294,507 to
$137,578,611 to the Social Housing Infrastructure Fund Project List for Ottawa
Community Housing (March 23 Report:
Ready-To-Go Infrastructure Projects Funding Requests).
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor
D. Deans
WHEREAS the Théàtre de la Nouvelle Scène (LNS)
is the premier Francophone theatre in Ottawa;
AND WHEREAS the LNS is also home to four of
Ottawa’s more prolific and established Francophone theatre companies, Vox
Théàtre, Théàtre du Trillium, Théàtre de la Vieille 17 and Théàtre de la
Catapulte;
AND WHEREAS the adult and children’s
programming serves the sizeable Francophone community in Ottawa and the region;
AND WHEREAS there are no other Francophone
theatres of this nature in Ottawa;
AND WHEREAS the LNS has proven to be highly
effective at engaging community support in its fundraising activities and is a
fiscally solvent cultural institution;
AND WHEREAS the LNS has been increasingly
successful and now requires enlarged premises, including major renovations to
the existing building;
AND WHEREAS the LNS plan to renew its building
falls within the criteria of “ready-to-go” projects as stipulated in the
program requirements;
AND WHEREAS the original estimates of $5M for
the renovations were preliminary in nature, therefore requiring a smaller share
of the City of Ottawa’s portion;
AND WHEREAS the amount of $1M was originally
submitted as the City of Ottawa’s share of the total cost in the Infrastructure
Funds Priority Report;
AND WHEREAS the LNS thereafter received a final
estimate from the contractor, which totalled over $7.1M;
AND WHEREAS the City’s share needed for
successful implementation of this project has now been established as $1.7M;
AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa’s Cultural
Services Branch concurs with the request raise the amount in the Priority list
to reflect the revised amount submitted by the applicant;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the amount of the
City of Ottawa’s share be revised from $1M to $1.7M to be allocated to the LNS
in the Infrastructure Priority List.
CARRIED
Councillor McRae noted that there
were two motions left on the table and that members of Council who were not
members of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee had sat
through the day-long meeting in order to hear the public delegations,
participate in the discussion and have these items added to the Recreation
Infrastructure List. Further, she noted
that the additions had staff support.
Therefore, she indicated she would support these additions though she
was not prepared to start taking things off the list.
Committee then voted on the
following motions:
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
WHEREAS the community of Stittsville is under-serviced in outdoor
activities for youth;
AND WHEREAS development charges will only cover minimum development
costs related to Coyote Park in Stittsville;
AND WHEREAS there is currently an inadequate number of community level
basketball courts for the size of the growing Stittsville youth population;
AND WHEREAS the new park development budget was insufficient to include
all of the proposed components of the Splash Pad for Jackson Trails in
Stittsville;
THEFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee recommend Council approve the addition of the following
projects to the Recreation Infrastructure Project List (March 23 Report: Ready-To-Go Infrastructure Projects Funding
Request):
|
Projects in Priority
|
Cost ($M)
|
Operating Budget Pressures
2011 ($)
|
Approvals Required
|
|
Coyote Park Development
|
0.50
|
n/a
|
Community consultation
required
|
|
Basketball Court at
Stittsville Arena
|
0.06
|
minimum
|
Community contribution also
committed in addition
|
|
Splash Pad for Jackson
Trails
|
0.06
|
8K
|
minimum
|
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor
S. Desroches
That the Recreation Infrastructure List include
incomplete components of the parks in Findlay Creek, including an outdoor rink
and lighting, valued at approximately $90,000.
CARRIED
Committee then voted on the item as
amended.
That
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
a) Approve
the updated City of Ottawa Priority List of Ready-To-Go Infrastructure
Projects, as detailed in Document 1 as amended by the following:
i)
An increase from $40,294,507 to $137,578,611 to the
Social Housing Infrastructure Fund Project List for Ottawa Community Housing
(March 23 Report: Ready-To-Go Infrastructure Projects Funding Requests);
ii) The addition of
the following projects to the Recreation Infrastructure Fund Project List
(March 23 Report: Ready-To-Go Infrastructure Projects Funding Requests)
|
Projects in
Priority
|
Cost ($M)
|
Operating Budget
Pressures 2011 ($)
|
Approvals Required
|
|
Coyote Park
Development
|
0.50
|
n/a
|
Community
consultation required
|
|
Basketball Court at
Stittsville Arena
|
0.06
|
minimum
|
Community
contribution also committed in addition.
|
|
Splash Pad for Jackson
Trails
|
0.06
|
8K
|
minimum
|
iii) The addition of the
incomplete components of the parks in Findlay Creek, including an outdoor rink
and lighting, valued at approximately $90,000 to the Recreation Infrastructure
Fund Project List; and
iv) That the amount of the City of Ottawa’s
share for the La Nouvelle Scène infrastructure project be revised from $1M to
$1.7M;
b) Direct staff to proceed with the official
funding request for the projects identified on the Ready-To-Go-Infrastructure
Projects list; and
c) Direct the City Treasurer to report back with
the identification of the sources of funding for the City's share of the
projects for Council approval.
Moved by Councillor
E. El-Chantiry
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
Mr. Michael Murr, Manager of Sustainabilty Services and Mr. Ian
Duff, Manager of Economic Development, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation,
which served to provide Committee with an overview of the report. A copy of the presentation is held on file.
Mayor O’Brien thanked staff for the clear and succinct report, noting
that it addressed short-term economic opportunities as well as a more
comprehensive view of the long-term strategic activities in which the City
could be involved.
Councillor Bloess indicated he looked forward to the next
stages. He then asked if the City was
going to look at balancing growth jobs in the East end. Mr. Duff answered affirmatively.
Councillor Jellet felt it was time for some bold thinking and bold
action. He said he was tired of
analysis and that it was time for the City to actually do something. He noted that the City had been talking
about balancing growth for some time and that, in addition to the East end,
this also applied to Riverside South and other emerging communities where job
opportunities needed to be increased to benefit the City as a whole. He wondered how this would dovetail with the
Development Charge By-law being implemented.
In regards to taking steps to improve the situation, he suggested
options the City could consider, such as:
smaller development charges on employment land in Orléans and Riverside
South; tax relief options similar to those implemented in the City of Toronto;
the City purchasing industrial or employment lands in the East end; and
possibly offering free land to companies wanting to build employee-based
businesses. He felt such steps would be
a further and faster way to help the City and it’s economy.
In response to Councillor Jellet, Mr. Murr welcomed the input and
explained that the balancing point for the City was to ensure it was doing everything
it could reasonably do in the short-term to support companies and individuals
in the current economic climate while at the same time, putting in place a very
quick process. He stated that in terms
of a S.W.O.T. analysis being complete, staff would be back before Committee and
Council in the fall and he hoped to have a strategy approved six months
later.
Mayor O’Brien referenced the fact that 70% of the people who work in
Ottawa are employed at some level of government. He asked whether staff’s economic development strategy included
approaching the Federal government in terms of some of their site planning and
project planning. He submitted that the
City could take 100% of the growth and technology employment and aim it to the
East end and it would not have as much impact as relocating one government
department. Mr. Murr stated this was a
good suggestion and he indicated it would be on the radar.
Councillor El-Chantiry asked when staff would be coming back to
Committee with a report on the next steps.
Mr. Murr indicated staff was already in the process of either modifying
the existing programs or introducing new initiatives. He advised that there were a number of initiatives being explored
and that the goal was to report back by the end of June with respect to how the
City was responding to the short-term pressures and any further initiatives.
Councillor El-Chantiry wondered if there had been any discussions
amongst City staff in terms of licensing and by-law to explore ways of making
it easier to promote home-based businesses.
Mr. Murr assured Committee that there was a close working relationship
between his Division and other City departments and that they would work
together to ensure the City was doing everything to support the business community.
Councillor Desroches referenced the City’s role in economic
development. He felt the City did not
have the kind of profile it should in these activities and that citizens needed
to know their City had a role in economic development and was prepared to come
up with a strategy to support the local economy. He asked about the timing for implementing the short-term
strategy. Mr. Murr advised that the
short-term strategy was intended to be put in place by the end of June.
In response to Councillor Desroches asking for an update, Mr. Murr
indicated the home-based business guide was ready to go but, before launching
it, that staff was awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the new Comprehensive
Zoning By-law for home-based businesses.
Councillor Wilkison referenced Councillor Jellet’s comments with
respect to the East end and offered to assist in this regard.
At this juncture,
Committee tabled the report.
TABLED
MOTIONS
DONT AVIS A ÉTÉ DONNÉ ANTÉRIEUREMENT
COUNCILLOR G. BROOKS
Councillor Wilkison introduced an amendment to the motion to direct
staff to come forward with a report to incorporate any changes made to the
Urban Boundary resulting from the current Official Plan review. She advised that she had worked with staff
on the wording of the amendment.
Councillor Jellet asked whether the motion was calling for a full
ward boundary review. Mr. Tim Marc,
Senior Legal Counsel, indicated it was not.
He clarified the intent was just to incorporate any changes Council may
make to the urban boundary into the ward boundaries for the 2014 general
election.
Councillor Jellet wondered how this would be done, noting that his
ward had both rural and urban lands.
Mr. Marc submitted that Ward 19 was acknowledged to be unique in the
last ward boundary review and would be treated accordingly in whatever was done
in 2011.
Responding to a final question from Councillor Jellet with respect
to public consultation, Mr. Marc stated that there had not been consultation on
the current report but that there would be consultation prior to a staff report
being brought forward in June in response to the current direction.
Councillor Qadri posed a question with respect to Councillor
Wilkinson’s amendment. In response, Mr.
Marc explained that the amendment was a direction for work to be done in the
future and would not impact on the work to be done this year with respect to
the Fernbank lands.
Following these exchanges, Committee approved the amendment
introduced by Councillor Wilkinson.
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
WHEREAS it is a principle established through Ward Boundary caselaw
that communities of interest should be located within common Wards;
AND WHEREAS land within the Urban Area is considered to be a
separate community of interest from lands within the Rural Area;
AND WHEREAS the City is reviewing its official plan and may be
redesignating lands within the Rural Area as Urban Area;
AND WHEREAS the resulting Official Plan Amendment is subject to
review and approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
AND WHEREAS the timeframe for the Minister’s review and approval is
180 days after adoption of the Official Plan Amendment;
AND WHEREAS there may be appeals to lands added to the Urban Area
thereafter;
AND WHEREAS any changes to Ward Boundaries for the 2010 general
election must be in place by 31 December 2009 including the conduct of any
appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board;
AND WHEREAS it is not possible at this time, if changes are to be
made to Ward Boundaries for 2010, to incorporate the outcome of the urban
boundary changes from the Official Plan Review;
THEREFORE staff be directed to come forward with a report within the
first year of the next term of Council to provide for the incorporation within
the affected Wards of any changes made to the Urban Boundary resulting from the
current official plan review.
CARRIED
Committee then
approved the item as amended.
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
recommend Council:
1.
Direct staff to bring forward a
report to the 16 June 2009 meeting of Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee, to be considered by Council on 24 June 2009, that would
enable the Fernbank lands to be redistributed from Ward 21 to Ward 6 and/or
Ward 23;
2.
Direct staff to ensure that all
required notice is given to comply with statutory and City requirements; and
3. Direct
staff to come forward with a report within the first year of the next term of
Council to provide for the incorporation within the affected Wards of any
changes made to the Urban Boundary resulting from the current Official Plan
review.
CARRIED
as amended
POINT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
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
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
That the meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee move In Camera pursuant to Subsection 13(1) a) the security of
the property of the city; e) litigation or potential litigation, affecting the
city, including matters before administrative tribunals and f) the receiving of
advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications
necessary for that purpose, of the procedure by-law to consider “the request
for proposal process for voice over internet protocols project and an offer of
a donation with respect to information technology”.
CARRIED
Resuming in open session, Mayor O’Brien
indicated there was now a motion in front of Committee to examine an offer of a
donation of equipment to the City of Ottawa and for City staff to review that
potential donation to see if it was valid.
Councillor Jellet thanked Mitel Corporation, a
local company, for making a generous offer to the City. He felt it was incumbent upon the City to
investigate this offer thoroughly and he expressed his support of the motion.
Councillor McRae expressed her gratitude
towards Mr. Terry Matthews, Chairman of Mitel Networks. She asked staff to confirm whether or not
another firm had won the bid referenced in the motion. Mr. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor,
responded affirmatively.
The Councillor then asked Mr. O’Connor to
briefly explain the next steps in investigating this offer. The City Solicitor explained that if the
direction was given to staff to go away and look at this, it would be to
clarify parameters of the donation to ensure that it was not a case of bid
repair or anything that would be contrary to the City’s procurement policies.
Councillor McRae expressed her support for the
motion and stated that it was a good thing to investigate the donation because
there could be a possibility of accepting the handsets worth $2M and then
having to buy switches, software and customer service.
Councillor El-Chantiry asked the mover of the
motion to include, as a friendly amendment, a direction to include the Fairness
Commissioner in the process in order to ensure the City was respecting the
integrity of the RFP process.
Councillor Desroches wondered at what point the
Fairness Commissioner would be injected into the process. In response, Mr. O’Connor explained that if
Committee passed this motion, staff would speak to the Fairness Commissioner
immediately.
Committee then voted on the motion.
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has a current, pending Request for
Proposal (“RFP”) that seeks a Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VOIP”) Solution
and Related Services for City Facilities; and
WHEREAS the RFP proposes, among other things, a standing offer
between the City and the selected proponent for a term of six years, with the
City reserving the right, at its sole discretion, to extend the agreement for
up to two additional 1-year periods; and
WHEREAS, although a preferred proponent has been identified under
the RFP, no contract negotiations have yet commenced; and
WHEREAS the rights reserved to the City in the RFP includes the
right to cancel the RFP at any time and, further, states that neither the
receipt of proposals, nor the completion of any of the RFP’s stated evaluation
and selection stages constitutes an obligation on the part of the City to award
a contract; and
WHEREAS, on April 1st 2009, Mitel Networks Corporate
offered to donate technology to the City that is valued at over $2 million,
indicating, in part, that they wish to help the City reduce spending on
technology solutions so that more funds can be made available for programs that
benefit the community in general;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Request for Proposal for Voice
Over Internet Protocol (“VOIP”) Solution and Related Services be suspended, and
that staff be directed to work with the Fairness Commissioner to clarify Mitel
Network Corporation’s offer to donate technology, and report back to the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee and Council as soon as possible.
CARRIED
NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Councillor
Brooks submitted the following Notice of Motion, for consideration at the next
regular meeting :
WHEREAS, the
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 314 located at 5550 Ann Street in Manotick was
destroyed by fire on June 12, 2005 leaving the community without a meeting
place for veterans, cadets, friends and family and a centre for celebrating
Remembrance Day;
AND WHEREAS, the
community undertook fundraising activities and managed to raise the required
funding to commission the design and construction of a new building;
AND WHEREAS, the
Legion paid a total of $6830.00 in fees for building permit applications
A06-003811 and A08-007313 for the construction of the new building;
AND WHEREAS, the
Legion, a non-profit organization serving the community as a whole, has
requested the City to reimburse the above noted fees;
AND WHEREAS, on
July 1, 2005, the Building Code Act and Code were amended to require building
regulatory activities be revenue neutral and fees to cover only those costs
associated with servicing building permits and enforcing the Act and Code and
thus revenues can no longer be used to reimburse fees to applicants;
AND WHEREAS, if
Council wishes to support requests for grants to offset building permit fees,
it is necessary to fund these from the City-Wide Capital Reserve Fund;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that funding in the form of a grant, in the amount of $6830.00, be allocated from the City-Wide Capital
Reserve Fund to reimburse the Royal Canadian Legion
Branch 314 located at 5550 Ann Street in Manotick to offset the building permit
fees paid to the City for the construction of the new Legion facilities.
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
Original
signed by Original
signed by
D. Blais Mayor
L. O’Brien
Committee
Coordinator Chair
