It was a dark and stormy night…at least it was last Friday night. I am writing this piece as I am a firm believe that not reinventing the wheel or ignoring an idea just because of who it may be publically attributable to is foolish. What I would like to do is to discuss some points related to the current municipal campaign, those being the “Ring Road” and the ‘glimmer in my eye’ community which I will refer to as Bickerville, because that’s what discussion about it will cause.
I like the idea of a ring road if it is just that, a road designed to assist the flow of traffic around the city and not the commuter’s new best friend. First, let’s point out that this would be a Provincial Highway and as such would/should be primarily funded by the Province. An item like this, if supported by the city might be an interesting item for a Provincial Party to champion, if for example, an election was happening in November 2011.
I have seen first hand what a bypass road can do if implemented correctly. My dad is from Sudbury and the highway configuration there is almost identical to Ottawa. In both cases, Highway [4]17 ran through the heart of the city and Highways 416 and 69 ran south from the city. Woe be the unfortunate transport driver or traveler who attempted to get through the city of Sudbury during the rush hours (because of the amount of shift work, there were 3 every day). What the province did was to create a new bypass and reassign it as Highway 17. It has 1 T intersection with lights at its easternmost point, one light which is being replaced with a cloverleaf and provides a more efficient access to the south of the city and 2 other cloverleaf interchanges, one for Highway 69 and one for the western termination. Now, regardless of when you are in the area, traffic is extremely more efficient and the only transports in town are going in town. Movement both around the perimeter of the city, and through the downtown core is much easier and faster.
What is needed is for some initial front end work to be done. Should the bypass run along an existing road or should it be, pardon the pun, a green field build? It would need a minimum of 3 interchanges. How many more, where, and why would be needed? Would/should it be a toll road like the 407 in Toronto? Are variable message signs needed, where and why? Start lobbying the provincial parties and local candidates now! I also propose that the road be named the Wilbert Keon Parkway.
Should the ‘ring road’ provide easy access to the community of Bickerville, a categorical No! The concept of this new are is to accommodate anticipated growth in the city, but also to avoid burden on existing infrastructure. What would I like to see investigated on this concept, a number of things. Lets look at three key issues in the campaign, Transit, Trash and Taxes.
As a ‘planned community’, Transit MUST be factored in at day 1. For example, one or more LRT stations would be required with the first to be in place and operational prior to the first occupant moving in. Roads would be laid out facilitating a hub and spoke residential bus system, Kiss and Ride as well as Park and Ride stations would be provided. All roads would have bike lanes and bicycle paths would also be required. Linkage to existing streets/ roads and ensuring their growth potential would be required. That’s a good starting point for discussion on transit.
If this is going to be a new community, lets ensure it has state of the art Waste to Energy conversion ability. Written into the documentation for the community would be the mandatory requirement for it to handle all of its waste, both sewage and garbage with its boundary. If we assume a hugely optimistic lead time of say 5 years it would be possible for the urban conceptual designers to allocate space for these types of facilities using current industry norms, As an example, the Plasco system does have a basic size envelope. The created energy could be used to power the LRT. Again a start point for discussion.
Taxes would of course be an issue. What would be needed is a build to anticipated tax revenue stream model. Yes, there is a development fee charged by the city but as has been well documented; it doesn’t go far enough to cover all costs. One solution is to examine the viability of front end loading the revenue stream by having the early arrivers pay more for the privilege. For the moment, lets presuppose that adjacent to the LRT station, and shielded from the environment is access to one or two mixed use residential/commercial high rises, a shopping mall with restaurants, grocery store and entertainment. We now get a symbiosis where it becomes a place to live, work and play, and guess what, a car isn’t needed. I haven’t done the business case, I am throwing out ideas for thought!
As a new build community, it would allow the City to specify things such as the provision of accessible social housing. I firmly believe the city has to provide social housing, what I don’t believe is that it has to be in areas where the per square foot cost is the highest, ie downtown. Also, lets make sure that some of the less obvious but important items are addressed. Lets make sure tht early on in the site selection process, factors such as a high rise directly on the approach path to Runway 07 doesn’t slip past.
In summary, I won’t support Bickerville yet as right now, it hasn’t
had enough of a look. On the other hand, the current council seems
unable to look at out of the box ideas and will disregard them. For
those who would like an example of this, at my last all candidates
meeting the incumbent, Mr. El-Chantiry took me to task over my
suggestion of the city INVESTIGATING the implementation of a Congestion Charge for vehicles in the downtown core when LRT became operational. His comment, as reported in the media was: ”charging a toll for driving downtown isn’t possible. “Everyone has the right to drive their car,”
It works just fine in Singapore and London and Sydney is considering it. Plagiarism anyone?
Much to my chagrin, I see that despite or perhaps in spite of my earlier blog and article on election signs, the ward is festooned with signs. Mr. El-Chantiry made no secret he was utilizing them on his website and Mr. Parsons has several scattered around the Ward, as do some of the Mayoralty candidates.
I thought we could be progressive and utilize new methods of getting information and in particular name recognition out to voters BUT it appears that I was wrong. As such, I have ordered a limited number of signs which I will be putting up in various locations throughout the Ward.
These signs are made of Weatherboard and are biodegradable and will result in negligible impact on the environment. The signs and their mounting structures all will be recycled/re-purposed after the election.
I would like to publicly say “Thanks” to all of you who have expressed your thoughts as a result of my grandfather passing away last week. He was one of my biggest supporters/cheerleaders and my biggest regret is that he didn’t live to see the results on October 25. Win or lose, my platform and position has and will be what he exemplified in his life – To do what is right and not to waiver if the popular view was not the correct or legal one.
This is in response to a question posted by Blake Baston, from the blog, http://www.perspectiveottawa.com/.
From Blake:
“My question to you is do you agree with O’Brien’s plan and will you
work with him on this initiative if you are elected? I will publish
councillor candidate answers on Tuesday.”
The question posed by Blake has in my opinion an alternate role when the content of the associated press release by the mayor is read. Point 1 on the second page (which he sent attached to his email) where it states: “Use your two votes wisely to elect a Council” might be inferred publicly as the non incumbent endorsing of the Mayors position over that which another of the candidates might offer. It implies that a slate exists and that a vote for the Mayoralty or Councillor candidate of choice is tied to the other. In my case, it is not. I will work with whatever council is elected in October.
As I have said publically, “City hall should not be run as a billion dollar profit driven business but should use billion dollar business practices.”. What Mr. O’Brien proposes does reflect a much more business like approach to the city budgeting process and would on the surface appear to draw on his previous public sector experience. The focus of the next council should be on items such as defining and awarding the contract for the Tunnel on a firm fixed price basis, so that if the contractor says they will do it for $600 million and it costs $800, the ‘winning’ contractor is on the hook for the $200 million, not the city. This concept, while common in both the private and public sectors, seem foreign in the City of Ottawa projects. The new OC Transpo bus garage, roundabout in Orleans are just 2 examples where Business 101 concepts would have saved the city cash.
As the base to the proposal, the Mayor proposed having his office be the single point of origin of the Baseline Budget Document. I see a few issues in getting the document created but, once done and created, I definitely can see advantages to finalizing the budget. The Mayor states 8 supporting points and I will briefly touch on each one in turn.
Point 1, Freezing the Budget Envelope I fully support. I support the elimination of severance pay for politicians but also want to point out that even if all of council took this [meaning all incumbents, ran but lost their seats AND chose to take the severance] the cost would be under $1 million every 4 years. I certainly am no belittling $1 million but perhaps saying something about reducing the Outsourced Legal and Consulting budget would be good as well?
Point 2, Departmental and Branch Budget Freezing I also support but their must be a way of knowing where things are on a budget vs actual vs schedule basis [see points 7 and 8]. Consideration has to be made on how the ‘overruns’ will be catered to and mitigation of the spend it or loose it at year end mentality. My comment on consulting and outsourcing applies here too.
Point 3, OC Transpo and while not mentioned ParaTranspo. This and has been one of my hot button issues since I entered the race. Something needs to be done and the establishment of a Transit Commission might do it. I don’t support the freezing of the $175 million dollars however as I believe that due to factor such as the enhanced reliability and 5 year bumper to bumper warranty provided with the 300 plus buses being delivered NOW should allow the staffing and maintenance costs to be reduced.
Point 4, savings from provincial uploading and other savings. Shouldn’t these funds, at least in part be utilized to rebuild the city financial reserves? Just because we CAN borrow money doesn’t mean we have to. What happens if, for example we are confronted with a $1 billion expenditure for sewer upgrades after we have maxed our credit out?
Point 5, Value for Money. Once again, the devil is in the details. Who determines what ‘value’ is? The city isn’t a business so you cant apply things like return on investment for putting in a Ball field.
Point 6, Once again, Business 101. How is the accountability applied? Does the mayor hold a management reserve to handle the unique unknown/unknown expenditures? Does each department?
Point 7, Realtime Performance Measurement and availability. If real time means I can have data accurate for the current year up to the end of the last month 2 weeks into the next month absolutely. If he means real time, no way would I support this as the costs in resources and the dynamic nature of operations would make a mid non period closed view less than useless.
Point 8, This would be a natural follow on to item 7.
I should point out, that my concept of a “Project Office” to support council would be a logical way to assist council in the performance of their jobs and could encompass all or most of the work identified by the Mayor in his 8 points.
The mayor says the starting point for all new budgets over the next 4 years will be zero. Again, I disagree. The point the mayor should present is that he will allocate funds to core services, infrastructure etc. Only then should the ‘nice to haves’ be factored in. I would set the budget coming out of the mayors office at a less then 0 point, perhaps 15% and then let council have a thrash at things. Starting at 0 means for every dollar in, a dollar has to be removed. Let the councillors have some say in where their ward specific items are too!
Bottom line, Would I support him on this as is? – NO. Would I work with him to temper the edges – absolutely. This much more a glass half full than a glass half empty proposal.
Unlike the federal government, the dates of the Ontario municipal and provincial elections are known well in advance. The Federal government can call an election anytime and may well do so during the municipal election timeframe ending October 25. Often, elected politicians will decide to run for office at a different government level than the one they currently represent.
This is all fair and good and is a characteristic of living in a democracy. I have no problems if someone leaves an elected position for reasons such as health, family etc as I fully acknowledge just how encompassing the job can be. Where it falls down, is when a candidate runs for one level of office knowing fully well that they are going to step aside when the stars align and they decide they have a good chance of winning if they run at the new level. Lets say that a current candidate for the municipal election has his or her eye on running in the November 2011 Provincial election. Assume that they win, only to resign from council to run for the MPP position in less than a year from when they are sworn in for the four year term which happens on December 1.
The city will have to bear the cost of conducting an election in the ward and try to recruit candidates to run. Is it likely the candidates who ran earlier will throw their hats in the run again? I suspect it is highly unlikely as frankly, the time and financial commitment to seek the position is not something most people are prepared to redo with a year of having been unsuccessful in the previous campaign. I doubt I would do it twice in such a short time horizon. Again, if the reason is for anything other than running for another elected public office, I would support anyone’s decision to leave.
The question that has to be answered is how one caters to this one specific situation. The answer is obvious, and that is to have all council members abide by a ‘non compete’ clause which in essence states that “I will not seek or run for any elected office within a period of 2 years of having been elected to Ottawa City Council”. This is a very common clause in the private sector and prevents a competitor from poaching a good employee from another’s firm.
I commit that if elected, I won’t be off chasing another elected position during the 4 year term and will move to get the rule established as City policy. . I would suggest you ask all registered candidates to make the same commitment. If they fail to do so, you should assume they have their eye on another elected office.
Is the timing I suggest unreasonable? I have been focused on the October 25 election for over a year and there is already one well known potential candidate positioning for the Provincial election next year.
During the next few months, we will be exposed, some will say overly, to the sights and sounds that surround an election.
As I write this, there are a total of 14 candidates for the Mayors position and approximately 90 registered candidates for City Council. Between now and September 10, which is the last day to either register for, alter your registration, or withdraw from the municipal election I suspect you will find a number of changes in those numbers occurring. In all honesty, just by viewing various candidates’ websites, or conversely, their lack of a site you can quickly draw some conclusions about the seriousness and viability of their candidacy. Several candidates are running on an agenda style platform where their key issues are directed at certain specific special interests, or interest groups. Others present ideas which cover the spectrum from dubious to one that have a high degree of merit.
The municipal election and indeed virtually any election will comprise two groups of people. The incumbents are people with a history in public politics, usually in the position they currently are seeking to be re elected for, while others may move up and or down the hierarchy from Councillor to Mayor or from Federal/Provincial politics to Municipal. They are the ones you see quoted in the paper, hear on radio and see on TV. The non incumbents are the rest of us, the ones who fight to get an op-ed piece in the paper, are thankful when asked by a local radio station to comment on an issue and who face the daunting battle of convincing you, the voter, that we offer something better than the current person in the office which we are seeking.
Between now and the date you vote, it is your right and privilege to ask any of the candidates any legitimate question you may have. Incumbent candidates should be running on both their past record and what they propose for the future. The non incumbents are striving to show you that they offer a better choice. I trust that those of you who are interested in the political process, who have concerns about how the city is run will take the time to see what each candidate has to offer and why before you cast your vote.
There is a lot of discussion about holding tax increases to a fixed amount in the upcoming timeframe and the failure of the last elected council to achieve a similar goal. The previous council was not in favour of doing a line by line budget review which could have identified some potential savings. I support such an analysis on all future budgets. Council seems to be continuously chastised for project cost over runs but fix priced contracts do not seem to have been awarded. A number of 21st century Alternate service delivery methods are available for implementation and cost savings yet nothing appears to have been done in that area. Google and Microsoft both offer packages which have proven records and cost savings in the Municipal government Information Technology environment. City Hall should not be run as a billion dollar profit driven business but should use billion dollar business practices.
Jim Watson came out with a policy that would look at reducing the number of wards to somewhere between 14-17 from the current 23. He would also move certain decisions such as stop sign placements and similar issues to the community level through a borough system.
Do you favour these changes?
I do not like these two ideas.
Do you have any other comments?
I imagine that these problems could be solved if council just worked how it was supposed to. I believe that councillors need to take time or re-direct their ward office staff to properly researching problems, for example, knowing why moving a stop sign is good or not. The further fragmentation of the system will, in my opinion, lead to a more political division. The result of said divisions will have a greater impact of larger decisions, like for example LRT or deciding the property tax level.
As with a lot of ‘good’ ideas, the devil is in the details. I concur with Blake’s premise that the 4 rural wards stay as is. What that means boys and girls, is that any cuts will come from the suburban and urban wards. Lets have Mr. Watson as well as all those who said YES to Blake’s question state what wards should be merged and why to achieve a reduction of 6 to 9 wards. How many of those of you who said yes are demonstrating exactly the same behavior we complain about when talking about satisfaction. The problem always resides outside of the Ward. Put it to a vote – guess what Wards will be selected to be boroughed.
The people I have talked to are spitting nails in that they see the rural wards being disenfranchised. Is cost the issue or better government for the residents of Ottawa?
One again we are subjected to sound bite journalism. If, as Mr. Watson says he can have this in place in 6 months, he should be able to have it defined in sufficient detail to campaign on by mid October. Tell us which wards and why.
Whenever I need to research something, Google is always my first point of origin on the Web. Any of us who use computers and search engines know just how efficient the system is. I love books but the majority of the times when I am looking for printed content, I use Google to both identify and characterize book content before I go to the library or order the material.
As you may know, Google is much more than just a search engine or free email application for personal use. In the last week of July, Google announced a new version of “Google Apps for Government” which was improved using comments from current users such as the cities of Los Angeles and Orlando. The previous version has been around for a while so should an incumbent councillor protest it is new and they couldn’t have done anything, it isn’t. The suite provided comprises an email system with >99.9 percent availability; cloud storage technology meaning no new hardware to buy, maintain, power..; a sophisticated online calendar system for both individual and group scheduling; Google documents, which provide a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation preparations applications; Google Sites which allows the development and function of secure intranets and lastly, a secure Video conferencing capability. They also have other services available. Google isn’t the only solution available, Open Office exists and Microsoft has an Office 2010 product which I believe could be similar.
Using this type of technology would have a significant cost saving potential even if most of the current business operations were maintained as is. The City of Orlando identified a savings of over 60% on an annual basis for the services replaced [not including the salaries] after they had an IT staff reduction of about 20%. Orlando has 3000 employees/users. If a number if low cost cameras were procured ($40 bucks each) for the City, big savings should be recognized. Where the big advantage comes into play, and it is pronounced for our Ward is the ability to meet face to face via video and not necessarily have to travel. I could hold a video supported Ward Council meeting where attendees could video attend and not have to travel to the meeting if suitable resources were available. Similarly, city staff inter building travel between various City buildings just for meetings would save but not totally eliminate costs, not lose productivity due to being away from the office and would reduce the ‘not at their desk’ syndrome when looking for someone.
I am a firm believer that when it comes to cost savings, borrowing or investigating a success story from somewhere else is much better than trying to re-invent the wheel. I firmly believe that staff should be tasked with investigating this Information Technology solution on behalf of the City and those results reviewed thoroughly as at this point in time, I don’t see a lot of disadvantages. The Cities of Los Angeles and Orlando are just a video call away [yes, it should cut that type of travel too!]. A justification should be added to travel approval forms which asks: “What justifies this out of town travel over video conferencing?” and to have those trip justifications which are approved submitted quarterly to Council and as public record.
Closing, according to the City of Orlando, Google Apps for Government costs $50 per user per year while the legacy applications cost over $130. In this situation, I see Google as the answer. For more information search for: google apps Orlando
The following is the content of an article which I submitted to the Ottawa Business Journal. The declined to publish it with the following [and valid] justification:
“Thanks Alexander. I’m leanings towards saying no, simply because I don’t think I would like to run opinion pieces by any candidate so close to the campaign season.
I’ve already said no to the mayor on a similar idea, so I think to keep things consistent we’ll have to pass.
Thanks, and good luck in the race.”
My submission was:
“Business” as Usual At City Hall?
I decided about 3 years ago I was going to run for the position of
Ward 5 City Councillor. In the time between then and now, I watched how
the current council “operated”. In my opinion, it isn’t something to
be proud of, unless you compare it to the last federal session of
parliament where a grand total of 11 bills got passed. Even the Senate did more, at 17 being passed.
I view city council as the Executive Board of/for the City. Each
councillor sits on various subordinate boards and represents their
Division [Ward]. They also are the last and ultimate decision makers.
This means they must understand areas such as finance, contracting,
negotiating, strategic and tactical planning, risk management and so on.
This doesn’t mean they have to be burdened with a number of letters
after their name but it does require that they can ask the right
question, once, to the right person or persons and upon getting
it, take the appropriate action.
I have friends who run a very successful small business but on those occasions where I have brought up items such as a Cost Plus Incentive contract or writing a “Without Prejudice” letter, their eyes glaze over. Success to them is covering costs, payroll, and putting a few dollars away for the future and as they are happy being a mom and pop type of business, that’s all that matters.
The City of Ottawa budget is significant both in dollars and scope. A
goodly portion of the budget goes to ‘projects’ and to say the city has
demonstrated less than admirable performance in this area would be a
fair, if even overly favourable statement. One simply must point out
projects such as Lansdowne, the new bus garage, Orleans roundabout an
Kanata sewage which have had spurious and detrimental wording, scope
creep and scope change, budget overrun and reactive corrective actions.
The upcoming council will face LRT/DOTT planning issues, infrastructure
upgrades for sewer, the ongoing waste issues to name a few of the
‘knowns’ plus having to react to the ‘unknown unknowns’ which
potentially could occur. I don’t want to state that council
should be stacked with a bunch of PMP’s but the councillors should have
some qualified and knowledgeable people at their side who have a mandate
to make councils job easier. In essence, they would be the IV&V,
with emphasis in the I component for council on projects.
Further, it strikes me that the city for whatever reason seems to avoid Fixed Price contracts. Certainly the cost creep on projects and wild misses on actual versus estimated costs would go away if the contract was awarded as Fixed Price. My gut tells me that it would take a few projects to get the kinks worked out, and I suspect one of the kinks is insufficient definition of the project by the city. I propose getting the problem fixed when the issue is a 50% over run on a $2 million dollar project before we get 50% on a $2 billion one. If staff proved to be the issue, that issue would be resolved as would any other identified root cause.
Further, I propose that the city implement a system similar to
Nunn-McCurdy in the states with prompt reporting being the key. Finding
out about a problem that existed 8 months ago is not
sufficient. A good analogy is the unfortunate situation with the BP
well in the gulf where the leaking oil is analogous to misspent city
funds. I would want it stopped yesterday, wouldn’t you?
In summary, I am proposing that city council create what is
fundamentally a PMO which reports to the Mayor and a subcommittee of
councillors. If I can’t get council to agree to do it, I will arrange
to allocate a portion of MY $200k+ annual Council office budget to
engage a suitable resource to act on my behalf in this roll. Further, I
will report the results on my Ward website which also comes out of that
budget. The next time you see one of the incumbent’s glossy coloured
ads in the media pointing you to their ward website take a look. Then
ask yourself, is that an efficient expenditure of money? Also
recognize, it’s your money being utilized. The time has passed for
having the City of Ottawa awarding a contract be a license to print
money.
I hope those of you in the Ward who are interested in the race for Mayor will attend the meeting being held tomorrow. I have a commitment at another meeting as I feel it is inappropriate for one candidate to impinge on a meeting arranged by another. I know I would not be pleased if the tables were reversed!
I attended the special meeting conducted on July 13 about the Carp Landfill Terms of Reference for ICI waste. I suspect that most of you were made aware of the meeting through the City of Ottawa advertisements which specifically advised visiting the city funded websites of Councillors Qadri, E.-Chantiry, Feltmate, Wilkinson and Brooks. First, this implies that the ICI issue relates only to the western part on the city which it does not and second, gave very little time for interested parties to prepare to support the meeting on July 13 and the continuation later that week prior to the submission deadline to the province on July 19, which by the time you read this, likely has passed. Some of the groups I spoke to at the meeting expressed that the June 18 to July 19 time period was insufficient in length to prepare a suitable response to the province and that the September 2011 startup date of the new facility was too close time wise. I will point out that the meeting notice did appear only in the July 8 West Carleton Review and on July 2 on Mr. El-Chantiry’s Ward website. Bottom line, this window was tight and the Councillors provided appropriate notification given the June 18 date.
I did find an article in the Ottawa Sun, on the expansion dated April 14 2010 which does mention by name and have quotes from councillors Qadri and El-Chantiry, so I suppose, I have to amend what I just said.
Garbage currently is regulated by the Province even though it is generated locally. The province controls things like incineration too. This is why the ToR goes to the province. I will return to this at the end of this essay.
I spent some time looking at the City of Ottawa website on this issue. I say looking, because the search engine doesn’t search so I had to brute force through 4 years of minutes of meetings. I did find a couple items of interest. On December 10, 2009, the Environmental Advisory Committee [EAC] stated:” that there were no further updates on the Carp landfill”. The Planning and Environmental Committee [PEC] on October 13, 2009 passed a motion stating:” The Task Force work cooperatively with the Ministry of the Environment to ensure the investigation of incineration proceeds and is included in any Terms of Reference for future landfill opening or expansion applications.” The same committee, on 14 April 2009 referred to correspondence which stated:” noted Ottawa’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan committed the City to divert over 50 per cent of its residential waste by now, and to reduce significantly ICI waste generated and disposed of in Ottawa. He touched on the financial cost of an additional landfill, estimated at $100 million, with a 10-year process that would be very difficult on the community. “ It also discusses follow on actions. On July 24, 2008, the EAC, in discussing the future mentions:” urban boundary expansion, development charges, next City landfill”.
The key document is a report to the PEC AND Council dated 15 March from the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services with regard to:” CARP LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)”. The document states that:” The proposal within the ToR is to secure additional waste disposal capacity at or near the Carp Landfill. “ The April 13 issue of the West Carleton Review in an article titled City Council meeting highlights did mention the ToR. Now the surprise, the items in this Paragraph took place in 2007, not 2010. Ultimately this ToR was withdrawn by WM on February 9, 2009 with the following justification: “Due to the volume of comments received and the issues that were raised by government agencies and the public during the Terms of Reference (ToR) comment period, WMCC determined that the time remaining for the “time out” was not sufficient to address these concerns. As such, WMCC informed ministry staff that it is withdrawing its Ottawa Waste Management Facility ToR in order to revise the document and consult further with stakeholders.”
Bottom line on this is that it has been coming since 2007 with what would appear to have been numerous opportunities for Councillors to keep residents appraised as to what is going on. At this point in time, I believe the City is between the proverbial rock and hard place on this, and like it or not, the levels of government are almost out of time for any alternatives. This seems to me not just the most recent, but the typical reactive style which certain members of City Council operate under. If you want chance, a pro active city council rather than one that is trying to keep up appearances, you get to make that choice in October.
However, until then, if you feel strongly about this or any other issue, take your Council member to task. It is, after all, their job to represent you.
Last, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. O’Brien has proposed bringing ‘waste/garbage’ to the level of City of Ottawa control from the province. This is not a ‘trivial task, as it would required legislative changes, convincing the province to give up control of areas [and the taxes that go with them like the Eco “Fee”] to the City. There is also a provincial election in 2011 so I would suspect this would be a 2012/2013 event if it happened.
From my perspective, the issue of who owns the “Beach’ in Constance Bay has reached its resolution until such time as the matter is heard by the Ontario Superior Court. The City of Ottawa through its Legal Opinion and the Ottawa Police Service concurs in its letter dated July 9, 2010 that the properties in question do own the beach.
The OPS letter states: “there is little question that the owners on Plan 412 own ‘to the shore line’, making the beach private property” and that:” the water is public property and anyone has the right to walk in the water adjoining the beachfront”. The letter goes on to say that the OPS will not enforce the Trespass Act due to resourcing issues and that if a final resolution is desired, then an application to the Ontario Superior Court should be made.
Presumably, if the group pushing for access wants to work out the situation they have two choices. The first is to take the case to Superior Court as the current position, as defined by the City is that the beach is private and the Plan 412 owners are in the right. It is not up to the property owners to prove to others they are in the right because the City already has defined the situation as being so. The second is a honey versus vinegar approach to the current owners with regard to allowing access. Antagonizing the owners will likely result in them just saying “No” to any mediation or joint solution. The situation is analogous to your co worker saying they deserve a percentage of your salary. Constructive dialog might work, “Give it over, now” will not.
I will add, in conclusion, that I find it interesting that there has not been any Lawyer who lives in the Ward, or in the City, who, as of the date I write this, 3 months after the City Legal Opinion, is prepared to step up and support the Not Private group in writing. As it stands now, the situation is clear, but subject to change in the future if and only if it gets to the Supreme Court level.
What would I do to make my office as Ward 5 city councillor more transparent? In this item I will discuss two areas, the first being the Councillors Office budget and the second, the Councillors Voting record. You might think this information should and would be readily available, but, interestingly enough, it isn’t.
Each councillor received a $227,172 office budget in 2009. Even without any increase, that is over $1 million that can be spent solely at the councillors discretion. In March, the expenditures for the Mayor and the Councillors offices were released. The amount spent varied from a low of $161,422 to a high of $227,055 and the runner up came in at $227,025. Only 4 came in at under $200,000. The issue seems to be contentious even between councillors according to a report in the Sun.
Certainly, there are expenses for the Ward Office and staff, City of Ottawa pins and other handouts which support ward activities. What is important to note is that these items ultimately are provided by the City, ie your tax dollars and your councillor is the conduit that provides those items. What would appear to be a common practice is to have the council member provide these items, cash support for events and they may not succinctly point out that the resources are provided by the city and not the councillor. Other Cities such as Toronto post councillor expenditures, so why don’t we?
What I will do once elected is to use the City of Toronto Councillor Expense Policy as a baseline, amend it with my staff to reflect the differences between Ottawa and Toronto [in Toronto, office staff are funded differently], post the revised policy on the ward web site, and lastly, post my expenditures on that website in accordance with that policy. If, as an example, I were to buy a Radar Gun as one councillor did, you could ask why, if being a Council Member is a full time job, would I have time to do the job of the OPS?
You would think that if your primary job is to represent your constituents, and one of the main ways as a council member that you do that is to Vote on issues, that the city would publish councils voting history. To my surprise, and that of others, this isn’t the case. To help clear the historical waters, OurOttawa has compiled, and let me say, I suspect it was not an easy task, voting history for the current council for the last 4 years “on many key votes”. I have spent some time with the data and suffice it to say, some interesting patterns can be discerned, I would encourage anyone with experience with spreadsheets and who is interested to spend an hour and do some comparative analyses of various row/column subset combinations.
In order to make OurOttawa’s job easier, and the Ward 5 residents visibility into what is going on I commit to post my voting history on every vote I participate in on the website. Ideally, this will be done within 24 hours, but certainly within a week. If I don’t I expect the residents of Ward 5 to be on my case. Not only that, if I DO drop the ball, I will be up front and post it as a comment along side the entry when it does get posted.
The following is an item I wrote to be submitted to the West Carleton Review, to be printed in the July 8, 2010 issue. When I did a word count, and found it was over twice the desired length of around 500 words, I decided to post it here and on my blog on July 5 instead.
On early May this year, the City of Ottawa delivered a legal opinion with regard to the ownership of beach front properties on Lane St. in the Bay. A meeting was held on May 29, 2010 which included a number of city staff including several city legal staff, Mr. El-Chantiry, representative of the Police Services and others. Why did it take that amount of time to schedule and conduct a meeting on such a contentious issue? Was it difficulty getting the information out, getting a location, avail ability of staff or something else? Regardless of the reasons, the bottom line was, the Plan 412 owners own down to the water line. Period. Full stop.
The week of June 18, the Ottawa Sun ran an article on beaches in the area where they raved about the beach and gave directions how to get there. A week later, had Mr. El-Chantiry corrected the story – No. I at least posted a comment clarifying my understanding of the situation. The story is available on their website.
In the June 24 issue of the West Carleton Review there is an article on the Beach Issue where the “No” group is planning to fire up their activities in early July. Another, very long letter to the editor in the July 1 issue of the ARNPRIOR EMC also replays the “No” sides story. It strikes me that the group is fixated on the word “Opinion” thinking that in this situation, given the numerical size difference between the group and the Lane Street owners that their opinion wins. Unfortunately, right here right now, this is a situation where David beats Goliath. The legal opinion is what is in force as the precedent law on the issue right now. Mr. El-Chantiry is Chair of the Ottawa Police Service Board and should be asked exactly what the current legal state on the issue is if he has not proactively done so. I would be curious to see what the Ward Councillor has put in this issue of the review on the subject. You can take a look when you read this, and I will post anything in that issue that is printed relating to the Beach Issue on my website. I tried contacting Const. Peter Jeon via email about the police position on Wednesday June 30th and did not get a reply from him prior to my submitting this on July 5.
It is time as Councillor that he steps up to the plate and states what the current position legally is. Has he used his West Carleton/March Council Notes section in the July 1 WCR ? No, Rural Fire Services was the sole topic. Mr. El-Chantiry’s city sponsored, ward website sort of, kind of says that in the Q&A’s – Constance Bay Beaches section. What it lacks is something definitive like:
“The Point Beach along Lane street is private property where marked. You can be prosecuted if you trespass by the property owners”.
Does that statement leave any doubt your mind what it the situation means? Please, if I am incorrect, show me the facts, not your opinion, unless it is a legal one or one that can take precedent over the legal opinion which is the law which the OPS respond to homeowner complains. My read of the situation is that the beach is private, you cross the [property] line, you can get charged.
Just what kind of message does the conduct of the Soccer team and the concurrent non statement on the issue by Mr. El-Chantiry give to youth, or frankly anyone? My read of it is “Laws are in place but you can choose not to follow them and not suffer any consequences”. Again, if I am wrong, show me!
The June 24 article continues to say: “ the yes side is trying to prevent everyone from using the beaches, not just partiers”. What he is suggesting is analogous to anyone coming into your property at any time. I bet if even 10 people showed up in the ECM or WCR letter authors yards uninvited, being abusive, that they wouldn’t be pleased. I know I wouldn’t.
So what would I do or have done differently? First, and as I mentioned previously, I would have tried to hold the ‘stakeholders’ meeting far more timely than it was. Second, I would make sure that everyone was aware of the Legal Position at the present time:
Trespass and you can get charged. If you live across the street, and aren’t invited you can be charged.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have access to the City legal staff but isn’t the obvious question, even if you just read about the situation on June 24, as the Ward Councillor to re-engage the city legal staff on the file?. Given that the West Carleton Review gets finalized several days before its issue date, A safe assumption is that Mr. El-Chantiry had a week lead on my finding out about the issue and well over 2 weeks will have elapsed since I read about it and you read this response. Has he done anything on the issue? I don’t buy Lansdowne as an excuse, because as the Councillor himself pointed out in the June 17 WCR he had:
“reviewed much of the 400 pages of recently published material and I believe that most of the recommendations of the current set of studies are sufficient to deal with the majority of issues and will permit me to make the most informed decision possible.”
I will simply point out that Councillor Leadman was the one who picked up that pesky 30 year exclusivity clause against the Sens.
I don’t have city paid staff to do research but I do have a sharp team on my side. A quick look at some of the Canadian legal sites points out a few interesting items. One very interesting one, admittedly originating in Quebec but appearing to have touched the Supreme Court of Canada had the following on a website:
”where a municipality is exercising a power within the operational sphere of its activities and where the exercise of that power could give rise to a dispute, it is desirable for the municipality to obtain a thorough legal opinion from independent counsel. Obtaining such an opinion could enable the municipality to avoid a judgment in damages, not to mention the costs associated with litigation.”
I wonder what a lawyer could find with access to a number of online legal databases could find for either side?
Certainly, a way to force the issue is to wait until someone is charged for Trespassing and then let a Judge resolve it. One thing I do know is it would cost a lot of money and, from my admitted non lawyer position likely would uphold the current position of the Lane Street residents.
Last, if you think that you would have time to use the beach before the police could be called, let me point out that the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 states: :
..the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of ….”
For those of you looking for my detailed reply which was referred to in the July 1 issue of the West Carleton Review I have to state that it will not be published. The reply, at its current state of completion [one point left to address] was over 4000 words in length as of June 27th plus hyperlinks etc. It spoke succinctly to each and every point in the letter.
Unfortunately. the response was such that it could only be construed as being “Negative Campaigning” . As a result I contacted Mr. Dunn at the Review via email with a request to liaise between the writer of the item in question on my behalf. A portion of my email follows:
“I find that the content of that response, regardless of how we try
and alter it will place me, and my campaign for Ward 5 Councillor in a
negative light. Yes, you could say I am avoiding publicly
responding to the letter but, given the nature and content of the
completed full length response is such that I feel obligated to
the Voters of Ward 5 to make such a request. As you know, I did
reply with a space constrained response to be published in the Canada
Day edition … the full length response, should it be posted will remain
on my
website for the duration of the campaign as I will not hide from what I
release on my website, I do wish to absolve myself from introducing what
I perceive as a strong negative skew to the 2010 Election Campaign
without having made an attempt to prevent it.”
I was advised via Mr. Dunn that the short reply would suffice the Letter’s author and as a result, the LONG version will NOT be published or introduced as part of my campaign.
I’d like to welcome Mr. O’Brien [as expected] into the Mayoralty race and Mr. Parsons to the Ward 5 campaign.
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Mr. Tom’s letter in last week’s West Carleton Review. I remain committed to my statement that March Road need to be completed sooner rather than later based on the following and the content of my original commentary.
First, as a resident of Kanata North, I suspect Mr. Tom already utilizes the bike lanes which the city provided along March Road and that he commutes away from Ward 5 and not into it. Second, let me point out to Mr. Tom that my letter was written in the West Carleton Review, which one assumes, would be applicable to West Carleton residents.
Since the door has been opened on Ward differences with the letter, allow me to point out why my views, by geo-social differences likely would differ from a Ward 4 resident. Here are a few key numbers from the City of Ottawa website, using 2008 data. In each data pair, the first number is for Kanata North, the second for West Carleton-March: Total area in sq. km – 24.2 vs 719.2; percent of total city of Ottawa area, excluding the Greenbelt– 0.9% vs. 27.8%; Population – 30,128 vs. 24,135; Households per sq, km – 461.3 vs 11.7. Basically, Ward 5 is 30 times bigger and has 80% of the population of Kanata North. I have to assume the numbers are correct in spite of the fact that the web page does have an entire column [which I did not use] where the data is obviously wrong. As an aside, a displayed page with content errors or getting the 404 missing page message, happens much too frequently on the City website.
For the most part, our major roads are unlit and exposed to winds which gust across open fields. These winds drive snow across the dark roads in the region a good portion of the year. I don’t recall seeing any bicycle on the section of March Road I referred to in my article last week during December or January, or a cyclist come into the organization where I was working in that time period. We have virtually no transit presence, save ParaTranspo in the ward. Just to point things out clearly, let me take what the impact of transit would be on finances. The city has a tool which can be used to estimate the transit portion of your property taxes. Lets assume a home value of $400k. The property taxes for the house would be on the order of $400+ a year more. Would I accept the extra tax burden for my Ward, no way. In order to be fair and equitable, if this was thrust upon me as the Councillor, I would say fine, but it has to be implemented ward wise, providing the same frequencies as the Kanata 60 series routes have, comparable route end to Transitway station times as the 60 bus. I will be so generous as to give it an extra 10 minutes and allow 30 minutes. Last, lets state that no person has to walk more than .5 of a km to get to a bus stop. I an not in a position to try and route and schedule OC Transpo but suffice it to say there would be a lot of buses required, buses that would run with very low load factors and thus be a horrendous loss AND pollute the environment. Mass transit is only environmentally friendly when it is transmitting masses. Would I support this – no way.
Car pooling is great but you need density to have it work. Of course the vehicle and population density is low HERE, we live, most of us by choice, in a rural area and the odds are slim to nil that our neighbors work in the same area, at the same time. Further, I bet you would see the same density (1 person per vehicle) in the vehicles turning onto March Road from Morgan’s Grant any morning and you have transit and bus lanes. I know that’s what I see when sitting at the light at that location.
Cars, like it or not, are a fact of life in the 21st century. I fully commend the province of Ontario for the rebate program they announced Friday June 18th for subsidies for hybrid vehicles. Hopefully this will be a long lived program and will move the province well past its announced 5% hybrid vehicle goal in 2020. It also was pointed out on CFRA on Friday June 18 during the morning show that it is the taxes paid by car drivers that support transit. They have the shows available on line and the discussion basically revolved around “problems with people who choose to try and socially engineer us out of our cars “. You might wish to engage them in a discussion.
When I have asked residents in the region what issues are important to them, more rural bike lanes isn’t in the top 20. Having said that, being a City Councillor means looking at things that are important for the city as a whole. Let’s focus on the bike issue at the city level. Clearly, the population density and vehicle density within the urban and in some suburban areas can be such that bike lanes or dedicated paths are advantageous. One idea, if elected in October that I would task staff to investigate and determine the cost would be the incorporation of a bike tunnel to be implemented along side the LRT tunnel [assuming it gets voted to proceed during the next 2 weeks]. Bike tunnels have proved very popular and successful in Europe and with access locations at each LRT station WOULD allow year round bike use in that corridor. Would I promote covered bike lanes outside of the urban area – No.
OC Transpo has tried service to more rural areas in a “Push” manner, ie providing the service and trying to build demand. People don’t want it because of the cost, lack of schedule flexibility and/or frequency etc. As for the two heavy rail track lines you discussed, they are both single tracks meaning any usage would have to be low in frequency. Movement towards a Go-Transit/Metrolinx [Toronto] like system using Heavy Rail, Light Rail and Bus has been part of my platform since day 1 of my campaign so we agree on that concept.
Here are a few of the items which, if elected I would bring to the table for consideration: incorporation of congestion tax to make driving a vehicle in the downtown core more cost prohibitive than taking OC Transpo [see April 1 issue of the WCR]; investigate a portal to portal bike tunnel to be built concurrent with the LRT tunnel [again assuming the current council passes it]; an integrated Light Rail, Heavy Rail bus system to service areas where the demand exists. Further, I propose that all 4 rural wards be designated a ‘Farm Belt” and high density housing and development limited, except in certain areas, such as the Carp Road BIA/Airport area. In order to get input from residents, I will implement a Ward 5 council patterned on some of the other existing ward councils (Ward 4 and 21 are examples), which will be open to residents of the ward.. Last in this list, I would task each City of Ottawa department with checking and validating all of their own web pages. I certainly don’t have a high degree of comfort when I see obvious numerical errors on financial pages. I would point out to Mr. Tom, that had he viewed my platform on my website, he would have found both the first and third items have been part of my campaign since day 1. There are a lot of other solid ideas on the site too.
Certain candidates have proposed transportation concepts ranging from water taxis to cable cars to make the use of personal vehicles lower. Mr. Toms suggested heavy rail trucked hybrid transforming buses are an example of the $1000 hammer type solutions which, have to be rejected strictly on a cost/benefit basis.. I would like to think that common sense should be used in looking at what a city should implement in the way of all its expenditures, whether it be for infrastructure, new capital projects, social programs and so on. Mr. Bob Plamondon, who was brought in by the Mayor to look at the city finances for the last 4 years did not paint a pretty picture. One media source summed it up by: “The next council has to do better.”. I will leave it up to you to go to the City website or to call 311 and find out who the council members are that comprise the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee.
While I certainly welcome comments from any city residents, I suggest to Mr. Tam that your lobbying efforts would be more effective with the current council members and the candidate(s) in your area. The current incumbents got us to where we are now. What everyone in the city has to decide when the election takes place is are you happy with your current representation on council when compared with the non incumbents who have been and are campaigning actively. For those who are interested in the campaign, I would suggest you check out www.perspectiveottawa.com. The site has been created to give the non incumbents the opportunity to express their opinions on a city wide level due to the advantage incumbent candidates have in this and any election.
A last point I feel I need to make. Unlike some other politicians and politicos, I will do my level best to justify or defend my positions with facts, during the campaign and if successful, once elected. Not only that, I will show you what the key items are, I will provide links to them where possible. I trust that you will make what you feel is the right decision when the election takes place. I am not seeking this position to make friends or be everything for everybody. I welcome a spirited debate, such as the one initiated by Mr. Tom because he said, in essence “I disagree with you on this because of the following…” If I am categorically wrong, or made a mistake, by all means point it out to me with the correct facts. I certainly will take every opportunity to clarify my position on the issue or item. We may agree to disagree, and I am fine with that. One thing you should never expect to get from me as a justification is a waffled ‘because it is’ answer.
On June 22, the City of Ottawa is conducting what they are calling a “Financial Sustainability Summit”. This gives us, the everyday citizen the opportunity to ask the city to explain, justify or just question “future budgets, financial decisions, and the long range financial plan”. Your input will assist the “City of Ottawa’s Audit, Budget and Finance Committee and City staff”. I am sure that everyone in the area Kanata, Stittsville and March/West Carleton who has a concern about how the city spends and will spend tax dollars has submitted their questions haven’t they?
In order to submit a question, you have to be aware that the session exists in the first place. Problem 1, the city assumes everyone has a computer and is only accepting questions via electronic means. I know of a lot of people who don’t have regular or any access to a computer, I am sure you do too. Is it fair to exclude them from participating?
Just out of interest, I decided to see where the summit was mentioned such that those of us in the west would have found out about the Summit other than the City of Ottawa website. No mention was found in the June 10, 2010 West Carleton Review or Stittsville News; June 10, Kanata Courier “Community Notes” states: “June 22 – Financial Sustainability Summit, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,”; but there is no mention in the Kanata Council Notes section; Nothing in the June 3 West Carleton/March Council Notes in the West Carleton Review [no June 10 entry].
I then went back to electronic mode and searched the web. Neither Mr. Qadri, Ms. Wilkinson, Ms. Feldmate nor Mr. El-Chantiry’s, City of Ottawa paid for web sites makes reference to the summit. Ms Leadman, the Council representative for Kitchissippi has a good, very descriptive page on the summit on her web site, as does Georges Bédard in Rideau-Vanier. Others may make reference, I stopped at 2 that did after 4 that didn’t. The April 26 edition of the Citizen makes mention of the event but the focus of the article is on OTAG, and OTAG does have significant references to the Summit on their website, but that assumes you go to the site. I couldn’t find any reference in the Sun.
Let us assume that you did find out about the conference and decided that you wanted to submit a question or two, as I did. One June 3, I tried to submit a question. The City of Ottawa website stated that you could enter any question up to 250 words in length. I started to type my question and to my surprise, only could enter a few lines of text, certainly no where near 250 words. I tried again, same thing. I changed browser type, same thing; changed computer and browser type and operating system, same thing. I decided to put in a short question/comment stating that there was an issue.
I won’t fully assume I was the only one who reported this, but on June 10, I got a reply from the City saying “Seems to work fine now”. Great, off I went to the site and what they had done, was on the question entry page, altered the text to say 250 characters. Ok, so they changed the text to fit the design rather than the design to fix the text. I assume somebody somewhere made that call. Unfortunately, the screen which points the user to the data entry screen still stated: “Questions should be simple and straightforward and any explanatory material not to exceed 250 words”. This time, I replied to the originator via the City Website and via email where I bcc’d several Audit, Budget and Finance Committee and mainstream media personnel. Did I get a reply – No, did they make a change – yes, the page now states 250 characters.
I also sent the following questions in the email:
Is 250 characters really a valid length for significant budget questions?
Has the sizing issue been raised to the Budget Committee and are they aware of the limitations imposed?
I still have not got an answer as to why it was put up untested in the first place and why it seems to have only been my challenge that pointed out the problem.
I may regret asking, but will the questions to be asked be posted BEFORE the meeting so that people can see what is being asked? I presume some form of filtering is taking place, but what assurance do citizens have as to the selectivity of the questions to be asked and answered?
I have not, as of noon, June 15, received a reply from the city. Does this give you the impression of an organization which, when subjected to a performance review would be categorized as “Performs adequately only when fully supervised”?
Last, I should point out that both Ms. Feldmate and Mr. El-Chantiry are members of the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee while Ms Leadman and Mr. Bédard are not. Ms. Feldmate, as a personal choice, will not be returning to Council after the upcoming election. Those in Ward 5 can determine if Mr. El-Chantiry should as well.
http://aronec2010.ca/ is the website
The Op Ed piece is as follows:
With the announcement on Tuesday of the release of the long awaited $600 million of Federal money for rapid transit, the project is likely to take on a higher priority in the city. Assuming the plan does go through as currently envisioned, and currently, I have concerns in several areas, council needs a timelier financial project reporting process. One of the first items I would propose to Council is to amend the current City Purchasing By- law Number 50 of 2000 to incorporate a clause similar to the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment in the United States. This clause would require any project or contract with a value of over $50,000 and which is forecast to cost 15% more than contracted amount to be raised to Councils attention for review. If the actual amounts will exceed 25% of contracted amount, Council is to place work on hold pending a full review and determination of remedial or corrective action. Bigger projects would have these applied to smaller, but still large value, definable line items as well. This, of course, is predicated on a contract that leaves the city financially obligated for additional costs.
If we take the recently approved LRT tunnel as an example the city identifies an amount of $735 Million just for the tunnel. Using my suggestion, council would be notified only when the budget had grown to $845.25 Million or a cost over run of $110 Million [15% of $735 million]. Of the $735 Million, $135 million is for “includes property acquisition, the project office, or the project director’s contingency”.
The contingency amount, normally referred to and the ‘unknown or unexpected’ costs typically range from 3 to 10 percent of a construction project base costs In this example, it could mean that the project actually ran over by an additional $18 to $60 million OR MORE, depending on how much the land acquisition and project office costs. Yes, those are alarm bells you hear ringing.
I would, in a large dollar value project like this, ensure that the city staff monitor the expenditures on both the Project office throughout the project and the land acquisition costs which, by default, has to be done early in the schedule [you can’t dig the hole if you don’t have access]. Conversely, each of these 3 items should be broken out succinctly and tracked!! $135 million is very deep cash well to be able to unaccountably shuffle money around in.
City staff have historically, missed out by a significant amount in their cost estimates o the actual costs of delivering a project. There is, however a better way than Nunn-McCurdy. What council ideally needs to do is to ensure that cost and schedule risk is if not fully assumed by, at least significantly shared with the contractor(s) doing the work. There are two basic concepts of procurement I would suggest to staff and council to consider.
The first is “Firm Fixed Price”. This means the contract, once awarded states that the winning contractor shall deliver a contractually compliant item on the contractually specified date and, once approved by the city, shall receive the agreed to amount of money. Progress payments are made only upon completion of measurable progress activities. If the cost is more, the contractor pays, if the delivery is late, the contractor pays both for the overage and a penalty to the city. The only risk on the part of the city is to ensure the design is well defined before the item is put to tender.
The second approach is a “Cost Plus Incentive to Ceiling” contract. This type of contract, the winning contractor is paid a bonus which rewards them for delivering the contracted item at a cost less than estimated. For example, the city could say for every $1000 under the ceiling that the project is completed for, the contractor would be given $100. I certainly would be in favour of spending $1 dollar for every $10 I could save. The drawback of this concept is that it puts an overhead cost burden on the city to review expenditures made by the contractor. The elephant in the room is would the cost of the city’s staff oversight actually exceed any costs saved if this method were utilized?
Either method, when used with a change control system would prevent the city from incurring additional unexpected costs. The ceiling is the ceiling is the ceiling.
Yes, but the estimated cost of Phase 1 of the LRT system has already inflated from the original estimate of $1.8 billion to $2.1 billion(+/- 25%). How do we fix that? What needs to be done, as part of the Request for Proposal stage, or even at a vendor Prequalification Stage is to have the experts identify where costs can be saved. These aren’t city staff, these are the people bidding for the work, the ones who actually have expertise. The tender is issued, with a mandatory requirement of a “Price not to Exceed” of $X.Y billion. Let us assume, as an example that staff has estimated/specified gold plated. Custom made Dufoil Ramerframer that will cost $1000. In responding, the contractor says, that with a no cost paper design change for the implementation, 2 nickel plated, off the shelf Dufoil Ramerframers could be procured at $50 each, giving the same functionality, giving a net savings of $900.
It is common sense that design, building, certifying and delivering of a low volume of anything will result in a higher per unit cost. If items can be altered, while still staying within those things which can not be changed such as minimum lighting levels, ie LED Lighting in place of Incandescent for lower lifetime costs those should be done. The $10,000 toilet seat does exist and the reason is that only 20 of them are being built to its unique specification.
Returning to the RT contract, if an experienced, prequalified vendor or vendors choose to bid, then all is good. If what the city is proposing absolutely positively is unrealistic, guess what, no one will bid for it. One or more of the requirements will have to be amended by council and the RFP reissued if, once looked at, council decides to continue. Either way, a reality check has occurred.
From my perspective, looking in at City Hall, it seems like these concepts are foreign. Yet, they are conceptually simple, easily enforceable, staff friendly and should allow council to do what they are supposed to do, and not be burdened with a lot of the noise and minutia that the current members allow and encourage themselves to be burdened with.
Once again, I find myself compelled to have to express my disbelief with the actions, or in this case, non actions of city hall. CBC is reporting today that council will be voting on whether to impose a construction moratorium on home development in the west end. The situation is apparently due to the fact that with the growth of the city in the west, that the infrastructure, in this case sewage related, is at capacity. The article goes on to say that this is the site which was at least in part responsible for the basement flooding in Glen Cairn last summer[ about 11 months ago] and elsewhere that “the city is acting quickly”.
I, perhaps naively, had assumed the city’s Planning and Environment Committee ensured that the City planned. The City website states that with regard to utilities, the committee’s objective is “To ensure the provision of overall guidance and direction in areas of environmental protection, including water supply, solid waste management and disposal, and water pollution control”. Further, they are responsible for the: “monitoring the activities and the implementation of the Utility Services Branch programs and projects”. That means, ensuring that infrastructure is in place prior to growth occurring and capable of handling some contingency, not necessarily the storm of the century, but a major one.
Ms. Feldmate has stated she supports the freeze. As Vice Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee and the current member of council for Kanata South, she, of all people should have ensured the situation never got to the point where it is now. The Planners have to listen to the builders as they are the ones who through their businesses reflect the demands of the city citizens. If people did not have the desire to live in the western parts of the city, then people would not purchase housing there. All of those people who have purchased new homes have paid the city a development charge, part of which is to support, surprise, their areas infrastructure. Should the developers be upset? Definitely! Should they be surprised about the lack of foresight? Not really.
This, I suspect is a ‘tip of the iceburg’ issue. If I was a resident of the affected area, I would be on the phone to all of city council asking why this has happened and why, after a year, a further year has to elapse. Was the contract put out for bid? When? Has it been awarded? If it has, tell me when and where because I can find no record of it!
October 25 is the date when you have the opportunity to express, via your vote, your satisfaction or lack or it, for the City of Ottawa municipal government. If you are happy with a city council that works the way they have for the last 4 years. The ones who come up with Ottawatermobiles, who treat their ward like mini fiefdoms, who dither and fret over minutia, pat themselves on the back at every media opportunity and yet, using this as an example, let the planning and implementation of infrastructure which supports growth of the city, its tax base, and improves the quality of life of all, then vote for the incumbent in your ward.
If you want change, a city Councillor who works for his or her constituents and the city, instead of being out getting photographed or sound bited, I recommend you take a solid look at what each non incumbent brings to the table, what they stand for. When I volunteer my time to help the city, I do it because the organization or cause is important to me, not to use the cause to leverage my profile. Every time you see an incumbent in the media, ask yourself whether it is for self promotion or are they actually doing productive work for the city, and yes, a number are. Remember, they are still employed as City Council members and YOUR representatives until the new Council is sworn in on December 1, 2010.
The upcoming election should in my opinion be based on the issues, not who will win as Mr. or Ms. Congeniality. I am not and would not be so presumptuous as to tell you who to or not to vote for. In a democracy, we all are able to decide who we want to represent us. All that I ask is that you do use your privilege to vote in October and do so for the candidate you feel would do the best job for you and the city.
As some of you know, Ottawa will be hosting a Financial Sustainability Summit on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. The city has a website page which allows anyone to ask a question at the session by sending it in before June 15. The website states that you can use up to 250 words. While I have been known to pontificate at times, I was sure that I could get my questions in well within that limit.
Unfortunately, when I tried, it tuns out the 250 words was incorrect and it would only allow a total of about 38 words. The picture above shows where the input screen stopped me entering.
After submitting a couple of cryptic questions, I sent them one pointing out the fault. My questions are a) Who built and tested the screens? b) Why has no one reported it?
Click on the image to make it larger.
June
10 update – I did receive an email from the city stating that it “Seems
to work fine now”. Of course it does, the screen has been changed
from 250 words, as per the attached picture to 250 characters!!!
The only issue is, that the screen which directs you to the form still
states 250 words…. An other email has been sent as can be shown in
the comments below.
Gives meaning to the phrase “performs just adequately when fully supervised’!
Mr. Cullen should recognize that while he is entitled to his opinion on whether the CANSEC 2010 trade show should take place in Ottawa, that others may feel differently. I however am totally in disagreement with his position. In an ideal world, there would be no criminals, power hungry world leaders or ‘anarchists’ who strive to push their own agenda’s over others and we would have no need to have systems in place to protect us. The world would have no need for police, military personnel or systems and we all could spend our days without a concern of anyone doing anything wrong to us. In Mr. Cullen’s world, and in this campaign, does he support the elimination of the availability of firearms to the Ottawa Police? How about not procuring bomb disposal suits or robots for the Police?
Let’s not forget that Ottawa is also the Nations Capital. Certainly no other country would want to claim, hypothetically, part of the Canadian Arctic, because of the availability of resources, would they? If they did, how would we know unless they told us? I, as a citizen of not only the City of Ottawa, but of the Country of Canada am somewhat comforted knowing that DND actually can project a presence on all of our borders. The current fleet of CP-140’s. CC-130’s and CF-18’s, CPF’s and MCDV’s do make some transits to the North, East and West territorial limits but the country needs to augment that presence. Perhaps DND could/should buy a fleet of UAV’s like the Global Hawk or Mariner. That soapbox is for others to use however, as I want to refocus on the municipal issues.
Perhaps Mr. Cullen is not aware a lot of the technology installed on those airframes is developed here in Ottawa? Perhaps he is not aware that a significant market and demand for these goods, designed, built and manufactured in Ottawa exist worldwide, and contribute substantially to the tax base of the City? Would he and those who like to embrace vegetation be willing to make up the revenue shortfall that would happen if the Defence related tax base was taken out of the City? No NDHQ staff, a significant reduction in the high tech/aerospace business and personnel across the city.
I believe that anyone who is conducting a meeting in the city, which includes industries located in the city, should not only be allowed, they should be actively encouraged. Mr. Shenkmans proposal for a new convention and conference site, it it gets built would be a potential venue for this event in the future. Close to the airport, on the rapid transit route from downtown to the airport [let’s make sure of that] and would be the recipient, we assume of the contract to hold this event, as one of the conditions of the City supporting the endeavor. I would expect, Mr. Cullen, and those who wish to Cherry Pick just who is allowed to visit the city, to open their wallets and provide a suitable offset to the city if they wish to force their views on others. The City needs sound, well thought out policies. In my view of the City of Ottawa, we welcome any and all conventions or Trade Shows. If we don’t, you can be sure that Halifax, or Montreal or… will! As for those who have a differing opinion, reflect on the fact that it is only due to the fact you live in a society where your rights and freedoms are protected such that we all are able to express our opinions.
Of course, in Mr. Cullen’s world, one person doesn’t try to impose their views on others who might disagree, do they….
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=73535
One of the first items I would propose to Council is to amend the current City Purchasing By- law Number 50 of 2000 to incorporate a clause similar to the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment in the United States. This clause would require any project or contract with a value of over $50,000 and which is forecast to cost 15% more than contracted amount to be raised to Councils attention for immediate review. If the actual amounts will exceed 25% of contracted amount, Council is to place work on hold pending a full review and determination of remedial or corrective action. Bigger projects would have these applied to smaller, but still large value, definable sub component line items as well. Projects would be required to report to council at least every quarter, preferably monthly on their budget and cost variances.
If we take the recently approved LRT tunnel amount of $735 Million just for the tunnel, council would be notified only when the budget had grown to $845.25 Million or a cost over run of $110.75 Million. Of the $735 Million, it is significant to note that $135 million is already in place for “includes property acquisition, the project office, or the project director’s contingency”.
The contingency amount, normally referred to and the ‘unknown or unexpected’ costs typically range from 3 to 10 percent of a construction project base costs In this example, it could mean that the project actually ran over by tens of millions of dollars before council received a heads up, depending on how much the land acquisition and project office costs.
I would, in a large dollar value project like this, ensure that the city staff monitor the expenditures on both the Project office throughout the project and the land acquisition costs which, by default, has to be done early in the schedule [you can’t dig the hole if you don’t have access]. Conversely, each of these 3 items should be broken out succinctly and tracked!! $135 million is very deep cash well to be able to unaccountably shuffle money around in.
The city has seen numerous examples of later where costs have increased or expected revenue has fallen short, the articulated bus garage and municipal water being instances of each.
City hall needs more business acumen. A Project Control group, reporting to council and acting as their eyes and ears is a good first step!
June 23, 2010 Update – City AG slams staff for cost over runs.
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=74006
This is EXACTLY why I proposed this.
I was very pleased to see that two of my fellow candidates in the October 25, 2010 election have proposed that the LRT be implemented out to the current boundaries of the city.
I do, however disagree with both candidates that the Tunnel be
eliminated [with one big assumption]. The assumption is that all
of the promised funding actually happens on a timely basis. If the
funding is vapourbucks, which do not appear when they are needed to
allow the tunnel to proceed, then I would support a relook at how to
handle transit through the core. While this relook was taking
place, I would suggest that work begin on the LRT infrastructure moving
from the boundaries of the city into the core. As of now, these
are what if type discussions on the tunnels and I will not discuss it
more, except where I mention the downtown core.
I firmly support the LRT be a grade level implementation where possible. Various people have proposed elevated or suspended solutions of tracked, rail or cable flavours of vehicle. Based on my research on the New Flyer buses and Chicago, I several times saw mention of derailments or mechanical issues necessitating egress via ladders. Open the doors, and step out is the ideal situation and it addresses the critical issue of a disabled rider vacating the vehicle in an emergency. It also solves a number of other personal and physical security and safety issues as well as being cost effective.
The key to any transportation system being successful is getting riders to where they want to go on a convenient basis. Having to make multiple transfers is the biggest way to turn riders off. When my parents lived in Toronto, they lived a 5 minute walk away from a TTC bus stop. If they were going out, and their destination was one transfer away, ie bus to bus, bus to subway, they took transit. They would even take a long route, both time and distance wise if it reduced the number of transfers. If it was more than that, they also would TTC, i.e. “Take The Car”.
What is needed is an end to end LRT system which makes each LRT station a hub in a hub and spoke type of network. The spokes would be either bus or potentially even a LRT [light] solution similar to the one used at Pearson Airport. In order to be effective, the stops should be at or near locations where people live, work or play. It seems like a common sense statement but as of late, I find that is something lacking at city hall. Any future expansion of the city would have to ensure that an easement was left for the LRT Routeway. An example of this would be that given the long timeline for an end to end to end system, is that a station would have to be planned for in the Carp Road Area. I could see expansion as far as Arnprior, Rockland and Kemptville.
Ottawa needs to look at other cities for success and failures. If you look at the Metro in Washington DC, they have multiple routes running over the same set of rails for a portion of the time. Ottawa could have 3 routes, for example East, West and South, each of which also could potentially have a short turn function to increase frequency in the downtown core [if needed]. Toronto continues to expand their system both in routes and technology. The Bombardier LRV selected by the TTC looks like and interesting vehicle and perhaps would be a cost effective option as the vehicle, again depending on the time seems to meet all of Ottawa needs.
What would my vision of the ideal system be? A city wide high capacity LRT/V based system which eliminates the need for OC Transpo buses in the core. A system which, potentially in conjunction with a vehicle congestion fee type of system, makes use of transit cost effective and environmentally friendly. A system which, once on the correct route [and you only would have to choose from 3] gets you to any LRT station without transferring. Buses or perhaps a dedicated surfaces transportation system of driver less people movers would be utilized to carry riders from the LRT stations out to ‘local’ destinations. Large, potentially free or low cost parking lots would be located at the LRT stations on outer boundaries of the city to cater to those who commute by car from outside of the city limits. Make the suburban stations “Kiss and Ride” able. Have the STO buses link up at LeBreton Flats and keep them out of the downtown core. Yes, there are a lot more requirements, but I hope you see a glimmer of my vision.
The city needs to think strategically when it comes to transit. Yes, it takes time. No, it wont happen overnight. Yes, things will change the plan over time. Yes, we need to involve all 3 levels of government in the process. Should I, on your behalf, ask why the Province of Ontario is so actively supporting transit in Toronto via Metrolinx and they are not doing the same in Ottawa? Let me know on October 25, 2010.
June 2 Update – I have got a copy of Mr. Andy Haydons BRT/LRT comparison and will be reviewing on the website it in the near future. I must point out, that unless the current council makes a change, LRT is going to be the technology utilized in the city. As of now, I remain a supporter of an end to end rapid transit solution.
With the warm weather upon us, I am reminded hat the most favourite season of the year is upon us, no, not summer, I am referring to Road Construction season. Any of you who have driven along March road into the ‘city’ you could have noticed the construction happening to widen the road. The ‘current’ project is to expand the road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes to just past the Klondike road area. I drive this section of road daily, as do any of you who go into or out of North Kanata or points east and south from Constance Bay, Fitzroy Harbour, Dunrobin, and Carp to name just a few impacted communities. If you drive the section of road from Morgan’s Grant to the Dunrobin Road turnoff, you know that it is virtually gridlocked during rush hour. Add in school buses and the mixture becomes even slower.
As I sat, unmoving on March Road in front of Jack and Mary Dekok’s farm, Last week during the morning rush hour, the ‘obvious’ question came to mind. This was “When will the expansion to four lanes up to the obvious convergence/divergence point at Dunrobin Road be completed?” The current phase of the expansion, according to the City of Ottawa web site, will be done in 2011 and will result in the ‘choke point’ moving from Klondike Road to approximately 350 meters beyond Old Carp Road. As the Ward division is at Old Carp Road, congratulations to the few of you in the ward who will benefit from it soon.
The answer to my question was to say the least, surprising. I used the City of Ottawa website to get some information. The current project is well documented, lots of drawings, schedule information and even the City of Ottawa point of contact. As for the next phase, nothing obvious was found other than in the 2003-2008 Ottawa 20/20 Transportation Plan which was issued in April of 2003. This states that the Environmental Assessment for the Morgan’s Grant to Dunrobin Road was completed. This was good as the EA process can delay things if it has not yet been completed.
I knew a later Transportation Plan was issued. The 2008 Transportation Master Plan [2008 TMP] is online in PDF format, and does cover the current plans for the city, including LRT. It, like a number of other City of Ottawa documents which are stored in Adobe PDF format, appear not to be searched by the City of Ottawa web sites search function, but that is another issue to be resolved.
The 2008 TMP identifies that there are 2 planned construction activities for this stretch of road. The first is “Bicycle lanes or paved shoulders between Terry Fox Road and Dunrobin Road” and the second is” Widen [March Road] from two to four lanes from Old Carp Road to Dunrobin Road”. I fully support the first construction plan as this section of road is actively used by cyclists. Before you make any plans, you should know that the first stage of construction, according to page 75 is between 2009 and 2015. I can not find any reference to this being an awarded contract so the safe assumption is post 2011 for this to happen. The expansion to 4 lanes, according to page 80 of the plan is to occur sometime between 2023 and 2031. That means, for anywhere between the next 13 and 21 years, the Old Carp Road to Dunrobin Road stretch will be gridlocked. Are YOU happy with this? I certainly am not.
I believe the entire project could be executed in a better fashion. It is not the actual construction I have an issue with, but rather how long it will take to be useful. I often have stated that we need to change the way we think at city hall. This road construction should be extended to Dunrobin Road if not in parallel with, certainly directly subsequent to the current construction. There are volumes of discussions about bridges that go to no where but, it would make sense for the road to be extended to a logical junction point. Yes, I am looking at this with hindsight, but clearly common sense did not seem to have been a factor in the decision making either. If we are going through this effort to extend the road, then it should just as well have been planed for and implemented properly the first time around.
The way that thinking needs to change is that the city should do it right the first time, even if it costs more money in the short term for a long term gain. In this situation, unless something happens, those of us who commute along March Road, will still be grumbling under our breath a bit further up/down the road from where we presently do 15 years from now! In a similar vein. the same could be said about the potential ward specific tax in Kanata. The potential additional tax is not what I am talking about right now, but rather the burying of power lines that it would fund. The question should not be should the residents pay extra for the benefits of buried power lines. It should be rather a question of whether or not we just make buried power lines the normal procedure. To successfully build a sound infrastructure foundation for the future things need to be done logically, consistently and efficiently NOW.
I know that we can do this. We the people are able to make this change happen. The question should always be asked how does it affect the people, and then how can we do it better. The change you want to see starts with projects like this. If I was to simply be Alexander the candidate, I would let this issue rest until the new City Council is in place in December. I am not that type of person. If you are as annoyed as I am about this, contact the current city council and let them know your feelings.
I firmly believe this to be a situation of “You snooze, you lose” in getting this construction moved up schedule wise.
While I have been out knocking on doors, I clearly have not as of yet been able to talk with everyone in the ward. To give YOU a chance to get your ideas to me, I have created a Survey on my web site. Feel free to visit and complete it. Last, if you do not have access to a computer, feel free to contact me via telephone or Canada Post.
I
would like to acknowledge that it now appears that the Province will be
funding five (5) VMS signs for the city. I hope that this is just
the first phase as 5 signs will not give good coverage of all of
the 4XX highways in the city. Full marks to Rick Chiarelli for
facilitating this. I only hope the province follows through with
an integrated permanent system and is not trying to placate us with the
tiny portable ones. What good are they if you cant get to the
location needed for an hour in the first place? On the topic of
“getting there”, has the City asked or discussed with MTO/Province the
construction of a 407 like ring road?
What I would like to point out to those in Ward 5 was that I posted this suggestion shortly after the event on my blog here [May 14, 2010]. I am not able to speak to when Mr. Chiarelli initiated his activity with the province to make this happen.
A useful addition would be a simple Red or Red/Green light which is located prior to getting on any ramp to the highway to indicate the highway is ‘Open”.
In Ward 5, as across the city, you have to ask “Does Ottawa deserve a proactive or reactive City Council”?
You can make that decision in October.
While I commend Councillor Wilkinson for her desire to put the hydro wires near All Saints below ground, I totally disagree with her supporting the ward specific tax levy to pay for it. I. like a good number of people who live in the west end do drive past that location regularly. I also have seen the area go from literally an isolated road junction to one with a major school, a Retirement Home and numerous homes and as a pre cursor, home developers. At any point in past time, when any of these buildings were being approved, anyone who drove through the area and using nothing more special than their own Mark 1 eyeballs could see the overhead lines, and the supporting poles. The line relocation could have been made to rectify the situation then, when major infrastructure improvements were being performed or now, as the opportunity is present, and it should be paid for by the City. Similarly, the City should have paid for the purchase and renovation of St. Thomas School in Crystal Beach without a location exclusive levy.
If the City goes forward with this ward specific tax, I certainly would expect the responses of the residents of Ward 4 to be “Why should we have to be responsible for the cost of, for example operation of an OC Transpo shuttle buss if the Cyrville Road Bridge is closed for repairs if they will not pay for our hydro wires? ” or support the subsidy of the Farmers Market downtown, or even for work done on Lansdowne in general when they don’t use that city resource, or if they do, certainly so infrequently as to be insignificant.
Ongoing acceptance of these particularized levy’s will lead to an isolationist point of view by citizens in the city and certainly will lead to adding fuel to the fire to those who are pushing for deamalagamation. The purpose of city hall is to make decisions for all residents, and if the majority approve, to proceed. That, fundamentally, is democracy at work. Every 4 years, you get a chance to express your opinion as to who you want to represent you to make those decisions. Please do so wisely this year.
One last thought. It has been reported that when the city purchased the school in Crystal Beach that an option existed and I assume still exists to sell it in the future if it is unused/unwanted. Suppose things play out such that the ‘sell it in the future’ option happens and the city makes $1million on the deal. Would that benefit go only back to the residents who paid the levy? What if it was sold at a loss? If you reflect on the history of the current city council, you already have a good idea what the answer would be.
As a bit of blatant marketing, I am fundraising to cover my costs in the upcoming election. With the City rebate program, your donation of $50 to me only will cost you $12.50. It is a win-win. My Support Page is here.
I read a brief news item on the CFRA website and in the Citizen, talking about the fact that the Ottawa Fire Services was running a deficit of $1.2 Million dollars. Let me state at the front end that this is not an issue about the OFS, it is an issue about “unrealized productivity savings”. Translating the bafflegab, this means we expected something to save money or resources and it didn’t.
There is nothing wrong with this in theory. Any business makes assumptions about cash flows, rates of returns, value of expected improvements and so on. Often, these estimates are fairly accurate and based on history. One estimate may be low, the other high, but to remain in business, you want to be making more than you are loosing. My question to the current Council, and specifically, the audit, budget and finance committee is do you have an accurate picture of past promised ‘productivity savings” and the actual realized savings. If not, why not?
As an example, let me return to my favourite example. OC Transpo. OC Transpo is completing a new, reported to cost $97 million dollar, maintenance garage. An article in the January 21, 2010 issue of the Ottawa Citizen states:” The garage is being built on Industrial Avenue and will accommodate articulated buses.”. As those of you who have seen my website know, I have a few issues about the purchase of the 306 new articulated buses and while I have raised these issues to members of the current council, none of these seem to have been deemed significant. I will let you take a look at my findings and if you agree with me, let the current council members know.
Let us assume the sale is continuing as anticipated for the purpose of my discussion. In slightly less than a year, the city will have a new fleet of 306 articulated buses, each of which has a 5 year warranty. One of the justifications for getting the new vehicles was the maintenance savings to be had due to the 5 year warranty and the Ottawa [actually in Arnprior] based maintenance facility which the bus supplier previously agreed to set up due to issues with their previous 226 buses sold to the city. The April 29, 2010 edition of Metronews.ca, in an article on the buses says:” A five-year “bumper-to-bumper” warranty will cover all repairs and maintenance, except heating and air conditioning, which is covered for two years, and normal wear and tear like brake pad and tire replacement.” Just looking at this issue we have a $97 million dollar facility which is specifically set up to handle approximately 30 percent of the OC Transpo fleet [and yes, I assume the other 70%]. However, as the warranty covers items for either 2 or 5 years, you need to know the answers to a few questions. Several ones that come to my mind are:
1. Will there be a 30 percent reduction in staff and maintenance budgets at OC Transpo for at least 2 and ultimately 5 years allocated by the city. If not, what reduction will be allocated and why?
2. What costs associated with staff reductions will be incurred?
3. If the expected savings are not realized, what plans are in place to mitigate the shortfall?
4. Was the new facility factored into the decision to get the New Buses, if so, how?
Another example of the estimates not being close to actual results is the City of Ottawa water conservation program. Earlier in the year, it was reported that city revenues for water use was down, due, in some part to the success of the water conservation program. A CBC Ottawa report May 19, 2010 states that the City is going to terminate its toilet rebate plan in .June of this year. The article says that the City has budgeted approximately $450,000 to handle 6600 rebates. In previous years, the rebate program was ‘oversubscribed’ by a significant amount, 1400 projected vs 4980 actual requests in 2009. Approximately double the expected amount was received in 2008 and the current number this year has exceeded 42 a day. One must step back and look at the big picture. The first question to ask is what was the purpose of the plan? On May 19, 2010, the City of Ottawa website says:” The City’s target, taking into consideration population growth, is to reduce maximum day production at the Lemieux and Britannia water purification plants by 25 per cent by the end of 2008, and by 50 per cent by the end of 2014.”
Last time I looked, 2008 had passed and the program is about half way through its 8 year implementation. I would assume that when the city planning and environment committee meet on Tuesday next week they will make their decisions with the following information in hand or considered:
1. Given that the program was accepted well over the anticipated level by the end of 2008, was the 25% reduction achieved?
2. If it was not achieved, what action was taken to adjust those expectations?
3. If the program was not meeting expectations at the end of 2008, why was it allowed to continue?
4. Given that 1400 units per year were anticipated over 8 years [giving a total of 11,200 toilets] and it appears that this number has already been exceeded in the period of just 2008 to present, has the 50% reduction been achieved?
5. If the program was working in 2009, why end it now? If it was not working in 2009, why was it continued with funding in 2010?
6. Given the fundamental assumption to reduce the environmental impact of the city on its environment [think garbage], why cancel a low dollar value cost program which by definition reduces impact on the environment?
If you are concerned about issues like this, call, write or email the current City Council members and let them know. Your voice can make a difference as to how the city spends your tax dollars. On October 25, make your voice heard and vote for the candidate you think will serve you best! Ask where their business acumen is? Don’t be surprised if they say that those consultants aren’t around.
The accident that shut down the 417 earlier in the week seems to have got the attention of the media. While it was the citizens in the city who were impacted, and mainly those who reside in the west end, the responsibility for the 417, as with all 400 series Highways lies with the province. That is why the OPP has responsibility for traffic on those highways and not City Police. This is why an OPP vehicle was apparently involved in the incident in question.
There has been a ‘we need to be informed’ about these types of things cry by various people in the city, including Mr. Rick Chiarelli, according to CFRA on Thursday. He also, I suppose based on his ‘corporate knowledge’, stated a previous request was made to staff to investigate how to handle these types of situations.
One obvious solution is to have the province install Variable Message Signs [VMS] at major interchanges on the 416/417 just as the MTO have done in and around Toronto [including the 401 near their offices]. These signs, established and proven technology are already in use in the province as well as throughout the world. VMS, by definition allow messages to be displayed of either a textual or text/graphic nature. Imagine how much putting a Message of “417 CLOSED AT MARCH UNTIL 8PM” followed by location specific information such as “EXIT AHEAD AND USE TIMM OR CARLING’ for a sign approaching the Moodie exit would have mitigated the problem.
Don’t do a fancy redesign of the signs, choose one that is currently built, in use AND supported for its expected lifetime, order up a couple dozen and install them. The toughest part of the job, given this scenario, is the design of the structure to hold the signs. Again, this would be basic structural engineering and not really rocket science. A few dollars would be need to change the names of the sign locations but if MTO was approached with the “Give us the Toronto System” with Ottawa replacing Toronto, the wheel would not have to be reinvented., perhaps only a few bumps resolved..
My questions are: What happened to the old request Mr. Chiarelli has referred to? Has the City approached the Province about implementation of VMS? Who? When? What was the result? Maybe we should ask all of the local Members of Provincial Parliament to propose and support this type of initiative?
Better traffic flow information and control with messages such as “EMERGENCY VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM BEHIND” followed by “MOVE RIGHT’ on the highways will also serve to improve transit, the environment and emergency services.
This blog was also done without the need for a consultant to be hired.
I also wonder why it took pressure from CFRA staff during an on air interview to get the Police Services Board chair to take any action at the provincial level on the highway closure. Shouldn’t we have proactive rather than reactive Council members?
I would like to simply comment on the announcement that 11 property owners have won the right to have their beach declared private property down to the waterline. If they feel the problem is solved, I would like to point out that their ownership ends at the waterline, not in the water. If a ‘partier, is in a boat, walking on the shore such that the waterline is constantly between themselves and the shore, I believe they can not be legally touched. Did the city legal department advise them of this fact?
The Grey/Bruce Outdoors website to have a strong argument to support this position. It says in part that :” Private lakes and ponds (bodies of water without deeded public access) are off-limits unless you have permission from the landowner. The question becomes more complex when you consider other bodies of water that are accessible to the public. The Beds of Navigable Waters Act addresses the issue in section 1 of the act, specifically it provides that:
“Where land that borders on a navigable body of water or stream, or on which the whole or a part of a navigable body of water or stream is situate, or through which a navigable body of water or stream flows, has been or is granted by the Crown, it shall be deemed, in the absence of an express grant of it, that the bed of such body of water was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee”
Section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act creates a statutory presumption that owners of land abutting navigable waters (or streams) do not have ownership of the lake-bed/stream-bed, unless the original Crown land grant specifically states that the lakebed/streambed is included as part of the property. There are some exceptions to this rule, specifically:
a) if the land was granted before 1911 (the year that the Act was first proclaimed) and a court determined before 1911 that the landowner also owned the rights to the stream bed, or;
b) the landowner establishes to the satisfaction of a court that a water power enterprise of some sort was established in the waterway before 1911, and the landowner had a reasonable belief that he or she had the right to use the streambed for such purpose, or;
c) the waterway is designated as one to which the Act does not apply (at this time there is only one such waterway, located in Merritt Township in the District of Sudbury).
Crown land grants which specifically include rights to the streambed are rare, and were/are usually made in relation to places where mills, power dams or hunting/fishing clubs were/are to be established. These places are usually pretty obvious and are usually posted. That being said, the best way to satisfy yourself that your exclusion from a waterway is legitimate is to head off to the Registry Office and look at the original Crown grant to see if such rights were specifically granted.
If the streambed was not specifically granted to the abutting landowner, the bed of the waterway is Crown Land and can be used by the public to exercise its right to hunt and fish.
The question of Navigability
The question of whether or not a particular waterway is “navigable” is more problematic. If a waterway is not, “a navigable body of water”, section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act does not apply and the landowner’s rights would be considered to extend into the streambed. Not surprisingly, the issue of what “navigable” means (within the context of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act) has, from time to time, been the subject of litigation in this Province.
The first cases concerning the issue of navigability were primarily focused on the question of whether or not a waterway could be used for commercial purposes (i.e. shipping goods or floating logs). The first test of navigability therefore included the consideration of whether or not the waterway was a commercially viable means of transportation. That criteria has recently been deemed not to be conclusive of the issue, but rather evidence that a waterway is navigable (but it is not an essential condition to prove navigability).
Essentially, the question of navigability will be looked at by the court from two perspectives – historic use and present use. If any of the following are found by a court considering the issue of navigability of a particular waterway to be fact, the waterway will be considered to be navigable:
a) it is used for commercial shipping;
b) it is used by the public as an “aqueaous highway” (i.e. it must have real or practical value to the public as a means of transport from one point of public access to another). The vessels being used do not have to be large – if the waterway is used by small watercraft (i.e. canoes, inflatable rafts, kayaks, paddle boats), or used by the public for transportation in the winter (i.e. snowmobiles, cross-country skies, snowshoes), it will be considered to be navigable;
c) it is capable of being used by the public as an “aqueaous highway”. In situations where no actual present use of the waterway can be established, the court will look at historic use of the waterway and expert information regarding the present characteristics of the waterway to determine if it can in fact be used as described above.
The issue has been explored further, and a court will now find that a waterway is navigable, even if:
a) it is only navigable during certain times of the year (i.e. spring run-off);
b) the waterway is interrupted by dams or other obstructions (natural or man-made) which impede navigation;
c) it is navigable in some parts, but not others (in such cases section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act applies only to those sections that are navigable);
d) if the river is navigated for purposes other than transportation (i.e. for fishing or other recreational pursuits)
The myth of the “highwater mark”
Many people believe that the public has a right to use land up to the highwater mark of a navigable waterway while traversing the course of the waterway. Except for a very brief period in time (between 1940 and 1951, when an earlier version of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act provided that the Crown owned the beds of navigable waterways to the highwater mark of the waterway) the law in Ontario has always been that the boundary between a waterway and the abutting land is the waterline. In other words, if you are out of the water, you could be on private property.
Generally, the public has no right to enter on to private property abutting a waterway unless consent of the landowner has been granted. You can be liable to penalties if the land is posted against trespassers (i.e a “No Trespassing Sign” or a red dot painted on objects along the boundary of the property).
The public’s right to use a navigable waterway (and the bed of the waterway) does not include a right to enter upon private property to portage around a natural obstacle in the waterway, or a legally constructed obstacle in the waterway. Unless there is a recognized right (at law) to portage, you need permission to travel overland. What this means is that although you have a right to use a navigable waterway, your right may not be able to exercise that right in some circumstances. Without permission to use the abutting land as a portage, you run the risk of facing trespass charges.
Landowners beware !
Section 18(2) of the Fish and Game Act (Ontario) prohibits unauthorized persons from giving notice prohibiting activity on Crown land. If you own property abutting a navigable waterway and you do not allow people to use the waterway for fishing and/or hunting, you are contravening section 18(2) of the Fish and Game Act (Ontario) and may be liable to have a penalty imposed.”
I wonder if hindsight will find the city’s decision to be a victory or defeat.
May 20, 2010 Update – Don’t do anything stupid or try to push the law. Know your rights, be polite and courteous as you can be sure that anything untoward will make Page 1 above the fold of the Citizen.
June 23, 2010 Update – Ottawa Sun runs an article about the Point Beach NOT stating the result of the Legal Opinion.
One of the things I will implement should I be privileged to be elected is to implement a Ward Council for Ward 5. The purpose of this is to hold a meeting at least monthly, more than likely twice a month, a meeting with both a fixed pre announced agenda and at least 1/3 if the time left open for ‘ad hoc’ discussions. I would consider holding one meeting during the day and the other on an evening and likely in locations around the ward, to allow people to attend one if the other is at an inconvenient time/location. The preplanned agenda items would be those which were identified to my office at least a week in advance such that the agenda could be published on my ward website. As part of my ‘transparency’ plan, I would also publish the minutes of these meetings on the web.
I would hope to be able to use these meetings to get input on issues which I would be voting on in the near future at the Council level. Various other wards in the city use this successfully and I am sure it would be of great use in our Ward. It will allow individuals as well as community groups to have more input and viability into Ward specific issues as well as those which impact the City as a whole.
Living in rural Ottawa, where this morning I woke to the sound of turkeys [wild] I read the May 5 article in the Ottawa Citizen about “Urban Chickens” with more than a bit of interest. I personally don’t see a huge issue here. Of course, the NIMBY crowd will have issues, you cant please everyone. I certainly am not an expert on the issue, but there seems to a good volume of information available on the subject just by goggling “Urban Chicken”.
The City By-Law that address’s this issue is 2003-77, Respecting Animal Care and Control. It regards chickens as ‘livestock’ and forbids owning and raising them except in certain specified areas of the city. Article 79, however relates to Pigeons. It allows anyone to have up to 70 birds (depending on the calendar) so long as they meet a specified set of, what appear to be, common sense requirements. My first thought was, get the red pen out, replace ‘pigeon’with “chicken” and see how the text read. With the exception of laughing at the notion of a ‘recognized racing or homing chicken club, which is affiliated with a national chicken association” and the designated ‘flight time’ windows, the markup looked reasonable. Certainly the number of birds would be reduced to a number of less than 70, to perhaps 5.
My suggestion to CLUCK, and anyone else who want Council to consider some form of By-Law Change is to make the job of city staff and council easy. “Don’t reinvent the wheel” is the mindset I encourage any group to adopt, and is one which I personally abide by. Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery in a number of instances where looking at implementing something new. The Whig Standard recently had a number of good points on this issue. What this group should do is prepare a documentation package and submit it to the city. It should, as a minimum have a briefing note summarizing their position; SPECIFIC details of and links to others who have done this previously which corroborate their position, a suggested amendment to the applicable By Law(s) and what the advantages are to the City( be they health, lifestyle, financial etc). Identification of, and a rebuttal of the potential negatives would go a long way as well.
I read Randall Denley’s article in the Saturday Citizen with regard to parking ‘machines’ and was on one hand appalled, and on the other not surprised. The synopsis of the article is than as part of the implementation of the new pay and display parking ‘machines’ that a communications program was being implemented by the city which will cost about $80,000 and involves printed and video media as well as hiring “students who will roam the streets” to assist in the use of the ‘machines’.
The article goes on to say that a consultant was being brought in at a cost of around $36.5 thousand dollars because the existing 52 city communications personnel are too busy to do the work.
The article states that ‘the work’ consists of speaking to business development associations. My question is “What is the purpose?”. The ‘machines’ are going in, it’s a signed deal. If there was a concern, why was it not statused and resolved before the contract got signed? The last time I was in the market, I used one of the ‘machines’ and frankly didn’t see throngs of dumbfounded people trying to figure out how to use it. The situation was the same when I was in Toronto, and Vancouver, and Montreal, and Saint John and Kingston, and just 2 weeks ago, in Perth. One person was unsure what to do but he a) read the instructions and then b) watched someone else use it – presto – problem solved.
This is a parking ‘machine’, a glorified meter to the rest of us, not a Boeing 777. One would assume if you are capable of driving a vehicle to get to the ‘machine’, that you have sufficient skills to use the ‘machine’, or an ATM, or a touch tone telephone. I fully support the new devices, and want Council to push further, and encourage the activation of the pay/refill by cell phone option which is now available elsewhere. Only yesterday I had to dash out of a meeting to refill a meter.
Perhaps the vendor has misrepresented itself on its website where it states
“End-User Satisfaction
Multiple payment options provide flexibility and choice to end-users,
increasing convenience. The user-friendly self-serve keypad is easy to
use and immediate on-line assistance makes troubleshooting by users
effortless. Clear, easy to follow instructions increases satisfaction
and reduces frustration.”.
I suspect the vendor is correct.
Mr. Denley also makes mention of ‘focus groups” being necessary, while the representative of the company providing the units is quoted as saying “Would you stand in front of it and not be able to figure it out? Highly unlikely.”. Here is my suggestion. Take each of the 52 existing communication people and put them in proximity with a new ‘machine’. Give them coffee and food and tell them to review the ‘machine’ and its instructions to see what they feel is missing or ambiguous on the instructions. Gather the results up, review and collate them. At most 2 hours of ‘consultant time’ to do that since the odds are, minimal to nil comments will be made, these units are in use in a number of other cities, even Torontonians can use them.
Next, taking the same group of 52, perhaps in pairs if they need some form of moral support, tell them they are going to be timed using the machine and the ones who take the longest to complete a payment cycle are going to be let go [taking any disability which could affect performance into consideration] . How bad will the instructions and usability be then? Again, the elapsed time, this time with a stopwatch competent consultant which may be a different skill set from the one used previously, likely would be a worst case 2 more hours. That gives me 4 hours work for $36k of my tax dollars, not a bad hourly rate.
Mr. Denley states “This is standard operating procedure at City Hall. If you want a job done right, get a consultant to do it.”. The issue here isn’t the use of consultants, they definitely have their place, and can be very cost effective and efficient when wisely engaged. I feel that the situation with the meters is unfortunately typical at city hall, and is a misuse of taxpayer dollars. The current ceiling amount at the city to issue a request for proposal type consultancy contract is for amounts over $50,000. I support lowering that to $10,000 for consulting/professional services only, including call ups from standing offers. Make the ‘consultant’ procurement process less easy and staff might actually do the work themselves versus crutch use of consultants. I view, and correctly so, that every dollar council spends is My dollar, I earned it and I want it spent efficiently and effectively. I assume you want yours spent the same way.
I have, and continue to propose a full review of the use of consultants by the city to determine if they are being used efficiently or could be used more efficiently. This could include looking at the whole scale outsourcing of a function to an outside firm and not just the elimination of use of contractors as some seem to feel I am proposing. Being a government town, I am sure there is no shortage of firms who would jump at responding to an RFP from the city to perform the work of say, 52 employees in one department.
Just over two years ago, in an article announcing the deal, Mr. Denley wrote: “Surely, councillors won’t find a way to foul this one up”. I will leave you to reflect on that statement.
Todays blog has to do with Mr. Cullen’s comment on April 29, 2010 about creating a lobbyist registry. Not being very familiar with what this would entail, I put fingers to keyboard to become more informed. Here is some of the information that I found. Of course, the Federal Government has a registry. It is just like any other Federal “Office of the Commissioner”, ie well defined, staffed etc. It is free to join if you are a lobbyist and located, surprise, in Ottawa. Thought 1 was to have all municipal lobbyists be registered on the federal system, which is also free to search, thereby in essence uploading all the cost to the Federal Government. Apparently there is approximately 3000 registrations at the Federal level. I did check, and Mr. Jaffer is not registered.
Next was to move to the provincial level. I didn’t do a detailed look but it does appear that most of the provinces do have a Registry at their level. A theme did emerge though. IT resources, staffing costs and the development of the legislation they work to being just a few. The money meter in my mind was starting to spin fast now.
Obviously, the next place I looked was at the municipal level. Hamilton has a voluntary registry that has been in place since 2004 which is available online for all. It has, wait for it, 1 entry. .Of course, Toronto showed up, in fact David Miller had it as part of his successful Mayoralty platform in 2006. Is that an alarm bell ringing?
The next thing I asked was, how much? I initially discounted looking at Toronto and thought perhaps a province, with a similar size population to Ottawa would work. Nova Scotia seems not to break their costs out in detail, or if they do, I couldn’t find it readily. Manitoba is in the throws of implementation and look to be operational in the future after a couple of years of development. Saskatchewan does not have a registry but Alberta does. It is estimated that Manitoba has about 100 lobbyists and Alberta has 300. Toronto was starting to look like a better comparison.
Before deconstructing what Toronto did, I read the excellent article that Walter Robinson had in the Ottawa Sun last year. After that, and filled with loads of confidence, I typed “Toronto lobbyist registry” into Google and hit return. The first site shown was the Home website page for the Toronto registry (OLR). Scrolling down, I saw that there was an Interpretation Bullettin on Lobbying and Municipal Elections. I read this and then went back to the homepage and stared at it. Words like By Law Interpretation, Training, and Code of Conduct jumped out at me. They were synonymous to costly, slow and time consuming.
I did notice that the page also had a link to Annual Reports, which led me to the 2009 Annual Report, which is just over a month old! I will spare you from having to read through all the details, unless you desire to, and will simply give you the high level synopsis. There is a staff of a number of people aside from the Registrar, 7 morel when fully populated. She has admin assistants, a compliance investigator, an enquiry and investigative council, a registry operations manager, and registry advisors. I noticed it didn’t seem to include the IT development, implementation ad support people. IF a fee was associated with registering, accounting personnel and auditors would be an overhead type of additional expense. Then, of course, being in essence a new department, its operation would have to be audited too. To enforce something, you need a By-Law, which means more time and resources to develop and pass. I am always in favour of not reinventing the wheel but in this case, tabling a document a council which has a red line through Toronto and replacing it with Ottawa wont work well I suspect.
The best section of the annual Report says:” For lobbyists who do not register or who fail to comply with the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, the only applicable enforcement procedure is to lay information under the Provincial Offences Act. Charges under the Provincial Offences Act are difficult to pursue. There is a stringent six-month time limit for laying of charges, the prosecution process is resource-intensive and the standard of proof is difficult to meet.…and the by-law do not empower the registrar to order compliance with the by-law. The by-law does not give the Lobbyist Registrar the power to impose conditions on registrations,”. Ok, it is a toothless entity, with a track record to support that position.
It follows in the same document that “The OLR website IT project should be completed in June 2010. This project involves substantial contributions of time from registry staff as well as City IT staff. If Council directs that the OLR charge a fee for registrations, then a new capital IT project will be required to implement such a fee.”. The By-Law enacting the registry was passed in January 2008, the software will be ready soon. The annual operating budget for the OLR is just under $1 million. Do I need to connect the dots?
I agree with Mr. Robinsons conclusions fully, including supporting freedom of information access on Councillors, and certainly would vote NO on such a cost ineffective idea as a Lobbyist Registry. The only reason the city would need such a registry is if, indeed such improprieties have occurred within the ranks of the incumbent or past members of City Council. Feel free to show me the examples and I will reconsider my position.
One issue which has been identified by several candidates running for council relates to the Councillors Car Allowance. One has even gon so far as to recommend the elimination of the Councilors’ Car Allowance and an OC Transit pass which, when combined have a stated value to the Councillor of slightly over $7000. The related press release goes on to infer that this money is “paid to travel to and from work”. Does this statement truly serve this or indeed any candidate for Council in good stead with the public by inferring a ‘money for nothing’ situation exists? Further, it was my understanding that while we each represent individual wards that the “works only for my Ward” viewpoint does not speak to the needs of the City as a whole. Any candidate must take a high level view of issues and make a decision based on a number of factors. These factors must include what is in the best interest for the candidates ward, but not to the exclusion of the other wards in the City and the City itself.
Currently, the city is defined by 3 types of Wards: Rural – such as Ward 5 (West Caleton-March); Suburban – such as Ward 1 (Orleans) and Urban – such as Ward 7(Bay). Using the 3 identified wards and Data from Ottawa Ward Boundary Review Recommendations Report dated April 19, 2005 on can find the following statistics. Ward 5 is over 11 times and over 29 times larger in area than Wards 7 and 1 respectively. The population in Ward 5 is slightly more than half of either of the two wards.
What does this mean? Quite simply Ward 5, like all of the rural wards is a) geographically large with a distributed population; b) requires use of a non public transit vehicle in the Ward and c) perhaps obviously, being rural, is not close to the downtown core. Unless you are a Client of Para Transpo, you can’t get “here” from “there” using OC Transpo.
With this simple set of numbers, the Issue which all of council must face is highlighted. That is:”Urban vs Suburban vs Rural and how to make it equitable.”.
In this situation, there is one glaringly obvious solution which provides both uniformity of application as well as transparency in reporting. That is to have City Councillors specifically and preferably all city personnel who utilize their personal vehicle for City Business to submit a Monthly Mileage Expense report to Staff. The reports would be subject to the review by the City’s Auditor General as necessary. As for the continuation of the Bus Passes, I at this point would have to defer on a final position until 2011. I would like to see City Hall to begin monitored utilization of the new OC Transpo Presto Cards as the suggested movement towards eliminating the problem once they are implemented in next year..
OCTranspo versus taking the car seems to be a constant mantra heard across the city. One side says if service doesn’t improve or be increased [except cost wise] they will switch to their own vehicles while the other side says that they don’t have access to transit or it isn’t convenient or …
In Ward 5, we have virtually no OCTranspo service and ParaTranspo, while covering the entire Ward is both prohibitively expensive and rigid. As shown on the city website, Para fares range between $9.50 and $18.50 per ONE trip Originating or ending in Ward 5, booked 24 hours in advance, between7:00/9:00 am and 5:00 pm where you specify when you would like to go, when you would like to be picked up and where, only to be told if you actually can be scheduled in.
The situation confronting the city is how to increase ridership within the areas served by OCTranspo while also assisting those who do not have easy access to public transit.
My proposal is to task city staff with investigating the type of Congestion Pricing system utilized in London England and various other Cities throughout the world. To make it viable, a much better [read LRT] based system must be available as a viable transit choice for commuters to and from the downtown core. Conceptually, the system would utilize passive devices such as transponders and plate imaging cameras to determine if you are allowed to be in a certain area of the city at a certain time. While not stating this model is ideal, or even correct, let me briefly describe once scenario.
For the subject of discussion, the zone runs from Island Park to the Queensway to the Rideau River [not the canal] to the Ottawa River. Traffic on the Queensway/ 417 is excluded. Any vehicle which is identified in the ‘zone’ which resides in an area well served by OC Transpo, and JUST for discussion lets assume anyone who resides [ie has their vehicle license address] within the Zone, Inside the Greenbelt or within 2 km of a transit way station would be an “included vehicle”.
A number of cameras would be installed which would capture and translate vehicle plate information and compare it to the contents of a database. If and only if, the plate was identified as belonging to an ‘included vehicle’ would the status of that vehicle be progressed to he next step which would involve either validating that the vehicle had been prepaid [ ie daily, weekly monthly or annually] at say $10 per weekday [more than 2 OC Rush Hour Fares] or set a timer for the next 24 hours during which at say $12, the vehicle owner could call and have access granted. Failing to comply would result in a larger charge, say $50 being levied. Hours of system operation would be such that say from 6:30 PM Fridays to 5AM Mondays, stat holidays, 10:45 pm to 4:45 am. etc would be exempt so as not to disrupt visitors to the downtown core on the weekends or who need to be downtown well outside peak hours.
A visitor from Toronto would be exempt, as would a resident of New York as well as one from Carp. However, if you live in the Market and need a car, you are stuck with a monthly rate. Live in the Glebe and want to drive to City Hall, you have to pay for the privilege during a weekday too.
I am posting this as a concept, something to generate discussion. If you have a better idea, PLEASE share it with me or other candidates who are looking to better the city. The City, Mayor and Council can not maintain the Status Quo.
Yes, there are issues to be analyzed,: What about Residents on the Quebec side of the river who live in the NCR; What is the cost benefit analysis [cost of cameras/software/Call Centre versus received revenue] are but two of I am sure many issues.
One thing I have believed in, and which was in fact the first position I identified post announcing my candidacy for Councillor for Ward 5, was to limit my term in that role to at most 2 ,4 year terms within any 12 years[3 term period]. I stand by this policy for myself and will bring it to Council to get it approved. I would also encourage other candidates in the Ottawa 2010 municipal election to embrace this concept of forced change.
I love politics, and always have. My desire is to have a career in politics but not be a career politician. Whether one calls it complacency, or stagnancy, I firmly believe that staying in any elected position, regardless of what it is for a prolonged period of time leads to isolation from, and complacency with, ones constituents and their issues. In light of this, I have decided that I will run for only one term.. My goal is to implement changes, hopefully on a long term or strategic level during this period in office. The following term, I plan to pursue a Post Graduate degree. Saying that I would run again in 8 years would be irresponsible. If I do not get elected in 2010, I plan on doing the Post Graduate Program in the next 4 years. Would I run in 2014, I would say yes now but that is a long time horizon to make a firm decision about.
Running for Office does take a big commitment, both time wise and personally. To serve Ward 5, their Councillor must be dedicated to the job on a full time basis and have a good understanding of Ward 5’s role in the overall City of Ottawa. I find that Council seems to have selective memory and that this City, our City is also the capital of this country. I feel that it is important to get elected, make your mark and then move aside for the next person to do the same.
I fully embrace the concept of, and the voters demand for Municipal Election reform in the City of Ottawa. It is an idea that is proven and in place in various locations in North America. New York and Philadelphia both have this system for increased council turnover successfully implemented. I think it is time to show that Ottawa can be progressive and a good example for the rest of the Province, Country and yes, the World.
Alexander Aronec
Change Begins Here.
Welcome to my blog and website, http://www.aronec2010.ca . As I write this, I am the sole registered candidate for Ward 5. I know the count will increase as we get closer to the vote in October. I want you to know, and hope that when you view the site, regardless of when, will see that I am both serious and committed to this task.
When you review what other candidates offer or promise in contrast or parallel to myself, I trust you will make the choice that works best for you when you do vote. Consider what was said, what was done and when.
Thanks for visiting and I hope the site is informative to you.
Aronec2010's Blog