25 February 2009
10:00 a.m.
MINUTES 61
The Council of the City of Ottawa met at Andrew S.
Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, on 25 February 2009 beginning at
10:00 a.m.
The Deputy
Mayor Wilkinson, presided and the Deputy City Clerk led Council in prayer.
The National Anthem was performed by Cantarra.
Announcements/Ceremonial
Activities
RECOGNITION - 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF ORLÉANS
Deputy Mayor Wilkinson recognized that the year 2010 marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the St-Joseph of Orléans parish. Councillors Bob Monette and Rainer Bloess presented Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, President, 150th Anniversary Organizing Committee, with a framed proclamation.
PRESENTATION – 2008 UNITED WAY CHEQUE PRESENTATION
Deputy Mayor Wilkinson, Councillor Jan Harder and
Nancy Schepers announced that $576,818 was raised during the 2008 City of
Ottawa United Way / Centraide Employee Campaign. Michael Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, United Way
/ Centraide of Ottawa was present to accept these funds on behalf of United
Way.
Roll Call
ALL
MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILLORS S. DESROCHES, D. HOLMES AND MAYOR
O’BRIEN
Confirmation of Minutes
The Minutes of the regular meeting of 11 February 2009 were confirmed.
Declarations
of interest including those originally arising from prior meetings
No declarations were received.
Communications
The
following communications were received:
·
Association of Municipalities
of Ontario (AMO) Alerts :
· AMO Expresses Concern, Provides Recommendations to Minister on Proposed AODA Information and Communications Standard;
·
Petition submitted by The Ottawa
Taxpayer Advocacy Group containing the signatures of two (2) Ottawa residents,
asking that the 2009 Budget be reopened and reviewed on a line-by-line basis to
find savings equal to the 4.9% tax increase.
Regrets
Councillors S. Desroches (City Business), D. Holmes
and Mayor O’Brien advised they would be absent from the Council meeting of 25
February 2009.
City Auditor General
1. OFFICE
OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - TABLING OF 2008 AUDIT REPORTS
– volume 1
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council receive and
table the following reports from the Office of the Auditor General at its
meeting on February 25, 2009, for referral
to the appropriate Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration
and approval of the audit recommendations by Council on April 8, 2009:
2008 Audit Reports -
Volume I
i) Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and
Project Approval Process
ii) Audit of the Parking Function
iii) Audit of the Building Code Services Process
for 215 Preston Street
iv) Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical
Matters
And
that, on April 8, 2009, Council refer all audit recommendations where
management is in disagreement to the Council Audit Working Group for
resolution.
RECEIVED AND TABLED to the Council meeting of 8
April 2009 and REFERRED by the following motions:
Moved by Councillor M. McRae
Seconded by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS
on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25
February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor
General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and
Whereas
these Audit Reports have been Tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and
WHEREAS the
Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November
2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing
Committee to allow for public delegations only;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and Project Approval
Process be referred to the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor M. McRae
Seconded by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS
on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25
February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor
General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and
Whereas
these audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and
WHEREAS the
Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November
2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing
Committee to allow for public delegations only;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit of the Parking Function be referred to the
Transportation Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
Seconded by Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS
on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25
February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor
General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and
WHEREAS these audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25
February 2009; and
WHEREAS the
Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November
2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing
Committee to allow for public delegations only;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the Audit of the Building Code Services Process for 215
Preston Street be referred to the Planning and Environment Committee for the
purpose of hearing public delegations.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor M. McRae
Seconded by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS
on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25
February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor
General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and
WHEREAS these
audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and
WHEREAS the
recommendations arising from the Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical
Matters, address issues largely related to the City’s Employee Code of
Conduct; and
WHEREAS
the Management Response agrees with each recommendation in the Audit;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that Council:
1. Direct the City
Manager to amend and consolidate the Employee Code of Conduct and bring
forward the revised Code to Council by Q3 of 2009; and
2. Direct
the Director, IT Services, to prepare a companion report with respect to
extending the current retention period for e-mails to 2 years, including the
costs, by Q3 of 2009.
CARRIED
2. OFFICE
OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - EVALUATION OF THE FRAUD AND WASTE HOTLINe
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That Council direct the Office of the Auditor General to
continue operating the Fraud and Waste Hotline.
2. That Council direct the City to provide
the general public with access to the Fraud and Waste Hotline, the cost of
which to be absorbed within the Office of the Auditor General’s current budget
of 0.08% of the City's total operating budget.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
Seconded by Councillor J. Harder
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
Recommendation 2 of the above noted report be amended to add the following:
“And that Council provide the
City Manager and the Auditor General with the delegated authority to make any
necessary changes to the procedures and protocols related to the operation of
the Fraud and Waste Hotline.”
CARRIED
Office of the Auditor General’s Report “Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline” was put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/5
City’s Meetings
Investigator
1. REPORT
OF THE MEETINGS INVESTIGATOR REGARDING THE CLOSED MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ON
DECEMBER 19, 2008, JANUARY 6, 2009 AND JANUARY 14/15, 2009 |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
Council receive the attached report and consider the recommendations included
within.
Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
Seconded by Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS the
Mid-term Governance Review seeks to identify options to improve the City’s
governance structure and, in particular, to enhance accountability and
transparency; and
WHEREAS the
Meetings Investigator has submitted an investigative report with
recommendations to improve Council’s procedures regarding in camera
meetings;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that recommendations from the Meetings Investigator’s report be
referred to the Mid-term Governance Review for consideration and potential
implementation; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the Meetings Investigator’s contract also be referred to the Mid-term
Governance Review to consider any changes that might be necessary after a
one-year review.
CARRIED
Postponements and deferrals
11
FEBRUARY 2009
Motions of Which Notice has Been Given Previously
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri
Seconded by Councillor D. Thompson
WHEREAS the
development approvals for the Westwood Community provide for a park with a
soccer field and other facilities;
AND WHEREAS
this requirement was explicitly identified in the drawings referred to in the
registered subdivision agreement;
AND WHEREAS
the plan of subdivision containing the park was registered in 2005;
AND WHEREAS
the park has not yet been constructed;
AND WHEREAS
extensive discussions have taken place with the developers with respect to
having the park constructed;
AND WHEREAS
prior to and at a public meeting of the community in November, 2008 it was held
out that the construction work would take place over the period between
December, 2008 and May, 2009;
AND WHEREAS
an agreement was drafted to incorporate this timing but this agreement has not
been signed by the developers;
AND WHEREAS
Planning and Environment Committee, pursuant to delegated authority, approved
on 27 January 2009 the imposition on the next phase of the Westwood Community a
condition of draft plan approval to requirement the terms of the agreement be
adhered to;
AND WHEREAS,
regardless of the timing of the registration of Phase 3, the community is
entitled to have Coyote Run Park constructed now;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council approve that:
1.
the City cash $150,000 of the
existing letter of credit;
2.
$450,000 in interim funding be
made available to the City Operations Department to permit the construction of
Coyote Run Park;
3.
The developers of phase 3 of
Westwood be required to repay the cost of the construction of Coyote Run Park
no later than the registration of Phase 3; and
4.
That the provisions of the
Notice By-law relating to the notice of amendments to the Budget be waived.
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri
Seconded by Councillor D. Thompson
That Motion No. 60/30 be deferred to the Council meeting of 25 February
2009.
DEFERRAL
CARRIED
25 FEBRUARY 2009
Moved by Councillor S. Qadri
Seconded by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT Council refer Motion No. 60/30 to staff, with a direction to
bring forward a progress report on this matter to the Planning and Environment
Committee meeting scheduled for 28 April 2009.
REFERRAL
CARRIED
Reconsideration
11 FEBRUARY 2009
TRANSIT COMMITTEE REPORT 23
1. Strategies to
support the resumption of public transit |
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate
WHEREAS the
recent transit service disruption has impacted many members of the community
who have limited financial means
AND WHEREAS OC Transpo currently provides approximately 27,000 free
tickets per month for distribution by community resource centres
BE IT
THEREFORE RESOLVED that Council approves $50,000 from the Transit Reserve Fund
to allow the distribution of an additional approximately 50,000 free tickets in
the month of February.
LOST on a division of 11 YEAS to 11 NAYS as
follows:
YEAS (11): Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, R. Jellett, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.
NAYS (11): Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate
That
Motion No. 60/19 be reconsidered at the Council meeting of 25 February 2009.
Pursuant to Subsection 64 (4) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, notice of reconsideration CARRIED on a division of 11 YEAS to 11 NAYS (8 votes required) as follows:
YEAS (11): Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, R. Jellett, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.
NAYS (11): Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.
25
FEBRUARY 2009
Councillor P. Feltmate (as the Seconder of the Motion)
asked that the motion of reconsideration be withdrawn. Deputy Mayor Wilkinson ruled that the motion
of reconsideration was WITHDRAWN. The
motion to reconsider having been withdrawn, the City Council decision of 11
February 2009 stands.
11
FEBRUARY 2009
Motions of Which Notice has
Been Given Previously
Moved by Councillor R. Bloess
Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS three
significant studies to date have shown Kettle Island as the best location for a
bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau; and
Whereas Phase
2 of the Interprovincial Crossings study will refine the technically preferred
alternative identified in Phase 1 and carry out a detailed Environmental
Assessment of alternatives; and
Whereas the
consulting team of ROCHE-NCE have identified that Kettle Island should be the
focus of the next stage of the Interprovincial Crossings Study;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Council does not support the inclusion of the Lower Duck
corridor in the next study phase.
CARRIED on a division of 13 YEAS to 8 NAYS as follows:
YEAS (13): Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, M. McRae G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Bellemare, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.
NAYS (8): Councillors J. Legendre, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, R. Chiarelli, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre
Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes
That Motion No. 60/26 be reconsidered at the
Council meeting of 25 February 2009.
Pursuant to Subsection 64 (4) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, notice of reconsideration CARRIED on a division of 10 YEAS to 12 NAYS (8 votes required) as follows:
YEAS (10): Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, R. Chiarelli, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.
NAYS (12): Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Bellemare, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.
There being no mover and seconder for reconsideration,
Deputy Mayor Wilkinson declared the reconsideration LOST. The City Council decision of 11 February
2009 therefore stands.
Motion
to Introduce Reports
Moved by Councillor
D. Deans
Seconded by
Councillor M. Bellemare
That the
report from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General –
Tabling of the 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1” be received and tabled.
That the
report from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General –
Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline” be received and considered.
That
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 36, Community and Protective
Services Committee Report 36 and Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee Report 37 be received and considered.
And that the
Rules of Procedure be Suspended to Receive and Consider a Report from the
City’s Meetings Investigator Entitled “Report of the Meetings Investigator
Regarding the Closed Meetings of Council on December 19, 2008, January 6, 2009
and January 14/15, 2009”
CARRIED
AGRICULTURE
AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 36
1. AMENDMENT TO
PLANNING APPLICATION FEES BY-LAW FOR GARDEN SUITES |
AGRICULTURE
AND RURAL AFFAIRS Committee AND
planning and Environment committee
AND Recommendation
That Council approve the establishment of a fee of $2,600.00 for the processing
of extensions of Temporary Use By‑laws for “Garden Suites”, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 39 of the Planning
Act, and amend the Fees By-law accordingly.
CARRIED
2. ZONING - 913
HOWIE ROAD |
Committee
Recommendations
(This application is
subject to Bill 51)
1. That
Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to amend the existing
exception for 913 Howie Road, zoned Rural Residential Subzone 3, Exception
489r (RR3 [489r], to permit a second detached dwelling on the site for a
further period from April 13, 2009 to April 12, 2012, as shown in Document 1
and as detailed in Document 2.
2. That
the implementation of the Zoning By-law amendment not proceed to City Council
until its meeting of April 22, 2009.
CARRIED
3. ZONING - 2215
SIXTH LINE ROAD |
Committee
Recommendation
(This application is
subject to Bill 51)
That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to
change the zoning of 2215 Sixth Line Road from Rural Countryside Zone (RU) to
Rural Countryside Zone Exception xxxr (RU [xxxr]) to permit a garden suite on
the site for a three-year period, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in
Document 2, subject
to the following condition:
·
That the Owner enter into a Garden Suite agreement with the City of
Ottawa as specified by Section 39.1(1) of the Planning Act , setting out that:
i)
The garden suite is to be occupied exclusively by the Owner’s
parents;
ii)
The garden suite is
to be removed at such time as it is no longer required by the occupants, at any
time prior to expiry of the three-year period; and
iii) The garden suite is to be
removed at the end of the three-year period, unless an extension has been
requested and approved by City Council, prior to the expiry of the Temporary
Use By-law.
CARRIED
COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 36
1. PARKLAND DEDICATION BY-LAW |
community and protective services committee recommendations as
amended
That Council:
1. Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication
By-law attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved
at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.
2. Direct staff to prepare and circulate a
draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies generally
as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.
3. Approve that the Staff
recommendation be modified to replace Schedule 3 attached to the Draft Parkland
Dedication By-law with the Schedule 3 annotated as Option 3 attached to the
Staff Memo of 3 February 2009.
4. Approve that Section 17 (1) of the
Draft Parkland Dedication By-law, which is related to the proportion of the
Cash-in-lieu payments that are allocated to the citywide and district accounts,
be modified as follows: 60% Ward and 40% CityWide annotated as Option 3 in the
Cash-in-lieu Distribution Options Table in the Staff Memo of 3 February 2009.
5. Approve that the existing funds in
the “City Wide Reserve” that have been collected for “Cash-in-Lieu of Park
Land” be distributed in accordance with the Wards for the purpose of
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Deposits.
6. Approve that Finance Staff be
required to report back each year prior to annual budget discussions.
7. Approve that the Parkland Dedication
By-Law, Part III 16. (1) (b) be amended to allow for district monies to be
allocated to support developments that overlap districts with the concurrence of the affected Ward
Councillors.
8. Approve that Part II, Exemptions 14
(1) (f) be re-worded to exempt only those schools meeting students’ outdoor
recreation needs on-site at the time of development.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
Seconded by Councillor M. McRae
To defer Recommendation 5 of the Community and Protective Services
Committee Report 36, Item 1 to the 11 March 2009 Council meeting.
LOST on a division of 8 YEAS to 11 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (8): Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. McRae, C. Leadman,
M. Wilkinson, B. Monette and R. Jellett.
Nays (11): Councillors A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare,
G. Brooks, D. Deans, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, P. Feltmate and C. Doucet.
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor G. Hunter
That the
phrase “Except where already dedicated to a particular ward either by Delegated
Authority or commitment of the relevant General Manager” be added to the
beginning of Recommendation No. 5.
CARRIED
Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee recommendations
That Council:
1. Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law
attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved at the
same time as the Official Plan amendment.
2. Direct staff to prepare and circulate a
draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies
generally as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.
CARRIED
That Council:
1. Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication
By-law attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved
at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.
2. Direct staff to prepare and circulate a
draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies
generally as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.
CARRIED
Item 1, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36 was then put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/10 with Councillor G. Brooks dissenting.
Motion To Resolve In Camera
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare
BE IT
RESOLVED that the Rules of Procedure be waived to permit the receipt of a
briefing from the City Clerk and Solicitor with respect to the Ottawa Rapidz.
BE IT RESOLVED
that Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections 13. (1) (b)
personal matters about an identifiable individual, including staff; (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 Procedure By-law 2006-462, with respect to matters
related to (1) Audit of the Hospitality and other ethical matters; and (2) the
Ottawa Rapidz.
CARRIED
Council resolved In Camera at 12:35 p.m.
IN CAMERA SESSION
Council resumed in open session at 2:20 p.m.
2. MOTION - REVISED ALLOCATION POLICY FOR
ARTS, CULTURE AND FESTIVAL GROUPS |
Committee Recommendation as amended
That Council direct City Staff to report back to Community and Protective
Services Committee in the fourth quarter of 2009 with a more comprehensive
update on current allocation funding processes; provide a status on groups that
are not considered as part of the current process and provide recommendations
that would address these gaps including Councillor involvement and oversight in
the proposed process.
CARRIED
3. BY-LAWS–– MASTER PLUMBERS AND PLUMBING CONTRACTORS -
REPEALS |
Committee Recommendations as amended
That Council:
1. Approve the repeal of regulations,
license requirements and other references related to Master Plumbers and
Plumbing Contractors from the following licensing by-laws as detailed in
Document 1:
(a) Former Gloucester By-law 70-2000 Schedule
A17,
(b) Former Goulbourn By-law 19-95 (whole)
(c) Former Nepean By-law 135-2000 Schedule
12,
(d) Former Ottawa By-law L6-2000 Schedule
18, and
(e) Former
Vanier By-law 29-00 Schedule 16.
2. Petition
the Province of Ontario to consider establishing a regulatory licensing scheme
to regulate the qualifications and business practices of Plumbers in the
Province of Ontario.
CARRIED
4 KANATA NORTH RECREATION COMPLEX: PROJECT PROSPECTUS
FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION |
Committee Recommendations
That Council:
1.
Approve the prospectus for the Kanata North Recreation Complex
project as outlined in this report, as the basis for the design, construction
and operation of the new complex and site.
2.
Authorize staff to complete the partnership details with the
YM-YWCA, based on the proposed partnership framework outlined in this report.
3.
Authorize staff to proceed with the implementation of the project if
the Public Sector Comparator indicates significant facility and site design,
construction and operational efficiencies can be achieved per the partnership
goals and objectives outlined in this report.
4.
Direct staff to report back to Committee and Council for approval of
any agreements reached with management, design, construction and operational
partners in the Kanata North Recreation Complex.
5.
Authorize staff to enter into discussions with additional parties
interested in pursuing co-location and partnership opportunities on-site and
report back to Committee and Council with appropriate recommendations.
CARRIED
5. PRIORITIES
FOR THE 2009 COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING PROGRAM AND |
Committee Recommendation
That Council approve the priorities for the 2009 Community Project Funding
Program identified in this report and receive information about the priorities
approved by the Board of Crime Prevention Ottawa.
CARRIED
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
REPORT 37
1. MOTION – POLICY
ON SEEKING COST AWARDS |
That Council confirm its
policy on seeking cost awards after successfully defending its positions
against community and resident public interest groups such that the City
will not seek cost awards from community or resident groups before
administrative tribunals and courts unless the case advanced by the community
or resident group can reasonably be considered either frivolous, vexatious, in
bad faith or an abuse of process under all of the circumstances of the case,
subject to concurrence by CSEDC; and
That community or resident groups that challenge the City in court also
be asked, as part of the litigation, to confirm that they will similarly not
seek costs against the City unless the City has breached any of the above noted
factors
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet
Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37,
Item 1 be amended by including “ or an individual who is a public interest
litigant” after the words “community or resident groups” wherever they appear
in the Committee Recommendation.
CARRIED on a division of 11 YEAS to 7 NAYS as
follows:
Yeas (11): Councillors P. Hume, A. Cullen, R.
Bloess, J. Legendre, M. McRae, C. Leadman, M. Wilkinson, B. Monette, D.
Deans, P. Feltmate and C. Doucet.
Nays (7): Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder,
G. Bédard, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, R. Jellett and S. Qadri.
Item 1, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 was put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/2.
2. Sale of property – 113
Mcarthur Avenue |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1. Declare the properties
shown as Parcels “A” and “B” on Annex “A” attached, containing approximately
234 m2 (2,518.83 square feet), municipally known as 113 McArthur
Avenue and described as part of lot 65, Registered Plan 49, being part of part
18 Expropriation Plan CT166094, former City of Vanier now in the City of
Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs; and
2.
Approve the sale of Parcel “A”
on Annex “A” attached, containing an area of 68 m2 (731.96 square
feet) municipally known as part of 113 McArthur Avenue, described as part of
lot 65, Registered Plan 49, being part of part 18, Expropriation Plan CT166094,
former City of Vanier now in the City of Ottawa, subject to any easements that
may be required to Pamela O’Donnell for the amount of $7,320 plus survey costs
and GST, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.
CARRIED
3.
SALE OF LAND – PART OF LANE at REAR OF 32 TO 36 rOBINSON aVENUE
AND 211 AND 215 LEES AVENUE |
That Council:
1.
Declare a parcel of land shown
hatched on Annex “A” attached and identified as Parcels 1 to 4, containing a total
area of approximately 100.62m2 (1083.1 square feet), being part of
the lane adjacent to Lots 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22, Registered Plan 190, in
the City of Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs;
2.
Approve the sale of the land
detailed in Recommendation 1, pursuant to Agreements of Purchase and Sale that
have been received, as follows:
a) Parcel 1 containing
an approximate area of 33.59 m2 (361.57 square feet) subject to
final survey, to Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, for the amount of
$3,800, plus GST;
b) Parcel 2 containing
an approximate area of 16.79 m2 (189.73 square feet) subject to
final survey, to Ian Fraser Hamilton and Josephine Irene Hamilton, for the
amount of $2,200, plus GST;
c) Parcel
3 containing an approximate area of 33.59 m2 (361.57 square feet)
subject to final survey, to Gary Courville, for the amount of $3,800, plus GST;
and
d) Parcel 4 containing
an area of 16.79 m2 (180.73 square feet) subject to final survey, to
Denis Redmond and Wendy Duschenes, for the amount of $2,200, plus GST.
CARRIED
4.
Sale of Property – Part of 2605 Tenth Line ROAD – Avalon Storm
Pond |
That
Council:
1. Declare
a portion of the property municipally known as 2605 Tenth Line Road and shown
hatched on Annex “A” attached, containing approximately 254.8 m2 (2742.73 square
feet), legally described as part of Lot 4, Concession 10, Geographic Township
of Cumberland being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 4R-23376, in the City of
Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs; and
2. Approve
the sale of the property detailed in Recommendation 1, subject to any easements
that may be required, to Minto Communities Inc., for the amount of $27,400 plus
GST, if applicable, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been
received.
CARRIED
5. OTTAWA OPTION FOR RECEIPT
AND CONSIDERATION OF UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS |
That Council
approve the revised Ottawa Option policy, as outlined in Document 1.
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet
Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen
WHEREAS Council
previously directed City staff to prepare a Report for Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee and Council to review the Ottawa Option,
including an analysis of any weaknesses and options to strengthen the process,
AND WHEREAS at
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Meeting on February
17, 2009, the Glebe Business Improvement Area (“BIA”) offered constructive
comments to improve and clarify the revised Ottawa Option Policy during
consideration of the City staff Report by Committee,
AND WHEREAS the
Glebe BIA and City staff have been able to work together to agree upon and
recommend changes to strengthen the process since the Committee Meeting and are
jointly recommending them to Council for its consideration,
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the attached document (Annex 1) entitled: “REVISED OTTAWA OPTION - Corporate Policy Document 1” be substituted for the “OTTAWA OPTION - Corporate Policy Document 1” as set out in Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37, Item 5 and be approved
by Council.
LOST on a division of 7 YEAS to 12 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (7): Councillors P. Hume, A. Cullen, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G. Hunter, R. Chiarelli and C. Doucet.
Nays (12): Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, M. McRae, C. Leadman, M. Bellemare, B. Monette, R. Jellett, D. Deans, S. Qadri and P. Feltmate.
Item 5, Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee Report 37 was then put to Council and CARRIED on a
division of 14 YEAS to 4 NAYS as follows:
Yeas (14): Councillors P. Hume, E. El-Chantiry, A. Cullen, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, B. Monette, G. Brooks, R. Jellett, D. Deans, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli and P. Feltmate.
Nays (4): Councillors G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.
6. INTERVENOr
STATUS IN PROCEEDINGS OF INTEREST INVOLVING BANK TOWERS ASSESSMENT REVIEW
BOARD APPEAL |
That
Council:
1. Receive, for information,
this report on the City’s participation in an application for intervenor status
along with other Ontario municipalities in an appeal before the Ontario
Divisional Court of the Assessment Review Board’s decision regarding Toronto’s
Bank Towers; and
2. Recommend
Council support the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s request that
the provincial government implement the necessary legislative amendments to the
Assessment Act to support the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation’s current methodology for assessing income-producing properties.
CARRIED
7. 2009 INTERIM PROPERTY
TAXES AND DUE DATES |
That Council approve:
1.
That the 2009 interim property
tax billing be set at 50% of the 2008 Annualized Taxes as permitted by
legislation;
2.
That the amount protected
classes are billed on the interim tax billing be set at the maximum percent of
last years' adjusted taxation, as permitted by legislation (50% of the
annualized adjusted 2008 taxes);
3. That
the following tax due dates be approved for 2009:
i. Interim: March 30, 2009
ii. Final: June 18, 2009
CARRIED
Motion to Adopt Reports
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare
That the
Auditor General’s reports entitled “Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of
the 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1” and “Office of the Auditor General –
Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline”, Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee Report 36, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36 and
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 and a Report
from the City’s Meetings Investigator entitled “Report of the Meetings
Investigator Regarding the Closed Meetings of Council on December 19, 2008,
January 6, 2009 and January 14/15, 2009” be received and adopted as amended.
CARRIED
Motions of Which Notice has
Been Given Previously
Moved by Councillor R. Bloess
Seconded by Councillor B. Monette
WHEREAS, 2010 marks the 150th anniversary of
the founding of the St-Joseph d’Orléans parish; and
WHEREAS, celebrating Orléans’ 150th
anniversary is one way of recognizing the founding of one of the first
Francophone villages east of Bytown, the capital of Canada, which is now
Ottawa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa will be taking
part in the celebrations under the theme Proud
of our past, celebrating the present and preparing the future to recognize
the contribution of community pioneers and builders in the development of the
Orléans area; and
WHEREAS, the celebrations of Orléans’ 150th
anniversary will feature activities commemorating its history and promoting a
community that has managed to retain its language and culture, with the desire
that this Francophone identity will be passed on to future generations; and
WHEREAS, the celebrations of Orléans’ 150th
anniversary will create a feeling of belonging to this very vibrant community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Ottawa proclaims the year 2010 as the Year Marking Orléans’ 150th
anniversary.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor M. McRae
Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman
WHEREAS the City delivers hundreds of services
that are important to the lives of the citizens of Ottawa; and
WHEREAS there will inevitably be occasions when
unanticipated events occur that raise public concern; and
WHEREAS elected representatives are contacted
directly by residents to voice their concerns and ask questions; and
WHEREAS the local media are an effective tool
to communicate quickly with a large number of citizens;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City staff be
directed to hold timely Councillor and media briefings as a primary tool for
getting accurate information out to citizens as quickly as possible when
unanticipated issues of significant public concern arise.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet
Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman
WHEREAS the
Ottawa River is the largest and most important supply of drinking water for
Eastern Ontario and West Quebec municipalities;
WHEREAS the
Ottawa River follows the provincial boundary between Quebec and Ontario;
WHEREAS
Ontario has established source water protection for all municipalities in
Ontario with the authority to prepare source water protection plans for those
municipalities;
WHEREAS the
source water protection plans developed under Ontario’s authority to protect
clean drinking water from the Ottawa River will not address source water
protection on a watershed basis;
WHEREAS
taking a piecemeal approach to source protection for communities along the
Ottawa River will not satisfy the intent of the Walkerton Inquiry
recommendations to protect source drinking water on a watershed basis;
WHEREAS,
without source water programs being in place on both sides of the
River, the
efforts to ensure that our mutual interest in maintaining clean drinking water cannot
be met;
BE IT
RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa petition the Federal, Ontario and Quebec
governments for a source water protection plan for the Ottawa River including
all municipalities on both sides of the river for recommendations to protect
the public;
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that given the urgency of this matter, that timetable be established
with deadlines for responses from all levels of government with an objective of
May 31, 2009.
Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate
Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT Motion No. 61/17, with respect to a source water protection plan
for the Ottawa River, be referred to staff for a report to Planning and
Environment Committee’s second meeting in April 2009.
REFERRAL
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate
WHEREAS in
1908 the first Women’s Day was held in the United States, accompanied by large
demonstrations in which women demanded political and economic rights, as well as
the right to vote;
AND WHEREAS
in 1910 women delegates from around the world met in Copenhagen to propose that
Women’s Day become an internationally recognized event;
AND WHEREAS
the first International Women’s Day was held in 1911;
AND WHEREAS
in 1997, the United Nations officially called for all countries to mark a day
for the recognition of women’s equality;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT Ottawa City Council declare March 8, 2009, to be International
Women’s Day in the City of Ottawa.
CARRIED
Notices of Motion (For
Consideration at Subsequent Meeting)
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
Seconded by Councillor R. Bloess
WHEREAS from
December 10, 2008 to January 31, 2009 the City of Ottawa experienced a strike
by ATU 279, representing OC Transpo bus drivers and mechanics; and,
WHEREAS OC Transpo acquired both direct cost savings and revenue losses
from this strike, as well as other costs associated with this strike being
charged to the OC Transpo budget (including Council-approved mitigation measures
and resumption of service fare incentives, among others); and,
WHEREAS there
have been a number of estimates presented to City Council and published in the
media regarding the cost and purported "savings" from this strike;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT City Council direct OC Transpo to
conduct an independent audit of the costs to OC Transpo and the City of Ottawa
as a result of this strike, to be reviewed by the City's Auditor-General and reported to Transit
Committee and City Council;
AND THAT such an independent audit include the direct costs (including
revenue losses) and savings of the strike to OC Transpo for both the 2008 and
2009 budgets (including the Council-approved mitigation measures and resumption
of service fare incentives) as well as the other costs to the City of Ottawa
associated with the strike for both the 2008 and 2009 budgets.
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
Seconded by Councillor J. Legendre
WHEREAS
the Free Thought Association of Canada is running an advertisement campaign on
public transit buses that states “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying
And Enjoy Your Life”; and,
WHEREAS
these ads are running on buses in Toronto, London and Calgary, but have been
rejected by OC Transpo based on their interpretation of their policy that this
message “might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to
users of the transit system”; and,
WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms states:
“2. Everyone has the following fundamental
freedoms:
(a) freedom of
conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;” and,
WHEREAS these
fundamental freedoms can be “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed
by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”
(Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms); and,
WHEREAS the
Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that a public transit company,
city or municipality cannot impose a blanket ban on religious (or political)
advertising (Canadian Federation of Students vs. Greater Vancouver
Transportation Authority); and,
WHEREAS the
Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that no individual has a right
not to be offended, in particular: “The key is that people will disagree about
important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community
living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of a modern
pluralism. People are free to disagree with our beliefs as they wish.” (Chamberlain
vs. Surrey School District No. 36); and,
WHEREAS the
Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated: “The essence of the concept of the
freedom of religion is: the right to declare religious beliefs openly and
without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest religious
belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”; and,
WHEREAS the Canadian
Code of Advertising Standards, in Section 14 - Unacceptable Depictions and
Portrayals, states: “It is recognized that advertisements may be distasteful
without necessarily conflicting with the provisions of this Clause (14); and
the fact that a particular product or service may be offensive to some people
is not sufficient grounds for objecting to an advertisement for that product or
service.” ;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that OC Transpo be directed to accept the ads proposed by the
Free Thought Association of Canada (subject to the usual charges).
By-laws Three
Readings
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare
That the following
by-laws be enacted and passed:
2009-62 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2008-483 respecting planning fees for an application to extend a temporary use by-law for a garden suite.
2009-63 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to set the instalment due dates and the interest and penalty rates applicable to the collection of property taxes for 2009.
2009-64 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for a municipal capital facility in relation to health services on the lands that are municipally known as 424 Metcalfe Street and 105 Catherine Street.
2009-65 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for a municipal housing project facility on the lands that are municipally known as 424 Metcalfe Street and 105 Catherine Street.
2009-66 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to stop up and close part of Harrold Place, Registered Plan 267570.
2009-67 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to dedicate certain land in the City of Ottawa as a park (Harrold Place Park).
2009-68 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands on Deer View Avenue and Stedman Street, as being exempt from Part Lot Control.
2009-69 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate Trim Road Inc, Phase 3 (Notting Hill) at 2200 Trim Road, as being exempt from Part Lot Control and to repeal By-law No. 2009-60.
2009-70 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to appoint certain Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in the Real Property and Asset Management Division (Venture Properties Unit), of the Public Works Branch, in the City Operations Department, to enforce the provisions of By-law No. 2008-448, being the Parkdale Market By-law.
2009-71 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to appoint certain Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in the Real Property and Asset Management Division (Venture Properties Unit), of the Public Works Branch, in the City Operations Department, to enforce the provisions of By-law No. 2008-449, being the ByWard Market Program By-law.
2009-72 A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2004-60 to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in accordance with private property parking enforcement.
CARRIED
Confirmation
By-law
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare
THAT By-law 2009-73 to confirm the proceedings of Council be enacted and
passed.
CARRIED
Inquiries
From
Councillor A. Cullen with respect to the legal ramifications should ads from
Free Thought Association of Canada be placed on buses.
Adjournment
Council
adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
|
|
|
CITY CLERK |
|
MAYOR |
ANNEX 1
Document 1
Approved By |
CoUNCIL |
Approval Date |
|
Section |
|
Effective Date |
|
Subsection |
|
Revision Date |
|
On occasion, the City of Ottawa receives unsolicited proposals from private sector parties for projects or undertakings. When the proposal is in the best interests of the City and meets all other criteria provided in the Ottawa Option Policy, the City may consider the opportunity.
The City receives unsolicited proposals from private sector
parties, which may offer improved services, reduced cost, cost avoidance, or
provide other benefits. The primary
objective of the Ottawa Option Policy is to permit the City to receive and
consider unsolicited proposals from private sector parties in a manner that
eliminates the perception of bias, and ensures transparency, fairness, and best
value for the City. The policy also
provides a private sector party with a prescribed process to approach the City
with unsolicited proposals that protects their proprietary trade information.
This policy applies to:
· the purchase of goods and services only
· all unsolicited proposals received by the City from private sector parties, and
· all City of Ottawa employees and elected officials.
· land use and land development are excluded from the scope of this policy
1)
The unsolicited proposal must be
submitted to the Manager, Supply Management Division or to a Director, General
Manager, or Deputy City Manager having responsibilities that include the areas
discussed in the proposal to be considered.
2) The information initially provided to the City, should be at the conceptual
level and shall include:
(a)
A profile,
highlighting the technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability of
the private sector participant, identifying key team members, including members
of a consortium, if relevant;
(b)
An overview of the
project to be undertaken, the deliverable to be achieved, or the improvement to
be made to an existing undertaking, clearly defining the proposed benefit to be
realized by the City of Ottawa;
(c)
High level
business principles for undertaking the project, including the proposed
financial relationship and responsibilities of both the City and the private
sector participant, as well as the respective risk sharing allocations; and
(d)
Expectations by
the private sector party of
the City, including both financial expectations and any staff assistance in
preparing or finalizing the unsolicited proposal.
3)
Unsolicited
proposals shall not circumvent the City’s purchasing by-law, and shall
not qualify under the Ottawa Options Policy if in the opinion of the Manager,
Supply Management Division the proposal is similar in scope to a current or
upcoming competitive procurement that has been issued, or is planned to be
issued.
However, if the proposal suggests a different scope, style or approach,
that may improve the City position in a material way, the procurement process
may be suspended in order to allow the proposal suggestions to be
considered. In this case, only one of
the following outcomes shall result:
4) The Deputy City Manager will determine the eligibility of the unsolicited proposal under the Ottawa Option Policy taking into account such factors as:
(i)
The goods or
services are readily available from other sources in a competitive marketplace,
and no unique added benefit is being proposed;
(ii)
The proposed
project is not of sufficient value to be pursued at this time, within overall
City priorities;
(iii)
The City is unable
or unwilling to fund its share of the implementation or the costs associated
with the competitive process;
(iv)
The level of effort required of City staff, or the cost of engaging
external assistance to consider the proposal, is excessive and would impose too
great a burden on existing resources.
(a)
If the unsolicited
proposal is, in the opinion of the Deputy City Manager, not in the best
interests of the City, the private sector party will be
so advised, and no further action will be taken in relation to the proposal
concept.
(b) If the
unsolicited proposal is, in the opinion of the Deputy City Manager, in the best
interests of the City, the private sector party will be
notified and:
(i) provided with any available information describing the City’s requirements for the goods or services proposed;
(ii) provided with the evaluation criteria to be considered by the evaluation team, and if necessary;
(iii) requested to prepare and submit a detailed proposal, at its sole expense, within a prescribed format and an agreed upon timeframe; and
(iv) required to confirm in writing their agreement to continue in accordance with the provisions of the Ottawa Option Policy.
5) All unsolicited proposals received under the Ottawa Option Policy will be open for acceptance by the City for a minimum period of 6 months.
1)
An evaluation team will be assembled
by the Director to include sufficient expertise to evaluate the detailed unsolicited proposal and include a
representative from Supply Management. The evaluation team will:
(a) evaluate the private sector participant’s technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability to determine whether the capabilities are adequate for undertaking the project;
(b) evaluate the unsolicited proposal in relation to the evaluation criteria provided to the private sector participant;
(c) weigh the various aspects and merits of the unsolicited proposal and the business and contract principles, and determine if the scale and scope of the project is in line with the requirements, the funding ability, and/or the interests of the City;
(d) determine whether the sharing of risk as proposed in the unsolicited proposal is acceptable to the City;
(e) consider both the level of effort required of City staff in relation to any proposed benefit, and the degree to which the project conforms with the long term objectives of the City.
2)
Based upon the outcome of this
detailed evaluation, the City will:
(a) reject the unsolicited proposal thereby ending any further obligation on the City’s part; or
(b) request amendments, clarifications or modifications to the unsolicited proposal; or
(c) accept the proposal as being in the best interests of the City and seek approval as follows:
i.
The detailed unsolicited proposal
includes attributes recognized as acceptable under section 22 of the Purchasing
By-law dealing with the issue of Non Competitive Purchases. If, in the opinion of the Deputy City
Manager, the detailed unsolicited proposal meets any of the sole source
criteria that are defined in the by-law, it can be evaluated on a business case
basis, with no requirement for further competition. The proposal will be considered and approved at the appropriate
level of delegated authority, or referred to Council if appropriate.
ii. The Director shall seek approval in accordance with the delegated authority to consider the proposal for the Ottawa Option procurement process. Regardless of the approval requirement, in all cases, consideration must be made for the need for an external fairness commissioner, in order to ensure independent oversight of the process.
1) The City Manager and Deputy City Managers will have delegated authority to approve the application of the Ottawa Option for undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost or benefit is not expected to exceed $500,000. City Council will be required to approve the application of the Ottawa Option for all undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost, or benefit is expected to equal or exceed $500,000.
2) Where funding for the purpose envisioned in the unsolicited proposal is required which Council did not previously approve, a report must be presented to City Council for approval of the required funds.
3)
Following approval of the Ottawa
Option, the selection of the successful proponent may be approved by the City
Manager, or Deputy City Manager under delegated authority in accordance with
the provisions of the purchasing by-law.
1) Following the approval to proceed with the Ottawa Option, staff in the Supply Management Division in conjunction with the operational unit, will invite competing counter proposals, in a transparent, fair and equitable manner in accordance with the principles contained in the Purchasing By-Law by:
a) communicating the opportunity using an Ottawa Option Request for Proposal (RFP), through an internet based bid distribution network, defining the Ottawa Option procurement process, and the evaluation criteria and associated point weightings, and allowing sufficient time for any interested party to submit a counter proposal;
b) providing interested proponents with the main concepts of the detailed unsolicited proposal, including the contract principles and risk sharing framework, while keeping proprietary information contained in the original proposal confidential to the extent possible; and
c) ensuring that the original evaluation team evaluates all counter proposals received, with any necessary changes to the team membership requiring approval by the Manager of Supply, and the fairness commissioner, if applicable.
2) If the Ottawa Option RFP results in no counter proposal being received, or if the counter proposal(s) are evaluated and found to be equal to or inferior to the original unsolicited proposal, in the sole opinion of the City, a recommendation will proceed to award the contract under delegated authority to the original private sector party.
3) If the Ottawa Option RFP results in one or more counter proposals being received, and if, in the sole opinion of the City, the counter proposal(s) are evaluated and found to be superior to the original unsolicited proposal, the City will proceed to determine the successful participant through a final procurement phase known as “Best and Final Offer” (BAFO).
(a) BAFO as applied to the Ottawa Option is the process whereby the City will invite the original private sector party and the proponent submitting the superior counter proposal to engage in a BAFO phase. The invitation to participate in the BAFO phase will provide to both participating proponents:
(i) the general concepts that were considered superior to the original proposal, while keeping proprietary information contained in the proposals confidential to the extent possible; and
(ii) the pre-established evaluation criteria or the “basis of award” to be used to determine the successful proponent.
(b) Offers received in response to the BAFO invitation will be reviewed by the evaluation team and scored in accordance with a pre-established criteria, or alternatively, in accordance with the “basis of award” provision identified through the BAFO process. The successful proponent will be the proponent offering “best value” to the City.
(c) In all cases, the basis of award will be “best value” to the City, as defined in the Purchasing By-Law, in the sole opinion of the City.
The Director will be responsible for determining whether the unsolicited proposal qualifies under the Ottawa Option policy from a business perspective, and if the City should continue to entertain the proposal.
The Manager of Supply will be responsible for determining if the undertaking is similar in scope to a current or upcoming competitive procurement.
The City Treasurer will be responsible for the Ottawa Option process that invites and evaluates competing proposals.
The City Manager, or Deputy City Manager must approve any decision to reject an unsolicited proposal, based on supporting rationale provided by the Director.
City Council will be responsible for approving the application of the Ottawa Option for all undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost, or benefit is expected to equal or exceed $500,000.
Senior Management is responsible for ensuring that their employees are fully aware of the requirements and for enforcing this policy.
The Purchasing By-Law, number 50 of 2000, recognizes the
Ottawa Option Policy, under section 25 – Unsolicited Proposals.
All managers shall monitor compliance to this policy. Failure to comply with this policy may result in employee disciplinary action.
Best Value means the optimal balance of performance and cost determined in accordance with a pre-defined evaluation plan.
City means
the municipal corporation that is the City of Ottawa, as represented by the
appropriate management level, in accordance with the Purchasing By-Law, and the
Delegation of Authority By-Law.
City Council means
the elected Council of the City of Ottawa.
City Manager means
“level one” management at the City.
Competitive procurement means a publicly competed opportunity for bidders using one
of the several bid solicitation documents, generally distributed
electronically.
Conceptual Level Proposal means the initial “high level” unsolicited proposal submitted by the private sector party, to be considered by staff under the Ottawa Option Policy.
Counter Proposal means a responsive proposal received as a result of the
Ottawa Option RFP, from a proponent other than the original private sector
proponent.
Deputy City Manager means “level two” management at the City and includes the
statutory positions of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor reporting directly
to the City Manager.
Detailed Proposal means a proposal prepared in sufficient detail to allow evaluation against the criteria established by the City.
Director means
“level three” management at the City, and may also include “General Manager”
positions.
Evaluation Team means the team put together by the Director to review and
analyze the proposals, and may be comprised of City staff, external
consultants, elected officials and members of the public, as warranted in each
case.
Inferior Proposal means a competing counter proposal received in response to an Ottawa Option RFP, evaluated in accordance with pre-determined criteria by an Evaluation Team, and deemed to be of less value to the City, than the original unsolicited proposal.
Ottawa Option Request for Proposal (RFP) means a public proposal opportunity issued by
the City of Ottawa, intended to allow competition in relation to the receipt of
an unsolicited
proposal.
Private Sector Party means the original sponsor of the unsolicited
proposal, that led to the consideration of eligibility under the Ottawa Option,
and may be an external private sector vendor or consortium, or any other
proponent.
Purchasing By-Law means By-Law No. 50 of 2000 of the City of Ottawa, as
amended.
Superior Proposal means a competing counter proposal received in response to an Ottawa Option RFP, evaluated in accordance with pre-determined criteria by an Evaluation Team, and deemed to be of greater value to the City, than the original unsolicited proposal.
Unsolicited Proposal means a proposal received by City staff from a private
sector vendor, consortium, or any other proponent, which was not provided in
response to a formal request from the City, but which was submitted through the
initiative of the proponent.
Inquiries:
For additional information contact:
Philip S. Andrews
Manager Supply Management Division
Ext. 25176