STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING
ACT MATTERS
DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS
LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire
The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law amendments listed
on the agenda. For the Zoning By-law
amendment listed as Item 1 on the agenda, which was submitted before 1 January
2007, it was noted thatif anyone appeals City Council’s decisions on the
proposed amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but does not make oral
submissions at this public meeting or does not make written submissions before
these proposed amendments are adopted by City Council on 28 April 2010, then
the OMB may dismiss all or part of the appeal.
For the Zoning By-law Amendment listed as Item 2 on the agenda, which
was submitted after 1 January 2007, it was noted that only those who made oral
submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the amendment is
adopted may appeal the matter to the OMB.
In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB if Council
does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an
Official Plan Amendment of receipt of the application.
The Chair explained that a comment sheet was available at the door for
anyone wishing to submit written comments on these amendments.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes
de renseignements:
OCC 28-08 Designation of two
Communities for Increased Density/ Désignation de deux communautés en vue de l’augmentation
de la densité
RECEIVED
DÉMOLITION PATRIMONIALE PAR NÉGLIGENCE
OCC 09-10
The Chair noted that there was a delegation who wished
to speak to the above noted response to inquiry.
Moved by Councillor D. Holmes
That the Planning and Environment
Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the committee
at today’s meeting, pursuant to section 84(3) of the procedure by-law.
CARRIED
David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa, noted Heritage Ottawa had brought the issue of
heritage demolition by neglect to the attention of City Council in 2007, and
had worked with City staff prior to the presentation of the report to Planning
and Environment Committee (PEC) and Council in April 2009. He expressed that he had understood there
would be a by-law draft in place by the end of fall 2009, and that many of the
things outlined in the report would have been completed. He expressed concern that, as outlined in the
inquiry response, this work will not be done until 2011.
Mr. Flemming wished to stress the urgency of the
matter, noting that some buildings had been boarded up for a long time and were in need of some repair, and the City had not moved to
ask the owners to do those repairs. By
means of a PowerPoint presentation,
Mr. Flemming showed examples of such buildings that he
considered to be at risk or already lost. A copy of Mr. Flemming’s presentation is held
on file with the City Clerk. He
suggested a by-law or protocol was required to enable City staff to move
quickly on buildings at risk in heritage areas.
He asked that PEC recommend the process be expedited so something could
be done by the end of 2010.
In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Arlene
Gregoire, Chief Building Official, advised that implementation of the April of
2009 report was split between the Emergency and Protective Services (By-law and
Regulatory Services) and Planning and Growth Management departments. She explained that the emergency protocol component
was established in the summer of 2009 and is presently in place. Of the remaining components, Emergency and
Protective Services is undertaking an amendment to the Property Standards Bylaw
to incorporate standards specific to maintaining and protecting heritage
buildings, which would go forward to the Community and Protective Services
Committee in early 2010. She noted the
other heritage protection initiatives were within the mandate of the Planning
and Growth Management department, and would stay with PEC. She expressed her understanding that some of
the delay was due to the fact that Bylaw and Regulatory Services needed time to
consult with property owners, as the impact of the by-law standards would be
retroactive, as well as time to prepare the report . She expressed her understanding that the
matter was not being delayed by Legal Services.
Linda Anderson, Chief, By-Law and Regulatory Services
commented that, in addition to the points noted by Ms. Gregoire, By-law staff
had recognized and identified the potential for significant financial impacts
of amending the By-law. For example, she
indicated that, should the City require a property owner to do extensive
repairs to a building and incorporate the heritage features, and the property
owner fails to do so, staff would carry out the work and charge it back on the
tax roll. She explained that in some
instances, the work to be undertaken and added to the tax roll could exceed the
total value of the property. As a
result, staff anticipates there may be a need to put
some capital funding in place, which would be part of the consultation and
consideration before the report can come forward.
Councillor Holmes surmised that there was not much
opportunity for expediting the process. Ms.
Anderson indicated that staff was set to bring back their report to Committee
and Council in the first quarter of 2010.
Committee then received the above-noted
Correspondence.
ZONAGE – 6151, CHEMIN RENAUD ET 6255, CHEMIN
RENAUD
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0052 innes (2)
(This matter is not
subject to Bill 51)
An e-mail dated 8 April 2010
was received from Derek Grant with respect to this matter, which is held on
file with the City Clerk.
Councillor Doucet expressed
concerns about the environmental implications of the tree planting associated
with this application and asked for a staff presentation focusing on that
aspect.
Wendy Tse, Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation
summarizing the application, a copy of which is held on file. She was accompanied by Karin Smadella,
Program Manager, Development Review Process (Suburban East.) In response to Councillor Doucet’s concerns,
Ms. Tse remarked that the area in question contains sensitive marine clay, and
given the development requirements for servicing and the setback requirements,
it is not possible in some cases to plant a tree. She advised that, in discussion with the
developer and with Forestry Services, staff approved
the use of root barriers in some cases to allow for trees to be planted in the
front yard, adding that the requested Zoning amendments reflect this.
Councillor Doucet commented that problems can arise
when developments are approved that do not meet normal City requirements and
residents sign on for their own services, such as snow removal or garbage
disposal, when subsequent owners realizes they must pay taxes for services not received in that
area. He suggested this practice created
a separate standard for those who build houses in areas that conform to normal
zoning requirements and those who do not.
With respect to this specific application, the Councillor expressed
particular concern that there would be no shade trees on the street, suggesting
this could lead to future complaints against the City.
Ms. Smadella indicated that, as City standard roadway
cross sections are being used throughout the subdivision, there would be no
impact in terms of snow removal or garbage collection. With respect to front yard setbacks, she
noted that even with the 7.5-metre setback, only four small species of trees
were permitted due to the sensitive marine clays. .
Mike Wildman, Manager, Suburban Development Review
added that existing Council policies restricted the types of trees allowed,
particularly where marine clays are present.
Acknowledging that there have been some issues in this
regard, he indicated staff would be undertaking a review of the types of trees
and mitigation measures, which could see a reintroduction of better trees to
address concerns such those raised by Councillor Doucet.
Councillor Doucet expressed his concern with streets
lacking significant trees, noting his definition of a significant tree was one
that stands four to five storeys high and provides shade. Mr. Wildman clarified that staff is reviewing
the Council policy that calls for those types of trees to be used and they hope
to make recommendations to enforce an even greater tree presence.
The Councillor reiterated his concern with approving
this particular zoning application, given the treescape it would have. Ms. Tse indicated that without changes to the
front yard setback, in some cases they would not accommodate any trees at
all. With the use of root barriers, some
accommodation can be made from the list of approved trees. Mr. Wildman emphasized that staff is limited
by the policy in this instance.
Nathalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants, spoke on behalf of Minto. She was accompanied by Doug Smeathers of
Minto Communities. She explained
that Minto also wants street trees and fully supports staff’s efforts to review
the Council policy. She noted that in
the Minto section of the subject property, six-metre front yard setbacks are
being proposed, noting that most urban settings range from three to six
metres. This setback means that if staff
comes up with a solution to allow larger street trees in the future, the
setbacks will be sufficient to accommodate them. She suggested the zoning was safe, as it
could accommodate larger trees later, and was sensitive to the marine clay
issue. She further noted the
staff-approved Draft Plan of Subdivision.
In response to further
question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Wildman confirmed that the problem in this case was
the clay in the soil. He explained that
Council approved the policy as a result of concerns raised in one particular
area where the soils were extremely bad, and it was thought the policy would
provide measures to mitigate moisture depletion in the soils. He added the existing policy took a very safe
and conservative approach, and staff feels further investigation is warranted
and could allow for greater flexibility with regards to tree planting.
Councillor Holmes suggested
that, since there would be basements in the new development, there could be
excavation of the yard sufficient to put in a large tree and appropriate
soil. Ms. Smadella suggested that this
would not necessarily eliminate the moisture depletion concerns caused by a
tree, and was not certain how much excavation would be required and its
associated cost.
Councillor Holmes pointed
out that residents who have clay soils are instructed they have to water their
surrounding trees in a drought. She
questioned whether that requirement could be written into the purchase
agreements for the homes in question, in order to solve the problem. Mr. Wildman confirmed such a statement could potentially
form part of the purchase agreements and could form part of the deeds in
future, but he reiterated that staff is subject to the current Council
policy. Mr. Smeathers added that Minto
would provide a homeowner’s package that addressed the issue. In response to further questions from
Councillor Holmes, Mr. Smeathers confirmed there would be trees both on the
right-of-way and on private property.
The Councillor suggested the City would have some liability unless the
aforementioned conditions were written on the deed or in the legal agreement.
Responding to Councillor Doucet’s
previous questions, Mr. Smeathers stated that, while Ottawa historically has
250 feet of Leda clay, this area has sensitive marine clay. He noted these sites are the most difficult
to develop, and they are the only sites left for development within the urban
boundary. He indicated that the local
society of landscape architects had been consulted and had provided
recommendations on what could be planted safely in sensitive marine clays, and
reiterated that the issue was being revisited by staff. With respect to the difference between Leda
clay and sensitive marine clay, he expressed his understanding that it was a
matter of bearing pressure.
Lisa Dalla Rosa, Richcraft, indicated that Richcraft
had also been working with staff on the issue, adding they had designed the
plan around the Council policy. She
suggested that the front yards would need to be 10 to 11 metres long to
accommodate large shade trees, adding that it would be difficult to achieve
density targets with lot depths of that magnitude, given the requirement for a
three-metre back yard. She suggested
what was proposed plan represented what was possible at the present time. She assured Committee the developer wanted
trees, but at the same time wanted to avoid creating future problems with
roots. She noted the root barriers were
being put in, at a cost to the developers, in order to ensure every lot will
have a tree, noting the Community Design Plan calls for two trees per lot. She explained that Richcraft also distributes
pamphlets that explain the type of trees permitted, but it does not advise that
watering is necessary in drought periods.
In response to questions
from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Dalla Rosa explained that the policy requires a
7.5-metre setback from a tree root to a house foundation in areas with
sensitive marine clay; therefore, if the houses were permitted to be closer to
the street, they would not be far enough away from the street tree.
Ms. Hughes added large trees
have very large root structures, which affect the entire soil area under it; in
sensitive clay soils, those roots deplete the water and this can cause uneven
settlement. Providing a minimum
six-metre front yard ensures that, even with a small tree in front, the house
remains protected from any effects of the tree roots. Mr. Smeethers commented that during droughts,
tree root systems are under stress and seek out water sources, such as the
weeping tile, which impacts the house foundations.
Councillor Doucet noted that, barring periods of drought, the roots
should actually stabilize the soil. He
felt the policy was too risk-averse and suggested conditions have not warranted
it to date. He noted that, while the
permitted trees (Amber Maple, Serviceberry, Japanese Lilac and Flowering Crab)
were attractive, they do not grow tall enough to provide shade.
Councillor Bloess, the Ward
Councillor, suggested this was a straightforward application, noting the plan
of subdivision had been in the works for 15 years, and the application followed
Council’s direction in terms of achieving the densities required by the
Official Plan. He pointed out that staff
is challenged by trying to put together plans that will provide intensification
in these particular developments. He
went on to explain that the site is abutted by over 30 acres of maple wood lot,
acquired from the developers after considerable negotiations, with a 30-metre
buffer along the creek, and two storm water ponds that will be
re-landscaped. He agreed it was reasonable
to be concerned about the impact of trees on front lawns, especially given
previous problems the City had faced in this regard, but felt there had been
adequate consideration of the issue in this case. He suggested there had been too much focus on
the species of trees permitted, when Committee should be looking at the bigger
picture of what the whole plan tries to achieve. He added that if the City did not wish to
achieve the intensification and wanted to stay within the urban boundary, it
would mean creating much bigger lots.
The committee approved the report
recommendation as presented
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve:
1.
An
amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of parts of
6151 Renaud Road and 6255 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to R3YY[x],
Residential Third Density, Subzone YY, Exception
[x] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
2.
An
amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of part of
6151 Renaud Road from DR Development Reserve to Residential Third Density,
Subzone Z, Exception [x1], [x2], and [x3] Zones, R3Z[x1], R3Z[x2] and R3Z[x3] and Parks and Open Space [O1] as shown in Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED
ZONAGE
- 1105, CROISSANT NORMANDY
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0056 knoxdale-merivale
(9)
(This matter is
subject to Bill 51)
Prescott McDonald, Planner, provided a PowerPoint
presentation summarizing the application and staff’s recommendations, a copy of
which is held on file with the City Clerk.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. McDonald
explained that for the side yard adjacent to an untraveled and unopened area,
staff is allowing for a side yard setback similar to 1.2 metres. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the
setback at one corner of the building would be shorter, increasing along the
property line. The indicated corner area would have a setback reduction from
4.5 metres to 3.5 metres. He confirmed
that the setbacks from the south property line, in Sector B of the Zoning
schedule listed as Document 3, would not change.
The committee then heard from the following public
delegations.
Garnett Smith and Beverley Cullen, residents of Inverness Avenue, spoke in opposition
to the application and the concept as proposed.
Mr. Smith indicated that they had been attracted to the neighbourhood by
the large lots, old growth trees, and low-density development. He noted most of the houses in the immediate
neighbourhood were on a 42-foot lot or greater.
He noted that the applicant had explained to the neighbours that his
intent was to re-zone the property to allow for two structures on the property;
however, the neighbours had not foreseen the request to rezone the property would
be redeveloped into two structures with at least three dwellings. He acknowledged that at a meeting held to
discuss the re-zoning issues, they were told that the request for re-zoning was
not attached to a site-specific proposal; however, he suggested the current
proposal appears to address a specific request to build two structures, one a
semi-detached and one a single-family dwelling.
He emphasized they did not opposed the redevelopment of the property to
allow for an attractive and innovative development compatible with the
neighbourhood; rather, they opposes redevelopment to maximize the amount of
residential units on the property and opposed re-zoning of the property to
inherently change the character and scale of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Smith pointed out that, while there are
semi-detached dwellings in the neighbourhood, none are as wide as what is
proposed. Although he liked the
conceptual drawings he had seen, he felt they did not fit with the general feel
of the neighbourhood, which is characterized by large-lot residential
homes. He did not want a precedent to be
set for allowing the zoning to be changed so that properties in the
neighbourhood could be maximized for square foot land usage. He indicated his pleasure that the
applicant’s plan proposes to preserve as many trees as possible, and that the
applicant intended to incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) objectives into the development of the properties. He concluded by reiterating his opposition to
the proposal, as presented.
Theo Mayer
spoke in opposition to the application.
He explained that he was owner of 2 Inverness Avenue, the lot adjacent
to the subject property, having moved there in December 2009. After reviewing the plan, he surmised that
the proposed duplex would come within nine feet of his property line. He explained that he did oppose the
redevelopment of the property, and would not mind seeing a duplex on it;
however, he thought adding a single family home in addition to the duplex was too
much development and was not in keeping with the neighbourhood. He noted he was attracted to the
neighbourhood because of the calibre and scale of the homes being built on
existing lots, which differed from what is being proposed for this site.
Mr. Mayer further pointed out there was an elementary
school at the end of the street, and expressed concern that the proposed
development could result in an additional vehicular traffic of the street. Finally, he expressed concern that a
professional architect had not been involved with the proposal, as part of an
architect’s job would be to design a building that would fit within the
neighbourhood.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Mayer
demonstrated the precise location of his property. He acknowledged that he did not have any
expertise in reading plans and might be incorrect in his assumption about the
location of the proposed dwellings in relation to his property. Chair Hume
asked staff to compare the current setback with what would exist under the
proposed re-zoning. Mr. McDonald advised
that under the existing R1FF zoning the side yard must be set back 2.5 metres
on one side and 1 metre on the other, whereas under the proposed R2M zone, the
setback would be 0.9 metres on both sides.
He further explained that, because it is a through corner lot, the front
and back setbacks would be the same, at 6 metres under the existing zoning and
4.5 metres under the proposed zoning.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Mayer
confirmed that he was concerned that re-zoning would allow the building to
project further into the back yard and closer to his side yard, and requested
more information on what would be allowed.
Staff clarified that, per the Schedule listed as Document 3 to the staff
report, after the property is re-zoned to R2M, no further variation would be
required to “Area B” to allow the development to proceed, whereas “Area A”
required further adjustments to the zone.
When asked for further comment, Mr. Mayer remarked
that, aside from concerns about how the proposal would impact directly on his
property, his larger concern was that a duplex and a single family home on the
relatively small lot was not in keeping with the neighbourhood. He elaborated that there are developments
similar to what is proposed on Fisher Avenue and Ashburn Drive, but none in the
immediate neighbourhood.
Arun Mhatre, owner and applicant, spoke in support of the application. He provided a PowerPoint presentation to with
respect to his proposal, which included several visual renderings of the site
and proposed development. A copy of his
presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. He explained that he had has lived in the area
for 32 years and noted he had an architectural degree and 27 years of experience
as an urban planner. He indicated that,
given his professional background, he felt comfortable with preparing his own
plan and re-zoning application. He
raised the following points:
·
Carleton Heights
is unique because it has larger lots than normally found in the urban
area. Similar urban lots are being
re-zoned and modified where moderate development is compatible.
·
The subject
property is at the periphery of a community where there are many tree lines,
and the intent is to purse the opportunity to create interesting architectural
appeal.
·
When he moved
into the neighbourhood in 1977, there had already been a subdivision of the
lot, as 2 Inverness Avenue and 1107 Normandy Crescent were severed.
·
There are
semi-detached homes in front the subject property, and there are smaller lots
than what is proposed.
·
The development
would create architectural interest at the entry to the neighbourhood, create
some variance from the trend of building large homes that span nearly the
entire width of the lots in the area, maintain the scale and rhythm of the
neighbourhood, and provide a variety of housing types to attract a younger
generation.
·
The intent is to
maintain the tree line.
·
The revised
setbacks in relation to 2 Inverness Avenue property are something that is
common to the neighbourhood.
·
The immediate
neighbour at 1107 Normandy Crescent, who would be most impacted by the project,
has expressed no objection.
In closing, Mr. Mhatre advised that he had begun the
process in consultation with the City planners one year previous, and had taken
staff’s advice on re-zoning. He noted
that he had also consulted the ward Councillor, the community association and
the neighbourhood at large, and felt that the concerns raised, including
measures to avoid sanitary sewer issues, had been addressed.
Chair Hume inquired if Mr. Mhatre would consider move
his building forward on the site to alleviate that concerns about the impact on
the rear yard of Mr. Mayer’s property.
Mr. Mhatre replied he had moved the building back so that there would be
a gentler slope down to the garage and to create greater architectural appeal;
however, he indicated he would have no problem with moving the building two or
three feet forward.
In response to further questions from Chair Hume, Mr.
McDonald confirmed that the proposed development would not be subject to a site
plan. The Chair inquired how the
Committee could accommodate Mr. Mhatre’s offer to move the building to
alleviate some of his neighbour’s concern.
Mr. McDonald explained staff would need to prepare a schedule for
approval.
Councillor Hunter, the Ward Councillor, suggested the
matter could be left for further discussion between himself, Mr. Mhatre and Mr.
Mayer. While Chair Hume was satisfied to
give direction to staff to investigate and, if appropriate, provide a revised
schedule prior to consideration of the matter by Council, Councillor Hunter
predicted it would not be appropriate because, although moving the building
might alleviate the immediate neighbour’s concerns, it might create a less
attractive streetscape for Normandy Crescent and result in much dissatisfaction
throughout the community.
Councillor Holmes inquired whether it would be
possible, given there is no site plan requirement, to request that the property
have one laneway with a joint garage for the three units, to avoid the visual
impact of three garage doors and three driveways. Carey Thomson, Deputy City Solicitor, did not
believe that could be requested in this particular situation. He added that, even if it could be done, the
question remains whether property owners would be interested, or willing to
provide mortgage financing, given the fact that one or two driveways could
potentially be owned by more than one individual. Mr. Thomson indicated it would be impossible
for the City to impose that condition when the application is not subject to
site plan approval. He further confirmed
the Councillor’s speculation that the City’s Site Plan By-law would have to be
amended in order to accommodate something of that nature.
Councillor Hunter suggested that the proposed
development was offering something better than what Councillor Holmes had
proposed, because only two of the driveways would front Normandy Crescent, and
the third would be on the opposite side of the building. He suggested a double driveway would be less
visually appealing. On the issue of
moving the building forward, he indicated that he would look at it with the
applicant, but emphasized that he did not want Committee to hold out hope that
this would be a good solution.
Committee then approved the report, as presented.
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to
the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 1105 Normandy Crescent from
R1FF, Residential First Density Zone to R2M [xxx] S xxx, Residential Second
Density Exception Zone, as shown on Document 1, and as detailed in Documents 2
and 3.
CARRIED
Councillor P. Hume dissented
3. 2009 ANNUAL REPORT ON BUILDING CODE FEES
RAPPORT ANNUEL DE
2009 SUR LES DROITS DE PERMIS DE CONSTRUCTION
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0062 CITY WIDE/ À
L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council approve the 2009 Annual Report on Building Code Fees.
CARRIED
4. Building Permit Fee Rate
Reduction
RÉDUCTION DES DROITS RELATIFS AU PERMIS DE
CONSTRUCTION ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0067 CITY WIDE/ À
L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
A
memorandum dated 12 April 2010 was received from the Environmental Advisory Committee
with respect to this matter. A copy is
held on file with the City Clerk.
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve,
effective May 1, 2010:
1.
A reduction in the building permit fee rate from
$12.50 to $12.00 per $1,000 in construction value for all construction except
farm buildings;
2.
A reduction in the building permit fee rate for farm
buildings from $8.75 to $8.40 per $1,000 in construction value, and
3.
That the Building By-law 2005-303 be amended
accordingly.
CARRIED
5. BUILDING INSPECTOR INTERNSHIP
PROGRAM
PROGRAMME
DE STAGES POUR INSPECTEURS EN BÂTIMENT
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0064 CITY WIDE/
À L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
Councillor Holmes wished to
express her support for the program and congratulate staff for their initiative
on this matter.
That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for
information.
RECEIVED
6. PLANNING INNOVATION: A POLICY
SUMMIT – OUTCOMES AND ACTION PLAN
INNOVATION EN MATIÈRE D'AMÉNAGEMENT: SOMMET
STRATÉGIQUE – RÉSULTATS ET PLAN D’ACTION
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0075 CITY WIDE/ À
L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the
Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information
RECEIVED
ACS2010-ICS-INF-0004 BEACON HILL-CYRVILLE (11)
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve a
by-law to undertake the construction of a sanitary sewer on Swans Way South as
petitioned Local Improvement works in accordance with the cost apportionment as
outlined in this report.
CARRIED
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0001 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE LA
VILLE
The following
correspondence was received with respect to this matter and is held on file
with the City Clerk:
·
Memorandum dated 12 April 2010 from the
Environmental Advisory Committee
·
E-mail dated 7April 2010 from Ruth McVeigh
·
E-mail dated 8 April 2010 from John Sankey
·
E-mail dated 8 April 2010 from Klaus Beltzner
·
E-mail dated 8 April 2010 from Sarah Levesque-Walker
·
E-mail dated 10 April 2010 from Bob Taylor
·
E-mail dated 14 April 2010 from
Zsofia Orosz, Dalhousie Community
Association
Dixon Weir,
General Manager of Environmental Services, provided an overview of the staff
report. He was accompanied by Michael
Burt, Manager of Customer Services, and Angela Buchanan, Program Manager of
Public Information. He explained that
the report responded issues identified in the strategic plan developed by
Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) in 2009, particularly around the
concept of rebuilding the public trust.
He emphasized that in developing the plan staff was able to take
advantage of a great deal of connection with the public, both through numerous
meetings and through surveys. He
indicated the results of the surveys showed that, while there is much
confidence in the City’s drinking water among many sectors of the population,
there is an opportunity for greater understanding and awareness of how high
quality the drinking water is. The plan
seeks to give customers better knowledge and awareness of the value that they
are getting, allowing them to take better advantage of a service that provides
more value than other sources of drinking water.
Mr. Weir
highlighted the new concept, recently approved in the 2010 budget, to provide
water trailers e suited to providing and promoting the City’s water at outdoor
festivals and events. Staff
is in the process of securing two such vehicles, tentatively named
“Ottawatermobiles.”
Mr. Weir
emphasized that having more residents take advantage of the drinking water
resource would be advantageous to both residents and the City. From an environmental perspective, he
suggested the plan helps achieve some of Council’s strategic goals related to
reducing reliance on landfills reducing greenhouse gases.
In response to
question form Councillor Hume with respect to the installation of water
fountains in City facilities, Mr. Weir explained that staff undertook an
evaluation with the Public Works Department and have identified some areas
where fountains can be installed. The
high-priority, high-visibility facilities would be selected first, along with
those that for some reason have had a water fountain removed. With respect to the funding for the fountain
installation, Mr. Weir explained that the funding in 2010 would be largely
focused on prioritizing and identifying where fountains should be, and the
installation of a few fountains at very high profile areas. The bulk of the funding for fountains is
proposed for 2011 through 2013, which is one of the contributors to the
increased budget requirement in future years, as installation of fountains
represents a significant capital outlay.
Councillor Hume
asked staff if they could identify where the first fountains would be located,
and if they could do so before Council.
Mr. Weir indicated that they would do so.
In response to
questions from the Chair, Mr. Weir commented that Environmental Services had
not been offering tours at either of the City’s water treatment facilities in
recent years, as they had lacked the capacity to offer the service.
The plan is
intended to give the capacity to provide such tours, which he suggested was in
line with PEC’s outreach strategy. He
noted the tours had been well received when they were offered in the past, and
staff had recently received indications of support and interest from the
community in helping develop the program.
Mr. Weir also highlighted the intent to have a virtual tour available
through the City’s website. He suggested
these initiatives represented a good opportunity for schools and anyone else
interested in the facilities. It was
noted there were currently 50 requests pending for tours of the facilities.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume with regards to the $216,000 already approved in
the 2010 budget, Mr. Weir explained that of the funding Council had already
approved, over $115,000 was dedicated towards the water trailers. The remaining
piece would continue with the promotional tools and enhancement of those tools
that were developed the previous year.
In response to
questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Weir emphasized that, while a side
benefit of the plan would likely be increased water sales, the primary
objective was to benefit residents and ensure they can take better advantage of
the existing service.
Councillor
Holmes suggested there may be a greater number of people not drinking tap water
than what is reflected in the survey, based on what she had heard from
residents. She suggested many residents think the water is unsafe as a result
of sewage stories in the media in recent years.
In response to
questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Weir referenced a visual display
representing one cubic metre of City drinking water. Mr. Weir explained that a cubic meter of
drinking water comes at a cost of approximately $1.28, significantly less than
bottled sources of water. Along with
that value comes a quality assurance, including some
400 different compounds and parameters, and over 100,000 sample results. Mr. Weir confirmed that the visual aid had
been located at the City’s Britannia facility, but there had not been the
resources for staff to bring it out into the community as a promotional tool;
however, with the money allocated in the 2010 budget for this plan, they would
be able to do that.
In light of any
upcoming motions, Councillor Holmes wanted to caution against eliminating the
future years’ budget allocation for the program, as she did not want to see the
City start promotional programs such as tours for school groups, only to take
them away the next year.
Councillor
Monette noted that he had some questions with regards to where the 2011-2013
funding would be allocated, noting he would be bringing forward a motion with
respect to that funding. He noted that
there was a $790,000 allocation for 2011 to 2013, with $600,000 going towards
promotions. He asked staff for a
breakdown of what that $600,000 would be spent on. Mr. Weir explained that amount was a budget
allowance. As staff roll out the 2010
plan, they would be able to provide a more rigorous costing around some of
those items. He indicated staff had
identified, for the years 2011-2013, $600,000 for promotion; $100,000 for the
installation of new indoor fountains; $75,000 for outdoor fountains and $15,000
for the review of the fountain design specifications.
Mr. Weir
explained that the allocation for promotions included an allowance for
additional surveys, suggesting part of the performance benefit will be to
revisit the survey that was conducted in 2009 to see how effective the
promotional materials had been in moving towards the 2013 target and long-range
goals.
Councillor
Monette suggested that, given that the province has identified that Ottawa has
one of the best drinking water systems in the world, it was questionable to
spend another $600,000 in surveys and promotions when the City is facing a 2009
rate-supported deficit of $5.579M, and are increasing the user fees. He proposed that the $600,000 be put towards
the deficit rather than towards promotion and surveys. He indicated his support for the water
fountains and the fountain feasibility study, agreeing the City should promote
the use of fountains and make it easier for residents to use them.
Councillor
Monette then introduced the following motion:
WHEREAS the drinking water program sustained a
deficit of $5.579M in 2009, and;
WHEREAS City Council passed a three year plan to
increase the user fees for Water and Waste Water budget by 9% until 2010;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the funds designated
for promotion part of the plan, promoting municipal drinking water for the
years 2011 through 2013, in the amount of $600,000, be integrated into the
budget to offset the 2009 deficit.
He suggested
that the City should be promoting the water system by means of regular updates,
regular public announcements, through the website, or through the billing
system. He questioned the need to spend
another $600,000 in 2011-2013. He
suggested what had been done to date was good, and suggested at a certain point
residents know that drinking water is safe.
He encouraged Committee members to consider his motion.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume with regards to the survey, Mr. Weir confirmed
that the survey was of 700 homes, all of which were located within the serviced
areas. With regards to the results, Mr.
Weir confirmed staff’s analysis is that the 53.7 per cent who rely exclusively
on tap water do not buy bottled water, and confirmed his understanding that
those ratepayers would likely take municipal water in a reusable bottle rather
than buy bottled water.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Weir suggested that the plan fits
with the City’s strategic direction on a number of fronts, including taking
best advantage of the City’s services, reducing reliance on landfills and
reducing the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. For ratepayers, it is an advantage in avoided
costs because the more residents can continue to rely on the City’s water, the
less they have to purchase at a comparatively high price.
In response to
further questions from the Chair relating to water trailers, Mr. Weir confirmed
that the intent is to have them out at as many events as possible, which could
include sporting events such as Hope Beach Volleyball or the National Capital
Race Weekend. Mr. Weir indicated that
Toronto has water trailers, and Vancouver was looking into purchasing similar
vehicles.
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Weir indicated that they had not explored
involving a private partner in the vehicle program. He indicated that they could certainly look
at sponsorship and other opportunities to help defray the cost. He suggested the program not be deferred
until such opportunities were investigated; rather, he favoured continuing with
the development phase and seek sponsorships where
possible. He suggested once the vehicles
are out in the community, they would become more attractive to potential
sponsors. He also wished to caution
that, as the water trailers were intended to
promote the City’s drinking water, care should be taken not to lose that
promotional value though other connections.
Councillor Qadri
emphasized that several City programs were associated with private partners,
noting private vendors use the City’s low-flow toilet refund as a marketing
tool for their businesses. He suggested
the City should be working with private partners to get their support on this
program.
Councillor
Hunter expressed support for the idea of water trailers, though he was worried
by the lack of detail. He wondered how
these trailers differed from the trailers called “water buffalo” that are used
by military units, suggesting those could potentially be available for the City
to borrow. Neither Mr. Weir nor Mr. Burt
was familiar with the water buffalo specifically. With respect to the design of the tank that
the City is looking to procure, Mr. Burt explained that staff had several
requirements; one such requirement was that the tank be towable without an
elevated drivers’ licence class, so that summer students could bring it from
site to site. The planned tank would
hold 2500 litres (2.5 cubic meters) and would be equipped with water nozzles,
drinking fountains and water bottle filling stations on either side, plus a
lowered station at the back for those with limited mobility. Councillor Hunter
suggested these specifications were similar to those of the water buffalo. Mr. Burt confirmed that he would take the
Councillor’s direction and look into the water buffalo.
Councillor
Bellemare noted that this report had originated with a motion approved by PEC
in December 2007 asking staff to develop a strategy to, among other things,
reinstate water fountains and install new fountains in City of Ottawa
facilities, encourage citizens to drink tap water and encourage the use of
public drinking fountains. He suggested
that the best way to promote City water was to offer the service as widely as
possible, through drinking fountains. He
suggested the focus should be on this rather than on advertising and promotions. He expressed interest in seeing concrete
numbers on how many drinking fountains the City had introduced in parks since
the December 2007 motion was adopted.
Mr. Weir, while
he did not have those figures on hand, indicated he could certainly obtain that
information as to the number of parks with fountains, or fountains that have
been installed in parks.
He imagined the
number would be relatively low, as there had not been an active promotion of
installing them He indicated he could
speak to Public Works to see the number that have been installed in new parks
recently, as there have been some.
Councillor
Bellemare suggested that the proposed plan was backwards. He noted the first phase emphasized
promotion, followed by installation of some water fountains in certain high
profile locations, before investigating to install drinking fountains in public
facilities and parks. He suggested it
would be better to start with the fountains, and once the City is providing the
service as widely as possible in parks and facilities then go towards promotion
of the service. He expressed his
disappointment that little progress had been made since 2007 in introducing
drinking fountains to parks, and reinstating those drinking fountains had been
decommissioned, and his disappointment that the plan was not anticipating much
progress on that front in the coming years.
Mr. Weir
explained that staff tried to focus the strategy on the early achievable
activities, while developing a longer-term strategy for sustaining the
promotion and increasing the access by coordinating with parks development to
install fountains both in parks and facilities.
Now that the necessary capital funding has been secured to initiate
that, staff will develop a prioritization of those parks and facilities that
would require fountains moving into the years 2011 to 2013.
Committee then
heard from the following public delegations:
Larry Wade,
Ottawa Water Study Action Group (OWSAG), spoke in support of the plan. He explained that OWSAG was three-year-old
group dedicated to supporting municipal water.
He expressed the group’s support for all aspects of the plan, in
particular all efforts to rebuild public trust in the municipal water system.
He suggested
there were two types of argument against the proposal: justified and
unjustified. The first, unjustified
argument was that the quality of municipal water is low, and is exceeded by
bottled water. He suggested the City do
everything possible to counter this perception via education, and advocated
putting considerable resources towards working with local schools. He suggested adult education was equally
vital, relating a conversation with some recent immigrants who were under the
assumption that they needed to boil water before drinking it, and thus bought
bottled. He noted even those who had
lived in Canada a long time did not trust public services, and were educating
their children to do the same. Mr. Wade suggested the more understandable
arguments against City water include the fact that there have been public waste
spills, and existing issues with school water taps leading parents to question
their safety. He suggested such concerns
must be addressed by the City in a scrupulous, quick, and transparent
fashion.
Mr. Wade had
several additional suggestions. First,
he recommended that if the City goes ahead with the plan to purchase and supply
City of Ottawa refillable water bottles, it should avoid the types of plastic
containers known to be objectionable and ensure even metal bottles are tested
by reputable labs to avoid any concerns with possible contamination.
Secondly, he
wished to remind Committee that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
(AMO) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) had stated that
municipalities should phase out the sale and purchase of bottled water at their
own facilities, where appropriate, and where potable water is available. He noted an increasing number of
jurisdictions across the country had banned the sale of bottled water on their
premises, and hoped Ottawa take a more leading role in this respect. He urged Councillors to recognize that
banning the sale of bottled water would not be anti-business; rather it would
emphasize the City’s determination not to allow the interest of the bottled
water industry to trump the collective best interest of citizens.
Mr. Wade
expressed support for the planned installation of outdoor public water
fountains. Further, in order to have the
public believe the City is friendly to its needs, he suggested that new
inter-urban transportation facilities include public toilets. Finally, he suggested any education materials
promoting municipal water include information specifically designed for the
benefit of new Canadians. He surmised
that increased municipal water consumption would increase the income to the
City by several hundred thousand dollars over the following few years. He concluded by noting that a cubic metre
contains 2000 500ml bottles, which at the minimum price of $1 a bottle costs
the public $2000, plus the amount of money that must be spent in disposing of
the bottles, compared with $1.28 for the City water.
Lynn Haggarty,
Ottawa Folk Festival, spoke in support of the plan, in particular the
proposal to purchase water trailers for use at outdoor festivals and
events. She noted the Folk Festival’s
reputation for environmental leadership.
She explained that the previous summer, in collaboration with several
local partners, they became the first Ottawa festival to go water bottle free,
providing hydration stations at key points on the Britannia Park site where
people could refill their water bottles.
She explained the hydration station, and showed several photographs of
it, which are held on file with the City Clerk.
She noted the tank was continuously filled with direct City water.
Ms. Haggarty
explained that the hydration stations and volunteers were provided by the Water
Store, and Orillia-based company interested in
piloting that service at our festival, and a donation by CUPE local 503 enabled
the festival to sell stainless steel water bottles to those who came without
their own. In collaboration with Ottawa
Riverkeeper, the festival also distributed fact sheets outlining reasons to say
no to bottled water. She highlighted
that, by the end of the festival, 3819 litres had been dispensed, diverting the
equivalent of 7638 plastic water bottles from landfill sites.
Ms. Haggerty
explained that the water-dispensing unit was a free pilot project for one year
only, and that to have the same unit for another year would cost the festival
$5000, well beyond the festival’s capacity to pay for, and beyond what they
feel is reasonable price to pay for City water, a public resource. Therefore, she encouraged the City to
fast-track the introduction of their water trailers in time for the summer
festival season, or at least in time for the Folk Festival in August. She expressed the festival's willingness to
work with staff to expedite the project, by providing input to specifications,
piloting the system of transport, set up and delivery, in addition to providing
volunteers to staff the water trailer the festival to help offset costs.
She also urged
the City to provide the water trailers at no cost to City of Ottawa festivals,
which struggle to contain costs. She
suggested the service would be a good public relations tool for Ottawa to
promote its excellent water and the City’s commitment to environmental issues.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Weir stated that the cost to the City for
the amount of water used by the Folk Festival would have been around $10.
Joe Cressy,
Polaris Institute, spoke in support of the plan. He explained that his Ottawa-based
organization had worked with municipalities around the country on initiatives
to promote and reinvest in public water.
He raised the following points:
·
The City of Ottawa spends $121 million a year to
provide drinking water, a service that people are using less frequently.
·
Despite the fact that Ottawa, like many Canadian cities,
has some of the safest drinking water in the world, a third of Canadians drink
bottled water as their primary source of drinking water.
·
Not only are fewer residents comfortable drinking
from water fountains, there are fewer fountains around. The Ontario building codes do not require
water fountains to be put in new buildings.
·
Bottled water companies do a very good job marketing
their product, and cities need to do the same in order to compete.
·
The problem requires comprehensive approach that includes
tackling the issues of public confidence in municipal water, promoting the
service, and improving access to the service.
He suggested this report takes that approach. He highlighted the issue
of the water trailers, which are a form of promotion as well as a form of
access.
·
He surmised that the $750,000 in funding for
2011-2013 was largely directed to the outdoor drinking water strategy and
represented costs for infrastructure.
·
Over 18 municipalities have had success with water
trailers, including Toronto, Stratford, Guelph, Ajax, Oshawa, and
Vancouver. With the exception of
Toronto’s, they were all purchased from one company, and allow for
transportation, on-the-spot filtration and multiple tap dispensing units.
Mr. Cressy
raised the following ideas related to promoting City water that had been
adopted by other jurisdictions, suggesting Ottawa could explore them:
·
Metro Vancouver is launching a mobile phone
application that allows you, whenever you’re on the go, to find out where the
nearest water fountain is.
·
The City of London has designed their own reusable
water bottles, which are used to increase revenues and market their water.
·
Ohio and Florida became the first states in North
America to codify water fountains, such that all new buildings must include
water fountains.
Mr. Cressy
concluded by stating that the responsibility of a City is to provide safe and
accessible drinking water, and unfortunately cities are providing the same
amount of water to fewer residents because they’re not drinking it. He suggested it was time for Ottawa to
promote their water and become a water leader, joining over 100 other
municipalities that have done so over the past year, as encouraged by the FCM
and AMO.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Cressy suggested water promotion
initiatives had not generated a great deal of controversy in other
municipalities. He also expressed the
opinion that the recommendations of the report were a good default option, but
felt the City could go much further. He
suggested the controversial stand related to banning bottled water, and
expressed his surprise that people would find promoting City water and ensuring
access to it to be controversial.
In response to
questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Cressy suggested it was beyond debate
that not everyone believes City water is great, as evidenced by the City’s
surveys and those done by his organization and Statistics Canada. Councillor Doucet noted that everybody used
to drink from the tap because there was no alternative. Now, they are buying bottled water, which is
often treated water from other municipalities.
Mr. Cressy
confirmed that some bottled water was indeed municipal water from other
jurisdicions, noting Dasani and Aquafina brands were municipal water. He emphasized that it was no longer enough to
just provide the water, as cities are now in competition with bottled water
companies that produce a product that cities pay for through landfills and
recycling. Councillor Doucet agreed the
City had major problem promoting its water, in addition to having to deal with
disposal of all the plastic bottles.
Mr. Cressy
wished to emphasize that the issue was access in addition to promotion, and
that the City needed to ensure access to water via drinking fountains in order
for them to be a viable alternative to bottled water.
Councillor
Hunter suggested that the reason some people buy bottled water is not safety,
but rather taste. Some people are
willing to pay extra for the taste of bottled water. He noted that City of Ottawa water is bottled
and distributed by a company in Nepean.
He noted that the water trailers referenced by Mr. Cressy filtered the
water, and wondered if it was a mixed message to have the vehicle promoting the
City’s water filtering that water. Mr.
Cressy suggested that the filtration was largely due to the fact that it is not
safe to keep water stagnant in a large tank, and it has to be kept constantly
circulating. He suggested if Council
wanted the details on the best options, they should go to the providers of such
trailer, such as Cool Earth, who are at the forefront of positive initiatives
in ways to provide water.
Councillor
Wilkinson noted that she had some dealings with this subject in her role as a
member of the FCM board of directors. In
response to questions from the Councillor, Mr. Cressy reiterated that cities
have to promote their water to ensure public confidence in it, as well provide
access to their public water infrastructure so that people do not have to turn
to bottled water. He noted the Polaris
institute also urges cities to phase out the provision of sale of bottled water
in their facilities, and feels bottles are a real problem.
However, he
emphasized that this was not on the agenda, and did not want to confuse access
and promotion with restrictions on the other private alternative.
Councillor
Wilkinson inquired as to the options for providing water trailers at smaller
events. Mr. Cressy suggested there were
different water dispensing units available, on a small or large scale, and
emphasized that the technology exists for cities to be able to provide water to
everybody in every situation, and suggested it was a matter of establishing the
political will to do so.
David Gladstone spoke in favour
of the plan. He wished to mention some
historical points, namely that the City’s water supply system came in the
aftermath of a series of cholera epidemics in the mid-nineteenth century, when
there developed great interest in having a safe water supply. He could not recall anyone saying there was a
problem with the City’s water supply. He
suggested the fact that plastic bottled water was widely available, including
at City Hall, was a great marketing success for bottled water companies, but it
came at a considerable cost to the consumer and to the environment. He supported reducing the use of bottled
alternatives, and felt that the City should be promoting the use of City water,
a resource everyone pays for.
Upon conclusion
of public delegations, Chair Hume turned the discussion back to Committee. He indicated that, in addition to the motion
previously introduced by Councillor Monette, there was an additional motion
from Councillor Holmes.
Councillor
Holmes introduced the following motion:
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa will be
promoting its municipal water through a number of programs;
AND WHEREAS one of these programs are
water trailers for festival and community use;
AND WHEREAS this is a new initiative for
the City of Ottawa which has already generated community excitement;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED the City of Ottawa launch a competition to name the water trailers.
Committee then
addressed the motion put forward by Councillor Monette, that the funds
designated for the promotion part of the plan for promoting drinking water for
the years 2011 through 2013 in the amount of $600,000 be reintegrated to the
budget to offset the 2009 deficit. Chair
Hume suggested that, while he understood the intent of the motion, he questioned
the ability to take a future year’s budget allocation and apply it to a deficit
whose resolution has already been approved.
Carey Thompson,
Deputy City Solicitor provided the opinion that Councillor Monette's motion was
out of order, and having confirmed with the Treasurer, even if it were in order
it would not be implementable.
On the first
point, he noted that Item 10 pertaining to the disposition of the deficit had
already been approved during the consent agenda, and the proposed motion is in
opposition to that report with respect to the funding source. In addition, the purpose of that approved
report was to deal with the finalization of the 2009 operating deficit and
enable the City’s external auditors to finalize the financial statements for
2009, and recommended temporarily borrowing from existing rates supported
capital reserves to fund the rates supported operating deficit.
He suggested the
other problem with the Councillor’s motion, which the City’s external auditor
would likely object to, is that the funds proposed to offset the do not
currently exist. He expressed the
opinion that the external auditor would say that since they do not currently
exist, they cannot be used as a funding source for a current operating deficit.
In response to
questions from Councillor Monette, Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, explained
that the $790, 000 allocated for the 2011-2013 portion of the plan to promote
municipal drinking water was just an allocation that signalled an intention.
She confirmed that it would be within the discretion of the next Council to
change that.
Councillor
Monette withdrew his motion, and indicated that he would vote in opposition to
the staff report. He also expressed his
consternation that, although staff reviewed his motion in advance, they did not
bring these concerns forward before the meeting.
Councillor
Holmes spoke to her motion and the report as a whole. She expressed her strong support for the
plan, and suggested the report was well thought out and comprehensive. She agreed that the City had been somewhat
losing the battle with respect to letting the public know how safe the drinking
water is, and what a great taste it has.
She highlighted how ridiculous it was that so many residents did not
feel City water was safe, given that it is some of the safest water in the
world. She expressed her belief that the report was moving the City in the
right direction, although there was still a long way to go. She noted that the festivals were looking
forward to having the water trailer available to them. She suggested that the plan was beneficial
from an environmental standpoint, as it would reduce the plastic bottles going
into landfills. She further suggested it
would also benefit residents, as they will learn that they don’t have to buy
bottled water. She also noted that if the City can get more people drinking
water, they will make more money, which is relevant given the fact that
consumption is decreasing while costs are increasing.
With regards to
her motion to launch a competition to name the water trailers, Councillor
Holmes suggested a snappy name would help with the promotional aspect of the
trailers. She suggested a competition
was also a good way to get the public involved.
Councillor
Feltmate indicated she would also be supporting the plan. She spoke to the issue of drinking fountains
that were removed from buildings, noting this was due the fact that people were
afraid to use them for fear of contamination.
She suggested that before the City can start putting the fountains back
in, they need to build the brand. She
proposed that once people accepted that the water tastes good and that there
are no problems with fountains, their demand for fountains will supports the
activities of the City to build more fountains in appropriate places.
The Councillor
also expressed her concern that the releasing of data about the spills into the
Ottawa River had heightened residents’ fears about the quality of the drinking
water. She suggested people needed to
understand more about where and how the City’s water is produced. She maintained Ottawa had very good tasting
water compared to many areas. She hoped
the water trailers would not only be used for the large events downtown, but
also for smaller events throughout the city. .
She suggested the plan would offer the community an enhanced service at
very little cost, in terms of bringing the water to them at these events so
that they do not have to spend money on bottled water.
Councillor
Feltmate also expressed her support for re-instituting tours of the water
treatment facilities, suggesting it was a great opportunity to demonstrate to
young people some of the City’s services.
She predicted there would be a strong interest from various groups.
Councillor
Monette reiterated his concerns with regards to the $600,000 allocated for
promotions in 2011 to 2013, noting it was mostly for promotions and
surveys. He noted the City of Ottawa
had some of the best drinking water in the world, and did not see why they
should be spending money to convince people of that. He proposed that there were many other ways
to promote drinking water, including public service announcements, regular
updates in water bills, information on the website, or other ways that do not
cost anything. He suggested that the
City did an effective job of promoting bad news every time there was a spill by
telling people how was going into the Ottawa River, and suggested the City
should put the same effort into getting out the good news about City water.
The Councillor
noted that when he was growing up everyone drank from the tap and from the
fountain, as they expected the City to provide water, and they expected it to
be safe. He noted the City does not
spend such a large amount of money promoting all the services it provides, and
felt there was no need to do so for drinking water. He reiterated that he supported making
drinking fountains more accessible; however, he felt he could not support the
$600,000 allocation for the promotion of water.
Councillor
Doucet suggested the issue of bottled water was intimately related to the
problems of public water. He noted
bottled water manufacturers had been effective in their advertising at the
expense of City water. He suggested
clean municipal water had done more to reduce disease than any other invention,
and lamented that it had lost ground. He
suggested this could be partly the City’s fault, as they had failed to really
promote the service. He also emphasized the extensive testing the City’s water
is subjected to, noting a Councillor is personally liable for $1Million if the
water is dirty. He suggested this
exceeded the testing touted by bottled water companies. He expressed his strong support for the plan,
and congratulated staff, indicating his only criticism is that it was not an
even bigger program.
Councillor Qadri
indicated that he felt the concept of promoting the City’s services made sense,
but felt there were other ways to do it.
He suggested
that City staff should be promoting it through the web site, and also that
staff in charge of the water supply, such as Mr. Weir, put their faces out on
the website to say they believe in the service they provide to the residents of
this City. However, he suggested
spending over $700,000 to promote the service was unfair, given the impact on
the taxpayer. The Councillor noted that one of the reasons bottled water was
popular was its portability and convenience.
He suggested having water trailers would not prevent people from buying
bottled water, unless there was one on every corner. He suggested staff continue the tours and
make the public aware through various means. However, he could not support the
plan given the costs and impacts on the taxpayer.
Councillor
Harder spoke in opposition to the proposed plan. She suggested this issue was another example
of how the City had lost its way. She
emphasized that when there was a regional government, very few people came out
in opposition, even though the Region received 80 per cent of all the taxes. Residents just expected the region to provide
services like good water, sewers that didn’t overflow, buses that showed up,
and major roads that were cleaned. She
suggested the issues that residents wanted investment in, both pre-amalgamation
and now, were issues like Fire, Libraries, Parks and Recreation. She suggested the City needed to stop talking
about the things residents just expect them to do, and pay attention to those
things residents really want them to provide. She pointed out that a draft of
the Master Parks and Recreation Plan coming forward for public comment. She expressed the frustration she had heard
from her residents, who she indicated were at the breaking point and very
disillusioned with the City. She
emphasized that residents expect the City to provide services well, which they
do, but she could not support spending extra money to promote it.
Councillor Hume
noted that the former Region had done many things like those listed in the
report, in addition bottling municipal drinking water and handing it out at
community events, giving out rain barrels, low-flow shower kits and undertaking
social marketing in the community. He
noted that there was good community response at that time and no argument over
the costs of that program. He noted the
City does many things to promote its services and activities to the Citizens of
Ottawa. He suggested that, just as in
the private sector, the City has to invest in the commodity they are
selling. With reference to the City’s
web site as a place to promote the service, Councillor Hume suggested web site
was difficult to navigate and not user-friendly. He suggested the site required a complete
revamping.
With regards to
the plan, Chair Hume suggested it could have a positive impact on residents,
and suggested people at Community events would like the water trailers. He suggested the plan was composed of good
things to be doing for a service that is important but poorly understood,
according to the survey. He indicated
he would be supporting the initiative, which was more economical than what had
been done by the ormer Regional Government.
Moved by D.
Holmes
WHEREAS the City of Ottawa will be
promoting its municipal water through a number of programs;
AND WHEREAS one of these programs are
water trailers for festival and community use;
AND WHEREAS this is a new initiative for
the City of Ottawa which has already generated community excitement;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED the City of Ottawa launch a competition to name the water
trailers.
CARRIED
Councillors M.
Bellemare and S. Qadri dissented
Committee then
voted on the report recommendations, as amended.
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:
1. The 5-year Plan for Promoting Municipal Drinking Water set
out in this report.
2. That the City of Ottawa launch a competition to name the water trailers.
CARRIED,
as amended
Yeas (5): Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes, G.
Hunter, P. Feltmate and P. Hume
Nays: (3): Councillors B. Monette, S. Qadri and M.
Bellemare
ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0002 CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE LA
VILLE
The following correspondence was received with respect
to this matter and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
E-mail dated 12
April 2010 from Pam Woolridge
·
E-mail dated 9
April 2010 from Sylvia Lewis-Havard
·
Copies of
comments received by Councillor Hunter by various residents of
Knoxdale-Merivale Ward.
Dixon Weir, General Manager, Environmental
Services provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed
rate structure, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He was accompanied by Sally McIntyre,
Program Manager, Environmental Programs; Felice Petti, Manager of Strategic and
Environmental Services; Marian Simulik, City Treasurer; and Ken Hughes, Deputy
City Treasurer, Revenue.
Mr. Weir noted that
the goals of the new rate structure included renewing aging infrastructure,
improving revenue stability, ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability and
continuing to deliver the level of service residents have become accustomed
to. He emphasized that the new rate
structure would continue to be inherently water and energy conservation, as the
largest part of the charge is still volumetric.
In response to
questions from the Chair, Mr. Weir confirmed that there were modest changes to
both the water component and the sewer component of the rate, with the quantum
split between the two.
Councillor Holmes
expressed a desire to not significantly impact low water users, indicating that
she would like to see more options for calculating different volumetric charges
at different levels of consumption, to avoid such an impact. To that effect, Councillor Holmes introduced
the following motion:
WHEREAS the
Auditor General recommended a new rate structure that would provide revenue
stability, improved rate fairness and defensibility, and rate stability; and
WHEREAS this
new rate structure, is in use in most major Canadian Cities – Vancouver,
Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Region of Halton (Oakville, Burlington etc),
Region of Durham(Oshawa, Whitby etc), Halifax, Quebec City and parts of
Montreal; and
WHEREAS the
new structure is a base rate plus a consumption charge; and
WHEREAS
although new structure is revenue neutral to the City of Ottawa but the change
will cause some minor increases (17 cents per day/$5 per month) to the bills of
water users of less than 10 cubic metres a month; and
WHEREAS this
shift has brought a welcome focus to water conservation efforts and a
discussion on how to reward conservation efforts; and
WHEREAS on
May 11 Planning and Environment Committee will receive and consider the City’s
new water efficiency strategy;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to bring forward a companion report to the
phase 2 water efficiency strategy, which outlines options for different
volumetric rates based on levels of consumption that would be more supportive
and encourage greater conservation efforts.
Mr. Weir suggested
that there were some logistical issues associates with developing a rate
structure with inclining/declining block rates.
He confirmed staff could come back with a report that would identify
other rate models and their impact, but expressed staff’s concern that they
would not have time to develop a comprehensive review of rate structures by
May. He suggested staff could undertake
to do a larger report and come back with a discussion paper mid-year for the
new Council’s consideration prior to the implementation of the rate structure
in 2011. Councillor Holmes suggested she
would not expect a completely comprehensive review, rather just some options to
come forward to give Council more flexibility in discussing how they might
charge for different levels of consumption.
Ms. McIntyre raised
the following additional points:
Firstly, she noted that water is billed by residence, and the system
does not account for the number of people living in the household, what stage
of life they are in or whether they have children; therefore, the total amount
of water consumed does not indicate whether a household is water
efficient. She suggested it was
erroneous to assume everybody in the lowest range of water consumption was
necessarily water efficient. She
emphasized that under the new rate structure those who are water efficient
would always pay less than those who are not, at all levels of water
consumption, as they would still have a very significant portion of their water
bill fully within their control. She
suggested the intent of the structure was to recover a greater portion of the
fixed costs, which everyone benefits from, by apportioning them to all
households, and would not penalize water-efficient households.
With regards to
Councillor Holmes’ motion, she noted staff had examined alternative rate
structures, as discussed in the previous report to Council, including fixed
rates, incremental block rates and declining block rates. She suggested the proposed rate structure was
the one that achieved the established priorities related to meeting the fiscal
framework, addressing Auditor General’s direction and ensuring sustainable
infrastructure going forward.
Mr. Weir reinforced
that much work had been done in reviewing the various rate structures in
developing their recommendations. He suggested staff could develop a report
that would look at all the rate structures and how staff felt the various
structures met Council and Committee’s objectives. This report could speak to the benefits and
detriments of each such rate structure and some of the billing impacts, and
could come forward with the water efficiency report in May.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Holmes with regards to the impacts on
low-income, multi-child families, Mr. Weir suggested that, by virtue of their
high numbers, such households would likely be higher water use bracket, and
thus much of their bill would be volumetric and fall within the ability of the
family to control.
Councillor Doucet
suggested this structure was doing what every other utility already does,
namely divide the charge between a connection fee and a usage fee. He expressed concern that it was being
portrayed in the media as something that penalizes those who conserve water and
benefits those who do not. He suggested
that the connection charge made sense because, even if a low water user is out
of town for an extended period, they are still hooked up to the system, which
costs money.
Mr. Weir explained
that staff had tried to emphasize that, as a large portion of the bill remains
on the volumetric side, the new structure continues to encourage conservation
within all four customer classes. He
emphasized that the largest proportion of the costs to deliver the service had
no connection to the volume of water sold, and the rate structure is intended
to better reflect that and generate a more stable revenue to continue with
investment in infrastructure and high quality service delivery for the benefit
of ratepayers.
Councillor Monette
expressed concern with the residential bill impacts, noting low and low-to
moderate water consumers would experience significant percentage increase,
while high and moderately high water consumers would experience a decrease as a
result of the new rate structure. He
suggested this seemed to penalize low users who make the effort to conserve.
Mr. Weir understood
the concerns expressed. He noted that,
as a high percentage of the charge remains volumetric, the structure continues
to encourage water conservation and water-efficient use, and continues to allow
those residents the opportunity to lower their water bill. The rate structure is also meant to be a
better reflection of the fixed to variable costs, as most of the costs for
delivering the service are fixed.
Councillor Monette introduced
the following Motion:
WHEREAS staff
have proposed the implementation of a base and volumetric rate system to be
applied to the billing of drinking water services; and
WHEREAS the
current billing system based on water consumption does not recognize the fixed
and continual nature of drinking water infrastructure costs; and
WHEREAS the
base and volumetric rate system proposed by staff will add an additional 17% to
the cost of residential drinking water services of low consumption users when
compared to current billing practice and that low end users may not be able to
sustain an additional burden or may have diligently worked toward achieving a
level of conservation of city water;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that an incremental rate structure be implemented that would effect
no increase in costs (When comparing the existing and proposed rate structures
using base year 2010) to those with an average consumption of or less than 18 m3/mo.
and shift resulting impact to those with an average consumption higher than 18
m3/mo.
He suggested the
motion would keep the intent of the staff report, but would shift the burden
away from low or moderate water users to high and moderately high users, noting
those higher users would still be paying less than they are now. He suggested this change would still be
encouraging conservation, and would be sending the right message in the
community. He clarified that the motion
would pertain to residential users and the impacts would be related to the full
charge, including water and sewer. He
suggested that the City should not be penalizing those who go out of their way
to conserve water, noting many residents had expressed that sentiment.
Mr. Weir suggested
explained that the City’s ability to implement complex rate structures such as
those suggested in the motion was limited by the inability to obtain month-by
month reads and bill on an incremental or altering block structure. The noted the City currently relies on a
manual system of collecting data, targeting a recovery of information every of
four months, up to six to eight months if there are any deficiencies with the
meter-reading system. He suggested this
infrequency of reads of actual consumption made it near impossible to implement
a more complex structure effectively.
Ms. Simulik confirmed
that until the full automated meter system was implemented, it would be
difficult to bill on an inclining or altering block structure. She suggested the scenario posed in
Councillor Monette’ motion could be explored as one of the options coming
forward in May, in conjunction with those suggested in Councillor Holmes’
motion, and that the benefits and problems of such an option could be reviewed.
Mr. Weir recommended
that, due to the impending financial plan deadline, Council approve the base
plus volumetric formula as outlined in the staff report, with option for the
volumetric to be considered on 11 May, knowing the implementation will be in
2011. Ms Simulik suggested this would work for the preparation of the Financial
Plan.
It was suggested that
Councillor Monette’s motion be combine with Councillor Holmes’ previous motion,
with staff to come back 11 May with the results of their review. Both Councillors agreed to this approach.
Councillor Bellemare
noted that over 2008 to 2009, actual water sales were six per cent less than
projected, and the examples used by staff in their presentation spoke to a 10
per cent fluctuation. He suggested that,
in order to justify a base charge, he would like to see a historical look at
how much the total revenues have fluctuated over the years. He suggested the 25 per cent base charge was
perhaps too high if revenue fluctuation was only 10 per cent, and therefore a
lower base charge would be warranted.
Councillor Bellemare
also noted that low and low to moderate water users would experience a very
significant percentage increase in their water rates under the new structure,
while moderately high and high users would experience significant decreases. He suggested the structure was not fair
because it necessarily penalized those who are efficient when it comes to the
low-users. He suggested that there are a
significant amount of low-use households that are water efficient, and they
would be seeing large increases in their monthly rates. He suggested a smaller
base charge would be better.
Mr. Weir explained
that the rate structure was intended to address the fact that over 90 per cent
of the cost of delivering the service is fixed and has nothing to do with water
demand, while over 90 per cent of revenues are based
on demand. Further, he suggested the
intent was to more fairly distribute the fixed charges over the entire customer
base, while leaving sufficient bill control and encouragement for conservation. He noted the proposed base charge was a lower
percentage than in some other Ontario municipalities, which have base charges
over 20 per cent. Staff established an
internal target to stay between 20-30 per cent base charge
in order to moderate that impact.
Councillor Bellemare wondered, why a 25 per cent base charge was necessary if the
fluctuation in revenue was less than 10 per cent a year and the goal is to
stabilize revenues. He suggested perhaps
a 6-10 per cent would be sufficient to bring stability to revenues. Mr. Weir suggested that, even with a 25-29
per cent base charge, staff is only tempering the
revenue variability, not eliminating it.
Even at the higher base charge, the volumetric portion is so large that
major decrease in revenue exceeds what the base charge can modify.
Councillor Bellemare
maintained that the big increases and decreases in water bills were not fair
and reasonable, and suggested phasing in the base charge over time, and seeing
over time whether the revenues are being stabilized.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hunter regarding the impacts on extremely low water
users (less than 10 cubic metres a month) Ms. McIntyre noted that as
consumption decreases, the fixed portion represents a greater portion of the
bill. For low water users the fixed
portion is a higher percentage of the bill, but the overall bill is still lower
than that of a higher water user because the volumetric charge is applied to
fewer cubic metres. With regards to the
quantum of the base charge, that will depend on the 2011 rate budget. The current formula is intended to minimize
impact to the average residential consumer.
Councillor Hunter
expressed sympathy for the anger and frustration of those residents who had
taken steps to conserve water, some by means of City conservation programs, in
order to move to a lower category of water user, only to be hit with an
increased charge in this new structure.
He noted that in the past he had raised concerns that encouraging
conservation would reduce the City’s revenues, and had been told that
conservation would help avoid capital costs in the future. He suggested the current proposal was not a
fair way to deal declining consumption, suggesting a better tactic would be to
take the surplus collected in years of high consumption and bank it to be used
when there is low consumption.
Councillor Feltmate
inquired whether moving to a similar rate structure in other municipalities had
impacted conservation. Ms. McIntyre
explained the research has generally shown that when any change in a rate
structure occurs, assuming it has a conservation component, it will affect a
change in behaviour almost immediately.
That impact may dissipate over time as it becomes the new norm and as
there is an evolution in the population.
Mr. Weir agreed that the change to the new structure elicits a one-time
resistance to the change, but once it becomes the norm people will
conserve.
In response to
further questions from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Weir explained that the City
was at 1987 levels in terms of water demand, despite the fact that the
population had grown since then. This
can be attributed to investment in infrastructure, changing environmental
designs, water conservation and efficiency.
Tammy Rose, Manager of Drinking Water Services, explained that, while
the variable costs (hydro, chemical uses) have come down based on the volume
produced, the fixed costs remain. Mr.
Weir further explained that costs increase as the pipe network expands further
out, and the fixed costs were also going up with inflation. Thus, the cost of delivering the service
continues to rise despite the fact that staff is doing what they can to
minimize operating costs.
Councillor Feltmate
wondered if there was any evidence that conservation could reduce the needs for
new infrastructure, and when those benefits would be reaped in the form of
expenditure avoidance. Mr. Weir noted
that the need to replace infrastructure was largely age-dependant. Conservation has an impact in terms of capacity
by effectively expanding the capacity of the existing pipes, pumping stations,
reservoirs or treatment facilities, allowing intensification on the existing
infrastructure.
Ms Rose explained
there was a study underway to determine the City’s plant expansion needs, and
noted they were already deferring the need to expand Lemieux or Britannia water
treatment facilities by a few years. Mr.
Weir stated that the report coming forward to Committee and Council in May would
identify some of the projects that water conservation had been able to avoid or
defer.
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri with regard to how the base rate and how it
might vary over time, Mr. Weir explained that there are certain costs that are
charged to the base or volumetric rate.
Therefore, if those charges changed, there would be a need to change the
base charge or the volumetric charge.
Included in the base charge are all the support services, plus a portion
of capital, debt payment and ongoing operating and maintenance. The larger
share of the capital, debt, and operating maintenance reside within the
volumetric change.
In response to
questions from Councillor Qadri respecting the impacts of continued water
conservation, Mr. Weir explained staff was continuing
to forecast on a year-to year basis what demand will be. He suggested moving to the new rate structure
would reduce the impact of the variability, should it occur in the future, on
both the high side and the low side of consumption. He reiterated the focus of the structure is
generating a more stable revenue stream for the City.
Chair Hume noted that
the City continues to produce bills based on estimated consumption, and the
equipment is antiquated. He suggested in
order to eliminate variability, the City must move to
actual consumption-based billing sooner rather than later. Mr. Weir agreed, adding that the
infrastructure does not currently exist to be able to support the changes
proposed by Councillor Monette, reiterating that staff will nonetheless explore
the options and come forward in the May report to identify the issues.
Committee then heard
from the following public delegations.
John Dickie, Eastern
Ontario Landlord Organization (EOLO) indicated his organization was generally
supportive of the proposal and did not have a problem with the introduction of
a base rate, suggesting it would lend consumer stability and revenue stability
for the City. He preferred the idea of
one volumetric rate rather than multiple volumetric rates. However, if there were to be variable
volumetric rates based on consumption, he asked that the bands be set on a
per-dwelling basis. For example, if a
single home gets a lower rate for the first ten cubic meters, a 10 unit
building should get that rate for the first hundred cubic metres. He suggested that, as the City has unit
counts for use on the garbage charges, the data would be available to
incorporate into the water billing system.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Dickie explained that his members generally
have one meter for multiple units. He
noted this issue applied not only to rental buildings, but also to
condominiums, many of which are also not separately metered. He also commented that many landlords have
put in water saving measure and, while those who have been particularly
aggressive in conservation would pay more under the new structure, they would
still pay less than the non-conservers.
Richard Eveleigh spoke in support of
encouraging water conservation. He noted
that he had seen water pipes being replaced that were 100 years old but still
functional. He suggested it was a waste
to be fixing pipes that were not broken, leading to rising infrastructure
costs. He further suggested Council
should not be afraid to raise the water rate per litre, as other municipalities
that had feared this privatized their water, leading to increased costs and
declining quality.
Mr. Eveleigh also
suggested the City use a meter to detect water leaving the sewer pipe, and have
a separate charge for residential and commercial users based on that,
suggesting such a meter could also be used to detect toxins in the water. He also suggested residents should be charged
per square meter for impermeable surfaces, such as parking lots and driveways
that do not allow rainwater to sink through.
Moreover, he proposed having reservoirs built under roads to collect
rainwater that can be used for such things as cleaning the streets or watering
lawns. He suggested there may be the
ability to reduce the amount of the base charge on the water bill, and
supported the suggestion of Councillor Hunter to save money in high-consumption
years for use in low-consumption years.
Chair Hume then
confirmed the motions from Councillor Holmes and Councillor Monette had been
combined into the following resolutions:
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to bring forward a companion report to the
phase 2 water efficiency strategy, which outlines options for different
volumetric rates based on levels of consumption that would be more supportive
and encourage greater conservation efforts;
BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED THAT the options for different volumetric charges
include a rate structure that would effect no increase in
costs (When comparing the existing and proposed rate structures using base year
2010 ) to those with an average consumption of or less
than 18 m3/mo. and shift resulting impact to those with an average
consumption higher than 18 m3/mo.
Councillor Hunter
requested clarification on the motion, because he felt that Councillors Holmes
and Monette had raised conflicting objectives.
Chair Hume explained that Councillor Holmes was asking staff to bring
forward a companion report that outlines options for different volumetric rates
based on levels of consumption that would be more supportive and encourage
greater conservation efforts, while Councillor Monette was asking that
consideration be given to an option amongst those that would ensure there are
no increases in costs for consumers whose average consumption is less than 18
cubic meters a month.
Councillor Hunter
appreciated the clarification and said that, although the objectives are
laudable, the current system of a pure volumetric charge already encourages and
rewards conservation. He suggested that
any problems the City has in terms of financing should be dealt with internally
through preventative budgeting in the surplus years and should not become the
burden of consumers who have made efforts and continue to conserve. He commented that just because other utilities
and because other municipalities use the base plus volumetric system does not
mean it is right for Ottawa. He
distributed copies of the results of a survey of residents of his ward
pertaining to this issue, in which all but one respondent felt the change to
the system would be inappropriate.
Councillor Bellemare
stated he would be prepared to support Councillor Holmes’ motion on a
conservation-based rate charge if wording were added to ask staff to include
the option of phasing in the 25 per cent base charge over five years. He felt this would resolve the impacts at
both ends of the spectrum in terms of significant increases or decreases.
Councillor Holmes
accepted Councillor Bellemare’s suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Councillor Bellemare stated
he was not in favour of Councillor Monette’s portion of the resolution that
targets consumption that is over 18 cubic meters, because large families may
use that amount or more and still actually be conserving within their personal
means.
Councillor Monette
felt the motion was appropriate given that options would be discussed on 11 May
before decisions are made on the volumetric charge. He reiterated that he would not support any
option that would penalize low and moderate consumers.
On a point of
procedure, Councillor Bellemare asked for the motion to be divided for voting
purposes since he did not support Councillor Monette’s component of the motion.
Moved by D. Holmes
WHEREAS the
Auditor General recommended a new rate structure that would provide revenue
stability, improved rate fairness and defensibility, and rate stability; and
WHEREAS this
new rate structure, is in use in most major Canadian Cities – Vancouver,
Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Region of Halton(Oakville, Burlington etc), Region
of Durham(Oshawa, Whitby etc), Halifax, Quebec City and parts of Montreal; and
WHEREAS the
new structure is a base rate plus a consumption charge; and
WHEREAS
although new structure is revenue neutral to the City of Ottawa but the change
will cause some minor increases (17 cents per day/$5 per month) to the bills of
water users of less than 10 cubic metres a month; and
WHEREAS this
shift has brought a welcome focus to water conservation efforts and a
discussion on how to reward conservation efforts; and
WHEREAS on
May 11 Planning and Environment Committee will receive and consider the City’s
new water efficiency strategy;
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to bring forward a companion report to the
phase 2 water efficiency strategy, which outlines options for different
volumetric rates based on levels of consumption that would be more supportive
and encourage greater conservation efforts, as well as the option of phasing
the base charge in over five years.
CARRIED
Councillor G. Hunter dissented
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the options for
different volumetric charges include a rate structure that would effect no
increase in costs (when comparing the existing and proposed rate structures
using base year 2010) to those with an average consumption of or less than 18 m3/mo.
and shift resulting impact to those with an average consumption higher than 18
m3/mo.
CARRIED
Councillors G. Hunter and M. Bellemare dissented
Moved by D. Holmes
That
Recommendation 1 be amended as follows:
1.
Implementation of a “base plus volumetric” rate
structure commencing in 2011 subject to confirmation of the volumetric rate at
the May 11th meeting of Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
CARRIED
Committee then voted
on the first report recommendation, as amended:
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:
1.
Implementation of a “base plus volumetric” rate
structure commencing in 2011 subject to confirmation of the volumetric rate
at the May 11th meeting of Planning and Environment Committee
meeting.
CARRIED, as amended
YEAS
(4): Councillors M. Bellemare, D.
Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume
NAYS
(3): Councillors G. Hunter, B.
Monette, S. Qadri
Committee approved the remainder of the
staff report, as amended.
2.
Full cost recovery by service area, specifically: different rates for the provision of drinking
water services, and sanitary and stormwater services.
3.
That staff further examines options for the recovery
of stormwater and drainage costs in 2010, for report back to Council in 2011.
4.
That staff further examine options for the recovery of
costs from Russell Township and report back in Q4, 2010.
5.
That staff be directed to bring forward a companion
report to the phase 2 water efficiency strategy, which outlines options for
different volumetric rates based on levels of consumption that would be more
supportive and encourage greater conservation efforts, as well as
the option of phasing the base charge in over five years.
6.
That
the options for different volumetric charges include a rate
structure that would effect no increase in costs (when comparing the existing
and proposed rate structures using base year 2010) to those with an average
consumption of or less than 18 m3/mo. and shift resulting impact to
those with an average consumption higher than 18 m3/mo.
CARRIED,
as amended
10. DISPOSITION OF 2009 RATE SUPPORTED
OPERATING DEFICIT
Suivi du déficit de fonctionnement 2009 financé par les tarifs
ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0018 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville
That the Planning
and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the following:
1.
That the 2009 deficit of $5.579 million in the
drinking water program be funded from a transfer from the Water Capital Reserve
Fund.
2.
That the 2009 deficit of $11.177 million in the
wastewater program be funded from a transfer from the Wastewater Capital
Reserve Fund.
3.
That the capital project authorities and financing
adjustments, as detailed in Document 2 to this report, be approved, and that
$5.579 million be returned to the Water Capital Reserve Fund and $11.177
million be returned to the Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.
11. SEWER CHARGE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES
WITH NO WATER SERVICES
AJUSTEMENT DES
REDEVANCES D’ÉGOUTS POUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS SANS SERVICE D’EAU
ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0019 City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville
E-mail correspondence on this matter dated 10 April 2010 was received
from Howard and Linda Healey, which is held on file with the City Clerk.
Bruce
Webster, Richmond Village Association, was present in support of the
recommendation. He noted that the issue
had been brought to the attention of the previous Councillor, and no action had
resulted. He wished to thank the current
Councillor for taking action on this matter, and commend staff for their quick response.
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council:
1.
Approve a
credit program for current owners to offset or adjust the sewer service charges
collected by property taxes for the period of ownership between 2001 and 2009
to be applied to the 2010 Final Tax Bills issued in May 2010.
2.
That such
credit program include interest and provision in the
same manner as authorized by the Municipal Act Section 345 and Education Act
Section 257.11 for overpayments.
3.
That the
estimated cost of this program in the amount of $797,000 be funded by the Sewer
Reserve.
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve that, until such
time as new protocols are finalized and approved by Council, staff be directed
to permit connections to the existing storm sewer system provided that a flow
limiting orifice plate, designed by an engineer to the satisfaction of the
City, be installed at the storm water outlet prior to connecting upstream storm
sewers.
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESERVE APPOINTMENT – OTTAWA FORESTS AND
GREENSPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOMINATION D’UN MEMBRE SUPPLEANT AU
COMITE CONSULTATIF SUR LES FORETS ET LES ESPACES VERTS D’OTTAWA
ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0034-IPD CITY WIDE/À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
RECEIVED
NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT
SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS DE
MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
No notices of motion were
introduced.
Inquiries
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
Councillor Hume submitted
the following inquiry on behalf of Councillor Desroches:
What is the City's regulatory jurisdiction related to
new cell towers? How are the concerns of
local residents addressed under the current regulatory framework?
OTHER BUSINESS
AUTRES QUESTIONS
No other business was
discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Original
signed by Original
signed by
Caitlin Salter-MacDonald Councillor
P. Hume
Committee Coordinator Chair
