Document
2
STATUS OF THE
CITIZENS FOR SAFE CYCLING PROGRAM
STATUT DU PROGRAMME DES CITOYENS POUR LA SÉCURITÉ EN VÉLO
The Committee received a Memorandum
dated 30 January 2007 from the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services,
in response to Inquiry No. TRC-01-07
brought forward by Councillor Cullen at the 17 January 2007 Transportation
Committee Meeting on the aforementioned subject.
The
following correspondence were also received, and are held on file with the City
Clerk:
- Deputy City Manager, Public Works
and Services’ comments on the proposed Bloess Motion received 6 March
2007.
- E-mail from City Solicitor dated 6
March 2007.
- E-mail from Mike Buckthought dated
7 March 2007 in support of the Citizens For Safe Cycling Program.
Notwithstanding the City Solicitor’s advice in his 6
March 2007 E-Mail, the Committee considered the following motion:
Moved
by Councillor R. Bloess:
That the Rules
of Procedure be suspended to consider the aforementioned item.
CARRIED
Councillor
Bloess then put forward the following motion:
WHEREAS Citizens for Safe Cycling have been active in Ottawa since
1984 and have been partnered with the City of Ottawa providing cycling courses
and educational programs;
WHEREAS the proposed removal of the City of Ottawa’s purchase of
service agreement for educational programs and courses will result in the
closure of their office;
WHEREAS the uncertainty over ongoing funding and contracts impacts
on the group’s ability to program;
WHEREAS the promotion of alternate and sustainable modes of
transportation is in line with the goals of our Official Plan;
WHEREAS the 2007 Capital Budget includes $50,000 for Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) initiatives;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
the $50,000 funding for TDM be allocated toward a purchase of service contract
with Citizens for Safe Cycling for programming in 2007, and that ongoing
funding be allocated in the upcoming budgets up to and including 2010.
Councillor Holmes noted an amendment to the aforementioned proposed
motion to indicate that the funds were no longer coming from the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Account but would be funded within the Department’s
Operating Budget. Ms. Valerie Bietlot,
Legal Counsel, advised that this amendment to the original motion appeared to
partially address the issue of Capital Funds being used for operational issues;
however, she suggested that finance staff might still want to address this
issue.
The Committee then proceeded in receiving a PowerPoint
Presentation from Michael Flainek, Director, Traffic and Parking
Operations. He outlined the history of
the City’s involvement with Citizens for Safe Cycling (CfSC); the nature and
status of the City’s contract with CfSC; the rationale behind the Department’s
recommendation that the contract with CfSC not be continued; and the current
status of Cycling Safety and Education in the City of Ottawa. A copy of this PowerPoint presentation is
held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Flainek also addressed some issues raised in the
Media and within the deliberations, to which staff had not yet responded. With respect to the CfSC President’s
comments on the Recreational Department or the City’s Website not providing
references to CfSC or cycling in general, Mr. Flainek advised that the City did
provide CfSC with $49,000 for the promotion of cycling within the City of
Ottawa. It was therefore CfSC’s
responsibility to go to the various departments, branches, partners, agencies,
et cetera, to put forward the cycling issues.
Regarding the issue of CfSC not being paid for six
months, Mr. Flainek noted that the contract between the City and CFSC clearly
states that on a monthly basis CfSC needed to provide the City with what they
had actually done as far as deliverables, which he suggested CfSC did not
do. He maintained this was why the City
had not paid CFSC for four to six months.
Mr. Flainek also noted that staff had other
significant concerns about CfSC, and that many of his experienced staff did not
see any significant value. He stated
that CfSC had degraded professional staff by continuingly going to the Media
and calling staff names. He suggested
that it was not a professional relationship between the two parties, and
certainly not good value for taxpayers’ money.
He explained that staff made their decisions on sound
engineering planning and principals. He
respectfully suggested that any further discussion of the issues regarding the
relationship between the City and CfSC be conducted in-camera.
On a
more positive note for 2007, he advised that staff would like to take the
Cycling and Safety Program, and model it after its successful approach of the
Integrated Road Safety Program. This is a joint program rolled out by health,
public works and the police services.
The intended approach is to collaborate efforts with Corporate Services,
Public Health, Recreation, Planning, Public Works, and Police. Staff would form partnerships, pool some
resources and advantage outside partners in order to get additional funding. Staff would be providing assignments within
the Cycling Safety and Promotions Program by using outside contractors to
undertake a lot of this work. The PWS
Department will be implementing these revised services within the overall
Transportation Demand Management Program.
After discussion, the Committee heard from the
following delegations:
Terry O’Shaughnessy, Can-Bike
National Examiner, spoke specifically on the cycling education program. He explained that he had been actively
involved as a cycling instructor for the past four years, teaching
approximately 25 courses a year.
As an instructor, he saw the value in the cycling
education provided through CfSC. He
advised that the reason for the lack of tangible results from some of the
courses was the difficulty in measuring something bad not happening, such as an
accident. He feels that the Program was
very valuable as it saves lives, increases health, and is good value for money.
He took issue with staff’s figure for “students per
year.” He suggested that this figure
did not take into account some of the other programs run by CfSC, such as the
elementary school bicycle safety program, which over the last two years reached
over 2,500 students. He suggested that
these students should be factored in to the cost per student.
He expressed his faith in City staff, but suggested
that staff with budget constraints might not be able to provide the expertise
in instruction that the certified instructors can provide. He noted that the cycling season would start
very shortly, and that if staff should have a program ready to be implemented
by now. He wondered if staff would be
able to have a program running in time for his first cycling course in May.
He noted that CFSC had taken care of a lot of the
organization, and provided materials for the instructors, as they are not full
time professionals. He feels that
without this support, many instructors would be unable to take time off from
work to do the courses because of the backup needed. He stated that, regardless of what the advocacy side of CFSC had
done, the educational programs had value.
He strongly urged the Committee to fund the education side of the
program.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Cullen,
Mr. O’Shaughnessy provided the following remarks:
·
He explained that instructors are contracted through
CfSC to provide the education aspect of their programs.
·
He suggested that the CfSC does more than what staff
indicated with regards to the number of students it services. He noted that staff’s numbers were from the
registered Can-Bike Programs, but did not include the elementary school bicycle
safety program.
·
He noted that in 2006 there were 1,925 registered in
the elementary bicycle safety program, which was originally a pilot program
done out of the education office.
·
He explained that, while the instructor fees for this
program were financed through a grant received from another party, it was
because there was an office, and a coordinator, that this grant was provided.
In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr.
O’Shaughnessy explained there are approximately 17 active cycling instructors
in Ottawa, plus a pool of inactive instructors. He explained that it individuals contacted CfSC, as they were the
ones running the Can-Bike Program on behalf of the Ontario Cycling Association.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Bloess,
Mr. O’Shaughnessy maintained that the instructors would like to see the courses
continue regardless of who the contractor is, though he suggested that CfSC has
the experience and the background. He
suggested he would be willing to work for anyone who would provide the full
back up that the instructors require and questioned whether the City could
provide a staff member to supply this backup.
He clarified that CfSC provided 100% logistical support, and that the
money was part of the contract with the City.
In regards to the discrepancies between the numbers of students provided
by staff and the numbers he had mentioned, he believed that staff might have focused
on the Can Ride Program offered by CfSC, and did not take into account, or was
not advised of the other courses offered.
In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson,
Mr. O’Shaughnessy explained that the Canadian Cycling Association sets the
curriculum administered from the Ontario Cycling Association. He noted that the CfSC has also developed
other courses, such as Two Wheels to Work, which is an in-house program
developed by the educational staff to target businesses. He pointed out that two years ago, CfSC
contracted the cycling instructors, and that last year CfSC technically
employed them, because as an employee of CfSC they were covered under the
City’s insurance for liability. He
confirmed that the certification he possessed was not administered by CfSC, but
noted that they do set the standard that all instructors must have this program
to maintain a professional and safe way of teaching.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr.
O’Shaughnessy advised that the staff numbers were likely correct if they
referred to the number of students going through the Can-Bike Program. He added that City staff set target goals
for the number of students, targets that CfSC has exceeded, and now they were
questioning their own targets. Councillor
Holmes suggested that CfSC, just like all the City’s other community partners
such as arts groups, go out and find other grants from other groups. Mr. O’Shaughnessy agreed that this was
the case.
Councillor Bédard suggested that the CfSC needed core
funding for an administrative office in order to ensure the larger school
program is covered. He suggested that,
while the numbers for the Can-Bike Program alone do not look like good value
for money, but makes sense when larger programs are taken into
consideration. Mr. O’Shaughnessy agreed
that funding for an administrative office is required to take care of all the
education aspects.
Councillor McRae wondered why this matter was not
being dealt with through the regular grant process in the Community and
Protective Services Department. Deputy
City Manager Hewitt suggested that his department had been administering this
program as a contract, with great difficulty.
He suggested that Council could decide to lean towards the grant process
used for other groups. He acknowledged
that a contract was a very difficult method of offering this type of service.
Alayne McGregor spoke as someone who had
volunteered with the administration of the CfSC Program between 2003 and
2006. She briefly outlined the history
of CfSC’s involvement with the City and the former Region, and feels that
administering the program through a cycling association like CfSC means a more
direct knowledge of the area and a much stronger program.
She suggested that the CfSC program gives the City value for money
as it is eligible to receive grant money that the City is not, and can use that
money to help administer a wide variety of programs; however she suggested that
CfSC needed core funding from the City in order to apply for those grants.
She also pointed out that CfSC received insurance through its
contract with the City. She explained
that when the City cancelled the contract, it also cancelled the insurance, and
the CfSC cannot run the programs now without insurance.
Regarding staff’s comment that CfSC did not provide any information
as to what they had done, Ms. McGregor produced 14 pages of Q3 report on the
Cycling Promotion and Safety program, and noted that CfSC had provided four
reports to the City the previous year, each about that length; as well they
produced 3-5 pages of reports to the City every quarter on what the education
program was doing.
She noted that CfSC asked the City to give them specific targets to
meet, and stated that the program had met those targets every quarter. She noted that they went through a process
every quarter whereby they showed the progress they had made on those targets
in order to show value for money.
She rebutted Mr. Flainek’s assertion that CfSC did not get paid on
time because they did not provide information on what had done. She noted that it was distressing for CfSC
staff to not get paid. She acknowledged
that there were certainly problems with CfSC’s relationship with the City, but
was unsure how to handle them.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. McGregor
confirmed that every year CfSC was given targets by the City for the number of
students. She maintained that the CfSC
met those targets every year but one.
She clarified that the target for the last year was 175, and CfSC did
186. She pointed out that work done by
CfSC’s education coordinator also covered the Two Wheels to Work Program
and the elementary school bicycle safety program. While that program was largely funded by outside funding, CfSC
would not have been able to get that funding without the education coordinator.
In response to further questioning from Councillor Cullen, Ms.
McGregor suggested that the $49,000 for Safety and Promotion, and the $33,000
for education was just a way for the City to administratively divide up the
funding for CfSC; she maintained that the $33,000 covered much more than just
running the courses, and that strict division did not make sense. Regarding the CfSC’s Two Wheels to Work Program,
she explained that it was a program to get people in private workplaces and
government departments to consider cycling to work; it was funded largely by a
grant, and fell under both the educational and promotional classifications.
In response to Councillor Bloess’ questions regarding the current
status of the CfSC Program, Ms. McGregor confirmed that the education
coordinator had left, and there was an interim coordinator. She confirmed that they still had the
capability to start up the program again.
Charles Akben-Marchand, President of
Citizens for Safe Cycling (CfSC), began by apologizing to staff for any offence
he caused by his comments to the Media.
However, he disputed many, but not all, of the things said by staff. He noted that the numbers of students
provided by staff were accurate if they reflected the number of people who went
through the registered cycling course.
He advised that when taking into account all the other students in all
the programs, it came out to approximately$23.00 per student in administrative
costs to the City. He pointed out that
2005 was the first year CfSC did the elementary school program, and it has been
growing since.
Regarding the Safety and Promotion Program, Mr. Akben-Marchand
advised that CfSC has been looking at new things to do, such as the elementary
school program and Two Wheels to Work, and also eliminating things that
did not work. He noted the volunteers
had been working to secure grants, which were often difficult to get. He also noted that CfSC tried to find
programs that were self-sustaining.
He explained that CfSC lost their full-time coordinator at the
beginning of the year, because she did not like the idea of possibly being in
limbo. Thus, he suggested that if there
was funding, they did not want to end up in the same uncertain situation the
following year.
He maintained that CfSC’s primary concern was that there are cycling
programs in Ottawa. He felt that CfSC
had the best resources and experience to do that. He suggested that one way to find savings was if the City had
extra space for CfSC to use as an office.
He expressed his willingness to work with the City to create a more
efficient program. Mr. Akben-Marchand
noted that one of the items in CfSC’s safety and promotion contract was to work
with the Integrated Road Safety Program, and suggested they had tried to make
contact with some of those programs but heard nothing back from the City. He noted that CfSC has worked with many
groups and gone out to the community to promote cycling at dozens of events.
He suggested it was hard to say if the cycling courses would
continue without CfSC, as CfSC had the experience and anyone looking for a
cycling course calls them. He doubted
whether CfSC’s flexibility and ability to connect deliverers with customers
would be possible under a City-run program.
Mr. Akben-Marchand explained that CfSC was now in limbo, and wanted
to know what they could do to get cycling.
He suggested that the ideal situation would be that there would be a
cycling program in the City of Ottawa so that they would not have to fight for
it the next year. He suggested that a
gap of not having a cycling program results in a loss of momentum and loss of
connection with the community.
In response to a question from Chair McRae, Mr. Akben-Marchand
explained that CfSC was the only organization running cycling courses for older
children and adults, while the Ottawa Safety Council runs safety courses for
children under 8 years old. He noted
that CfSC was the only bidder for the contract in2003.
Councillor Cullen noted that Councillor Bloess’ motion called for
$50,000 to be given to CfSC for 2007, and wondered what that would pay
for. Mr. Akben-Marchand suggested that
would buy essentially everything from the education program, and all the things
from the safety and promotion program that were cost-effective, such as the
Elementary School Program and the Two Wheels to Work Program. He noted that CfSC would seek external
grants to supplement those funds and gain efficiencies for the City. He noted there were a lot of programs that
were time consuming and not cost-effective that could be cut from the safety
and promotion program. As to whether
they would be able to get anything running in time for the cycling season, he suggested
it would be difficult, but they would definitely be able to get something
running.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes regarding what CfSC
actually did, Mr. Akben-Marchand provided the following information:
·
CfSC attends community events to hand out information and promote cycling;
·
CfSC also works to promote cycling safety in the Media, responding to
Media requests as well as actively pursuing Media opportunities.
·
CfSC counts and keeps track of people contacted. This figure was 5,434 for 2006.
·
CfSC runs seminars in workplaces and community centres on various
aspects of safe cycling, as well as winter cycling seminars.
Councillor Bédard suggested that part of the problem is the fact that
the contract does not reflect much of what CfSC is doing in the field of
safety, education, and promotion. He
suggested perhaps the Request for Proposal was too specific, and perhaps the
contract should be expanded. Mr.
Akben-Marchand noted that part of the safety and promotion program was to
develop new programs, and that when the RFP was put out the elementary school
program did not exist and thus could not be counted. He agreed with Councillor Bédard that it would be a very good
idea to move some of the numbers around so that the contract worked more
effectively. He did not know how having
funding vs. a contract would affect insurance.
He noted that the only way CfSC has been able to get insurance has been
either by having a contract with the City or if all the instructors were
Ontario Cycling Association members, which would cover only the Can-Bike
Cycling Programs.
In response to Councillor Bédard’s questions, Mr. Flainek suggested that
the additional activities undertaken by CfSC were fully recognized by staff and
those were part of the safety and promotion.
He understood that CfSC had secured additional funds and run additional
programs, but stood behind staff’s numbers on the education side. He suggested that the City has gone out into
the community and found other providers who would be interested in undertaking
the education portion. Staff felt they
could leverage their internal resources on the promotion and safety side, and
put together a dynamic group modeled after the Integrated Road Safety
program. As an example of what the City
could do, he referred to an outreach program, cancelled in 2004, where the City
went to schools and had the Ottawa Safety Council go out to schools and run
safety programs, reaching approximately 22,000 students at a cost of about
$10,000.
In response to questions from Councillor Leadman regarding the targets
given for the cycling courses, Mr. Akben-Marchand confirmed that CfSC exceeded
the targets set by staff. Councillor
Leadman expressed her confusion as to why staff was displeased with CfSC’s
performance, if staff were the ones that set the targets. Mr. Flainek explained that staff set an
initial target of 170, and had envisioned in their talks with CfSC that this
number would grow, but it did not.
Chair McRae asked legal counsel for her advice as to whether discussions
regarding the contract were better done in-camera or in open session.
Ms. Valerie Bietlot, Legal Counsel, suggested there
was no legal authority to go in-camera merely to discuss a contract. One would only go in-camera to discuss, for
example, legal advice about the contract or personal information such as the
performance of particular members of the service deliverer.
Councillor Bloess inquired about several aspects in
regards to the contract, such as if there was any non-compliance with the
contract. Mr. Akben-Marchand explained
that in 2006 the item that was causing the funding delays was that the City
requested detailed financial statements, which CfSC was not willing to
provide. He noted that there was a
requirement in the contract to provide financial information, which CfSC
did. He suggested the dispute was over
the level of detail.
Councillor Bloess replied that there seemed to be an
extensive report, which provided the activities undertaken by CfSC and the
service delivered. He wanted staff to
confirm whether CfSC provided service within the parameters of the
contract. Mr. Flainek explained that
staff did not debate that CfSC had actually delivered 185 students, above the
set target of 170. However, he
suggested that the issue was that the City was spending $82,000, and staff did
not believe that this was the best way for the City to spend that money.
Mr. Flainek suggested that, while the City would need
to spend money and continue with the education program, perhaps it could be
done in a better format. He suggested
that maybe the CfSC could continue to deliver their programs at a more
reasonable price. He maintained that
the City was happy with many of the services delivered by CfSC; however, he
believed the City could do it better, and suggested the change was an
efficiency that staff looks forward.
Councillor Bloess wondered if staff would be able to
put a cost on the existing Integrated Road Safety Program. He noted that the cost of the Integrated
Road Safety Program was quite significant, and suggested there was no way that
the City could deliver a similar program for cycling at the same cost as CfSC,
especially when doing it internally.
Mr. Flainek explained that with the Integrated Road
Safety Program, they have three partners; Public Works invested $70,000 and
other departments contributed in terms of staffing. He suggested this is exactly what he would like to do from the
cycling promotion end. At the same
time, he noted that the Integrated Road Safety Program also deals with cycling
issues, and other programs areas touch upon cycling as well. He suggested that staff were looking to
extrapolate some of the resources in other departments.
Councillor Bloess, with reference to Mr. Flainek’s
earlier comments, wanted to know if CfSC was prevented from listing their
courses in the City’s Recreation Guide.
Mr. Akben-Marchand explained that they did not have any trouble,
but suggested it was more of a timing issues, as the current contract ran from
January 1 – December 31, and in order to get into the 2007 activity
guide all the course booking had to be done by the second week of November.
Councillor McRae inquired as to what the CfSC’s total
annual budget was and roughly how it was broken down, along with several other
questions relating to the operations of CfSC.
Mr. Akben-Marchand provided the following information:
·
The total budget for CfSC was approximately $100,000.
·
The advocacy and membership aspect is kept financially
separate from the programming aspect, which is essentially the City’s contract,
plus whatever grants they can acquire for that year, and fees for various
services.
·
He estimated their advocacy to be around $3,000 -
$4,000, which is funded entirely on its own, largely through memberships and
donations, and not through City funding.
·
He explained that roughly, $96,000 is spent on
programming, with $83,000 of this money coming from the City of Ottawa, the
remainder was coming from grants, for example from the Trillium Foundation and
the Ministry of Transportation.
·
Regarding the operation of the courses, Mr.
Akben-Marchand explained that if the course is run through a community centre,
the centre will give CfSC a flat rate, usually around $200 to cover the
materials and instructor, and they will charge course fees to the students.
·
He explained that if CfSC runs the course and charges
the students directly for the courses.
Councillor Bloess indicated that he would be moving a
motion to go in-camera.
Peter McNichol, a cycling
instructor, pointed out the newspaper article stating that Ottawa was the 23rd
best city in providing sustainable status for transportation, which includes
cycling, cycling paths and cycling courses.
He noted that the public was not being educated about anything more than
pathways and helmets. He explained the
instructors, through CfSC, teach defensive cycling as defensive road training
is taught to drivers. He advised that
he had been a cycling instructor for twenty years and taught through the Safety
Council, Citizen for Safe Cycling, and the City of Kanata. He believed that the CfSC, dollar for
dollar, was doing an excellent job. He
believed that staff, instructors and everyone else had to work together to get
things done. He supported staff working
with CfSC and other groups better, and believed that CfSC and the instructors
needed a partner. He maintained that he
would not work for an organization that did not know anything about
cycling. He expressed his frustration
that the numbers were not better; that cycling was not promoted as well as
swimming; and that people only heard about helmets, and not about things like
shoulder checking and stopping at stop signs.
In
response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Flainek provided the
following clarifications:
·
TDM was a program brought forward by the former Region
with a capital operating budget of close to $500,000 and 4-5 staff.
·
The initiatives within the TDM were about managing the
demand for and trying to reduce the impact of car travel by looking at
different solutions such as walking, cycling and transit initiatives.
·
PWS Staff works closely with Transit Staff to promote
transit, and part of the TDM Program, walking and cycling have been a huge
initiative.
·
At the beginning of the TDM Program, cycling,
pedestrian and transit promotion were separate programs.
·
With Budget cuts, Staff pulled those resources
together, and there are now 1½ staff working in the whole TDM Program, which
now includes all three of the once separate programs.
·
Cycling is a key pillar of the TDM Program.
·
The City dealt with CfSC from 1992 to 2003, and the
contract in question ran for the past four years.
·
There was only one applicant available at the time the
tender was issued for this contract.
The low number of bidders at the time could be that the bidders had to
consider whether it would be cost-effective for them to compete against whoever
was currently doing the job, as CfSC already had things set up.
·
Since then, there had been some interest from other
groups in delivering various aspects of the program.
·
There are two contracts - one for the promotion and
safety side, and one for the education side.
·
The City is looking at bringing in-house the promotion
and safety aspect by developing a new model, delivering the program with the
department’s own resources, extending it to other departments, and looking at
existing resources. At the same time
with those dollars, and with both internally and externally partners, the City
could actually set small contracts out to the industry.
·
With respect to the educational side, staff had gone
out to some of the other groups and asked if they would be willing to take on
the administrative role, and there are indications that there may be some
service providers’ interest in bidding.
·
There are services that could be provided immediately
and could be sent out for contract.
Staff is currently working on a model explaining the requirements and
anticipates the release within the next 3 to 6 months.
Councillor Leadman felt that in 3-6 months would be
well into the cycling season, and by the time staff put out the tender for the
contracts and wait for a response, there would likely not be anything working
effectively in 2007. She stated that
she did not see anything effectively and immediately replacing what is
currently being provided through CfSC.
She suggested there was no real plan and no dollar value attached to the
delivery of the plan. She also
suggested that, when talking about how much the education costs per person, the
figure only looks at the actual deliverable on a course, and does not speak to
any of the other elements, such as the school program. She noted that the contract was broader than
just the course itself, and its resources assisted in the delivery of workplace
seminars, community seminars, school programs, public inquiries, and
information booth programs. She
therefore suggested the value of the contract was being limited to the actual
number of people who took a course, as opposed to looking at a deliverable at
this scale.
In response, Mr. Flainek suggested that staff would
have some of the things up and running within this year. Concerning the numbers mentioned in the
presentation, he explained that one table is concerned with cost per student,
this is the $33,000 on the education side; separate from that is the $49,000
for the promotion and safety. He
suggested that the City wanted to put together the cost on the education side
so that they could see what CfSC was undertaking for training for individuals
that paid for a course, and to show the subsidy that the City was
undertaking. He advised that he was not
aware that they were going to community centres, and asking to run courses and
in return paying more money to run a course.
He did not dispute any of the numbers that have been presented, and suggested
this is what he would have expected as a minimum as far getting out into the
community and reaching forward with a promotion and safety program.
Mr. Flainek pointed out that the Program was cut; and
the City no longer has any budget for it, so staff has to go through their TDM
operating budget for funds, and use dollars in their capital funds. He also pointed out the need to go forward
in an integrated approach and look for partners internally and externally to be
able to roll out this program, and that this was part of the delay in going
forward.
Councillor Holmes directed her questions to Mr.
Hewitt, beginning by commenting that the Community and Protective Services
(CPS) Department has hundreds of agreements with hundreds of groups. She wanted to know if he thought that their
engineering contract was a flexible enough instrument to use when working with
a community group in partnership as they provide services on our behalf. She wondered if perhaps they should hand
over the money and organization over to CPS, as that department has the
experience working with such groups.
Alternatively, PWS could change the instrument and continue with the
group but under a different kind of arrangement with the City.
Mr. Hewitt pointed out that a large part of the
problem was the specific contract, and specific expectations that are difficult
for an organization such as CfSC to meet.
He suggested that if there was intent to continue on formal basis with
CfSC that a grant arrangement might be a more appropriate vehicle to use. He agreed that his department would
definitely communicate and discuss the issues with CPS, as they have a lot of
experience in this regards. However, he
was not sure that arrangements should be made directly with that department, as
the type of activity being discussed relates to the PWS Department.
Councillor Cullen explained that cycling was an
important element of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). He expressed his concern that the item
before Committee was a result of an inquiry that he made at the January 17
meeting. He questioned staff as to why
a report was not submitted to the Transportation Committee when this change was
first contemplated. He did not have a
problem with staff looking at value for money, however, he feels that dealing
with the issue after the fact was problematic.
Mr. Hewitt agreed with Councillor Cullen’s point and
advised that the specifics from last year and the election year had caused
staff difficulties with their timeline.
He agreed that it would have been more appropriate to have brought the
item forward earlier. He suggested that
this would normally be something that staff would aim towards in anticipation
of a budget, which they knew this year would be late. As it turned out the budget did not give staff any opportunity to
discuss this, and many other issues in the transportation area. Thus, staff did not find an opportunity to
bring these issues forward.
Referring back to the Deputy City Manager’s
memorandum, Councillor Cullen reiterated that it spoke about a revised Cycling
Safety Promotion Program, modelled after the Integrated Road Safety
Program. He asked if they should expect
a report to come to this Committee. As
it looked like there was no money for 2007, he also asked if the Committee
should expect receiving a report outlining those initiatives with budget
implications for 2008. Mr. Flainek
responded that staff, in the next 3-4 months, could bring information forward
to give the Committee an understanding of what would be accomplished as the
program moved forward. Councillor
Cullen said that he looked forward to seeing this report and noted the
availability of the existing service that has been well delivered for the
public through Citizens for Safe Cycling.
He did not see the two in conflict and indicated that he would be
supporting the motion by Councillor Bloess.
Councillor Bloess explained that, while he understood
that staff was trying to go in a different direction, he felt that there was a
gap. He suggested that if staff felt
the City was not getting good value for service or under a contract, there was
nothing wrong with going back and evaluating it and finding another way to
approach it. However, when he looked at
the tentative approaches to collaborate resources within Corporate Services, if
he were to quantify some of the value and the costs of those programs or
departments, he believed that they would be blown through the roof.
Mr. Flainek explained that the integrated approach
says to those who are interested in cycling and are currently undertaking
initiatives, that they need to be talking to each other more so that combing
those resources is more focused for the corporation. He did not see a significant increase in operating or staff costs
to undertake that. For example, he
noted that the Police Services undertake various enforcement programs along
with PWS on cycling, which would now become part of the integrated
approach. Mr. Flainek suggested that
this was the type of model being pursued by staff, not increasing money or
staff time.
Councillor Bloess asked if there would be any
additional cost or if the various departments would be able to absorb
everything. Mr. Flainek explained that
the individual branches and departments were already doing activities that relate
to cycling, so they are spending resources to do that. He maintained that they were looking at
combining all these different areas and getting a more focused approach. He noted that there were savings, such as the
$49,000 eliminated from the Budget. He
did not expect to find this amount of money in all the rest of the departments
to that level, so they needed to go out, partner, and try to get back the
program to its status. He explained
that they have 1.5 staff and have some Operating Budget to take care of their
entire TDM Program, including the three components, one of which is
cycling. He advised that staff could
see what they could do with respect to helping out both from a staffing level
and a dollar level.
Councillor Bloess stated that he did not understand
how they were going to deliver the same level of service, with the same or less
money. Mr. Flainek replied that,
presently, Councillor Bloess was correct, they did not have the money to
provide service at the same level.
However, he anticipates that through partnerships staff might be able to
get back to that level in a short period.
Councillor Wilkinson expressed concern about notice
given to CfSC not to renew their contract before staff had a program ready to
replace the existing service. She feels
that staff should have brought forward a report to Council explaining this
decision. She also feels Councillors
had been left in limbo by not keeping them informed that the service was not
going to continue. She disagrees with
the staff statement on the efficiency of the $49,000 cut, and felt that that
Council were mislead at Budget when cutting all the safety programs and
cycling.
In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s question, Mr.
Flainek advised that staff would still be doing an integrated approach on
cycling if the CfSC contract was extended.
He also advised that part of the reason for not having a program was
that there was no discussion at Budget.
Concerning efficiency, Mr. Hewitt pointed out that staff had to look
throughout the Department’s budgets to try to determine areas of
reduction. He reiterated staff’s
concern that on a contract basis, this was not a high value for money
situation, and that staff felt there might be opportunities to provide some of
the capabilities offered through the CfSC contract. He advised that staff did not intend to have an exact equivalent
in terms of the capabilities. He
believes there would be success with the integrated program, and the intent was
to move forward in a different direction in providing some of the capabilities
previously offered through the CfSC contract in a different manner.
In response to further conversation regarding the
service provided by CfSC and their proposed involvement with this integrated
approach, and other inquiries by Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Flainek provided the
following answers:
·
Staff paid CfSC $49,000, expecting them to do what the
City is ending up doing, which is to contact the Recreation Department, talk to
the Police and the Health Department, and to take these resources to look at an
integrated approach.
·
He acknowledges that although this was not writing in
the contract, it was brought up in discussions with CfSC in the last four
years.
Councillor Wilkinson felt that perhaps the issue was
people not understanding what was in the contract as opposed to whether they
did or did not fulfil it.
Chair McRae then stepped in and explained that Mr.
Hewitt indicated to her that they were getting dangerously close to items that
he felt were going to be discussed in-camera.
Chair McRae directed her inquiries to Tom Fedec,
Manager, Financial Planning acknowledging his presence to speak specifically on
the money issues. She asked where the
money would come from, should the Committee decide to support the Bloess Motion
for $50,000 in funding to CfSC. Mr. Fedec
explained that, short of Mr. Hewitt finding the money within his Department’s
Operating Budget, and with the Budget already approved, staff would have to
look at Citywide Reserve Funds to acquire this one time request, which would be
a budget pressure for the following year, should Council approve the
continuation of this Program.
Chair McRae then asked Legal Staff if it would be
advisable to have a friendly amendment to the Bloess Motion to include the
source of the funding for 2007.
Ms. Bietlot, Legal Counsel, advised that the amendment would allow
for specific direction in terms of where the money would come from. Furthermore, Chair McRae stated that she did
not believe that the Committee’s intention was to ask Mr. Hewitt to go back,
open his Operating Budget, and cut items.
The
Committee then considered the following motion:
Moved by Councillor R. Bloess:
That,
pursuant to Sections 13(1)(b) and (f) of the Procedure By-Law, the
Committee move In Camera for the purpose of receiving legal advice and
discussion of personal information.
CARRIED
Following a brief
In Camera session, the Committee carried on with further questions to staff.
In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s questions
regarding where funding would come from, should Committee decide to provide
some funding, staff provided the following comments:
·
Mr. Fedec explained that with the Budget already
approved without this money included, Council would presumably have to direct
staff to put the funding in as a one-time item for 2007, and fund it from
Citywide Reserves.
·
Mr. Fedec suggested that Council could also direct the
City Manager to work with the Executive Management Committee (EMC) Team to try
to squeeze out the money across the number of different departments, if this
was the will of Council.
·
Mr. Hewitt noted that they had just been though a
difficult budget period and had endured a number of reductions on a wide
variety of areas. He suggested that
$50,000 was not laying around waiting to be spent on this activity; he also
suggested that the idea of a one-time funding out of the Reserve would be the
most appropriate option.
·
Mr. Hewitt suggested that should the Committee wish to
move a motion that had any kind of continuation of a contractual arrangement
with CfSC, it should specify that they would be going on a sole-source basis,
as there is no longer a mandate to extend the current contract.
Councillor Bloess agrees with staff saying that they
need to look at other ways of doing business; however, concerning the timing,
he thought something should have happened in the Fall to evaluate how staff was
going to do business, and have something in place as they move forward. He suggested that to suddenly make a cut in
the budget and then be debating it after the fact made no sense. He also suggested that staff scrape the
$50,000 out of existing budgets, and clarified that his motion would be a
direction to staff to scrape the money together, turn it into a form of a grant
to get through this year, and come back to Council with alternatives that will
show if they could get better value for money.
Councillor Cullen
noted that, as Mr. Fedec had mentioned, the easiest way to go would be through
Citywide Reserves. He suggested that,
on this basis, most people could support the motion, for it is clearly a
one-time event. Councillor Bloess then
accepted Councillor Cullen’s friendly amendment that the money be taken from
Citywide Reserves.
Councillor
Bloess then read his motion:
BE
IT RESOLVED that $50,000 funding be allocated for a grant with Citizens for
Safe Cycling for programming in 2007 to be taken from Citywide Reserves.
At the request of Councillor Bloess, Mr. Fedec
clarified for the record that it was his understanding that it would be a
$50,000 grant for 2007 to be funded from Citywide Reserves, and advised that
this was achievable. He then deferred
to Legal Counsel in regards to Chair McRae stating that this would not reopen
the Budget. He stated that, in response
to situations occurring throughout the course of the year, Council will
sometimes agree to do something that is not provided for in the Budget, and
staff would make recommendation for a one-time funding.
Ms. Valerie Bietlot, Legal Counsel was of the opinion
that the above motion was still a revisiting of Council’s decision, as Council
decided not to renew this contract, and not to approve the funding. She noted that Council approved the budget
very recently, which essentially approved the cut. In her opinion, bringing the money back would be revisiting
Council’s decision, which is in essence reconsideration. Thus, the item would need to rise to
Council, and Council would need to suspend the rules in order to consider it.
Councillor Doucet
wondered if his comments were useful, since according to the Legal Counsel,
Committee could not open up this discussion at all. Before proceeding with his comments, he asked if he could move
money from the asphalt budget in his Ward to this project. Mr. Hewitt recommended against doing this
since the asphalt budget falls under the Capital Funding and this Program is an
operating issue, therefore this is not an appropriate source of funding.
Councillor Doucet made the following observations
regarding the City’s funding for cycling:
·
He has never seen anything but the cycling and the
pedestrian budget reduced.
·
The only Capital Project that they have ever had went
for a cycling lane last year.
·
He had seen staff reductions, $500,000 taken out of
TDM.
·
The only people that seem to be doing any work were
CfSC, and now the City was going to cut them.
He noted that is an unhappy relationship between CfSC
and TDM staff, and suggested that perhaps next year they should look into
moving them to the CPS Department, which is used to handling contracts, and are
feisty, argumentative, and hard-working folks.
He suggested that this Program was the only thing that the City was
doing for cycling, noting that we were supposed to be moving towards a more
sustainable City.
He expressed his concern that there are millions of
dollars in the Capital Budget for a record level for new roads, with nothing on
the cycling side. He suggested that in
the hours it took debating this $50,000 grant, they could have paid for it with
the number of hours they had been chatting with staff. He indicated his support for any motion that
came forward providing something to do with cycling this year.
Councillor Leadman spoke on the move from a contract
to a grant. She wondered who monitors
and manages the grant, and who sets out the parameters. She did not like
hearing that there would be less accountability with a grant. When asked to explain a mechanism through
CPS in this regard, Mr. Fedec said that he knew CPS has a more elaborate
process and staffing to handle grant applications, reporting requirements with
this funding stream. He apologized for
not being up to date in terms of all the different procedures that they have in
place.
Councillor Leadman also expressed her concern with
moving this activity to CPS for the grant, when in fact it is a TDM
activity. Mr. Hewitt cautioned that,
while his department could certainly work with CPS to utilize their framework,
the subject matter appropriately belongs to his department. He suggested the departments should make
sure that they work together to try to get the best value for the dollar, even
on a grant basis, to move forward on TDM initiatives that rightly rest with his
department.
Councillor Leadman further commented that this motion
only deals with 2007, and the same situation would arise the next year. She suggested that there should be a plan in
place as to how it would move forward.
Chair McRae agreed with the comments made by Councillor Leadman,
explaining that Councillor Bloess was amending his motion to reflect concerns
about accountability. She asked Mr.
Hewitt if he would take it as direction from the Committee that he would report
to them in a reasonable period regarding this issue so that they could have a
chance to debate it before they set the 2008 Budget. She suggested that this report could include some of the outcomes
from the grant, which she hoped the committee and Council would approve. Mr. Hewitt agreed that the motion would be
acceptable, as it was one time funding, and maintained that his department
would be coming back to committee with a way forward, before the budget. As
well, he thought that reporting to Committee with the result of how the grant
approach worked would also be acceptable.
Councillor Cullen stated that he would be supporting
Councillor Bloess’ Motion, as it was one time funding from Citywide Reserves to
bridge a particular situation. He
suggested it was unfortunate that the replacement strategy from staff would not
arrive for another 3-4 months. He suggested
that the present discussion was something that should have happened in the
context of that report before the 2007 Budget.
He suggested CfSC does good work, their quarterly reports show that they
are contacting over 5,800 people, and they have done good work in meeting the
mandate that they had set before them.
He looked forward to staff’s report because the City has not put in
sufficient resources to meet the need for cycling, an important element of the
Transportation Master Plan.
Councillor Holmes also felt it was unfortunate that
they had to spend so much time on such a small item; however, she stated it had
been useful to determine what the problem has been all these years and why we
find ourselves in this situation. She
hoped that this was not a short-term relationship, that the City was not going
to jerk CfSC by saying that there is some short-term money this year, but they
were gone next year. She suggested that
the coordinated approach is not an approach where they would be on the ground
teaching seminars and in every school, the kind of program that CfSC had. Out of interest, Councillor Holmes, passed
out and summarized some of the key points contained in a memorandum dated 23
February 2007 from the Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the
Environment on the subject of Car vs. Transit Subsidy (copy on file with
the City Clerk). She explained that
cyclists and pedestrians are our cheaper commuters, yet noted the City was
spending their money on the most expensive commuters. She expressed that she would be supporting the Motion at Council,
and thanked the Committee and staff for taking the time and effort to talk and
try to reach a resolution.
Councillor Wilkinson stated that she too would be
supporting the Motion. She hoped that
when staff came back with a report, it would show how to do an integrated
approach that CfSC will be involved in, and that it would be a comprehensive
one. She hoped to receive this report
by the end of June because Council would be in Budget Deliberations come July. With respect to grant, she said that many of
the grants that are not just money, they are almost a pursuit of service
agreement, with a detailed application made every year showing what the
organization is doing. She suggested
that because this was coming part way through the year, they had to have some
sort of indication of what the work plan would be using this grant. She also suggested this would also give some
leverage at Council to explain it to the other members.
Chair McRae asked Legal Counsel to explain what would
happen if the Motion was before Council.
Ms. Bietlot explained that in her opinion, the opinion distributed by
the City Solicitor still stood, that it would be a reconsideration of a Council
decision. Therefore, suspension of the
rules would be required at Council in order to deal with the item. She believed that nothing heard at the
Committee changed this opinion. She
offered that she would double check with the City Solicitor and advise as soon
as possible if there is a change.
Councillor Holmes inquired if all the festival grants
that came mid-year last year needed a suspension of the rules. She wondered if this decision would mean
that every time there is an emergency during the year for which there are
reserve funds, there has to be suspension on every single item. Ms. Bietlot did not believe so, but based on
the advice the City Solicitor gave on this particular situation, she believed
the City Solicitor’s opinion that suspension of the rules required at Council
still stood. Her opinion was based on
the fact that Council at Budget had decided not to renew the arrangement. She confirmed that she would get back to the
Committee within enough time that they could make an informed and wise decision
at Council.
The
Committee then considered the following motion:
Moved
by Councillor R. Bloess:
WHEREAS Citizens for Safe Cycling have been active in Ottawa since
1984 and have been partnered with the City of Ottawa providing cycling courses
and educational programs;
WHEREAS the proposed removal of the City of Ottawa’s purchase of
service agreement for educational programs and courses will result in the
closure of their office;
WHEREAS the uncertainty over ongoing funding and contracts impacts
on the group’s ability to program;
WHEREAS the promotion of alternate and sustainable modes of
transportation is in line with the goals of our Official Plan;
BE
IT RESOLVED that $50,000 funding from Citywide Reserves be allocated to
Citizens for Safe Cycling for educational and safety programming in 2007 in
accordance with the normal conditions attached to City Grants.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): Councillors
R. Bloess, A. Cullen, C. Doucet, M. Wilkinson, C. Leadman, M. McRae
NAYS
(0):
