Transportation Committee Comité des transports
Minutes
16 / Procès-verbal 16
Wednesday, 6 February 2008, 10:00 a.m. le mercredi 6 février 2008,
10 h Champlain Room,
110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest |
Present / Présents : Mayor / Maire L.
O’Brien, Councillors / Conseillers M. McRae (Chair / Présidente), C. Leadman
(Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, A. Cullen,
C. Doucet, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson
No declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES /
Ratification dU PROCÈS-VERBaL
REFERRAL
– CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
RENVOI - COMITÉ DES SERVICES
ORGANISATIONNELS ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE
PUBLIC WORKS
AND SERVICES
SERVICES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
OPERATIONS
CIRCULATION ET
STATIONNEMENT
1.
PARKING METER REVENUES - 2008 BUDGET OPTIONS
RECETTES
DES PARCOMÈTRES – OPTIONS BUDGÉTAIRES POUR 2008
ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0013 CITY
WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
With respect to process, Chair McRae noted that
several staff were on hand to provide a presentation and answer questions. She noted that the City Treasurer,
unfortunately, could not be present until the afternoon so financial questions
on this issue would have to wait until her arrival. She suggested that Committee receive the staff presentation and
hear delegations before proceeding with questions to staff, the Committee
willing.
Councillor Legendre suggested there would be no
benefit in receiving the presentation and comments from the delegations without
first determining whether there was sufficient support from the Committee to suspend
the Rules of Procedure. He asked for
legal opinion on the matter.
Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor, appreciating
Councillor Legendre’s concerns about the procedural implications of this issue,
suggested that it would be best to hear the staff presentation and delegations
before raising the issue of suspension of the Rules because those individuals
might provide information that would help Committee Members in their
determination as to whether or not to waive the Rules and revisit a budget
decision.
Councillor Legendre respectfully disagreed with Mr.
O’Connor’s opinion and proposed to move that the Rules of Procedure be waived
at this point in time.
The Chair asked Mr. O’Connor for his opinion on this
matter. He explained his concern that
should that procedural motion fail, and given that a procedural motion and a
motion dealt with at Committee for those two separate reasons cannot be
reconsidered, it would be unjust to the more than forty delegations registered
to speak to Committee on the issue. Mr.
O’Connor reiterated his opinion that the motion to waive the Rules should be
dealt with after hearing the delegations.
Councillor
Legendre proceeded in putting forward the following motion:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the rules of procedure be suspended to consider all
matters for which this special meeting was convened.
Councillor Wilkinson then proposed to move a motion
that would defer consideration of Councillor Legendre’s motion until after
Committee heard the delegations. She
agreed with Mr. O’Connor that the delegations might have comments that
would better assist Committee in determining whether or not to suspend the
rules and revisit Council’s decisions on the matter.
When asked by the Chair the order of consideration
of those two motions, Mr. O’Connor advised that Councillor Wilkinson’s motion
should be dealt with first. If
approved, the Committee would proceed to hear the staff presentation and
delegations. If not approved, the
Committee would consider Councillor Legendre’s motion.
Following a brief discussion, the Committee
considered the following motion:
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:
That Councillor Legendre’s Motion be deferred until after hearing from staff and the public.
LOST
YEAS (3): Councillors M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen,
Mayor L. O’Brien
NAYS
(7): Councillors R. Bloess, G.
Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, M. McRae
Moved by
Councillor J. Legendre:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the
rules of procedure be suspended to consider all matters for which this special
meeting was convened.
CARRIED
The Committee then proceeded to hear the staff presentation. Richard Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS) introduced his staff members Michael Flainek, Director, Traffic and Parking Operations and Scott Caldwell, Project/Policy Officer, Traffic and Parking Operations, who provided the PowerPoint presentation. A copy is held on file with the City Clerk.
Immediately following the staff presentation, the Committee heard from the delegations.
The following people voiced concerns about the
parking meter proposals previously approved by Council and requested that the
issue be reconsidered: (Please note
that presentations provided are on file with the City Clerk.)
1. Rob Sproule, Chair, Business Advisory Committee (presentation provided).
2.
Sam Elsaadi, Chair, Sparks Street Mall Management
Board.
3.
Lori Mellor, Preston Street
BIA.
4.
Reverend Barbara Maynard and
John Price (Warden), St. Luke’s Anglican Church.
5.
Shannon Lee Mannion,
Concerned Citizens of Centretown.
6.
Marilla Lo, Chair, Somerset
Street Chinatown BIA.
7.
Reverend Doug Kendall, Knox Presbyterian Church.
8.
Stephen Brown, St. Patrick’s Basilica (presentation
provided).
After receiving the aforementioned delegations, the Committee paused for a lunch break. Before doing so, however, Councillor Legendre put forth the following procedural motion, which, as confirmed by Mr. O’Connor, was necessary given that Committee had decided to suspend the Rules to revisit this matter.
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
Whereas at the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
meeting of 15 January 2008, staff were directed to prepare a report on the
topic of on-street parking for a special meeting of Transportation Committee to
be held on 6 February 2008; and
Whereas this matter concerns items addressed in the 2008 budget; and
Whereas the Notice By-law requires that the City give notice of
meetings where amendments to the budget are to be considered;
Therefore be it resolved that the notice of the meeting of 6 February 2008
published on 1 February 2008 be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the
Notice By-law.
CARRIED
Upon resuming the meeting, the Committee received
the following delegations:
9.
Peggy Ducharme and John
Blathewick, Downtown Rideau BIA (presentation provided).
10.
Jasna Jennings, Executive Director / Directrice
General, ByWard Market BIA / ZAC du marché By.
11.
Mary Jaekl.
12.
Reverend David Crawley, St.
George’s Anglican Church.
13.
Betty Neelin, a member of
Knox Presbyterian Church.
14. Doug Casey, Charlesfort Development.
15.
Charles
Akben-Marchand.
16.
Gerry Lepage, Bank Street
BIA.
17.
Ron Chaplin and Patricia
Bowen, Anglican Church of St. John the Evangelist (presentation provided).
18. Peter Duschenes, Wellington Community Association (presentation provided).
19. Liam McGahern, Glebe Business Group.
20. Cam Robertson, City Centre Coalition.
21.
Jay Acton, representing the ByWard Market Standholders
Association (BMSA) – (presentation provided).
22.
Chris Bradshaw (presentation provided and the excepts
from the 730-pp book by Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking (2005).
23. Ian Stevenson, St. Giles Church (presentation provided).
24. Nancy Jonah, on behalf of the Centretown Churches Social Action Committee (CCSAC) – (presentation provided).
25. Anthony H. A. Keenleyside, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Orpheus Musical Theatre Society.
26. Tracey Clark, Managing Director, Bridgehead, Guigues Avenue, Ottawa.
27. Ken Duff.
28. Dennis Van Staalduinen, Marketing Advisor to the Wellington West BIA Interim Board of Management (presentation provided).
29. Joe Pinto (presentation provided).
30. Michael Jenkin, Old Ottawa South Community Association (presentation provided).
31. Louise Huot, St. George Condominium.
32.
Xing Huang, representing the Chinese Community
Association.
33. Don Stewart, Director, Westboro Beach Community Association (presentation provided).
34. Katherine Leroux, Lorne Star Texas Grill.
35. M. Joan Hammond, Shefford Heritage Housing Co-operative.
36. Arthur McGregor, Old Ottawa South Business Association.
37. Harvey Morin.
38. David Jeanes, Transport 2000.
39. Catherine Gardner.
40. Stephanie Appotive, Howard Fine Jewellers & Dahavland Corporation.
41. Hollander Layte, L’Ange Owner & Chair of SSMMB.
42. Susan Glass.
The Committee received the following correspondence and petitions, which are on file with the City Clerk in advance of the meeting:
1.
Procedural
memo from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor dated February 1, 2008 with
respect to consideration of this issue.
2.
Memo
from Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services dated February 4, 2008 in
response to the Notice of Motion tabled by Councillor Wilkinson at the
Transportation Committee meeting on January 16, 2008
3.
Email
from Councillor Wilkinson dated February 5, 2008 in response to the
aforementioned memo from the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services.
4.
Email
from Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services dated February 6, 2008
addressed to Mayor and Members of Council, re. City of Ottawa Parking
Operations.
5.
Email
submission from Lise Richard, Development Officer, Ottawa Community Support
Coalition (OCSC), dated January 16, 2008, on behalf of Marg Eisner, Chair of
OCSC, expressing concerns about the proposed increase in parking fees and
extension of fees for evening and weekend parking.
6.
Email
submission from Trish Pye, Somerset Ward dated January 17, 2008 expressing
concerns about the parking meter proposals.
7.
Email
submission from Peter Clennett, Barrhaven Ward, dated January 21, 2008 in
opposition to the parking meter proposals
8.
Email
submission from Tom Furmanczyk, St. Patrick’s Basilica, dated January 22, 2008
expressing concerns about the parking meter proposals
9.
Letter
from Peter Marwitz, Treasurer, Canadian International Council,
National Capital Branch dated January 24, 2008 in opposition to the parking
meter proposals
10.
Email
submission from Stephen W. dated January 26, 2008 in opposition to the parking
meter proposals.
11.
Email
submission from Reina Vipond dated January 28, 2008 in opposition to the
parking meter proposals.
12.
Telephone
Message from Mrs. Siew of Abbey Road on January 28, 2008 expressing her concern
about Saturday and Sunday parking charges.
13.
Email
submission from Pierre Senecal dated January 28, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
14.
Email
submission from Leslie Bush dated January 29, 2008 in favour of the parking
meter proposals. A second email from
Mr. Bush was received on January 30, 2008.
15.
Email
submission from Ian Stevenson dated January 29, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
16.
Email
submission from Nha-Ling Wong dated January 29, 2008 expressing opposition to
the proposed parking meter proposals.
17.
Email
submission from Michel Letellier de St-Just & Gisèle Malette dated January
29, 2008 expressing opposition to the proposed parking meter proposals.
18.
Email
submission from Armand Fournier dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
19.
Email
submission from Janet Glendenning dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals
20.
Email
submission from Peter Barnes dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
21.
Email
submission from Kassandra McMicking dated January 31, 2008 expressing
opposition to metered parking on Wellington Street.
22.
Email
submission from Adrienne Duff dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
23.
Email
submission from Ken Nicholls dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
24.
Email
submission from Deborah Sneddon dated January 31, 2008 providing comments on
the parking meter proposals
25.
Email
submission from Raymond and Florence Poulin dated January 31, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals
26.
Email
submission from Andrea Blaylock dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
27.
Email
submission from James Roscoe dated January 31, 2008 providing comments on the
parking meter proposals.
28.
Email
submission from Karen McDermaid dated January 13, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
29.
Email
submission from Mike Patullo dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
30.
Email
submission from Brian Roberts dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
31.
Email
submission from Don Brousseau dated January 17, 2008 offering an income
generating idea in lieu of the parking meter proposals.
32.
Email
submission from Andrew Ferguson dated January 31, 2008 offering an alternate
parking revenue suggestion to the approved parking meter proposals.
33.
Email
submission from Barbara Townsend-Batten dated January 31, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals.
34.
Email
submission from Bruce Wozny dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals.
35.
Email
submission from Gwen Lévesque dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
36.
Email
submission from Hugh Reekie dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals.
37.
Email
submission from Jennifer Zelmer dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
38.
Email
submission from Jerene Sutherland dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals.
39.
Email
submission from Nancy Zukewich dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals.
40.
Email
submission from Richard Brousseau dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals.
41.
Email
submission from Barbara and Bill Cowtan dated January 31, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals.
42.
Email
submission from Jennifer Francis dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals.
43.
Email
submission from Steve Adams dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
44.
Email
submission from Andrew Douglas dated January 31, 2008 in favour of the parking
meter proposals.
45.
Email
submission from David Fraser dated February 1,
2008 expressing opposition to the parking meter proposals
46.
Email
submission from John Butcher dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to
the installation of parking meters on Wellington Street.
47.
Email
submission from Laura Lunn dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
48.
Email
submission from Bill Olders dated January 31, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
49.
Email
from Hilary Casey dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition the increased
hours being proposed for metered parking
50.
Email
submission from Kim Furlong on behalf of Diane J. Brisebois, President and CEO,
Retail Council of Canada dated January 16, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
51.
Email
from Meredith Thatcher dated February 1, 2008
expressing opposition to the parking meter proposals.
52.
Email
submission from Margaret Tyson dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals and offering alternate suggestions.
53.
Email
submission from Kerry Wilson dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
54.
Email
submission from Meena Rajulu dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
55.
Email
submission from Roslyn Frankl dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
56.
Email
submission from Michael Corber dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
57.
Email
submission from Mirella and Peter Agostini dated February 1, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals
58.
Email
submission from Ann Ranson dated February 3, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
59.
Email
submission from Blaine Marchand dated February 2, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
60.
Email
submission from Bud Smith dated February 1, 2008 providing comments on the
parking meter proposals.
61.
Email
submission from Teena Hendelman dated February 3, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
62.
Email
submission from Fraser Liscumb dated February 2, 2008 providing comments on the
parking meter proposals.
63.
Email
submission from Luke Pelot dated February 3, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
64.
Email
submission from Kimberly Saunders dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition
to the implementation of parking meters on Wellington Street West.
65.
Email
submission from Pat Rowan dated February 2, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
66.
Email
submission from Peter McNichol dated February 2, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
67.
Email
submission from Rose and Randy David dated February 3, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals
68.
Email
submission from Ralph Wiesbrock dated February 3, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
69.
Email
submission from Donald S. Sharp dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals
70.
Email
submission from Cheryl Parrott dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
71.
Email
submission from Jay Acton, representing the ByWard Market Standholders
Association (BMSA).
72.
Email
submission from George Clarke dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
73.
Email
submission from Allan Shields dated February 3, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
74.
Email
submission from Patti Davis dated February 4,
2008 expressing opposition to the implementation of parking meters on
Wellington Street West
75.
Email
submission from Montha McGinnis, Siam Bistro dated February 4, 2008 offering
suggestions with respect to parking on Wellington Street.
76.
Email
submission from John
Clark dated
February 4, 2008 expressing opposition to the parking meter proposals
77.
Email
submission from Amy Keuhl dated February 1, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
78.
Email
submission from Jan & Bruce Dunn dated February 4, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals
79.
Email
submission from Andre Schad dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
80.
Email
submission from Brittney Anne Bos dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition
to the parking meter proposals
81.
Email
submission from Lorne Cutler and Judith Shane dated February 5, 2008 expressing
opposition to the parking meter proposals
82.
Email
submission from John Sankey dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
83.
Email
submission from Joe Pinto dated February 4, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
84.
Email
submission from John de Carle dated February 5, 2008 providing comments on the
parking meter proposals.
85.
Email
submission from Erick Sodhi dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
86.
Email
submission from Robert Brocklebank, President, Glebe Community Association
dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the parking meter proposals
87.
Email
submission from Mary Taylor dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
88.
Email
submission from Jim Elder dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
89.
Email
submission from Ann McCormack dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to
the parking meter proposals
90.
Email
submission from Dennis Van Staaldunen, Wellington West BIA, dated February 5,
2008 expressing opposition to the parking meter proposals
91.
Email
submission from Don Stewart, Westboro Beach Community Association dated February 5, 2008 expressing opposition to the
parking meter proposals
92.
Electronic
copies of a petition signed by 57 individuals in opposition to the proposed
parking meter rate increases (received from the office of Councillor
Holmes)
93.
Package
(hard copy) containing several petitions in opposition to parking meter
proposals, signed by numerous residents and business owners (received from the
office of Councillor Holmes)
The following is a list of correspondence received by the Committee Coordinator subsequent to the meeting and are on file with the City Clerk:
1. Email submission from Gary Sealy dated February 6, 2008 offering an alternate suggestion to the parking meter proposals.
2. Email submission from Christine Newman dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
3. Email submission from Andrew Hart dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
4. Email submission from Magda Allen (who had registered to speak but was then unable to attend) dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
5. Email submission from Rev. Dr. Andrew Johnston, Minister, on behalf of the Kirk Session, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, dated February 5, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
6. Email submission from Edward Vick dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
7. Email submission from Don McMaster dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
8. Email submission from David Blaine, President, Centretown Citizens’ Community Association (who had registered to speak but was then unable to attend) dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
9. Email submission from Scott Manning dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
10. Email submission from Dorothy Price dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
11. Email submission from Blake McIntyre dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
12. Emailed regrets from Lise Richard, Development Officer, Ottawa Community Support Coalition (OCSC), who had registered to speak but was then unable to attend.
13. Email submission from Roland Dorsay dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
14. Email submission from Suzanne and Elfriede Juneau dated February 6, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
15. Email submission from David Gladstone, Founder, Friends of the O-Train, dated February 5, 2008 offering suggestions on alternate means of revenue generation.
16. Email submission from Beverley Ann Chartrand dated February 5, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
17.
Email from Suzanne Valiquet dated February 5, 2008
containing a link to an online petition in opposition to the parking meter
proposals.
18. Email submission from Greta & Gareth Jones dated February 5, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
19. Email submission from Alayne McGregor dated February 5, 2008 in opposition to the parking meter proposals.
20. Email submission from Chris Bradshaw attaching both his brief (which includes more content than he was able to mention in my 5 minutes) and the excerpts from the 730-pp book by Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking (2005).
21. Email submission from Jim Cochrane received 12 February 2008.
22. Letter dated 8 February 2008 received on 13 February 2008 from Reverend Lindsay Harrison, Associate Pastor, Saint Patrick’s Basilica, enclosing further petitions signed by numerous parishioners of Saint Patrick’s Basilica and Sacré-Coeur Church.
Prior to entertaining
questions from Committee Members, Chair McRae acknowledged the presence of the
following staff members:
·
R.
Hewitt, Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services (PWS)
·
M.
Flainek, Director, Traffic and Parking Operations, PWS
·
S.
Jones, Director, By-Law & Regulatory Services, Community & Protective
Services (CPS)
·
T.
Leeson, Program Manager, Parking Enforcement (CPS)
·
M.
Simulik, City Treasurer
·
M.
R. O’Connor, City Solicitor
·
L.
Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk.
In response to questions
from Committee Members, Staff provided the following clarifications:
·
Time
restrictions vary from one, two, or three-hour limits, and these are clearly
indicated on the signs located on the side of the roads. Meters can be fed for the full duration of
the time limit.
·
There
are three scenarios with respect to property taxes in rural parking lots:
a) the value of a
lot is determined on an income approach; so revenue from parking is assessed
with the lot and taxes are paid on that assessment
b)
parking
lots of large shopping malls, which are put in by the landlord to provide the
capacity for the stores in that mall, are reflected in the rent paid by each
store/tenant, who in turn increase the cost of services and products to the
customer to recuperate that amount; so taxes on that lot are paid, based on an
income approach.
c)
within
the commercial category, there is another tax category called ‘vacant lands and
parking lots’, which is what you see in the downtown core. If a piece of property has no parking lot on
it, it would be declared a vacant land, and if parking is added on it on a
temporary basis in order to generate revenue before redeveloping it, taxes
would have to be paid on that parking but less than with a shopping mall
parking lot. It would be the lowest
category or lowest tax ratio within the commercial class itself.
·
The
former City of Ottawa’s Parking Management Strategy, as approved in 1994, is
the most up-to-date document for the City in terms of parking policy in the
urban core.
· St. Luke’s church (at Bell and Somerset) is in a core residential establishment that is above a city-owned parking garage. The lower level of the parking lot is for the residents and other piece was purchased by the City about 10 years ago and is now operated as a commercial parking facility. Other examples of this exist in the City where there are social housing developments above City-owned parking facilities.
·
Staff
will follow up with Committee Members to provide information requested about
studies referenced in the report, specifically those that reportedly show that
an increase in 10% in parking rates is likely to result to a shift in transit
of 1-3% of former parkers. At that
time, staff will also advise whether those studies show the effect of the
perceived disadvantage of core businesses versus malls in the suburbs of that
increase in the parking rate.
Chair McRae then asked
members to table all motions at this time for discussion.
Councillor Wilkinson
introduced the following motion:
Be It Resolved that Transportation Committee recommend that City Council
waive
the Rules of Procedure to revisit the 2008 approved Budget for rates, hours and
areas for on-street parking and approve
the following:
·
That the 2008 rates and hours for on-street
parking be adjusted so that:
§
There is no charge for Sunday parking in
commercial areas of the City;
§
Hours are reduced for on-street parking to 7:00
p.m. Monday to Saturday; and
§
The rate for on-street parking increase to
$3.25/hour beginning October 1, 2008; and
·
That staff be directed to bring forward options
to address any revenue shortfall in 2008 that results from these changes in
time for the February 13th, 2008 City Council meeting; and
·
That staff be directed to bring forward options
to address any revenue shortfall projections in 2009 and 2010 that results from
these changes as part of the 2009 Budget process.
Councillor Legendre
introduced and clarified the following motion:
That items 1, 2 and 5 in the staff
presentation (weekday evenings, weekends, and new areas) be rescinded.
The Chair then introduced
Councillor Doucet’s motion:
Be It Resolved that Transportation Committee recommends that City Council
direct staff to develop a new city-wide, comprehensive, consolidated parking
policy in conjunction with the principles articulated in the Parking Management
Strategy and the Transportation Master Plan; and that the policy include a
review of the financial costs to the City of storing cars on city streets
versus storing cars on private lots; and
Be It further Resolved that the terms of reference for
this study/review be brought to Transportation Committee for its review and
approval prior to being undertaken.
Councillor Bédard proposed
the following as a friendly amendment to Councillor Doucet’s motion, which he
accepted:
Insert the words ‘parking needs in Zoning By-law’ immediately after the
words ‘…and that the policy include’.
Councillor Leadman introduced the following motion:
Whereas the parking
implementation measures were passed with an incomplete financial information;
And whereas there has been
resounding support against the parking options from all of Ottawa including the
businesses, religious and community organizations and the public at large;
And whereas stated parking
revenues for 2007 were not achieved resulting in $365,000 being added as a
budgetary pressure on the 2008 budget calling into question the methodology
used to calculate revenue projections;
And whereas collection costs
according to the latest public OMBI audited data (2005) states the full costs
associated with each parking spot at 63.94 cents for each dollar collected. In
2006 the figure dropped to 42 cents. The latest fully inclusive City figures
state 38 cents. This is a significant discrepancy from current staff figure of
24 cents for each dollar collected used to calculate net revenue;
And whereas the capital
costs for the parking meters significantly reduce the cost/benefit of implementing
the measures. The capital costs total $6.5M and could utilize $2,956,316 from
the current cash-in-lieu reserve fund.
And whereas taking into
account the financial fluctuation in revenues, program costs and large initial
capital costs cancellation of the options does not create a revenue pressure
for the 2008 budgetary year allowing a comprehensive pro
Therefore be it resolved
that all Traffic & Parking Operations Reduction Options presented in the
2008 City of Ottawa budget be removed.
Be it further resolved that
City staff re-examine current financial figures related to produce an accurate
account of projected revenues and costs to provide a true figure of the impact
of cancelling the measures. The current
cancellation estimates do not account for the capital costs, the full cost of
running and maintaining the program and variable revenues.
Be it further resolved that
the readjusted impact of cancelling the parking measures be:
a.
Dealt with in the 2009 budget deliberations by ways of a service level
change. This has been done consistently across the corporation with the
Information Management Group efficiency target, corporate wide efficiency
target, and current unrealized revenue from the parking branch.
b.
Or assigned as a new efficiency target achieved by a
new BRP departmental review of the parking branch. If the full savings are not realized it will be placed as
budgetary pressure in 2009.
c.
Or assigned as a corporate wide additional efficiency target;
d.
Or the 2008 budget be reopened to find other necessary savings;
e.
Or added to the approved 2008 tax increase;
Be it further resolved that
a study be undertaken as to the advisability of a City of Ottawa Parking
Authority that may be governed equally by affected businesses, community and
City officials & staff.
Although Councillor Leadman
had intended to move another motion with respect to metered parking in the
Hintonburg community, she felt there was no need, as it would be dealt with via
Councillor Legendre’s motion.
In
response to questions from Committee members on the aforementioned motions,
staff provided the following clarifications:
·
The
data presented by staff is based on consultant reports and parking studies
conducted in the last five to ten years, some of which have been repeated over the
last number of years, showing that the on street parking in specific areas is
at or over capacity.
·
The
rationale to add new metered parking areas was based on a traffic parking
engineering study undertaken as an independent review by an independent consultant. On-street parking is at or very near
capacity when businesses are open and parking is free, resulting in very low
turnover.
·
In
most areas, the one-hour parking restriction, which is probably most commonly
seen where there are meters, extends only to 7:00 p.m. Current meters and future Pay & Display
machines would be able to accommodate the change in regulation that would occur
at 7:00 p.m. For example, people parking
at 6 p.m. are entitled to one hour parking until 7 p.m., but after 7 p.m. it extends
to three-hour parking, so people paying at 6 p.m. could put in enough money to
cover themselves until 9 p.m. without having to come back and pay again during
that time period.
· Slide 6 of the staff presentation, which refers to the strategic objective of the TMP to limit the supply of long-term parking to levels that balance the needs of automobile users with the City’s transit ridership objectives talks about trying to make short-term parking spaces more available so individuals driving by would see available on-street parking.
·
Staff believes that the metered parking proposals will
help achieve the objective of the TMP to support the vital interests of local
businesses by allowing for more turnover.
· The Pay & Display system would not change the amount of time allowed for on-street parking. In most areas the one-hour restriction, which is probably most commonly seen where there are meters, extends only to 7:00 p.m. Both the current meters and future Pay & Display machines would be able to accommodate the change in regulation that would occur at 7:00 p.m., meaning it would be possible for a person parking at 6:00 p.m. to only pay the meter that one time if s/he put in enough money to cover the parking until up to 9:00 p.m. A simple programming change to the meters would be the only thing required to accommodate this.
·
Current regulations are that at 6 p.m. there is a
one-hour parking restriction that would end at 7 p.m. After that, there is a three-hour limit for free.
· Staff see no problem with providing the Capital Operating Maintenance Cost to the City with respect to the cars on city streets versus storing cars on private lots, as requested in Councillor Doucet’s motion. The terms of reference for that study will be brought back to the Committee so there would be an opportunity for clarifications at that point.
· The decision to increase the meter rates from $2.50 to $3 an hour in all areas across the City was a motion from Council, not staff.
· There are variable rates off-street parking rates in garages across the City. Currently the on street parking is $2.50 an hour for all meters in all areas.
· Historically, meter rate increases were put forward and approved by Council, but staff thought at this point it should be just the core to go to $3, thus introducing a variable rate.
· Some cities have variable rates by location but not by time of day.
At this point, Councillor Legendre proposed a friendly amendment to Councillor Doucet’s motion that would see staff examine geographically variable rates. Councillor Doucet accepted that as a friendly amendment.
In response to further questions from Committee, staff provided the following clarifications:
· The purpose of the increased meter rates is partly to deal with inflation. On street parking in any city is considered to be the premier parking that exists for use; and off street parking becomes secondary. So increasing on street rates to allow the reflection of that status of the on street parking for high turnover, to limit the utilization in terms of length of time, that type of thing, and to allow flexibility for increase to off street rates, which should be no more than, and probably less than the on street rates, the move towards a higher on street rate facilitates that type of issue. Increasing the rate also allows for potentially increased revenue as has been approved by Council at this point.
· When the terms of reference for the study are brought back to Committee, staff will also include the timing of the elements.
· The cost to remove all of the various options that have been put in place is $4.2 Million even if the West Wellington area were removed. It was an oversight on staff’s part in terms of the description of the area intended. Staff used the term Hintonburg in the Budget, which is the approved area at this point, recognizing that West Wellington is not part of that.
·
With respect to figures used in terms of servicing the
meters, staff noted they had provided that information to Committee Members
prior to the meeting and also offered to meet with the concerned councillors to
discuss the various aspects.
·
The Comprehensive Parking By-law 2003-530,
Parking Meter Zones Schedule 8 is essentially a document that contains three
columns that allows staff to list all the meters that are currently in place
and that are being utilized by Enforcement as signs are erected.
At the request of the Chair, the
City Solicitor reminded Committee that, under Section 56 of the Procedure
By-law, the general rule is that amendments are voted on in the reverse
order in which they are moved. However,
he noted that the Chair has the authority under the Procedure By-law to
set the motions out in the order that she would deem to be the most logical,
practical and most expeditious in all of the circumstances. He also pointed out for the Committee’s
attention the fact that an amendment that is a substantial substitution for a
motion shall be considered only after the original motion, and only if that
motion is lost. Having said that, he
established for the Chair’s consideration the order in which the proposed
motions should be dealt with.
The Committee then proceeded, as
suggested by the City Solicitor, in considering the following motions:
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Item 1 - Rate Change –
Increase on-street parking rates city wide to $3.00/hour from current
$2.50/hour - be rescinded.
LOST
YEAS (4): Councillors G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C.
Doucet, C. Leadman
NAYS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A.
Cullen, D. Thompson, Mayor O’Brien, M. McRae
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Item 2 - Weekday evenings
– Charge for on-street parking into the evenings (until 9:00pm) from Monday to
Friday in commercial areas only - be rescinded.
LOST
YEAS (4): Councillors G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C.
Doucet, C. Leadman
NAYS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A.
Cullen, D. Thompson, Mayor O’Brien, M. McRae
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Item 5 - New Areas –
Introduce on-street paid parking on Wellington Street, Beechwood Avenue, and
Bank Street (Old Ottawa South) - be rescinded.
LOST
YEAS
(4): Councillors G. Bédard, J.
Legendre, C. Doucet, C. Leadman
NAYS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A.
Cullen, D. Thompson, Mayor O’Brien, M. McRae
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson:
Therefore Be It Resolved that
Transportation Committee recommend that City Council:
·
waive the Rules of Procedure to revisit the
2008 approved Budget for rates, hours and areas for on-street parking and;
·
approve
the following:
Be It Resolved that the 2008 rates
and hours for on-street parking be adjusted so that:
·
There
is no charge for Sunday parking in commercial areas of the City;
·
Hours are reduced for on-street parking to 7:00
p.m. Monday to Saturday; and
·
The rate for on-street parking increase to
$3.25/hour beginning October 1, 2008; and
Be It Further Resolved that staff be
directed to bring forward options to address any revenue shortfall in 2008 that
results from these changes in time for the February 13th, 2008 City Council
meeting; and
Be It Further Resolved that staff be
directed to bring forward options to address any revenue shortfall projections
in 2009 and 2010 that results from these changes as part of the 2009 Budget
process.
CARRIED
The following motion put forward by Councillor Leadman was deemed redundant following the approval of the aforementioned motion:
WHEREAS
the parking implementation measures were passed with an incomplete financial
information;
AND WHEREAS
there has been resounding support against the parking options from all of
Ottawa including the businesses, religious and community organizations and the
public at large;
AND
WHEREAS stated parking revenues for 2007 were not achieved resulting in
$365,000 being added as a budgetary pressure on the 2008 budget calling into
question the methodology used to calculate revenue projections;
AND
WHEREAS collection costs according to the latest public OMBI audited data
(2005) states the full costs associated with each parking spot at 63.94 cents
for each dollar collected. In 2006 the
figure dropped to 42 cents. The latest
fully inclusive City figures state 38 cents.
This is a significant discrepancy from current staff figure of 24 cents
for each dollar collected used to calculate net revenue;
AND
WHEREAS the capital costs for the parking meters significantly reduce the
cost/benefit of implementing the measures. The capital costs total $6.5M and
could utilize $2,956,316 from the current cash-in-lieu reserve fund.
AND
WHEREAS taking into account the financial fluctuation in revenues, program
costs and large initial capital costs cancellation of the options does not
create a revenue pressure for the 2008 budgetary year allowing a comprehensive
pro
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT all Traffic & Parking Operations Reduction Options
presented in the 2008 City of Ottawa budget be removed.
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City staff re-examine current financial figures
related to produce an accurate account of projected revenues and costs to
provide a true figure of the impact of cancelling the measures. The current cancellation estimates do not
account for the capital costs, the full cost of running and maintaining the
program and variable revenues.
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED THAT the readjusted impact of cancelling the parking measures be:
a. Dealt
with in the 2009 budget deliberations by ways of a service level change. This has been done consistently across the
corporation with the Information Management Group efficiency target, corporate
wide efficiency target, and current unrealized revenue from the parking branch.
b. Or
assigned as a new efficiency target achieved by a new BRP departmental review
of the parking branch. If the full
savings are not realized it will be placed as budgetary pressure in 2009.
c. Or
assigned as a corporate wide additional efficiency target;
d.
Or the 2008 budget be reopened to find other necessary savings;
e.
Or added to the approved 2008 tax increase;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT
a study be undertaken as to the advisability of a City of Ottawa Parking
Authority that may be governed equally by affected businesses, community and
City officials & staff.
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet:
Be It Resolved that Transportation Committee recommends that City
Council direct staff to develop a new city-wide, comprehensive, consolidated
parking policy in conjunction with the principles articulated in the Parking
Management Strategy and the Transportation Master Plan; and that the policy
include parking needs in the zoning by-law, a review of the financial costs to
the City of storing cars on city streets versus storing cars on private lots;
and
That the study examine
on-street parking rates:
·
That vary according to geography
·
That vary according to time (time of day, day of the week); and
That the terms of reference
for this study/review be brought to Transportation Committee for its review and
approval prior to being undertaken.
CARRIED
The Committee received the staff report dated
30 January 2008 for its information.
The Chair confirmed that this matter would be considered by City Council
on Wednesday, 13 February 2008.
That Transportation
Committee receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE
DE LA SÉANCE
The
Committee adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Anne-Marie Leung Councillor
Maria McRae
_____________________________ _____________________________
Committee Coordinator Chair