1. KENT STREET PLAN -
EVALUATION REPORT ON THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BULB-OUTS AT GLADSTONE AND
GILMOUR / PLAN DE LA RUE KENT – RAPPORT
D’EVALUATION SUR LA SECURITE ET L’EFFICACITE DES MASSIFS SERVANT À
ETRECIR LA CHAUSSEE SITUES À LA HAUTEUR DE L’AVENUE GLADSTONE ET DE LA RUE
GILMOUR
Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0002
-
Public submissions held on file ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0002
In addition to the
above-noted public submissions, Mr. Howard Knopf, who was unable to attend the
hearing, asked that his written submission be read into the record. He essentially opposed traffic calming
initiatives on Kent Street, noting that it forces already stressed drivers to
weave, bump, stop, start and lurch their way through rush hour congestion,
possibly resulting in accidents. He
believed parking should be eliminated on the east side of the road to provide additional
lane capacity, especially because he believed there is already an
under-utilization of existing parking capacity.
Having held a public hearing,
that the Transportation and Transit Committee recommend Council approve:
1. Removal of the curb extensions
(bulb-outs) on the east side of Kent Street immediately north of Gladstone
Avenue and Gilmour Street (refer to Annex A and B, Ainley Graham &
Associates Drawing Number Gladstone-01 and Gilmour-01, 5 March 2001), thus
removing the lateral shift movements introduced in the Kent Street Plan; and
2. Installation of curb extensions (bulb-outs) on
the west side of Kent Street immediately north of Gladstone Avenue, north and
south of Gilmour Street and north of Somerset Street (refer to Annex A, B and
C, Ainley Graham & Associates Drawing Number – Gladstone-01, Gilmour-01 and
Somerset-01, 5 March 2001), to retain the pedestrian and streetscaping benefits
of the overall plan;
subject to detailed design.
CARRIED
2. ALTA
VISTA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY – DRAFT STATEMENT
OF WORK / ÉTUDE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU COULOIR DE CIRCULATION D’ALTA
VISTA – ÉNONCÉ DES TRAVAUX (ÉBAUCHE)
Ref N°: ACS2001-DEV-POL-0007
-
Public submissions held on file ACS2001-DEV-POL-0007
Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation
Infrastructure provided a brief summary of the action taken by staff since
committee considered the matter in February, noting that the report
incorporates all those goals and comments from the public consultation process. To clarify the difference in process between
a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) and an Individual EA, Ms. Chi explained
that a Class EA is for roads, water and sewers, whereas the latter is for
transitway and light rail. The
Individual EA has to be approved by the Minister of the Environment (MOE) and
is very time-consuming in terms of process, i.e., 42 weeks, plus potentially 14
more weeks if a mediator and the EA Board is involved. A Class EA, however, is self-assessed and
self-approved so once committee has accepted the findings of this study, it
goes on the public record for a 30-day review and if the public feels the
process was flawed or there were areas they feel were not investigated, they do
have an opportunity to request the Minister to bump it up to an Individual EA.
She explained
that this project is being done as a Class EA because the Transportation Master
Plan (TMP) detailed what the need and assessment of the alternative solutions
were and the results in the TMP and the Official Plan (OP) is that this is a
roadway facility. Further, regardless
of what happened in the past, this EA will revisit Phases 1 and 2 so other
alternatives can be examined for this corridor. If, at the end of Phase 2, it is clear that this corridor will be
for rail or transit-only, the project will then proceed to an Individual EA and
new Terms of Reference, which would be narrower in scope, would be prepared and
submitted to the Minister for approval.
Ms. Chi stated that Ministry staff has confirmed the Class EA process is
the right approach to take for this project, adding that options are not
precluded at the outset and there is an opportunity to change direction
depending on the work done.
Chris Gordon, Project Engineer,
Sustainable Transportation Planning provided a brief overview of the public
meeting held on 13 March 2001. A
summary of that consultation is included in the report. The following minor amendments to Section
2.2.3 of the report were noted:
- the Canterbury Community Association is added
to the PAC membership;
- the name “Greenspace Alliance of Canada” to be
revised to read: “Greenspace Alliance
of Canada’s Capital”.
In addition, Submission #26 at Exhibit 3 was
amended to read: Resident.
The Committee Chair asked staff to
clarify what the Terms of Reference were about, i.e., are they to choose the
consultant or are they for the actual study.
Ms. Chi explained that the report before committee is a Statement of
Work and describes the basics to be undertaken for the study. The process to appoint a consultant is an
independent exercise, noting those appointed would take the Statement of Work
and comply with what is contained in that document. When asked why the study area was not included, Ms. Chi advised
that a study area as an area of influence which would limit the EA to that
area. Therefore, it is broader if that
area is not defined now.
When asked whether both a Class EA
and an Individual EA could be done at the same time, the Manager advised that
the Ministry would question why the City is doing both at once. She added that she had never heard of both
being carried out for any project and was concerned there may be a waste of
effort by doing them together. Chair
Meilleur questioned whether this facility is listed in the OP as a roadway and
Ms. Chi confirmed it was.
Councillor Bloess noted that when
this item was originally dealt with last February, the question was asked why
the terms of reference were not more specific.
Ms. Chi explained that staff have not done the design for this facility
so it is not known if ramps will be constructed or where they would be
built. She added that it is difficult
to pinpoint such design details, which will come out in the EA process itself.
Councillor Doucet questioned why the
committee does not see the Terms of Reference in this study and was advised by
Ms. Chi that there is no need for a formal terms of reference for a Class EA as
these have already been determined for all road projects. The councillor asked that should committee
and Council decide that the corridor will be used for light rail or a public
transit corridor in front of the hospital, but that a road be built behind the
facility, if the city were to go to an Individual EA for that public transit
only corridor, would it mean having to start the EA process all over
again. Ms. Chi indicated they would not
have to start again because the process would involve doing the same work and
the only difference is the approval authority.
The councillor further questioned
that if public transit is determined as the preferred alternative, would it not
be to the city’s advantage to initiate an Individual EA now in order to get
that lengthy process underway. Ms. Chi
explained that when the process reaches that stage and there is a need to deal
with an Individual EA, there will have already been a lot of work done, but the
end result will still be what is the best use for the corridor. She did not think time can be saved by doing
things in tandem and noted further that the MOE would ask why the City is
taking that route because the future of the corridor will not have been arrived
at.
Councillor Doucet inquired where
greenhouse gases would come under this scope of work and was advised by the
Manager that it would be beyond the scope of the EA but confirmed that air
quality will be examined as part of the process. She confirmed that the EA does include an examination of the
differences in air quality between a road project versus light rail or a
transitway.
Councillor Doucet referred to
Section 1.2 Revisit the Need and
Justification for the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor, which lists a
number of roadway projects previously conducted. He noted that all of these roads are pointed towards the Alta
Vista Parkway and were all evaluated as local projects; however, since they are
listed in this document, it would appear that they have a region-wide impact
and if the Parkway is to serve those areas listed, then perhaps the scope of
work should include those areas. Mr.
Gordon advised that at the public consultation meeting in March, there was a
desire by the public to include a lot of other transportation projects that had
gone on in the 1970’s and the reason staff identified those studies was because
of the development that would be occurring in those different areas. Therefore, it would probably be beyond the
scope of this particular work to include all of this area in the study.
Councillor Doucet suggested that if
light rail is the preferred alternative for the use of the corridor, all those
roads listed would end at a train station so if that area is not included, how
can staff build in the assessment for that possibility. Mr. Gordon responded by stating that other
groups within the Department are working on the new OP and the TMP and a lot of
those more citywide questions will be addressed in those studies.
In response to a question posed by
Councillor Legendre about the status of this corridor in the ROP and TMP,
Brendan Reid, Manager, Infrastructure and Project Planning confirmed that the
Alta Vista Parkway is identified as a roadway.
The EA process will determine whether or not it should continue to be a
road, noting that should it be concluded that there should be a light rail or
transitway through the corridor, there will need to be an amendment to the OP
to change its present designation.
Councillor Hume asked that if
Council decides to move the project to an Individual EA, would that decision
preclude a mixed-use facility and Ms. Chi confirmed it would because an
Individual EA is only for light rail or a transitway. If the City decided to move to an Individual EA, the councillor
questioned whether the MOE would tell the municipality that it would have to do
a Class EA and Ms. Chi reiterated her previous comment that the Minister would
question the City’s decision and justification would have to be given to
support its decision to go with an Individual EA.
Heather
Humphries, Ottawa East Community Association advised committee that this
project is called a Class EA and falls under the Class Municipal Roads Projects
for which Terms of Reference have already been determined. However, since options such as light rail or
public transit cannot be examined within that EA, she asked that committee move
this project immediately to an Individual EA.
She believed it was important to define the study area because that is
the only way to assess cumulative effects.
Ms. Humphries pointed out that when the report was first submitted to
committee earlier this year, there was a statement under the heading
“Environmental Implications” that “all environmental impacts would be
assessed”. However, the amended report
before committee reads that “all natural impacts
would be assessed” and she believed the word ‘natural’ should be deleted. In closing, she indicated that upon seeking advice
from the MOE on the appropriateness of an Individual EA for this project, she
was advised to request the City to move this project to an Individual EA.
Councillor Legendre wondered why the
delegation suggested moving to an Individual EA at this time when staff have
clearly indicated that a Class EA may result in the initiation of an Individual
EA, depending on the process. Ms.
Humphries explained that the Class EA only requires staff to look at road
projects and nothing else. The
councillor asked whether the Municipal Road Project Terms of Reference referred
to by the delegation bound the city, and the Manager advised that while those
are for Class EA’s, it does not prevent the city from looking at alternatives.
Councillor Doucet believed it would
save time if an Individual EA was carried out on the public transportation
corridor portion of the assessment. Ms.
Chi advised that at the end of Phase 2, it will be known clearly what the
preferred solution will be and if it is transit-only, then the Class EA will be
ended and an Individual EA will be initiated.
However, if the solution is a combination of uses, the Class EA will
continue because that is provided for in the Terms of Reference.
In light of the conflicting advice
provided by the Ministry to both staff and the delegation, it was suggested
that staff obtain the advice they received, in writing, and circulate it to
councillors before the item rises to Council.
Peter
Marwitz, President, Action Sandy Hill expressed concern about the impact
this road will have on Sandy Hill, particularly in the area of Nicholas
Street. He was pleased to hear the
committee was being assertive regarding policy issues and was prepared re-think
this project in the larger context, not simply as a little roadway going
through a well-established neighbourhood in Alta Vista.
Jon
Legg, Board Member, Action Sandy Hill stated that staff have the tendency
to plan for roadways and therefore the community does not have a lot of
confidence that there will be neutral consideration of all options. He referred to the “Class Environmental
Assessment for Municipal Road Projects” document previously referred to, noting
it was prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association and was designed to
“deal efficiently with commonly-recurring roadway projects”. Mr. Legg indicated that by insisting that
this EA is a Class EA for municipal road projects, staff have appeared to have
avoided the obligation of meaningful public consultation required in an
Individual EA. He believed the latest
round of consultation was conducted in a hurried affair and, according to the
Legal advice given to Committee in February for an approved Class EA,
consultation during the development of the study Terms of Reference is not
legally required. The community is very
concerned that if the Class EA for municipal road projects process is used for
this EA, it will close off a number of avenues which are unable to be foreseen
at this point in time simply because the process is designed for road
projects. He confirmed the community
favours a light rail system through this corridor.
In closing, Mr.
Legg indicated that Action Sandy Hill does not want this process to begin in
the framework of municipal roads projects and while he realized there is a
possibility between Phases 2 and 3 for changing it, it seems that the process
is being begun with a road framework and given past biases, he wondered whether
or not they would get a fair treatment.
He added that they would prefer not to use the bump-up process because
it is time-consuming.
When asked to clarify which process
is the broadest, Ms. Chi advised the Class EA is broader than the Individual EA
After being prompted for a response
from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Humphries explained that she took a different
position than staff with respect to which process is broader. She believed that since committee and Council
would determine the Terms of Reference for an Individual EA, it would be the
broader of the two, whereas, the Class EA would be restricted to the already
established Terms of Reference.
When asked to clarify this
difference of opinion, the Solicitor, Ernest McArthur, advised that the process
staff are recommending is the legally correct one. He explained that it would be improper to move to an Individual
EA at this stage, because the current OP, as well as the TMP, directed that
this study be undertaken as a road project and that requires a Class EA. If committee and Council were to embark on
an Individual EA, he believed there is an aspect of pre-judgement in that,
especially as that would be contrary to the OP and the TMP and further work
would be required to convert it to an Individual EA, probably as an amendment
to the Official Plan. He confirmed that
an Individual EA would be more restrictive because it is guided in the Terms of
Reference specifically for that project.
However, leaving this project as a Class EA enables and requires that
alternatives be considered. He further
confirmed that the legislation says that committee and Council will define the
Terms of Reference for an Individual EA, so it could be broad.
Councillor Hume questioned whether
there is a big difference between what staff are proposing and if committee
decides to proceed to an Individual EA.
Ms. Chi advised that committee and Council have control over the
acceptance or not of the Terms of Reference, whereas the Terms of Reference for
an Individual EA have to be approved by the MOE. Mr. McArthur added that the Minister would not determine
whether or not something should be included in the Terms of Reference, but
whether they were adequate and proper and whether or not they were the result
of public consultation.
Donald Melick, Faircrest Heights Community
Association believed the committee should follow a process, which will
allow for the broadest examination of the issues as quickly as possible. He indicated that the hospital complex
currently employees over 10,000 people, a third of which come from Quebec and
they are almost precluded from using public transit because of the inadequacies
and the interface between the STO and OC Transpo systems. He added that this site will be expanding by
an additional 2.5 million square feet and he has heard about a proposal for a
700,000 square foot parking garage being provided, which, by his estimation,
would allow for approximately 2300 cars.
Based on the current congestion experienced by travellers to this
complex, he recognized the need for the broadest examination of what can be
done as soon as possible, with as few opportunities for further roadblocks.
Barbara Barr believed that community associations in what
was formerly south Gloucester, e.g., Blossom Park, Leitrim and River Ridge
should be represented on the PAC. She
was concerned that the boundaries of the study area were not defined in this
document and while she understood staff’s explanation that they did not want to
include areas of influence, she could not find any reference to such areas in
the report. She therefore suggested the
committee think about giving some guidance to as to what it feels the area of
influence might be that should be included in the study. Ms. Barr encouraged committee members to
proceed to an Individual EA because it would provide a better analysis and save
time overall.
Danford Kelly appealed to committee for a proper and adequate
assessment of the need and its impact.
He agreed there is a need for a comparative cost/benefit analysis of the
various options and was of the opinion that an Individual EA will include a
more detailed description of environmental effects, alternatives to the
project, alternative ways of carrying out the project, evaluation criteria and
methodology, and mitigation measures.
With respect to the inclusion of greenhouse gases as part of the
assessment, he maintained that an adequate transit system is far more important
than adequate roadways and would provide for a better quality of life for all
citizens. He firmly believed the committee
would be making a mistake by going with a Class EA for this project.
In response to a
question posed by Councillor Legendre, Ms. Chi confirmed that staff would give
equal attention to the costs associated for all alternatives.
Mary Sean Burgham agreed with many of the comments
made by the previous speakers with respect to the importance of putting this
project under an Individual EA rather than a Class EA. She believed the latter would be less
restrictive because at any time the city could decide not to look at all the
alternatives. Alternatively, however,
an Individual EA is broader and the MOE does not decide what the options
are. With respect to the comments
raised about the amount of time it will take for an Individual EA, she believed
time is not an issue because this is a very important project and as a resident
living very close to the greenspace to be affected, she wanted to ensure that
everything possible is considered.
David Gladstone, Chair, City Centre
Coalition believed
the additional public consultation was helpful and that a lot of important
material was added to the Statement of Work.
However, he was disappointed that the revised report still leaves out
consideration of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions of the various
options. He maintained that the
Statement of Work should examine the various options’ impact on greenhouse gas
emissions, although such a recommendation was rejected as being outside the
parameters of what is considered appropriate for a transportation environmental
assessment. Also, he wanted to confirm
that the PAC will include representatives of all the community associations in
the study area, and all the affected communities that are members of the City
Centre Coalition should be represented on that group. With respect to the issue of an Individual verses a Class EA, the
Coalition would like to see a comprehensive and objective review of the impacts
of all the options, including the “do nothing” option. In closing, he indicated there is strong
consensus within the Coalition that a public transit option should be very
strongly favoured for the corridor, particularly transit options serving the
hospital complex.
In response to the
suggestion made that the membership of the PAC should include all affected
communities, Ms. Chi indicated that they would always be given an opportunity
to join the PAC.
Councillor McNeely
supported the suggestion that the process should look at alternatives in terms
of the impacts of greenhouse gases and wondered whether there was a low-cost
method that each project would be looked at from that impact and whether the
choices of alternatives would have a higher priority if they produce less
greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Chi
confirmed this is the intention, noting that energy use would also be evaluated
as part of the assessment of the various alternatives. She added that as the process continues, the
public will have the opportunity to review these energy issues when they are
dealt with in the study, to the extent that the level of detail is sufficient
for an EA.
Councillor Arnold
questioned whether the Statement of Work is a legally binding document for
which the city is accountable. Ms. Chi
advised that in the Class EA, there is no required legal document for a Terms
of Reference; it is a legal document in that it will have the approval of
Council. The councillor indicated that
if the concern is that not all of the alternatives are looked at equally, where
would the accountability lie. Ms. Chi
advised it would lie with Council, but confirmed staff would report to
committee on an interim basis to provide updates on the findings. She confirmed that the intent of the process
is to examine everything in-depth.
Councillor Arnold wondered that if an allegation is made that a mixed-use
option is not adequately evaluated, who would ultimately be accountable for
that. Ms. Chi advised that with a Class
EA it can always be bumped up so the Minister is always the last avenue to go
through. Through an Individual EA, the
Minister is identified as the final person to approve the recommendations and
until that point is reached, it would be City Council who is accountable.
Mr. McArthur added
that the environmental process under both is not really any different; under
the Class EA there is a need to follow the requirements of the Act and if not,
the process could be bumped up. The big
difference is that in the Class EA, there is no requirement for Ministerial
approval all the way along. In the
event that committee and Council do not follow the requirements under the EA
Act and do not study all the alternatives, it can still be bumped up for the
Minister to review.
The committee then
considered the following Motions:
Moved
by R. Bloess
That the composition of the Public
Advisory Committee (Section 2.2.3) be amended by adding the Upper Hunt Club
Community Association.
CARRIED
Councillor Doucet proposed that the
staff recommendation be amended to add the words: “to be initiated this year as an Individual Environmental
Assessment.” As previously indicated,
he believed this process would save time in the long run. He was convinced that if Council proceeds
with the proper Terms of Reference and take the time to go to the MOE, it will
result in a project that can be supported whether it is a light rail option or
a four-lane highway. Further, he
believed that it will become clear through the process that a portion of the
corridor will be a light rail connection so the city would have to move to an
Individual EA at that point anyway, so it might was well be initiated at the
outset.
Councillor
Bloess believed the councillor’s proposal would delay the process and therefore
could not support the Motion. He
believed that the Statement of Work before committee is as broad as it can be
and covers all the concerns raised by the public, despite the fact there is
still some concern that this process will not allow for justice to be done for
all the other options. However, staff
have repeatedly told committee that if the city does not do what is set out in
the report, it will be held accountable and the onus is on councillors to
ensure compliance with what is being put forward.
Councillor
Hume also urged committee members to reject the Motion because the Terms of
Reference for an Individual EA are taken out of the hands of Council and placed
with the Minister of the Environment.
He believed that the way to give a balanced approach is to follow the
Class EA to ensure the municipality retains control and accountability.
In
support of the Motion to proceed with an Individual EA, Councillor Cullen
clarified that the Minister’s involvement is such that he ensures the process
is not distorted in any way and while there is an element of uncertainty with
respect to receiving his approval, the difference from the Class and Individual
EA is in process, not in content. The
question then becomes one of timing and he was mindful of the fact that
committee and Council have to do it right and there is no point proceeding with
a Class EA because he firmly believed the project will be bumped up. He believed the committee should approve the
amendment because it makes it clear what the process is and moves it forward.
Councillor
Arnold referred to the list of alternatives at Section 1.5, which includes all
of the alternatives the public want to be examined, so she was very comfortable
with this document as a Statement of Work that would have to be used. She believed that the bottom line is which
process is correct and which will provide the City with the greatest degree of
control and accountability and which process will provide the review that the
public wants in order to ensure that whatever decision is made at the end of
the process is correct.
Councillor
Harder agreed it was important for the City to retain control and she was
confident that staff are committed to community consultation and believed there
was a better chance of getting what is right for the city with staff, rather
than having the MOE step in.
Councillor
McNeely believed the committee has a responsibility to proceed under the Class
EA, recognizing that at Phase 2 there will be an Individual EA initiated and
the Terms of Reference for the particular option will be well defined at that
time.
The
Committee Chair acknowledged that this is a very important piece of
infrastructure that will be built and the committee and Council must do it
right. While she commended staff for all the extra work that was done,
she recognized the concern expressed by members of the public that the
alternatives are not going to be looked at in a fair manner under a Class EA
and therefore, she indicated she would support the amendment.
Moved by E.
Arnold
That the issues to be considered in the
Environmental Assessment include an evaluation of the estimated greenhouse gas
emissions of each of the options.
CARRIED
Moved
by C. Doucet
That the staff recommendation be amended
to add the words: “to be initiated this
year as an Individual Environmental Assessment.”
LOST
YEAS: A.
Cullen, C. Doucet, M. Meilleur....3
NAYS: R.
Bloess, J. Harder, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, P. Hume, P. McNeely....6
Moved
by C. Doucet
That the word “natural” be removed from
the first sentence under “Environmental Implications.
CARRIED
Moved
by C. Doucet
That areas of influence include
communities which the transportation studies refer to at Section 1.2.
CARRIED
That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve the draft
Statement of Work for the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor environmental
assessment to be initiated this year.
CARRIED as amended
Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0001
-
Public submissions held on file ACS2001-CCS-TTC-0001
In a general overview of the corporation’s budget,
the Director of Financial Services, Lloyd Russell, indicated that the 2001
Operating Budget is essentially a consolidation of the 2000 budgets from the
former municipalities to ensure that all existing programs and expenditures
continued to be included. The budget
was developed to encompass an overall tax freeze and the document for 2001
maintains services and service levels at those that existed in the former
municipalities.
Mr. Russell further stated that the restructuring
savings of $26.5M could not offset fully the budget pressures of $36M and so it
was recommended by the Ottawa Transition Board that $9.7M be taken from
reserves to cover the shortfall. At the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting yesterday, staff
tabled a report that recommended adjustments to two revenue accounts and also
the use of some of the Region’s region-wide surplus from 2000 to offset that
shortfall. The revenue adjustments were
approximately $5.3M of the total required.
When asked to explain further about the $9.7M
shortfall, Mr. Russell indicated that the City received $1.7M from the province
from the Community Reinvestment Fund, something staff did not anticipate the
city would be eligible for when the budget was developed. The other major adjustment to revenues is in
investment income and when staff examined that, they found that the actual
earnings originally forecasted were significantly lower than was actually
achieved so staff had recommended an addition to the revenue budget of
$3.6M. Finally, since staff had not
allocated the surplus from the Region from 2000, part of that was earmarked to
help offset the shortfall. The
remaining balance of the Region’s surplus is $5.3M.
With respect to the level of detail in the budget
document, Councillor Cullen suggested that when staff develop future budgets,
that they be detailed on a program basis.
He proposed that staff canvas councillors to determine who would be
interested in giving some advice in terms of the style of presentation so the
information is available to those who want it.
Rose Leclair, General Manager, Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works presented a detailed overview of the Operating
Budget. She indicated that the Department
has a significant component of the overall corporate budget (approximately
$400M), half of which is spent on compensation and the balance spent on
supporting services, equipment, materials and supplies for direct service
delivery. Revenues offset the
expenditures so the net budget ends up being approximately $250M. Following a breakdown of the budget as it
pertained to each Division, she indicated there were a number of areas under
review for implementation as early as possible, including: road maintenance classification system,
service standards for both roads, parks and trees, road cut by-law and
construction design standards. Most of
these will be the subjects of reports to committee in the future. With particular respect to the transit
budget, she noted that approval of the budget today would approve a fare
increase ($1 for monthly passes and a $0.05 increase in ticket prices). This will generate approximately $1M in
revenue and will be used to offset increased operating costs as a result of
increased fuel expenditures. A copy of
her presentation is held on file ASC2001-CCS-TTC-0001.
Councillor Cullen asked that staff forward to
committee members a memo listing the reports she referred, to as well as an
estimated time frame for submission to committee.
Councillor McNeely asked staff to prepare by ward:
1. Historical expenditures on resurfacing
2. Expenditure by ward as recommended by Needs
Study
3. Current expenditure by ward on resurfacing
The councillor further asked that staff give
committee a presentation on what transportation demand management programs are
in place and staff agreed to discuss the timing of such a presentation with the
councillor.
Councillor Legendre referred to the centres of
expertise, which were referenced in her presentation and asked whether there
are agreements in place between Departments to provide these services. The General Manager advised that the concept
is that there would be service level agreements, which would set out the
individual department’s expectations.
She indicated that the charge-backs between departments for those
services have not been fully implemented, and while some agreements have been
signed, many are still in the negotiation stage. When asked about the savings to be realized with these centres of
expertise, she expected that the savings brought forward take into account what
the service needs are going to be, because the Department, as the client, is
expecting that same level of service.
The councillor appreciated the information because he wanted to know if
the department is going to be satisfied and hoped that information would be
shared with councillors with respect to how well that system is working. Ms. Leclair confirmed that there are regular
reviews of these centres to ensure a constant monitoring of the needs and
expectations of the department and the ability to adjust.
Councillor Bloess made note of the proposal to
increase fares and the increased ridership that has been occurring. He wondered, therefore, whether there would
be increased costs associated with providing more transit service. Ms. Leclair advised that it costs $3.4M to
put the extra service on the street and the revenues from increased ridership
is $5.8M so therefore, she anticipated some elasticity in the system. The councillor found it helpful to know
there is a payoff by providing the service.
Also speaking to the proposed fare increase,
Councillor Arnold questioned whether it is the normal practice to do so without
the matter being made more public. Dr.
Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Schedule and Service Development indicated that
OC Transpo has never specifically gone out for public consultation on fare
increases. While there have been
reports on fares adjustments in the past, this year it is included as part of
the budget for implementation 1 June 2001.
The committee received the following public
delegations:
Kevin
Kinsella, Coalition for Social Action agreed that while there may have been
improvements in transit over the years, the same could certainly not be said
for Para Transpo service. He noted how
this service has deteriorated over the years and yet now staff is recommending
an increase in fares. He believed there
should be more public involvement before committee makes such a decision.
Larry Comrie
supported the statements made by the previous delegation.
Jeff Glover,
Para Transpo driver directed his comments towards the current Para Transpo
strike and the impact it has had on the lives of people who rely on the
service. He described how his job as a
driver differs from OC Transpo drivers, especially in his personal dealings
with the public. Based on the fact that
Para Transpo drivers are directly involved with their passengers and their safety,
he believed they deserved the same wages and benefits as OC Transpo
drivers. He emphasized that the people
who use Para Transpo deserve a service that is accountable, reliable and secure
and stated that if the city guaranteed that in June 2001 it would stop the
practice of contracting out the service and bring Para Transpo in-house, he
would go back to work tomorrow. If the
city is not willing to realize that the Para Transpo service has grown to a
point that it can no longer be properly operated by private contractors and is
not willing to become fully responsible for the operation of Para Transpo, he
demanded that the city contract out all services currently being offered by OC
Transpo.
Sally Thomas
felt discriminated against because she was unable to use Para Transpo and
therefore unable to live her day-to-day life.
As a taxpayer, she emphasized that she deserves the same benefits of
living in this city as anyone else who might use regular transit service. In fact, she indicated that she moved to
Ottawa because of its public transit system, although she was dismayed the
service has gone down, while the cost has increased.
Tom
Charlebois, Executive Board member, Amalgamated Transit Union, representing
Para Transpo drivers stated that the City of Ottawa will not get involved
in the Para Transpo dispute but part of their dispute with the contractor
involves scheduling, forced overtime and poor working conditions, which OC
Transpo is directly involved in and responsible for. He related the numerous problems associated with some of the Para
Transpo vehicles, in particular, the problem of mould in the wheelchair
accessible units. He emphasized that
Laidlaw has not maintained the level of service by not being able to supply
adequate number of vehicles and retain employees. Further, since the taxpayers are paying for Laidlaw Transit
Limited to provide Para Transpo service, he asked whether there has ever been
and what were the results of any performance reviews of the service. He suggested the committee review the tender
and ensure vehicles are up to MTO standards and established guidelines.
In response to concerns raised by committee members
about the accuracy of some of the delegation’s statements, the Director of
Transit Services advised that Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) responded
to the union’s request to investigate the mould problem in the vehicles and in
the end they directed that those vehicles with mould be removed, but it was not
all vehicles that contained the mould.
Despite the delegation’s comments to the contrary, Mr. Diamond stated
that the independent health agency that checked the mould for Laidlaw
determined it was not hazardous to the driver’s health or toxic as was
represented by the union and HRDC confirmed that and ordered the drivers back
to work. Mr. Charlebois indicated
that he has documentation that states otherwise and that this could be made
available to staff.
In response to a question posed by Councillor
Bloess, Ms. Leclair advised that staff is in the process of finalizing work on
a review of Para Transpo services, including eligibility criteria and service
delivery models. The results of that
study will be brought forward to committee by the end of May/early June. In response to the delegation’s question
about whether or not there had been a performance review done on Laidlaw’s
service, Mr. Diamond indicated that it is an ongoing activity and is something
staff review on a regular basis.
Alayne
McGregor, Citizens for Safe Cycling was concerned about the lack of clarity
with respect to what the level of staff support there will be for cycling
initiatives and they would like to see the support continue to be
maintained. She expressed some concern
about the budget for Surface Operations, noting the impact potholes and cracks
in the asphalt have on cyclists. They
are quite concerned, therefore, that the level of service be maintained as it
was prior to amalgamation. She referred
to page 4-170 regarding measures of effectiveness of roads, noting that
“safety” of the road network is not mentioned and suggested it be added to
those performance measurements. She
indicated that Citizens for Safe Cycling has a purchase of service agreement
with the city to provide safety education programs and while their grant has
not increased from $40,000 since 1996, they just recently experienced a
dramatic increase in their rent and were hoping the city would provide an
additional $20,000 to them this year.
In response to a question posed by Councillor
Legendre, the General Manager confirmed that funding to this organization is
being maintained at the year 2000 level.
With respect to the suggestion that the word “safety” be included, Ms.
Leclair agreed with the suggestion, noting the document before committee were
‘draft’ performance indicators and as a department, they have not actually
formalized what their performance indicators will be and they would certainly
take the delegation’s and the committee’s comments under advisement when the
document is finalized. When asked how
many staff resources have been allocated to cycling, staff advised there are
currently four staff persons dedicated to cycling as part of the Transportation
Demand Management initiatives. It was
confirmed there is no reduction in staff in this particular area.
Councillor Legendre asked that when staff develop
their workplans whether or not they would be taking into consideration the
Walking Security Index which was a report prepared by Professor Barry Wellar at
the University of Ottawa and filed with the Region last year. Ms. Leclair assured the councillor it would
be reviewed.
The Committee then reviewed the Operating Budget
and where there was no discussion, the budget for the individual divisions was
carried as presented.
Surface Operations
Pg. 4-171
Councillor Arnold asked whether tree planting was
contained within this budget or the Capital Budget. Ms. Leclair advised that the actual inventory is in the latter
and the staffing associated with that program is contained in the Operating Budget. She further confirmed there was no staff
reduction in the forest management field.
The councillor further inquired how staff will be regulating the
maintenance of sidewalks during the winter and was advised that staff intend to
bring forward a report in the fall with respect to service standards.
Councillor Doucet wondered that without specific
reference in the budget document to “sidewalk maintenance” how the committee
could be expected to assess whether or not the services are being maintained
from the previous year. The General
Manager advised that staff used the previously approved service standard and
the budget allocation was established according to that standard. Without a line item detailing how much would
be allocated to that, however, the councillor was concerned that next year
during budget review, the committee will not be able to make a judgement as to
whether the service has been maintained.
Ms. Leclair suggested that 2000 be used as the base year and then bring
forward the 2001-02 so it will be evident whether there has been a significant
adjustment. She remarked that when
staff brings forward the service standard report in the fall, if adjustments
are going to be recommended, then staff can include in that report what it
costs to deliver that service vs what the new standard would involve. In an effort to assist the councillor, she
agreed to provide to committee members information on what was spent on
sidewalk maintenance in the former City of Ottawa and the former Region, compared
to what is being carried forward in this budget. The councillor believed such information would be helpful in
understanding what the resource allocations are to different activities. Following a brief discussion, he proposed
the following Motion:
That the new
sidewalk standards be developed for the new city which phase out
sidewalk-driveway cuts and introduce protective green verges whenever possible.
Councillor Cullen suggested the Motion be referred
to staff to be incorporated with their report on sidewalk standards that is
coming back. Ms. Leclair confirmed
staff would be reporting back on design standards for infrastructure as well as
maintenance service standards.
Councillor Doucet indicated that was the intent of his Motion.
Moved by C. Doucet
That the
following be referred to staff: That
the new sidewalk standards be developed for the new city which phase out
sidewalk-driveway cuts and introduce protective green verges whenever possible.
CARRIED
That the
Transportation and Transit Committee approve the Surface Operations budget as
presented.
CARRIED
Transit Services
Pg. 4-195
Councillor Cullen indicated he was not prepared to
support the budget as it stands because it includes a fare increase and he was
concerned that would negatively affect ridership. Further, he noted that the budget guidelines state that the city
should provide the same service with no cost increase. Also, since there are funds available in the
former RMOC surplus, he suggested those funds be used to address the additional
costs associated with the operation of the transit service.
The General Manager advised that if fares were
allowed to fall too far behind, with costs continuing to escalate, there would
be more labour increases, so the revenue from fares will be less and less. She believed that a modest increase now
rather than a significant increase in a couple of years would be more
acceptable.
While some members supported the recommended
increase, Councillor Cullen reiterated the fact that the transit service serves
many people who have no other choice of transportation and increasing fares is
especially difficult on those on limited incomes. Further, he believed that keeping costs low helps to encourage
public transit and in the long run, goes a long way to achieving a very
ambitious modal split set by the previous Regional Council.
When questioned what impact the proposed increase
would have on ridership, staff advised that despite past fare increases,
ridership has continued to increase.
Further, the KPMG review of OC Transpo services recommended that it keep
pace with inflation with respect to fare rates. Ms. Leclair added that surpluses generally go into capital
reserves and for transit in the capital budget there is a shortfall in terms of
the city’s ability to rehabilitate buses.
Therefore, if given a choice where to allocate the additional $1M
revenue from the fare increase, she suggested it could be put towards the
purchase of two low-floor buses.
Councillor Arnold believed that while much of the
transit revenue generated through fares may be from commuters, she recognized
that any increase would be a hardship for people who are on limited
incomes. Therefore, before making a
decision to increase fares, she preferred to see the justification for it,
suggesting that it may well have a negative impact on ridership.
Councillor Doucet indicated that he preferred
making a decision to increase fares if he had a measure of what the depth of
the subsidy was for a person driving a car.
While she did not have that information available, the General Manager
estimated that it is probably significant.
The councillor believed such information is very important because if
motorists are being subsidized at 80% and people on the bus at 45%, then he was
reluctant to increase the burden to the person using the bus. The General Manager indicated that if it is
the wish of committee, staff can put together a document including information
about the fare increase, the elasticity on prices, what has been done in the
past, et cetera and this can be provided in advance of Council’s consideration
of the Operating Budget.
Moved by A.
Cullen
Whereas
the 2001 Budget Guidelines called for providing the same level of services as
last year at no increase in costs;
Therefore
be it resolved that OC Transpo fares remain at year 2000 levels;
And that
the resulting $1M revenue shortfall be recovered from the former RMOC 2000
surplus.
CARRIED
YEAS: R.
Bloess, A. Cullen, E. Arnold, C. Doucet....4
NAYS: J. Legendre, P. McNeely, M.
Meilleur....3
Councillor Cullen referred to the amount of
unmet trip requests and the review being conducted on eligibility
requirements. With the ageing
population, he noted that the pressures on Para Transpo service continues and
in light of the current strike, which is generating, from OC Transpo’s
perspective, a surplus, he wanted to ensure that the surplus in the envelope is
reinvested back into Para Transpo service for 2000. He proposed the following Motion:
That any
surplus generated as a result of the Para Transpo strike be reinvested into
additional Para Transpo service for 2001.
Councillor
Legendre questioned how this could be done and Mr. Diamond advised that the
monies currently not being paid to Laidlaw would accrue back to OC Transpo;
however, they would have to negotiate with them on whether they could actually
meet any service increase requirements.
In light of the response, the councillor suggested the Motion be amended
to add that once the strike is over, staff be directed to enter into
negotiations to determine if this is possible and then report back to
committee. Councillor Cullen accepted
the amendment.
Councillor Harder
believed it was one thing to use the money accruing to make a difference today
for those people in desperate need as a result of the strike. However, she opined it is quite another to
take the money and put it into something that is unknown, adding that it does
not change the fact that Laidlaw is the contractor and may not have the ability
to increase their service level.
Councillor Bloess believed the
Motion does not save money in the long run and suggested the money OC Transpo
is spending less of can be applied against other costs currently being
incurred. He echoed previous comments
made that Laidlaw cannot even meet the demands now, so he did not think it was
practical to expect them to meet an even greater demand once the strike is
settled.
Moved by A.
Cullen
That any
surplus generated as a result of the Para Transpo strike be reinvested into
additional Para Transpo service for 2001, subject to negotiations between staff
and the service provider.
CARRIED
YEAS: A. Cullen, J. Legendre, E. Arnold, C.
Doucet, M. Meilleur....5
NAYS: R. Bloess, J. Harder, P. McNeely....3
That the
Transportation and Transit Committee approve the Transit Services operating
budget as presented.
CARRIED
Traffic and Parking Services
Pg. 4-204
Councillor Cullen noted there is revenue from
parking operations and meters and parking enforcement and the city has
inherited a reserve from the former City of Ottawa and he questioned whether
these revenues go into that reserve.
Ms. Leclair advised that the policy of the former municipality was that
the surplus revenues went into the parking reserve fund and expected the same
to happen with the new municipality.
She clarified that revenues from meters and parking lots went into the
parking reserve fund, whereas parking enforcement revenues go to the general
revenue fund.
That the
Transportation and Transit Committee approve the Traffic and Parking Services
operating budget as presented.
CARRIED
In a general comment on the overall budget,
Councillor Doucet asked that future Operating Budgets include information that
includes whether there have been service cuts.
He suggested that without this data, it is impossible to judge whether
Council is dealing with a service cut, an increase or the status quo. He proposed:
That future
operating budgets include information which allows the public and Council to
assess whether or not there have been service cuts. This would include information on population growth, ridership
growth, community centre use, et cetera.
When asked whether ‘community centre use’ is data
staff usually collects, Ms. Leclair indicated staff would take that as a
general direction and staff would bring forward what is readily available. As systems are developed, staff would be
sure to bring forward more information.
Moved by C. Doucet
That
future operating budgets include information which allows the public and
Council to assess whether or not there have been service cuts. This would include information on population
growth, ridership growth, community centre use, et cetera.
CARRIED
That the Transportation and Transit Committee consider, for
recommendation to Council, the 2001 Draft Operating Budget Estimates, as
presented to the Committee.
CARRIED as amended
INQUIRIES
“Ottawa On Board” Game
Councillor Legendre made reference to the recent launch of a game,
whose proceeds from sales would be given to CHEO. He gave the corporate sales kit to Mr. Diamond and asked that he
be the champion for sales of this board game within his organization and that
the General Manager take on that same role for the rest of City staff. Ms. Leclair indicated staff would work with
Corporate Communications to ensure the game can be distributed as widely as
possible.
Outdoor
Patio – Fusasia Restaurant - 371 Preston Street
Councillor Arnold submitted the following Notice of
Motion for consideration by committee at the next meeting:
Whereas the Encroachment By-law 167-73, of
the former City of Ottawa, as amended, provides for the issuance of temporary
surface encroachment permits for outdoor cafes;
And Whereas Section 5 of the “Regulations
Governing the Issuance and Administration of Encroachment Permits for Outdoor
Cafes”, as adopted by Council on June 5, 1991, provides that all new requests
for outdoor patios must conform to the land use separation distance of 30
metres (100 feet) from any property zoned for residential or public use, and if
this distance is not provided and maintained, the application will not be
processed further and the encroachment permit will be refused;
And Whereas an application from 371 Preston
Street, for a temporary encroachment permit to operate an outdoor patio,
located within the Beech Street road allowance has been refused because the
applicant’s restaurant is located within 30 metres of a property zoned for
residential use;
And Whereas no objections have been received
further to consultation with the community (one block either way from the
subject site), the Dalhousie Community Association, and the Preston Street
Business Improvement Association;
Therefore Be It Resolved that City Council
waive the provisions of Section 5 of the “Regulations Governing the Issuance
and Administration of the Encroachment Permits for Outdoor Cafes; and
Be It Further Resolved that the General Manager of Transportation,
Utilities and Public Works be instructed to issue a temporary encroachment
permit to allow an outdoor patio within the Beech Street road allowance at 371
Preston Street, to be reviewed on a yearly basis and renewed subject to no
complaints from the community regarding this operation and subject to the same
conditions which are applied to all outdoor patios for which temporary
encroachment permits are issued, in addition to the following conditions:
1.
that this outdoor
patio shall be required to close at 10:30 p.m;
2.
that the General
Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works report to the
Transportation and Transit Committee if any noise related complaints are
received regarding the operation of this outdoor patio; and
3.
that in the event
that the permit is revoked or not renewed, the owner be required to reinstate
the portion of the public property occupied by the patio to the satisfaction of
the General Manager of Transportation, Utilities and Public Works.
OC Transpo - Compliments and Complaints
Councillor Doucet asked staff to report back on the
reporting procedure that OC Transpo provides for committee and Council with
regards to annual customer complaints and compliments.
Queen Elizabeth Driveway - Fire Route
Councillor Doucet noted that it has been brought to
his attention that fire trucks from Station 10 in the Glebe use Fifth Avenue to
get to Bronson. He asked that staff
investigate the Queen Elizabeth Driveway being made available as an emergency
response route.
Subsidies for car drivers
Councillor Doucet asked that the subsidy to car
drivers vs the subsidy to bus riders be made available.
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned the
meeting at 4:35 p.m.
_________________________ _________________________
Committee Coordinator Chair
