OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL

25 February 2009

ANDRW S. HAYDON HALL

10:00 a.m.

 

MINUTES 61

 

 

The Council of the City of Ottawa met at Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, on 25 February 2009 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

 

 

The Deputy Mayor Wilkinson, presided and the Deputy City Clerk led Council in prayer.

 

 

The National Anthem was performed by Cantarra.

 

 

Announcements/Ceremonial Activities

 

RECOGNITION - 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF ORLÉANS

 

Deputy Mayor Wilkinson recognized that the year 2010 marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the St-Joseph of Orléans parish.  Councillors Bob Monette and Rainer Bloess presented Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, President, 150th Anniversary Organizing Committee, with a framed proclamation. 

 

 

PRESENTATION – 2008 UNITED WAY CHEQUE PRESENTATION

 

Deputy Mayor Wilkinson, Councillor Jan Harder and Nancy Schepers announced that $576,818 was raised during the 2008 City of Ottawa United Way / Centraide Employee Campaign.  Michael Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, United Way / Centraide of Ottawa was present to accept these funds on behalf of United Way. 

 

 


Roll Call

 

ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT COUNCILLORS S. DESROCHES, D. HOLMES AND MAYOR O’BRIEN

 

 

Confirmation of Minutes

 

The Minutes of the regular meeting of 11 February 2009 were confirmed.

 

 

Declarations of interest including those originally arising from prior meetings

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

Communications

 

The following communications were received:

 

·                    Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Alerts :

·                    AMO Expresses Concern, Provides Recommendations to Minister on Proposed AODA Information and Communications Standard;

 

·                    Petition submitted by The Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group containing the signatures of two (2) Ottawa residents, asking that the 2009 Budget be reopened and reviewed on a line-by-line basis to find savings equal to the 4.9% tax increase.

 

 

Regrets

 

Councillors S. Desroches (City Business), D. Holmes and Mayor O’Brien advised they would be absent from the Council meeting of 25 February 2009.

 


City Auditor General

 

 

1.             OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - TABLING OF 2008 AUDIT REPORTS  – volume 1

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Council receive and table the following reports from the Office of the Auditor General at its meeting on February 25, 2009, for referral  to the appropriate Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration and approval of the audit recommendations by Council on April 8, 2009:

 

2008 Audit Reports - Volume I

i)    Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and Project Approval Process

ii)   Audit of the Parking Function

iii)  Audit of the Building Code Services Process for 215 Preston Street

iv)  Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical Matters

 

And that, on April 8, 2009, Council refer all audit recommendations where management is in disagreement to the Council Audit Working Group for resolution.

 

RECEIVED AND TABLED to the Council meeting of 8 April 2009 and REFERRED by the following motions:

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/1

 

Moved by Councillor M. McRae

Seconded by Councillor D. Deans

 

WHEREAS on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25 February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and

 

Whereas these Audit Reports have been Tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and

 

WHEREAS the Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November 2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing Committee to allow for public delegations only;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and Project Approval Process be referred to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/2

 

Moved by Councillor M. McRae

Seconded by Councillor D. Deans

 

WHEREAS on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25 February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and

 

Whereas these audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and

 

WHEREAS the Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November 2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing Committee to allow for public delegations only;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit of the Parking Function be referred to the Transportation Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/3

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

Seconded by Councillor J. Harder

 

WHEREAS on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25 February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and

 

WHEREAS these audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and

 

WHEREAS the Auditor General’s reporting protocol, as approved by Council on 26 November 2007, provides for referral of the audit reports to the appropriate Standing Committee to allow for public delegations only;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Audit of the Building Code Services Process for 215 Preston Street be referred to the Planning and Environment Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/4

 

Moved by Councillor M. McRae

Seconded by Councillor D. Deans

 

WHEREAS on 11 February 2009, the City’s Auditor General gave Notice to table at the 25 February 2009 Council meeting, a report entitled "Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1”; and

 

WHEREAS these audit reports have been tabled with City Council on 25 February 2009; and

 

WHEREAS the recommendations arising from the Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical Matters, address issues largely related to the City’s Employee Code of Conduct; and

 

WHEREAS the Management Response agrees with each recommendation in the Audit;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council:

 

1.         Direct the City Manager to amend and consolidate the Employee Code of Conduct and bring forward the revised Code to Council by Q3 of 2009; and

 

2.         Direct the Director, IT Services, to prepare a companion report with respect to extending the current retention period for e-mails to 2 years, including the costs, by Q3 of 2009.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 


 

2.             OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - EVALUATION OF THE FRAUD AND WASTE HOTLINe

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

1.         That Council direct the Office of the Auditor General to continue operating the Fraud and Waste Hotline.

 

2.         That Council direct the City to provide the general public with access to the Fraud and Waste Hotline, the cost of which to be absorbed within the Office of the Auditor General’s current budget of 0.08% of the City's total operating budget.

 

MOTION NO. 61/5

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

Seconded by Councillor J. Harder

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation 2 of the above noted report be amended to add the following:

 

“And that Council provide the City Manager and the Auditor General with the delegated authority to make any necessary changes to the procedures and protocols related to the operation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline.”

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Office of the Auditor General’s Report “Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline” was put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/5

 

 

City’s Meetings Investigator

 

    

1.         REPORT OF THE MEETINGS INVESTIGATOR REGARDING THE CLOSED MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 19, 2008, JANUARY 6, 2009 AND JANUARY 14/15, 2009

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive the attached report and consider the recommendations included within.

 

MOTION NO. 61/6

 

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter

Seconded by Councillor J. Harder

 

WHEREAS the Mid-term Governance Review seeks to identify options to improve the City’s governance structure and, in particular, to enhance accountability and transparency; and

 

WHEREAS the Meetings Investigator has submitted an investigative report with recommendations to improve Council’s procedures regarding in camera meetings;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that recommendations from the Meetings Investigator’s report be referred to the Mid-term Governance Review for consideration and potential implementation; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Meetings Investigator’s contract also be referred to the Mid-term Governance Review to consider any changes that might be necessary after a one-year review.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Postponements and deferrals

 

11 FEBRUARY 2009

 

Motions of Which Notice has Been Given Previously

 

MOTION NO. 60/30

 

Moved by Councillor S. Qadri

Seconded by Councillor D. Thompson

 

WHEREAS the development approvals for the Westwood Community provide for a park with a soccer field and other facilities;

 

AND WHEREAS this requirement was explicitly identified in the drawings referred to in the registered subdivision agreement;

 

AND WHEREAS the plan of subdivision containing the park was registered in 2005;

 

AND WHEREAS the park has not yet been constructed;

 

AND WHEREAS extensive discussions have taken place with the developers with respect to having the park constructed;

 

AND WHEREAS prior to and at a public meeting of the community in November, 2008 it was held out that the construction work would take place over the period between December, 2008 and May, 2009;

 

AND WHEREAS an agreement was drafted to incorporate this timing but this agreement has not been signed by the developers;

 

AND WHEREAS Planning and Environment Committee, pursuant to delegated authority, approved on 27 January 2009 the imposition on the next phase of the Westwood Community a condition of draft plan approval to requirement the terms of the agreement be adhered to;

 

AND WHEREAS, regardless of the timing of the registration of Phase 3, the community is entitled to have Coyote Run Park constructed now;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council approve that:

 

1.                  the City cash $150,000 of the existing letter of credit;

2.                  $450,000 in interim funding be made available to the City Operations Department to permit the construction of Coyote Run Park;

3.                  The developers of phase 3 of Westwood be required to repay the cost of the construction of Coyote Run Park no later than the registration of Phase 3; and

4.                  That the provisions of the Notice By-law relating to the notice of amendments to the Budget be waived.

 

 

MOTION NO. 60/31

 

Moved by Councillor S. Qadri

Seconded by Councillor D. Thompson

 

That Motion No. 60/30 be deferred to the Council meeting of 25 February 2009.

 

                                                                                                DEFERRAL CARRIED

 


25 FEBRUARY 2009

 

MOTION NO. 61/7

 

Moved by Councillor S. Qadri

Seconded by Councillor E. El-Chantiry

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council refer Motion No. 60/30 to staff, with a direction to bring forward a progress report on this matter to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting scheduled for 28 April 2009.

 

                                                                                                REFERRAL CARRIED

 

 

Reconsideration

 

11 FEBRUARY 2009

 

TRANSIT COMMITTEE REPORT 23

 

    

1.         Strategies to support the resumption of public transit

 

 

MOTION NO. 60/19

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes

Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate

 

WHEREAS the recent transit service disruption has impacted many members of the community who have limited financial means

 

AND WHEREAS OC Transpo currently provides approximately 27,000 free tickets per month for distribution by community resource centres

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Council approves $50,000 from the Transit Reserve Fund to allow the distribution of an additional approximately 50,000 free tickets in the month of February.

 

LOST on a division of 11 YEAS to 11 NAYS as follows:

 

YEAS (11):      Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, R. Jellett, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, C. Leadman and C. Doucet. 

 

NAYS (11):     Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.

 
MOTION NO.60/20

 

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes

Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate

 

That Motion No. 60/19 be reconsidered at the Council meeting of 25 February 2009.

 

Pursuant to Subsection 64 (4) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, notice of reconsideration CARRIED on a division of 11 YEAS to 11 NAYS (8 votes required) as follows:

 

YEAS (11):      Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, R. Jellett, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, C. Leadman and C. Doucet. 

 

NAYS (11):     Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.

 

 

25 FEBRUARY 2009

 

Councillor P. Feltmate (as the Seconder of the Motion) asked that the motion of reconsideration be withdrawn.  Deputy Mayor Wilkinson ruled that the motion of reconsideration was WITHDRAWN.  The motion to reconsider having been withdrawn, the City Council decision of 11 February 2009 stands.

 

 

11 FEBRUARY 2009

 

Motions of Which Notice has Been Given Previously

 
MOTION NO. 60/26

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

Seconded by Councillor R. Jellett

 

WHEREAS three significant studies to date have shown Kettle Island as the best location for a bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau; and

 

Whereas Phase 2 of the Interprovincial Crossings study will refine the technically preferred alternative identified in Phase 1 and carry out a detailed Environmental Assessment of alternatives; and

 

Whereas the consulting team of ROCHE-NCE have identified that Kettle Island should be the focus of the next stage of the Interprovincial Crossings Study;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council does not support the inclusion of the Lower Duck corridor in the next study phase.

 

CARRIED on a division of 13 YEAS to 8 NAYS as follows:

 

YEAS (13):      Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, M. McRae G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Bellemare, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.

 

NAYS (8):       Councillors J. Legendre, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, R. Chiarelli, C. Leadman and C. Doucet. 

 

 

MOTION NO. 60/27

 

Moved by Councillor J. Legendre

Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes

 

That Motion No. 60/26 be reconsidered at the Council meeting of 25 February 2009.

 

Pursuant to Subsection 64 (4) of Procedure By-law 2006-462, notice of reconsideration CARRIED on a division of 10 YEAS to 12 NAYS (8 votes required) as follows:

 

YEAS (10):      Councillors J. Legendre, M. McRae, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, D. Deans, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, R. Chiarelli, C. Leadman and C. Doucet. 

 

NAYS (12):     Councillors R. Bloess, El. El-Chantiry, S. Desroches, G. Brooks, G. Hunter, R. Jellett, B. Monette, S. Qadri, M. Bellemare, D. Thompson, J. Harder and Mayor O’Brien.

 

25 FEBRUARY 2009

 

There being no mover and seconder for reconsideration, Deputy Mayor Wilkinson declared the reconsideration LOST.  The City Council decision of 11 February 2009 therefore stands.

 


Motion to Introduce Reports

 

MOTION NO. 61/8

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare

 

That the report from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of the 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1” be received and tabled.

 

That the report from the Auditor General entitled “Office of the Auditor General – Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline” be received and considered.

 

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 36, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36 and Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 be received and considered.

 

And that the Rules of Procedure be Suspended to Receive and Consider a Report from the City’s Meetings Investigator Entitled “Report of the Meetings Investigator Regarding the Closed Meetings of Council on December 19, 2008, January 6, 2009 and January 14/15, 2009”

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT 36

 

 

1.             AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPLICATION FEES BY-LAW FOR GARDEN SUITES

 

 

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS Committee  AND planning and Environment committee AND Recommendation

 

That Council approve the establishment of a fee of $2,600.00 for the processing of extensions of Temporary Use By‑laws for “Garden Suites”, in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Planning Act, and amend the Fees By-law accordingly.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 


 

 

2.             ZONING - 913 HOWIE ROAD

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

1.         That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to amend the existing exception for 913 Howie Road, zoned Rural Residential Subzone 3, Exception 489r (RR3 [489r], to permit a second detached dwelling on the site for a further period from April 13, 2009 to April 12, 2012, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.

 

2.         That the implementation of the Zoning By-law amendment not proceed to City Council until its meeting of April 22, 2009.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

3.             ZONING - 2215 SIXTH LINE ROAD

 

 

Committee Recommendation

 

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

 

That Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 2215 Sixth Line Road from Rural Countryside Zone (RU) to Rural Countryside Zone Exception xxxr (RU [xxxr]) to permit a garden suite on the site for a three-year period, as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2, subject to the following condition:

 

·        That the Owner enter into a Garden Suite agreement with the City of Ottawa as specified by Section 39.1(1) of the Planning Act , setting out that:

 

i)        The garden suite is to be occupied exclusively by the Owner’s parents;

 

ii)      The garden suite is to be removed at such time as it is no longer required by the occupants, at any time prior to expiry of the three-year period; and

 

iii)    The garden suite is to be removed at the end of the three-year period, unless an extension has been requested and approved by City Council, prior to the expiry of the Temporary Use By-law.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

COMMUNITY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT 36

 

 

1.             PARKLAND DEDICATION BY-LAW

 

 

community and protective services committee recommendations as amended

 

That Council:

 

1.         Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.  

 

2.         Direct staff to prepare and circulate a draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies generally as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.

 

3.         Approve that the Staff recommendation be modified to replace Schedule 3 attached to the Draft Parkland Dedication By-law with the Schedule 3 annotated as Option 3 attached to the Staff Memo of 3 February 2009.

 

4.         Approve that Section 17 (1) of the Draft Parkland Dedication By-law, which is related to the proportion of the Cash-in-lieu payments that are allocated to the citywide and district accounts, be modified as follows: 60% Ward and 40% CityWide annotated as Option 3 in the Cash-in-lieu Distribution Options Table in the Staff Memo of 3 February 2009.

 

5.         Approve that the existing funds in the “City Wide Reserve” that have been collected for “Cash-in-Lieu of Park Land” be distributed in accordance with the Wards for the purpose of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Deposits.

 

6.         Approve that Finance Staff be required to report back each year prior to annual budget discussions.

 

7.         Approve that the Parkland Dedication By-Law, Part III 16. (1) (b) be amended to allow for district monies to be allocated to support developments that overlap districts with the  concurrence of the affected Ward Councillors. 

 

8.         Approve that Part II, Exemptions 14 (1) (f) be re-worded to exempt only those schools meeting students’ outdoor recreation needs on-site at the time of development. 

 

MOTION NO. 61/9

 

Moved by Councillor R. Jellett

Seconded by Councillor M. McRae

 

To defer Recommendation 5 of the Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36, Item 1 to the 11 March 2009 Council meeting.

 

LOST on a division of 8 YEAS to 11 NAYS as follows:

 

Yeas (8):          Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, R. Bloess, M. McRae, C. Leadman,

M. Wilkinson, B. Monette and R. Jellett.

 

Nays (11):        Councillors A. Cullen, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare,

G. Brooks, D. Deans, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli, P. Feltmate and C. Doucet.

 
MOTION NO. 61/10

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor G. Hunter

 

That the phrase “Except where already dedicated to a particular ward either by Delegated Authority or commitment of the relevant General Manager” be added to the beginning of Recommendation No. 5.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommendations

 

That Council:

 

1.         Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.  

 

2.         Direct staff to prepare and circulate a draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies generally as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Planning and Environment Committee Recommendation as amended

 

That Council:

 

1.         Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law attached as Document 5 to this report, and that this by-law be approved at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.  

 

2.         Direct staff to prepare and circulate a draft Official Plan amendment to incorporate the parkland dedication policies generally as proposed in Document 4 by February 2009.

 

3.         Direct staff to undertake reporting of parkland dedication by ward.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Item 1, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36 was then put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/10 with Councillor G. Brooks dissenting.

 

 

Motion To Resolve In Camera

 
MOTION NO. 61/11

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Rules of Procedure be waived to permit the receipt of a briefing from the City Clerk and Solicitor with respect to the Ottawa Rapidz.

 


BE IT RESOLVED that Council resolve In Camera pursuant to Subsections 13. (1) (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including staff; (e) litigation or potential  litigation affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals; and (f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, of Procedure By-law 2006-462, with respect to matters related to (1) Audit of the Hospitality and other ethical matters; and (2) the Ottawa Rapidz.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Council resolved In Camera at 12:35 p.m.

 

IN CAMERA SESSION

 

IN COUNCIL

 

Council resumed in open session at 2:20 p.m.

 

 

 

 

2.             MOTION - REVISED ALLOCATION POLICY FOR ARTS, CULTURE AND FESTIVAL GROUPS

 

 

Committee Recommendation as amended

 

That Council direct City Staff to report back to Community and Protective Services Committee in the fourth quarter of 2009 with a more comprehensive update on current allocation funding processes; provide a status on groups that are not considered as part of the current process and provide recommendations that would address these gaps including Councillor involvement and oversight in the proposed process. 

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

3.             BY-LAWS–– MASTER PLUMBERS AND PLUMBING CONTRACTORS - REPEALS

 

 

Committee Recommendations as amended

 

That Council:

 

1.         Approve the repeal of regulations, license requirements and other references related to Master Plumbers and Plumbing Contractors from the following licensing by-laws as detailed in Document 1:

 

(a)        Former Gloucester     By-law 70-2000          Schedule A17,

(b)        Former Goulbourn     By-law 19-95              (whole)

(c)        Former Nepean          By-law 135-2000        Schedule 12,

(d)        Former Ottawa           By-law L6-2000          Schedule 18, and

(e)        Former Vanier            By-law 29-00              Schedule 16.

 

2.         Petition the Province of Ontario to consider establishing a regulatory licensing scheme to regulate the qualifications and business practices of Plumbers in the Province of Ontario.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

4              KANATA NORTH RECREATION COMPLEX: PROJECT PROSPECTUS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

That Council:

 

1.                  Approve the prospectus for the Kanata North Recreation Complex project as outlined in this report, as the basis for the design, construction and operation of the new complex and site.

2.                  Authorize staff to complete the partnership details with the YM-YWCA, based on the proposed partnership framework outlined in this report.

3.                  Authorize staff to proceed with the implementation of the project if the Public Sector Comparator indicates significant facility and site design, construction and operational efficiencies can be achieved per the partnership goals and objectives outlined in this report.

4.                  Direct staff to report back to Committee and Council for approval of any agreements reached with management, design, construction and operational partners in the Kanata North Recreation Complex.

5.                  Authorize staff to enter into discussions with additional parties interested in pursuing co-location and partnership opportunities on-site and report back to Committee and Council with appropriate recommendations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

5.             PRIORITIES FOR THE 2009 COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING PROGRAM AND
CRIME PREVENTION OTTAWA FUNDING (NON-RENEWABLE FUNDING)

 

 

Committee Recommendation

 

That Council approve the priorities for the 2009 Community Project Funding Program identified in this report and receive information about the priorities approved by the Board of Crime Prevention Ottawa.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT 37

 

 

1.         MOTION – POLICY ON SEEKING COST AWARDS

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council confirm its policy on seeking cost awards after successfully defending its positions against community and resident public interest groups such that the City will not seek cost awards from community or resident groups before administrative tribunals and courts unless the case advanced by the community or resident group can reasonably be considered either frivolous, vexatious, in bad faith or an abuse of process under all of the circumstances of the case, subject to concurrence by CSEDC; and

 

That community or resident groups that challenge the City in court also be asked, as part of the litigation, to confirm that they will similarly not seek costs against the City unless the City has breached any of the above noted factors

 

MOTION NO. 61/12

 

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet

Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37, Item 1 be amended by including “ or an individual who is a public interest litigant” after the words “community or resident groups” wherever they appear in the Committee Recommendation.

 

CARRIED on a division of 11 YEAS to 7 NAYS as follows:

 

Yeas (11):        Councillors P. Hume, A. Cullen, R. Bloess, J. Legendre, M. McRae, C. Leadman, M. Wilkinson, B. Monette, D. Deans, P. Feltmate and C. Doucet.

 

Nays (7):          Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Bédard, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, R. Jellett and S. Qadri.

 

Item 1, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 was put to Council and CARRIED as amended by Motion No. 61/2.

 

 

 

2.         Sale of property – 113 Mcarthur Avenue

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Council:

 

1.   Declare the properties shown as Parcels “A” and “B” on Annex “A” attached, containing approximately 234 m2 (2,518.83 square feet), municipally known as 113 McArthur Avenue and described as part of lot 65, Registered Plan 49, being part of part 18 Expropriation Plan CT166094, former City of Vanier now in the City of Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs; and

 

2.      Approve the sale of Parcel “A” on Annex “A” attached, containing an area of 68 m2 (731.96 square feet) municipally known as part of 113 McArthur Avenue, described as part of lot 65, Registered Plan 49, being part of part 18, Expropriation Plan CT166094, former City of Vanier now in the City of Ottawa, subject to any easements that may be required to Pamela O’Donnell for the amount of $7,320 plus survey costs and GST, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

3.                   SALE OF LAND – PART OF LANE at REAR OF 32 TO 36 rOBINSON aVENUE AND 211 AND 215 LEES AVENUE

 

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That Council:

 

1.                  Declare a parcel of land shown hatched on Annex “A” attached and identified as Parcels 1 to 4, containing a total area of approximately 100.62m2 (1083.1 square feet), being part of the lane adjacent to Lots 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22, Registered Plan 190, in the City of Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs;

 

2.                  Approve the sale of the land detailed in Recommendation 1, pursuant to Agreements of Purchase and Sale that have been received, as follows:

 

a)         Parcel 1 containing an approximate area of 33.59 m2 (361.57 square feet) subject to final survey, to Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, for the amount of $3,800, plus GST;

 

b)         Parcel 2 containing an approximate area of 16.79 m2 (189.73 square feet) subject to final survey, to Ian Fraser Hamilton and Josephine Irene Hamilton, for the amount of $2,200, plus GST;

 

c)         Parcel 3 containing an approximate area of 33.59 m2 (361.57 square feet) subject to final survey, to Gary Courville, for the amount of $3,800, plus GST; and

 

d)         Parcel 4 containing an area of 16.79 m2 (180.73 square feet) subject to final survey, to Denis Redmond and Wendy Duschenes, for the amount of $2,200, plus GST.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

4.                   Sale of Property – Part of 2605 Tenth Line ROAD – Avalon Storm Pond

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

That Council:

 

1.   Declare a portion of the property municipally known as 2605 Tenth Line Road and shown hatched on Annex “A” attached, containing approximately 254.8 m2  (2742.73 square feet), legally described as part of Lot 4, Concession 10, Geographic Township of Cumberland being Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 4R-23376, in the City of Ottawa, as surplus to the City’s needs; and

 

2.   Approve the sale of the property detailed in Recommendation 1, subject to any easements that may be required, to Minto Communities Inc., for the amount of $27,400 plus GST, if applicable, pursuant to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that has been received.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

 

5.             OTTAWA OPTION FOR RECEIPT AND CONSIDERATION OF UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

 

 

Committee Recommendation

 

That Council approve the revised Ottawa Option policy, as outlined in Document 1.

 

MOTION NO. 61/13

 

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet

Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen

 

WHEREAS Council previously directed City staff to prepare a Report for Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council to review the Ottawa Option, including an analysis of any weaknesses and options to strengthen the process,

 

AND WHEREAS at the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Meeting on February 17, 2009, the Glebe Business Improvement Area (“BIA”) offered constructive comments to improve and clarify the revised Ottawa Option Policy during consideration of the City staff Report by Committee,

 

AND WHEREAS the Glebe BIA and City staff have been able to work together to agree upon and recommend changes to strengthen the process since the Committee Meeting and are jointly recommending them to Council for its consideration,

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the attached document (Annex 1) entitled: “REVISED OTTAWA OPTION - Corporate Policy Document 1” be substituted for the “OTTAWA OPTION - Corporate Policy Document 1” as set out in Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37, Item 5 and be approved by Council.

 

LOST on a division of 7 YEAS to 12 NAYS as follows:

 


Yeas (7):          Councillors P. Hume, A. Cullen, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G. Hunter, R. Chiarelli and C. Doucet.

 

Nays (12):        Councillors E. El-Chantiry, J. Harder, G. Bédard, J. Legendre, M. McRae, C. Leadman, M. Bellemare, B. Monette, R. Jellett, D. Deans, S. Qadri and P. Feltmate.

 

Item 5, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 was then put to Council and CARRIED on a division of 14 YEAS to 4 NAYS as follows:

 

Yeas (14):        Councillors P. Hume, E. El-Chantiry, A. Cullen, R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G. Hunter, M. Bellemare, B. Monette, G. Brooks, R. Jellett, D. Deans, S. Qadri, R. Chiarelli and P. Feltmate.

 

Nays (4):          Councillors G. Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Leadman and C. Doucet.

 

 

 

6.             INTERVENOr STATUS IN PROCEEDINGS OF INTEREST INVOLVING BANK TOWERS ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD APPEAL

 

 

Committee RecommendationS

 

That Council:

 

1.   Receive, for information, this report on the City’s participation in an application for intervenor status along with other Ontario municipalities in an appeal before the Ontario Divisional Court of the Assessment Review Board’s decision regarding Toronto’s Bank Towers; and

 

2.   Recommend Council support the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s request that the provincial government implement the necessary legislative amendments to the Assessment Act to support the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s current methodology for assessing income-producing properties.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 


 

 

7.             2009 INTERIM PROPERTY TAXES AND DUE DATES

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

That Council approve:

 

1.                  That the 2009 interim property tax billing be set at 50% of the 2008 Annualized Taxes as permitted by legislation;

 

2.                  That the amount protected classes are billed on the interim tax billing be set at the maximum percent of last years' adjusted taxation, as permitted by legislation (50% of the annualized adjusted 2008 taxes);

 

3.         That the following tax due dates be approved for 2009:

i.          Interim:           March 30, 2009

ii.         Final:               June 18, 2009

 

4.         That the penalty and interest percentage charge on overdue and unpaid tax arrears remain at the rate of 1.25% per month (15% per year) unchanged from 2008.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Motion to Adopt Reports

 
MOTION NO. 61/14

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare

 

That the Auditor General’s reports entitled “Office of the Auditor General – Tabling of the 2008 Audit Reports – Volume 1” and “Office of the Auditor General – Evaluation of the Fraud and Waste Hotline”, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report 36, Community and Protective Services Committee Report 36 and Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report 37 and a Report from the City’s Meetings Investigator entitled “Report of the Meetings Investigator Regarding the Closed Meetings of Council on December 19, 2008, January 6, 2009 and January 14/15, 2009” be received and adopted as amended.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Motions of Which Notice has Been Given Previously

 

MOTION NO. 61/15

 

Moved by Councillor R. Bloess

Seconded by Councillor B. Monette

 

WHEREAS, 2010 marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the St-Joseph d’Orléans parish; and

 

WHEREAS, celebrating Orléans’ 150th anniversary is one way of recognizing the founding of one of the first Francophone villages east of Bytown, the capital of Canada, which is now Ottawa; and

 

WHEREAS, the City of Ottawa will be taking part in the celebrations under the theme Proud of our past, celebrating the present and preparing the future to recognize the contribution of community pioneers and builders in the development of the Orléans area; and

 

WHEREAS, the celebrations of Orléans’ 150th anniversary will feature activities commemorating its history and promoting a community that has managed to retain its language and culture, with the desire that this Francophone identity will be passed on to future generations; and

 

WHEREAS, the celebrations of Orléans’ 150th anniversary will create a feeling of belonging to this very vibrant community;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa proclaims the year 2010 as the Year Marking Orléans’ 150th anniversary.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/16

 

Moved by Councillor M. McRae

Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman

 

WHEREAS the City delivers hundreds of services that are important to the lives of the citizens of Ottawa; and

 

WHEREAS there will inevitably be occasions when unanticipated events occur that raise public concern; and

 

WHEREAS elected representatives are contacted directly by residents to voice their concerns and ask questions; and

 

WHEREAS the local media are an effective tool to communicate quickly with a large number of citizens;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City staff be directed to hold timely Councillor and media briefings as a primary tool for getting accurate information out to citizens as quickly as possible when unanticipated issues of significant public concern arise.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/17

 

Moved by Councillor C. Doucet

Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman

 

WHEREAS the Ottawa River is the largest and most important supply of drinking water for Eastern Ontario and West Quebec municipalities;

 

WHEREAS the Ottawa River follows the provincial boundary between Quebec and Ontario;

 

WHEREAS Ontario has established source water protection for all municipalities in Ontario with the authority to prepare source water protection plans for those municipalities;

 

WHEREAS the source water protection plans developed under Ontario’s authority to protect clean drinking water from the Ottawa River will not address source water protection on a watershed basis;

 

WHEREAS taking a piecemeal approach to source protection for communities along the Ottawa River will not satisfy the intent of the Walkerton Inquiry recommendations to protect source drinking water on a watershed basis;

 

WHEREAS, without source water programs being in place on both sides of the

River, the efforts to ensure that our mutual interest in maintaining clean drinking water cannot be met;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa petition the Federal, Ontario and Quebec governments for a source water protection plan for the Ottawa River including all municipalities on both sides of the river for recommendations to protect the public;

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that given the urgency of this matter, that timetable be established with deadlines for responses from all levels of government with an objective of May 31, 2009.

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/18

 

Moved by Councillor P. Feltmate

Seconded by Councillor A. Cullen

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Motion No. 61/17, with respect to a source water protection plan for the Ottawa River, be referred to staff for a report to Planning and Environment Committee’s second meeting in April 2009.

 

                                                                                                REFERRAL CARRIED

 

 

MOTION NO. 61/19

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate

 

WHEREAS in 1908 the first Women’s Day was held in the United States, accompanied by large demonstrations in which women demanded political and economic rights, as well as the right to vote;

AND WHEREAS in 1910 women delegates from around the world met in Copenhagen to propose that Women’s Day become an internationally recognized event;

 

AND WHEREAS the first International Women’s Day was held in 1911;

 

AND WHEREAS in 1997, the United Nations officially called for all countries to mark a day for the recognition of women’s equality;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Ottawa City Council declare March 8, 2009, to be International Women’s Day in the City of Ottawa.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 


Notices of Motion (For Consideration at Subsequent Meeting)

 
MOTION

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

Seconded by Councillor R. Bloess

 

WHEREAS from December 10, 2008 to January 31, 2009 the City of Ottawa experienced a strike by ATU 279, representing OC Transpo bus drivers and mechanics; and,

 

WHEREAS OC Transpo acquired both direct cost savings and revenue losses from this strike, as well as other costs associated with this strike being charged to the OC Transpo budget (including Council-approved mitigation measures and resumption of service fare incentives, among others); and,

 

WHEREAS there have been a number of estimates presented to City Council and published in the media regarding the cost and purported "savings" from this strike;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council direct OC Transpo to conduct an independent audit of the costs to OC Transpo and the City of Ottawa as a result of this strike, to be reviewed by the City's Auditor-General and reported to Transit Committee and City Council;

 

AND THAT such an independent audit include the direct costs (including revenue losses) and savings of the strike to OC Transpo for both the 2008 and 2009 budgets (including the Council-approved mitigation measures and resumption of service fare incentives) as well as the other costs to the City of Ottawa associated with the strike for both the 2008 and 2009 budgets.

 

MOTION

 

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

Seconded by Councillor J. Legendre

 

WHEREAS the Free Thought Association of Canada is running an advertisement campaign on public transit buses that states “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life”; and,

 

WHEREAS these ads are running on buses in Toronto, London and Calgary, but have been rejected by OC Transpo based on their interpretation of their policy that this message “might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system”; and,

 

WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;” and,

 

WHEREAS these fundamental freedoms can be “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms); and,

 

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that a public transit company, city or municipality cannot impose a blanket ban on religious (or political) advertising (Canadian Federation of Students vs. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority); and,

 

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that no individual has a right not to be offended, in particular: “The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of a modern pluralism. People are free to disagree with our beliefs as they wish.” (Chamberlain vs. Surrey School District No. 36); and,

 

WHEREAS the Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated: “The essence of the concept of the freedom of religion is: the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”; and,

 

WHEREAS the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, in Section 14 - Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals, states: “It is recognized that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with the provisions of this Clause (14); and the fact that a particular product or service may be offensive to some people is not sufficient grounds for objecting to an advertisement for that product or service.” ;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that OC Transpo be directed to accept the ads proposed by the Free Thought Association of Canada (subject to the usual charges).

 

 


By-laws                                                                            Three Readings

MOTION NO. 61/20

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare

 

That the following by-laws be enacted and passed:

 

2009-62                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2008-483 respecting planning fees for an application to extend a temporary use by-law for a garden suite.

 

2009-63                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to set the instalment due dates and the interest and penalty rates applicable to the collection of property taxes for 2009.

 

2009-64                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for a municipal capital facility in relation to health services on the lands that are  municipally known as 424 Metcalfe Street and 105 Catherine Street.

 

2009-65                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for a municipal housing project facility on the lands that are municipally known as 424 Metcalfe Street and 105 Catherine Street.

 

2009-66                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to stop up and close part of Harrold Place, Registered Plan 267570.

 

2009-67                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to dedicate certain land in the City of Ottawa as a park (Harrold Place Park).

 

2009-68                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate certain lands on Deer View Avenue and Stedman Street, as being exempt from Part Lot Control.

 

2009-69                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to designate Trim Road Inc, Phase 3 (Notting Hill) at 2200 Trim Road, as being exempt from Part Lot Control and to repeal By-law No. 2009-60.

 

2009-70                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to appoint certain Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in the Real Property and Asset Management Division (Venture Properties Unit), of the Public Works Branch, in the City Operations Department, to enforce the provisions of By-law No. 2008-448, being the Parkdale Market By-law.

 


2009-71                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to appoint certain Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in the Real Property and Asset Management Division (Venture Properties Unit), of the Public Works Branch, in the City Operations Department, to enforce the provisions of By-law No. 2008-449, being the ByWard Market Program By-law.

 

2009-72                     A by-law of the City of Ottawa to amend By-law No. 2004-60 to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in accordance with private property parking enforcement.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Confirmation By-law

 

MOTION NO. 61/21

 

Moved by Councillor D. Deans

Seconded by Councillor M. Bellemare

 

THAT By-law 2009-73 to confirm the proceedings of Council be enacted and passed.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

 

Inquiries

 

From Councillor A. Cullen with respect to the legal ramifications should ads from Free Thought Association of Canada be placed on buses.

 

 

Adjournment

 

Council adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY CLERK

 

MAYOR

 


ANNEX 1

Document 1



REVISED OTTAWA OPTION - Corporate Policy

 

Approved By

CoUNCIL

Approval Date

 

Section

     

Effective Date

 

Subsection

     

Revision Date

 

 

Policy Statement:

 

On occasion, the City of Ottawa receives unsolicited proposals from private sector parties for projects or undertakings.  When the proposal is in the best interests of the City and meets all other criteria provided in the Ottawa Option Policy, the City may consider the opportunity. 

 

Purpose:

 

The City receives unsolicited proposals from private sector parties, which may offer improved services, reduced cost, cost avoidance, or provide other benefits.  The primary objective of the Ottawa Option Policy is to permit the City to receive and consider unsolicited proposals from private sector parties in a manner that eliminates the perception of bias, and ensures transparency, fairness, and best value for the City.  The policy also provides a private sector party with a prescribed process to approach the City with unsolicited proposals that protects their proprietary trade information. 

 

Application:

 

This policy applies to:

·        the purchase of goods and services only

·        all unsolicited proposals received by the City from private sector parties, and

·        all City of Ottawa employees and elected officials.

·        land use and land development are excluded from the scope of this policy

 

Policy Requirements:

 

I.  Eligibility

 

1)      The unsolicited proposal must be submitted to the Manager, Supply Management Division or to a Director, General Manager, or Deputy City Manager having responsibilities that include the areas discussed in the proposal to be considered.

 

2)      The information initially provided to the City, should be at the conceptual level and shall include:

(a)    A profile, highlighting the technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability of the private sector participant, identifying key team members, including members of a consortium, if relevant;

(b)   An overview of the project to be undertaken, the deliverable to be achieved, or the improvement to be made to an existing undertaking, clearly defining the proposed benefit to be realized by the City of Ottawa;

(c)    High level business principles for undertaking the project, including the proposed financial relationship and responsibilities of both the City and the private sector participant, as well as the respective risk sharing allocations; and

(d)   Expectations by the private sector party of the City, including both financial expectations and any staff assistance in preparing or finalizing the unsolicited proposal.

 

3)      Unsolicited proposals shall not circumvent the City’s purchasing by-law, and shall not qualify under the Ottawa Options Policy if in the opinion of the Manager, Supply Management Division the proposal is similar in scope to a current or upcoming competitive procurement that has been issued, or is planned to be issued.   However, if the proposal suggests a different scope, style or approach, that may improve the City position in a material way, the procurement process may be suspended in order to allow the proposal suggestions to be considered.  In this case, only one of the following outcomes shall result:

  1. With the concurrence of the proponent, the tender, proposal, or standing offer will be amended to recognize some or all of the suggestions contained within the unsolicited proposal, and the amended scope of work, or objective will be publicly competed, to allow all interested “bidders” to consider the implications; or

  2. The City will revert back to the original procurement, either planned or in progress.

4)      The Deputy City Manager will determine the eligibility of the unsolicited proposal under the Ottawa Option Policy taking into account such factors as:

 

(i)                  The goods or services are readily available from other sources in a competitive marketplace, and no unique added benefit is being proposed;

(ii)                The proposed project is not of sufficient value to be pursued at this time, within overall City priorities;

(iii)               The City is unable or unwilling to fund its share of the implementation or the costs associated with the competitive process; 

(iv)              The level of effort required of City staff, or the cost of engaging external assistance to consider the proposal, is excessive and would impose too great a burden on existing resources.

(a)                            If the unsolicited proposal is, in the opinion of the Deputy City Manager, not in the best interests of the City, the private sector party will be so advised, and no further action will be taken in relation to the proposal concept.

 

(b)    If the unsolicited proposal is, in the opinion of the Deputy City Manager, in the best interests of the City, the private sector party will be notified and:

(i)             provided with any available information describing the City’s requirements for the goods or services proposed;

(ii)                provided with the evaluation criteria to be considered by the evaluation team, and if necessary;

(iii)               requested to prepare and submit a detailed proposal, at its sole expense, within a prescribed format and an agreed upon timeframe; and  

(iv)              required to confirm in writing their agreement to continue in accordance with the provisions of the Ottawa Option Policy. 

 

5)      All unsolicited proposals received under the Ottawa Option Policy will be open for acceptance by the City for a minimum period of 6 months.



II.   Evaluation

 

1)      An evaluation team will be assembled by the Director to include sufficient expertise to evaluate the detailed unsolicited proposal and include a representative from Supply Management. The evaluation team will:

(a)    evaluate the private sector participant’s technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability to determine whether the capabilities are adequate for undertaking the project;

(b)   evaluate the unsolicited proposal in relation to the evaluation criteria provided to the private sector participant;

(c)    weigh the various aspects and merits of the unsolicited proposal and the business and contract principles, and determine if the scale and scope of the project is in line with the requirements, the funding ability, and/or the interests of the City;

(d)   determine whether the sharing of risk as proposed in the unsolicited proposal is acceptable to the City;

(e)    consider both the level of effort required of  City staff in relation to any proposed benefit, and the degree to which the project conforms with the long term objectives of the City.

 

2)      Based upon the outcome of this detailed evaluation, the City will:

(a)    reject the unsolicited proposal thereby ending any further obligation on the City’s part; or 

(b)   request amendments,  clarifications or modifications to the unsolicited proposal; or

(c)    accept the proposal as being in the best interests of the City and seek approval as follows:

 

                                                   i.      The detailed unsolicited proposal includes attributes recognized as acceptable under section 22 of the Purchasing By-law dealing with the issue of Non Competitive Purchases.   If, in the opinion of the Deputy City Manager, the detailed unsolicited proposal meets any of the sole source criteria that are defined in the by-law, it can be evaluated on a business case basis, with no requirement for further competition.  The proposal will be considered and approved at the appropriate level of delegated authority, or referred to Council if appropriate.

                                                 ii.      The Director shall seek approval in accordance with the delegated authority to consider the proposal for the Ottawa Option procurement process. Regardless of the approval requirement, in all cases, consideration must be made for the need for an external fairness commissioner, in order to ensure independent oversight of the process. 

 

Delegated Authority 

 

1)      The City Manager and Deputy City Managers will have delegated authority to approve the application of the Ottawa Option for undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost or benefit is not expected to exceed $500,000.  City Council will be required to approve the application of the Ottawa Option for all undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost, or benefit is expected to equal or exceed $500,000. 

 

2)      Where funding for the purpose envisioned in the unsolicited proposal is required which Council did not previously approve, a report must be presented to City Council for approval of the required funds. 

 

3)      Following approval of the Ottawa Option, the selection of the successful proponent may be approved by the City Manager, or Deputy City Manager under delegated authority in accordance with the provisions of the purchasing by-law. 

 

 

Ottawa Option Procurement Process

 

1)      Following the approval to proceed with the Ottawa Option, staff in the Supply Management Division in conjunction with the operational unit, will invite competing counter proposals, in a transparent, fair and equitable manner in accordance with the principles contained in the Purchasing By-Law by:

 

a)         communicating the opportunity using an Ottawa Option Request for Proposal (RFP), through an internet based bid distribution network, defining the Ottawa Option procurement process, and the evaluation criteria and associated point weightings,  and allowing sufficient time for any interested party to submit a counter proposal;

b)        providing interested proponents with the main concepts of the detailed unsolicited proposal, including the contract principles and risk sharing framework, while keeping proprietary information contained in the original proposal confidential to the extent possible; and

c)         ensuring that the original evaluation team evaluates all counter proposals received, with any necessary changes to the team membership requiring approval by the Manager of Supply, and the fairness commissioner, if applicable.  

 

2)      If the Ottawa Option RFP results in no counter proposal being received, or if the counter proposal(s) are evaluated and found to be equal to or inferior to the original unsolicited proposal, in the sole opinion of the City, a recommendation will proceed to award the contract under delegated authority to the original private sector party.

 

3)      If the Ottawa Option RFP results in one or more counter proposals being received, and if, in the sole opinion of the City, the counter proposal(s) are evaluated and found to be superior to the original unsolicited proposal, the City will proceed to determine the successful participant through a final procurement phase known as “Best and Final Offer” (BAFO).

 

(a)    BAFO as applied to the Ottawa Option is the process whereby the City will invite the original private sector party and the proponent submitting the superior counter proposal to engage in a BAFO phase. The invitation to participate in the BAFO phase will provide to both participating proponents:

 

(i)                  the general concepts that were considered superior to the original proposal, while keeping proprietary information contained in the proposals confidential to the extent possible; and  

(ii)                the pre-established evaluation criteria or the “basis of award” to be used to determine the successful proponent. 

 

(b)    Offers received in response to the BAFO invitation will be reviewed by the evaluation team and scored in accordance with a pre-established criteria, or alternatively, in accordance with the “basis of award” provision identified through the BAFO process.  The successful proponent will be the proponent offering “best value” to the City. 

 

(c)    In all cases, the basis of award will be “best value” to the City, as defined in the Purchasing By-Law, in the sole opinion of the City.

 

Responsibilities:

 

The Director will be responsible for determining whether the unsolicited proposal qualifies under the Ottawa Option policy from a business perspective, and if the City should continue to entertain the proposal. 

 

The Manager of Supply will be responsible for determining if the undertaking is similar in scope to a current or upcoming competitive procurement.  

 

The City Treasurer will be responsible for the Ottawa Option process that invites and evaluates competing proposals. 

 

The City Manager, or Deputy City Manager must approve any decision to reject an unsolicited proposal, based on supporting rationale provided by the Director.

 

City Council will be responsible for approving the application of the Ottawa Option for all undertakings where the value of the revenue, cost, or benefit is expected to equal or exceed $500,000. 

 

Senior Management is responsible for ensuring that their employees are fully aware of the requirements and for enforcing this policy.

 

Legislative & Administrative Authorities:

 

The Purchasing By-Law, number 50 of 2000, recognizes the Ottawa Option Policy, under section 25 – Unsolicited Proposals.

 

Monitoring/Contraventions

 

All managers shall monitor compliance to this policy.  Failure to comply with this policy may result in employee disciplinary action. 

 

Definitions:

 
Best and Final Offer (BAFO) means the procurement process intended to allow the original private sector party and the proponent submitting the superior counter proposal the opportunity to amend, refine and improve upon their proposal submission so that they more closely align with the City’s objectives, and allow the City to select the proposal that offers the best overall value to the City.

 

Best Value means the optimal balance of performance and cost determined in accordance with a pre-defined evaluation plan.

 

City means the municipal corporation that is the City of Ottawa, as represented by the appropriate management level, in accordance with the Purchasing By-Law, and the Delegation of Authority By-Law.

 

City Council means the elected Council of the City of Ottawa.

 

City Manager means “level one” management at the City.

 

Competitive procurement means a publicly competed opportunity for bidders using one of the several bid solicitation documents, generally distributed electronically.

 

Conceptual Level Proposal means the initial “high level” unsolicited proposal submitted by the private sector party, to be considered by staff under the Ottawa Option Policy.

 

Counter Proposal means a responsive proposal received as a result of the Ottawa Option RFP, from a proponent other than the original private sector proponent.

 

current or upcoming competitive procurement means a publicly competed opportunity for bidders using one of the several bid solicitation documents, generally distributed electronically that originates from a need or requirement by the City to purchase goods or services as contemplated by the Purchasing By-law or the Delegation of Authority By-law or, alternatively, as directed or approved by City Council.

 

Deputy City Manager means “level two” management at the City and includes the statutory positions of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor reporting directly to the City Manager.

 

Detailed Proposal means a proposal prepared in sufficient detail to allow evaluation against the criteria established by the City.

 

Director means “level three” management at the City, and may also include “General Manager” positions.

 

Evaluation Team means the team put together by the Director to review and analyze the proposals, and may be comprised of City staff, external consultants, elected officials and members of the public, as warranted in each case.

 

Inferior Proposal means a competing counter proposal received in response to an Ottawa Option RFP, evaluated in accordance with pre-determined criteria by an Evaluation Team, and deemed to be of less value to the City, than the original unsolicited proposal.

 

Ottawa Option Request for Proposal (RFP) means a public proposal opportunity issued by the City of Ottawa, intended to allow competition in relation to the receipt of an  unsolicited proposal.

 

Private Sector Party means the original sponsor of the unsolicited proposal, that led to the consideration of eligibility under the Ottawa Option, and may be an external private sector vendor or consortium, or any other proponent.

 

Purchasing By-Law means By-Law No. 50 of 2000 of the City of Ottawa, as amended.

 

Superior Proposal means a competing counter proposal received in response to an Ottawa Option RFP, evaluated in accordance with pre-determined criteria by an Evaluation Team, and deemed to be of greater value to the City, than the original unsolicited proposal.

 

Unsolicited Proposal means a proposal received by City staff from a private sector vendor, consortium, or any other proponent, which was not provided in response to a formal request from the City, but which was submitted through the initiative of the proponent.

 

 

Inquiries:

For additional information contact:

Philip S. Andrews

Manager Supply Management Division

Ext. 25176