gentlemen, distinguished guests.last tuesday evening, thefederation of canadian municipalities hosted theirannual sustainable communitiesconference in victoria, british columbia.representatives frommunicipalities across canada gathered to share ideas and bestpractices and how towns andcities can become more sustainable.as part of the conference thefmc sustainable community awards were presented and offerednational recognition formunicipally-led environmental projects that demonstrateleadership, inovation andexcellence. and i'm very proud to share withyou that the city of calgaryreceived not one but two awards. plan it calgary won in thecategory of planning and thecalgary public building
renovation won in the categoryof buildings.these awards demonstrate the city of calgary's ability toinnovatively lead the country inmunicipal sustainability from bricks and mortar initiatives tovisionary planning anddevelopment over the next 60 years.recognition at a national levelamongst our municipal peers demonstrates our ability tothink long term and lead byexample when it comes to sustainability.i'd like to invite aldermanpincott to come forward. >> thank you, your worship.it was indeed an absolutepleasure to be there and to receive the awards for the cityof calgary.you know, i think it's quite something when the work that wedo as a city is recognized byour peers.
and that is exactly what it waswhen at the sustainablecommunities conference we received the awards for plan itand for the renovations thathave happened at the public building.i think it says a lot.i mean, plan it calgary is not just plan it calgary; but it'sall of the work that went inbefore it. imagine calgary.and as i look out at the plan itteam sitting there, so many people on that team wereinvolved with imagine calgary.which in and of itself was a leadership project, not just forcalgary but -- and canada butultimately for the world. so it was an absolute pleasureand an honour for me to bethere. but it wasn't an award that ipicked up for council.it wasn't ultimately an award
that i picked up for the plan itteam when it came to plan itcalgary, it was an award for calgarians.because 6,000 calgariansparticipated in plan it calgary. 8,000 calgarians participated inimagine calgary leading up toit. so this is an award from ourpeers across the countryrecognizing the work that we have done as a city, not justthe city of calgary, but as acity. all calgarians.so i just wanted to recognizethat. the team, but also allcalgarians, for their work onthat. we also received another awardfor the work that was done onrenovating calgary public building.and i think that this, to me,also is indicative of the value
that we now place on ourhistoric properties, ourheritage properties, recognizing that they are an asset, acultural asset, for our citygoing years into the future. and the commitment and theinvestment that the city has putin, thanks to the support, the strong support, by city councilinto making sure that as welooked at refurbishing the calgary public building weactually attained lead gold andi'm told we've applied for lead platinum and that's a certaintythat we will get lead platinumfor that building. that takes a strong commitmentto our heritage, to our past,but also to our future. so thank you and congratulationsto corporate properties and theteam that worked on that as well.and it was a pleasure to receivethose awards.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: whydoesn't the -- first the imaginecalgary team come and join us -- plan it, excuse me, come andjoin us for the photo.[inaudible] [laughter](mixed voices)[applause] [inaudible][laughter][applause] >> mayor naheed nenshi: so onbehalf of city council and allcalgarians i want to acknowledge and thank the following staff...(names being read)and the others who were parts of those teams.thank you very much for all thework you do for the city and for the citizens of calgary everyday.these awards i hope you'll see as validation and proof of yourwork and of the fact that thiscity has positioned itself for
the future as one of the mostprogressive urban municipalitiesin the country. now we have a differentpresentation.today on behalf of city council, i'm very pleased to recognizefebruary 20th to the26th as freedom to read week.we have the public libraryrepresentative of the calgary freedom to read week committee,and committee members -- here weare -- and chair of the freedom to read week committee, andcommittee members...(names being read) with us today to kick offfreedom to read week.this is the 27th year that celebrations will be happeningacross canada celebrate freedomto read week and the 17th year for the calgary committee.this week affirms our rights ascanadians to decide for
ourselves what we choose toread.its purpose is to encourage canadians to think about andreaffirm their commitment tointellectual freedom guaranteed under the charter of rights andfreedoms.to commemorate freedom to read week, the city is calgary ispresented with a book that makesus think about not only our freedom to read but our freedomto express ourselves.i would like to call upon allison inglis to say a fewwords.>> mayor nenshi, aldermen, councillors and fellow citizens,thank you for your time.i'm here today to speak about freedom, including the freedomto read.democracy, ideas, imagining the judge imaginable, choices, avoice for one, a voice thatrepresents the people we serve.
these are words that resonatewith me as i speak to you aboutthe freedom to read. each year, the city of calgaryproclaims the nationallyrecognized freedom to read week. for this, we thank you.thecommittee's work includes raising awareness of issues ofbooks that have been challenged,the annual freedom of expression award, a contest hosted by thecalgary public library askingyouth to answerthe question whochooses what you read. the student contest is intendedto encourage discussion aroundissues of intellectual freedom.for today's presentation, thefreedom to read week committeehasselected a book that stands
as arepresentative and areminder of literature that is and continues to be challengedbyauthorities. recently, mark twain's classicnovel was reissued in a newedition that would replace theword"nigger" with the more palatable "slave" and with injuyand indian, the publisherdefends their decision stating the inflammatory words hasgradually diminished thepotential audience of twain's two masterpieces.twain was drawing attentionto slavery and to racism.now 130 years later, some insociety feel that by merelyreplacing a word, that historycan be made more palatable pala.
the fact is historyis full oftragic events. to brush these under the rug isno more than revisionisthistory. i'm proud to present copy of theoriginal text to city counciltoday. finally, i invite all of you toattend the annual freedom toread week events in calgary, held on thursday,february 24th, at7 p.m., at sir winston churchill high school.student work will behighlighted, the contest winners honoured, and, in addition, ourvery own mayor nenshi will behonoured as the 2011 recipientof the freedom of expressionaward sponsored by fast forward magazine.the content of his views, hispassion for freedom of speech
and themethods inwhich heengaged an entire community areseen as innovative, responsive and responsible.it is for this that he has beenchosen. thank you for your time.[applause]>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you very much, ms. inglis.i know the city of calgaryappreciates receiving this book, and i know that i personallyappreciate it as well.raising the profile and awareness of this importantweek.freedom to read week, why am i having so much trouble sayingthat, reminds us our freedom toread should never, ever be taken for granted.the freedom to read is afoundation of our democracy.
people who lose this simplefreedom lose the opportunity toexplore new ideas, to defend their passions and challengeinjustice.this week affirms our right as canadians to choose forourselves what we choose toread. in honour this week and iencourage all calgarians to reada book. or to listen to someone read abook.reading opens up amazing worlds, worlds that will challenge you,entertain you and i hope willinspire you. and i should also add mypersonal overwhelmed feeling atreceiving the award. there are so many more who areso many more deserving who workevery single day to make sure that these rights are guaranteedto all every single day.but thank you all for joining us
today.i encourage you all to celebrateand to participate in the events taking place during thiswonderful week.thank you all. [applause]question period.on question period, alderman colley-urquhart?on question period aldermanchabot? >> thank you, your worship.in the council agenda, there isa report that refers to ridership that was realizedduring h 2009 and 2010.something i raised during budget debate that was furtherexemplified during this report.i was wondering if it was possible for administration toprovide members of council witha written response as to how transit made up the shortfall inrevenue as a result of theincrease of 150.000 man-hours
that were put into transit in2009, ridership went down.which was further reduced by 60.000 man-hours in 2010.so there's still 90.000 increasefrom 2008 for a total of 240.000 man-hours.and based on the report eventhat we have within this agenda, it clearly states that ridershipdid not increase from 2008.so i would like to know if administration could provide awritten response to council asto how transit made up the shortfall that wasn't realizedthrough increased ridership.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman chabot.i'm still learning thedifference between question period and the beginning of theagenda and administrativeinquiries a at th at the end ofe agenda.>> i'd be happy to respond tothat.
i think if would be beneficialif we could get something inwriting perfor. what i heard there was thatcouncil increased the hours ofservice in our base budget. however, we have reported thatour ridership did drop off.based on our fare recovery target of 55%, how did we managethat gap?i can give you a verbal response to that, but i'd be happy togive you a written response aswell. give all of council a writtenresponse on how re managed thatgap. >> actually, your worship,respectfully i would really likea written response if that's all right and for all members ofcouncil.>> your worship, i'm at your... sorry.>> mayor naheed nenshi: alittle drama up here.
>> sorry to pressure you, yourworship, but alderman chabot youreally should put an admin inquiry.as quick as we are, we weren'table to capture all the words that you said.if you could just put what yousaid in writing in an admin inquiry, we'd be more thanpleased to answer that.>> thanks for that comment. i believe, i could be wrong, buti think the recorded -- therecord from the city clerks probably had caught all of thosewords.i'm not sure whether or not city clerks can actually recover mycomments.based on the recording. madame clerk?>> your worship, we wouldn't putthe whole amount in. we just put the question in.that's under question period.that's all we do is just
reiterate your question with asmall amount of background,which would be that there's a report in the agenda for today.>> didn't catch all those words,i gather. i'll be happy to write it up asan administrative inquiry, yourworship. thanks.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot. alderman keating on questionperiod?>> thank you, your worship. my question is basically averification in the spirit ofthe day despite my tie and shirt does my vote still count?>> mayor naheed nenshi: ibelieve that in the report coming back from the legislativegovernance task force there mayin fact be a proposed procedure bylaw amendment dealing with theissue of taste.the challenge is we have to be
extremely careful to make surethat we don't inadvertentlycapture alderman mar in such a procedural change.[laughter]so i think we're going to have to seek external advice on thatone.anything else? mr. logan has turned his micon.apparently he wants to respond to that.any other questions for questionperiod? all right then.let's move on to confirmation ofthe agenda. on the agenda, aldermancolley-urquhart.>> thank you, your worship. as we discussed last week, iwanted to just add this matterof urgent business on the 2011 inovation fund, and i just madecopies of the resolutions todistribute for members of
council to read later.and i think alderman lowe hadanother item. >> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.hold on.you want to add 9.1 on inovation.okay.the inovation fund. >> thank you, your worship.it's here for circulation.>> mayor naheed nenshi: no problem.do we have a seconder on thatone? thanks, alderman carra.are we agreed to add that as anitem of urgent business? i'm sorry.i always forget to do that.can i have someone move the agenda?thanks, alderman mar.seconder alderman pincott. thank you.and so on the amendment, to addthe item of urgent business are
we agreed?any opposed?very well. on the agenda alderman carra.>> thank you, your worship.on the agenda, 6.2 is amendments to the parkhill/stanley parkarea redesignation plan and landuse redesignation. 6.4 is my notice of motion thatwas tabled from last week.i request that 6.4 precede 6.2 because it will definitelyimpact how we address 6.2.>> mayor naheed nenshi: no problem.do we have a seconder for that?thanks, alderman farrell. are we agreed on that one?any opposed?very well. alderman lowe on the agenda.>> yes, your worship, aldermancolley-urquhart referred to an item i might add, but i believeit came in as a notice ofmotion.
this is the -->> mayor naheed nenshi: thepolice piece? we've got that.>> we already have it.thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: anyfurther changes, then, to theagenda? excuse me.i have some changes to theagenda. i would like to add twoin-camera items.one on the corporate score card and one on personnel.can i have unmove that?>> happy to do that your worship but also on a point of order.in regards to alderman lowe'snotice of motion, is that not urgent business?>> mayor naheed nenshi: he gotit in as a notice of motion in time.>> but it's urgent business soit requires two thirds vote.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: no, itwas in time for the agenda.he slid it in as a regular notice of motion.so it's already in there.>> i thought it was urgent business.no?thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi: no.he got it in before the normaldeadline for notices ofmoting. right?madame clerk?alderman chabot, you're moving my two incamera item.do i have is a seconder forthat? thanks, alderman stevenson.are we agreed?very well then. any other changes to the agenda?oh, right.i have a blue sheet and i'll be happy if someone could move thisfor me to add city manager'sreport to council as number
7.1.9 which is louise stationcomprehensive review deferralrequest. thanks, alderman chabot.do have i a seconder?thanks, alderman keating. on that are we agreed?anything else?madame clerk, i have a report from the land and assetsstrategy committee here proposedamendment to method of disposition great plainsindustrial park.was that meant to be added as well?urgent business?okay. will you move that, aldermanchabot?alderman carra, will you second that?to add this item las 2011-03which we would add i suppose as 7.5.on other agenda.it's a matter of urgent
business.isn't it?add it under urgent business as 9.2 in that case.on that one are we agreed?any opposed? very well.so on the agenda as amended,then, are we agreed? any opposed?all right.carried. so there's no minutes this week.so we'll go to the consentagenda. can i have someone move theconsent agenda, please?thanks, alderman lowe. seconded alderman macleod.any discussion on that?very well then. on approval of the consentagenda are we agreed?any opposed? carried.that takes us then to tabledreports.
6.1.that's cpc 2010-129, land useredesignation in aspen woods. alderman pootmans.>> thank you, your worship.the purpose of this tabling was to give the developer and thecommunity a chance to learn moreabout the development and explain it to the affectedparties.the developer held an open house at the calgary academy.the affected parties wereinvited. a number of them participated inthe discussion.havi have southwesternly spoken to one ofthe affected parties at somelength and while it would be an overstatement to say there wasany graduate enthusiasm for theproject there was an understanding this projectshould go forward.on that matter, i think that i'm
prepared to move the -- i'm justnot sure procedurally whathappens pulling a tabled report back.>> mayor naheed nenshi: ibelieve all you need to do is move the recommendation andthree readings of the bylaw.is that right, madame clerk? >> thank you.so then i prepare to move therecommendations of cpc -- should i read the entire -- no.>> mayor naheed nenshi: s cpc2010-129. alderman stevenson is seconding?very well then.any discussion on this item? so on the recommendations are weagreed?any opposed? alderman hodges is opposed.[inaudible]it's going to be one of those days, isn't it?and i'm spending it with thepeople i love the most, all of
you.[laughter]love the one you're with. folks, hopefully we can get outof here by supper and you guyswill be able to enjoy valentine's day with the onesyou love more than me.first reading of the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed?alderman hodges is opposed. carried.second reading of the bylaw arewe agreed. any opposed?alderman hodges is opposed.authorization for third reading of the bylaw are we agreed?any opposed?very well then. third reading of the bylaw arewe agreed?any opposed? carried.i'm sorry, alderman hodges.alderman hodges was opposed to
third reading.all right.that takes us then to 6.4. appealed's notice of motion thatwe tabled from last week.alderman carra. >> thank you, your worship.last week i brought forward anotice of motion requesting a draw from the calgary citycouncil inovation fund that weestablished during the budgetary debate to address a stretch ofmission road that under item 6.2in this agenda is up for a arp amendment to theparkhill/stanley park arp andthen land use redesignation. as i explained last week, thisis sort of an upzoning that fitsthe intentions of plan it calgary and is supported byadministration.but maybe does not -- definitely does not fit the aspirations ofboth communities abuttingmission road, erlton and
parkhill/stanley park.and also probably represents acompromised upzoning that does not maximize market efficiency.and i came to city council withthe intention of trying to -- and i think our collectivemission to transform municipalgovernment, i wanted to bring some of my expertise and helpingto potentially transform theplanning process. i've been working withadministration on a pilotproject to bring forward here. now, i had established the termsof reference withadministration. and there were a series ofquestions that came out ofdebate last week resulting in the tabling of this item.and so over the past week, ihave addressed all of the issues that council brought forward inthat debate.primarily is this a specific
project focused on mission roador is this a project that hasmore transcendant impact on how we do planning.and the answer is the latter.and i've revised the terms of reference that you guys havebefore you to explain how thisis really about innovating the whole process and mission roadis an opportunity to experimentwith this new process. the new process is based on thecharette and on something calledthe stock maret code. and i have also distributed toyou a little visual aid thattalks about the evolution of mission road.our conventional land useregulation process versus a charette process and smart coderegulation process.and i think it shows that there are savings in terms of time, interms of effort on behalf ofstaff and volunteer input and in
terms of private industry.and it creates a tremendousamount of certainty that transcends individualproperties.it addresses the full public realm, addresses mobility forthe entire area.and it's not about a property by property basis.so my hope is that thisevolution can streamline inner city redevelopment so that we docomprehensive planning,establish land use up to the development permit stage, andthen allow building permit tomove forward. and i mean that's a pretty --that's a pretty ambitious goal.and the reason why mission road was selected was because it'stopical and because it'sbite-sized. and we've got a lot of buy-infrom the landowners.we've got buy-in from the
communities.and administration has expresseda willingness to work on this. so the other thing that i did,listening to you guys is we hadrequested a dollar figure, and there was a lot of questions asto whether that dollar figurewas enough or not. i have put together a budget,but at the recommendation ofsome members of council i've kept that budget confidentialwith the understanding thatwe're going to be asking for a competitive request forproposals from the privatesector. and rather than let them knowwhat they're bidding for, seewhat they're willing to come in at in the event that it'sradically less than or more thanwhat i have suggested. so you guys should have aconfidential budget distributedto you.
is that true, madame clerk?>> that was the piece you askedme to hold back. [inaudible]>> okay.i see. so i guess the question tocouncil is whether we go incamera and review the budget behind closed doors.i know that some people wouldlike to do this in camera. i know that some people areloathe to go in camera.i typically am loathe to go in camera, but this is sort of a --this is a bidding process and iwould be willing to go in camera just to let you know how i thinkthe dollar values shake out andthat's why i think that's the amount we should be requestingto draw out from the inovationfund. >> mayor naheed nenshi: i knowyou've had discussion with yourcouncil colleagues.
the total amount is in fact inyour motion so it's part of themotion. so i suspect that folks probablyhave had their question answeredby what you've distributed and the conversations you've had inthe past.>> i think the motion has been amended, has it not?>> mayor naheed nenshi: it'sstill in there. >> well, that was a clericalerror.c'est la vie. maybe we should just distributethe potential budget, or is thatnot necessary? >> mayor naheed nenshi: youcan if you'd like.i would suggest the breakdowns would be on the level of detailthat council needs at thispoint, but i appreciate that you're doing it very well.it helped me.>> the money that's being
requested i think on a moveforward basis, two things shouldbe noted: number one is that i think that that can be appliedto entire neighbourhood scalerather than this smaller scale, and the reason whyism asking forthe full -- i'm asking for thefull amount is because an an innovative process.it's going to take longer timethe first time around. that's why i chose a smallergeographical location and thefull amount. the other thing is this moneythat is being asked for from theinovation fund i think in the future should be borne by theprivate sector and sort ofaccrued to each property because there's going to be a generallift throughout.but, of course, this being an inovation process and having noidea where this is going, that'sthe point of the fund as far as
i'm concerned.and i look forward to and iwelcome diane colley-urquhart's urgent business later in theagenda that's going to ask us tomaybe get a little bit less loosey goosy with this inovationfund money.i'm convince what had i'm asking for here will fit perfectlywithin whatever terms ofreference we solidify around the inovation fund.because it's really about a citydepartment and multiple city departments finding a new way towork, working with the privatesector to come in and help us do that and it will have -- if it'ssuccessful, transcendant impacton how we do business on the development side of the city.>> mayor naheed nenshi: youreal loreally do see this as an experiment.this isn't about mission road,but determines whether 2 this
ncicharette system is somethingwe should be looking at inplanning. >> it was stated we dounderstand what a charettesystem is. i'll tell you a full-fledgedcharette has never beendeployed. it takes policy development andapprovals process and it weldsthem. and so the idea is that policyplanners and the cpag teamsworking together, and that i think is the true inovation andwhether we can sort of tacklethat here at the scale of a small couple blocks, we canstart potentially deploying itat the scale of a neighbourhood and really making inner cityredevelopment a cost-effectiveor cost competitive proposition to green field growth which issomething the city has beenstruggling to do.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: great.thanks, alderman carra.anything else? >> no.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman carra. alderman chabot.>> thank you, your worship.well, i found this very interesting reading, yourworship.the proposal as well as some of the background information.and i can't help but wonder whatthe implications are of us moving forward with this and thewhole smart code issue soundslike it's something that will supercede any other legislationand possibly override otherlegislation. which is, to me, somewhattroubling.and there's also some issues here in regards to the workplan.administration has a work plan,
which we've approved for 2011,which pretty much commits all oftheir resources to achieve the objectives that we've alreadyagreed for them to do.and in here, under project startup and pre-charette, ittalks about -- on the thirdbullet under number one, a list of key milestones for managerinput and support is requiredthrough the process with an estimate of time requirements.this will include a summary oftypes of decisions that will be required at the charette andpost charette.time requirements, to me that means resource requirements.and there's a pretty big backlogof work that individual members of council have come forwardasking for area structure plansor area redevelopment plans to be moved forward because they'reoutdated and no longereffective.
i'm just wondering if we're notsetting a precedent here bydoing something in one area that based on what i could seeincluding some of theinformation that's been attached here that it could havesignificant cost implications.and when we're talking about money, money for infrastructure,money for public realm, moneyperiod in this day and age and these economic times, whether itcomes from the municipality orfrom the public sector, i'm somewhat reluctant to supportthose kind of initiatives.the whole idea of moving this forward ahead of others withouthaving gone through a vettingprocess on where the highest priority lies to me, yourworship, although i understandthe intent and i think it might be a good way of moving forwardinto the future, i think it'ssomething that should be weighed
very carefully and we shouldlook at what our priorities arebased on the feedback that we've received over the last -- oradministrations a received overthe last 10 to 15 years in regards to our work plan movingforward.what's next in line? what did we have proposed for2012?because i know through my discussions, we've had --there's been quite a bit ofinput on that. mr. watson, can you comment onwhat i've said?i'm not sure if you've been listening.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thequestion basically, mr. watson, is this onejumping the queue?would -- if we were to propose this, would this be an area ofpriority in any case thisparticular street be an area of
priority in any case in terms ofyour work plan.is that a fair way of putting it, alderman chabot?>> that was one part of thequestion. the other part would be whatkind of resources do youenvision that this would require from your department and a roughguesstimate on costs.[inaudible] >> thank you, mr. stevens,alderman chabot.the short answer to the first question is this an area that wewould be doing work regardless,and is it a high priority, the answer is no.we've got other corridors andthose within plan it calgary that we want to start working onthis year and we're designingmuch of our work program around some of that.having said that, though, and weare supporting this because it
is an innovative idea in thesense that we've never done asmart code in calgary. we have done charettes and asalderman carra defines acharette, we've never done one to the extent of having a smartcode at the end of it or some ofcombination ever policy all the way to the actual pelting side.so we -- permits side.we feel this is a good idea to do this to see whether or not itis applicable in some of ourother work. but this wouldn't be the firstplace we would have tried it.the second question in terms that there will be staffinvolvement.there has to be. if only to coordinate.however, the price, the numberand the motion and so on is at the extent it is because we'reexpecting whoever we hire to dothe bulk of the work.
the staff will only becoordinating, attendingmeetings, measuring the progress.we want to have a full reportcome back at the en end of thiso say whether or not we think thisis successful or not successful.but there will be staff time. some rough estimates wouldsuggest half a staff personduring the course of this. so around $50.000, but that'sjust the back of an envelopesort of guess at that. and we'll have to work on thatonce we get the contract, rfp,awarded, the contract signed and sorted some of the details.but it will not be -- we canabsorb that. we're prepared to absorb that inthe spirit of trying to seewhere this work takes us. >> there's some other issueshere.it talks about financing.
some of the capital requirementswhere water, waste water, publicrealm improvements and financing.now, i'm not sure, but how doyou see that as all rolling out from financing perspective?is this something you envisionas being private sector contributions and paying for allthe infrastructure?or is this some sort of a -- maybe a joint venture, maybethat would be a better questionfor alderman carra in his close. >> alderman chabot, can youpoint me out what you're lookingat? i got this just before themeeting this morning so ihaven't had a chance to read it in great detail.>> where ca did i highlight tha?on page 2 of 4, there's a few bullets there that talks abouthows retail market study willallow the determination of
market supportability, servicingstudies to ensure proposeddevelopment schemes can be serviced for water, storm,sanitary, utilities, gas,telecom, electrical including identification and costing ofany necessary upgrades.(reading) and if you continue on,basically suggests that somehowwe're going to finance this. >> well, through the chair,alderman chabot, i think -- andcertainly the aspect that is a bit different in this is we arecombining as alderman carra saidthe policy and the development work.we'd get to a point that wewould understand the state of the utilities that are existing,whether some of them are due foreither maintenance or upgrades or whether upgrades are requiredbecause of what we're proposingon the street.
that then takes it to the nextstep, can that be handledthrough some kind of levy on the development?is that something thatwouldhave to be absorbed through the utility budgets in terms ofmaintenance?do we have to relocate? i do know that we had done somework on that -- on mission roadbefore. we had some designs which didn'tgo too far because there's somepage pipes down the middle -- major pipes down the middle ofthe road which of courseprecludes or certainly makes it more difficult for street treeswhich was one of the originaldesigns. all that would be some of thestudy that we'd come into andwe'd have to report back at the end of this process what wecould and couldn't do, what thegap would be and is there any
ways we could either internallyor perhaps get the privatesector to contribute. in terms of the development.it's all gathering information.i can't go much farther than that because we don't have theinformation right now.>> now, there's some references on a number of differentdepartments that will beinvolved through this process. what i didn't see in that wasprotective services.so that would be somebody who would also be circulated throughthis process and would have -->> certainly we would be looking at it from a -- the entiregamut.if we're talking about utilities, be looking at boththe shallow and the deeputilities. i suspect we'll have to haveconversations with telus, withshaw, with the cable companies.
we're going to have to look atthe whole ball of wax ab with, twere. >> resource requirements thereas well.>> yeah. this is kind of like combining,as you can see in aldermanchabot's -- sorry, alderman carra's thing here, it's takinga policy and taking it down to adevelopment permit level of details, and approve it at thatpoint.once that's approved you hope you're going to save time at thebuilding permit or by simplygoing to building permits. >> one final question.i would like to have anopportunity to debate further, but i see other lights.i consider this to be justquestions. but if you consider this for meto be my opportunity to stand upand ask questions and debate,
then i'll go directly intodebate.it's your choice. >> mayor naheed nenshi: whydon't you go directly intodebate when you're done your last question, alderman chabot.i'm a bit overwhelmed by thenumber of lights on this issue. we'll have some good debate.when you finish asking yourquestion, i have a couple of procedural things we need to dowhich i may ask you to help mewith. but why don't you ask your lastquestion and well go from there.>> and then i'll go into debate. mr. watson, this is tied toanother cpc recommendation.if this notice of motion gets approved, what happens to thesubsequent one?it's actually a two-part question, your worship.and the second part of that iswas that supported by cpc, the
subsequent proposal?>> let me try the first part andi may ask you to reword the last part.my understanding is if this isapproved, then the actual redesignation application whichwas before you a week ago andheld a public hearing -- or youu held a public hearing on itwould be tabled until -- and ibelieve the date is december, something like that.there was an amendment, and i'llhave to check back whether there would be a report coming back ibelieve in july and i don't knowwhether that had been dealt with or not or is part of -- i'd askalderman carra if that got putinto the motion. so a progress report in july.the item would be tabled todecember. so it's still live but it'sparked.and then we'd be reporting back
at the end of the year.results of this work, andcouncil at that time would either approve a smart code forthis area, deal with it that wayand the other one would be abandon, or if the smart codeand all that didn't go anywhere,that would be abandoned and you'd deal with the tabled item.>> the second part of that wasdid -- was cpc's recommendation to approve or to refuse?>> cpc's recommendation was toapprove the redesignation application that was before us.debate at cpc about the charetteand the smart code. >> so was it carried fairlystrongly at cpc?i can't recall offhand. >> it's in here.>> i suppose it is, but ithought you might remember. although you probably deal witha whole bunch of these, so -->> it was 5-2, your worship, at
cpc.>> in favour of.okay. thank you for that.no further questions for you,mr. watson. so members of council, althoughi think this is probably a goodidea to do in the future, and it is certainly different than theway we've been doing planning.i don't think it's a bad idea. but i'm a little reluctant tomove forward this quickly onthis sort of an idea, especially in light of the fact that we'vehad so many other things in thequeue. i remember alderman hawkesworthdebating at length about howmuch he got lobbied from his communities wanting to get arearedevelopment plans done and howlong they'd been waiting and how he was hoping that they couldget into the queue when he wason council.
as well as other members ofcouncil -- former members ofcouncil that had made the same pitch looking for arps to beredone because they wereoutdated and the work plan and the workload that the planningdepartment had, those things gotpushed back. so there is a queue that'salready been established inregards to the workload into the future.do i think this is somethingthat could take a precedence? absolutely.i do.i think it could be moved up significantly on the list ofpriorities.do i think it's -- warrants to be at the top of the list?no, i don't.what i see here is that this will in effect render thesubsequent application as mootor not even relevant.
so i'm not supportive ofstopping that application.i think what's being proposed there is a good plan for thatarea.it certainly would increase the density.it does meet intent of themunicipal development plan in regards to increased density.there are some challenges therefrom geotechnical perspective, slope adaptive type design workwill have to be done there andwill be done there because we have a slope adaptive procedurethat council has approved justrecently. so i can't support this becausei see this as delaying or evenstopping the other project. and i do think this is a goodidea, but i think it should beput in the queue, assessed from a priority perspective before wemove forward to make sure we'vegot the proper resources to do
it and we don't push out some ofthe other projects that arecurrently underway because we are adding this workload to theplanning department.although they say they can absorb it within their budget,that's true; but whenever youadd work to administration beyond their current workload,something's got to give.so what is that? i know they're doing a lot ofwork in my area, in severalother alderman's areas in the north, in the southeast.i don't want to stop thingsmoving forward in what's already currently envisioned.i can't support this although iapplaud alderman carra for bringing it forward andhopefully council will notsupport moving forward on this today but rather refer this toa -- back to administration tomaybe put it in the queue in
regards to where it falls inpriorities.thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: youwere just suggesting that, youweren't actually making a referral motion, were you?>> not yet, your worship.but if i make a referral, i believe i still have a right tostand up after debate, and so ifno one else make it is -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: i'llrecognize you at that point.there's a couple of procedural things that we should getthrough on this.number one is i neglected to ask for a seconder for the mainmotion.thanks, alderman farrell. i looked left.so that -- now the other thingis when we -- when the motion to table went forward, we actuallydid have an amendment on thefloor.
what i would suggest is let'sjust move to file the amendmentfor now. so that we can continue withdebate on the main motion.it was just one of those weird moments, the moment we tabled itthere was a motion on the floor.can i have a motion to file the amendment?thanks, alderman lowe.alderman keating. are we agreed?any opposed?alderman chabot. thank you.now we're back to the mainmotion. alderman mar.>> thank you.i have a couple of questions for administration.mr. watson, alderman chabothad just suggested that the capacity of your departmentwould be significantly impededwere we to do this.
how much would that be and canyou characterize that for me,please? >> through the chair, aldermanmar, i didn't hear"significantly impeded" and i don't believe it will be.it certainly will be increasedwork, but we're able to absorb it.>> you're able to absorb that.>> let's be clear, council, this is not just by department.there's representatives fromtransportation, parks, engineering, other parts of theorganization.it's not simply planning. >> i understand.i understand.perhaps the city manager could address the organization as awhole.>> sorry, i'll assist mr. tolbert if i could.we've look at that across thecpeg process.
we've had conversations aboutwhat we are guessing will be thecall on resources. >> and are we in effectqueue-jumping here?>> i would suggest this is a different queue.we're -->> something new and innovative. >> we're not doing an arp here,not doing a development permit,not doing a land use designation.not doing something we've neverdone before. it's not in our work program butwe are supporting it because wewould like to see, again, whether or not this is somethingwe'd want to use elsewhere insome of our other work. >> well, i'm going to supportthis for several reasons:number one, i think that alderman carra has made hiscase.i think that this is something
that could potentially have widesweeping ramifications for ourorganization should it work. i think we're trying to be toinnovative and for tou -- fortuefavours the bold in this situation.sometimes as elected officialswe have to step outside and look at what we done in an innovativesense and how we can best manageour communities and our city. i think that as a result ofthat, we may have an opportunityhere -- this is exact li exactly we've been elected to make thesebold decisions and move forwardin that vein. i will supporting this, and ithank you.mayor may thanks, alderman mar. alderman pootmans?>> thank you, your worship.i too am excited by this proposal and thank aldermancarra for his initiative anddoing some the work for us.
perhaps leading the way.a couple of quick questions.you'd mentioned in passing that this would be a good model forinner city development.i'm wondering in your close if you could address that.i'm guessing this isn'trestricted to that environment but i would like more details onthat matter, please.and similar to the comments from alderman mar as it relates toqueue jumping, i have someconcerns about that too. and perhaps there are protocolsand equities involved with othercommunities. i just want to get some clarityfrom you, perhaps beyond theplanning process, if initiatives such as these in your mind mighttend to conflict with some ofthe priorities and fairness involved in what othercommittees might have beenwaiting for.
if you could address that aswell, i'd appreciate it.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman pootmans.alderman hodges?>> thank you, your worship. just briefly, i think thebackground information suppliedby alderman carra is sufficient to convince me that this iscertainly an effort worth oursupport. and i congratulate him forbringing it forward at thistime. thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman hodges. alderman keating.>> thank you, your worship.i believe this is exactly the reason for his application tothe inovation fund because ofthe statements earlier and talking about queue jumping andthe fact that what we're talkingabout is doing things slightly
differently in an effort tospeed up the possibility of workin the past where the queue may be much shorter and easier foradministration to handle.i think this is definitely the way to go.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman keating.alderman farrell.>> thank you. without repeating what many ofmy colleagues have said, i'mquite excited about this opportunity as someone who hasgone through severaltransit-oriented development projects, 16th avenue arpswe are trying to embody plan it,they're labourious processes and can be quite contentious.if we can have it at the end ofthe day where more people are satisfied is something worthdoing.thank you for bringing this
forward.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman farrell. alderman demong?>> i must admit i'm ratherintrigued. mr. watson, i'm just curious,you've said several times you'venever done this before but you have done charettes in the city.can you briefly explain whatexactly makes this unique and innovative that you haven't donebefore?>> your worship, through the chair, alderman demong, theunique thing here is theconnection from the charette which we've certainly donebefore and we've got peopletrained to do it, but taking it all the way to the smart codewhich we have not done incalgary, and if you look at the coloured diagram that was handedout, what is being proposed isthat we'd end up -- or you would
end up approving a smart codefor this mission road area, andthen that would move it straight to a building permit approval ifsomeone came in and fit withinthat smart code. so that means there wouldn't bea development permit, wouldn'tbe land uses, that would all be rolled into this process.i've certainly -- or we havecertainly had conversations with a law department and they arepart of the administrative workthat would have to be included in working on this is try tofigure out how we would do thatin calgary. certainly it's not unique interms of north america, butwe've never done a smart code here.and that would actually thenset -- if you think about that, the community associations andother interested bodies wouldnot be in a position to appeal
any development here once we gotthe smart code in place.people would go straight to building permits and startbuilding.>> so in some ways even though we're preventing a large cost inthe back end it would be savingquite a deal of time and effort on the administration's behalf.>> exactly.if it works, that's exactly the upside of this.and certainly as aldermanfarrell said, there are examples where we have labourously gonein, frankly she's right, anddone arps and done rezoning and development permits and thenbuilding permits which can takea long period of time. we will be writing a report backto council on, fromadministration's perspective, whether or not we think this isan applicable method or wherewould see it being used.
i'll be frank, council, i don'tbelieve this is something weshould use everywhere all the time, but i think there could bea point or places in calgary wemight be able to use it. >> you just touched on my nextquestion.if this is a pilot process, pilot project, would you belooking at doing this on anongoing basis and if so would the cost be coming downrequisitely?>> through the chair, i plane, thamean,that will be part of ouranalysis.this is not from a manpower -- if we go out and hireconsultants all the time to dothis, it's going to be expensive.if w we do it internally, we maybe able to save some. it may mean a reorganization ofhow we do our work.i guess i'd ask you to wait
until we come back with theanalysis to tell you whetherthis was successful or how successful.>> i take it from your toneyou're somewhat excited about trying to do somethingdifferent, something innovativealong these line? >> we are always looking at newways of doing our work that makeit easier both for stakeholders, citizens, communities,development industry.you can do these in theory all the time but you actually haveto do the work to find outwhether the theory plays out on the ground.>> thank you.i have to admit the idea of doing something new and uniquein the city to industry and finddifferent ways of doings processes, that's one of thereasons i was elected.for that reason alone i'm going
to be supporting this.there is a certain amount offunds involved. but the fact is if this is a waythat we can start streamlinesthe methodology of the way we do business at the city, i'm all infavour of it.thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman demong.alderman lowe. >> your worship, through you tomr. watson, the -- you'veoften heard me talk about franchising work out.and i picked up on somethingthat alderman carra said about embodying the cost of thisprocess to the applicant.as part of the doing business there.now, i also clearly heard yousay that this involves along the process several citydepartments.but is there a possibility that
this could be one of those areasof which we could franchise?and move it outside of the city with the exception of perhapssome management of coordinationwith city departments? >> your worship, through thechair and alderman lowe, ineffect we ask the applicants, and this applicant has paid interms of the redesignation.so you could say that was kind of a -- not really a franchise,they gave us money, we did thework. but absolutely this could besomething we could look at andi'd be pleased to make that part of the analysis coming backwhether there's an opportunityto say if council perhaps -- and i'm just brainstorming, saidthis is an air we think thisprocess would work in, we would tell the landowners, councilwould pass a resolution to thateffect or something and tell the
landowners here's what we wantyou to do and here's the termsof reference and you figure out how to pay for it.>> or conversely if there wassomeone or several companies in town that got into thisbusiness -->> there absolutely are consultants in calgary andcertainly elsewhere thatcould -- we're going to seek one as a matter of fact that coulddo this work.the trick is the back end of this where we're working withthe law department to figure outhow we're going to do this in terms of a statutory bylaw ofsome sort to make it work wherewe are collapsing the land use, the development permit and allthat into one piece and thenallowing people to go straight to building permits hopefully atthe end of the day.i haven't got that figured out
completely.>> i see that only as difficult,not impossible. >> there's nothing impossible.some things are morechallenging, that's all the. >> your worship, to respond inpart to one of alderman chabot'sconcerns, when miss king was up with one of her landownersduring the public presentation,i directly asked the question about the impact of the delay.and if i recall correctly, theanswer was there's some nervousness and concern outthere, but broad acceptance ofit. so i -->> mayor naheed nenshi: aslong as it doesn't go on too long is -->> well, and the suggestion wehave before us i think is time limited a at the end of decembe,is it not, alderman carra?i'll let you speak to that but i
think we met those objectives.i'm actually quite interested insupporting this. particularly if we can move italong and we're coming rightback to my favourite thesis about starting to franchise outsome of our processes here anddistributing the cost, providing that we keep the ability tocoordinate within the city forthose other departments where it's essential, and i think thefirst one's going to beinteresting. it's going to be expensive.it may fail.but then it may do lot of wonderful things too.for that reason i'll support it.thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou, alderman lowe.alderman chabot. >> thank you, your worship.as i mentioned before, i wascontemplating putting forward a
motion to refer.but it does sound likeadministration will be able to meet the needs through thedollar amount that's beingproposed. and won't further encumber theirresources.therefore, i won't be putting forward a referral motion, yourworship.i do think this is jumping the queue, however.so i will be voting against it,not because i don't think it's a good idea, just because i don'tthink it's the right timing.and it doesn't have a higher than other projects.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou very much. , alderman chabot.anyone else before i call onalderman carra to close? alderman carra to close.>> i probably should keep thisbrief.
just to respond to a couple ofpointed questions, i did saythis is about making inner city redevelopment competitive withgreen field growth.i think that that is one axis of the graph.the redevelopment versusdevelopment axist. the other axis axe -- axis of tegraph that's important here isautomobile growth. alderman pootmans has in hisward landowners with individualparcels and if they focus on their own parcels with regard tostorm water management andpublic realm, you end up with tremendous inefficiencies.if you create a system where youcould get everybody playing together and looking at thingsin a more global way and makingit worthwhile for the private sector to do that, i thinkyou've got a tremendous win.this address green fold greet,
it addresses redevelopment.but what it specificallyaddresses is the complexity of the kind of growth that plan itcalgary is contemplating on amove-forward basis. it's actually trying to find away to make that possible.what happens with 6.2? this notice of motion, whatwe're doing is this project,this whole inovation fund project will be done by the endof the year or early january atthe latest. what we have is a mid-coursecorrection.we have this coming back for a report to the spc and lpt onjuly 20th and discussed bycouncil on july 26th. if the wheels come off the wagonthe land owners who have thisactive redesignation before you, we know whether this is going tobe successful or not.by that point we will have
actually run the charette and wecan say let's keep going withthis or, this is horribly wrong. that's embedded in the mo.the financia financial mechanisfthis is finding a way to pay for this.there's all kinds of differentways. the idea behind this is to bringsun in who can run the numbersand figure out a way to do the public realm improvements andmake it cost-effective for thecity and for the private landowners.and then just in terms of workplan, this is work that city departments would be doinganyway.it's just realigning them to be more efficient and moreeffective in that work.hopefully if we bring everyone together and we have acomprehensive policy andapprovals process, the endless
meetings of cpag can becondensed and can arrive at realdecisions. the smart code as potentiallyoverriding other legislation,what the smart code does is most cities, and we have this toowhere you've got a cascadinglevel of plans. you've got the metropolitanplan, the mdp, you've gotregional context studies, you've got area structure plans or arearedevelop plans and outlineplans. development permits.building permits.the problem is the land use bylaw sits off to the side.and so when you go tosubdivision and development appeal board, those cascading --the area redevelopment plan getstrumped by the land use bylaw which is not part of thatcascading level of plans.and may or may not speak to it.
the smart code actually createsalignment and i'm lookingforward to exploring that. and then just in terms of thepriority, this is an innocuouslittle corner of the city. it's not part of any majorpriority.and the opportunity -- that's i think why it works.is because we're innovating andwe could find some real wins for this area, but most importantlyfor the whole city without queuejumping, without -- it's not really a queue jump, it's justsomething that's happeninganyway and we could probably do a better job.that's i didn't think it's theperfect bite- why i think it's the perfect bite-sized area todo this experiment.the ramifications if it goes horribly wrong will beminimized.that's my close.
i hope i can count on council'ssupport.[inaudible] >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman carra.on the recommendation of notice of motion, then, are we agreed?any opposed.alderman chabot is opposed. and i believe that takes care of6.2 as well, right, madameclerk? >> it does to a certain extent.it's covered off until july buti don't think you'd want these bylaws back in july with theupdate report.so do we want them to come back in december?>> mayor naheed nenshi: whydon't we have a motion, alderman carra, to table these bylaws tono later than a december meetingof council. does that make sense, madameclerk?>> yes, your worship.
>> can i talk this out with youfor a second?i think the idea is that if things aren't going well, thatthose bylaws can come back injuly. >> then we would table themuntil july, your worship, sowe're not having to reconsider motions and things.>> mayor naheed nenshi: okay.then in july we can always... >> retable.>> mayor naheed nenshi:dispose of them or table them or file them at that point.why don't you make a mtion totable then the associated bylaws until july.isn't that in the notice ofmotion, though, madame clerk? >> the second page opinio.>> just asking for a reportback. >> mayor naheed nenshi: wejust need the actual bylaws.i gotcha.
>> i so move.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou. alderman mar seconds that.any discussion on that one?are we agreed? all right.any opposed?alderman chabot opposed. carried.so that then takes us to item6.3 in your agenda tabled report cps 2010-65, update onexpression of interest forcity-owned aircraft and next steps.alderman mar, you're going tomove the original recommendations?>> your worship, i will move therecommendations of the committee.>> mayor naheed nenshi: do ihave a seconder? thanks, alderman pincott.alderman lowe.>> your worship, i tabled the
motion so i thought i'd get tolift it from the table and makea motion. >> mayor naheed nenshi: hi toget the motion on the table soyou could -- >> all right.your worship, i'm not going tosupport this and i have put together a counterproposal.your worship, the issue withthis is the use of city funds for this.i opposed it several years agowhen it was 1.4 million. and had i -- had we not had acollision with two committees, iwould have been opposing it at committee.because to me this is not anappropriate use. i tabled it to seek someinformation about what wasinvolved in the restoration of aircraft like this with respectto time, planning and execution.and what i've learned is that to
do this, to achieve the goalshere, requires a very detailedrestoration plan under the direction of a restorationmanager and it requires money,of course. so looking further, i spent sometime examining -- or askingquestions about the support that the proponent, the currentproponent, one of theproponents, had and while i find there's some support, it's very,very limited.does not provide engineering support, does not providetechnical support, really.it doesn't provide any way of expertise.they don't provide any way ofexpertise beyond some of their employees perhaps doing somework on their time and theirpremises on very small components of it.so, your worship, i'm going toask council not to support this
recommendation.and the proposal i would putforward is that we ask for a request for proposals thatdemonstrate the financialcapacity independent of city funding and to accommodate theproject within 36 months.that as part of it we see a validated restoration plandemonstrating completion andrestoration of the hurricane aircraft and return to city'scustody within 36 months,reminding council it's important to remember these aircraftbelong to the city, not amuseum, not anybody else. [please stand by]>> quite frankly i would liketo see the it restored in my lifetime.and i'm a little further downthe road than some folks. i ask you not to support themotion in front of you.it commits city money.
i don't find any validatedtime around it.i worry about the expertise that will be put into it.i worry about the quality ofthe production that will be at the ends of it.and there are a series ofissues that are unspoken in this matter.thank you.>> thanks, alderman lowe, before you sit down, i noticethat the first line of yourproposal is, in fact a motion to file.>> it is.>> and if you would like to put that motion to file, madamclerk he can do so now, can'the? >> your worship it will becontrary -->> because not a motion to table.it's a motion to file.all right.
so in that case -->> that was why -->> that's why you want today stand up first.>> exactly right.>> see how we dispose of this one and if this one fails iwill recognize you againbefore we get to the next item.>> thank you.if it does succeed your worship, i will have a motionarising.>> okay. >> thank you.>> perfect.it's just procedurally because his motion is quite contraryto the motion on the floor.trying to figure out how to manage that.i as always am interested oncouncil having a full debate on every debate in front ofus.alderman stevenson.
>> thank you your worship.i disagree with what of whatalderman lowe said. i can't disagree him beingfurther down the road than therest of us, but ... not much down the road butfurther down the road.i just want to comment on a few things.first of all, we did get apackage sent around from alderman lowe where hequestioned the support of acouple of the leave-ins and westjet and i do have a copyof the letter that was sent onmay 18th, 2010, from russ white, vp of westjet, and hesays in response to yourrequest for support from westjet in the resurrection --restoration of the dehavolinemosquito i feel we would volunteer the labour on a timepermitted basis basic if thereis a need to fix any of the
sheet metal on the mosquitoand if time permits you mayuse the paint booth at the calgary hangar to refinishparts.also with leave-ins, the e-mail that was sent was --says they would be more thanhappy to help with the restoration passing alonggoods at cost is certainlydoable and depending on what types of items you are after,we may even be able to donatesome of the items. and that was from the generalmanagers of levens aviation.>> the other point made was about the capability of thevolunteers and i have got aton of bios on people that are prepared to work on this, andmany of them are aircraftengineers with 25, 35 years, 37 years of work in this, andalso many of them are peoplethat have had quite a bit of
experience in fundraising andso the reason why i proposedthe motion at the -- at committee on this was wehave got a lot of response.in fact, 95% of the e-mails and letters i have got on thisbecause it is in my ward, 95%of them are saying we need to keep both aircraft here andrestore them here.but also, the talks that i have had with people,businesspeople that areprepared to financially support the work on this, soat committee, what i tried todo was bring forward an amendment that would come upwith a compromise.many people were concerned that the people objecting toselling one of the aircraft orthe people that were proposing to repair them and rebuildthem here, the comments werethat there was, first of all,
these people had not raisedany money, and it's going totake an estimated 1.6 million to do this.haven't raised any money andthey haven't proven that they have the people capable ofdoing it in a timely fashion.what we did with the notice of motion was to put out an rfp.asking to put out an rpf --rfp, and really what we are doing is challenging theproponents of rebuilding it togo out and raise money. i know it has been impossibleto raise money when they don'thave an actual project to raise money for yet, but thisrequest for proposal if theycan prove that they have the expertise to do it, we willmatch them in funding, not putthe funding up but if they raise $50.000 we match it with50.000 as the project goes on,up to a maximum of the
800.000.and i think this is --what we are doing is throwing the ball back in their courtand saying if you are preparedto come up with the expertise, and you are prepared to startraising the money, then if youshow us that you can do this, then we are willing to back itand allow the people of thecalgary and area the opportunity to actuallyrebuild these.so i think it's a compromise, and it may be that they arenot able to do it.if that's the case it comes back and we have to look atanother way of doing it.but the people of calgary i believe do not want theseaircraft to be sent some placeelse when it could be done right here at home.i urge you to support themotion as it is put forward
from committee.thank you, your worship.>> thanks. alderman macleod.>> thank you your worship.i'm not going to stand here and tell you i know much aboutthe aircraft but i do know alot about grant making and match grants from mybackground.there are a couple of things on here that concern methat --one in particular that i did miss in the committee meetingand that's we don't have atime frame in this motion. there absolutely needs to be atime frame and i would suggestone year. and i would make an amendmentto that effect.>> do you want to put that amendment now or do you wantto finish your comments?>> i will finish my comments.
the other piece that we didn'tclarify in the motion isalderman stevenson just suggested if they raise 50we'll give them 50.we need to know there is sufficient funds to completeproject, not to get it halfdone. we need to make sure that the800.000 has to be raised inorder to go forward on this. otherwise, we have a very highrisk of half completed project,and that concerns me as well. so i would make a motion toclarify both of those.i think probably it's best if i sit down and write it up.>> i will recognize you again,alderman macleod. alderman can a are a.-- carra?>> are we going to receive a report from administration onthis, is this discussionoccurring prior to the report
from administration?are we just talking about thisand voting? >> well, i will ask the chairof the committee if i'mgetting this wrong but i understand that thecommittee's recommendation wasto direct administration to go through an rfp process, thatthe rfp process has to haveorganizations that can meet these three criteria whichbasically is one and only oneof the organizations that had come forward in the previousprocess, which was not an rfp.i'm not sure what your question is.>> i just --okay. my question -->> this is very confusing.i was reading the timeline. >> my question, just generallywhen we have a report beforeus, do we have administration
say hey, this is what's goingon and lay out the groundworkfor discussion? >> i see what you mean.not usually.that's usually done at committee.if you have questions for thedoctor, she is ready to stand up and answer them.>> okay.i'm willing to just weigh in a little bit on this.>> sorry dr. hargesheimer.>> i think the motion we are expecting from aldermanmacleod i think would bewelcome. i want to caution the fact --i want to ask while you arewriting it up is the timeline versus the --versus the assurance ofcompleting the project, i think the assurance ofcompleting the project is waymore important than the
timeline.the thing has been sitting inboxeses for decades. i don't see the rush.i just see what this wholedebate was in council is what is the city of calgary?are we owned by the citizensand do we follow the passions of citizens and ourvolunteers?or are we the corporation that is trying to maximize ourvalue and do deals?and i think that what the committee's decision was, andi mean that was a fascinatingday we spent in committee and saw unbelievable passion fromcalgarians.i can tell you from knocking on doors, i quickly learnedthat when i knocked on a doorand i was asked about mosquitoes it wasn't apesticide issue.it was the plane.
people are assionate aboutthis plane and passionateabout its contribution to calgary's history, and what isthe role of the city ofcalgary if not to empower our citizen volunteers tocelebrate our heritage?so that's why i supported this motion.i would be very willing tosupport an amendment that clarifies the intent of themotion and gives gooddirection to the citizens and volunteers but i ask you tonot really be hammer fistedwith the timeline because i don't think that this issomething that requires arush. >> thanks, alderman carra.alderman pincott.>> a question for the doctor. around the funding and how wedo matching funding.we heard this at committee is
that we do not release fundinguntil the proponent or ourpartner has reached 90%, could you clarify that for us?>> yes, we were intending touse the criteria we used for the community investment fundsand many other funds.the rsp would go out for the full plan.and no city funding would bereleased until all of the funding was in place tocomplete the project.and there was a long discussion at committee aboutcommittee members beinginterested in the bids and the --so basically the discussionconcluded that we are intending to put out an rfpprocess and at that point,there is no further council decision in terms of it's aprocurement and supplydecision and it's based on
meeting the criteria, and wecan report back on theprogress that we have made or we can property back on whenit has been awarded.but we would not be bringing forward the bids on the rfpfor any further conversation.>> thank you. and that's good.because that would beinappropriate. >> right.>> and as to just for aldermanmacleod, so when it comes to there is a process in placeexactly to mitigate that riskaround financing and funding that you talked about.as well, if you are putting amotion on time, i hope it applies to meeting --to actually getting funding inplace as opposed to completion of the project because i thinkthat we can say --i think it would be
appropriate for us to say youknow what you have got a yearto -- the successful proponent ofthe rfp, you got a year to getyour funding in place, to get the people in place, to prove,to show that you can do it.and if you can't do that within a year, we have got tomove on with something else.so i'm -- i think that that'sappropriate.to do that. i also --the fact that committeeactually tossed out and said we'll actually match you to$800.000 i think caughteverybody by surprise. probably not the least werethe those who are the mostpassionate about the plane. the ones who were atcommittee.i think it is appropriate.
i think it is an appropriateuse of city funds.i think it's because we heard and certainly committee weheard the passion, as aldermancarra said around this project.for those of us who were oncouncil the last council, we heard about the passion aboutthis project several times.this is not -- that wasn't the first time wehad a long discussion aboutit. and i think that it isappropriate for aldermanstevenson's motion and amendment to say, look, we'llmatch you.we hear you. we understand what you want todo.we believe in that. we believe in this as acommunity project.our challenge and our concern
is around money.1.6 is a lot of money toraise. so we said we'll actually cometo the table with you andwe'll match you. i think that was completelyappropriate for us to do that.so the motion that is before us is alderman stevenson'samendment.i think it is completely appropriate.i will support it.and if alderman macleod does have an amendment aroundtimeline for putting togetherthe funding, i will support that as well.>> thanks.alderman keating? >> thank you, your worship.it was a fascinationdiscussion and the discussion honouring the volunteers incalgary and helping themthrough this process is very
important.i just wanted to bring up theidea again that this is for two aircraft and if we aredoing an rfp and we are doingmatching funds i would hate to say that you must raise all800.000 before you can beginwork on one aircraft. i think it needs to be splitin some way so work can beginon one as the other funds are being raised for the secondaircraft.rather than lumping it all together and 800.000completely.i do -- am sense i have to time aswell.i don't think it should be open-ended.i don't think it should berestrictive either. thank you.>> thanks, alderman keating.alderman hodges.
>> yes, your worship.just to clarify.did alderman stephenson put an amendment and if so, can iread it please?>> i think what alderman pincott meant was therecommendation that is infront of us was alderman stevenson's amendment atcommittee.>> already. that's what i was wondering.that's the otherinterpretation to adopt. i would like to be able toproceed with this today, yourworship, and i support -- basically support therecommendations at committee.thank you. >> thanks, alderman hodges.alderman demong?>> dr. hargesheimer has it been attempt today restoreeither of these aircraft?>> not our city of calgary
aircraft.>> it hasn't been sent out totry? somebody hasn't taken a shotat it?>> no. >> excuse me.didn't i read in the notesthat it went to cold lake at some point and nothing wasdone and then it came back?>> that was a long time ago. so not in the recent historyof the whole conversation.>> that's fine. >> referring in the last 60ishyears.has it ever been spent out -- sent out to attempt thisbefore?has anyone tried doing this? >> i'm sorry.it may be in the notes and themayor is probably looking right at it, is he?>> he could be in about fiveseconds.
i remember reading it lastnight.sometime back in 1989. see how good my memory is wentto cold lake and in '92 itnever came back. it came back with nothingdone.>> i could help. there was two attempts.i think one shortly after itarrived was over in the field hangar and they actuallyground the fabric off theoutside, and then the second it went to cold lake.the airforce were going toundertake it and they returned it.>> fair to say we have not hada successful attempt? >> don't have any history onthe attempts themselves, whythey stopped and sent it back. >> i'm sure we do.i'm sure we do.>> okay.
>> it's unfortunate curious tosee what the reasoningsbehind. if we have the airforceattempting and they are notable to do it, it gives me some concern.sidelining that for a moment,do we have -- is there any interest inputting any liabilityinsurance on this one way or another with regards to wesend this out and the aircraftis damage inside one way or another?>> that would be part of therfp process. >> okay.>> in terms of liability andindemnity and all of that. >> okay.>> would that be --we would match the insurance costing of that so to speak?>> i wouldn't be able toanswer that question.
now we are getting into howthe rfp will be --and how the contract will be signed.there will be an rfp, a winnerof the rfp. the winner will have to sign acontract in terms of --before the tender is let. and all of that will be inthere.>> when you say you are sending out to tendering thecontract does that mean wehave different competing groups trying to raise fundsto fix the mosquito.>> we'll have one rfp awarded for this.>> i realize that.means you are sending out for bidding and somebody will tryto get the contract to do thejob, correct? >> right.we hope there will be morethan one bid.
>> okay.i'm a little confused at howthis would work if we are talking about having volunteerorganizations raising funds -->> no, we are talking about a restoration that isprofessionally managed.restoration to the recognized and accepted museum qualitystatic display with volunteerparticipation. however, these aspects arequite valuable.>> i realize that. >> so there needs to be aprofessional management of theproject and a demonstration that it can be completely in atimely manner and successful.>> sorry. i'm just having troublegrappling how this is going towork if you need a professional management toorganize this.how does the volunteer
fundraising aspect of it fitinto it?if you could explain that just a little bit.>> we have $800.000.we know based on an assessment of what the restoration costswould be for this job, for thetwo aircraft, that the cost is roughly 1.6, double that.so the volunteers would needto fund raise. the other 800.000.they may be able to reduce thecost by having a hangar donated or having labourdonated.but the project needs to be overseen by a professional whounderstands the aircraft.>> are there a number of people we could be sendingthis rfp that understand theaircraft implicitly enough to do this?i'm just curious.everything in the notes say
it's 50, 60-year-old aircraftand nobody does this anymoreand looking at volunteers that have been transfixed with thisidea in concept and iappreciate the volunteers may have lots of knowledge of it.but when you talk about aprofessional management, somebody managing it that hasthis knowledge, strikes me aswhat do they do for a living? >> well, we have theexpression of interest thatwent out. four of the five projects saidthey would be able to engage aprofessionally managed project.four of the five.>> thank you very much, dr. hargesheimer.>> thanks, alderman demong.alderman macleod, are you ready?>> thank you, your worship.i just have a couple of
clarifications before i finishthis.the 90% -- doctor, the 90% fundingrequirement that you indicatedi think renders that part of the amendment as being notrequired, but i just had acouple of things, is that cash and in kind, and i think youhave already answered my otherquestion about who will receive the funding.>> yes, it's cash and in kind.i think though alderman pincott's comment about therebeing a sunset on the lengthof time that bidders would have to raise the fundingwould be appropriate, as towhether a year is reasonable, i can't comment.>> i'm going to make themotion on the timing. i just wanted to clarify ifthere was also policy on thecash and in kind as well.
i will just leave that fornow.so the amendment is that the plan, and i'm not sure if ihave got this exactly right,but the plan and the funding to support this project be inplace by 2010, march 31st.a little over a year. >> yeah, well, alderman lowetalked about age and time.>> yes. >> 2012.so the amendment is, and iprobably don't have it quite framed right but that's thework plan and funding tosupport this be in place within --by 2012, march 31st.>> do i have a seconder? thanks alderman lowe.can we just pop --thank you. do we have that up on thescreen, madam clerk?if you could read it back,
that would be great.>> that the work plan and thefunding to support this project be in place by 2012,march 31st.>> where are we putting that in the motion?>> it could be just added tothe recommendations, your worship.>> just make it number 3.presumably, doctor, that would be a deadline in the rfp.why don't we make it number dof recommendation number 1. sorry, i just thought of that.>> i'm just wondering if itshould read the restoration plan.>> sure.>> seems a little more consistent with the rest ofit.>> are we getting it on the screen, madam clerk.>> it will take a few minutes.>> no problem.
sorry got a frog in my throatthere.that was it. alderman lowe seconded thatamendment.on the amendment any discussion?all right, so many, aldermanchabot. >> i will be very brief, yourworship.i would like to either see it in writing or somethingbecause -->> it's coming. >> came up on the screen andwent by really quick.>> it's coming back. they are just typing it.>> thank you.i can decide. that's all i need to know.>> alderman mar?>> thank you. sorry was just going to readthat again.i have got a couple of
questions for clarification.what do we rp --are we interpreting as administration then?what is the work plan here?are we saying that they have to have the financing set up,need to know exactly where whois going to put them together, how they are going to compileit within a year?>> that's what it looks like to me.>> is that possible?>> well, we heard at committee that the volunteers that werethere had not begunfundraising, and so it's really speculation on our partas to whether they would beable to be successful. as alderman stevens points outthey didn't have a projecteither. once the rfp is let andsuccessful, i think they wouldget cracking with that kind of
a deadline.>> and i know that that can beextremely motivating, which is what i understand the intentof this is.that said, what if march 12th --march 31th, 2012 rolls around,and they are not quite there. what happens then?my concern is that we havesomething that people are deeply passionate about.we have volunteers, volunteersthat are being asked to raise $800.000.volunteers that are going tobe asked to put together a plan on how to restoreaircraft that have beensitting in storage for decades. much longer than i have beenalive.these planes are part of our -- part of our history, and ithink we need to honour thesevolunteers and calgarians.
to allow them to be able to --not to set them up for failurebut to allow them to do this in a time frame where it isreasonable.i think a professional organization like united way,which is full of volunteersand full of people with backgrounds in all types ofdifferent capabilities wouldbe able to achieve something like this and be able to saythat they can put together aplan, raise $800.000. i think that handful ofvolunteers being asked to dothis is setting them up for failure.i'm asking you not to supportthis. i will actually amend this tomake --amends the dade. i don't mind having adeadline.i don't mind motivating and
encouraging them to say thisis your project.we are going to help you do it.we are going to commit ourresources and expertise and all of the backing and hopesand dreams of calgarians alongwith you. but i think we need to changethat to a more reasonable date,2013 at the very, very soonest.if there is a seconder i wouldappreciate somebody to -- >> made the main motion.>> i did make the main motion.hoping there is somebody else that would move that on mybehalf because we heard atcommittee. we know exactly what obstaclesthere are before them.and i don't want them to be set up for failure.if someone would move that onmy behalf i would appreciate
it.>> i think you have someonecoming up, alderman mar. i did note that the city cameinto possession of theseaircraft the year that i was born.so as much as we complainabout us moving slowly, sometimes it might be true.alderman pincott and thenpootmans then stevenson, then keating.>> thank you.you know what, i do support -- i do support actually puttinga frame around it, and irealize -- and this sort of speaks alittle bit to alderman mar,this doesn't actually take into account the time frame ofactually doing the rfp.so potentially that could be six months before an rfp isawarded which would leave withit with this date would leave
six months for a plan andmoney to come in place.because the rfp hasn't been written up.nobody has won it.nobody can go out and start developing a plan.so my fear is with this thatwe would handcuff an organization into, say, if therfp is awarded in july, august,september, whenever, then that reduces the amount of timethat they actually have to putit together. if we want to give theorganization a year from thedate that the rfp is awarded, that makes sense to me.if we want today change it to2013, probably work out to be about a year and half.i think we need to berealistic in this, and at the end of the day possiblyallowing the organization sixmonths to do it.
i think at the end probablywouldn't be able to do it.so as i was the seconder of the motion, i would ifsomebody does choose to amendthis to either the date suggested by alderman mar or ayear following the awarding ofthe rfp. thank you.>> thanks, alderman pincott.just for council's information i did notice that they talkedabout casino funding as one ofthe sources and the casinos do typically come every 18 monthsor so just fyi.alderman stevenson. >> your worship, thank you.i was not at spc, i'm not amember of that committee particular committee, wasunable to get a sense of thepassion and interest in this project.i will take it at face valuethat there are those volunteer
skills, the passion to do thisproject.i'm afraid i see a disconnect. i'm familiar with a lot ofprojects in the arts,university, and in the not for profit world where that levelof passion and interest raisessums of money, frankly, quite in excess of this budget of$1.6 billion.if the level of enthusiasm and interest in this project isindeed as high as it'spurported to be, i'm confused as to why the city is beingasked to contribute $800.000to be blunt and frank. i will speak in favour ofalderman hodges' motion that ithink that the group needs to determine whether funding willcome from, if it involvesengaging professional fundraisers, so be it, i'mthinking of five dead women, amonument to them, and on
parliament hill raised moremoney than this.these monuments were erect we had no government money.i'm thinking of monumentsthroughout the city, if aircraft can be compared tomonuments, that groupspassionate about their cause raised the money from theprivate sector and themselves.so i will be interested in anyone who wishes to addressthat point, but i'm strugglingwith why the city is asked to contribute to this project.>> we are actually on theamendment, alderman pootmans. with that said, i will callthe recommendation separatelywhen we get to the vote on the main motion for that reason.alderman stevenson, on theamendment. >> yes, your worship.alderman mar and aldermanpincott expressed what i felt
is that the timing is not --i was going to ask how long itwould take to actually complete a successful rfpprocess, but what i would liketo do is amend it to say that it would be two years from thedate that the rfp is awarded.that way it gives them the 18 months that it would take todo a casino application.>> so your amendment would be -->> let me -->> support this restoration fund be in place no later thantwo years after the awardingof the ... >> rfp.>> awarding of the contract.i guess. >> right.>> okay.i think alderman chabot already seconded that.>> yes.i too, share the concern that
we don't want to leave itopen-ended.because we have to put a sense of urgency out there, but wealso have to be realistic thatthis is a group that would be formalized and put in place,and then launch theirfundraising program and so to have it too short that theyare not in a position tocomplete it is setting them up for failure.so i'm sure that with thepassion that's out there, if they can have the money inplace in 18 months, they aregoing to have it whereby they are chomping at the bit toactually start this work, soby putting a maximum of two years, then they can do it asquickly as they want.thank you, your worship. >> do aseconder to theamendment of the amendment.alderman keating.
any discussion on theamendment to the amendment?okay. on the amendment to theamendment, then, are weagreed? any opposed.alderman lowe, macleod.call the roll please. >> on the amendment to theamendment alderman macleod.>> no. >> alderman mar?>> (inaudible).>> alderman pincott. alderman pootmans?alderman stephenson.>> yes. alderman carra?>> yes.>> alderman chabot? >> yes.>> alderman colley-urquhart.>> no. >> alderman demong?>> no.>> alderman farrell?
>> yes.>> alderman hodges?>> yes. >> alderman jones?>> yes.>> alderman keating? >> yes.>> alderman lowe?>> no. >> mayor nenshi?>> yes.>> carried your worship. >> all right so we are back tothe main motion as amended.on the main motion as amended. alderman lowe you have spokenon this.did you have a question, clarification?>> question, clarification iswhy would we spend 800.000 when we have an opportunity tobe given 2 ― million?>> an outstanding question, alderman lowe?>> am i being asked forclarification to my question.
>> i thought you were beingrhetorical.alderman lowe, asking anyone in particular.why don't we get alderman marto talk about that in his close.the question was why would wespend $800.000 of city money when we have someone out therewilling to give us 2.6million. anyway, i think that iscertainly a good question fordebate, alderman lowe. >> when will i be allowed todebate it.>> right now. you have the floor.>> thank you very much.>> so, i will just enter into the debate around theamendment here because if yougo back to committee, which i was only there for about parttime, one of the people whopresented at committee,
council, who is just aspassionate as anybody else,there were three people who presented who said effectivelytwo things.dick heiser who arranged the funding to secure the work,have it rebuilt and have itdisplayed said very plainly that he and another group ofoilmen tried to raise money torestore the hawker hurricane and could not and what theyfound was that unless you havea human issue, in other words homelessness, poverty, disease,something like that around anissue, it's increasingly difficult to raise money.and they were unable to --despite being well connected and well connected within themilitary, they were unable toraise the money. the other two people,mr. seaborn and mr. madden,both of whom track record
restorers pointed out that asmall group of volunteerswithout the technical ability, without all of the stuff thatgoes with it it was not reallypractical to ask them to do it.so you know while we aretalking about giving them two years to raise the money, andnow having the ability to goto a casino, that gives them one casino which now daysbased on community experience,community association experience 75 to 85.000depending on how good thecasino is, which leaves 720.000 left to go.why would we do that when wecould probably have the one airplane done and back here inthree years professionallydone, and the other one flying three to five years probably?why would we commit $800.000of taxpayer money to a project
that somebody with directexperience in raising moneyfor something like this, that even in the best of times wasextraordinarily difficult.so while i supported the amendment, because i thinkit's appropriate principlelythat we put a time frame around how long we give thisorganization to raise money,what i would point out your worship, is the technology,the technical skills in theworld left to do either of these aircrafts isdisappearing at a furiouspace. yes, westjet said they coulddo some parts and some things.thankfully actually none of the technology involved inthese airplanes is involved inanything that westjet is operating.the airplanes are unique.they are very, very difficult.
and i think that has to bebrought to bear.i think putting the framework around this is important.i think spending any money onit, any city money on it is foolish.i think alderman pootmans madea very good case, if the project is worth doing in thepublic realm the public willraise all of the money. thank you, your worship.>> thank you alderman lowe.thank you for the remind they're we still have thisamendment on the floor aswell. so i have got quite a numberof lights that i will askeveryone if it's on the amendment.if not i will keep your lighton for the main motion. alderman mar on the amendment?it's closesed.alderman carra on the
amendment.>> i have a rhetoricalquestion and -- please excuse the cheekiness,but these debates occur incommittee so we don't have to rehash them at nauseam oncouncil floor.>> is that how it's supposed to work?>> in theory and there arealderman who are proponents of that concept.and just responding toalderman pootmans question of cost, and i mean i think thatfor me, because aldermanpootmans wasn't there, my approach to the propositionthat was before committee andwhere we ended up was the result of a long day, a long,long day of seeing --of tremendous testimony from all kinds of different peopleand i think what it boils downto is that spending $800.000
on an asset the city owns,leveraging that money againstvolunteers the way we set this up is that we ends up with anasset that's worth a lot morethan that. and alderman lowe is shakinghis head.that's definitely the proposition that was putbefore committee.that these are valuable assets that are more valuable whenthey are not in boxes, whenthey are actually there. so that was one of the reasonsthat we are basically puttingmoney into something we own so it can be actually worth whatit it is.and the other question i have and again i don't notunderstand the time frame onthis. these things have been sittingin boxes for decades.we have got volunteers who are
passionate about not wantingit shipped away and lost fromthe city. we have got volunteers who nowhave the opportunity toapproach restoration and giving this asset the valuethat it should have, and why atwo-year time limit? the terms of reference that weput forward protect us.they protect the fact that this isn't going to getfrittered away and scatteredacross a field. i don't understand the timeframe.really, the thing is we have got a business proposition.we got an eccentricbillionaire collectener england who wants our aircraft,and we have got passionatecitizens here who say no, this is our aircraft we want ithere.why the time frame?
and now we are giving them theopportunity to actually getinto the boxes. why the time frame?i don't understand that.and i would maybe ask the work plan and funding strategy tosupport this resolution be inplace no later than two years. just putting that out there.i don't know.actually, you know because i want to hear debate fromcouncil, because i do notunderstand what the rush is after decades of it sitting inboxes and finally saying we'reat the brink of being a city that says we value ourvolunteers, we value ourcitizens. we are going to let themparticipate in building ourliving heritage. why put this time frame onthem?i think we need to have a work
plan, a funding strategy thatknows it can be built over thecourse of the established work plan.i don't know why we want toshut the door in two years. i don't understand that.i actually will put theamendment, the funding strategy to support this andlisten to my council, myfellow councilor's debate. >> another amendment to theamendment.>> if i have a seconder. >> add the word strategy if wehave a seconder.do we have a seconder. you cannes, you moved the mainmotion.-- can't.do we have a seconder.thanks, alderman hodges. >> making it easier for me.>> on the amendment to theamendment to add the word
strategy to the amendment, anydebate?just wave at me. alderman jones?>> problem is it gets changedso many times i forgot what my original question was.>> on the amendment to theamendment. >> i will go with what myquestion was to begin withbecause i don't know where i should jump in.doctor, is there any terms ofreference for the rfp, and if so, you haven't started onterms of reference?>> no. we would --the starting point would bethe expression of interest. we have been out to the marketwith this before.>> we heard this about what four years ago?>> five.>> i knew it was a long time
ago.you are saying what's thehurry, alderman carra. taken us five years to get tohere.could take us another five years to get to there.and what do you feel theopportune time for request for proposal is going to be?>> it would likely take usthree months to get the rfp out through supply and makesure that it's correctly put.we would likely leave it open for a significant amount oftime, if we are trying to getpeople to put a volunteer proposal together with thecaveat on the project beingprofessionally managed. so another three months.so it would be probably sixmonths before it is awarded. i would have to make sure thatcouncil understands thatawarding does not mean the
funding will transfer becausethe rfp will say that no moneywill transfer, and the planes will not come out of the boxesuntil the funding is in placeto complete the project. >> are we going to allowvolunteer time --are we going to put a dollar figure on volunteer time?i guess what i'm asking.are we asking for a strict $800.000?are we asking for $800.000including volunteer time? >> well, i think that's goingto be a conversation forprocurement but it seems to me that in kind contributions areaccepted as long as theproject can be fully completed.>> and do you know --i know a question not fair to ask you.do you feel that this projectwould be --
would fit the guidelines?>> of?>> community facility -- >> i don't know.i don't know.we certainly would be encouraging the proponents toapply for all of the possibleopportunities. >> okay.thank you, your worship.>> thank you, alderman jones. glad you got your questionsasked whether on the amendmentto the amendment or not. on the amendment to theamendment, i think i sawalderman chabot's hand. >> thank you, your worship.i think alderman carra in hisattempt to make things better may have actually made thingsworse.because this puts additional obligations on the group tocome up with --within that two-year timeline.
and i agree, that i don'tthink two years --i don't think we should be imposing these kind oflimitations in accordance withto something that's been sitting for so long.i realize of course, in thepast if it had been stored in a location that may have notbeen appropriate.in fact we know it wasn't appropriate for the storage ofboth the hurricane and themosquito, but i made a motion to get administration to lookat relocating them in a saferenvironment, something that would protect our asset betterso that it wouldn'tdeteriorate at the rate it did.and so we did.we moved the aircraft. both aircrafts.so now they are in a safelocation, well protected.
not subject to some of theenvironmental issues that wereassociated with the former site.i don't think prolonging thedelay or prolonging the whole process an extra three, fouryears even is going to causeadditional deterioration of the aircraft.so i'm not going to supportthis. although i supported theamendment to change it to twoyears, and i did that because i thought it was less bad thanthe previous motion.still a bad motion. so i'm not going to support itbut at least it's less badthan what was originally proposed.that's the only reason isupported that. i will not be supporting therest of it.>> thanks alderman.
anyone else on the amendmentto the amendment.alderman demong. alderman mar.alderman keating.>> just because hypothetical seems to be the topic of theday.we have an offer in front of us maybe i'm proposing thismore to the doctor than ahypothetical. we have a proponent making anoffer to us at this point.do we know in 2, 2 ― years that offer might still be onthe table with regards totrading the hurricane in replacement for a mosquito?>> your worship, at committeethe proponent sent his representatives and they wereas keen as they were fiveyears ago. it would be speculation as towhether the offer is fullyopen-ended.
i mean, it has been on thetable for five years.>> okay. thank you.>> thanks, doctor.thanks. on the amendment to theamendment, alderman mar?>> thank you. >> i certainly appreciate thecomments that i'm hearingaround the table. and especially alderman carrawhen he wanted to look at whatis the work plan and the funding strategy and how arethey going to be able to dothis in two years. i bet money right now thatthey can do this.they are motivated. they understand that there isa time requirement.they want to do this. the only thing that's beenholding them back from beingable to do this is us.
we are going to give them thatopportunity.we are going to allow them the opportunity to work and fixand restore this piece ofhistory for all calgarians. that's the reason why we aregoing to do it.because we own these aircraft. this straggly will --strategy will allow them tomake this happen and we'll be setting them up for victory,not failure.that's why i will support this motion.i think two years is anadequate amount of time. and insertion of the wordstrategy makes sense becauseit allows us to focus the work and understand exactly whatneeds to be done.i will be supporting this and i encourage council to do soas well.>> alderman keating on the
amendment to the amendment?>> thank you, your worship.>> unfortunately i won't support this.if i read this correctly whatit states they have two years after the rfp to develop astrategy.they may not raise a penny in that two years.i think we have to make thedecisions and move forward. we have been doing this forawhile, and i think when thetime comes you make that decision, you move forward, ifin two years they aresuccessful, then fantastic. we move forward.if in two years they are notsuccessful we have to go a different avenue.we can't continue the sameavenue over and over. and if that's correct that'sthe way i read that motion.i was going to have an
amendment but this is anamendment to an amendment ibelieve and i will wait until my time is correct.thank you.>> thanks, alderman keating. anyone else on the amendmentto the amendment?alderman stephenson? >> thank you your worship.if i can ask the doctor in therfp process would funding strategy not be a part of thesubmission?>> well, yes, but now we have said --now we have said we would givethem two years to develop that.i think you are quite right.the rfp will be awarded on the merit of the proposal and partof the merit of the proposalis the work plan and funding strategy that's submittedright when you press thebutton to submit.
>> yes.>> so your worship i won't besupporting this amendment to the amendment.because i think what ourobjective was to put a sense of urgency on them to actuallyraise the money.and i think two years is sufficient for them to do thatand so i think it was betterwithout the word strategy in there.so i won't support theaddition of that. thank you your worship.>> thanks.anyone else on the amendment to the amendment?alderman colley-urquhart.>> similar to alderman stevenson, i would haveassumed that part of the rfpprocess would be to incorporate their ideas for astrategy, a work plan, funding,and to even constrain that
with putting the two years inthere.that's why i have so much difficult ith the whole thing,the amendment and theamendment. so just to clarify,dr. hargesheimer anyvalue-added doing an rfi before an rfp and what wouldthe differences be as itrelates to this matter? >> your worship, we have donean expression of interest, andbasically what we found is summarized we had five groupscome forward, and basicallyit's that triangle quality time and cost.and we have defined thequality as static display. so now all we are kind oflooking at in terms ofweighing the rfp will be the time it will take and how muchthe full cost would be of theproject, and we heard that 1.6
million is the full cost ofthis restoration, so in termsof an expression of interest, i'm not sure we would get anyfurther ahead.i think what we heard at committee is we are wanting tomove ahead.the restoration itself most of the proponents said that theywould be able to do it in lessthan five years if there was funding provided by the city.otherwise, it was ten yearsplus. so it seems like there isnothing much more than what wehave summarized on the attachment here that we wouldlearn by doing anotherexpression of interest. >> the rfi, for all purposes,has been done.we acquired a certain amount of knowledge and informationfrom going through thatprocess.
it's still timely, irrel --relevant.it's still relevant. could we use that as part ofthe rfp process now?>> yes. we would be buildingabsolutely.we would be using the findings from the expression ofinterest to build the rfp.>> yes, thank you. thank you.>> thanks, aldermancolley-urquhart. anyone else on the amendmentto the amendment?okay. on the amendment to theamendment that is to add theword strategy are we agreed? any opposed?call the roll, please.>> alderman mar? alderman pincott?alderman pootmans?>> no.
>> alderman stevenson?>> no.>> alderman carra? >> yeah.>> alderman chabot?>> yes. >> alderman colley-urquhart.alderman demong?>> no. >> alderman farrell?>> no.>> alderman hodges? >> yes.>> alderman jones?>> no. >> alderman keating?>> no.>> alderman lowe? >> no.>> alderman macleod?>> no. >> mayor nenshi?>> no.>> thank you. back to the amendment then.any further debate on theamendment?
alderman keating was it anamendment or an amendment tothe amendment. >> i was thinking of adding ane go back to the idea thatthis is two separate jobs. two separate airplanes.in rethinking and hearing, ithink in two years if we are not in a position to moveforward in this regard, thenvery to look at a different avenue, and i would hate toseparate them so one is doneand we may lose that other possibility.i will not be amending it.>> thanks. anyone else on the amendment?alderman macleod, did you wantto close sf >> thank you, your worship.there is a couple of thingsthat i would like to say in closing.i think because of thecommunity interest here, i'm
willing to support the 800.000of city funds being allocatedto this as a priority. there are many, many, manyother projects in this citythat could surely use that money.and i'm supporting this butnot at inn fightum, i think there has to be a time frame,a clearly established timeframe. can't keep $800.000 sittingaround forever until somebodyraised the money. there has to be ademonstration of support forthis and it needs to be demonstrated clearly that thisgroup has the capacity toraise the money and to do the work that's necessary.i think two years is too long,quite frankly. i think one year is plenty.i also do not think that the --i can't see any reason why the
fundraising cannot start whilethe rfp is in place.we know the rfp is going to be issued.it's not like this project isnot going to go forward or that there is some reason thatthis --we know from the expression of interest that there iscapacity to do this.and the fundraising should begin immediately.and the strategy put in placeimmediately. it doesn't take that long todo that.and as having done funding in my past career, there areplenty of people that comeforward all the time saying we have got $800.000, we need toraise the other 800.000, andcan we get your support commitment?and people will set aside,funders will set aside the
funds pending the rfp.and the commitment.so two years is plenty. i wish this group well.i have concerns.i also have concerns that the offer, the alternative offeris not going to be aroundforever, but i understand there is significant supportand i will support thisthrough with the amendment. thank you.>> thanks, alderman macleod.on the amendment then are we agreed?any opposed?alderman demong. call the roll, please.>> on the amendment as amendedalderman keting? >> alderman macleod?>> yes.>> alderman mar? >> yes.>> alderman pincott?>> yes.
>> alderman poot mans.>> no.>> alderman stephenson. >> yes.>> alderman carra?>> yes. >> alderman chabot?>> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart? >> no.>> alderman demong?>> no. >> alderman farrell.>> yes.>> alderman hodges? >> yes.>> alderman jones?>> yes. >> mayor nenshi?>> yes.carried. >> back to the main motionthen.on the main motion, alderman carra?>> no, i don't --we rehashed everything i could
possibly say.>> point of order.main motion. alderman lowe's motion tofile?>> main motion. motion to file does not takeprecedence.i made the little area at the beginning.main motion.contrary exactly. not the same as the motion totable.you were next on the list alderman pootmans if you hadanything.alderman chabot? >> yeah.well, i'm going to support themotion. albeit it's not necessarilywhat --i was hoping -- i don't like the idea ofputting in specific timelineto this in light of the fact
that these aircraft have beensitting for so long.the issue about the fact that these were hand built, many,many years ago and those skillsets may not exist anymore, i think of course the sooner wemove forward, the more likelywe are going to be able to find those skill sets becausepeople are --can only live for so long, and those skill sets are lost oncethey are gone.so sooner we move forward on this i guess restoration thebetter, especially withregards to the carpentry skill sets.i think that one, inparticular, is one that some of those arts of the day arelost today.they don't exist. all the old guys, they allremember that stuff.the new guys, they may not
necessarily use that same kindof --do you think so? that's good.insofar as all of the steelwork and whatnot, i can't imagine that there wasanything built back then thatcouldn't be built today. all the machines, machiniststuff that i see now, nowadays,they just punch it in, and it spits out your part.no matter what it is.so i just can't fathom that we couldn't rebuild theseaircraft today?if they were able to build them back in the '40s.i'm going to support it.okay. i'm going to support it and ihope members of council willsupport it as well. >> thanks, alderman chabot.alderman mar if i may say onequestion before i call on you
to close.i too am particularlyinterested to see the volunteer interest in this andi'm willing to give thevolunteer group a try. i do want to say that i didfind committee's decision veryodd to put city funding towards people who neveractually asked for it.and i hope that we don't get into a trend of giving peoplemoney who don't actuallyrequest the money. it would be a troubling trendfor me if we were to do thatand i am going to call the two items on the recommendationseparately.>> thank you. >> well, there is somequestions that were brought up,and i would like to address them.number one, alderman lowe wassuggesting why are we going to
spend money, city money inorder to --where we could get $2 ― million and the reason is weown these aircraft.they belong to the citizens of calgary and i for one and whati heard from my constituentsand from voices around the table, we don't want to sellpiecemeal our heritage.this is part of our past. it's a shared history that wehave a connection with thepast with the veterans of world war ii, with the airmenthat flew in service of ourcountry, that mapped the northern parts of this country,and i think we owe it to allcalgarians to ensure that we retain this part of ourheritage.the rfp process gives direction.it tells the volunteers thatnot only are we going to be
prepared to put our moneywhere our mouth is, we aregoing to entrust you with this valuable asset and trust thatyou will be able to fix it.that you will be able to restore it to a condition thatwe'll be able to share withall calgarians for generations to come.not something that's going tobe stuck in a box somewhere forgotten.alderman lowe also mentionedthe ability to restore these aircraft is being lost, thisart is dying out.that tells me all the maureen why we need to move forwardnow with a plan to be able togive this asset over to the experts, to the volunteersthat will be able to restorethis for generations to come. we own these aircraft.i'm prepared to put $800.000up because of the fact that it
is a huge part of our history.calgarians have spoken to us.we have heard them. let's do the right thing,calgary.let's support this. closed.>> thanks, alderman mar.so we are going to take them separately.so on recommendation numberone, on recommendation number one as amended with theaddition of d, are we agreed.any opposed? alderman lowe.alderman lowe and demong areopposed. recommendation number two arewe agreed?any opposed. call the roll please.>> recommendation number twoalderman pincott? alderman pootmans?>> no.>> alderman stevenson?
>> alderman chabot.>> yes.>> alderman colley-urquhart. >> yes.>> alderman demong.>> no. >> alderman farrell?sorry your worship.alderman hodges? >> alderman jones?>> yes with.>> alderman keating? mayor nenshi?>> no.>> carried your worship. thank you.>> alderman lowe did you havea motion arising? >> actually your worshiplistening to dr. hargesheimeri think the conditions will reflect the motion rising iwas going to put.doctor, will we have any further advice what this rfpmight contain?>> we were not contemplating
bringing the rfp to council.it will be working withprocurement and supply. >> when we award somethinglike this to a volunteer group,do we subject the progress of the group to the city auditor?>> well, we are requiring aprofessionally managed proposal with volunteercomponent.>> so we could subject the project to audit at some pointduring the process?>> well, i think any time the city puts money in, that canbe subject to audit.>> okay. >> your worship, i know amotion arising is usuallyimmediately afterwards. but i need to wrap my headaround how i put a control onthis. so i notice that had i couldstandfor 4 ― minute and youcould drop the gavel which
would allow me to do it.or if you do me the courtesyof recognizing the -- if i think necessaryimmediately after lunch.>> alderman lowe, if you really, really wanted to putit today, then you could put amotion to recess a few minutes early.right now.or you could always bring that forward once you have had achance to really think aboutit through the regular notice of motion process.>> i think your worship i willbring it -- i need some time to withdr. hargesheimer i have graveconcerns establishing a paper trail.>> my advice alderman lowewould be bring it through the notice of motion process.nothing is happening beforeour next council meeting.
>> nothing will happen forquite awhile.i will do that. >> get it right.okay.>> we do have five minutes, why don't we move to item7.1.1 and get this one on thetable. this is on line archive oflegislative video.do i have someone willing to move these recommendations?>> thanks alderman pincott,seconded alderman keating. now they are on the floor.did we have madam clerk didyou want to say anything by way of introduction?>> not unless council hasquestions. i think it's pretty clear.>> i think this is very wellwritten report as well, thank you.>> alderman hodges?>> yes.
what's left open to a furtherrecommendation i think fromcouncil is the question of who keeps the official record.so i think that's important.the law department, they have some comments about that.and left open on the righthand column of page 1, the city would not keep anindependent copy of the video.should council wish it, second last paragraph, should councilwish it, storing video at thecity of calgary would result in a one-time costapproximately additional10.000 per year. that's something i think yourworship is necessary.will be worth it. >> okay.>> be prepared to amend itunless the city clerk has -- law department have someviolent objection to it.>> let me ask first.
is it appropriate that livewith the city clerk?and two would you have an objection to us keeping thevideo forever and ever?madam clerk, do you want to get in there?>> your worship, the issuearound us keeping the video forever and ever.i don't think we want to dothat. technology changes.all the other things go on.what this recommendation is in here for is because thevendors that we would bepurchasing the time from would keep it for a year.if we personally --if we want today keep a copy archived in the recorddownstairs for other purposes,it's 10.000 per year of storage.the first year is 10.000.the next year would add
another $10.000 on to ourbudget.it gets exponentially larger. when edmonton did this, theysaid for three years maximum,which is one elected term. so that would be $30.000.now there is no issue with ourvendor keeping it. the official record is stillthe minutes under the mga.it's up to council for how long you think it would bevaluable and at which pointduring business planning and budget this year i would bringback another line item to saydo you want it for two years, three years?whatever?>> great. so right now alderman hodges,in the main recommendation itsays retention period current year plus one.would you like to put anamendment to that?
>> yes.indeed your worship.current year plus two. that would give us three yearsi think.>> always have a rolling three years.>> right.>> your worship, just to remind everyone, i don't thinkanyone needs a lot ofreminding in the case of the louise station controversylast september, october, thatgoes back at least two years, in terms of when land andasset strategy committee andcouncil dealt with the louise station issue.so i think three years is notunreasonable. i think three years is a lifeof any given council.>> do aseconder for that amendment then?thanks, alderman lowe.any discussion on the
amendment to change fromcurrent year plus one tocurrent year plus two? alderman lowe, then chabot.>> probably appropriate.i can ask my question be it one year, two, and i think iheard it partly answered,madam clerk because my question was define storage.and so it's bulk storage bythe vendor, their location as opposed to on site storage insome media?>> your worship, the reason we have been waiting is we have areally good vendor we workedwith on your agenda system and we waited for them to provethemselves.right now they are saying that they may give us unlimitedstorage.but if you actually want to store it on site here, theissue comes in with the citywith band width and people
accessing it and being aperennial optimist i'm suremillions will want to watch our council meeting.and so it's better to leave itwith the vendor for those current meetings.but when we get into thestored meetings they would have to come down to ourarchive here to look at it andto watch it afterwards. >> so what we are saying is wewould get two years now by thevendor, is that -- >> and we would keep one yearon site here.>> okay. current year plus one year atthe vendors one year on sitehere. >> the next year we would adda year if this motion passesand the year after that one more.>> okay.>> that would give us three
full years or one councilterm.>> it's a bulk storage system that -->> it would be servers andthey would access it, yeah. >> okay.>> sorry, madam clerk, do youhave any idea what the capital cost of the --having the on site systemwould be? >> it would be pretty minimal.>> pretty minimal.>> thank you, your worship. >> thanks alderman lowe.recessed.we'll be back here at 1:15. "captioning of this meeting isprovided as a communicationaccessibility measure and is not intended as a verbatimtranscript of the proceedings.if inaccuracies occur, it may be due to human error,technical difficultiesor an inability on the part
of the writer to hearor understand what is beingsaid. while best efforts are madeto document as closelyas possible what is being said the captions cannot be reliedupon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings." captioning of this meeting isprovided as a communicationaccessibility measure and is be due to human error,technical difficulties or aninability on the part of the writer to hear or understandwhat is being said.while best efforts are made to document as closely aspossible what is being said,the captions cannot be relied upon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings.captioning of this meeting is provided as a communicationaccessibility measure and isnot intended as a verbatim
transcript of the proceedings.if inaccuracies occur, it maybe due to human error, technical difficulties or aninability on the part of thewriter to hear or understand what is being said.while best efforts are made todocument as closely as possible what is being said,the captions cannot be reliedupon as a certified accurate record of the proceedings.captioning of this meeting isprovided as a communication accessibility measure and isnot intended as a verbatimtranscript of the proceedings. if inaccuracies occur, it maybe due to human error,technical difficulties or an inability on the part of thewriter to hear or understandwhat is being said. while best efforts are made todocument as closely aspossible what is being said,
the captions cannot be reliedupon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings. upon as a certified accuraterecord of the proceedings.>> questions i might as well ask to get it over and donewith.the $10.000 per year incrementally, is that basedon a quote from like either-- from a provider? >> that's from our rt area.>> okay.all right. so that was something thatwe got a quote on.the other question i had was it was my understanding thatone of the challenges thatwe had arnvid i don't even and video storage --around video and videostorage was that it needed to be on canadian servers soit will be following ourfoip laws, not following the
u.s. patriot act, which isone of the barriers toyoutube and google. >> because rogers put thisout into the public domain,it's not subject to the patriot act -- or shaw,rather, -- it's authorizedby the city of calgary to go out on shaw so anybody canand they do record it so theonly reason we would put it in-house is to ensure theaccuracy and merit with theminute systems so that when you click on it, our videowill be time stamped so ifyou don't want to watch the whole council meeting, youcould just go to the itemyou wished to watch and it will come up for you alongwith the minutes, the agendaitem. >> okay.and we can't do that on the-- every time i turn on
google, they tell me howmany thousands of megabytesi have of my personal storage that just keepsgetting bigger.we can't use it on sources on those types of servers?>> that would be youtube andsome of those and they are in the u.s. and again it'sthe accuracy and the ease ofaccess for the citizens of calgary.when they look for yourvideo, they tend to go to our website, and look forthe minutes, the agenda item,and then they can have a debate with it at the sametime.>> okay. and it's not practical tolink -- to throw a link onthere to an offsite -- >> no, it's security.>> that's a security issue.okay.
damn, i thought of one otherone.i don't want -- now i'm concerned, right,everybody's going to knowabout all the little brain farts that i have.forever, for the next threeyears. >> three years they've own,alderman pincott.>> three years, oh! thank you very much.>> alderman pootmans, areyou ready for us? >> i apologize to councilfor the lack of decorum.i have questions, i thought i was in queue for themotion, not on theamendment. >> i can put you back on themotion, that's fine.is that okay? >> yeah.your worship, perhaps madamclerk, on to risks on page 2
of the motion, speaking tomembers, members ofcouncil's qualified privilege, i'm not sure whatthat means.>> that means you really don't have privilege likethe legislature does.if you want more details on the legal opinions, i wouldsuggest we go in-camera todiscuss those. >> perhaps when we'rein-camera at some otherpoint if i may bring this point up then.>> if you think it will berelevant to how you vote on this issue, then we canaccept a motion to goin-camera now or before the expiration of theconsideration of this issue.>> maybe a sidebar would be sufficient if the clerk'samenable.>> mr. tully, is there
anything you would like tosay in public on thisquestion? >> i didn't mean to walkinto this.it was a completely innocent question.>> it's fine.mr. shelley? >> your worship, thequalified privilege meansthat council has a very limited privilege in termsof defamation matters asopposed to the privilege that's granted in superiorlegislative chambers such asthe federal government and the provincial government,so there's very limitedprivilege that attaches to members of council when theymake statements that may bedefamatory on the floor of council.>> thank you.your worship, perhaps
mr. tully, does this implythat my qualified privilegeis reduced or diminished if it goes into the publicrealm?>> i'm simply saying that if there is a statement thatcould possibly be defamatory,that statement will be caught and will be readilyavailable to those who maybe adverse in interest. >> are there any -- yourworship, are there any other,through the chair, are there any precedents to case lawon this matter, are we -- wemight be a little ahead of the curve.no other legislatures forsure are doing this. how have they dealt with it?>> i don't know how otherlegislatures have dealt with this issue, your worship.>> in your opinion, is thisa serious issue for us?
>> i don't believe so.it has benefits of beingable to have an accurate record.it has some potentialdownsides from litigation perspective, perhapsperiodically.there are pluses and minuses either way you look at this,your worship.>> okay, let me just go down that road a little furtherwith your indulgence, yourworship. does this mean that we wouldbe outside of the ambit orthe responsibility of the city's legal department for-- but we are protected incouncil? we're not?>> oh, there is -- there isnevertheless a qualified privilege that attaches,your worship.so i would feel more
comfortable about talkingabout that in-camera, yourworship. >> okay.>> move to go in-camera atthis time. >> it's not a point ofprivilege, but it is amotion that takes precedence.do you have a seconder?alderman chabot, on the motion to go in-camera todiscuss this question ofqualified privilege, are we -- alderman lowe?>> ( inaudible )>> your worship, my light was on.i wanted some of theinformation where alderman pootmans was going, i hadanother question.but i wondered if it wouldn't be appropriate totable this matter now, wehave other in-camera items
that we're going to goin-camera once and comeback. rather than in and out andin and out.>> oh, oh. alderman lowe, every day, anew one for me.can one table a motion when there's a motion to goin-camera on the floor?>> oh,, it's simply a suggestion that council maywish to consider while theyvote. >> okay.i'm also looking at themover to see if he wants to withdraw his motion.( laughing )do you want to withdraw your motion and we'll table thisto the in-camera portionlater? okay.all right then.on the motion, then, to go
in-camera to discuss thequestion of qualifiedprivilege, are we agreed? any opposed?call the roll, please.>> alderman stevenson. >> no.>> alderman carra.>> no. >> no.>> alderman demong.>> no. >> alderman farrell.alderman hodges?>> yes. >> alderman jones.>> no.>> alderman keating. >> no.the mike doesn't work.>> alderman lowe? >> alderman mar.>> yes.>> alderman pincott. >> ( inaudible )>> alderman pootmans.>> yes.
>> mayor nenshi.>> no.>> lost. >> alderman pootmans, yousaw the floor.-- you still have the floor. >> the next question was toask about the implicationsof -- now i'm stuck. can we table this to go -->> you can make a motion todo that, if you like. to table this item until thein-camera portion of theagenda? >> thank you.>> i think i heard aldermanlowe second that. very well then.a motion to table is notdebatable so on the motion to table to the in-camerasession, are we agreed?any opposed? very well then.carried.thank you.
all right.that takes us then to 7.1.2c-2011.09 identification of efficiencies in planning.for the 2012 to 2014 -- itsays in planning here. for the 2012 to 2014business cycle.thanks, alderman lowe. do i have a seconder?thanks, alderman macleod.did you want to introduce this item?>> members council, if youremember, there was a motion before christmas withrespect to looking foradditional efficiencies. and there was a taxreduction associated withit. i severed the two, and gavecouncil a choice to do animmediate tax reduction. you took it.we did some work on how towork on efficiencies, in
fact i had a meeting lastfriday on this point,another one this coming friday, and i am actuallyquite excited about beingable to bring council when we report out with the pbcin june, a package ofefficiencies that could relate to performance goalsfor management, along withinclusion in business plans and then the new sessions wecurrently do could be reconif i recalled to -- configured to be a form ofbudgeting so there is a lotof work done on this that will be coming back to youno sooner than in june, yourworship. >> mr. tobert, before yousit, a question from me toyou. you and i have talked alittle bit about a processaround red tape and cutting
red tape and making moreefficiencies.do you see that as do have tailing with this work aswell?-- dovetailing with this work as well?>> yes.this is work that i think the council would love totake responsibility for indirecting the administration to undertake, and this wouldbe worked out.it would be accomplished over the next three years ofthe business plan.as i understand it, your worship, the red tapeprogram is actually going tostart right away, so they complement one another butthey're not the same thing.>> very helpful, thank you. i've got four lights, idon't know if these are leftover from the last item.
but alderman chabot.i'm going to clear you.i'm going to clear you. alderman pincott?all right.any further discussion on this item?alderman lowe, did you wantto close? >> okay, very well.to receive this report toinformation, then, are we agreed?any opposed?carried. 7.1.3 then, c-2011.10,e-services business plan.thanks, alderman lowe. alderman macleod isseconding.e-services business case. mr. watson, did you want tosay anything about this?>> i'm happy to say something about it, too.>> maybe i should saysomething first then your
worship.( laughing )this was, council, a motion that came out of the budgetadjustments in november.we were pleased to prepare the business case.it's a program that's beenunderway for a number of years ago.in fact it comes out of theprevious council's -- two of the previous council'spriorities, although wewould have been working on this regardless.it is a fairly majorinitiative. we have sort of dipped ourtoe in the water a couple oftimes over the last couple years.we now feel we have a verystrong program in place now to proceed.this is a combination, youknow, there is aspects of
eliminating red tape throughthis in terms of making someof our decision making more routine.and putting rules orregulations, not regulations, rules around it so it becomesconsistent across decisionmakers and decision making bodies.it is a multi-year program.it is not inexpensive. the money is being coming outof the dva reserve fund, itdoes not have a direct mill rate connection to it.we have had some modest gainslast year with three different projects that are up and goingnow.there is some that actually redate even that formingtentative plans, for example,we've been receiving them for a couple years now.through an e-submission, butwe would be more than happy to
come back at the end of thisyear because we're hoping tobring on about five more programs this year andcertainly make sure youunderstand how we're doing on this.we do have a governancestructure in place. i feel very confident thatwe're going to be able to showhow we're spending the money and show the kind of resultsthat will -- this isn'tleading-edge stuff either. a number of cities acrossnorth america are doing thesame or similar things so we're running from some oftheir knowledge and certainlysome of the work that we've had mr. elliott and mr. zucker,who will be here on wednesday,are helping us in this. and i believe we've got areally good foundation to moveforward.
i'd be more than happy toanswer any questions, if ican. >> i do have one, and justtell me if this is an unfairquestion because maybe it is. does this project really aboutchanging the processes or isit automating and bringing online the existing processes?will it be sort of the sameworkload just online or are you using this as anopportunity to streamline thevarious procedures as well? >> very good question, yourworship.one of the major pillars, and there's six pillars thatunderlay this whole piece ofwork, is change management and changing processes so it isboth.certainly i would suggest that the main thrust is automatingwhat we have now, but thereare several other pieces of
work under way looking at someof those processes as wespeak. and if we find, through thoseand as we do this work, thatthere are changes to the processes or elimination ofthe processes, we'll be takingthose into consideration too. >> great.and just to be a hundredpercent clear, you're spending $1 million from the reserveover a five-year period andyou're expecting benefits of a little over $11 million sothat's just tangible, i knowthere's intanning able benefits, to accrue back overa seven-year period?-- intangible. >> that's correct.and those are beyond going.>> you just cut it off. >> he hesitate to try topredict.seven, even five years is a
long horizon for some of thiswork.things are changing so rapidly around some of the iteservices side of the equation,moving fairly rapidly. >> it will all be differentwhen we have hover cars.>> that's exactly right. >> great.thank, mr. watson.alderman chabot? >> thank you, your worship.you asked a lot of questionsthat i had actually. just curious, mr. watson, inlight of how much we'veinvested in i.t. over the last couple years, this issomething over and above that,right? it's going to be dedicatedjust for your department?>> this is for my department, that's correct.i mean, we're certainly -- oneof our major partners is i.t.
and, in fact, we're one of thehighest users of i.t. and wehave a very strong relationship, and we'redefinite partnered with themon this but this is over and above.>> it's the reason i'm askingthe question. >> sorry, if i could, yourworship, partly because we area -- it's a cost recoverable piece of work, they also haveto spend our money in order todo this as opposed to going elsewhere to look for the keptfund.>> okay. are you operatingindependently of i.t. inregard to the acquisition. >> not at all, no.>> coordinated -->> we're deeply imbedded, i.t. people are working on thisproject, we're working withi.t., we're not off doing our
own thing at all.>> okay, great.happy to hear that. thank you, mr. watson.no further questions.>> thanks, alderman chabot. any further discussion on thisitem?alderman lowe, did you want to close?great.so on the recommendation to receive this report forinformation, are we agreed?any opposed? carried.and thank you, mr. watson.i know it was my impetus to start this one and two othersthat are a little bit later inthe agenda but i think it is important that council see thekind of thinking that goesbeyond these multimillion dollar decisions that we'reasked to make every day.speaking of multimillion
dollar decisions 7.1.4, then,options to manage the lrt parkand ride. who would like to move this?thanks, alderman stevenson.are you moving recommendation option two or option one?option two.( laughing ) thanks, alderman stevenson.>> ( inaudible )>> it's sort of a funny recommendation, it's writtenwith both options in it.and do i have a seconder? thanks, alderman chabot.alderman stevenson, did younot to introduce it? -- did you want to introduceit?>> your worship, we have been talking about transit on thisand i believe that what theyhave come up with is a way of -- one of the concerns that ihad when we first werelistening to it was the idea
of making 50% of the stallsavailable for reserve rightoff the bat. and what we've been assured isthat it will be done portionsat a time, if there's a demand for them, then they will movea little higher until they seewhen they have been able to fill the demand so that causedme to feel a little morecomfortable about it, so i do think that it's the way thatwe should be going.thank you, your worship. >> thanks, alderman stevenson.alderman mar?>> thank you. i have some questions before,if i can get administration'swisdom. first of all, if we were to dooption two, and i'm notconvinced that we should given the fact that we toldcalgarians we were going toeliminate it entirely, how are
we going to manage thisreservation system and wouldit be preferential, how would they do that, are they buyingtickets or are they -- can youenlighten me somehow? i'm not familiar with thisprogram.>> thank you, your worship. yes, your worship.our vision would be that as aparker, you would purchase a monthly pass for the reserveparked area.that would be registered with the calgary parking authority.we would use them as a serviceprovider. you would register yourlicence plate or plates andthey would be able to use their enforcement vehicles todrive through that part of thelot and monitor the plates that are in those stalls andwhether they do or do not havea pass for the month.
we're working with cpa to dothat online so that somebodycan renew or register online so that we can avoid some ofthat inconvenience of havingto go to the machine each morning.>> and presumably, they couldalso, in the event that they were taking their spouse's caror brother or sister's car,they could also input that information or no?>> they can handle up to fiveplates, and they have the technology to make sure thatthere aren't two differentplates showing up on the same day even in different lots.>> okay.what's the rationale for 50% versus, say, 25 or 18 or someother number?>> well, your worship, that's a fair question.i think it's -- i would saythat that's more of a
qualityative decision than aquantityative decision.if council's decision is that we do charge in some way,shape or form or put a valueon the spaces, we were trying to find a way to, um, come upwith reasonable balancebetween having a free system so that we don't dissuadeusers and having -- addressingthe certain group of users which is currently about 25%of the people who said theywould be prepared to pay more if they were virtually assuredthey would have a stall whenthey arrived. so if you take 25% of thepeople that we surveyed today,that only applies to certain lots.sorry, it's a long-windeddecision. maybe you can help me get backto exactly the piece you'relooking for.
>> well, i just -- i waslooking at the rationale as to50% and you're saying that it was a gut decision rather thansomething that was backed upby any kind of study or evidence.>> 50% is, you know, not morethan half of the lots overtime would be alberta sshd for thatkind of a preferentialtreatment, if you will. -- absorbed.>> and administration believesthat this will allow you to continue to have revenuestream which would be able tobe used to funnel directly into these lots?>> exactly, your worship.it would offset our expenditures towards the lotsand the security and thecleaning. >> okay.and my last question withregards to in the event that
individuals that had reservestall and show up one day andit's been either, "a", oversubscribed or, "b",somebody else is parked in itunwittingly or deliberately or whatever, what happens then?do they get a refund or do weknow, is that too far down the line right now to contemplate?>> to be honest, i don't thinkthat's a detail we've sorted out at this stage.>> that's fair, because therecommendation is to come back to committee anyway.those are my questions for nowso thank you very much. >> thank you, your worship.>> thanks, alderman mar.i should point one thing out just because i did hear yousay it, and we should justpoint out that in the motion that council passed onnovember 29th, and after much,much debate, the motion
actually does say that theparking fee be eliminated forthe majority of users with a reserve parking system putinto place so i know there'sbeen some talk in the media about this is not what yousaid you would do in november.actually administration has come back with precisely whatwe asked them to do innovember. so we should just make surethat that message is clear.>> i don't recall exactly -- ( inaudible )>> it's in the motion.alderman lowe. >> thank you, your worship.i have several questions.and if i may, mr. logan, we talked about the up to 50%,and i take it that's just aqualitative decision you made rather than quantitative so ifi understood what you saidcorrectly.
my question is how did youarrive at $70?what's the average cost of a reserve parking lot downtown?>> your worship, i wouldsuggest that the downtown parking would probably be inthe order of 225 to 250 rightnow per month. >> what's wrong with 50% ofthe average?>> we surveyed -- as part of the survey, we asked -->> you asked the people whowere going to pay and they said 70 bucks, that's abargain.>> the way that it was -- the way that it was asked actuallywas, you know, would you pay"x", if you got a "yes", you'd go to would you pay "x" plusten, if you got another "yes",it kept going up. there was a bit of methodologyto the survey question.the other way to look at it,
if you were parking on average20 times a month, which isfairly typical month -- >> it would cost you 60 bucks.>> plus the extra convenienceof having the reserve, and we know that currently abouttwo-thirds of those stalls areoccupied about people that are prepared to pay that amount ofmoney today.so we were fairly confident that we would be able to -->> what really, mr. logan,begs the question why we're taking the $3 off in the firstplace.that's another issue for another day.70 bucks is sort of theresponse you got from the people who were -- you askedthem how much they're willingto pay, they said 70 bucks. >> we had a pretty high degreeof confidence that we wouldn'tlose -- we would be able to --
>> are we really interested inlosing them?>> well, your worship, one of the questions that councilasked us back in november wasdid the fee have a barrier to usage, and we were able todetermine, through looking atour statistics, that it did not.that there was a slightdecrease in ridership which could be -->> it would pick right backup. >> we saw a shift to theshuttle buses so that was thefirst question you asked and then the next thing would bebased on the demand that wehave on high demand lots, we're saying this would bemost appropriately applied toour high-demand lots, we're confident that we would beable to fill those spaces up.>> my next question is a
narrative here, you talk aboutthese parking stalls beingreserved from 2 a.m. till 6 p.m., i believe.why not 2 a.m. till 9:30,which would then allow mrs. smith or mr. smith whowants to go downtown at 2:00in the afternoon to have access to a slot rather thanhaving it sit there open andexposing himself to a fine if he parks in it illegally?>> your worship, that's anexcellent question. that was actually somethingthat you'll see in the report,i think it's page 14 of attachment 1 where we suggestthe other way to implementthis would be to apply the reserve in the morning rushand take it off at 10 a.m. sothat if there's any residual supply at 10 a.m., then wewould be -- sorry -- we wouldbackfill that at 10 a.m.
rather than holding it throughthe day and frustrating peoplethat show up. so that's completelyadjustable.>> that's something we could do here today.>> absolutely.>> okay. >> sorry, alderman lowe, iwant to make sure i heard thatright. did you say that the motion aswritten will allow you to makethat adjustment or you would take that recommendation fromcouncil if they made thatchange today? >> well, actually, we struck-- if we struck the detail onthe 2 a.m. to 6 p.m., we could -- sorry -- 2 a.m. to 6 p.m.,we could manage itappropriately or -- it is something we've been talkingabout internally -->> i saw it in the report.
>> 10 a.m. could be areasonable time where morningrush is over, we have an asset there, fill it, get somebodyon the train.>> downtown for lunch, that sort of thing.all right.make that amendment, alderman lowe.>> i will when i get there,your worship. >> no problem.>> so i've already indicated ireally don't understand the $70 for the convenience of areserve slot at 7:00 in themorning and the 3rd of january when it's 25 below and thewind's howling so i will visitthat one too, your worship, and i'll tell you now, i'mgoing to suggest 50% of theaverage cost to reserve parking slot in downtowncalgary.cpa should give us that number
and we can establish it.my next question to you, and ithink you answered it in part, to alderman mar, you'll acceptup to five licence plates onone reservation. and the technology's availableto make sure that i don't parkin crowchild and my son doesn't park in brentwood andmy daughter doesn't park indalhousie. >> yes, your worship.>> okay.and what sort of a fine are we -- or a penalty are we lookingat imposing for that?i see that one as a big chunk coming through.>> i would suggest, yourworship, that we would apply the same fine that we'reapplying today on our youdidn't pay the $3 to pay in the park and ride.>> which is?>> the number, neil?
i don't know.i'm not positive.>> sorry, your worship, i want to make sure.my understanding is $60 withan early payment discount, and i know calgary parkingauthority in the past has hada practise that sometimes your first one is a warning ticketso it's a bit variable.you'd effectively pay for the month.>> i was going to sayeffective, if we could adjust that to effectively pay forthe month at the rate i'msuggesting, it would be appropriate.on page of 4 of 6, the lastcouple sentences of the first paragraph, future use of lackof revenue from parking willbe a higher -- which will challenge calgary transitability to meet its 55%revenue.
so you're telling us upfrontthat by removing the park andride, putting this in, it's a lack of revenue from the parkand ride as we have it todayis going to result in one of three things, actually, lowertransit hours of transitservice, hit the property tax, or i guess there's only two inhere.could you comment further on that, how much do you expectover 12 to 14, what's theimpact that you see going forward?>> your worship, we'veidentified that our operating cost for the elements that wesort of tagged to the stationcleanliness, security, and operating, maintaining the lotis just under $5 million ayear so i'm assuming there would be inflationary costincreases on that component,and if council had similar
inflation or added similargrowth to our base budget, wewould be able to offset that cost.if there are trade-offs thatcouncil has to make for their budget and they're not able togrow, transit space budget atthe same rate as our costs increase, obviously we wouldhave to decrease our operatingin order to maintain the same level of service.i think we were clear in thefall that safety is paramount and then the cleanliness has alarge amount to do with howcomfortable people perceive they are on our service, ifyou will.so that's why we believe that generating some revenue fromsomething that we believe hasa value helps to direct more of our base budget towardscore service.>> and that leads me right
into the next question i had,was let's assume for a momentyou reserve 35% of the parking stalls across the system.what's your revenue on that?>> i believe it's right now the numbers that we're lookingat, that would be aboutthree-and-a-half million. i neglected to mention thatcouncil did increase our basebudget by 3.1 when they removed the park and ridefees.>> yeah. so we're 0.4 of a millionshort at the moment.but you need 5 to maintain the current level of cleanlinessand safety.so, in effect, we are 1.6 short.so if we were to increase thepark and ride fee to 50% of the average downtown, under$25 for our argument's sake,of 35%, any idea what the
revenue generated would be?>> not off the top of my head,your worship, but i would suggest that on the e lassityof demand, you would, at thatkind of a park fee, you would probably not be able toreserve 50% of all lots.>> i talked about 35. i recognize the elasticityparts.>> some lots, maybe. um...i would suggest it would beless than 5 million. i don't think you would beable to get it to that number.i think your demand would fall off that amount.>> at fish creek, it's $90 amonth. are we going to continue the90?>> no, your worship, i think fish creek would be adjustedto be in line with the other.we did continue --
>> and how much pushback didyou get from fish creek at$90? >> not a great deal, yeah.>> is that maybe a clue why weshouldn't look at 90 bucks for everybody?>> well, your worship, i think-- >> on a point of procedure, ifi may.your worship. i'm just wondering, this isvery interesting debate, and ithink it's very worthy of having, i'm just wonderingwhether this is theappropriate location and whether or not the timing isnecessary that we debate ithere to be able to have it before us for budgetfinalization?>> this one has to come before budget finalization, aldermanchabot, because council saidthe fee has to be gone by
april 1st.so if we think there's still abig debate to be had, i'm not sure that there is, i feellike some of the issues we'reredebating what we talked about in the fall, but i thinkthat some of the issues arequite important as to the percentage and the cost andthe time.we can certainly do those here.we can certainly refer thisback to lpt to get back to us relatively quickly but i thinkthat mr. logan is justconferring, but i would imagine that calgary transitwould need a decision on thisin enough time to be able to implement their new system onthe 1st of april.>> i think they will need -- they need a decision today,your worship.>> mr. logan, what do you
think, do you need a decisiontoday or would you be able totakehis to -- i don't even know when next lpt is.>> the next lpt, your worshipstwo days from now and that agenda is set.the final one would be marchbut then march would have to come to the 17th and then thatwould have to come to council.your worship, i think the key decision that council needs tomake today is do we charge ordo we not charge, and it is challenging to have these kindof debates in council, not incommittee. >> but this is my opportunity,mr. logan.>> yes. i understand.>> that's my point, yourworship. so i'm sorry, mr. logan, ididn't quite catch that.you said lpt --
>> march 16th -->> you don't really have thefloor, alderman chabot. >> i thought i still did onpoint of procedure, yourworship. >> it's not really a point ofprocedure, alderman chabot,thinking whether to do a referral or not.ask him the question quick ondates and then we'll give alderman lowe back the floor.>> i'm trying to get what yousaid. >> march 16th is the next lpt,your worship, and there'scouncil meeting the monday following so you'd have toblue sheet the report.>> following monday, okay. but would that be sufficienttime?>> mr. sawyer, will that give us enough time to set thebudget?>> sorry?
>> there's a school breakthere.sorry. >> there's actually anexplanation in the reportitself, your worship. >> this is way beyond -- allright.i'm going to let mr. sawyer answer that question and i'mgoing to give the floor backto alderman lowe to continue his line of questioning and ifyou'd like to make a referralmotion now that you have the data, you're two down on thelist.mr. sawyer? >> well, your worship, one ofthe things we've got indicatednow is the provincial budget is coming out earlier thanexpected so right now, we'relooking to either bring in march or early april the taxrate bylaw so it would berelatively tight to make a
change in the actual budget.especially if we came in march,of course. >> right, because the decisionyou need from us today iswhether we're charging for any reserve fees or not becausethere's a budgetaryimplication, i get it. alderman lowe, i'm so sorry.please continue.>> actually, your worship, that kind of covered off thelast part of it so i will maketwo amendments, your worship. >> are you going to put themtogether, alderman lowe?>> i can put them together and you can vote on themseparately.>> perfect. i find this a bit unusual, i'mstanding as a guy who opposedto moving the park and ride fee, i'm standing here -->> trying to make it better.>> trying to make the removal
better, i guess.>> because you're a goodpublic servant, alderman lowe. >> thank you.option two, item one, park andride lot open bracket 2 a.m. to 10 a.m.>> alderman lowe, far be itfor me to make a suggestion but can i make a suggestion?>> sure.>> just take it out and let them experiment whether it's 9a.m. or 10 a.m. or whatever.>> well, the difficulty i have, your worship, is i want to seta time that enables -- thatensures that it's after the start of the broadly normalworkday and what i'm trying todo is leave some room for mrs. smith 2:00 to drive todalhousie and get a parkingstall. that's my interest here.so i appreciate yoursuggestion, your worship, but
i know where you're comingfrom, and just because westart out with these two doesn't mean we can't amend itlater on.>> fair enough, go ahead. you want to change 6 a.m. to-- 6 p.m. to 10 a.m.>> yes. the second amendment, yourworship, item 2, establish amonthly parking fee of $90. which i still think is abargain on any given januarymorning at crowfoot. >> let him put them together,we'll vote on them separately.>> do i have a seconder? >> all right.>> thank you.>> alderman macleod, you're seconding both those?thank you very much.we have two amendments on the table.i'm going to go through thissecret list i have here
because i expect you'll wantto speak on these amendmentsanyway, but the amendments are to change the end time for thepay parking from 6 p.m. to 10a.m. and to change $70 to $90 as the fee.alderman farrell.>> thank you. so mr. logan, $90, i wouldimagine you would be lookingat different prices for different lots like you wouldin different areas of thedowntown. chinatown's different thancentral business district.why wouldn't we just rely on you to determine what theuptake it and assess?>> your worship, i would agree with you.i think that's one of the --when you look at the change in demand by lots, when weimplement the $3 fee, one ofthe things that i believe that
indicated is that we had tohave more plexibility in thecharge by lot than a blanket rate.and while $90 may be withinthe demand curve at crowfoot, it might not be -- it won't bein other lots, we know thatfor sure. >> so i'm not going to supportthis amendment, but i thinkone of the flaws of the park and ride fee was that wedidn't evaluate and adjust.we weren't nimble enough. it had value in certain areasand maybe less value in otherareas. taking transit the other day,one woman i was sitting besidesaid that she relied -- she didn't like paying the fee butshe really enjoyed theconvenience of being able to find a parking spot, and thatis now gone.so i think a lot of people
will appreciate being able toreserve.but can we rely on you to be nimble and to assess theuptake and the effectivenessof this fee and perhaps look at a more tailored rate fordifferent lots?>> your worship, i might suggest that council couldsuggest a maximum rate andthen that would give us the ability to adjust up to thatrate for lots that -->> so is $90 reasonable for some lots?i'm not sure whether i wouldwant to support 90, if that's -->> well, your worship, we havepeople who are effectively paying $650 a day now, and youcan see in the -- $60 a daynow and you can see from the statistics that some lots arefull.as the economy heats up and as
we see a whole bunch moreoffice development in thedowntown i would say say that, yeah, we'll probably get thatwithout too much difficulty.>> i'll make an amendment to the amendment up to $90 then.with the understanding thatadministration will know which lots will -->> why don't you actually putthat in, alderman farrell, since you're making anamendment anyway.up to $90 for reserve parking comma with the expectationthat we may charge -- thatdifferential rates may be charged at different lots,something like that.i think that's what you were getting at.>> that's what i was gettingat, yes. >> ( inaudible )>> we can stick it in likethis.
monthly fee of up to $90 forreserved parking comma withthe expectation that different lots may be chargeddifferential fees.i wanted to make sure i was capturing what you weresaying.>> does that help? >> i need a seconder.yeah, it is in the wrong placebut we'll fix it. i do need a seconder.>> ( inaudible )>> thanks, alderman stevenson. >> thank you.>> you moved the main motion,sorry. alderman macleod, you movedthe amendment, can -- can shesecond the amendment to the amendment?no.someone else, please. thanks, alderman carra.alderman pootmans will secondit, sorry.
just going to make a speaker'slist, carra, mar, keating.okay. just to be picky, i think thefor reserve parking should gobefore the with the expectation that, just reads alittle nicer.so on this item, then, alderman carra.we're on the debate on theamendment to the amendment, i've got a new speaker's list.>> all i do is jump queus,alderman chabot. two questions.first off, can i get someopinion from administration regarding differential fees?because i was under theimpression that we sort of were afraid of doing thatbecause, you know, thenortheast, the parking lots were empty, the southeast, theparking lots were chock abloc, and that's why we came
up with the reserve parkingsort of solution, because wecouldn't charge for some lots and not charge for others.so i just need to get somesort of clarification on sort of like our philosophicalgrounding on chargingdifferentially within lots rather than chargingdifferentially between lots or,you know, am i making myself clear?>> your worship, there's twodifferent elements there. we're charging different rateswithin a lot.>> yeah. >> to place a value, and theni guess we're saying bycharging different rates at different lots for thatreserve space, that we wouldbe recognizing that the demand varies and the demand variesfor a variety of reasons and idon't think it should be
necessarily a characteristicof a part of town from aneconomic point of view. there's different reasons whypark and ride demand is lowerin the northeast, probably lower percentage of peoplework in the downtown core,easier access to the downtown, good bus service to the down,there's a number of reasonsthat contribute to that and some lots are just small.>> i certainly wasn't implyingany sort of -- i think we've seen in the northeast thateveryone's gotten on to thebus and is taken them downtown.but the question i'm askingthat i need some clarification on is sort of thephilosophical where do we getoff charging differential -- like is differential charging,it makes sense to me, but isit -- what's our philosophical
right to do that?>> your worship, i would saythere's two -- from a policy point of view, we have auser-pay policy which isimbedded in a number of calgary transit plan, forexample.so charging period i think has a basis in policy.now, charging differentialrates off the top of my head, i can't think of the policythat we would point to thatand i welcome input on that. but i guess it's really tryingto operate this more like abusiness. recognize the difference indemand.>> i would be very interested in hearing sort of weighing infrom anyone in administrationor any of my fellow councillors on that question.fellow alderman, my apologies,councillor mar.
one other question now, andthis is sort of potentiallyanother amendment to the amendment that we'reconsidering.and that is if we are going to be charging differentially, isthere a way to use that systemto maybe prioritize car pooling?accommodate and prioritize carpooling in some capacity because, you know, that'sdefinitely the kind of -->> your worship, car pooling is philosophically, i agree,enforcement is the reallydifficult part there. in a parking garage where youhave an attendant, it's quitea bit easier to enforce. if we could figure out a wayto enforce it, i would suggestwe could make it work. >> i think off the top of myhead, if everybody in the carpool had a -- was identified
as part of a car pool group,their licence plates werethrown in together and everyone had -- everyone had amonthly pass, that might giveus the ability to track that within our current technologylimits.>> that way we can expand and adjust, that falls under theinnovation piece, your worship,we would have to continue -- this won't be the only time welook at this, that's aninteresting suggestion. >> is there any way -- are yourecommending, if we want topursue that that that is added in an amendment or not?>> your worship, i mightsuggest we add that as a follow-up amendment.we have a report backobligation under the current option two recommendations andthat could be a component ofthat that we investigate the
ability to, i assume that youwould want to discount carpool or provide incentive for car pool.>> you'd want to incentivizepeople on the proviso they're car pooling.>> i would suggest that wecould -- you'd either amend the motion, your worship, orthe gentleman probably writingthe report sitting right here would be able to incorporatethat in our november reportback. >> okay.i'm going to think aboutmaking that kind of amendment. and i just ask if there's anyfurther debate to thisamendment, if my fellow councillors or aldermen couldweigh in on sort of thephilosophical side of this because i haven't quitewrapped my mind around it yet.>> thanks, alderman carra and
thanks as well not trying tomake an amendment to anamendment to an amendment which you can't do anyway.alderman mar on the amendmentto the amendment. >> well, i think that asfascinating as this all is -->> and it is. >> it is, it's riveting, iknow my wife is watching rightnow riveted to the screen, i think that the magic referralshould actually be coming inright now. i think that the appropriateplace to have this discussionand work out all of the kinks with administration is not atthe council chamber but isactually at committee so i would like to refer this tolpt on, what is it -- what wasthe next date? >> the next main meeting oflpt is not until march 16thwhich i think we heard from
mr. sawyer would be too lateto keep council's originalmotion that this has to go starting april 1st.that said, one could send itin as an item -- one could refer it as an item of urgentbusiness to lpt which is onwednesday if the chair brain isn't explodingt looks likehis brain is about to explode.>> that's exactly my thoughts, your worship, if we could dothat.i'd like to see his brain explode, though, i think thatwould be -- he's suggestingcommunity protect services but i don't think this belongs incommunity protective services.>> ( inaudible ) well, we can -- luckily, refermotions are debatable.all right. you want to refer it as anitem of urgent business to lpton wednesday february the 16th
to come back to council onmarch the 7th.>> correct. >> ( inaudible )>> i may or may not be there,god willing i'm not. hopefully we've had our babyby then.>> that is my motion. >> thank you.do i have a seconder for that?( laughing ) madam clerk, remind me aboutthe notice of motion to changethe seating plan up in here, will you?alderman hodges is seconding.you missed what happened there, madam clerk, it was quiteentertaining.seconded by alderman hodges on the referral motion, on themotion to refer, wave yourhand if you want to talk about it.alderman chabot.chabot, carra, farrell,
pootmans -->> thank you.we've already heard from administration the challengesthat that's going to pose.so i'm not going to support the referral motion, and, yeah,i'm going to debate this issueafter this referral motion fails.thank you, your worship.( laughing ) >> crystal ball, aldermanchabot?alderman carra. >> yeah, just a reiterationfrom administration whetherthis is a real back breaker? i mean, this is a decisionpoint, i'm hearing from youguys, or can we go over there, can we belabour this incouncil to better effect foryou -- i mean in committee to better effect for you?>> your worship, we were askedto report back directly to
council with the intent beingthat we would know what thebottom line impact was on the budget.so by -- by referring it toour meeting two days from now, it would still have thatability.a month from now, i would suggest it would delay itsimplementation probably untilmay. council's motion was to getrid of these charges on april1st. if you still want to get ridof them on april 1st, you needto deal with it. soon.>> so i'm hearing from youthat we could refer it and make it in under the wire.>> your worship, as long as wewere to defer it to february and then bring it back tocouncil by march 7th, thenyes.
>> okay.you haven't made my decisionon this vote any easier. >> your worship, on a point ofprocedure, i just thought ofsomething. i thought in the proceduralmanual it says that if areport is complete and it's at council, that it can't bereferred back to a committee.>> that is an outstanding question, alderman chabot, idon't know the answer.mr. tully? ( laughing )madam clerk?anyone, anyone? >> no, council refers thingsback to committee.>> i feel like we do that all the time.>> yeah.it's maybe a possible amendment that we could lookat.and make it a --
>> you have a motion arisingon the procedure bylaw?>> your worship, i'm doing a little bit of reading becausei'm just going from memory -->> i feel like we do do it all the time, as a matter of fact,but jump up again -->> i think i saw something in here.>> jump up again if you findit or send me a note. alderman farrell.on the motion to refer.sorry, maybe i didn't see your hand.alderman pootmans on themotion to refer. >> yes, thank you, yourworship.just had a question perhaps to the chair of lpt.alderman chabot through thechair. we have, i think, a big agendaon wednesday, is this -- this-- just point that out.
thank you.>> alderman lowe on the motionto refer. >> your worship, no and thereason is quite simple.i mean, administration was directed to bring a reporthere, they need a decision, ifin fact we're going to remove the park and ride fee on the1st of april.we can do it here today and then -- i mean, there's enoughroom in this motion even asit's currently written that coming back in september or innovember at budget -- for thebudget debates and changing some components of it i thinkwould be perfectly acceptableso i see no need to refer this now.i think we can make thedecision here today and i'll ask mr. logan and company toget on with the job.thank you.
>> thank, alderman lowe.anyone else on the motion torefer? very well then.on the motion to refer, are weagreed? any opposed?call the roll.>> alderman hodges? >> ( inaudible )>> alderman jones.>> no. >> alderman mar.>> no.>> alderman pincott? >> no.>> alderman pootmans?>> no. >> yes.>> alderman chabot?>> no. >> alderman colley-urquhart.>> yes.>> alderman demong? >> no.>> alderman farrell?>> no.
>> thank you.back then to -- we have allthese nested amendments. we're back on the amendment tothe amendment.on the amendment to the amendment, alderman keating.>> thank you, your worship.i want to get back to the possible idea that there's aphilosophical school ofthought for variable rates for the same service within thecity.and i believe there absolutely is not.i believe where the variableaspect in here is allowing different number of stalls indifferent lots to accommodatedemand. i don't think we can ever getinto the possibility ofcharging different rates for different parts of the cityfor the same service.thank you.
>> thanks very much, aldermankeating.anyone else on the amendment to the amendment?>> yes.>> pincott, lowe, macleod and i heard a "yes" over there,hodges.okay. >> thank you, your worship.actually, on the philosophy ofdifferential, it was talked about substance dualism andthe difference betweenemerging materialism and non-emergent materialism and ithink he clearly laid out that,yes, from the philosophy of dualism, you can actually havedifferential rates.( laughing ) >> alderman carra?>> i think actually we'regetting down to having a debate actually we should havehad when we were talking aboutthe $3 park and ride.
in the first place where weshould have -- we actually --we didn't -- the discussion we're having right now arounddifferential rates for parkinglots, and differential percentages of reserve parkingshould have been one that weapplied -- that we applied to the park and ride fee ratherthan just disposing of itcompletely. we should have looked at thevarious demand and actuallydone that. we didn't do that.which is unfortunate and nowwe're trying to sort of cobble something together thatresembles what that might havebeen. i will support this.mostly because rene ducartesays i can. >> thanks, alderman pincott.alderman lowe, please.>> well, your worship, i'm --
i think alderman keating putit very well.i might have put it a little bit differently, and, you know,i can't support the difference-- we charge -- it doesn't matter where you get on atrain, you pay the same priceno matter how far you're going.so i can't support thisconcept of differential rates at different lots.i do agree that i think thedifferential is in the number available at any one parkinglot and that i think answersthat piece of the equation for me.thank you.>> alderman macleod, please. >> thank you, your worship.i think differential rates isabsolutely the way to go. we do that with the parkingauthority.we charge different rates for
the day of the week, the timeof the day that you'redowntown. and the place in the city.and i think that we shouldabsolutely be doing this with the location.we know the demand isdifferent in different locations.there is a cost to thisservice, and i think this is the best of both worlds wherewe adapt and try to be asnimble as possible. thank you.>> thank, alderman macleod.alderman hodges on the amendment to the amendment.>> yes, your worship.i think the amendment to the amendment is -- complicatesthings and it's going toconfuse the public. if we have reserve parking,just as a scenario, 2 a.m. to10 a.m., someone who believes
he's paid for reserve parkingcomes in after 10 applicantfind a place to park, he then is faced with the prospect of$3 to park elsewhere in thatsame lot perhaps. or if he doesn't, he still hasthe problem or she still hasthe problem of finding a space in some lots which we know arefull by 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. inthe morning. the point is to stick with the2 a.m. to 6 p.m. would be moreconsistent than to change the time that's perhaps would beunderstandable if it goes tothe end of the workday, some people's workday, 6 p.m.just a further comment onrates, the average rate for parking in a private lot inthe downtown is $475 a month.so 50% of that 475 would be 237.50, i check with theparking authority and that'sthe information i have.
thank you.>> sorry, alderman horjs, canyou say that number again, 237.>> would be half, 475 is theaverage cost for renting a parking stall in the downtown.>> i thought mr. logan wasbeing a little on the reasonable side.>> being generous.>> are you moving to -- >> i'm saying 475 and if wewere blue skying something,half of that is 237.50, your worship, 237.50.>> ( inaudible )>> well, that's right, alderman pootmans, i agree.so i didn't phone the cp tosee what they collect on their lots or imperial parking whatthey collect on their lotsalong the cp tracks but of course it would depend onwhich lot you're talkingabout.
what location in the downtownyou're talking about.but in any case, the average cost is fairly high.>> thank, alderman hodges.anyone else on the amendment to the amendment before i call-- alderman stevenson?>> your worship, we have three different parts here, is itpossible for you to call themseparate because i can -- >> right now, aldermanstevenson, we're only on theamendment to the amendment. >> i know.>> the amendment to theamendment is only the words "up to" and a little bit atthe end.so it's basically about differentials.>> we're not doing the 10 a.m.one? >> no, we'll get to that in asecond.>> okay.
up to $90.>> "up to" and the words tothe end of that. >> i'll agree with the "up to"but i don't want to agree withthe other part. >> yeah, sure.>> thank you.>> we can call them separately.oh, i think i know why he'sdoing it, madam clerk. if we say up to 90 and rejectthe rest of it, it means thatmr. logan has the ability to set the rate, it will be thesame rate for all of them.>> ( inaudible ) >> m'hm.>> ( inaudible )>> yeah, absolutely. oh, come on, really?( laughing )now? all right.alderman chabot.>> thank you, your worship.
i'll be brief.up to, i don't believe insupporting this kind of a rate for parking, although ifsomeone wanted to make thiskind of a recommendation for zone-based fares, i'd be moreinclined to support that.>> sorry, alderman chabot, the reason i said oh, really isbecause you waved the floorand looked at me and i thought it was a procedural bylawissue.anyone else before i call on alderman farrell to close?alderman farrell to close.>> thank you. i think alderman macleod saidit, we have different needs indifferent parts of the city. we had different uptake indifferent parts of the city.and we do it in the downtown where we have a busy area, ourparking, i really don't seethis as any different.
so thank you, alderman macleod,for your reasoned comment.>> thanks, alderman farrell. we'll vote on the amendment tothe amendment separately.the first is just those words "up to" on adding the words"up to" before $90 are weagreed? any opposed?call the roll, please.>> alderman jones? >> ( inaudible )>> alderman keating?>> yes. >> alderman lowe?>> no.>> alderman macleod? >> yes.>> alderman mar?>> yes. >> alderman pincott?>> yes.>> alderman pootmans? >> yes.>> alderman stevenson?>> yes.
>> alderman carra?>> yes.>> alderman chabot? >> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart?>> yes. >> alderman demong?>> yes.>> alderman farrell? >> ( inaudible )>> alderman hodges?>> ( inaudible ) >> mayor nenshi.>> yes.>> carried. >> all right.on the second part, the notparticularly grammatically correct second part with theexpectation that differentialrates may be charged at different lots.>> ( inaudible )>> we'll fix it before we finish it.but this is about differentialparking, so on the notion of
differential parking, that'sreally -- differential parkingrates, that's what we're really voting on.on that, are we agreed?no, she's already closed. she closed on both of them.we're just taking therecommendation separately. are we agreed?any opposed?call the roll, please. >> no.>> alderman macleod?>> yes. >> alderman mar?>> no.>> alderman pincott? >> yes.>> alderman pootmans?>> yes. >> pardon?>> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart? >> yes.>> alderman demong?>> no.
>> alderman farrell?>> yes.>> alderman hodges? >> no.>> alderman jones?( laughing ) >> no.>> mayor nenshi.>> does it really matter now, alderman jones?you could have let me have it.yes. >> lost.>> i meant you could have letme have the tie breaker for once.all right.now we're back to the amendment from $70 to $90,okay, the amendment from $70to $90, any further discussion on changing 70 to 90?alderman chabot?>> finally get to speak on this $70, $90.>> and the 2 a.m. to 10 a.m.while you're at it.
>> sure, why not, let's killtwo birds with one stone.oops, pardon me. yeah, $70 to $90, there's beensome debate and discussionsabout what the rates are downtown, if you had a reservelot, and what's not reflectedhere in the $70 or $90 is the fact that those people alsohave to pay for a round tripon transit. versus parking downtown wherethey wouldn't have to pay fora round trip. so you factor that in -->> $90.>> $90 per month? >> the one you wouldn't let megive back.>> all right. >> it should have been $88,alderman chabot.>> i think $90 is a good rate. anyways, now that's assume, ofcourse, they're buying amonthly pass which would be
wonderful.if they weren't, they would bepaying, could be paying 5.50 a day, 20 days, a hundred andsome odd bucks, anywheres from90 to 150 bucks plus that. and we're keeping those carsoff the street.that's why i didn't support the idea of up to, and adifferential rate, a you willthat kind of stuff, i think it should be $70 especially inlight of the fact that rightnow our thoughts are not fully subscribed.none of our thoughts are fullysubscribed. and the 10 a.m. issue, i don'tagree with that.if i'm paying for a reserved spot, that's the one thing isaid before, thisoversubscription idea, i don't subscribe to that, i don'tbelieve in that.i know the airlines do it all
the time.and it bugs me.it bugs me. and this idea of 2 a.m. to 10a.m., somebody pays for areserved spot, they sleep in, banker sleeps in and shows upat parking lot at 10:30 and hehas no place to park. and he paid for it.so what does he do?parks on the street. just want some clarification,mr. logan.the motion that i put forward on the pre-evenings andweekends that i allowedalderman connelly to co-sign with me, do you recall whatthe current time lines are, isit 6 a.m.? i can't remember what i wrote,sorry.>> your worship -- >> evenings and weekends.>> i remember that was in the-- there was two adjustments,
the evenings and the weekendboth came off the charge andholidays. >> so it was like 6:00 tilllike 6:00 in the morning orsomething like that? >> something like that, yeah.i'm not a hundred percentsure. i don't have it in front of me,sorry.>> so i think the original recommendation of 6:00 was agood one.and anything after that is already free anyway.so i'm not going to supporteither of those amendments, your worship.i encourage other members ofcouncil not to either. >> thanks, alderman chabot.alderman pootmans.>> asked and answered. thank you.>> alderman jones on the twoamendments.
>> yes, your worship.your worship, mr. logan hadsaid that they had done a bit of a survey with the residentsof the city of calgary andbased on the recommendations, the recommendation was $70,that's what people would beprepared to pay. so i'm not going to vote forthe $90 but i will agree withthe 70 and the 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. so as to free the lot upfor the rest of the day forthose that aren't using it. >> thanks, alderman jones.on the two amendments,alderman demong? >> well, i can't say as i'mhappy with the 10:00, i agreewith alderman chabot, if you have been sleeping, you shouldhave that reserve parking spot,it doesn't really apply to people that work shift work ifthey start work at noon andwork till 8:00 in the evening.
my question kind of deals withthis, but it doesn't reallyrefer to any -- are we reserving any for dailyparking?is there going to be anything for somebody that comes in andwants to pay 3, 4, $5 on adaily basis? >> your worship, no, thatisn't our proposal at thistime. they would be able to justpark for free for the wholeday provided the lot wasn't full at the time.>> mr. logan, we currently --sorry, if i may, alderman demong, we currently set asidesome spots for short-termdaily parking for the kind of situation that alderman demongmight be describing if someonewants to come downtown for a doctor's appointment orsomething.i would imagine that would
still continue.>> there's a couple of lotswhere we have that three-hour parking, that was to addressexactly the kind of problem wewere experiencing before the paid-for parking was a fullysubscribed lot but we did thatin lots that weren't full. >> sorry, alderman demong.>> that's okay.i was just actually done anyway.if you had just waited amoment, you could have done it anyway.>> is that everything,alderman demong? sorry, i really did cut youoff, i apologize.again, on the amendments, alderman carra.>> i just want to say that ithink our abandonment of differential parking whichapparently is done in torontoand vancouver makes the $90
sort of unnecessary because weknow that $70 is the generalfee so i won't be supporting that.i'm totally torn to shredsabout the 2 a.m. to 10 a.m., like i do think that we haveto accommodate shiftworkersand all of that. at the same time, the mainthrust of this is to providefree lrt parking to the majority of citizens so we getpeople on to the lrt so we'renot using that as a disincent active to transit ridershipand i can only imagine howangry you would be to arrive at a free lrt lot to take thelrt and find that there arespots just sitting there but you couldn't access them so idon't know how to respond tothis. i think i'm going to supportthe 10 a.m. thing, though.>> on the two amendments
before i call on alderman loweto close, anyone else?alderman lowe to close. >> thank you, your worship.i think the 2 a.m. to 10 a.m.has been pretty well discussed.shismworkers -- shift workers,if you're working an afternoon shift, you now have anopportunity to get to an lrtlot and find a parking lot in the reserved area where youcan park your car.today or once the charge comes off, if you're an evening, ashiftworker showing up for a 3to 1 or 2 to 10, you don't get to park period, so this atleast gives a shiftworkers achance and gives mr. and mrs. smith in edgemont who hasa doctor's appointmentdowntown at 11:00, an opportunity to use lrt and notworry about driving down done.so i thank you for that.
the monthly fee, what we heardfrom mr. logan, i wish i'dseen the survey, because i think i'd love to know if oneof the things was we wouldlike a reserve lot on a lottery basis for free,because i think there wouldhave been a big uptake on that one.so $90 i think is what we werecharging at fish creek. i didn't hear a lot ofpushback on that one.we did away with the differential pricing for ithink valid reasons so i'd askyou to support, and you'll note it's up to $90, if inmr. logan's view a lesser rateis appropriate some place, then he's free to do so andwe're free to look at it anddeal with it in november. thank you.>> thanks, alderman lowe.we'll take them separately
then.on the amendment to change 6p.m. to 10 a.m., are we agreed?any opposed?call the roll, please. >> no.>> alderman hodges?>> no. >> yes.>> alderman lowe?>> ( inaudible ) >> no.>> alderman pincott?>> ( inaudible ) >> alderman pootmans?>> yes.>> alderman stevenson? >> no.>> alderman carra?>> yes. >> no.>> pardon?>> ( inaudible ) >> mayoren -- mayor nenshi.>> carried.>> sometimes i feel like i
have a role in life.okay.on the second one which is to change $70 to -- remember, upto is already there, but tochange $70 to $90, up to $90 in recommendation number two,are we agreed?any opposed? >> opposed, your worship.>> call the roll, please.>> alderman lowe? >> yes.>> alderman macleod?>> yes. >> yes.>> alderman pootmans?>> no. >> alderman stevenson?>> yes.>> alderman carra? >> no.>> alderman chabot?>> no. >> alderman colley-urquhart?>> no.>> alderman demong?
>> no.>> alderman farrell?>> yes. >> alderman hodges?>> no.>> alderman jones? >> no.>> alderman keating?>> yes. >> mayor nenshi?>> yes.>> that's lost, your worship. >> all righty.>> the up to was part of theamendment to the amendment which was to this item?so up to would now also be outof there then, it would also be back to where we werebefore.>> thank you very much, thank you for the reminder.madam clerk.now it just says establish a monthly fee of $70, the up tois also gone.if someone wants to put it
back, however, they certainlycould.no, because it was up to 90 before so one could put anamendment to put up to now ifthey want to. on the main motion, aldermanchabot.>> no, i'm not to close. i seconded.>> it was alderman mar, ibelieve. >> sorry, alderman stevenson.>> okay.i've got a couple questions, your worship, before we voteon this.mr. logan, i notice here in part of the report gracebaptist church is referenced anumber of times. grace baptist church whichused to operate as one of ourlots is now being told they can't operate.do you know anything aboutthat?
they were part of transit andnow, because they're trying tooperate independently, although they were free beforeand now that they can charge,we're -- now that they're charging they're not allowedto operate that way.i'm curious why they would have been referenced in herewhen they're, i guess, legallynot allowed to operate. without having a land usechange.>> your worship, that was exactly what i was going tosay.i suspect that has to do with their land use why that wasdiscovered now and not before,i can't speak to. >> okay.so this report was probablydrafted before. because this was just recentlyidentified that they wereactually allowed to charge.
based on their land use.your worship, i have a coupleof suggestions on some amendments because it's kindof challenging.this report, it's kind of complex trying to deal withthis to provide reserveparking for those people that are willing to pay for costrecovery to enhance thesecurity on the system versus providing for those areaswhere they're undersubscribedand in the report itself, and unfortunately i went andclosed the page here, butthere was a recommendation or one of the suggestions thatmight occur would be that weestablished different maximums, here it is on page 14 of 21,which i think back at page 148,it says instead of a reserve maximum per lot, there couldbe a maximum for each lrt lineallowing a high percentage of
reserve stalls in one lot andless in another.this concept could be administered based on demand.i'm wondering if we couldn'tmake an amendment to accommodate that.i've kind of drafted upsomething here kind of roughly as to what i think mightaccommodate that.>> alderman chabot, i wonder if the motion -- i guess thedifference is that if we wereto do that, it means that a different lot could have morethan 50% but the whole linewould have the 50%. the motion does certainlyallow, just for clarity, themotion certainly does allow for a different percentage tobe in each lot, just no morethan 50% total in each lot which is consistent withcouncil's original direction.if you wanted to make that
amendment, you could, but iwant to make sure i understandwhat effect you're looking for.>> i wanted to take out the50% actually, your worship, and because some lines -- itwas indicated that thesubscription rate currently is in excess of 75% whereas otherlines, the subscription islike -- >> nothing.>> 25, less than 25.so we could have, say, 25% for the northeast line and maybe75% for the south line whichwould probably still be fully subscribed with people thatare willing to pay and leavingit only open to the other 25% for the free spots, again,those lines or those lots arenot fully subscribed right now.i think the highest is 86% orsomething like that from what
i recall and so that meansit's still left 14% unoccupiedthat could be used as free lots.i think the northeast line inparticular, setting the maximum of 25, would probablystill not be fully subscribedand probably never achieve that, still along theflexibility to vary that ratebut leaving it based on the subscription but not to exceed75%, so what i was going tosuggest is on recommendation number three, establish amaximum take-out of 50reserved spaces, maximum reserve spaces within eachparking lot on each lineindependently and it's only four words here, so i'm takingout two and adding four word,on each line independently after lot.>> bad news, alderman chabot.you seconded the main motion.
>> i can't make an amendment.( laughing )okay, i'll continue on with my debate then.>> please continue.and if you were to pass that note to someone to put theamendment for you, youcertainly could. >> anyways, it's just asuggestion that i was going tomake. >> the one thing i willcaution, just in case you dopass the note and someone else wants to put the motion, wejust have to be very carefulwith math because council's direction was that it must beeliminated for the majority ofpark and ride users so it would have to somehow meanthat 50% across the wholesystem or more were still free.>> and i think we couldaccomplish that on the basis
of what the ridership is inthe northeast.if you have like 25% there, even though you may have 75%in the south, you averagethose two out, you still end up with 50%.if you end up with a limit of,say, 50% in the northwest leg, you could vary it by lot buthave a maximum for each line.and, again, i think based on the current subscription rate,you could still achieve theobjective council wanted to plus look at increased revenuefor those areas where peopleare prepared to pay extra to have a reserve spot.i don't like the idea of the10 a.m. although it passed so it would still allow for thatopportunity for people to parkin those off-peak hours which again would probably gotowards council's objective ofallowing for the majority of
them to be free.which i didn't think was a godamendment but having said that, and so there was someadditional comments that i wasgoing to put in there which was by taking out that 50% andleaving it open, and thenhaving it to be determined based on subscription but notto exceed 75% because, as wesaw in the report, there's quite -- there's a few lots,slully, that are above 75% --actually -- and i'm sure if those people are paying now,they would be willing tocontinue to pay into the future, especially if theyknew that at least between 2a.m. and 10 a.m. that they would be assured of finding aspot.so like you had, i second the motion and i can't make anamendment but i'm putting thatout there for anyone to think
about doing because some areascertainly won't be above 25and some areas will probably not be happy if they'recurrently paying for a parkingspot and they're probably getting it because it's paid,and if that opportunity isn'tprovided to them in the future, it's going to be based onfirst come first serve?who's the first to subscribe to the service?there's going to be somepeople paying now that won't be happy if they can'tcontinue to pay to have theirspot, so i'm not going to support it the way it is.hopefully somebody can makethat amendment so that i can support it.>> thanks, alderman chabot.alderman carra on the main motion?>> yeah, i have an amendmentto add and i've written it as
point 4 to sort of go rightafter .3 and knock the currentpoint 4 to .5 and it reads that administration to studythe potential forincentivizing -- >> not a real world.>> ( inaudible )>> incenting. >> that's not a real wordeither.just say it and i'll help you with the language.>> incentivizing car poolingby providing reserve spots for car poolers at a discountedrate or for free and reportback to the sbc and lpt as per point 5.>> how about you just, lordhelp us, remove some words. administration studying supplyparking for car poolers, youcan get rid of that whole bunch, blah, blah, blah.>> agreed.>> there you go.
>> pretty editor work there,your worship.or for free comma, please. >> and instead of saying asper point 5 let's make itcleaner, no later than 2011 november.it's not like you're about tohave a baby or anything, alderman mar.>> it's not like it'svalentine's day. >> what i will while we'rewaiting for that to go up, ihad an announcement, today is not only valentine's day butit is the 90th birthday of thelongest serving mayor of canada, mayor hazel mccallionof mississauga.so on your behalf, i did send her a very nice 90th birthdaypresent.happy birthday, hazel. >> happy birthday, hazel.>> all right, alderman carra.>> i'm comfortable with that.
i will close to respond towhatever debate emerges fromthis amendment. >> okay.on the -- can you just changeas per .5 to no later than 2011 november.-- per point 5.just so it's a bit cleaner. alderman mar on this one.>> yeah.thank you. mr. logan, how many carpooling lots are thereavailable right now? where do we normally car poolor rally them?>> your worship, we don't have any car pool lots temperature.>> none at all?>> no. >> so in your opinion, and ithink that we want to have carpooling, we want to create that opportunity, but what isthis going to do, does thissupport transit, take away
from transit, do we know?>> your worship, it's a moreefficient way to use the parking lot if we were to getpeople to actually do it.it will be very challenging to enforce with our -- the way wecurrently enforce people --basically, you have to have somebody there to enforce itor at least spot enforce itand put a pretty significant penalty on.>> so what this says is corrala certain amount of stalls, whatever that is, 5%, 10%, wedon't know yet, and put a signup saying that these are for car poolers and hope that thatworks.>> i like the idea of having car pooling, i really do.i think that's something weneed to do, and this makes sense that we would have it atthese locations, but from anenforcement perspective and
just the implementation, it'sdifficult.what are you envisioning in terms of percentages ofstalls?>> this would be pretty modest, in my opinion.at least to start out.>> ten stalls per lot or something like that?>> you know, even in thedowntown core, your worship, we see less than 10% car poolinto the core.of the vehicles that are on the road.so it would probably be asimilar ratio. i would suggest maybe not morethan 5%.>> okay. and it's coming back tocommittee, so i can live withthat. all right, thank you.>> thanks, alderman mar.on the amendment, alderman
lowe.>> your worship, the incentactive for car pooling is $70 divided by five.sorry, my mathics just failed.-- my mathematics just failed. >> divide it by three.>> divide it by three, four,whatever it is. that's your incent active forcar pooling.you can put five licence plates on one reserve parkingspot, according to whatmr. logan tells us. five people theatrically couldbuy one reserve parking spotand car pool to it on a rotational basis, that's theincent active.it's just a question of initiative.-- incentive.i don't think we have to do it so i'm not going to supportthis.>> thanks, alderman lowe.
alderman stevenson on theamendment.>> thank you, your worship. i'm not going to support iteither because i think thatwe're putting administration into a position where they gotto go away and come back witha report that says we can't enforce it.>> thanks, alderman stevenson.on the amendment, alderman keating?>> thank you, your worship.i also look at this and looking after a building whichhas leads, you must have carpool slots, but they are not according to price, they'reaccording to location.if i was going to amend this, i would take out a discountedrate or free and just putaccording to location meaning car poolers are right up frontand you go from there, youstill get your $70.
and let's go with that,please.i'll amend it to say that. >> alderman keating, i'm goingto suggest that that one wouldprobably be contrary. so i don't think we can takeit, but if you'd like to moveit, should this pass or fail, either way, we can do that.>> your worship, i'd bewilling to entertain language that, you know, doesn't speakto the cost but speaks to somesort of form of incentive. >> oh.i'll need a seconder on theamendment, alderman keating, you amend it further.i thought it was aldermankeating. never mind.anyone want to second thisamendment? >> no one's seconded it.>> we were so enthralled byyour introduction.
thanks, alderman pooans.all right.sorry. okay.alderman pootmans.on the amendment. you can't amend it now becauseyou just seconded it.>> right. is this amend amendment on thescreen?thank you, your worship. that's the one i wanted tospeak to.perhaps through the chair to mr. logan.are there technologies off thetop of your head or some methods we can accomplish thisor is this likely a very longshot to have any kind of realistic chance of enforcingit?>> your worship, the drive-by technology that we'reproposing wouldn't work.we would have to do spot
checks as a minimum.you'd probably have to havepeople in place fairly early so if someone showed up, got aticket, said i was there at 5a.m. with my car pool not 6 a.m. when you were there andwrote me a ticket, and then ifyou're only doing spot checks, you have to fine theprohibitively large.parking in a handicapped parking stall is significantso you could disincentivize, ilooked it up, dictionary.com. >> give an incentive to, okay,that's it.give an incentive to, take a -- dictionary.com, hardly theoed, move on.>> i actually wrote that dictionary for dictionary.com.thank you, mr. logan -- no, no,second question, please. so what you're suggesting is alabour-intensive exercise,there's no cameras or things
like that we can use.>> your worship, that's offthe top of my head. i think alderman carra issuggesting we go away and lookat and asking the question and going away to look at it, whynot, i think that's one of thethemes of this council, for us to think, you know, go backand think and look at whatifs. >> thank you.>> alderman keying, i cut youoff prematurely because alderman carra was saying hewas willing to accept it andmy general practise is to... hang on, i have a compromise.so i wonder if, aldermankeating, you'd like to put an amendment that said at adiscounted rate or for free orfor preferred location. okay?so we'll just stick it in asan or instead of an instead
and then we can put it inthere.do i have a seconder for that? thanks, alderman farrell.so on the amendment to theamendment, just to add the or for preferred location, anydiscussion on that?all right. on that amendment to theamendment, are we agreed?any opposed? oh, come on, call the roll.>> alderman pincott?>> yes. >> alderman keating?>> yes.>> alderman lowe? >> alderman mar?>> yes.>> mayor nenshi? >> yes.>> carried.>> all right. back to the main amendmentthen, on the main amendment,that's what you have on the
screen in front of you,whether we should haveadministration study car pooling, alderman stevenson.all right, alderman farrell.>> thank you. i think what would have beenreally helpful with all ofthis, and i'm supportive of this because it's looking atsomething that may be of aservice to calgarians, it would have been nice to findout what's working in othercities, and why it's working. because we just heard thatpreferential or differentialrates are common in vancouver and toronto.i would like some of thatinformation as a backgrounder on how we get to a decision.and then we can tune ourtransit to more customer service.so maybe for the future, thatkind of background best
practises would be helpful.thank you.>> thanks, alderman farrell. on the amendment on carpooling, alderman demong?>> have we not heard from mr. logan that this isunenforcible?for the most part. >> your worship, i think as iknow it today, this would bedifficult. it's not unenforcible, itrequires labour.i think my comment back was that we could certainly lookat how we might be able toenforce it. it would be difficult.i mean, it would requireprobably other calgarians being part of that enforcementequation.>> so we're talking whistle blowers?>> drawing attention to -->> sorry --
>> sorry for being facetious.>> i look -- thank you,mr. logan. i look at this and say it's awonderful idea, i encouragecar pooling whenever possible, but why would we haveadministration study somethingthat would, for all practical purposes, is difficult at bestto enforce, why put even moreeffort into trying to have them come up with a report inhow to do this without evenfiguring out how to enforce it?i just have that greatdifficulty in that so i won't be supporting this.thank you.>> thank you, alderman demong. on the amendment on carpooling, alderman chabot.>> yeah, i agree with alderman demong that this is notenforcible, the only way youcould possibly enforce it is
by having somebody at each carlot monitoring them 24/7, well,not 24/7 but at least between 2 till 10.again, labour intensive andwhat's the net benefit? it's going to be a net cost totry and -- to try and monitorit, to try and enforce it. and preferred spots, no, iknow that in other placeswhere they have car pool lanes, there's been some veryinteresting innovations thathave been used to try and put across the idea that they havemore than one passenger.>> you and i can go into the mannequin business, alderman.>> exactly, your worship,thank you for that. no, i'm not going to supportthis.car pooling, i think, is a great idea, but it's somethingthat needs to be looked at forthe roads where we've got too
much congestion on the roadsas far as the parking lot isconcerned. it may somewhat achieve thesame object of but at least onthe road, it's enforcible. i'm not going to support this.>> thanks, alderman chabot.on the amendment to add car pooling, alderman keating.>> thank you, your worship.general manager logan, the system that we have where itregisters the licence plates,is there not the capability to put notes or identifydifferent licence plates fordifferent purposes? i'm thinking of technology andyou really should be able todo almost anything with it. car pools that i've beeninvolved in, you've had anowner of a car who registers and has the passengers signthat registered paper and thenit's filed to make sure that
they are car pooling with morethan one person.is there not a capability of allowing that register to beidentified with the licenceplate? >> your worship, i imagine,given the technology and theway we use it now, you could register a lot for a -- sorry,you could register a plate tobe specific to a car pool stall.and that that person whoregistered might have, you know, a statement that theysign or something that theysubmit that says that's how they intend to use it.the purpose driving by in theenforcement vehicle looking at that plate number would haveno way of knowing in thatvehicle arrived with that number of people in the car.i think that's the challengethat we would have.
so you would have to, onoccasion, at least, havesomebody there to see that vehicle arrive or depart ormaybe set up a video camera, idon't know. >> understood.and i agree with you there.unless you're on the spot, you're not going to verifywhether that registered carpooler is actually car pooling. on the flip side of that is idon't believe everyone in thecar pool is going to be dishonest in that area, so itis giving the idea of doingsomething that we should be doing, and i guess that's whyi will support it.>> managing exceptions, thank you.>> thanks, alderman keating.anyone else on the car pooling motion before i call onalderman carra to close?alderman carra?
>> thank you.just two things.first off, you know, how much -- it's $475 average for adowntown parking spot?you know, what's the incentive to car pool?that divided by four or fiveand yet it doesn't happen. the number of single occupancyvehicles that are on the roadare ridiculous. like i don't get stuck intraffic much by virtue ofwhere i live but when i do, i shake my head and cannotbelieve what calgarians put upwith. i think that this is not asdifficult, with all duerespect to general manager logan, i do not that this is atechnologically impossiblething to solve given current technology.i think there are ways that itcan be done.
i don't want to get into themright off the top of my head,but if you have five cars that are appearing in the lots andthey say, hey, let's do a carpool, and they all agree that those five licence platescan't simultaneously show upand you can only have one, it doesn't, you know, reallymatter.there are ways to get this done, i think, that are withinthe scope of currenttechnology without having whistleblowers or attendants.and all i'm asking is that weactually explore the possibility of doing that.i don't know.whether it's going to incentivize -- ding -- a largenumber of calgarians to do it,but i think that every opportunity we have toencourage single-occupancyvehicles getting off the road,
we should take it.and, you know, i don't seethis as being a massive input in administration sincethey're already going to do acomprehensive report and i don't think it's that big of ahurdle so i encourage everyoneto support this because we gotta get the single occupancyvehicles off the road as muchas possible. thank you.>> thanks, alderman carra.on the amendment, then, on the amendment to add number four,are we agreed?any opposed? call the roll, please.( please stand by )(roll being called) carried, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thankyou. now we are back to the mainmotion.alderman chabot, your light is
on but you have already spokenon the main motion.oh, yes, you have. you tried to put in someamendments and we told you youcouldn't. >> but is it has been amendedsince then, your worship, so onthe motion as amended, i have not spoken to.correct?>> mayor naheed nenshi: you really can't do that, aldermanchabot, but i have so muchrespect for you so you want to be brief and you've got a fewreally pertinent points, takethem. >> i'll be very, very quick,your worship.if you could call them all separately.there are some things in here icould support, there are others that i cannot.and so -->> mayor naheed nenshi: are
you all right if i call 1, 2, 3,4, 5 separately i or do you wanta -- i'll take it back. only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 because a, b,c are together.>> i have no issue with you calling them like that, yourworship.and that's it, i'm done. >> mayor naheed nenshi: i'mabout to called on aldermanstevenson to close the debate on the main motion.anyone else before i call onalderman stevenson to close debate on the main motion.alderman stevenson.wow. >> point of order.i just have a question.>> mayor naheed nenshi: yes. >> if we just passed -->> mayor naheed nenshi: weadded it to the main motion but we still have to pass it.>> we're effectively votingtwice on the exact same --
>> mayor naheed nenshi: yes.>> can i ask that you call samedivision? >> mayor naheed nenshi: idon't know.madame clerk? madame clerk says no.that's only on when you're doingthe bylaws and it's the exact same thing.we'll go through it.all right. so then on recommendation numberone, direct administration toeliminate the current daily rate and establish reserve parkingprogram, as you see below, areyou agreed? any opposed?call the roll, please.(roll being called) >> mayor naheed nenshi: yes.carried, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: we just about did something thatwould have been embarrassing.because we would have gone
contrary to council's previousdirection.number two. establish monthly fee of $70 forreserve parking are we agreed?any opposed? aldermen lowe and hodges areopposed.and alderman mar. call the roll.(roll being called)carried. >> mayor naheed nenshi: onrecommendation number 3.establish a maximum of 50% reserve places within each lot.on that recommendation, are weagreed? any opposed?alderman hodges is opposed.and alderman chabot. okay.on recommendation number four,this is the new recommendation number four.the car poolers' recommendation.are we agreed?
carried.>> mayor naheed nenshi: onrecommendation number five, that we get a report back to lpt nolater than 2011 november.are we agreed? any opposed?carried.very well. thank you, all.i know that that wasprocedurally challenging. but i think that everyone got anopportunity to say their pieceand make the decision. now let's go to item 7.1.5 inyour agenda which is c 2011-12local improvement bylaws for steven avenue mall andbarclay -->> i will move the bylaws and three readings.>> mayor naheed nenshi:seconder? alderman mar.alderman chabot.>> yeah, this is something i
think we see annually if memoryserves me correct.and i think what is being done here in the inner city has beentremendous in the barclay mall.i don't see this as -- it's called a local improvement, buti don't really see this as alocal improvement. local improvement talks aboutone-time funding of a capitalproject that typically stays there and doesn't haveoperational implications.this is talking about operational costs predominantlyand as far as the citycontributing to this annually is something i'm a bit troubledwith.i do appreciate what it looks like, beautification componentof it.maintenance of it. the higher level of cleanliness.all that stuff.but i think at some point in
time when we're talking aboutoperational costs, that thefunding should come -- if it's something that goes above andbeyond what is typical in therest of the city, that somehow the businesses should look atfunning it a hundred percent.-- funding it a hundred percent, so i'm not going to besupporting this.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman chabot.were you asking a question as towhether we should be authorizing this every year, if there wasanother way to do it or were youjust suggesting this was a weird way to do it?>> your worship, respectfully, ijust don't think we should be financing this, at least not tothis level.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i see what you're saying.i'm sorry.i misheard you.
thank you.alderman pootmans?>> thank you, your worship. perhaps through to generalmanager hargesheimer, throughthe chair, i'm curious, it speaks to the cost sharing ofenhance maintenance programs.are these the programs with the downtown business zone on page715 right column 163.>> your worship, that's -- >> sorry.that's you.>> yes. you're exactly right.that's a number of additionalthings that they do, sweeping, painting, maintenance offixtures, flowers, all sorts ofdifferent things. >> apologies to general managerhargesheimer.thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman pootmans.alderman farrell?
>> thank you.well, i hope council supportsthis. this is a treasure.it's actually a nationaltreasure. it's been declared a nationalheritage site, and it -- if youwant to look at the economic benefits of stephen avenue mall,most of our tourists are drawnto this really beautiful street. and it provides huge value.the work that the calgarydowntown association does is really quite extraordinary.they're abl able to do it in a ecost-effective way, and i think we all benefit from it.so i would hate to see uswhittle away on this very important program.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman farrell. did you want to close, aldermanlowe?okay.
on the recommendations, then,are we agreed?very well. bylaw 1 l 2011 -- i'm sorry.opposed?alderman chabot and alderman demong.anyone else?i was getting ahead of myself there.bylaw 1 l 2011, first reading ofthe bylaw are we agreed? any opposed?aldermen chabot and demong areopposed. second reading of the bylaw arewe agreed.any opposed? chabot and demong.authorization for third readingof the bylaw are we agreed? any opposed?third reading of the bylaw arewe agreed. any opposed?aldermen demong and lowe.second reading of the bylaw are
we agreed are we agreed?any opposed?aldermen chabot and demong. authorization for third readingof the bylaw are we agreed.any opposed. third reading of the bylaw arewe agreed are?any opposed? aldermen chabot and demong.thank you.that takes us to 7.1.6 in your jeppeds, c 2011-13, capitalrequirements for customerservice and communications and information technology.these were two reports that weasked for during the budget process for more informationaround the capital requirementsin these two areas. alderman lowe?thank you.do i have a seconder? thanks, alderman pincott.so you have the reports in frontof you.
any questions foradministration?alderman hodges. >> thank you, your worship.perhaps just a question formr. tobert. the fiber optic network.and if you don't happen to haveseen a report lately on the fiber optic network which ihaven't either, perhaps youcould send a bit of current information on what enmax ischarging the city for that, ifanything. and if there's any othercomplications or not with theiraccess to the network. >> mayor naheed nenshi: ithink that's a mr. stevensquestion. >> your worship, i can do that.i can arrange for an update andquick memo to be sent to members of council.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:
thanks, mr. stevens andalderman hodges.alderman lowe? >> thank you.mr. stevens, on page 5 of 28of attachment three, bottom paragraph, it says after 2011,board can no longer providesupport et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.the first one, the secondsentence, will he upgrade enable all those items in the secondsense.sentence. >> yes, your worship.the reference is they will nolonger support the current version.so that's why we're doing theupgrade to ensure that we get support for our criticalenterprise support system.>> and the -- that's the h.r. application which -->> that's all of them.it's h.r., finance, procurement,
all of the modules, kind of coreto the suite.>> thank you, your worship. i'm closed.>> mayor naheed nenshi: beforeyou close, that was questions. anyone else?alderman lowe.close. all right.on the recommendation to receivethese reports are we agreed? any opposed?carried.the next one's a big one so we may as well recess now and wewill be back here at 3:45.>> mayor naheed nenshi: and we're back.this portion of the meeting werefer to as race to make sure that people can have valentine'sdinner with their spouses.[inaudible] [laughter]>> mayor naheed nenshi: do wehave a motion on the floor?
no we don't.we're up to 7.1.7.that's c 2011-17. investigative review of higherrisk procurement areas.alderman pincott would you like to introduce this item?>> thank you.and i would with your permission like to introduce both this itemand the next item so we couldhave a joint presentation and joint discussion on both itemsand then vote on themseparately. i think they are -- well,there's no question that they'reinterlinked. the recommendations that fellout of the cover -- out of thereview. this is the investigative reviewinto the higher risk procurementareas that the council asked for work to be done in this area.and we have with us todaydeloitte to give us a
presentation on this.so with your permission, and notto put the cart before the horse, i would like mr. trevornaka if you don't mind, yourworship, to give a brief presentation and possibly answerany questions on this item.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you.thank you very much, aldermanpincott. mr. naka would you care tojoin us at the podium?>> thank you, your worship. is that appropriate?you can hear?>> mayor naheed nenshi: that's fine.>> thank you, your worship.i'm joined by my colleague gina campbell who is heavily involvedin this process.perhaps i might seek some direction as to the depth andlength of the report that you'dlike us to spend some time on.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: it ison, but it needs to be turnedup. so if we can let the clerksknow.mr. naka, council has received your presentation, and i knowthat they have been poring overthe material that was circulated.there's no need to go throughthe whole thing. but if you'd like to quicklywalk us through the highlights.i imagine there will be a number of questions.>> certainly.so i'll take council to page 3 of our report.and just a couple of key pointshere. the nature of limitations withrespect to this type of work.there is a loft work that is done on a sample basis and thevery nature of impropriety isdifficult to uncover.
and having said that, we've donea significant amount of workwhich i'll touch on momentarily. and outline our findings.on page 4, no real points toraise here other than to highlight again that this was atwo-piece focus.the first piece was to coordinate and facilitate anindependent review to assess thereconciliation remaining discrepancies that were outlinedbetween the city managers'reports and those presented by the city auditor.and the second piece of our workwas to do the focused investigative review and ourreport contains comments on bothof those. page 5 discusses the nature ofthe work effort that weundertook and provides a bit of a perspective in terms of thelevel of work effort and theprofessionals that were deployed
during this effort.page 6 introduces the nature ofthe matters that were to be considered relative to thereconciliation of the viewsbetween the city auditor and the city manager.and i won't touch on those otherthan to say that they are basically in three aspects, onepiece around a hundred contractsfor goods and services and that was touched on in the cityauditor's report on page 6.there were also some comments made in connection with 462contracts that are principallyaddressed on page 28 of the city auditor's report.and the third item being the 740purchase orders which increased by more than 50%, which areaddressed on page 32.and so the focus of our work was to reconcile perspectivesbrought to bear on those areasby the city auditor relative to
response made by the citymanager.page 7 touches on secondary aspect of the reconciliationprocess which was aroundidentifying any residual files. were it to be the case that wecould not identifyreconciliation between the two parties, if there were any filesthat we felt appropriate toreview after attempts to conclude on matters jointlybetween city manager and cityauditor, deloitte's role would be to review any of theseresidual files.as it happened, during the course of those conversationsand in connection with ourinvestigative review we identified certain files thatdisplayed some characteristicsof potential impropriety so we included those ultimately in ourinvestigation.page 8 touches on the first
piece of the first of the threeitems that we focused thereconciliation on, and in general this was not an areathat had too much in the way ofdisagreement and ultimately our conclusion was that therecommendations made by the cityauditor's office were appropriate and there were nofurther matters to address inthat aspect. page 9 touches on the 462contracts and nature of thisissue was that on page 28 of the city auditor's report, referencewas made that these items inshort did not take a sufficient background or information.the city manager disputed isthat finding and presented alternative perspective on theissue.and ultimately our conclusion is listed at the bottom half ofpage 9 and ultimately indicatesthat the recommendations that
were made were appropriate, butthere were some items that wereaddressed by the city auditor that we ultimately found werenot substantiated.on page 10, we addressed our findings with respect to the 740p.o.s, the city auditor hadmade some comments and they're printed on the top of page 10and an extract at page 32.city manager had alternative perspective, and ultimately onpage 11 we presented ourconclusion which again is similar and to summarize it, therecommendations that were madeby the city auditor continued to be irrelevant, that we felt thatcity administration shouldcontinue to agree with and are important, but there were someaspects of the work performed bythe city auditor that we've comed on on pages 11 and on page12, we summarize our conclusionsrelative to the three previous
areas.we again emphasized that bothadministration, the city auditor originally agreed with the auditrepresentations and we believethat those recommendations continue to be credible andreasonable.and we did note certain items which were touched on in theprevious pages where the cityauditor was not able to substantiate certain comments,and ultimately for all threecategories, the 100 contracts, the 462 contracts and the 740p.o.s we felt this there wasno further work necessary with respect to those items.perhaps i might pause on thisaspect and entertain any questions that could be relevantto this part of our report, yourworship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: that'svery helpful, because i imaginethat you've hit on the heart of
them so well.my council colleagues areorganizing themselves, i'll start.if i can take you to page 11, iwas -- i have a number of questions.number one is the first sentenceis very interesting. the city auditor's report doesnot imply nor intend to implythat 740 million of purchases were inappropriate or were gonemissing.now, of course the conversation in the public has been very muchthat these were inappropriate orthey've gone missing. this is a helpful clarification.however, they were -- there is avery large number, obviously, in terms of change orders that werethere.but was it within the scope of your work to determine whetherthe facts that there were somany change orders was part and
par self-good managementprocess -- parcel of goodmanagement processes or were you focused on whether they weresufficiently documented and madesense? >> your worship, the -- i mightrespond in two pieces.with respect to the perception that was raised in the public,the perception appeared to bethat the table was referencing that this money could have gonemissing or wasn't appropriate.and we felt that in the interest of appropriate balance andperspective, that we make theclear statement that this was simply a table representingthose amounts that met thatcriteria. in other words, they werep.o.s greater than 25.000 andincreased more than -- or rather, 50%.that was simply a tablerepresenting that.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: thewhole question then which thepublic -- has been much in the public of are we not managingour contracts well because thereare so many change orders was really not in the scope of thework you were doing.>> the scope of the work we did was to make sure that ultimatelyadministration and the cityauditor reconciled their views as to whether there were issueshere -->> mayor naheed nenshi: i understand.>> and ultimately the twoparties did concur there were no further issues to beinvestigated with respect tothese items. >> mayor naheed nenshi: verywell.you're being extraordinarily polite today and i think in thisreport as well.because you're extremely
professional, we can all learnfrom this.but i find the second bullet on that page somewhat surprising.i'm trying to be polite too.so there was an error in the auditor's report?an implication that a sufficientsample had been reviewed but in fact only four files had beenreviewed.is that the correct reading? >> four files were reviewed.the reference were 17 files hadbeen examined with purchase order increases but only fourwere actually reviewed that metthe criteria of being $25.000 or 50% increase.>> mayor naheed nenshi: let mejust really understand. so 17 files were reviewed, butonly four of them met thecriteria? >> correct.>> mayor naheed nenshi: it'snot that 17 miles weren't re--
files weren't reviewed, 13 ofthem were not particularlyhelpful. >> correct.when one reads the report, itstarts with a table. the table outlines the purchaseorders.right after that the report goes on to say 17 items were sampled.in fact 17 items were notsampled of that population. 17 items, purchase orders, thatdid increase were tested butonly four out of that population.it did not have the clarity onemight expect. >> mayor naheed nenshi: inyour professional opinion asyou've stated here, four is not enough.you couldn't draw conclusionsfrom that small sample? >> correct.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i'msure i'll have more.
but i want to let my colleaguesin.alderman mar? >> thank you.when i read this, and hisworship is being extremely kind when he's saying that you'rebeing extremely professional inyour assessment of the former city auditor.i don't want to go too much intodetail because i know, again, we don't have that right ofprivilege.in camera we might. and maybe i'll save some ofthose for march for -- when weare in camera. but the city auditor was -- whenyou say inaccurately implied,what are the ramifications of that on the organization and thereputation of the city ofcalgary in your view as the independent city auditor --sorry, as the independentauditor?
>> i think, alderman mar, itwouldn't be appropriate for meto comment on what the potential ramifications are.i think our report touches onultimately what the facts are; but i would defer to thejudgment of those in council tounderstand whether that would have any impact on reputation orimage.>> no, that's a fair comment. but what happened -- and maybethis is better directed to you,mr. tobert, when we went through this whole process lastyear, there was a huge amount ofpublic outrage saying that the administration didn't know whatit was doing, that it wasbasically $700 million were essentially gone missing, andthis report in effect from theindependent auditor exonerates every single thing that theadministration had done andeverything that you had said.
is that right?am i characterizing thatcorrectly? >> no, i wouldn't say itexonerates everything we said.it basically said that -- i think it agreed with the finalstatement we made was that theadministration agreed with the recommendations of the cityauditor's report, and we agreedwith the recommendations. however, statements andconclusions drawn from thecontext of the report we thought were inaccurate.and i think through the workthat's been done by deloitte, we have brought clarity on thosepoints.now we understand them better. there was a mile of bad road.>> i'd say there's more milesthan just one. but the point of it is that ithink i would like to just go onthe record right now and say
thank you for doing this, thankyou for -- to the auditcommittee, and thank you to the administration for bearingthrough what was very difficulttime and getting to the truth and having the wisdom of all ofus to be able to make sure thatwe knew exactly what had happened and where all of the --all the money went and that ourprocess and the city of calgary is in fact in good hands.thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you, alderman mar.i'm going to go to aldermanchabot and i actually have a follow-on question from what youjust said, mr. tobert, afterthat. >> well, trying to get to pointon a couple of issues.can you characterize for me the relationship that you've hadthrough this whole process withadministration?
has it been a good relationship,a good working relationship?did you find it adversarial in any way?>> the very nature of theconduct of work of this nature is such that at times there is acertain element of challenge.we're conducting a review to find impropriety.but within the scope this typeof work, we found overall a cooperation to be more thansufficient and appropriate forus to do the work that we needed to do.>> interesting.answer, actually. in light of some of the thingsthat have been said from ourprevious auditor, i would have expected you to have come outand said that everything wasgreat, administration was just falling all over themselvestrying to help you to find thetruth.
but that answer leads me tobelieve that maybe it mightstill have been a little contentious, which is notsurprising in light of some ofthe things that i'd heard from our previous auditor.>> alderman chabot, i might justcomment on your question, i would not want it to beperceived in any fashion that wedid not receive the cooperation that we need.i think it is important torecognize that it's not inappropriate when conducting areview of this nature that thereare questions and areas of disagreement.and i think that's healthy.but ultimately there were no matters that we did not receivesufficient cooperation,documentation or materials that we required to complete ourwork.>> i would expect you would.
just a couple of quick questionshere.it says on the same page that his worship was on, actually, ithink it's fourth bullet down,it says the kiko have considered review -- city auditor couldhave considered reviewing morepos and other po.s with larger dollar values tosubstantiate than those on thereport. fewer taken 40 p. o. sconstituted over 500 million and747 million in change orders and 19 p. o. s for constructionmanagement reviewed byadministration alone constituted 461.that statement says that more ofthese larger dollar value p. o. s should have been beenreviewed but it doesn't reallytell me how many of those were actually reviewed.do you know how many of thosewere actually reviewed in ar
10-82 of those larger valuecontracts by the former auditor?>> there were four items that were looked at.and i would seek a moment ofclarification from my colleagues, but i don't believethat any of them were onconstruction management contracts.yes.i believe that none relate to construction management.>> you're talking about the 50%or more, right? so does this page refer to onlythose 50% or more?above what was the original agreement?above the contracted amount?50% due to change orders, it says at the top bullet but thenit looks like each independentbullet has its own specific reference, not necessarily backto the 50% change order amount.that fourth bullet, like i said,
just makes a very arbitrarystatement that more of theselarger contracts should have been looked at.and you're saying that not manyof those were looked at, only four total?>> perhaps just to clarify, the747 million was a table contained 747 purchase ordersthat were $25.000 or greaterwith a 50% increase or greater. all of the references on thispage relate to that table andthat population of items. the four that were audited bythe city auditor were withinthat population. the point that we're making hereis that given the magnitude ofconstruction management as a proportion of that population,it would have been appropriateto consider commentary on the construction management aspectof this issue because itcomprises a significant amount
of the population.>> i thought i saw within thisreport there were still some outstanding issues that hadn'tbeen resolved like 4or $6 million worth of contracts or something.is that right?i could have sworn i saw that here.i have to look for it, yourworship. i know that i saw somethingsomewhere.maybe it was in another document that i was reading.i could have sworn i saw thatthere were still like four contracts totals 4 or 6 millionof the ones that were mostlycontentious that there was still insufficient documentation tosupport -->> mayor naheed nenshi: i think you're talking about theinvestigate issuive findings inenext part of this document that
mr. naka hasn't gotten to yet.>> i may be mixing up the two.i have no further questions at this point, your worship, buti'll listen to further questionsand would like an opportunity to comment afterwards if i may ondebate.>> mayor naheed nenshi: absolutely.we'll play it a little bit loosebecause i know members of council will have many, manyquestions on this, and i justwant to make sure that all of those questions get out.and i in fact after that havemore. but we'll go to aldermanpootmans now.>> thank you, your worship. more in the nature of a comment.just to clarify perhaps for thebenefit of one of my colleagues, i've personally been throughprobably more than a dozenaudits in both private and
public sector, publicly-tradedcompanies.and in my experience, auditors conduct themselves in a veryformal, professional and verymethodological fashion. as do the professionals on theside being audited.so there is no sense of falling over one's self to please anauditor or supply information.it is a very formal process and a very professional process.and i wouldn't likecharacterizations of the city perhaps responding in anythingother than that manner to beleft out there. thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks. alderman keating?>> thank you, your worship.what i would like to know is if this is an appropriate questionis because i don't know thatmuch about these sorts of
things, when we look at 740p.o.s, what is the comparisonor ratio or percentage compared to -- and whether you can answerthat or not of all the p.o.swithin that time frame? because -- i mean, if this is a60 or 70% increase or 5% withinthat range, then it has a different bearing on the outlookof what is here.so i don't know if you can answer that.i'm just wondering how manypos would we have had within that time frame in comparison to740?>> i don't know that i can answer that.there would be thousands, to beclear. >> mayor naheed nenshi:mr. tobert is saying tens ofthousands. i'i'm not sure as the number ofp.o.s that is interesting asto the quantum of the dollar
amount.if you would look at page 15 ofthe deloitte report, you see this upside down pyramid?i'm jumping ahead.i think that answers your question.that the total procurementundertaken in that time period is about 6 billion.high-risk procurement was1 billion. the rest was routine stuff.the stuff they were looking atwas 342 million. we spent 6 billion over thattime period and there was some747 million in change orders. it's not a small number but -->> and i guess that's where iwas going. if we look at this in roughcomparison, it's about one sixthof all p.o.s went over 50%. i don't know if that'sacceptable or not, but itclarifies something.
thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi: i justwant to really ask a question to both mr. naka andmr. tobert, but really, reallyunderline this. i think there has been amisunderstanding from my readingof this perhaps coming from the original auditor's report onwhat this 747 million was.and in fact i fully admit i'm one of the ones whomisundertsood what this747 million was. when i read 40 posconstituting over 500 millionand 196 them alone are 461 million.the question that comes -- 19 ofthem alone. the question that comes to mymind is do we really understandthose 19 that well? this is for mr. tobert.obviously that's a huge chunk ofit.
and when i read that these areall, every one of them,construction management p.o.s, i think it means that we need tobetter understand what aconstruction management p.o. is. >> good question.this is one that we took somepains to answer last may and june when this item was beforecouncil.but some of you weren't here. so i will repeat.one of the ways that weundertake very large construction projects is toengage the services of aconstruction manager. someone, large company, usuallyselected through a request forproposal based on a weighting and the successful proponentgets to build in one particularcase that i know of the water treatment plant expansion atglenmore.and that p.o. for that
engagement is for their 1 or 2%of the cost the total work.we issue you a p.o. to say go away and manage the constructionof the construction of theexpansion. the actual construction of thatplant is almost $500 million butthey all get appended to the first p.o.the construction managerundertakes to release a tender for the earth works, a tenderfor the construction of theconcrete works and the capital equipment.and so it looks like we take aninitial purchase order that may be for $10 million and throughwhat are called change ordersbut are actually chunks of work associated with that firsttender, that work starts to getup towards 30 million, then a hundred million, then150 million.and it looks like we're changing
the scope, changing the -- it'sout of control.no, it's the way it was designed to function.one of the anomalies that weidentified when we went through this is that our purchasingsystem doesn't -- isn't set upfor construction management. so that when we issue thosesubsequent tenders, they werecalled by our system change orders.and so when anyone in any sortof normal construction or renovation business sees theword change order, you go thisis not right. something happened.no, something did happen, but itwasn't bad. it was that we released theadditional work as was planned,but by using that word change order it attracted i would sayunnecessary negative attention.we've actually changed that.
>> mayor naheed nenshi: thatwas my next question.this is very true, it's the language was confusing becauseevery time one hears changeorder one thinks overbudget. for you and for mr. sawyer, isuppose, have we changed thereporting and the process around this so that we can avoid thisconfusion going forward?>> i asked for that to be done. i don't have an answer as to...>> mayor naheed nenshi:mr. sawyer? >> your worship, i'd have tocheck and follow up on that.i've asked that that be done, and i think those kind ofcontracts are specifically beingreferred to around the construction management to avoidany confusion that they're achange and kind of overbudget or different scope.>> mayor naheed nenshi: sothere was no point, mr.
sawyer, when you're looking atyour variance reports, you neversat down and said we spent 747 million more on capitalprojects than we had originallybudgeted for or approved? >> just to be clear all of the747 million increase is in thebudget. there isn't authorization -- nop.o. will be struck or changedwithout appropriate budget. so it wasn't an issue that itwas overbudget.it was p.o. is changing from the initial levels set up.>> mayor naheed nenshi: but itwas all in the budget that was originally approved by thiscouncil.>> absolutely -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: withinthe contingency but it waswithin the budget. >> the p.o.s will not beapproved if there isn't anapproved budget from council for
the funding.it's even more profound thanthat. it was within the budget thatwas initially established.so this was not going overbudget.this was actually authorizingthe release of work within the confines of the original capitalbudget.unless it was adjusted subsequently for small changes.that was originallycontemplated. is not new work and unallocatedmoney.this was the way the process was designed to be.>> mayor naheed nenshi: whenyou say that, are you referring to the full 747 or the500 million in constructionmanagement? >> you know what?i am not -- i'm going to rely onthe information i got from
finance that all of the moneythat was released was withinpreviously allocated budgets. >> mayor naheed nenshi: thisis extraordinarily helpful.thank you very much. i don't see any other lights on.do you want to go toinvestigative findings, mr. naka?>> thank you, your worship.i'll pick up at page 13. and some of this is refreshmentof history and previouslydiscussed material because this arose during the process ofidentifying the scope, but theitems and the focus is presented at the top half of page 13.about the middle of page 13 wetalk about the nature of impropriety and what that means.and this was the definition thatthe city manager employed, and we found that to be helpful anda useful definition, and westuck with that in the conduct
of our work.we've listed on the bottom ofthe page some examples of the characteristics of potentialimpropriety that we used intrying to identify selections amongst the population ofhigh-risk areas.to give council some perspective on what items could have been --were being searched for.on page 14, just a brief perspective on the proceduresthat were performed and how wewent about doing our work, page 15 has been addressed andpreviously commented on, but isintended to demonstrate a perspective on how much workthat we did do and theselections that we looked at relative to the amount ofprocurement undertaken duringthe review period. page 16 is a scope of work andthe procedures taken summizationof by-risk area, the number of
files or p.o.s that we lookedat, the estimated population andsample sizes and give some perspective on the overall scopeof the work that we hadperformed. ultimately on page 17, we dididentify three files that areoutlined on pages 18 through 20. on page 18, this was a file thatwas related to hauling services.there were some concerns about contract extensions and a numberof negotiations and amendmentsto the contract price which arose to concern.we discussed this matter withcorporate securities, city auditor supply andadministration, and ultimatelyour understanding, we were advised of the followingrelative to the current statusof the item. on page 19, there was aconsulting vendor that weunderstand was self-employed
that was providing hourlyconsulting services to multiplebusiness units. this individual had a variety ofelements related to the filethat appeared to highlight concern in terms of the volumeof hours billed and a variety ofother matters. and ultimately we raised ourconcerns to corporate securitysupply and administration, and it is important to advise thatthis was an issue of concern bysupply and corporate security, and we were advised of thecurrent status of the situationon the bottom half of page 19. on page 20, this was an itemwhere consulting services wereprovided and there was two different vendors.there were some multipleownership and spousal relationships that also involvedcity employees.we also raised our concerns to
supply corporate securityadministration and the outcomeof what we were advised is listed on the bottom part of thepage.page 21 summarizes our investigative review,conclusions.there were three that we spoke of and covered briefly.we did follow up on thesematters with supply corporate security administration and thecity auditor as was applicablein the circumstance and we've reported our understanding ofthe status of each matter.on page 22, this is a summary of the conclusions from both theinvestigation, which is a repeatof those comments i just made, as well as the reconciliation ofmatters raised by the kiw cityauditor which we had previously addressed.the append cease provided someadditional statistics around the
amount of procurement undertakenduring the review period.the final appendix c. has perspective on the manner inwhich we undertook thereconciliation process. >> mayor naheed nenshi: allright.so on this part, alderman colley-urquhart?>> there was a question frombefore, is that okay? so, mr. tobert, in the areaof -- thank you very much foryour work on this. in the area of impropriety andrisk mitigation, mr. tobert, iwanted to just highlight this one area where they talk aboutthat they observed that certainbig units have strong and consistent usage and deploymentof supply further procurementwhile others such as i.t. do not.and that they observed that thekey accountability for effective
documentation and conduct ofprocurement sometimes lacksclarity. so the recommendations aroundthis was that consideration begiven to analyzing and clarifying theseinterrelationships and potentialoverlapping of role, coordination of key parties,mapping of procurementimpropriety risk and so on. and i'm just taking this morefrom the power pointpresentation that's in our -- on line, mr. tobert.could i get you to comment onthis aspect or mr. sawyer, whichever, could you comment onit, mr. sawyer?either one would be fine. >> i believe you're jumpingahead to the second report.which the recommendations, and i don't know if trevor is going tobe doing a presentation on that.as i understand, you're on is it
page 4, procurement improprietyrisk mitigation?>> yes. >> that's the next report.>> do you want to wait thenuntil we hear their presentation?>> i can answer it now.we have actually taken no issue with the recommendations comingout of deloitte's work.in talking with trevor and his team, what they said was thatthey did two different kinds ofwork: a reconciliation and an investigation.and based on those two pieces ofwork, like any professional auditor, they said here's someconclusions we drew for somesuggestions for improvements. so what they're asking us to dohere is tighten up thedistribution of responsibility and oversight to make sure thatwhen purchase orders are beingissued, those that have
responsibility know it and thentake action.so that they're actually actively involved.and i've talked with eric aboutthese recommendations and we have no problems in looking atour systems and followingthrough on this. >> so it sort of relates to theother presentations we've had.that's why i was wanting to get your peedback on it now.how difficult is it in anorganization this size to streamline that process or havesome consistencesy?does it take a while? >> there's no doubt thatimposing more controls takestime. but i guess one of the magicthings you can do withenterprise software systems is you can put controls in placethat people actually have toactively intervene into the
process and acknowledge thatsomething is done.so there's a liability record that we'll have.it means imposing more controls,though. and it's always one of thosethings where, sure, we canactually control everything but it comes at an expense.it means time and it delays twoprojects because we have to make sure we have -- but in the caseof making sure we're goodstewards of the public purse, sometimes those things areworthwhile.so it does take a while to change it, but can be done,absolutely.>> thank you. to this point in the report, ihave another question for you.part of the next evolution of what we're trying to look at ataudit committee is council'srole as it relates to
understanding risk and taking itto the next level.in retrospect, are there things that council could have beenmore aware of or taken on moreresponsibility for around this issue that's before us?>> well, i know members ofcouncil did run to the races with some of the issues comingout of this audit that i felt inretrospect we now know it probably wasn't appropriate.so i would say that councillorsshould be careful, when they hear things that are untoward,ask yourself the question, doesthis make sense to me? is the evidence in front of mewatching the words that i'mbeing told? -- matching the words i'm beingtold?it's not a question you didn't ask, it's a question you shouldask yourself.does it make sense to you?
because you get told a loftthings in your positions and alot of the times people have agendas, different agendas.and you need to make sure thatyou actually put together a complete picture when you gettold something.look for other opinions, ask us questions.don't just take everything atface value. i'm sure you've learned allthat -- i have learned it overand over again in my life because i keep forgetting that.when i'm being told things, makesure i ask myself difficult questions about why i'm beingtold this, why is that otherperson telling me this, and then i check with someone else.but getting back to the riskelement alone, there's a great amount of work to be done onrisk appetite.i think council at times says we
don't want any risk because wedon't want any untowardheadlines. but you can't run anorganization this big -- ialmost said another word which is in appropriate, you can't runan organization this big andhave no risk. and it's a question of how muchrisk are you willing totolerate -- >> that's where we need to dosome work i would think.i think part of the challenge, mr. tobert, is being when youhave an auditor that's sayingsome of these things or reporting some of these things.>> one of the things i said tocouncil back in june, i think it was, is don't take my word forit; let's get someone else in toverify it. and that's what we did.>> thank you.>> mayor naheed nenshi:
thanks, alderman colley-urquhartand mr. tobert.questions for deloitte on this piece?i have one.and i just want to underline again that so with our littlepyramid, you went through quitea big number. and at the end you really onlyfound three files that wereworth investigating and these three files were all alreadyunder investigation or beinghandled. is that a correct assessment?>> , that.>> mayor naheed nenshi: -- >> that is correct.>> mayor naheed nenshi: allright. i wanted to make sure that isentirely clear.why don't you take us to your recommendations then.in the second report.council, that's -- i was going
to tell you what packet page itwas, but it doesn't have apacket page number. it is nonetheless 7.1.8.>> thank you, your worship.the -- just to reiterate, the nature of the recommendationsand how they arose and as owenhad pointed out, these are arising from our work.the principle focus of our workwas to do the investigation and provide the report that we justprovided.this report is secondary. it's strictly as in the contextof constructive recommendationsfor administration that may be of use and value in terms ofcontinuous improvement, and it'sentirely at the city's discretion because we're notappointed to do this work.it's entirely at the city's discretion as to whatrecommendations and the mannerin which the recommendations are
undertaken.on page 1, and this item hasbeen raised, and in essence this is about dealing with the issuesthat owen just described interms of tightening up. i think his characterization ofit was accurate.in terms of making sure that there's a clear understandingand delineation in the roles ofthe various parties who have a role to play relative toprocurement impropriety, weobserved in some cases that there was a bit of lack ofclarity in terms of who isspecifically dealing with a potential risk related toprocurement impropriety.and we felt that that gave cause to provide the recommendation.on page 2, we did find a limitednumber of items that could point to procurement impropriety, butthere were a lot of instances ofincomplete compliance with
procurement policies andpractices.and our point touches on this issue.so we have recommended i that tecity does take steps to monitor, evaluate compliance somewhat inthe vein of what gets measuredgets done is the essence of our recommendation there.procurement structure on page 6,item number 3, the i.t. vendor group has delegated authority toprocure outside of the city'ssupply management unit. and we recommended that the cityevaluate whether or not i.t.authority to procure should be allowed to continue because itis outside of the city process.page 4 -- or rather page 7 item 4 vendor master files, we didfind a number of instances wherethe data with respect to vendors was not accurate or was notupdated or had been duplicatedin some instances.
one way to monitor compliancewith procurement policies andprocedures is to be able to run a variety of reports orassessments of procurementthat's happening by vendor. if the vendor master files andvendor information is notaccurate, it hamper those efforts and accordingly we madethe recommendation to improve onthe vendor master files. lastly page 8, item number 5,procurement system technology,you do use people soft as your erp system.and we observe that in manyinstances the complete application or completeimplementation and usage of thepeople involvement procurement module was not in place andbecause we fell people softprocesses will often drive controls and processes that werecommented on earlier to improvemonitoring and conduct of
controls and procurement we feltthat it was a worthwhilerecommendation that there be an evaluation of the degree thatthe people soft module isimplemented and used by the city relative to procurement.>> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman pincott on this one? >> thank you.thank you, mr. naka.for members of council, this is -- this report before us is abit of a value add.it's outside of the scope of the rfp, but deloitte in doing thework that we asked of them feltthat they actually could come up with some recommendations.so thank you for doing that.that said, i also recognize that administration normally whenrecommendations come for auditcommittee for an administrative response, we don't have thosehere.so that kind of limits how we
can discuss them, which is fine.the motion on the report is tosend it to administration for response and come to auditcommittee m.p. that said -- thatsaid, of these recommendations, did you refer to therecommendations within theprocurement audit itself? it seems like there's -- theyare sympatico with a lot of therecommendations that are in there already.>> that's a good comment,alderman. we did have naturally throughthe course of our work developeda lot of familiarity with the city auditor's recommendationsand we did find that therecommendations were appropriate.and continue to believe thatthey're appropriate. we did step back from thoserecommendations, though, andsaid in the context of all of
this work that we have done,what are some of the mostsignificant matters that we might highlight that could insome cases emphasize thosepoints that were made by the city auditor, or in some casescould be of a slightly differentstyle or focus. and accordingly we developedthem somewhat independently ofthe report. we didn't go back to the cityauditor's report and try toensure there was a sympatico. there's a clear consistency, butthese were the items th struckus as most significant that would be of most importance toraise.>> did you -- when you did go back then after you sort of cameup with these or were headingdown this path around recommendations, did you go backand look at the recommendationsand management response within
the procurement audit to see ifmanagement response wascontained within there? i recognize there have been acouple of update reports onprogress that we've had from administration since then.but to see if the managementresponse to those recommendations that were in theprocurement policies audit wouldbe appropriate for recommendations you're bringingforward?>> we didn't do that in a rigorous manner, but we wouldexpect there certainly would besome overlap and we would expect that certain comments that havebeen made by administration tothe city auditor's report may very well find themselves tohere.in addition, we would observe there has been continuedprogress relative to therecommendations that were made
by city auditor, and thereforesince there's been a purepassage of time, administration's response coulddiffer.most likely with reference to recent activities in thisrespect.>> thank you very much. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman lowe?>> thank you. and i think this is probablymore directed to administrationfor the report that's coming to audit, your worship, but i wouldreally understand -- appreciatehaving the background on why i.t. procurement was separateand i'm always interested in whythings got out there if we're going to bring them back andwhat we can do.the second part, mr. stevens, has to do with deloitte'sreference to people soft andwill the updates that are coming
resolve any of the issuesarising?>> two points there. we're fully supportive, 100conspiracy supportive of therecommendation. we'll be following up thismovement to move the supplyportion out to i.t. was made a number of years ago.so i too long before i tookresponsibility would like to seat background to see what thebusiness case was.but we'll definitely follow up as -- on that recommendation.on the second question, i don'tbelieve a system upgrade is necessary to capture what we'retalking about there.i think it's actually an internal process change that weneed to update.i think it's something the system can already handle.we just need to use it moreeffectively.
>> any comment on that?>> no, other than to concur withthe latter part of that comment that it's not really an issue ofwhether or not the system iscapable. our view is that there could beadditional utilization based onan evaluation and cost/benefit basis.>> thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman lowe.any further questions on this?i think i'm going to call on alderman pincott who i suspectis going to move therecommendations. >> yes.i would like to move therecommendations of c 2011-17 and 18.and if -- i guess if there is noother questions or debate, i'll also -- i'll sit down and see.and then i'll close.>> mayor naheed nenshi: do i
have a seconder?thanks, alderman mar.i thought it was you. i thought he had done thatalready.any further debate on this item? alderman pincott to close.>> thank you.so we got here because of -- for a lot of reasons.i mean, one of the things thatwe've seen in the deloitte work is that it does reenforce adegree of the work that we sawthat was done by price waterhouse coopers in thequality assessment review.but at the end of the day, i think the lesson for us as acouncil i think was put verypolitely by mr. tobert, that we need to be cognizant of theenvironment that we work in.we need to be cognizant, and god knows we're very obvious verycognizant of the camera we'replaying to and the larger public
that we're playing to.but we need to be cognizant aswell of the 14.000 people that we work with every day.and that the things that we sayand the things that other people may say can have a lot of impactand cause a lot of damage.this work that was done needed to be done.there were unfortunatestatements that were made that were not supported by a reportthat was before us.but there were unfortunate statements that were made thatwere picked up and run with.that meant that we had to do this work.we had to clear it.if we want to continue working clearly with the people that wedo work with every single day,the administration, who honestly are the ones who do the heavylifting around here, we neededto ensure that all of the --
what i call the pall left by thepublic statements and the publicsentiment around the procurement audit needed to be clear.i have said that we just spent amillion dollars on five words. and it is probably one of thebest million dollars that we'veever spent. because we had to do this.with that, please accept therecommendations before you on both reports and thank you verymuch, mr. naka.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman pincott.let me also thank mr. naka andhis team for the work that they've done here.so on the recommendations, then,contained in c 2011-17 are we on the recommendations in c2011-18 are we agreed?any opposed? it's just to report back to theaudit committee withadministration's reports on the
findings.are we agreed?any opposed? carried.thank you.that takes us to 7.1.9. this is the blue sheet we added.louise station deferral request.relatively uncomplicated. the rfp process went over thechristmas period.and we just need a bit more time to get through it.you're moving it, aldermanpincott? do i have a seconder?thanks, alderman farrell.and alderman farrell. >> thank you.well, i hope the lessons learnedfrom the previous item will be extended to this item.because i think they're linkedin many ways. it's so easy for us to leap tohyperbole and so i hope we'rethoughtful in our approach with
the next item.i think we forget how muchdamage we can do to people who really care deeply about theservice they provide to counciland to calgarians. so i'm very cognizant of thatwhen it comes to this item aswell. and to more discussion withenmax too.thank you. >> mayor naheed nenshi:alderman colley-urquhart?>> your worship, have you participated in meetings aroundformulating this rfp?could you give a bit more -- >> mayor naheed nenshi: i washoping someone would ask.alderman hodges and i as per the original motion have beenworking with mr. tobert todevelop that. it did take a little longer thanwe thought it would to gothrough the process just because
it was christmas and we wereaggressive in our timelines whenwe plotted out how long we needed to have rfp open for.i am actually very pleased withwhat we came up for the rfp. it really reflects what was inthe motion that you and i put tocouncil. we can certainly circulate therfp themselves.it's open now, right? what's the dates on it?>> i believe it went live lastwednesday and it will be live for would weeks.two weeks.>> and then you'll go through the interviewing process.>> mayor naheed nenshi: whenwe work it back for how long we thought the work would take, ingoing back through theinterviewing process even with the really accelerated rfp andinterview process, we realizedit would be very, very lard for
this to come back to councilbefore early may.our original motion had said no later than april so we'repushing it back a couple ofweeks. >> you're still thinking thefinal report will come in may.>> mayor naheed nenshi: correct.>> we'll see.>> mayor naheed nenshi: we -- one of the discussions we hadaround the rfp was reallylimiting in its scope. the first draft of the rfp wasvery big.very vague. and so we wanted to make surethat we were focusing onprecisely those questions that council had embedded in thatmotion you and i put.>> thank you, your worship. >> mayor naheed nenshi: you'revery welcome.any other discussion on this
item?so on the deferral -- did youwant to close, alderman pincott? on the deferral request takenare we agreed?any opposed? carried.thank you.that takes us now to report of the spc on community protectiveservices, 7.2.1.gosh, fluoride last week and dog parks this week.offleash dog areas.alderman mar. >> thank you.at this time i would like tomove the recommendations of the committee as well.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman mar. do i have a seconder?thanks, alderman stevenson.discussion on this item. really?a on dog park?i have a question.
dr. erika hargesheimer, therewas one thing in the report thatgave me a bit of pause and that was there was very littlediscussion of funding or budgetin the report beyond we'll need some money and we don't have it.one question is do you knowif -- have we thought about the idea of increasing the licensefee for dogs and using thatmoney as a dedicated fee for dog park maintenance?>> yes, your worship.if mr. bruce was here, he would tell you that we have anexcellent rate of compliancewith dog licenses, 95% of dog owners are compliant, and thatthere is a limit to what peoplewill pay. and that using that revenue forother than what it was intended,which is to help maintain and feed the animals in our care andalso to do public educationwould be beyond the scope of
that license fee.>> mayor naheed nenshi:what -- just for my interests, what proportion of the costs ofour animal service activities iscovered off by sources of revenue other than the propertytax which i assume would bemostly the license fee, maybe fines.>> approximately 95%.and we're working really towards a hundred percent.>> mayor naheed nenshi: it'snot a tax-supported function. >> it is not.>> mayor naheed nenshi: butthe parks presumably are. >> that's correct.a hundred percent.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thank you very much.that's all i needed to know.anyone else? i really thought we'd be hearfor hours.to close alderman mar?
you didn't just say call theroll, did you?no you didn't. i'm going to pretend i didn'thear that.on these recommendations are we agreed?any opposed?alderman chabot is opposed. carried.all right.i'm really shocked by this. report of the iga committeeprivate bill petitions bycalgary residents associations. alderman pincott is moving.alderman lowe is seconding.alderman pincott, did you want to introduce this one?>> i think it's pretty -- thereport is pretty obvious and self-evident.[inaudible]it was a very good discussion. [laughter]>> mayor naheed nenshi: i'mnot trying to lengthen the
meeting, i want to make surepeople know what they're votingon. >> we did have presentationsfrom the residents associationswho are petitioning and this was -- the motion that is beforeyou, the recommendations thatare before you were in essence a compromise motion rather thanjust the simply dismissing itand are engaging in conversations to look to find away forward at the same time asprotecting our rights around taxation.>> mayor naheed nenshi: justto be extremely clear, alderman pincott, and tell me if i'mwrong because i did have toleave the discussion just before the end, if these private billspass, then it's done and it willnever be changed. but the discussion we had at igawas there still needs to be roomfor discussion and debate with
these resident associations andperhaps compromise.and that this motion is structured in order to createthe time for that.>> indeed. and i think at the end of theday, when it comes to theresidents associations, doing it with private bills, it pulls --it means that we cannot actuallyaddress it. the anticipation is that withthese four that are going, thatif any given their success or lack of success with a privatebill, there are other residenceassociations who would then make that approach.so the motion is -- therecommendations are crafted before you to look at how we canactually in a way get in frontof that a little bit. >> mayor naheed nenshi:wonderful.thank you.
alderman hodges.>> yes, your worship.and members of council. it's not unusual fororganizations such as these toreceive a tax exemption of either all or part of theproperty that they own.i am familiar with some golf clubs, for instance earl gray,calgary golf and country club,silver springs golf club and told and elks, also the calgarywinter club.the list that i have does not include but should have includedpart of canada olympic park orwin sport. first started with tax exemptionrequests in the mid to late'80s and came back for some further tax exemption requestson lands -- portion of the landsthat are used for recreational purposes about a year or yearand a half ago.which did not reach iga
committee that i recall, andthey were granted by theprovince. so i think the idea of thecommittee in having guidelinesto evaluate these requests is a good idea.and i won't -- there are severallights on so i won't put a tabling motion of thisrecommendation until all membermembers of council have had a chance to speak to this.but i think that -- i don'tthink -- i think we should be looking at this again, and idon't think that their requestis unreasonable. and whether the tuscanyresidents association said atthe committee that their appeal for 2008 was just granted by themgb, municipal government board,your worship, i don't know. and i don't know if it was inwhole or in part.they are waiting for a decision
on 2009.and given these appeals arefairly expensive, they did not appeal their assessment for2010.but they did have some success in 2008.so i think those are the thingsthat should be considered before council decides they don't wantto agree with residentassociations. it's true in the introduction weheard, there are other residentsassociations no doubt that would qualify depending on what ruleswe have to assess them.>> mayor naheed nenshi: thanks, alderman hodges.i will recognize you a at the edfor that tabling motion if you'd like to put it.i should point out again thatthis motion is a little bit confusing in the way it'sworded.because the idea here really was
to buy time for negotiationswith those residents socials.in order to do that we must oppose the private bills nowbecause the time frame is shortand they could always put them again.if we don't oppose them thenpresumably these bills will pass.alderman stevenson.>> thank you, your worship. well, i have been involved inthis for a number of years.because of my involvement with the lake associations around thecity and our lake in particular.but as i said at the committee meeting, we have dropped theball as a city.we've allowed fights to go on every year through appealing theassessments and now this is agood thing what we're saying here in number one is to directadministration to develop theguidelines.
but we haven't done that up tothis point.and there are three that i had in my involvement with lakecommunities, there was lakebonavista, lake bonaventure and lake midnapore that were a partof the group i worked with andthey all have had tax exemption for a nova years.number of years.so i will -- if you'll call two and three separately, yourworship, the same as from numberone same as that we did at committee -->> mayor naheed nenshi: noproblem. >> because i will support numberone, but i do not support numbertwo and three because i don't believe we should oppose whatthey're doing.we should just get our own act together and work with theassociations to help them withthis.
thank you, your worship.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman stevenson. alderman chabot?>> thank you, your worship.so intent is to look at exempting themselves from bothmunicipal property tax as wellas education tax. is that correct?>> mayor naheed nenshi: ibelieve that is correct, yes. >> and education tax is not thesame proportion that they wouldpay anyways, not 50/50 for community associations -->> mayor naheed nenshi: ibelieve it is but -- do you know?>> generally it would be thesame proportion as they would normally pay.>> for a nonresidential.>> for education, for nonresidential, yes.>> but that's different than asingle family residential.
right?>> it's generally the same,almost a 50/50 split. >> i don't think so.>> that's my understanding.>> that's interesting because we got a report in finance theother day that said that therewas a number of -- mr. sawyer, could you could.on that?comment on that? residential versusnonresidential, they pay thesame amount of education tax? >> mayor naheed nenshi:mr. sawyer or mr. watson?>> your worship, i believe the discussion of the item wasaround on the residential.the amount that stays with the city versus goes to the provinceis about 50/50.it'slightly more on the city pie whereas on the nonresidentialpiece it's a different split.>> that would fall under
nonresidential -->> mr. watson play be able toadd. >> if i could, if you look atattachment one of the report, itactually shows on these four sites that we're talking aboutthat are part of the privatemembers bill, the split between the municipal and provincial taxand you'll see it's not a 50/50on that. >> that's what i thought.nonresidential pay a differentproportional share. this would fall under the samecategory as a business as well,regular business? okay.interesting.so the implications from a tax revenue perspective are prettysignificant, then, if this goesthrough based on the number of residents associations that wehave in town, in the city?>> through the chair, if i could
answer that, as you can see onattachment one with the fourthat we're talking about the total tax bill is about aquarter of a million dollars or216.000. for 2011.>> 155 to us.>> there is obviously a number of others i believe has beenmentioned waiting in the wingsso it's all a matter of -- to make up the taxes if it's not --these are going to be exemptthen someone else is going to pay.bottom line.>> does we consider looking at what the total implicationswould be to the city if thiswere to pass and the others would pursue the same kind ofdesignation?>> through the chair, no, we haven't done any kind of broadacross the corporation or acrossthe city numbers.
but it could be.i mean, the other issue i thinki have some concern with frankly is the guidelines primarily thatwe're talking, we don't reallybelieve there's a lot of negotiation with these.guidelines are pretty clear outof the regulations that are part of the mga.and we've been trying to applythose. certainly there has been somethat predate some of theseguidelines that were exempted. cop, we did not oppose.and that was exempted.the ish becomes very much one of access to these, whether there'sopen access or not open access.our belief is if there's not open access, then using theguidelines out of thelegislation that we operate under, then this is notsomething -- now, councilcertainly cannot or can tell us
not to appeal -- or not appealbut appear at the legislature onthe private members bill and the alberta government certainly canexempt these and may exemptthese. but the amount of negotiationsapplied in recommendation one ispretty limited. we'll be happy to bring back areport and explain in moredetail that. but i don't want to getexpectations too high that we'regoing to come to some kind of resolution on this.>> yeah.well, i don't think it needs to be done in a public typefashion, even if it was just anote to members of council via e-mail or something to give usan idea.what the implications might be to the city if this were topass.and if i'm not mistaken, would
this not set a precedent as wellin the courts as far as the restof the associations applying for that once if they were approved?>> well, your worship, if thebill is passed they'd only apply to these particularorganizations.but i think you need to understand that there are othersimilar types of organizationsthat may well use the same methodology to seek a propertytax exemption as well.so if you go through, there's likely a host of other ones thatwould use the same methodologyto become tax exempt. >> so this wouldn't set aprecedent and change thelegislation in itself? >> this would just change thelegislation for the four groups.but you can i think rest assured that there are other groups thatwould use the similar type ofapproach to get tax exemption,
that would be my view.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman chabot. alderman keating?>> thank you, your worship.following up on the discussion that happened at committee andit's interesting because i thinkthere was a division or comparison between an r.a. and ac.a., and how the differencesplayed out. talking about putting fencingaround a basketball court toprotect it from vandalism is not accessible to all, therefore itdoesn't apply in this case whichsome of the r.a.s do. where in the one case an r.a.put up a basketball court anddidn't put up a fence, therefore they were exempt.mckenzie town is exempt.and their fees, even though it was portrayed that they wererather minimal, was actuallymore than some of these four
that were applying.mckenzie town's fees i believeare in excess of 200 and some of the other ones were in there.i think the big discussion wasthe differences that are out there and why here and not here,and how do we move forward sothat to develop the guidelines for consideration and maybebroadening that narrow view ofthis is acceptable for tax exemption and this is not, ithink there's another example ofwe're looking at cranston, i believe it is, their taxes havegone from 20 some to over ahundred thousand in one year. granted, they did put up abuilding.but here is the difficulty: that r.a. is providing a serviceas they all do and they workvery well with the c.a.s in the area and there iscooperation.they are doing things that the
c.a.s cannot do because of thestructure of the division as itwas originally designed. but it is open to all and ithink why we need the number onemore than anything else is because there are discrepanciesand there are issues of -- imate to use the -- hate to use the poured pigeon holing butthat's the description at thispoint. and i think we need to lookoutside of that a little bit andgo forward. i agree with alderman stevenson.we need to call them separatebecause i do agree very strongly with number one but i hesitatewith two and three strictlybecause we're back to where we started from.>> mayor naheed nenshi:thanks, alderman keating. alderman mar?>> thank you.i just have a couple of
questions.on number five in theadministration report, it says the properties are notaccessible to all calgarians andtherefore shouldn't be exempt. can you elaborate on that?this is obviously -- you and ijust can't walk over there and go into these -- on to thisproperty.is that correct? mr. watson?>> that's my understanding.that's exactly the difference between a community associationwhere anyone can rent the hall,use the property on some of these lake communities unlessyou live there and by livingthere you pay a fee on an annual basis, which certainly doesgenerate -- i'm not going tostand here and say they did not do a great job.they offer a very strongcommunity focus.
but you and i as not owners liveinteresting cannot use thosefacilities. >> okay.so that's interesting.so what this report or what's being asked here, i should say,is that this overall citytaxpayer should be subsidizing, in effect, these privateresidence associations.is that what i'm getting out of this?>> through the chair i wouldn'tuse the word "subsidizing," but there's only so many taxpayers.there's money that this counciland we all use in order to support our services.if these are exemptedproperties, then that money has to be found by all the othercalgarians including people wholive on the lake, i guess, but would not come through theactual facilities themselves.>> which is interesting.
>> zero sum game.>> and i appreciate that.also in the previous page, there's four other calgaryprivate residence associationsthat enjoy unique property tax exempt status today.how is that similar ordissimilar from what is being asked here?[please stand by]there are a number, but it is actually been fairlyclear on which ones shouldbe exempted and shouldn't be exempted.i'm speaking in the broaderrange now, and we do not believe that these fall withinthat.obviously, we've had a number of discussions with these four,and with the developers thatset them up. there was a belief that theonly way that they could go orthe most expeditious way would
be through a private member'sbill which they have nowbrought forward through an mla and now sitting before thehouse, and we were seeingingpermission to object to it. now it's up to council toeither give us that or notgive us that. well, from the way i see it isthere's absolutely norationale at all why this city council would allow that andmy concern is this would set aprecedent than what is done before and also these areprivate residents onlyassociations. it's not something wherecalgarians en masse can go toutilize, and i think that asking us to support them inthis is absolutely the wrongdirection so i won't be supporting number one but iwill support recommendationnumber two and three.
thank you.>> thanks, alderman mar.alderman demong? >> the comment that this is asubsidy or something to thateffect is totally preposterous as far as i'm concerned.in effect, actually, whatwe're doing is we're penalizing these communitiesfor having gone ahead andgotten a residents association for these communityproperties.when these were developed, for lack of a better way andsimplicity's sake, they took afew square metres out of each person's yard and let's makethis into one big communityand area we can all enjoy. these people are paying taxsas if that part of the lakecommunity or part of that residents soshg was stilltoochd to theirs because ineffect their land is assessed
tax value because of thatamenity being attached to it.-- attached. so the effect of actuallytaxing them for having thisamenity and then taxing them to have that amenity as aseparate issue is, in effect,double taxing. now, with regards to thecomment about -- that's beenreferred to several times on the mga that the act actuallysays benefiting the generalpublic, it doesn't say anything that it has to beopen to the entire city ofcalgary. it's benefiting the generalpublic.you take a community like the size of lake sundance, who isapproximately 30.000 people,one of the largest cities in calgary by itself, at least inthe top ten, and it benefitsthat entire public area of
lake sundance.so to say that it's notbenefiting the general public is, again, a misnomer.it's not addressing the factthat this is the community that they walked into, theybought into, they're payingtaxes as if that lake sundance area was part of their yard,so i have to say i disagreewith part two and three. i will be supporting part one.please understand that thesepeople are trying -- that they bought on the idea that thisis an amenity that they boughtinto as if it's a part of their actual yard and they'rebeing taxed as that presently.so to double tax them is a shame.thank you.>> thank you, alderman demong. alderman carra?>> couple questions ofclarification from
administration.number one, do we havecommunity associations operating in the same areas orresidents associations areoperating? >> i believe that's the case.>> explain to me how thatworks. >> the doctor can probablygive more information but inseveral cases, i know for a fact there are.>> yes, it is.>> ( inaudible ) >> so there's actually aresidents association and acommunity association? >> that is correct.so for example in my ownneighbourhood, the president of the residents association,a long-serving communityadvocate, a great hero of mine, has just finally stepped down,but i served on the communityassociation board which is a
completely separateorganization.>> interesting. and depending on who theactors are depends on how wellthey work together i'm hearing.>> that's correct.>> okay. so would there be, within theverbiage of point one inadministration's perspective, leeway for finding a way forthose two organizations towork better together? is that something -- because imean it seems to me that we'retax exempting -- we're talking about tax exempting twoorganizations that are fillingsimilar roles, am i wrong in thinking that?>> no, you're in a lead ahorse to water situation, alderman carra.in some cases they are reallyquite different so, for
example, in my ownneighbourhood, the residentsassociation that alderman stevenson led for many, manyyears looks after theamenities, the lake, making sure people pay their fees andthe staff are paid and so onand the community association has no building, has nofacility and is reallyinterested in advocating for the community as they do onland use and so on, andorganizing community events. they're really quitedifferent.>> can you tell me what you meant by lead a horse towater?>> we can tell them to get along.>> yeah.>> but they may or may not. >> okay.so a residents associationlooks after the private
property of the specific areaand they're asking for taxexemption. >> that is -->> as far as i'm concerned,that's a total deal breaker for tax exemption until peterdemong brings up the idea thatthey're being -- alderman demong, excuse me, brings upthe point they're being doubletaxed. can i get administration'sperspective on the allegationof double taxation? >> mr. watson.>> very carefully, withrespect, i guess councillor demong and i disagree.i don't believe they are beingdouble taxed. >> can you respond to -->> residents associations areoptional. developers make residentsassociations because theybelieve there's a selling
point by establishing one.and by establishing one, theyare therefore able to market the community better, probablymarket the community at ahigher price, and we live on market value assessment here,so the size of the house andthe size of the value of the lot, size of the value of theland.so i don't believe -- >> point of order.sorry, i don't know if i'mable, you mentioned that it was optional?>> residents association?absolutely. >> well, not once it'sinstalled.i mean, i can't -- if i'm a member of lake bonavista, if ibuy into that house -- i'msorry -- >> i don't mind this, i knowit's procedurally a nightmare,but it's informative to me.
>> the veins on my head andalderman farrell's head popout and we don't want that, at least on alderman farrell'shead.( laughing ) this is clearly aphilosophical distinction,it's part of a debate. this is a great debate.we have principled oppositionon this issue, but i think you're talking about the heartof it.>> okay. so structurally, are you taxedfor a portion of your propertyto cover the residents association?or is it -->> through the chair, let me be clear when i use the word"optional," i meant it's notsomething that's required. community land, the mr in acommunity is established whena community is developed.
the developer decides whenhe's developing a communitywhether or not he will try to put a residents associationin.of course once it's in and you buy into that community,absolutely not optional.i perhaps misspoke there. secondly, my understanding,and i don't belong to one andsome members of council may, your worship, you do, ibelieve, that's a set fee thatis established and they decide how much it is, and send youthe bill.>> and there's a covenant on the house, we have to pay itor else alderman stevensonsends lawyers after us. >> okay.i'm in a quandary.i can't see allowing a tax exemption for a private clubthat, you know, is not being-- thank you.
>> i think your quandary wasjust solved for you by yourcolleagues, alderman carra. ( laughing )so much discussion onresidents associations. alderman pincott?that's right, you're the onewho moved it. alderman lowe?>> well, i'm listening to thiswith a great deal of interest, your worship, and aldermancarra bounced around allsalient points and if you come up to ward 2, you'll find aresidents association and acommunity association that share the same board.they dropped the gavel in themiddle of a meeting, they get along just fine.we have another one that'ssimilar, they're not -- they get along pretty good.double taxation, i don't buythat argument at all.
it's a function of knowingwhat you're getting into.and you either want to go there or you don't.the recommendation number onehere is really an opportunity for the residents associationsto make a decision.and mr. watson's right, there's very little to talkabout here.and the decision is are you going to open your facility upto all of calgary or are yougoing to keep it closed and private?that's it.it's a yes/no question. those that elect to open it upand demonstrate that it'sopened up, i think we can get into a conversation with.those who elect otherwise paythe fee. it's simply -- to me, it's avery black-white decision madeby the membership of the
residents association.as for establishing residentsassociations more frequently now at planning commission,they're either there or we'reasking for them because there are community amenities to bemaintained when once they'refaced over to the city, unless there's a residentsassociation, they becomeorphans and sooner or later end up on our lap and i thinkall of us have perimeterfencing in our wards that fall into that category.>> so council, my fingerprintsare on recommendation number one here, and i would ask youto support that because ithink it's a way of going ahead but in the meanwhile, toprotect our assessment baseand that is the critical issue here, to protect ourassessment base,recommendations two and
recommendations three, i think,must proceed, and i'd ask youto support those. thank you.>> thanks, alderman lowe.i thought i heard a question from the other side.alderman macleod.>> thank you, your worship. i just had some questions ofclarification.when you buy into a house that has a residents association,you have to pay a fee that isestablished by the residents association.>> every year.>> every year. and you get to vote on that,it's like joining a club sortof. except that you have to join.>> the residents associationsets the fee and you can show up at the agm.>> or be on the board orwhatever.
>> exactly.>> okay.and the association itself pays property tax.and the resident pays propertytax. >> correct.most of them.there are some that are already exempt.>> okay.the association -- the residents association paysproperty tax on the propertythat is common property. >> correct.the lake, building, whatever.>> okay. so this is not property that'sattached to some individualhome owner that says -- okay, the double taxation, if i'munderstanding it is in thefact that uhrmann dated to pay the fee, is that what you'regetting at?-- you're mandated to pay the
fee.>> i believe the argument, andalderman demong will nod or shake his head, i believe theargument was because you areliving in a community that has a lake, for example, the valueof your home will be higherbecause the developer made a decision that there would be alake in that community andthey built fewer homes but each value of the home wouldbe higher, therefore yourproperty tax is higher. is that the point you weremaking?and then through your fee that you pay, obviously, a portionof that fee that you pay isgoing to pay the property tax. on the lake or the building orwhatever.>> okay. so this is not a lot differentthan -- i've got a communityassociation where some of the
residents back on to a lake,if you will, a pond, that isnot publicly accessible so they pay an amenity fee forthat levied by the city soit's the same kind of thing. their property is worth more.they pay more property taxesand they pay an amenity fee, so...>> we're fewer rowing ourbrows here because we're not sure amenity fees are leviedby the city.mr. watson? -- furrowing.>> maybe we should take thisoffline. >> we'll chat about this onelater.>> it doesn't have public access and the city levies anextra fee because the pond hasto be drained a couple times a year and the city does that onbehalf, but it's not publicaccess.
which is -- anyway, let's setthis aside.my point is that it's not public access is the samething.okay. i think i understand.>> maybe local improvement,we'll talk about it offline. alderman chabot.>> just some clarification,your worship. it seems like therecommendations are somewhatcontradictory. >> i can explain.>> okay, but the intent ofnumber three is that you write a letter stating that we arenot supportive, is that -->> at this time. at this time.i can explain that oneactually. >> thank you, if you would.and i'll sit down.>> it is a bit confusing so
let me be crystal-clear onthis.which is that because of the time line for when theseprivate bills are goingforward, which is now, it was important -- well, thecommittee felt, the majorityof the committee felt that it was important for us to statea position.because once the bills pass, they're done.they will never go back again.however, at committee, the residents association peoplewere there from these four,and they expressed a real desire to continueconversations with the city.they didn't feel like they had really had an opportunity tonegotiate with the city.before they put forth these bills.so all three, and i realizethey are contradictory, but
all three of these togetherbasically have the effect ofsaying "no" for now so that we can continue negotiations.if the negotiations fail, thenthe residents association can put the private bills again,but they can only do it at thesittings of the legislature and that's right now so that'swhy it reads like that.that was alderman lowe, i think, and alderman pincotttrying to elegantly figure outa way that we could keep negotiations going.given the time line that theprovincial government is imposing on us.>> so if i may briefly.so for clarification, if we don't want them to get taxexempt status, then we voteagainst number one and vote for number three, does thatsound right?>> yeah, you could.
i would vote, if it were me, iwould vote for all three andlet the negotiations proceed because it will still have tocome back to council.>> but at the end of the day, we don't have any say onwhether the province chargesthem taxing or not. >> we have influence though.if the city writes them andletter and says please don't do this, that would have adifferent effect than the citynot writing them a letter. >> interesting.could you call themseparately? >> i'm going to call oneseparately and two and threetogether. alderman hodges?>> yes, your worship, youmentioned a time line being set by the province and whatis that?because i haven't seen it
here.>> it's in the report.i believe that we have to write a letter by very earlyin march, march 10th.march 10th. >> i missed it.>> there you are, it's on theright-hand side of the page with the recommendations on itat the bottom of theright-hand column. the city's response isrequired by 2011 march 10th.>> well, our next meeting of council is march 7th, yourworship, and i think that some-- that's time for further negotiations to take placebefore the provincialdeadline. so i'm going to put we tablethis matter until march the7th, 2011, for the discussions to continue between these fourresidents associations and thecity.
>> very well then.do we have a seconder for themotion to table? thanks, alderman stevenson.that's a non-debatable motion.on the motion to table to the march 7th meeting of council,are we agreed?any opposed? >> i'm opposed.>> call the roll, please.>> alderman demong? >> yes.>> alderman farrell?>> ( inaudible ) >> alderman hodges?>> yes.>> alderman jones? >> no.>> alderman mar?>> pardon? >> no.>> alderman pincott?>> no. >> alderman pootmans?>> no.>> alderman stevenson?
>> yes.>> alderman carra?>> no. >> alderman chabot?>> no.>> alderman colley-urquhart. >> no.>> mayor nenshi?>> no. >> lost.>> alderman stevenson, i haveyou on the list, you had a go. >> you mentioned a couple oftimes about negotiations.this doesn't say anything about negotiations.the reason why one was put inthere was because of the fact that we found out that therewere others like mackenzietown that was given exemption because they did a smallamount available to the publicand that's -- so what that was in there was to make it clearto all the rest of theassociations what they could
do to be tax exempt or taxreduction, that was the reasonfor that. because they don't know thatnow.thank you, your worship. >> that was a very, veryhelpful clarification,alderman stevenson, thank you. anyone else before aldermanpincott closes?alderman pincott to close. >> thank you.well, part of the conversationhad at iga has certainly been captured today.it's funny, you know, halfway-- not halfway, at the beginning of the discussion atiga, i sort of wept, oh, ilived in one of those communities.you handed in your card, itreminded me of south africa, you handed in your card so youcould fish your five fish onthe stocked lake or skate on
the pond and you couldn'tbring in other -- peopledidn't have general access. what we have to do from atiming point of view is thatif we want to look at guidelines, we have all kindsof public-use guidelines.we want to look at guidelines for residents association, weneed to actually say we needto approve two and three because by approving two andthree, it preserves ouroptions for what kind of guidelines we want to have forthese -- for residentsassociations in order for them to meet a tax exempt status.in order for them to meet whatare the public use guidelines that we could have, that weput on public property that werequire of public property? we have those kinds ofprocesses in place already.if we just blanket give these
-- a residents association atax exempt stat and you say ifwe allow that to proceed through the private bills,there's nothing preventing aresidents association from building a $3 million greatprivate club recollectionfacility and we would never be able to tax that -- recreationfacility and we would never beable to tax that private club, and essentially it would be aprivate club.so please, council, approve all three recommendations sothat we can actually moveforward with how we equitably address residentsassociations.>> thanks, alderman pincott. so therefore, onrecommendation number one, arewe agreed? any opposed?alderman chabot and mar areopposed.
on recommendations two andthree together, are we agreed?any opposed? call the roll, please.>> alderman farrell?>> ( inaudible ) >> yes.>> alderman keating?>> no. >> alderman lowe?>> yes.>> alderman macleod? >> yes.>> alderman stevenson?>> no. >> my button, yes.>> alderman colley-urquhart.>> yes. >> alderman demong?>> found my button.no. >> mayor nenshi?>> yes.>> carried. >> thank you.>> no comments, please, aboutalderman chabot's endless
quest?the report of the regularmeeting of the legislative governance task force, itemseven.4.1 in your agenda, lgt2007-01. one of the interesting thingsthat we discussed was thatwhile the mayor has to approve the agenda, every week, hecannot actually change it.it's sort of an interesting red-tape situation.and what was being proposedhere is that the committee is proposing is a little bit ofdiscretion, and i should justbe clear. this is only for the mayor tohave the discretion afterconsultation with the chairs of the spcs to take agendaitems from the draft agendafrom the items from administration and committeesection and defer them up to amaximum of two weeks?
or two meetings, i should say?the intent is quite simple,when we have a monster meeting like last week, it gives themayor the ability to balancethings out across meetings, it does not impact in any way thenotice of motion process?aldermen who want to bring forward a notice of motionwill have that after the firstmeeting after meeting their guidelines so it's an abilityto better balance out theagenda and that's what the committee thought was a goodidea, at least the majority ofthe committee did. alderman mar?>> thank you.and that sums up very, very clearly what happened at themeeting.i know that there was a lot of debate about this, anddiscussion as to whether ornot this would put too much
emphasis in the mayor's chairversus in the council as awhole. so my concern is in theeventuality, when you do oneday retire and there will be supposedly a new mayor that isless benevolent than yourself,then this could potentially create a situation for futurecouncils where that chairhas... sorry, okay.where that chair would havepotentially too much discretion as to move agendaitems around fromadministration, and which could change the amount ofvotes that an issue wouldneed. that's something that i can'tsupport and i'm encouragingcouncil to maintain the council that we have andretain the structure that wehave.
thank you.>> thanks, alderman mar.i have just been note -- i had the clerk note to me that themotion is a bit funny andalderman keating and macleod, if you agree, as the mover andseconder, it just doesn't saywhen, so presumably, the mayor could defer the morning ofcouncil, which is not theintent there. so madam clerk, what were yousuggesting by -->> by noon on the tuesday prior, your worship.>> by noon -->> you may want to do it sooner if you want communitygroups coming to council.i'm not sure en you would have to let them know -->> it's not for public hearingitems anyway. >> well, it could be possibly.i mean, generally, most publichearing items are advertised
but there is the odd thingthat isn't.>> i mean this motion is only for recommendations from theadministration, it's not --and committees? >> you're right.you're right.>> i'm just thinking, for example, the fluoride one, itwould have been difficult toget that out to everybody. and we couldn't have pulled it,the latest we could havepulled it off the agenda itself would have been noon onthat day so we could have leteverybody know, but i don't know who the groups are.>> i think even the mondayprior would be fine, would that give you enough time?>> for the agenda, i'm notworried. it's notification of everybodyelse.>> okay.
monday should work.alderman keating, macleod, areyou all right with that? all right.if council agrees, we can justadd that to the motion. okay.all right then.alderman demong. >> just a question,clarification, afterconsultation or consensus with the chairs?>> consultation.>> so you can say this is what i'm thinking of doing and theymay say too about a, i'm doingit? >> i suspect they would get atcouncil and say i'm addingthis back as an item of urgent business.i want to say i get them onthe friday, thursday or friday.>> usually the thursday.>> usually the thursday before
and so this is suggesting thatby the monday at noon, wewould have the ability to approve the agenda and then itgets published on thewednesday. >> sorry, your worship, i'vebeen corrected, it's wednesdayso that we can get -- >> all right.>> i'm sorry, i didn't quitehear that. >> i get it on wednesday.i would consult with thechairs thursday, friday, if there's any change.it's very unlikely there wouldbe frankly but as alderman mar says, perhaps someone lessbenevolent than me can takeover because then council can always take it back, too, onthe thursday, friday, and thenapprove the agenda by the monday.>> okay.>> well, i realize there's
going to be some situationswhere it's going to be longdays, but i kind of signed up for that.i'm happy with the way it'sworking now, if we find that we have some very longmeetings, i'd like to revisitthis, but i haven't found them too long.>> your wife might thinkdifferently by 9:30 tonight. >> oh, i already lost thatone.>> mind you, i imagine today is the busiest day of the yearfor your wife anyway, so.because she's a florist. alderman hodges.>> how will we know, when wedon't -- we know generally what will be on an agenda by,say, a monday or tuesday, butwe don't know what specifically might be deferred,so what would the notificationprocess be to members of
council on what might bedeferred?>> well, the idea was that, it's a good question actually,the idea was that right now,i'm the only one who gets the draft.>> right.>> so the idea was because it's in consultation with thechairs, that the chairs or pac,if you prefer, also will get the draft at the same time asme.so that if there's any discussion, we can have thatdiscussion.so this actually gives council at least the chairs morenotification than they havenow because right now, i'm the only one who gets it.>> so it wouldn't be soonerthan wednesday noon, that kind of idea.>> so the idea is now thatwednesday afternoon, so now
we're two weeks before themeeting, so wednesday -- orten days before the meeting or whatever, wednesday afternoon,pac and me would get theagenda. we would have discussions ifwe needed to.we would finalize the agenda on monday, that's when councilwould sort of know about itand we could forward it so council and it would bepublicly released on thewednesday for the meeting the following monday.>> thank you, your worship.what i would like to see someone concentrate are arethe number of items and agendaon our policy -- what comes to council is predictable, thoughnot always, but some of thestanding policy committees, particularly lpt, can have alot of items on them andothers like alderman jones'
comments --( laughing )une has a small number of items consistently on itsagenda.so that i think would be progress, if we could even outthe number of items in some ofthese sbcs, thank you. >> what's really interesting,alderman hodges, about that,because i don't chair an sbc, i didn't know this, i onlylearned it at this, the chairsof the sbc do have the power we're asking to give the mayorfor council meetings.they can defer meetings from the spc agendas and managetheir spc agendas but themayor does not not that power at council.>> thank you.well, a retired mayor gave me some wise advice when i firstgot elected saying that youcontrol the agenda, you
control council.and so i think that it mightbe helpful, i'm not prepared to go down this route becausei think, depending on who'savailable for a certain meeting can really determinethe outcome of a specific item,but perhaps the mayor could undertake looking at theagenda and bringing forward tocouncil at the beginning of the meeting some recommendedchanges.if the meeting looks unwieldy and then council can vote onit.>> i feel like i tried that laos week, alderman farrell,and it didn't work.>> yeah, and we need a decision to go ahead with acertain item because if wewould have waited a couple of weeks when there's a new baby,then the outcome could havebeen very different.
so i think there may be someother ways to manage theagenda. i'm not prepared to give up myresponsibility in this area.thank you. >> thanks, alderman farrell.alderman keating?>> to close, your worship. >> forgot that you had movedit.alderman carra. so he's not closed yet.>> it's just largely beenasked and answered. i think i'm prepared tosupport this because i thinkthere's enough checks and balances, but i apologize inadvance to future councils whohave to overthrow a tyrannical mayor.( laughing )>> i can't even say it. alderman chabot.>> yeah, maybe if you can giveme some clarification, your
worship.i typically, as a chair, andas do other chairs, receive a list of the items that aregoing to be on the agendaahead of when the agenda gets printed.is it the same for you?>> i get it but i can't do anything with it.i don't have the power tochange it. i can add to it.>> you can't manipulate it?>> no, that's what i'm asking for her.not manipulate.manage. >> manage.okay.i like try and manipulate mine, actually.okay, interesting.and so you're suggesting that you would share thatinformation with us inadvance?
>> yeah, the discussion, youweren't there, but thediscussion we had at the legislative governance taskforce was that, and i thinkthis is already accepted because we didn't need achange for it, when it comesto me, it will also go to pac which means it goes to all thechairs of the policy committeeand the chair of the audit committee.>> i got there in time for thevote and actually voted for it.>> that's right, you did.that's right. >> but i didn't hear all thediscussion in advance.thank you for that, your worship.>> thanks, alderman chabot.alderman demong? >> well, as i mentioned, i'dlike to make an amendment tothis.
if that's at all possible.after consultation with thechairs of the sbcs, once a majority, you do have fourchairs and a mayor, i mean, ihave a concern, as has been expressed, that one persondetermining the agenda and ifwe know that four people are going to be at amua for acertain meeting, it can bemanipulated not to suggest that you ever would, yourworship, but others may.and i'm just thinking that if you have the four chairs andyou manage to get a majorityof the five of you in one room or on the phone,teleconferences, one way oranother, might be a method of going through with this.>> so what you're suggestingis a little different because that actually means that thepac, the personnel and accounaccountability committee would
actually approve the agenda,which is not -- that's fine.i should point out that the reason it's written the waythat it's written is not somuch that all five of them would decide, but that themayor would consult with thechair of the committee whose issue is being -- so, forexample, if the issue wasfluoride, the mayor would go talk to the chair ever of u &e and say how do you feelabout waiting a week, as opposed to all four deciding.>> intriguing.i like mine more. >> no, i don't think that'scontroversy, alderman keating.would you accept that as an maemd?the clerk might.>> your worship, that is the bylaw that i brought forwardat the meeting.>> i remember.
>> so it would -- then wewould have to have a meetingof the agenda committee in order to do that.you can't do it by vote, itwould have to be an official meeting.>> not allowed.because if, as alderman demong puts it, you would need -- ifhis amendment passes, youwould need a majority of the committee which means youactually have to have acommittee meeting. >> you have to have a record.>> is it possible for aldermandoe among to bring this amendment back if this one isdemoted and that way we canadjust his concerns as well as my concerns?>> here's my suggestion.i think what alderman demong is suggesting, and it's just asuggestion, it's up to you -->> you've been great at mind
reading so far.>> my suggestion is this,which is i think that if this one fails, when you'resuggesting is a great idea butit needs to be baked a little more, so what i'm going tosuggest is if you agree, we'llvote on this one. if it passes, it passes.if it fails, then i will workwith you and the clerk to bring back a notice of motionthat specifies what you'resaying to our next meeting of council.because i think we just haveto get it exactly right procedurally.>> sure.i'll go for that. >> all right, thank you.alderman pootmans?>> yes, thank you, your worship.perhaps a comment leading to aquestion.
earlier today, a frustratedcolleague mentioned that, youknow, we've been through a lot of this in committee foraircraft debate.i felt like saying the same thing about the residentsassociation tax relief.we've been through all of that, not at sbc but indeed at aniga committee meeting.and i'm wondering if i might ask or suggest that whatyou're asking and what we'redealing with now smells like a bit of a symptom really ofsome of the reporting andgovernance we have, with lots of work being done at sbc andrepeated again at council, sowith that in mind, perhaps request casually, withoutmoving really, just a note tothose working on legislative governance task force that ithink really this notion ofsbc being the carry-forward
body, we would have tounderstand that process moreprofoundly. >> i think alderman pootmans,we did actually have thatdiscussion in some detail at committee.>> third time lucky.>> and in fact the broader legislative governance taskforce work is very muchfocused on this issue. the number, the roll, theability of the sbcs to movethings forward but it was zied around that committee tablethat this little change wouldhelp us move more efficiently while continuing thegovernance work.>> thank you. >> thank you.alderman lowe?>> thank you, your worship. i've been listening around theissue.madam clerk did raise the one
point we really didn't discussat iga and that is the issueof the public being aware and having time to respond tothose items where they want tocome in here. i'm not -- i haven't, in myown mind, concluded how we canresolve that and the thing where my mind sort of leftahead was the issue of, forexample, the summer break or the christmas break or thespring break where, in fact,by moving it two ahead, you could end up moving it a verylong period of time down theroad. so on the basis of that,europe, i think this isn'tbaked yet. >> i think you might be rightactually.>> i'm going to refer -- i'm going to refer this matterback to the legislativecommittee because i think
there's some bits and pieceinside here that justlistening to this conversation, i think we can trip overourselves if we don't get intoit. >> i don't disagree with youon the second one.the public notice one i'm less fussed about because it'sbefore the agenda is publishedbut the second one on the recesses or the breaks if youwant to call them that isactually something -- okay. we have that seconded.on the motion to refer, anydiscussion? alderman keating?>> i think he's right.i'm a little disappointed because i had a great close.( laughing )>> at dinner time, alderman keating?with your wife, i'm sure shewill be thrilled to hear the
close.all right then.on the motion to refer, alderman chabot?>> your worship, so thelegislative governance task force is not considered to bea committee of council?>> madam clerk, it's called a task force.what is it exactly?>> it's still a committee of council, your worship.alderman pincott has beenadded to it, the chairman of audit is not a member of pacright now, and aldermankeating is also added. it is still committee ofcouncil.>> so i guess there's only one other question i need to ask,is there?is this report not complete then?>> ah, you are referring to...will you go, apparently it's
not a final report of thecommittee.>> okay. checking, your worship.>> you're referring to section121 sub section 4 sub sub section e of the bylaw.>> motions out of order, yourworship. >> i love nothing more thanthis, alderman chabot, as youknow. >> i was referring to thispreviously, a motion referringan item to a committee is the final report of the committeeis complete.>> this is not the final report.>> it's not in order andthat's what i was referring to before but as you just pointedout, it doesn't fall underthat criteria. >> that was from council, notfrom committee.>> i knew there was something
in there -->> i appreciate it, aldermanchabot, keeps us on our toes. on the motion to refer, then,are we agreed?any opposed? alderman jones was it, isopposed?all right. alderman jones is opposed.all right.next. notices of motion, notice ofmotion 2011-08 8.8.1 in youragenda, alderman lowe. >> this is really ahousekeeping item, we askedthe police service to look at relinquishing $2 million tothe budget.they came back to us and told us they can do it.what this motion really does,your worship, is enable administration to do thereduction and to adjustnumbers accordingly in order
to prepare the propertytax-related bylaws in march.>> thanks, alderman lowe. and just to be a hundredpercent clear, what you'resuggesting is that we had asked the police commission ifthey would be willing to takethis reduction but we didn't incorporate it into thebudget.they have written us and said we're happy to take thereduction and this motion isto clean it up and incorporate it into the budget.>> exactly.>> thank you. do i have a seconder?thanks, alderman demong.on this one, alderman colley-urquhart?>> well, i just wanted toconvey that this certainly generated a lot of discussionand debate at the policecommission.
we did come close but what itgot down to was i thinkprimarily the reason that the commission felt they couldsupport this was that therewere considerable excess revenues from fine revenue atyear-end and it was felt thatit really wouldn't impede front line service.but what it did prompt, whichis kind of a related matter, is to look at the whole areaof of the reserve funds andthe pay as you go and it was unanimous they passed thecommission that we direct orrequest the police service work directly with mr. sawyerto develop a joint proposalfor the potential transfer of accountability for trafficfine revenue from the cps tothe city and to look at this for the next three-year budgetcycle.>> and i can't believe we
passed the notice of motion tothat effect, didn't we?>> we didn't bring it here, your worship.>> i thought you had.>> i informed you right away that it was passed unanimouslyat council.the reason that's important, council, is that this ispretty big business, this finerevenue, so officer generated enforcement city ride revenueis 18.9 million dollars a yearor 52% of the total revenue, photo radar generates 10.9million or 30%.and speed on green cameras are 6.6 million or 18% so overallour total court fine revenuethis past year was about 36.5 million dollars.it was sitting at around 15million and quite on the police are accused of thisbeing a cash cow and nowcouncil is dipping into
surplus revenues generated onthe backs of people who aregetting tickets and so on, so we thought it was a good timeto really look at the wholepay as you go and how we consider that fine revenue andwhat impact it would have on athree-year basis so it was quite an interestingdiscussion.but the commission wanted the message to be there that thisis for this year and we stillneed another 75 officers, we have one of the lowest policecop ratios in the country.they're finding innovative ways to deliver the service,but i am concerned that thissets a precedent and really can't support it.thank you, your worship.>> thanks, alderman colley-urquhart.alderman mar.>> thank you.
well, this is, i'm sure, nosurprise to anyone in thisroom that i will also not be supporting this.i appreciate the directionthat alderman lowe is intending to go, we're alltrying to pinch pennies, thiscase that there will be no front line service cuts.the commission kbraes thatthat's the case. however, alderman lowe hasalways talked about back-uphouse. this is what this is.this is digging into the backof the house. it has an impact on ourcapital, at the police service,and will have -- we can't cut 2 million without having animpact somewhere.my concern is also that what we are going to be doing nowis setting a precedent wherewe are creating the police
service into what becomeseffectively our tax wing ofthe city of calgary. this is exactly why we want tobe able to have ouradministration work with the police commission to divertall of the fine revenuethrough into the city of calgary where it becomeshundred percent millsupported. mill rate supported, and ithink that's the direction.where it is right now, the way it's worded right now, i can'tsupport it.thank you. >> thanks, alderman mar.alderman chabot?>> thank you, your worship. this is essentially justreaffirming council's previousdirection. >> that is correct.>> and formalizing it, and soi think, in light of the fact
that what i've heard today isthat police commissionbasically agreed to our requests that it's pretty mucha done deal.let's move on. let's get it over with.>> just to be 100% clear, theyhave more revenue than they thought they would have.the choice is put it in thebank. it's not going into theirbudget to hire more cops.put it in the bank or return it to the taxpayer.>> like i said, yeah.we asked, they answered, let's move on.>> thanks, alderman chabot.alderman farrell? >> thank you.the police have the biggestoperating budget in the city and we asked them toparticipate in a verydifficult budget process, and
they came to the table and i'mvery appreciative to suggestthat we're impacting back of house.i think it is just untrue.they indicated that they would have additional revenues, andwhat we did is respond byputting that in our budget, during the budget process, sothis is not impacting the backof house, and it's just asking every one of our citydepartments to partner with usin a very difficult budget time.thank you.>> thanks, alderman farrell. alderman lowe to close.anyone else before aldermanlowe closes? alderman lowe to close.>> closed, your worship.>> on the recommendations in this notice of motionr weagreed?any opposed?
aldermans mar andcolley-urquhart are opposed.thank you. all right.urgent business then.is this the first one? so innovation fund, aldermancolley-urquhart, and when youget up, i do have a suggestion to add a date and a return atthe end.so i think everyone has the green sheet that aldermancolley-urquhart has done.>> it's pretty straightforward, your worship, and i didn't puta time in there just because ididn't know how quickly we could get this back, and igave you the strategicinitiatives fund terms of reference, hopefully you'llfind it helpful.there's a lot of good language in there, and so do you thinkthat's okay, your worship?>> i'm just going to suggest
we should do this veryquickly.>> i do too. >> draft terms of referenceshould be returned to pac.that's a good place to put them, no later than its marchmeeting, which is two weeksfrom today. >> yes.and as i heard our colleaguesay, we want to put a fence around this, it's a lot ofmoney.and we have a good template for the strategic initiativesfund that's had five years ofpractise now. alderman macleod said let'snot make this too arduous, toodifficult, and -- but still put some parameters around it.thank you, your worship.>> thanks, alderman colley-urquhart.we can do this, we'll be fast.alderman hodges.
another item.anyone else on this one?>> just briefly. >> alderman chabot.>> can we clarify when it'scoming back and into where again?>> pac march meeting, which isthe 1st or 2nd of march. a week or two weeks fromtomorrow.thank you, your worship. >> thank you.anyone else on this item?all right. on this item of urgentbusiness, are we agreed?any opposed? agreed.the next item of urgentbusiness is las 2011-03, proposed amendment to methodof disposition, great plainsindustrial park. >> yes, your worship.>> alderman hodges.>> it isn't, it's just added
to the agenda because it wasfrom the last las committeemeeting last week. so, your worship, i'm preparedto move the recommendations.they're quite straightforward. it's bringing forward lands toput on the market briefly.and it carves out the proposed recreation site that's beenidentified on attachment 1-5.>> that would -- thanks, alderman carra.>> that's in place and theother lands that are available for sale can then proceed.thank you.>> all right, thanks, alderman hodges.and alderman carra is hecoulding, you'll note this is a reconsideration.i should note for council'sinterest, it's more than six months, we only need eightvotes, not ten.any discussion on this item?
very well then.on these recommendations, arewe agreed? >> agreed.>> any opposed?carried. 5:55, so, folks, what i'll donow is i will accept yourrecommendation to recess and then to come back in-camerafor the in-camera items in thecalgary power room at the normal time.sorry, sorry, what did i say?sorry. corporate boardroom.at 7:15 -- 7:10, how's that?7:00, how's that? i don't have a motion sowhoever mants to make it canmake it. >> alderman pootmans, whattime?>> 7:00 p.m. >> 7:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.motion to recess and reconvene
in-camera in the corporateboardroom at 7:00 p.m.do i have a seconder? thanks, alderman jones.are we agreed?all right. we're recessed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment