8. GREEN PARTNERSHIP PILOT PROGRAM

PROGRAMME COMMUNAUTAIRE PILOTE DE PARTENARIAT ÉCOLOGIQUE

Committee recommendation

That Council approve the extension of the pilot phase of the Green Partnership Program for an additional 12 months ending December 31, 2008 with no additional funding and that staff report back to Committee and Council on the program results.

Recommandation du Comité

Que le Conseil approuve le prolongement de la phase pilote du Programme de partenariat écologique pour une période de 12 mois qui prendra fin le 31 decembre 2008, et ce, sans financement supplémentaire, et que le personnel donne un compte rendu au Comité ainsi qu’au Conseil sur les résultats du programme.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Public Works and Services dated 1 November 2007 (ACS2007-PWS-SOP-0009).

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Counseil

1 November 2007 / le 1 novembre 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par:

R. G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services / Services et Travaux publics

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, Director,

Surface Operations/Opérations de surface

(613) 580-2424 x21110, John.Manconi@ottawa.ca

City Wide / à l’échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2007-PWS-SOP-0009

SUBJECT:	GREEN PARTNERSHIP PILOT PROGRAM
OBJET :	Programme Communautaire Pilote de Partenariat Écologique

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the extension of the pilot phase of the Green Partnership Program for an additional 12 months ending December 31, 2008 with no additional funding and that staff report back to Committee and Council on the program results.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver le prolongement de la phase pilote du Programme de partenariat écologique pour une période de 12 mois qui prendra fin le 31 decembre 2008, et ce, sans financement supplémentaire, et que le personnel donne un compte rendu au Comité ainsi qu’au Conseil sur les résultats du programme.

BACKGROUND

During consideration of the City Corporate Plan on September 28, 2005, City Council approved a motion that Cleaning the City and Greening the City be added to the Neighbourhood Agenda in Ottawa’s first City Corporate Plan 2006-2009.  The motion further resolved that staff pilot a community-based Green Partnership Pilot Program to encourage and support community involvement in keeping the city clean and green. 

Consequently, on November 30, 2005 Council approved the recommendations contained in the Cleaning the City and Greening the City Report that focused on the City services aspect of the Cleaning the City and Greening the City Neighbourhood Agenda Actions. 

During the 2006 Budget process, Council approved the budget submissions for funding of these services including a $1M Capital allocation to pilot the Green Partnership Program. Thus on April 12, 2006 Council approved an overview of the framework, eligibility criteria and associated details to implement, monitor and manage the $1M pilot grant program.

DISCUSSION

The Green Partnership Pilot Program was implemented during the period of April 2006 to December 2007. The final deadline for grant applications was June 15, 2007. This report provides an overview of results from the pilot program, input collected through stakeholder consultations, and recommendations for the future of the Green Partnership Pilot Program.

Objectives of the Green Partnership Pilot Program

The Green Partnership Pilot Program was developed to address a need expressed by City of Ottawa residents that maintenance, cleaning and greening are considered part of Ottawa’s essential services. This program was developed to seek opportunities to enable the community to participate in the cleaning, greening and beautification of the City, while complementing the City’s own greening and cleaning initiatives. The objectives of the Green Partnership Pilot Program were to provide funding for sustainable community-based cleaning and greening initiatives, and to leverage the community’s resources resulting in cost effective projects. Priority was given to projects that:

• Demonstrated commitment to keeping the city attractive and green and reflect the values of sustainability;
• Contributed to a healthy and beautiful City;
• Demonstrated and promoted leadership in environmental stewardship through innovative methods;
• Reflected the existing qualities and unique characteristics of the community;
• Showcased City facilities for emerging best practices;
• Involved and engaged community stakeholders;
• Facilitated change in public perception;
• Included a strategy for long-term sustainability.

Summary of Approved Projects and Outcomes

Community interest in the Green Partnership Program has been strong and has generally increased over time. Over 200 groups and individuals showed interest in completing community based greening and cleaning projects through the Program. These inquiries resulted in ninety-two (92) applications being submitted on or before June 15, 2007. Of the applications received, 75% or sixty-nine (69) applications met the objectives and were awarded funding through the Green Partnership Program. Of the 92 applications received, seven (7) projects did not meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of the Green Partnership Pilot Program, thus were denied funding. The remaining projects were either withdrawn or referred to other funding programs.

A wide variety of projects were approved, covering both environmental and/or beautification objectives, and reflecting the broad range of community interests and priorities. Document 1 provides details of approved Green Partnership Pilot Project applications that are cross-referenced to the project locations. Projects included shrub, tree and flower plantings, interpretative signs, pathway enhancements, and graffiti prevention. Projects were completed on various common grounds across the city, including school grounds, parks, community gardens, community gateways, and road right-of-ways. All approved projects supported the objectives of the Green Partnership Pilot Program, and met the Council approved eligibility criteria. The Program creatively partners with local communities to deliver on the community’s priorities in cleaning and greening the City. The Green Partnership Pilot Program has extended the objectives of a clean and green City to include non-City owned common grounds such as school grounds and NCC lands. Green Partnership projects are generally well distributed across the city. Document 2 provides a map that illustrates the locations of approved projects.

The Green Partnership Program has provided excellent value. For every City dollar allocated to projects, the community contributed approximately an additional 2 dollars through cash and volunteer labour contributions. Through this program, the City will realize over $1.75M in value for an expenditure of approximately $575,000. The applicant must match each grant awarded through the Program with cash or in-kind services. In many cases the applicants provided more funding or in-kind services than the minimum required. Table 1 provides an overview of the community and city investments into the Green Partnership Pilot Program. The community will continue to contribute to the projects, as they have committed to maintaining the projects in the long-term, and ensuring their sustainability and upkeep. This Program is well appreciated by the community, as there are limited opportunities for residents to receive funding to support cleaning & greening projects outside of this funding program. To date, Surface Operations Branch has not incurred any additional operational costs as a result of approved projects.

Table 1: Green Partnership Pilot Program Community Contributions and Budget Expenditures

	Community Investment	City Expenditures
Total Value of Community Contribution	$1,174,800
Total Green Partnership Pilot Program Budget		$1,000,000
Approved Grants		$431,000
Program Coordination, Advertising, Communication and Recognition		$144,600
Total Community Investment/Expenditures	$1,174,800	$575,600
Remaining City Funds Available for Continuation of Pilot Program		$424,400

Based on the stakeholder consultations to date, there is general support for the program, appreciation for the community commitment required to implement and sustain approved projects, and an indication that the projects have potential to meet the objectives of the Green Partnership Program. Document 3 provides a summary of stakeholder consultations.

Support for the program is also evident based on the influx of applications received on the final deadline for applications which was June 15th, 2007. On that single day, the number of applications received nearly doubled from the total number received to that point.

As a result of the rush of applications, many projects received funding approval late in the planting season, and as such were not able to fully complete their projects before the end of the pilot phase. An additional season is required to enable the approved projects to fully establish. In addition, the Branch continues to receive requests for funding through the Program. A full assessment of the achievements of the program will be completed at the end of the extended pilot phase.

Staff Recommendation

It is felt that a definitive recommendation regarding the future of the program is premature due to the significant proportion of projects that are yet to be competed in full. Therefore, it is recommended that the Green Partnership Program pilot phase be extended for 12 additional months ending December 31, 2008 with no additional funding and that staff report back to Committee and Council on the program results. This recommendation is based on careful analysis of:

• The public’s interest in the program during the pilot’s two seasons (April 2006 to June 2007);
• The scope of the approved projects and their strong alignment with program objectives; and
• Extensive stakeholder consultations.

Should the pilot program be extended for one more year, staff recommend that the deadline for applications be set as April 15, 2008, as this will allow staff the necessary application processing time before the spring planting season begins, and will ensure that approved projects can be completed before December 31, 2008, which is the end of the pilot phase.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Ottawa 20/20 establishes that Ottawa will be a Green and Environmentally Sensitive City. Healthy natural and environmentally sustainable green spaces contribute to this objective in many ways. Trees and green landscaping can improve local air quality by intercepting particulate matter and other air pollutants, and improve water quality by providing for natural infiltration and preventing erosion and sedimentation. Trees also provide natural habitat to support urban biodiversity and provide resiliency to help prevent spread of invasive species and adapt to longer term changes including changing climate. Green infrastructure also helps to reduce temperatures (thus mitigating the urban heat island effect and making the City more comfortable and energy efficient) by providing shade and transpiration. Use of low maintenance and environmentally sustainable plant material (e.g. native species) also will reduce maintenance and watering requirements

The Green Partnership Program has very positive environmental implications for several reasons:

• It provides direct benefits as described above through use of City lands and other common grounds. A substantial portion of greenspace in Ottawa is owned by the City and the contribution of these lands if they are maintained and enhanced in an environmentally sustainable fashion would be significant.
• It provides for learning and increased capacity for environmentally sensitive landscaping in the general community through completion of projects and the showcasing of innovative ideas and Hallmark Projects. This knowledge can extend beyond specific projects involved in the Green Partnership Program.
• It provides another opportunity for the City to demonstrate and showcase environmental leadership, and reinforce the City’s commitment to be a good steward of the environment and partner with its residents. This directly supports the commitment in the Environmental Strategy for the City of Ottawa (2003) that states that the City will demonstrate and promote leadership in environmental stewardship through application of innovative methods and practices. This commitment was further developed in the Corporate Environmental Action Plan for 2004-2008 that states that the City will “demonstrate and promote leadership in environmental stewardship by developing City facilities, lands, parks, forests, and roadways as showcases for environmental best practices”.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommendations for the Green Partnership Pilot Program are City Wide.

CONSULTATION

Consultation was a necessary component in the development of the recommendations for the future of the Green Partnership Pilot Program. A survey was circulated to approximately 120 people. As of October 17, 2007, the due date for comments, 25 written submissions were received, providing a 17% rate of return. Document 3 provides a summary of results of the stakeholder consultation. The following were invited to participate:

· External stakeholders

o All applicants and program participants

o Environmental Advisory Committee

o Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee

· Internal stakeholders

o Surface Operations staff (roads, parks, forestry operations)

o Green Partnership Pilot Program Allocation Committee consisting of:

§ Safety & Traffic Services Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Mobility & Area Traffic Mgmt Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Infrastructure Management Division, Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Technical Support Services Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Forestry Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Parks Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Business & Client Services Division, Parks & Recreation Branch, Community & Protective Services Department

§ Environmental Sustainability Division, Economic & Environmental Sustainability Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department

§ Comprehensive Asset Mgmt. Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Program Properties Management Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Design & Construction Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Corp Development &Environmental Law Division, Legal Services Branch, City Manager's Office

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding was approved for $1,000,000 in the 2006 Capital Budget for the Green Partnership Program – Pilot I/O 903790, as noted in Table 1 the funds available to continue the Pilot to December 2008 is $424,400.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Table summarizing Green Partnership Pilot Program project applications

Document 2 – Map illustrating location of Green Partnership Pilot Program approved projects

Document 3 – Summary of Results of Stakeholder Consultation

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of this report, the Public Works and Services Department will proceed with implementation of the recommendations.

DOCUMENT 3

Summary of Results of Stakeholder Consultation

This document summarizes the comments received on the Green Partnership Pilot Program, up to and including October 17, 2007.

A survey was circulated to approximately 146 people. As of October 17, 2007, 25 written submissions were received, providing a 17% rate of return. The following were invited to participate:

· External stakeholders including

o All applicants and program participants

o Environmental Advisory Committee

o Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee

· Internal stakeholders

o Surface Operations staff (roads, parks, forestry operations)

o GPPP Allocation Committee consisting of:

§ Safety & Traffic Services Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Mobility & Area Traffic Mgmt Division, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Infrastructure Management Division, Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Technical Support Services Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Forestry Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Parks Division, Surface Operations Branch, Public Works and Services Department

§ Business & Client Services Division, Parks & Recreation Branch, Community & Protective Services Department

§ Environmental Sustainability Division, Economic & Environmental Sustainability Branch, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department

§ Comprehensive Asset Mgmt. Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Program Properties Management Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Design & Construction Division, Real Property Asset Management Branch, Business Transformation Services Department

§ Corp Development &Environmental Law Division, Legal Services Branch, City Manager's Office

The most significant and commonly raised comments identified through the survey and verbal meetings have been captured under each question. In general however, there appeared to be a common agreement amongst most respondents that the Green Partnership Pilot program is beneficial to the City of Ottawa.

1. How important do you think it is for the City of Ottawa to promote and fund volunteer programs geared towards cleaning and greening?

Important	18
No Opinion	0
Unimportant	1

· When a volunteer organization carries out a program invariably it is done with more enthusiasm. This enthusiasm often makes up for some of the inexperience but the volunteers often source some experts that the particular program could not normally afford. With a small amount of support funding everyone wins. The program gets done – the taxpayer doesn’t carry a year round burden – the local community benefits from the improvement.

· The program engages people in the greening of their community and in so doing, fosters a sense of ownership and connection

· People need to feel involved in their community. We can affect the way we live, people shouldn’t have to accept ugly

· Ideally increase civic pride and reduce littering

· Allows citizens to become involved with beautifying public property

· Community-based volunteer groups are able to leverage volunteer labour and additional financial support therefore increasing the city’s investment many times over. In addition volunteers and the community in general will have a sense of ownership, ensuring that community cleaning and greening continues in the future.

· I feel it very important for the City to take on this role to promote keeping the city clean. If the city does not encourage it, no one will

· The city should be doing far more in relationship to “greening” our neighbourhoods and learning from the positive experiences of others. We still haven’t a comparable recycling/composting program in relation to other cities, so why should people be concerned with cleaning and greening.

· I feel it is very important for the City of Ottawa to fund such programs, it only benefits the community as a whole, a sense of belonging.

· Not very important because it is merely an excuse for the City to neglect its properties. Once a property is clean it becomes a site for abuse by advertisers putting in flyer and newspaper boxes, billboards purporting to be benches, and bus shelters with ads that obstruct the view of oncoming traffic at intersections.  A much better aesthetic value for our tax dollars would come from a complete ban of all advertising on city property, roadside right of ways especially.

· I consider this issue a key for municipal government – “think global, act local” is a very effective way to help restore the health of the planet and to teach next generations about living within our environmental means.

· There is a need for the public to have an outlet to do these types of projects within their communities. If funding is not available through services that the city provides, this grant program allows these types of projects to be accomplished.

· Important due to the high cost associated with the city trying to fund the upkeep and maintenance of public areas. Community groups are willing and able to provide some of the services. It fosters responsibility and pride in their contribution and their community

· Programs like these help promote community spirit and foster confidence in the community that the city is a willing partner in their relationship

The report has been amended to include a recommendation to extend the program beyond its pilot phase

2. Did you have a positive experience working with the City of Ottawa’s Green Partnership Program?

Positive	16
No Comment	0
Negative	0

· The people involved were terrific

· Positive experience, but results were negative. Existing qualification/regulations that prohibit payment of maintenance precluded our involvement

· The GPP provides people with an alternative to demanding that the City Forces do the work

· City staff for this program was extremely positive and helpful. However, I did find the application form to be redundant and lengthy.

· Every thing was well laid out, and easy to understand

· We installed a windmill aeration system to improve the aesthetic look of our park and the water quality of the stream running through our sub-division and entering the Jock River. We applied for a grant in order to buy a second system but it was turned down because it was private property (common area).

· Frustrations only in that it takes so long to get the final answer – I would liked to have this project completed by the middle of June. I do understand that some things take time when due process must be followed.

· Yes, the support and teamwork with the City of Ottawa was great.

· Positive in the first year although plagued with bureaucratic requirements.  

· Getting the money took a LONG time. We had people waiting over two months to be paid. For us, as a starting garden, that does not give us a good reputation. Plus, the two reports were a surprise. There was no mention of those.

· My experience working with the City’s GPP has been exceptionally positive. Staff was very helpful in ensuring that our application was complete and gave valuable advice.

· Although generally a positive experience, it has been difficult to devote sufficient time to the review process with a large number of applications received at one time. A key point on such projects is the absolute requirement to take sufficient time to properly evaluate what is proposed and to clarify with the community what can and cannot be done under the program criteria.

· The contact with the city was very positive and helpful. Our questions were answered and we were able to send additional information in as needed.

· When the community became aware of the program, the association was quite elated in thinking of where the community would be best served. It took some effort to obtain quotes on the work to be prepared, but the application document helped to put it all together. I think the association would look forward to completing another document in the event the greening program is repeated.

3. Was the level of effort committed during the administration process worth the amount of funding received?

Worthwhile	9
No Comment	1
Time Consuming	2

• The forms have gotten better, but they are pretty complicated. The formula took a little figuring out. Needs more work. I think many people would be intimidated by the form
• Didn’t receive funding
• While the effort was worthwhile, it was probably not necessary as a more succinct application could have gathered the necessary information more effectively
• We are able to afford to beautify our area, so it is very worth while
• Obviously not…. No funding received.
• The optics of spending tax payers money is delicate
• Absolutely not.  However, I got a lot of compliments from people passing by and from others who saw me from their windows in high rises.  Even the garbage truck driver’s helper called out in passing “You are doing a good job!”
• It was worthwhile because we got so much money. The administration was not onerous. The two reports were surprising and unexpected.
• I cannot offer helpful comment because we have not received funding as of yet. I can say that while the administrative effort required for this funding application is on par with other similar funding initiatives, the support offered by the GPP during the process is unmatched in my experience.
• The application process was quite straight forward
• There was some information that was required to be sent in which we felt was not needed for our particular project, however, we can appreciate the fact that all applications should be treated the same. Any amount granted is that much less that we need to fundraise for, so it was definitely worthwhile
• Absolutely. The amount of funding is worth more than the admin process since we are volunteers

4. How did you learn about the Green Partnership Program?

Direct Marketing	1
Poster	1
Brochure	0
Spring Cleaning the Capital Launch	2
Spring Cleaning the Capital Kit	3
Radio	1
Newspaper	3
Other	9

5. Do you think the Green Partnership Program was effectively publicized?

Yes	8
No	8

· More articles, more pictures, more follow-ups showing activities, great potential for good PR, stories about individuals and groups affecting change, stories showing how your tax dollars can be multiplied, Target seniors – gardening is on of the best ways to get exercise. Would there be any benefit from involving a representative from user groups to meet to share what their experience has been?

· The community has become more aware of the GPP. Particularly those people and groups that are interested in improving the aesthetics for public space.

· Possibly working through the local community associations would have also been very effective

· Since 80-90% of Ottawa is rural, I would suggest getting the information out to local community papers such as “The Packet” “EMC”, and “News From The Valley”. And Councillors should also reach their various ward communities with this type of information and help push these initiatives.

· I hate to say this after my tirade against advertising, but you could put up a plaque on the property explaining who did the work and tell about the purpose of the program.

· Unsure, I didn’t see how it was marketed. Was it sent to all o the community associations?

· If we hadn’t attended the info night at school or signed up for SCTC I wouldn’t have known about it. Perhaps more radio/newspaper ads.

· The association learned of it but no citizen took notice and advised the association. I think citizens need to be better informed.

· Workshops with school board

· Promotion through active living campaigns

· Suggest a story to CJOH or regional contact interview groups

· All grant programs should be presented in a similar fashion and make it clear what each is about.

· Form a base list of groups and communications build on them

· Temporary signs at project site

6. Do you feel your Green Partnership project has fostered Community Pride through environmental stewardship?

Fostered Community Pride	15
No Comment	1
No Community Impact	2

· I hope so! It looks great and has high visibility

· It created attachment to the community and helped foster community pride and identity, I anticipated vandalism for example that has been minor because I think of this pride

· I hope that there is a photo album being kept as it will best illustrate the enthusiasm/community pride or ‘community building’ efforts.

· Everyone in our community is very proud of the results of this project judging from the comments I constantly receive. We have been able to engage local youth and community members in maintenance. There has been no vandalism experienced so far.

· It has made myself and my BIA aware of city efforts to keep our area clean as well as make it more appealing

· At our own expense as we were not awarded funding

· Started to and I feel confident that it will upon completion of the project

· The outcome and community support of the garden was amazing. It was great to watch a community come together (adults, youth and children) we had people from all areas coming to see the garden every weekend and asking to help plant and seed.

· This stretch of Richmond Road now looks quite presentable because a few other property owners fixed up the city right of way after I started on the bus stop area.

· Fostered Community Pride, at least in our case. We have some very dedicated and interested people who came together for this project who would not have were it not for the GPPP.

· The First Avenue Public School community is committed to greening the schoolyard with a view to making it a multi-purpose green space – schoolyard used daily by 450 students, city-supported playground in a densely populated area of the urban core, natural recreational area for onsite Glebe Parents Daycare. The community is proud to consider itself “environmentally friendly” and supports efforts to “walk the talk”. Environmental stewardship of Ottawa includes schoolyard greening.

· Our project is not completed and thus far has no impact. It is our hope that the completed park area will be utilized and be a source of community pride

· Absolutely, the whole neighbourhood has started to see serious results and more volunteers are coming forward.

· We are getting the children in the community involved as well, which we hope will help to foster pride and ownership in the community for years to come

· Not sure about this one. Some residents are not in favour of stewardship because they believe they can be held accountable and liable. However, there is pride amongst the association members from a project perspective.

· It will be best to judge this in a couple of years

7. Please share your ideas or suggestions for modifications to the program.

· Keep it going and get more people involved. Community Associations might be good contacts.

· Re-examine funding of plant maintenance (plant maintenance should not have matching funds required)

· I would suggest a digital history of before and after pictures for some of the sites. This would be valuable for reporting on the success of the program and also provide a visual reference for groups taking on similar projects.

· As much communication as possible during the decision process is appreciated – regular updates of application status help.

· Documentation and follow-up of project to ensure sustainability of greening is important, also clearly define other fellow programs that are out there to educate program reviewers and applicants alike

· The program should have a deadline – we are all human and function better with deadlines – the deluge of applications was evidence of that. Re-consider whether school grounds are duplication of existing grants (e.g. Evergreen etc.); similarly BIA funds are clearly directed to beautification so re-consider whether this grant money should go in that direction. Trail development should be considered as ‘greening’ in the sense that it promotes walking/cycling and is there for good for the environment and the City is currently very remiss in not directing any funding to either trail maintenance or trail development.

· Since our common area park and lake are on private property (even though we pay taxes and the city provides no comparable parkland for our community), there is not much the city will do to improve the area.

· The only thing I found to be a little stressful, was the amount of time to coordinate the whole process. By the time all the paperwork was done and approved the garden time was limited to one month only. The support was great by the City of Ottawa

· Cut out the red tape in the approval system.  Have a workshop on appropriate perennials to use in the various sites.  

· Be more upfront about what paperwork is required, Process the cheques MUCH faster or give us a timeline as to how and when the cheques will be cut. Demonstrate results. I know a large sum was given out, why not share the results through the web page / handout? I would love to see what others did. By doing this, I may take their ideas for my community.

· The only suggestion that I have is that the City dedicates more resources to this program so that GPP applicants hear in a more timely fashion if their projects qualify. Because of tender process timelines and our relatively short construction and planting seasons, any project that affects areas where children play requires significant planning before execution.

· Forestry Services recommends that tree planting not be included under the GPP. There has been some confusion by applicants as to which program is more appropriate for their project if it includes tree planting. Forestry Services is better positioned to make recommendations regarding tree planting and action the planting itself, if appropriate. We feel that eliminating duplication of funding opportunities from these two City grants will make the application process more straightforward for applicants as well as program coordinators.

· It would be helpful to receive the funding earlier to take advantage of the weather (however we have been waiting for some documentation to receive our cheque so this may not be typical of all applicants). i.e. instead of a June deadline, an April deadline might allow more projects to be completed during the summer months.

· How about getting rid of poison Ivy? It runs rampant in the unopened access lanes and unopened road allowances all through the community. The poison ivy limits the community’s use of the lanes. Fore example, people use them for walking, and getting access to the beaches, and to the Torbolton forest.

· More focus on; ROW, Tree Planting, parks, environment

· Need resources to monitor completed projects including state of GPPP signs

· Hallmark – takes time to develop this scale of project, Clarify hallmark definition, Appoint grant ceiling – recommendations to keep it for another year

· More definition to cleaning and to trails – speak with Donna Willliams and Gill Wilson, re pedestrian linkages – potential sources. – Have a ceiling on Hallmarks

· Is beautification an objective?

· Sustainability must be mandatory – no hanging baskets

· BIA’s Beautification is their responsibility under the act.

· Pressure washing and painting light standards – should these be eligible projects?

· Can cleaning component be separate from greening? Suggest that projects must have green component

· Maintain, enhance, preserve, green infrastructure

· Definition of publicly accessible space – ok with current, include not for profit as long as common ground/publicly accessible.

· Recommend to have ecological design component not to be included in matching funds

· Deadline dates – make the deadlines earlier – perhaps in sync with forestry’s deadlines Perhaps there should not be a restriction on other funding grants from the City so that a multiple source project can be created.

· Inserting in the criteria for future projects some mention of environmental benefit in addition to the "greening" aspect- which might in turn widen the competition for grants and make the end results more meaningful and enduring (and even sustainable)

· Simply adding green plants and shrubs to the look of our city is not in itself an environmental objective - but they could be if environmental benefits were given a higher and clearer priority in the program objectives than the assumed links with such concepts as "green stewardship" and "sustainability" and if project grant applications showed how greening could contribute to the environment.

· The GPPP does not clearly provide environmental benefits. The projects to date are more on the landscaping/beautification side of things. If the GPPP really wants to be a 'Green' program it should be funding energy efficiency, air quality, climate change, water quality, land conservation, sustainable transportation and other such programs.

· Given the unfunded nature of programs like the City's Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan I would rather have the GPPP's financial resources redirected to funding unfunded staff positions in the environment directorate or unfunded programs that are of high quality but currently gather dust on shelves as they are starved of appropriate implementing funds.

8. Please advise if you feel there are Terms and Conditions that need to be modified, deleted or added.

· Site program closeout has to be better understood

· Wherever possible simplify the application – there seems to be some duplication. Those having dealt directly with the applications would have a better sense of where there was misunderstanding or where the process could be simplified.

· Recommend that groups be allowed to spend their funding within one year of receiving the grant and not by the end of the calendar year. This allows groups that apply for fall funding to complete their project the following spring.

· Difference between eligible and appropriate (addressing the City as a whole) but then are we a design service – groups don’t have the design resources – do we state minimum sizes and salt tolerant species

· Creation of trails cannot be a project on their own they have to plant trees, shrubs, etc

· The application was changed as we tried to address the needs of the applicant – this needs to be mentioned to council.

· Recommendation to see 100% funding for landscape plan

· We need to set up guidelines as to what is on the plan – clearly label existing vs. proposed

· Provide with the application a sample application already filed out and a sample sight plan

· The issue of proof of liability insurance threw schools into a panic because they did not know how to respond to this requirement. Like the City of Ottawa, school boards always have comprehensive liability insurance, which covers all of their facilities and the activities that take place within them, and the school community of administrators, teachers, custodians, children, parent volunteers, visitors, and contractors. No school in the public education system has its own individual liability insurance. It would help if this requirement were waived or modified for schools, particularly since the school board would not approve projects if their insurance policy did not cover them.

9. Please provide comments or suggestions you have regarding the application and approval process

· Greening has to be a priority with cleaning on a lower tier priority and avoid politics, better plans to ensure legibility and minimize impact upon road allowances.

· Expedite timing of approvals – while appreciating that there were numerous submissions in June, giving approvals in mid-Sept. makes it difficult to get some projects properly launched with adequate time for planting and ensuring funds are spent by Dec. 31. In other words, the projects are time sensitive with planting/weather etc.

· Due to the large number of applications that were received at the deadline it may be advisable to not have a deadline for applications but, rather receive and process them throughout the year. This would alleviate having a bottleneck of projects for the committee to review at any one time.

· Need Parks and Recreation represented

· Need a better idea of what/what not allowed in parks (difference between eligible vs. appropriate)

· Better define what is not eligible along streams

· Because we had more than enough money our comments as a committee were not as important, as long as the applicant met the eligibility criteria then the would generally be accepted

· Straightforward one list that SOPs has approved

· Approval or input from all is necessary

· Highlight important committee members for each project

10. Additional Comments:

· The city should maintain its public spaces as a good example on maintaining property. I had to sign a form guaranteeing that I would maintain our new beds as I drive by the weeds in the new rock beds on Terry Fox Drive.

· Keep up the good work! I have been able to refer a number of people to this program when our budgets or service levels restrict our ability to perform the function that they want.

· This program is an excellent ‘community development/ community building’ initiative and is extremely efficient as it makes the tax dollar go a lot further by working in tandem with the community and local resources. The program is also in line with Council’s intent for a ‘green’ City. It would assist if those working with the community knew the community very well and could address need versus want/ design versus appropriate design/ existing neighbourhood features so that what is being proposed is consistent with community aesthetics and plans (not the desire of a few individuals). That said, the process cannot become so cumbersome that nothing gets done!

· There should be less bureaucracy and far more involvement from citizens groups. We need to look at communities holistically and find ways to break down barriers to environmentally friendly projects. These improvements will take on a life of their own and the more neighbourhoods embrace opportunities, positive peer pressure will result in continued and expanding “green initiatives”. Give us back some of our tax $ and watch us “fly”.

· It might be worth sharing some of the ideas with the various groups that have successfully completed part of the program. We could learn from each other. Similarly I imagine some projects were turned down or not accepted – would they learn from some of the successful projects?

· I hope I do not sound overly negative. Our questions were answered quickly and the staff was professional in dealing with us. With two exceptions (outlined above), this was a very positive experience.

· Thank you for your consideration of our project.

· Although this program allows for community groups to accomplish beautification projects, there has always been a concern that some of the projects are not aesthetically or functionally appropriate for City property (i.e. landscape plans for entrance features which are more appropriate for residential landscapes as opposed to mass plantings that are more appropriate for road sides that are viewed from a vehicle). There is a struggle between allowing the community to create what they want for their neighbourhood and the City requiring functional, aesthetically pleasing landscapes for City owned property.

· We were very pleased to be the recipients of the grant for which we applied. We hope this worthwhile program continues

· Need to better outlined the other sources of available funding include city as well as other i.e. Evergreen

· Project participants must be responsible for reinstatement of the land to its original form should they not be able to sustain their project.

· Outline examples of what we want them to do

· When forestry services plants trees the get on their watering and maintenance program

· GPPP application to be modified to have a part for TREE – tear away page or a separate contact