|
8. BILLBOARD ADVERTISING publicitÉ de panneau d'affichage |
That Council:
1.
Approve ten billboards/street ad
signs on ten city-owned properties as outlined in Document 1 where the signs
comply with the provisions of the Sign By-law.
2.
Approve two
billboards/street ad signs on two city-owned properties as identified in
Document 2 where the signs require a minor variance to the Sign By-law.
3. That City Council delegate the authority for
the identification and approval of future billboard sites on City-owned
properties that meet the above criteria to the Director of Building Code
Services as follow:
a. That billboards that meet the criteria of the Signs By-law and have
Ward Councillor concurrence proceed;
b. That billboards that would require a minor variance and have Ward
Councillor concurrence proceed through the minor variance process; and
c. That billboards do not proceed where there is no Ward Councillor
concurrence; and
d. That Committee and Council receive an annual report on the
delegation in each of the three categories.
4. That staff be
directed to generate alternate sponsorship opportunities to address the revenue
shortfall of $53,000 in 2010 and to include the anticipated annualized
shortfall in revenue for 2011 as a budget pressure in the 2011 budget process.
Recommandations MODIFÉES du ComitÉ
Que le
Conseil :
1.
d’approuver l’installation de dix panneaux
d'affichage et enseignes publicitaires de rue sur dix propriétés appartenant à la
Ville, comme on l’indique dans le Document 1, si les panneaux sont
conformes aux dispositions du Règlement
sur les enseignes;
2.
d’approuver l’installation de deux panneaux
d’affichage et enseignes publicitaires de rue sur deux propriétés appartenant à
la Ville, comme on l’indique dans le Document 2, si les panneaux ne
nécessitent qu’une dérogation mineure au Règlement
sur les enseignes.
3. que
le Conseil municipal délègue au directeur, Services du bâtiment, le pouvoir de
déterminer et d'approuver les emplacements futurs de panneaux publicitaires sur
les propriétés municipales répondant aux critères susmentionnés, selon les
modalités suivantes :
a. que
les panneaux publicitaires satisfaisant aux dispositions du Règlement municipal
sur les enseignes et ayant recueilli l'accord du conseiller de quartier soient
approuvés;
b. que
les panneaux publicitaires nécessitant une dérogation mineure et ayant
recueilli l'accord du conseiller de quartier soient soumis au processus
d'examen des dérogations mineures;
c. que
les panneaux publicitaires ne soient pas approuvés en l'absence de l'accord du
conseiller de quartier;
d. qu'un
rapport annuel sur l'exercice de la délégation de pouvoirs pour chacune de ces
trois catégories soit présenté au Comité et au Conseil.
4. que l’on demande au personnel de créer
d’autres possibilités de commandite afin de combler le déficit de 53 0000 $
enregistré dans les revenus de 2010 et, au cours du processus budgétaire de
2011, d’inclure dans le calcul des contraintes budgétaires le déficit annualisé
prévu dans les revenus de 2011.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
City Manager’s report dated 29 June 2010 (ACS2010-CMR-CMR-REP-0012)
2.
Extract of Minutes dated July 6 2010, to be issued separately.
Report to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee
Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique
and
Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par:
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
City Operations/Opérations municipales
Contact Person/Personne ressource: Nadine Byrne, Manager/gestionnaire,
Corporate Business
Services/Service des affaires municipal, Organizational Development and
Performance/ Service du développement et du rendement
organisationnels
(613) 580-2424
x22658 Nadine.Byrne@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-COS-ODP-0011 |
|
|||
|
SUBJECT: |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
OBJET : |
|||
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council
1.
Approve ten
billboards/street ad signs on ten city-owned properties as outlined in Document
1 where the signs comply with the provisions of the Sign By-law.
2.
Approve two
billboards/street ad signs on two city-owned properties as identified in
Document 2 where the signs require a minor variance to the Sign By-law.
3.
Consider the
approval of eight billboards/street ad signs on seven city-owned
properties as identified in Document 3 where the Ward Councillor has indicated
an objection to billboard/street ad signs on the properties.
Que le
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande
au Conseil :
3.
d’approuver l’installation de dix
panneaux d'affichage et enseignes publicitaires de rue sur dix propriétés appartenant à la Ville, comme on l’indique dans le
Document 1, si les panneaux sont conformes aux dispositions du Règlement sur les enseignes;
4.
d’approuver l’installation de deux
panneaux d’affichage et enseignes publicitaires de rue sur deux propriétés
appartenant à la Ville, comme on l’indique dans le Document 2, si les
panneaux ne nécessitent qu’une dérogation mineure au Règlement sur les enseignes.
5.
d’envisager d’approuver l’installation de huit panneaux
d’affichage et enseignes publicitaires de rue sur sept propriétés appartenant à
la Ville, comme on l’indique dans le Document 3, même si le conseiller du
quartier a déclaré qu’il s’opposait à l’installation de panneaux et d’enseignes
publicitaires de rue sur ces propriétés.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the 2005 budget process, City Council directed staff to seek out advertising opportunities to determine potential revenue from City properties and other assets. In response to this directive, staff collaborated in the development of a comprehensive sponsorship and advertising policy. This policy was approved July 13, 2005.
On December 1, 2005 the City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) inviting qualified firms to submit proposals for the exclusive right to install and manage billboard and/or street sign advertising units on city-owned property.
On June 28, 2006 City Council approved 19
billboards (now referred to as Phase 1) for total revenues of $1.1 million over
five years, including $226,000 to be generated in 2010. Council also approved
the Request for Proposal (RFP) process as the selected method to expand the
billboard program in the future.
Land for the billboards is leased to the
successful proponents for a period of five years, with an optional five years
extension subject to satisfactory performance and sign permit renewals at lease
rates determined through the competitive RFP process.
On November 12, 2008 Council approved a Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee motion to expand the billboard advertising program to
additional city-owned properties.
The second phase of the billboard advertising project, built on lessons learned from Phase 1, was conducted in the following manner:
·
In February 2009 the consultant
filed their final report wherein they recommended 32 potential billboard/street
ad signs on 30 city-owned properties; and
During the consultant’s review, a number of city-owned properties were either sold, re-zoned or removed from further consideration where it was determined that a sign or factors associated with the property could not meet the intent of the Sign By-law. This resulted in 20 potential signs (on 18 individual city-owned properties) generating an estimated $262,000 to $342,000 annually for five years.
In
January 2010 the Corporate Efficiency Savings Program report (ACS2009-COS-ODP-0016) identified the billboard advertising
initiative as having significant revenue potential for the City.
Council approved a revenue target of $770,000 from additional sponsorship
and advertising for 2010, $100,000 of which is to be generated from billboard
advertising and $1.385 million from billboards over the next five years, in
addition to the $1.1 million in revenue generated from Phase 1.
The purpose of this report is to advise on the Phase 2 review of potential additional locations for the installation of billboards on city-owned land.
RÉSUMÉ
Pendant le processus budgétaire de 2005, le Conseil municipal a demandé
au personnel de cibler des possibilités de recettes publicitaires que
pourraient générer les propriétés et autres biens appartenant à la Ville. À
cette fin, le personnel a collaboré à l’élaboration d’une politique exhaustive
sur les commandites et la publicité. Cette politique a été approuvée le
13 juillet 2005.
Le 1er décembre 2005, la Ville a lancé une demande
de proposition (DDP) afin d’inviter les entreprises admissibles à présenter une
demande pour obtenir le droit exclusif d’installer et de gérer des panneaux
d’affichage et des enseignes publicitaires de rue sur des propriétés
appartenant à la Ville.
Le
28 juillet 2006, le Conseil municipal a approuvé 19 panneaux
d’affichage (pendant ce qu’on appelle maintenant la phase 1) représentant
des revenus de 1,1 million de dollars sur une période de cinq ans, dont
226 000 $ en 2010. Le Conseil a également décidé que l’attribution
des nouveaux contrats de location dans le cadre du programme se fera par voie
de demande de proposition.
Les espaces
publicitaires ont été loués aux soumissionnaires sélectionnés pour une période
de cinq ans avec possibilité de prolonger la location pour cinq autres années
si le rendement est jugé satisfaisant, le permis étant renouvelé au taux de
location déterminé pendant le processus de DDP.
Le
12 novembre 2008, le Conseil a adopté une motion présentée par le
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique visant à
élargir le programme de publicité sur panneaux-réclames pour y ajouter d’autres
propriétés appartenant à la Ville.
La
deuxième phase du projet de publicité sur panneaux-réclames, qui visait à
mettre à profit les leçons apprises pendant la phase 1, s’est déroulée
ainsi :
·
En
février 2009, le consultant a remis son rapport final dans lequel il
recommandait l’installation de 32 panneaux d’affichage et enseignes publicitaires
de rue 30propriétés appartenant à la Ville;
Pendant
que le consultant effectuait son examen, un certain nombre de propriétés
appartenant à la Ville ont été vendues, rezonées ou supprimées de la liste
parce qu’il avait été déterminé qu’un panneau ou une enseigne ou des facteurs
liés à la propriété n’étaient pas conformes à l’intention du Règlement sur les enseignes. Après
l’examen, il restait donc 20 panneaux d’affichage ou enseignes publicitaires
possibles (pouvant être installés sur 18 différentes propriétés appartenant à
la Ville) qui devaient générer des revenus pouvant atteindre de
262 000 $ à 342 000 $ par année pendant cinq ans.
En
janvier 2010, on indiquait dans le rapport sur le programme d’économie
d’efficience (ACS2009-COS-ODP-0016) que l’initiative de publicité sur
panneaux-réclames permettrait à la Ville d’engranger d’importants revenus. Le
Conseil a approuvé pour 2010 des recettes ciblées de 770 000 $
provenant d’autres commandites et publicités, dont 100 000 $ liés à
la publicité sur panneaux‑réclames et 1,385 million provenant des
panneaux d’affichage au cours des cinq prochaines années, en plus du montant de
1,1 million en revenus générés dans le cadre de la phase 1.
L’objectif du rapport est de fournir des
renseignements sur l’examen des propriétés de la Ville qui a été effectué au
cours de la phase 2.
DISCUSSION
On
November 12, 2008 Council approved the following Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee motion to expand the billboard advertising program:
Committee
Recommendations as amended
That Council:
1. Direct
the Deputy City Manager of City Operations to work with the Deputy City Manager
of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability and staff from Building
Code Services to identify additional city-owned properties suitable for signage
opportunities;
a) that
any costs incurred to identify suitable locations will be offset by revenues
generated from the Billboard Advertising Program;
2. Direct
the Deputy City Manager of City Operations to return to Council by the 2nd
quarter of 2009 with a list of proposed sites for Council’s consideration;
a) that
once Council has approved the proposed site locations, that a Request for
Proposal process be utilized in order to solicit bids from the outdoor sign
industry;
3. Direct
staff to explore opportunities for corporate sponsorship within City of Ottawa
buildings.
CARRIED
As a result of the above direction from
Council, staff undertook to identify additional city-owned properties for
billboards. The successful completion of the first phase of the billboard advertising
project has provided staff with experience to move forward with Phase 2 and
generate additional revenues.
Property identification process
In order to identify potential city-owned
properties suitable for billboards, staff from Real Estate Services, Building
Code Services and Corporate Business Services collaborated on the development
of a preliminary property list. While there are approximately 3,700 properties in
the corporate real property portfolio, a preliminary screening was completed to
remove properties from further consideration if they were in locations where
signs would not be appropriate or desirable (such as forests, parks,
conservation areas and pathways), if the property was not in a zone (commercial
or industrial) where signs were permitted by the Signs By-law or if the spatial
requirements (separation from residential uses or other signs) could not be
met.
The result of the selection process was a
list of 80 city-owned properties with the potential for a billboard(s) or other
type of sign advertising.
An external consultant conducted a detailed evaluation of the 80 city-owned properties to determine which properties would be suitable and desirable from the sign industry’s perspective for billboard signage based on factors such as exposure to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the type of sign(s) for the individual properties and an estimate of the potential revenue that may be generated. All short-listed properties had to be in full compliance with the City’s Zoning and Sign By-law regulations, in particular the Signs & Advertising Devices on City Roads By-law (By-law No. 2003-520) and the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law (By-law No. 2005-439). Given the size of some of the properties and their configuration, with exposure on two roads, in some instances more than one sign may be feasible.
During the property selection process, the
consultant rejected 49 properties for various reasons (the land had been sold,
Ministry of Transportation prohibiting signage within 500 metres of 400-series
highway, excessive sign density, etc.). The most common factor for rejecting
the property, however, was the lack of exposure to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic resulting in poor exposure to the public and a lack of potential to
market the properties to the sign industry.
In those instances the consultant identified that as development
increases around some of the city-owned properties, the locations should be
reconsidered as traffic and exposure to the travelling public increases.
The final report from the consultant included
a short-list of 32 potential signs on 30 city-owned properties. The following
information was provided:
·
The
legal description of the property, a site plan including probable location of
billboard(s), site features, setbacks, the zoning and sign district designation
for each property, etc., and
·
Market
analysis information such as a business plan/rationale as to why specific
locations would be attractive to the outdoor sign industry, and where possible,
estimates of potential revenue per location.
During internal consultations and further investigation, 12 potential signs were removed from further consideration. The reasons were: two of the city properties were sold; five properties were located in districts where billboards are not permitted; two properties were located in the Greenbelt (where billboards are not permitted); two of the proposed locations for signs would have resulted in a disruption in sight lines for drivers entering and exiting the city property; and on one property there were a combination of significant concerns from the stakeholders that could not be mitigated (driver distraction, trees having to be removed and a location too close to the entrance to the Airport Parkway).
The 20 proposed signs on 18 city-owned properties identified in Document 1, 2 and 3 for approval and consideration by Committee and Council may generate an estimated $262,000 to $342,000 annually over a lease period of five years for a total estimated revenue of between $1.13 million and $1.48 million (assumes part year revenues in 2010).
Rationale for consideration of the 20 signs
The properties identified in this report can be categorized as 1)
meeting all requirements of the Sign By-law, have no objections from the Ward
Councillors and therefore are being recommended for Council approval; 2)
requiring a variance to the Sign By-law with no objections from the Ward Councillor
and being recommended for approval; and 3) the Ward Councillor objecting to the
billboards and/ street ad signs being located on the identified properties in
their wards.
Document 1 includes ten signs that meet all of the requirements of the
Sign By-law and are recommended for approval. During the briefings with Councillors, no
objections were raised with billboards/street ad signs being located on these properties. It is estimated that signs at these locations
may generate between $104,000 and $140,000 annually (or between $450,000 and
$606,000 over five years).
Document 2 includes two signs that require variances from the Sign
By-law, both due to the proximity to other signs in the area. Although variances are required, the Ward Councillors
had no objections to billboards/street ad signs being located on the city-owned
property in their respective wards. Staff
is recommending that the signs identified in Document 2 be approved. It is estimated that signs at these locations may
generate between $30,000 and $41,000 annually (or between $130,000 and $178,000
over five years).
Document 3 identifies eight billboards/street ad signs on seven
city-owned properties but where the Ward Councillors raised objections with
signs being located in their respective wards.
Six of the eight signs require a minor variance, either due to the
proximity to other signs or to residential uses. During the internal consultation, stakeholders
had concerns with the majority of the proposed signs. Document 3 also identifies the concerns raised
by the Ward Councillor, the stakeholders concerns and the rationale for the
minor variance, if required. Based on
the consultant’s report, it is estimated that these locations may generate
between $128,000 and $161,000 annually (or between $550,000 and $700,000 over
five years).
The
Request for Proposal for leases on the properties to construct the signage will
identify the need for minor variances if approved by Council. Proponents will be responsible for the application
process and full payment of fees as per the Signs By-law.
Light Emitting Diode (LED) Billboards
Over the past few years new
technologies, such as LED billboards, have emerged in the outdoor advertising
industry. Currently this type of
billboard is not permitted under the provisions of the existing Sign By-law as
animated signs are not permitted due to safety concerns. Building Code Services staff is reviewing
this type of signage and anticipates presenting a comprehensive report to
Committee/Council in the first quarter of 2011.
Staff fully anticipate receiving
proposals requesting clarification
on the use of technology and specifically, whether the City would allow for the
use of digital advertising for
billboard signs on properties approved by Council. Accordingly, the Building Code Services branch
is prepared to recommend to the Planning and Environment Committee, at its
August 24, 2010 meeting, a pilot project to evaluate the impact of LED digital
billboard signs at three of the properties recommended for approval in this
report. The locations of the properties for the pilot will be recommended in
the Building Code Service report in August.
The pilot would be for a two year period. Thus, the leases for these three locations
would be for a one year period with an ability to extend a further four years
should the results support an extension or should the Signs By-law be amended
to permit such billboard signs in specific sign districts following completion
of the in-depth review as noted above. If the pilot project is not approved or
not sanctioned after the one year contract, the proponent would be permitted to
install a conventional billboard signs for the remainder of the five year term.
Evaluation of the RFP to consider proposals
including solar lighting technology
New technology is also emerging within the
outdoor sign industry to reduce energy consumption by up to 90% through the use
of solar powered lighting. Some of the
outdoor sign companies are currently in the test phase with solar powered
products. The outdoor advertising industry is actively working with solar power
manufacturers to improve the technology and increase reliability. It is likely that within the next five years,
solar powered lighting will be the norm, not the exception.
In support of Ottawa 20/20s’ Environmental
Strategy and principle of protecting and conserving our resources, a component
of the evaluation of the RFP proposals will award points for billboards
utilizing solar powered lighting.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted in the body of this report one of
the 20 properties proposed for billboard advertising is located in a rural area
(Sign 47, 2110 Carp Road). While the proposed sign requires a minor variance,
the Councillor is supportive of a billboard sign potentially being installed at
the location.
CONSULTATION
After receiving the consultant’s report an extensive consultation process with internal (Planning and Heritage; Building Code Services; Traffic Operations; Forestry Services; Transit Services; Parks, Buildings and Grounds; Real Estate Services) and external stakeholders (NCC; Hydro Ottawa; Ottawa Police Services; the provincial Ministry of Transportation) was undertaken to solicit feedback and detail any concerns with billboards being proposed at the 31 locations identified in the final report.
During those
consultations a number of properties were removed for reasons detailed in this
report, resulting in 20 properties remaining as potential billboard locations. The stakeholders identified a
variety of concerns with some of those properties such as the density of
signs in an area; the property being on a scenic route, visual entrance to the
city or on a traditional main street; and the proximity of the property to the
greenbelt, federal government buildings or heritage buildings. The signs identified in Document 1 comply
with Sign By-law.
The potential
for driver distraction was identified by Traffic Operations for a number of the
proposed sign locations. Extensive
studies have been undertaken on this matter, however there is no conclusive
evidence that the presence of static billboards along public roads add to
driver distraction.
Following the completion of the stakeholder
consultation process, staff met individually with each of the Councillors whose
wards had properties identified as potential billboard locations. Staff provided Councillors with a property map
depicting the probable location of the billboard, pictures of the type of
billboard, rationale for the selection of the location and estimates of the
potential revenue to be realized by the City.
Councillors were also updated on the consultation with internal/external
stakeholders in order to provide assurances that every effort was made to
solicit feedback and alleviate concerns prior to this report being presented to
Council.
LEGAL /RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
The outdoor advertising companies assume all
the risk associated with the installation and on-going management of the
billboard signs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
In
January 2010 the Efficiency Savings report (Sponsorship and Advertising Savings
Proposal) identified the billboard advertising initiative as having significant
revenue potential for the City. Council approved a revenue target of $770,000
from sponsorship and advertising for the current year, $100,000 of which is to
be generated from additional billboard advertising.
This initiative has the potential to raise an
estimated $262,000 to $342,000 annually over the period of five years, while
respecting the intent of City Signs By-law and preserving the integrity of
community space.
Council approval of all 20 signs is required
in order to achieve the efficiency targets as stated. If the signs identified in Document 3 (where
the Ward Councillors object to the proposed signs) are not approved by Council,
there will be an estimated loss of revenue in 2010 of between $42,250 and
$53,000 and a
projected loss in revenue of between $550,000 and $700,000 over 5 years
(including 2010).
The costs associated with the work of the consultant
will be offset by anticipated revenue targets.
The infrastructure and processes are in place as a result of the work in
Phase 1. Real Estate Services staff will manage the additional land leases for
the billboards with minimal additional effort.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Recommended City-owned properties that comply
with the Sign By-law (Immediately follows
the report)
Document 2 – City-owned properties requiring a minor
variance from the provisions of the Sign By-law (no objection from the Ward
Councillor) (Immediately follows the
report)
Document 3 – City-owned properties where Ward Councillors
have objections to billboards in their wards (Immediately follows the report)
DISPOSITION
Following
Council approval, a Request for Proposal will be issued to solicit bids from
the outdoor sign industry. Once the successful proponents have been selected, contracts will be
awarded once required approvals are in place and sign permits will be issued to
the successful companies for the installation of a billboard sign on city-owned
property.
Except for the LED digital billboard signs,
the contract will be for five years from the date of award, with one optional
five year extension, subject to satisfactory performance, approved sign permit
renewals and financial terms deemed acceptable to the City. The three LED
digital billboard signs, subject of the pilot will be under a one year contract
with the ability to extend a further four years should the results of the pilot
support an extension or should the Signs By-law be amended to permit such
billboard signs in specific sign districts following completion of the in-depth
review as noted above. Should the Signs By-law be amended to permit these LED
billboards, a further optional five year extension, subject to satisfactory
performance, approved sign permit renewals and financial terms deemed
acceptable to the City will also apply. If the pilot project is not approved or
not sanctioned after the first contract, the proponent would be permitted to
install a conventional billboard signs for the remainder of the five year term.
DOCUMENT 1
Recommended
City-owned properties that comply with the Signs By-law
|
Street
ad sign |
||
DOCUMENT 2
City-owned properties where a proposed
billboard will require a minor variance from the provisions of the Signs By-law
(no objections from the Ward Councillors)
DOCUMENT 3
City-owned properties where Councillors have
objections to billboards in their wards (all of the signs required minor
variances)
|
Single
Face Static |
Proximity to heritage buildings. |
Planning and Heritage have concern of proximity to
heritage buildings. NCC concern with location as a scenic entry route
and being near a heritage property. |
|||
|
|
Planning had concern due to the property
being on a traditional main street. NCC concerned the property is within
close proximity to federal buildings (NRC campus). Traffic has concern with possible
driver distraction. |
||||
BILLBOARD ADVERTISING
publicitÉ de panneau d'affichage
ACS2010-COS-ODP-0011 CITY WIDE/À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Peggy Ducharme, Downtown Rideau Business Improvement Area asked if there was an ability to
extrapolate the 70 Waller location from this report for further consultation
given that she only became aware of this today and no consultation was done
other than with internal City departments.
Given that the report also did not include a map of locations, she
assumed it was the 60-70 Waller Street property location, which is the
expansion site of the Ottawa Arts Court Foundation. If so, this was the southern gateway to her
BIA and concerns her because as a member of the Arts Court Foundation Board and
BIA representative on the Executive Committee, they have identified a site as
an opportunity for a revenue generating stream for this exact purpose. This would then be funds that they would
generate into the Capital redevelopment fund for expansion of the Ottawa Arts
Court Foundation. This was determined
through the BIA who has had experience in managing advertising kiosks on Rideau
Street. They no longer manage the kiosks
as they could not find a supplier to do the job adequately but they would like
the opportunity to pursue that sometime in the future.
Discussions pertaining to this issue have been recorded in the Ottawa
Arts Court Board minutes dating back three and four years in which the City
staff managers of the asset side of the facility were in attendance as advisors
on that Board. Ms. Ducharme added that
this site was going to be the highest, more lucrative income earning of any
other sites listed. This site has a wide
demographic reach and most likely worth $250,000 in the open market. With the absence of her Councillor, she asked
how that site could be protected until there was an ability to assess it
further.
Councillor Deans indicated that the billboards in document 1 were not
contentious, nor were the billboards listed in document 2, however those listed
in document 3 are different based on objections from organizations and ward
Councillors. Her preference was to not
approve the billboards in document 3.
Prior to reading the following motion she suggested approving
recommendations 1 and 2 and the motion below, which would achieve her desired
result of moving it forward:
Be it Resolved That City Council
delegate the authority for the identification and approval of future billboard
sites on City-owned properties that meet the above criteria to the Director of
Building Code Services as follow:
a. That billboards that meet the criteria of the Signs By-law and have Ward
Councillor concurrence proceed;
b. That billboards that would require a minor variance and have Ward
Councillor concurrence proceed through the minor variance process; and
c. That billboards do not proceed where there is no Ward Councillor
concurrence; and
d. That Committee and Council receive an annual report on the delegation in
each of the three categories.
Upon request for input, Donna Gray, Director of Organizational Development and Performance Department believed that the above motion would represent the best practices of what they learned through the other phases of the billboards advertising program.
Councillor Desroches commended staff and his colleague who worked towards
finding revenue opportunities for the City.
When he met with staff, one of the questions he raised was if there was
an ability to have a greener billboard, such as solar panels. Ms. Gray confirmed that this was
included in the report based on the Councillor’s recommendation to be
considered as a component of the RFP and award points for people who are
looking at new and innovative technologies around the use of solar power.
In a follow up question from the Councillor, Ms. Gray advised that an
extensive inventory has been conducted of all 3700 properties that are
currently in stock and staff looked at those in terms of capacity to generate
revenue but also ensured that they were zoned appropriately in order to put
sign by-laws in place. The list of
inventory will be reviewed on a bi-annual process to see if there are other
opportunities that arise. This process
will be done through delegation of authority as a course of regular business.
Councillor Monette asked if there have been any complaints to date of the
billboards that are currently in use.
Ms. Gray noted that there have been approximately twenty complaints
concerning billboards that are currently in operation. Those concerns have been primarily with
regards to wind damage and basic overall maintenance.
By deleting recommendation 3, Councillor Monette asked how it would
affect the revenues for the City. Ms.
Gray advised that they would be looking at a potential budget pressure in the
2011 budget, between $120,000 to $161,000, however it is unknown the true
extent of that budget pressure until the RFP process is complete. She explained that given this is a pilot
project, plus the fact that staff are reviewing the possibility of using
different technology, there is potentially a chance that the financial gap
would not be as wide as anticipated.
Councillor Monette noticed that the billboards were not distributed
evenly throughout the wards and asked if there was a way of balancing the
distribution so that every ward has the same amount. Arlene Grégoire, Director of Building Code
Services explained that the location of billboards reflects the zoning by-law. She added that billboards, being the largest and
more permanent of all signs, are allowed only in industrial and commercial
zones.
After discussion, the Committee approved the following motion:
Moved by D. Deans,
WHEREAS Council
approved a Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee motion in
November 2008, to expand the billboard advertising program to additional
city-owned properties; and
WHEREAS the
billboard advertising program will be an ongoing program that explores the
potential for additional billboard sites on a bi-annual basis; and
WHEREAS it is
appropriate that the only approved sites should be those that comply with the
provisions of the Signs By-law, or that require only a minor variance, with the
concurrence of the impacted Ward Councillors; and
WHEREAS, as part of
the Mid-Term Governance Review, Council adopted an approach to increase
delegated authority on transactional matters to facilitate the business of
Council; and
WHEREAS the
billboard advertising program is a good candidate for this increased delegation
of authority;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT City Council delegate the authority for the identification and
approval of future billboard sites on City-owned properties that meet the above
criteria to the Director of Building Code Services as follows:
a) That billboards that meet
the criteria of the Sign By-Law and have Ward Councillor concurrence proceed;
b) That billboards that would
require a minor variance and have Ward Councillor concurrence proceed through
the minor variance process; and
c) That billboards do not
proceed where there is no Ward Councillor concurrence; and
d) That Committee and Council
receive an annual report on the delegation in each of the three categories.
CARRIED with Councillor Monette dissenting.
Moved by D. Deans,
WHEREAS Council approved
a CSEDC motion in November 2008, to expand the billboard advertising program to
additional city-owned properties;
AND WHEREAS, in January
2010 the Corporate Efficiency Savings Program report identified the billboard
advertising initiative as having significant revenue potential for the City;
AND WHEREAS Council
approved a revenue target of $100,000 from billboard advertising in 2010 and
revenue of $1.385 over the next five years;
AND WHEREAS Committee
has considered and rejected the billboard sites outlined in Document 3 of the
Billboard Advertising Report (ACS2010-COS-ODP-0011) that require minor
variances and that are not endorsed by the Ward Councillors;
THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to generate alternate sponsorship opportunities
to address the revenue shortfall of $53,000 in 2010and to include the
anticipated annualized shortfall in revenue for 2011 as a budget pressure in
the 2011 budget process.
CARRIED
Councillor Desroches recalled that in his
discussions with staff, they discussed the fact that many jurisdictions were
embracing LED billboards, which leads to generating more revenue. Realizing that changes would need to be
entertained to the by-law, he asked if this was something that staff would
investigate. Ms. Gray advised that in
the report, they contemplated working with Building Code Services to look at a
pilot in terms of the use of LED technology which could potentially enhance
revenues for this particular RFP. In
terms of the long term strategy, Ms. Grégoire explained that they were planning
on conducting a pilot. They thought this
would be an opportune moment to use City-owned properties in order to pilot LED
digital billboards. These billboards are
to a great advantage to the industry and although other municipalities have
lacked regulations to prohibit them, they are questioning if it was a wise
choice. This coincides with the need to
review, which is part of the consultant review that staff are undertaking in
2011 that will look at a number of issues, including digital billboards. They already discussed this with the industry
and they would be at the ready to switch the billboards to LED should the City
decide it is a good idea. In the
interim, there will be testing done within three locations amongst the
locations approved in this report for a pilot project.
Councillor Desroches felt this is a good
revenue opportunity for the City as well as using the billboards for public
service messaging such as traffic congestions and Amber alerts.
Councillor Brooks asked if there has been any
research conducted from a driver’s perspective.
He explained that GPS are distracting, yet these billboards flash
signals to the drivers which in itself is distracting, perhaps more than being
on a cell phone. Ms. Gray noted
that there has been extensive research done on the extent of driver distraction
from the different types of electronic billboards and there has not been any
conclusive evidence that it causes significant driver distraction to date. However, there has been a trend in the
industry to stick to more static type electronic versus the flashing-type
billboards. Several areas that are more
advanced, such as Toronto, are moving away from the flash-type billboards.
The Committee then approved recommendations 1
and 2 consecutively and considered recommendation 3 as noted below:
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
3.
Approve ten
billboards/street ad signs on ten city-owned properties as outlined in Document
1 where the signs comply with the provisions of the Sign By-law.
CARRIED
4.
Approve two
billboards/street ad signs on two city-owned properties as identified in
Document 2 where the signs require a minor variance to the Sign By-law.
CARRIED
5.
Consider the
approval of eight billboards/street ad signs on seven city-owned
properties as identified in Document 3 where the Ward Councillor has indicated
an objection to billboard/street ad signs on the properties.
LOST
YEAS (3): Councillors G. Brooks, B.
Monette and R. Jellett
NAYS (4): Councillors D. Deans,
El-Chantiry, M. Wilkinson and S. Desroches
3. That City Council delegate the authority for
the identification and approval of future billboard sites on City-owned
properties that meet the above criteria to the Director of Building Code
Services as follow:
a.
That billboards that
meet the criteria of the Signs By-law and have Ward Councillor concurrence
proceed;
b.
That billboards that
would require a minor variance and have Ward Councillor concurrence proceed
through the minor variance process; and
c.
That billboards do
not proceed where there is no Ward Councillor concurrence; and
d.
That Committee and Council
receive an annual report on the delegation in each of the three categories.
4. That staff be
directed to generate alternate sponsorship opportunities to address the revenue
shortfall of $53,000 in 2010and to include the anticipated annualized shortfall
in revenue for 2011 as a budget pressure in the 2011 budget process.
CARRIED as amended