Information Technology Sub-Committee

Sous-comité de la technologie de l’information


Minutes 5 / Procès-verbal 5


Monday, 1 March 2010, 1:30 p.m.

le lundi 1 mars 2010, 13 h 30


Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest



Present / Présent :     Councillors / Conseillers M. Wilkinson (Chair / Présidente), S. Desroches (Vice-Chair / Vice-président), R. Chiarelli, E. El-Chantiry J. Legendre


Others present:            Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, City Operations; Guy Michaud, Director, IT Services & Chief Information Officer; David Johnston, Manager Business Technology Architecture; Rob Collins, Technology Advisor; Jeff Byrne, Manager, Supply, Finance; Chris Day, Chief, Corporate Communications




There were no declarations of interest.



Ratification dES procÈs-verbaUX


Minutes 4 and Confidential Minutes 1 of Friday, 18 December 2009 were confirmed.





No communications were received.



Portefeuille Opérations Municipales



Services de technologie de l’information




ACS2010-COS-ITS-0003                               City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville           


Guy Michaud, Director of IT Services & Chief Information Officer introduced David Johnston, Manager of Business Technology Architecture, who provided a PowerPoint presentation.  He explained that Transit and Information Technology Services (ITS) are conducting a structured review of Transit technology, and creating a multi-year “roadmap” that will show Council how technology will be used by Transit to meet its service objectives.  The initial focus has been on those technology projects that are Council’s priority, including Next Stop Announcement (NSA) and preparing for the introduction of SmartCards for transit users in 2011.  He outlined the two-phase approach (Governance and Roadmap), preliminary findings, governance model, and next steps.  The first phase review identified 45+ technology projects (idea, planned or in progress), seven of which were identified as priorities.  The various separate, but dependent projects (including SmartCard and NSA) have been consolidated under an umbrella program called SmartBus Next Generation (NG).  Combined with the governance and project management changes, this is expected to strengthen project execution and management oversight.  Phase 1 work is nearly complete; the necessary changes have been put in place, and will be monitored and adjusted as required.  The development of the Roadmap is ongoing, and is currently anticipated for completion in Q2 of 2010.  It will be integrated with the Corporate Technology Roadmap that was approved by Council in conjunction with the 2010 budget.  A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition Bylaw. 


Chair Wilkinson inquired whether the Transit technology roadmap would be presented to the IT Sub-committee for review once it is ready.  Mr. Johnston confirmed, verifying that May is the target date. 


The Chair asked for confirmation that, in the meantime, the seven projects underway within the 2010 budget envelope will move forward under the normal procurement process, which Mr. Johnston confirmed.


Vice-chair Desroches expected that a business case would accompany any significant project and a report would be provided on the demonstrated and anticipated achievements of each project in terms of improving service to clients and offering efficiencies.  He questioned where that kind of feedback mechanism fits into the roadmap.  Mr. Johnston replied that the Five-Year Technology Roadmap approved by Council provided some detail on each of the initiatives, expected costs over a three to five year timeframe, as well as the anticipated benefits to be realized from the investment.  He added that efficiencies and savings generated by a project will be clearly identified, and in the case of service improvements, staff will find some way to identify them within the business case.  He noted IT staff would work very closely with Transit on this because service improvements or efficiencies are the result of leveraging the technology to put in place.


Vice-Chair Desroches inquired whether, as part of the next steps, the goal of the exercise to confirm the health of remaining 45 projects (not identified as priorities) is to put a full-core press on them and challenge whether they’re actually needed.  Mr. Johnston confirmed, adding that the initial focus has been on the seven priorities identified by Transit.  He said the goal of the exercise will be to ensure they are aligned with the Transit business priorities and business strategy and, if there are dependencies, to identify over what timeframe they might be implemented.  He remarked it would all be looked at from a multi-year perspective. 


That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.







ACS2010-COS-ITS-0004                               City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville               


Guy Michaud, Director, IT Services & Chief Information Officer provided a PowerPoint presentation, briefing members on the above-noted event that occurred on February 5, 2010.  The objective of the session was to share the City’s Service Excellence Plan and the Five Year IT Roadmap, its priorities and objectives with current and potential suppliers in the technology & business community.  The City collaborated with the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) to host and manage the event, which was attended by 370 individuals (representing 260 potential suppliers).  In addition to IT and Finance staff, and OCRI, Councillors Wilkinson and Desroches participated in the event on behalf of the IT Sub-committee.  Mr. Michaud shared feedback from a survey conducted with attendees, which demonstrated that although there was some negative feedback it was an overall successful event and there was general appreciation of the open and transparent approach.  It is intended that it become an annual event.  A copy of Mr. Michaud’s presentation is held on file.


Chair Wilkinson commended staff and remarked it is critical to continue with the event on an annual basis in order to maintain good relations and provide a comfort factor for local, smaller companies.


Referring to the slide about negative feedback, Councillor Legendre asked for clarification on the comment that the City’s process would be low cost compliant, which usually means junior resources trying to get the work done’.  Mr. Michaud suggested the comment pertains to the fact that when the City issues a Request For Proposals (RFP), one of the elements of the evaluation is the cost, and some companies submit lower bids than others for a service simply by basing the project cost on the use of their junior resources, which are lower.  He suggested that staff must ensure the right resources to suit each project are obtained at the right cost.


The Councillor referred to another comment on the slide that asked the City to give companies the opportunity to pitch products and services that might not be on staff’s radar yet but could be of great benefit to the City.  He thought that, as one of the largest Corporations in the area, the City should be willing to be a test bed for new ways of doing things.  He questioned whether that is, in fact, an element of the Five-Year Technology Roadmap.  Mr. Michaud confirmed it is a component, adding that staff are very open to talking to any potential technology suppliers.  He noted that companies have approached staff in the past to promote their products and services, whereupon staff have conducted a preliminary screening and engaged the proper branch to review the technology.  He added that the information session has generated a lot of interest and staff are currently flooded with such requests from potential suppliers, but he acknowledged that is part of the process of trying to identify the best technology to accommodate the Service Excellence program.


Councillor Legendre inquired whether the event attendees were local business people.  Mr. Michaud indicated that most were local firms that ranged in size.


Councillor El-Chantiry noted that one of the survey comments indicated satisfaction with ‘learning that managers can be decision makers for small amounts of work’ and he questioned whether there is a policy that defines what a ‘small amount’ is.  Mr. Michaud responded that staff follow the rules of the City’s Procurement Bylaw, noting there is a threshold that helps to determine the potential supplier for a project.  He stated that, for example, if the cost of a project is below $100 K, the City would request three bids from within its approved list of outstanding offers and choose the supplier from those three.  The decision is made by the manager.  For projects over $100 K, a competitive process is used.


The Councillor inquired whether that is a Best Practice used by other municipalities.  Mr. Michaud replied that the threshold of $100 K is somewhat low for certain expertise and ITS is working with Procurement staff to see whether that can be changed.  Raising the threshold would allow for greater flexibility to find suppliers that could be used for the duration of those lengthy projects that benefit from a certain expertise and continuity. 


Councillor El-Chantiry questioned if it is possible to review Best Practices of other municipalities and create a policy based on those that would give clear rules on the process to be followed for projects in specified price ranges, which would eliminate or decrease ‘red tape’ and make the City a business-friendly entity.  Mr. Michaud explained the City has a policy of that nature but has been using the competitive process as much as possible to ensure fairness and equal access.  He added that details have been published annually about the number of RFPs issued, responses to RFPs and so on.


Jeff Byrne, Manager, Supply, Finance explained that the thresholds referred to by Mr. Michaud are those stipulated within the City’s Purchasing Bylaw, which was established by the Transition Board.  It delegates most of the contract authority to staff, often bypassing the requirement for reporting through Committee and Council.  That Bylaw was established on Best Practices and is monitored by staff regularly to ensure it continues in that vein.  He stated the Bylaw is actually a leader for municipalities in Ontario. 


The Councillor noted that many changes have occurred since the Bylaw was set up by the Transition Board more than 10 years ago and asked for assurance that the Bylaw is reviewed periodically to ensure it is still based on current Best Practices.  Mr. Byrne confirmed that staff monitors procurement trends and legal decisions.  He acknowledged the thresholds are somewhat dated and conceded it may be time for a review of those.


Vice-chair Desroches commended staff for the successful event, commenting that its purpose was to eliminate the perception that procurement is a black box at the City in that potential suppliers don’t know what the City’s goals and objectives are for technology procurement.  He felt the session provided some transparency and food for thought for the attendees, noting the test will be to sustain that engagement.  He recalled that there have been times in the past where relations with certain suppliers (potential or otherwise) have been temperamental and he felt that has sent the wrong signal to new potential suppliers that might be willing to do business with the City within its parameters.  He suggested the City should be open and willing to consider new and innovative ideas that tech firms want to bring forward.


Chair Wilkinson remarked that is part of the show-casing approach that Council approved for the sub-committee, adding that people are beginning to come forward with such requests.


Councillor Legendre remarked that, to his knowledge, the only mechanism for piloting new technologies is through the Ottawa Option because any other option would equate to sole-sourcing.  Mr. Michaud suggested that if a company approaches the City with an innovative technology that is in line with the City’s Service Excellence initiatives, it would be staff’s duty to find the money from the department that would benefit from its use.  Alternately, staff could present the technology to this sub-committee, who would in turn help find a way to acquire it.


The Councillor noted that the Five-Year Technology Roadmap had been attached to the information on this agenda item and he asked the Chair whether that document was open for discussion at this meeting.  After some discussion and clarification from the Chair and from Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, City Operations, Councillor Legendre recalled that the Roadmap had been discussed and received by the IT Sub-committee prior to its approval by Council during the budget consideration.  Chair Wilkinson also noted the document would move forward based on annual budgets and would be considered by the sub-committee for refresh each year.


Vice-chair Desroches reiterated a previous inquiry he had put forward as to whether information about awarded contracts can be placed on the City’s website, noting this would provide an additional layer of transparency and information for the industry.  Such reports, he noted, are generated for the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee but are not easily accessible.  Mr. Byrne replied that staff are about to undertake training to assist them with that project and he expected the information would be posted within a week or so.


Following on Councillor Legendre’s earlier comments about piloting innovations, Chair Wilkinson reminded members that Council approved the show-casing process, which would incur no cost to the City. 


That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.





3.                  City of Ottawa Open data POLICY


ACS2010-COS-ITS-0002                               City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville               


Chris Day, Chief, Corporate Communications provided a PowerPoint presentation, noting that staff see the Open Data Policy as a Corporate Communications issue as opposed to a strictly IT issue.  His presentation, a copy of which is held on file, touched on the following points: definition of Open Data; background and trends; drivers to move to Open Data; City of Ottawa Open Data Strategy; and next steps. 


He explained that Open Data is a philosophy and practice requiring that certain data created or managed by governments be freely available to everyone, in machine-readable format, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.  It shares data that is already available to the public but in a way that can be adapted by users for various applications.  He cited and illustrated examples of other Cities that have adopted the practice or are moving in that direction, including Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton and referenced some of their initiatives, such as DC’s ‘Apps For Democracy’ contests.  He noted that in Canada, no singular coordinated effort exists federally, although some departments, such as StatsCan and NRCan, are using some form of Open Data principle, either internally or externally.  He explained that common drivers of the Open Data movement are improved transparency, economic development, the introduction of new technologies making data easier to use, and the push to increase client satisfaction.  Local drivers include public requests, the recommendations of the eGovernment Task Force Report, and a motion put forward by Councillor Desroches about potential amendments to the City’s Data Dissemination Policy to allow for Open Access to Public Data (this to be dealt with by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on April 6th). 


Detailing actions to date, he advised that staff have engaged the public for input; developed a test Beta site (to be demonstrated to Councillors shortly); and are establishing a governance structure.  The focus of these actions has been on value creation.  As for next steps, he noted the Data Dissemination review report is scheduled for consideration by the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) on April 6th and by Council on April 14th.


Vice-chair Desroches asked if it would be possible to demonstrate the Beta site at the IT Sub-committee before it goes to the CSEDC and Council.  Mr. Day had no concern with that request.  Chair Wilkinson suggested a special meeting of the sub-committee should be set up in March, prior to the CSEDC meeting, so as not to change the already proposed schedule.  Mr. Day remarked that staff were intending to post the Beta site into the Councillors’ internal shared drive for viewing prior to CSEDC.  The Chair proposed to set up a Special Meeting to consider this item during the last week of March and advised she would report back when the date has been determined.  The committee agreed with that approach.


The Vice-chair expressed support for moving to Open Data but referenced the information provided by Statistics Canada, noting there are costs involved with the provision of data at some point.  For example, he suggested fees might be charged for data sets and information that have commercial purposes.  He questioned whether the pending report would deal these types of issues.  Mr. Day confirmed, adding that staff are aware of the economic potential involved.


Councillor Legendre was surprised to learn that adopting an Open Data policy was still at the ‘consideration’ stage for the City, being under the impression that it was already underway.  Mr. Day indicated that certain Cities have made declarations or directives with respect to being ‘open’ in terms of data, which Ottawa has not.  Rob Collins, Technology Advisor, explained that the Mayor’s Task Force on eGovernment looked at the issue but the City has no actual policy with respect to open data.  He said there was an assumption, generally, to secure data, for fear of privacy issues.  He noted that Councillor Desroches’ motion, which generated the Data Dissemination review, was the first instance of discussion about policy for Open Data.  He further noted that very little data is currently provided on the City’s web site in a user-friendly and adaptable format.


The Councillor questioned the nature of intended discussion on this item at the proposed Special Meeting.  Chair Wilkinson explained it would be an advanced viewing and presentation of the report to CSEDC and a demonstration of the Beta site.  Councillor Legendre agreed with that approach.


The committee heard the following delegations.


Edward Ocampo-Gooding explained that he is a program developer.  He advised that he is organizing an event to bring together 70+ developers and designers in April to make web applications.  He was enthusiastic about the potential of this project.  For clarification, he noted that Open Data would mean that he would not have to physically visit City Hall to access desired information or have to ‘scrape’ the City’s website for it.  It means the information would be available for use online, not restricted by copyright licenses, as most of the City’s applications currently are, and not restricted by fees.  With Open Data, he (and other developers) can write ‘mash-ups’; for example, given usable access to such things as liquor license permits and the City’s EatSafe database, he could match that information up with local restaurant reviews and create an application that provides interested users with a list of safe and recommended places to eat, complete with local reviews.  Similarly, with adequate access to data, applications could be created to show locations of local daycare facilities, grocery stores, schools, hospitals, and so on.  He explained that while the contests for apps in New York and DC are great, he is not seeking any sort of remuneration from the City of Ottawa to create such apps; he just wants free access to the City’s data.  His personal gain in this would be creating applications that would be of benefit to other residents and be well used, and in return, it would him publicity.  He asked to be informed as soon as possible when the City would be providing that Open Data so he could prepare for the April event.


Chair Wilkinson asked if Mr. Ocampo-Gooding would be interested in seeing the City have an applications contest with a winning monetary prize, as other municipalities have done.  Mr. Ocampo-Gooding reiterated that he is not interested in gaining money from the City; he simply wants its support and data.  He added that he hoped to be given access to City Hall for the April event, along with media coverage to demonstrate the applications.


Vice-chair Desroches asked whether these applications would generally be created by local entrepreneurs or by developers outside of Ottawa.  He expressed interest in improving local service but noted he would be more sympathetic to helping local entrepreneurs.  Mr. Ocampo-Gooding replied that he has started a website called, which has links to many of these resources.  He noted that most of the people following the Twitter stream are locals, although he has also received expressions of interest from Brazil and Japan.  He also noted they are collaborating with developers in Vancouver and that developers from Toronto are lending their software to run the site that maintains requests for data sets.  He said as long as the data is open and the code is open-sourced, everybody wins, especially locals.


The Councillor inquired how the process would work - whether there would be a link on the City’s site to the applications.  Mr. Ocampo-Gooding replied the City’s site would simply list the data sets it creates and authorizes for use, and developers would maintain their own sites. 


Vice-Chair Desroches questioned how residents and tourists would know to visit these potential new sites.  Mr. Ocampo-Gooding explained that the data to be provided by the City in the format he is requesting would not be very useful in itself – it needs to be presented through an application to be of most benefit to the end-user.  He pointed out that people usually search out these types of websites and applications for themselves through search engines such as Google.  He noted that the City of Portland maintains a list of third-party applications for its area.


Councillor Legendre remarked on the poor quality of the City’s search engine, noting that it is easier to use Google to find information listed on the City’s site.  He stated that he is in favour of moving to Open Data and letting the developers figure out the best way to present the information.


Mr. Michaud suggested that good applications that are in line with the City’s Service Excellence initiatives and improve information delivery to residents should be made accessible through the City’s web site.


John Whelan demonstrated to members a GPS receiver, which he explained is the sort of thing used by Parks staff to mark out locations of street benches, waste bins and so on.  He said there is something called OpenStreetMap, developed in Europe, which was able to map Haiti in two days (with 2,000 people creating the map).  He suggested it could be of use to the City because there are limitations on what it can do with the GIS maps it currently uses.  He said OpenStreetMap has maps that are copyright free that City staff could use, and conversely, the City has considerable GIS information that OpenStreetMap would like to have, such as bus stop locations.  He referenced an application created in Frankfurt that works out and provides information on routes for wheelchair users (curb heights, locations of accessible washrooms, etc.).  In closing. he advised the GPS receiver costs about $200 or less and could be of significant benefit.


Tracey Lauriault, Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre, Carleton University advised she is one of the founding members of a group called, which advocates for access to public data by the public.  She noted she is also co-author of a blog called, where accessible data initiatives from around the world are discussed.  She was encouraged to learn of this discussion by the City, as it produces significant public data that is paid via taxation and should be available to the public.  She noted there are some Canadian federal institutions that do just that.  One example is GeoGratis, which makes thousands of data sets publicly available and free on its data portal (run by Natural Resources Canada).  It’s under a user unrestricted licence, which means anybody can use it for commerce or not, because the idea is that managing royalties, copyright, sales, marketing and restrictions is actually more expensive than just giving the data away.  She said the decision to do that has also stimulated innovation because if the private sector is using interesting and good local geomatics data to create more businesses in the city or the country, it benefits everyone through the creation of more jobs and more business.  She also spoke on the topic of informed decision-making, noting that social policy groups could use maps to help them address and make plans with respect to social policy issues, as well as help the public better understand and participate in civic issues.  She said that Open Data is not only a way to create interesting applications, it is also part of government transparency, or Open Government, a movement that is increasing worldwide to enhance public deliberations.  In response to Vice-chair Desroches’ earlier comments about StatsCan, she remarked there is currently a huge public debate on whether or not the government should be in the business of selling citizens their own data.  She suggested that StatsCan’s selling of data has actually impeded innovation because data is required to make a business plan, to understand demographics and niche markets.  Likewise, she said that good social and health policy requires data and requires a civic sector that can access data in order to participate on par with elected public officials.  She said cost recovery is a very contentious topic that is heavily debated.  She noted another federal program called GeoBase is sharing all of its framework geographic data with citizens for free, which she proposed is just part of good governing.


Councillor Chiarelli asked Ms. Lauriault’s thoughts on the differences between the three levels of government.  He noted provincial and federal governments are far less open than municipal, referencing examples such as the way budgets are handled by each in terms of public consultation, and disclosure of office expenses.  He asked how much she thought the City should be spending to widen that gap even further, especially given that every dollar the City spends on something like that is a dollar it cannot spend on increasing direct service elements (e.g. the City’s website).  Ms. Lauriault replied that both GeoGratis and GeoBase (both of which are run by Natural Resources Canada) have found it cheaper to give away Canada’s mapping data than sell it.  She pointed out it is not inexpensive to survey and map all of Canada, but they still have found it easier and more cost-effective to give it away as opposed to managing royalties and copyright.  She also pointed out that server and storage space is now inexpensive.  She agreed that provincial government is less accommodating, but felt the City should compare itself with the best and strive to improve where possible.  She suggested that the cost of doing so is quite small compared to time spent communicating and negotiating information.


Councillor Chiarelli pointed out that there are multiple steps involved with making information accessible on the City’s site, including having it translated and tested through various lenses and policies for conformity, which means that financial resources have to taken from elsewhere.  Ms. Lauriault recalled the cost-savings associated with the apps contest in DC (a return of $2.3 M on a $50 K investment), and suggested potential cost-savings from the reduced amount of staff time that would be required to respond to public inquiries for data and such.  In terms of licensing, she said the Terms of Use licensing being proposed is fair and removes the City from numerous liabilities, much the same as the licensing used by GeoGratis and GeoBase.  She appreciated the Councillor’s concerns with respect to liability issues but remarked that the legal community has been investigating and addressing the matter for a long time.  She added it is as easy as sharing what the City has already created and produced, and would not include private and sensitive data.  This could be used by citizens in numerous exciting applications.  She said the cost of impeding public deliberation and consultation is unknown, but it is a loss.


Councillor Legendre questioned Ms. Lauriault’s thoughts on the City’s concerns with respect to security, liability and freedom of information, asking how Carleton University deals with these issues in terms of its public data provision.  Ms. Lauriault explained that Carleton’s research lab receives public funding to do public research, develop atlases, and so on, and since their activities are publicly funded, the lab holds that all of its information should be public.  All of their site’s source code is open and accessible, meaning others can adapt the information for their own use or add to the information.  She noted the lab group shares all of the data it produces with the public, and they advocate nationally and internationally for the preservation and sharing of data.


Councillor Legendre requested clarification about the ability for anyone to add information to the data produced by the lab, citing integrity concerns.  Ms. Lauriault explained there is some vetting of information before it can be posted, but she noted the Centre is investigating a Wikipedia type approach. 


Vice-chair Desroches was open to the initiative and to making data available free of charge, but he was mindful of the City’s financial constraints and pressures.  He noted the City currently charges fees for maps pertaining to development data and such, and suggested residents might not be pleased at the idea of the City providing such information free to developers.  He thought fees might have to be charged for certain data in the interest of public good.  Ms. Lauriault agreed that is a sensitive situation because it almost frames business as not being a public good, but she thought there is something to say for a small business person trying to start up a business who needs access to data for a business plan.  Further, she suggested there could be small business owners wanting to add value to the data, perhaps something that is beyond the City’s priority list, which could be a public good.  She questioned whether the City would want to be in the position of distinguishing between small, medium and large business owners, or of determining an individual’s financial standing, in terms of setting fee schedules for data.  She added that businesses are a public good in that they are local revenue generators.


Chair Wilkinson followed that businesses sometimes go bankrupt but if they had better access to information that might not happen, and they might continue to benefit the community through those job provisions.  She suggested, however, that developers making applications to the City would continue to pay a fee.  Ms. Lauriault suggested that when negotiating with businesses, if they use the City’s data, the City could negotiate value added back.  She added it means changing the culture of procurement, and selling and sharing, and that becoming more open in terms of information sharing is a healthy direction for the City to take. 


Chair Wilkinson noted that the Multiple Listing Service for real estate is now being forced to become Open; she proposed there is an increasing drive to move in that direction, which she saw as positive.  She suggested that making City information easier to access would likely lead to cost savings in the 3-1-1 system and in staff resources to respond to requests for information.


The Chair reiterated that she would consult with staff and advise members of the date for the Special Meeting on this topic.


That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.





4.         Service Excellence: 3-1-1/CRM Procurement strategy


ACS2010-COS-ITS-0001                               City Wide/À l’échelle de la ville               


Guy Michaud, Director of IT Services & Chief Information Officer provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining the rationale for implementing a new 3-1-1/Client Relationship Management (CRM) solution, which will form the core technology around which the City would improve citizen satisfaction and achieve operational efficiencies, and outlining the steps required prior to issuing the Request For Proposals (RFP) for this software.  These complex steps include: identifying the services and business processes that will be within the scope of the project; conducting a business process modeling; and procurement of the solution / services.  He also provided a status update on the project.  A copy of the PowerPoint is held on file.


Chair Wilkinson inquired about the timeline for the various steps.  Mr. Michaud replied that adverse alternatives are currently being considered and he anticipated the biggest RFP issuance would be at the end of Q2 or beginning of Q3.  Staff are also trying to ensure that certain activities can get underway using the City’s outstanding offers list, so as to expedite the process.  The successful supplier at the conclusion of the RFP process can then use any work done in this way.  He further confirmed for Chair Wilkinson that the RFP process could take a few months, noting that given this significant investment a Fairness Commissioner will be engaged to ensure an impartial and adequate process.


Chair Wilkinson inquired whether an information report would come forward to the sub-committee within the next few months to lay out the anticipated timing of the various steps and provide a progress report.  Mr. Michaud confirmed.


Vice-chair Desroches was pleased to hear that a Fairness Commissioner would be involved.  He inquired what is being done to ensure that the right people are helping with the scoping, since they will have the critical role of helping to define the project and ensuring that what goes into the RFP is fair and unbiased.  Mr. Michaud explained that a Fairness Commissioner would be engaged from the beginning of the process, if possible.  Further, when any firm is hired to help with writing the RFP, staff will conduct due diligence to determine if they have business relationships with suppliers who might be submitting proposals in this process, and will also ensure they are aware that they will not be able to bid on the project if they are involved with writing the RFP.  This will help avoid potential conflicts and misperceptions.


That the Information Technology Sub-Committee receive this report for information.








Councillor Chiarelli submitted the following Notice of Motion:


WHEREAS the City has been investigating the implementation of a multi- function smart card for a spectrum of City services for over a decade;


AND WHEREAS the Smartcard fare payment system is being implemented by Transit Services in 2011; and


WHEREAS the City should adopt the development of a multi-application Smartcard for other City services as a long-term goal, with Transit Services as the first step, and


WHEREAS an “O Card” multi-use smart card usable across a spectrum of municipal services will require I.T. focused policy coordination;


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the I.T. sub-committee assume the policy coordination role of this effort,


AND THAT Information Technology Services be directed to investigate options for a City multi-service application Smartcard and report back to the IT sub-committee by year end, with a progress report by the sub- committee’s last meeting in May 2010.






Councillor Legendre submitted the following written Inquiry:


To what extent are you able to implement the Five-Year Technological Roadmap, even in this first year, as a result of this year’s IT related budget cut?


Chair Wilkinson submitted the following written Inquiry:


Last week there was a failure with OC Transpo’s IT Network.  What is being done to ensure an immediate back-up is available to ensure this does not recur?





The Committee adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.









Original signed by                                                       Original signed by

M. Duffenais                                                                Councillor M. Wilkinson


Committee Coordinator                                           Chair