Testing. One, two, three. One, two, three. audio test two. One, two, three. One, two, three. Check. Check. Check. One, two. Check check check. I'll ask now for the roll call, please. >> Councelor Lul, >> good morning. >> Councelor Dudas, >> present. Councelor Curry >> here. >> Councelor Gower >> here. >> Councelor Tierney >> present. >> Councelor King >> here. >> Councelor Leaper. >> Councelor Brochington >> here. >> Councelor Manard >> here. >> Councelor Brown >> here. >> Vice Chair Kits >> here. >> Mayor Scliffe >> here. >> You have corner. Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. And just to note that the items from today's meeting that require council approval will be rising to our council meeting on November 12th on Thursday. Are there any declarations of interest? Confirmation of minutes from September the 1st. Are those minutes carried? Note the responses to inquiries on the agenda from finance and corporate services. Item 5.1 is uncollectible taxes under section 354 of the municipal act. Is that carried? >> 5.2 is the procurement midyear report. Is that received? >> Item 6.1 we are going to hold because there is a delegation. Item 7.1 from the office of the city clerk is the accessibility advisory committee end of term report. Is that received? >> Item 7.2 is the status update finance and corporate services committee inquiries and motions for the period ending October 30th. Is that received? We will hold item 8.1. 8.2 surplus declaration and disposal of viable parcels adjacent to 21 Hunt Club 2100 Hunt Club Road. Is that carried? >> Item 8.3 is 200 Iber Road new acquisition lease. Is that carried? >> And item 8.4 uh there is a delegation for that. So we'll uh hold that as well. Um, so going back to item 6.1, which is the comprehensive legal services report for the period January 1st to June 30th, 2026. I believe we have a delegation. Is that online? Okay. I believe that delegation is online. If you could go ahead whenever you're ready. Okay. I believe I believe we have a representative from social services users union. Go ahead whenever you're ready, sir. >> Uh yeah, our delegation will focus on entries for Ply Robertson in tables three and four. External Oh, slide one. are ex are uh on external legal costs for Q1 and Q2 respectively and whether either of those entries include retention of multiple representatives for a social benefits tribunal appeal and whether those expenses comply with the city's fraud and waste policy. Slide two. The city the office of the auditor general defines waste as an excess use of time due to inefficient practices or use of public funds in excess of excess of what would nor would be reasonably expected to be required. Slide three. Normally case presenting officer Caroline Fier is responsible for the social benefits tribunal appeals. In fact a case presenting officer is the only legal representative authorized to access personal information. Ontario Works client find files under the city in personal information bank index. Next slide. Nonetheless, the city retains numerous in-house legal representatives and has had no issue in the past making use of them for tribunal proceedings. Next slide. And while litigation at tribunal is most likely to fall under the practice area of Pearly Robertson expenses for Q1, external legal counsel was not retained for the proceedings until Q2, at which point they were retained in response to a motion of contempt which the city had been aware of since at least December 2025. Next slide. It is abundantly clear between the published decisions, next slide, and offrecord communications that the city solicitor used his exclusive delegated authority to retain external counsel to protect himself. Next slide. The mayor, members of the committee, council, and senior leadership staff. And next slide. legal services staff from personal liability for their willful blindness to the city's refusal to fulfill a tribunal order it had negotiated on consent with zero intent to uphold. Next slide. We are requesting fraud and waste investigations into external council expenses related to matters before the SBT. fraud and waste investigation into persistent serious wrongdoing by city legal representatives during SBT proceedings and report licences to law society integrity commissioner investigation of council complicity privacy breach investigations and city compliance with the minutes of settlement in SBT244-3073. Next slide. And we demand answers from the city solicitor as to where the expenses for SBT council are reported if at all and how much money has the city wasted instead of just complying with the order made with its consent. To be answered today under oath administered by committee chair, members or clerks present as commissioners by virtue of office pursuant to Orag 38712. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And that PowerPoint has been circulated to members of the committee. Uh, is that item received? Thank you. Uh, item 8.1 is the Maple Grove Health request for proposals. I know there is a staff presentation and then councelor Gower has a motion. So, I'll turn it over to staff now for the presentation. That's good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee. This is Deputy Sturk, general manager of the strategic initiatives department. I'm joined on my right by Lily Zhu who is the director of the city and has responsibility for the city's real estate portfolio as well as Danielle Vernoi who is the city's primary care ambassador. We are here today to provide an update on the request for proposal for a healthcare hub at 1655 Maple Grove. Next slide, please. By way of a quick background, city approved the primary care recruitment and retention plan in October 2025. The plan's 10 actions focus on attracting and keeping primary care providers in Ottawa. They include a new recruitment and retention ambassador Danielle uh joining the Eastern Ontario Physician Recruitment Alliance and promoting Ottawa as a place to practice. They also include supporting nonprofit clinics, working with Ontario Health Teams and Ottawa Public Health, and advocating to the province on barriers for international and foreign trained doctors. City-owned lands and facilities were identified as potential opportunities to support new or expand existing nonprofit clinics. Nonprofit clinics include community health centers, nurse practitioner-led clinics, and may include family health teams. Next slide, please. On October 14th, 2025, staff were directed by a motion to initiate an RFP for a health hub on the north portion of 1655 Maple Grove Road. The real estate policy requires lands to be offered through a fair, open, and competitive process. It also requires staff to attain fair market value for lands. The appraised value of the lands at Maple Grove is between 900,000 and $1.2 million per acre when valuated for residential or institutional uses such as schools and health facilities. The real estate policy is established to ensure that the city respects and complies with the municipal act. Section 106 of the municipal act restricts a municipality from providing bonuses or financial assistance to provide to private commercial enterprises unless it offers the same opportunity to all similar businesses. Next slide, please. Many private care practices operate as independent businesses while delivering publicly funded health services. The motion directed staff to initiate the RFP and outlined city support for the project. The support was for severancing and reszoning. It directed recovery of the costs for these activities. The motion did not provide an exemption to the real estate policy or any mechanism to sell below market value. So staff proceeded with a fair, open, and competitive process with land disposed of at market value. Next slide, please. As this is the first such transaction undertaken by the city, staff used a two-step process. First, we issued a request for expression of interest to inform how we would structure the RFP. We held commercially confidential meetings with the respondents to the REOI. These meetings informed the development of the evaluation criteria for the RFP, including how we would weight and measure the community benefits of increased access to primary care medicine for residents. For example, the RFP would score proposals on clinician capacity, priority for unattached patients, reporting on attachment, and long-term sustainability. Following the REOI staff initiated the request for proposal process. A single submission was received. This submission did not comply with the RFP in particular that the disposal um proceed based on market value. The submission was not evaluated and the RFP process was closed. Next slide please. This RFP process yield nu numerous lessons learned which would be applied to any future process involving disposal of lands for primary care purposes. Firstly, primary care clinicians and health sector organizations are not typically land developers and do not typically participate in these types of processes. To ensure a successful outcome, we need to continue to balance potential community benefits, integration with the broader health sector and development capacity. One of the key learnings related to clarity of the language in the RFP for this target audience. For example, while the RFP was clear this was a market value process and staff could only negotiate with proponents who complied in any future such process, we would make explicit that bills at bids at nominal value would not be permitted. Other learnings relate to the development complexity and cost sensitivity of these projects. Primary care physicians are naturally attracted to opportunities where their operating costs are low, as this means more revenue that can go to enhanced services or improve their operating margins. Smaller parcels may suit some operators better and still meet council's intent to improve attachment to primary care. For these same reasons, sites that are easy and less costly to develop are needed. Finally, traditional real estate marketing does not reach clinicians and health organizations. Next time, we'll enhance our outreach to health sector networks and partners. Next slide, please. There are also lessons learned related to how we rate and score community benefits. While we did not rate this particular submission, the process has provided for deeper understanding of primary care models. We have also identified learnings that will allow us to strengthen the criteria used to evaluate the community benefits. This includes applying clearer waitings to make it evident which community benefits matter most. In this case, increasing net new primary care capacity. We will also want to continue with the approach to apply restrictive covenants, explore long-term lease options and other legal mechanisms to protect the primary care use. Next slide, please. In this report, staff recommend proceeding with a new RFP process that applies the lessons learned that I just shared. As the RFP for Maple Grove did not produce the expected results, staff had recommending exploring a potential alternative site and we are open to other alternatives such as proposed in councelor Gower's motion. Next slide, please. And just quickly with regards to the alternative site, um just to note that the city does not have any ideal sites in W 6, but we have identified a site on Karp Road that could reduce some of the land development barriers. The market value for the site is approximately 700,000 an acre. So it's about 20 to 40% less than the Maple Grove site. This improves project affordability and feasibility. Servicing will also be extended to the site by the city. This will reduce cost, complexity, and risk. And finally, the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a wide range of different development concepts and configurations. So, this site does help to address some of the barriers experienced at 165 1655 Maple Grove Road. And we welcome council's direction on how to proceed. This concludes the presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. And maybe councelor Gower, I'll ask you to introduce your motion. >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, and thank you staff for the presentation to lead us off. Whereas, city council approved a primary care strategy in 2025 recognizing that access to primary healthcare is an important contributor to community health and well-being, economic competitiveness, workforce attraction, and quality of life. And whereas approximately 19,000 residents in Stitzville and Canada do not have access to an attached primary care clinician. And whereas on October 22nd, 2025, council directed staff to initiate a request for offers for the development of a health hub on the northern portion of the city-owned lands at 1655 Maple Grove Road, having identified the site as the preferred location for a primary care health hub serving Stitzville, Canada, and surrounding communities. And whereas subsequently staff issued the RFP on August 5th, 2026 seeking proposals for the transfer of the property at market value and the single submission received did not meet the established criteria. And whereas the development of a primary care health hub would provide a significant public benefit and advance council strategic priorities relating to health, well-being, and community development. And whereas the city of Ottawa's disposal of real property policy provides that real property shall be disposed of at current market value and that city council may pursuant to section 1.3 authorize the disposal of real property at less than market value unless prohibited by the municipal act where council is of the opinion that doing so is in the best interest of the city. And whereas subsection 1103 of the municipal act 2001 and Ontario regulations 60306 provide a framework for municipalities to enter into municipal capital facilities agreements in respect of facilities used for the provision of health services including the potential provision of municipal assistance in accordance with applicable legislative requirements. Therefore be it resolved that recommendation that the recommendations in the report be replaced with the following. One, that the Finance and Corporate Services Committee recommend that council receive the report respecting uh the RFP for 1655 Maple Grove Road. Two, that staff be directed to review the results of the RFP and identify modifications to the procurement and proposed transaction structure that could increase market interest and the likelihood of achieving the development of a primary care health facility while ensuring that the transaction does not result in a net cost to the city. Three, that staff be directed to issue a new request for proposals for the development of a primary care facility or practice at 1655 Maple Grove Road informed by the review undertaken pursuant to recommendation two. and that in developing the RFP and proposed transaction structure, staff consider the feasibility and appropriateness of a municipal capital facilities agreement pursuant to section 110 of the municipal act together with any other available legal or financial mechanisms that could facilitate development of the primary care facility while protecting the city's financial and legal interests and give additional consideration to proposals that offer offer opportunities to advance other city of Ottawa strategic priorities were compatible with the prim Primary healthcare objectives of the project. Identify any amendments to the zoning bylaw required to permit the intended health hub use on the identified parcel and provide that any city costs associated with the severance and reszoning of the lands be recovered through the transaction. Establish that the lands will be sold on an ASIS basis where feasible. retain sufficient flexibility to consider appropriate cost sharing arrangements where doing so would improve the efficiency or cost effectiveness of servicing the remaining city- owned lands or otherwise advanced city priorities. Consider transaction and development approaches that could improve project viability and encourage market participation, including phased or incremental development, shared servicing arrangements, deferred payment structures, or other appropriate mechanisms while managing financial and legal risk to the city. include as appropriate restrictive covenants, performance milestones, reversionary rights, or other contractual or legal protections to provide reasonable assurance that the lands are developed and continue to be used primarily for the delivery of community-based primary healthcare services. Establish evaluation criteria that prioritize the delivery of physician-led community-based primary care services, preferably through a family health organization supported by allied health services such as nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers, and other interprofessional clinicians and evaluating the anticipated number of net new patients to be attached. the proposed timeline for achieving the attachment and the proponent's ability to demonstrate, sustain, and expand the proposed service capacity. The evaluation criteria should establish a minimum attachment capacity appropriate to the proposed clinician complement and model of care with a target of 5,000 net new patient attachments supported by the proposal and establish a preferred parcel size of 4 acres for the proposed health facility while allowing flexibility to consider a smaller parcel where sufficient to accommodate the proposed primary care services. A larger parcel of up to eight acres may only be considered whether the proponent demonstrates that the additional land is reasonably required to accommodate complimentary medical, health related or other ancillary uses that directly support or are associated with the delivery of primary care services or to accommodate affordable housing uses having regard to the efficient use of city-owned lands. and four that staff report back to the finance and corporate services committee and council in April 2027 with a progress update on the implementation of recommendations two and three. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Gowen. Thank you for all your hard work on this for your community. Appreciate it. Councelor Curry, >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for not cutting him off after five minutes. That was very good of you. Um so I just would like to say a couple things. First of all, councelor Gower has spent four years at least on this uh working with so many people in the community like years ago when it was potentially future shop uh the future shop building in Canada sentum uh councelor Wilkinson and uh councelor Gower worked together on that. This has been a very challenging file and as you know in the west we only really have Queensway Carlton hospital. So people go to Carlton Place Hospital, they go to Almont Hospital, they go to Aron Prior because all we have is Queensway and Queensway is way way way over capacity. So it is uh you know fundamental that Canada Stitzville gets something to address these unattached patients. And I will tell you that when you talk to the Western Ottawa Community Resource Center, Lee Couture will tell you that a lot of those 19,000 unattached patients are babies. Uh sadly doctors are not taking on the baby of the from the mother that had the baby. Even if the mother has a doctor, they will not take the baby. And there's financial reasons why. Sadly, babies are not the best uh patients to have. But it's sad from our perspective that this is not happening. So the work that councelor Gower has done here is phenomenally important and uh I really appreciate all your work here, Glenn. I've had other files and I've just been watching you and thanking God that you're on it. Um, so I will be supporting this motion. I just have one question honestly just so it's clear to everybody and the question is the report mentions the Canada West Owners Group agreement. Uh staff I'm wondering if you can explain what that is and why that is a risk in your opinion. >> Uh thanks for the question uh to chair. uh the Canada West landowner group is a group of land owners uh of uh a group of properties and the land owners are supposed to share the servicing for the lands within the boundary and there's a trustee identified to administer the sharing of the cost. So it is a commitment to um uh in terms of the servicing developable land um through the RFP the sole proponent uh originally expressed concerns of being part of the landowner group but uh the recent conversations they have expressed the willingness to work with landowner group uh commitment. >> Okay, thank you very much for that and just big thanks again councelor G. this is your last finance and corporate services meeting and uh you're going out with you know a very important uh motion and hopefully we can carry on without you. I don't know how that will happen how I will cope but we will certainly try. >> Thank you councelor Curry councelor vice chair kit. >> Thank you chair. Um just wondering if you had any idea why there was only one uh proponent that responded to the RFO >> through the chair. Um there's a number of reasons for that or or we's a number of reasons for that counselor. Um one as I mentioned in the presentation this is a target audience who doesn't typically develop and so they require more time to really put together their partnerships and proposals um and we stuck to a typical procurement uh window. So that was one piece. Um the other piece is that uh these lands or we summize anyways that these lands are fairly expensive. Um and given that we were it was it was clear in the RFP that we were looking at a market transaction um that could have we we expect we suspect that that would be um a barrier as well. Um so I said those are the principal um barriers and so in terms of any future RFP we would market that much more broadly. So we did reach out to um some health related organizations but I think we can do a much better job of that and that would be a key um a key thing that we bring forward. >> Okay. Thank you. And in your view, are there other are there many other proponents uh that could be qualified or do you think or what's the likelihood that we go through this again and um only end up with one proponent? Um so chair there were a couple other um healthc care providers that were in communication with the team through the procurement process but eventually they did not submit the submission for um part of the reason we heard was a short time frame of the response um because they're not a sophisticated developers and need to partner with someone else to respond. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Vice Chair Kitz Councelor Brown. >> Thank you very much Mr. Mayor and I'd like to thank councelor Gower for all the work he's done and I I know Canada and Stitzville are specifically referenced in the motion, but I I see a broader west end benefit here. I also see the hard work that it takes to move something like this forward where it's relatively a novel concept or a novel idea. And I I think in the future we're going to see a lot more of these come forward as we try to grapple with the growth that we're experiencing. And although health care is a provincial responsibility, I do see an opportunity for the municipality to be involved and councelor Gower is out there trying to forge the path that I think a few of us will be walking in a few years. So really appreciate what he's done. Um, with regards to the process, if there was a disagreement about price and how to value the land for a primary care facility, was there an option for staff to come back to committee and council for additional direction instead of ending the process? Yes. The staff undertook the process as directed and given that it ended with no fair market value um that uh concluded the part process and we're here um seeking d reporting back and seeking direction at this point. Okay. It it's just too bad that it's taken this this long, I guess. And I I know um you know, councelor Gower is under a bit of a timeline. I'm sure his successor will carry this forward in the next term. I I have seen staff come back uh in the past on other files when perhaps they needed more clarity and I think there was absolutely an opportunity to do that u before today. Was it at all an opture an option to negotiate directly with that sole proponent >> through the share? Uh, no. No, that was not an option given that they didn't meet the um requirement that this be a market bid. So, it was not a qualify bid. It didn't uh qualify for the RFP process and that uh concluded that bids um our ability to uh continue on that bid. >> Thank you very much. Certainly it would be my hope in the future and not just for this file but others to show some flexibility. I recognize that we create policies to provide us with a guide to move forward but policies you know are not the divine gospel chiseled on stone. I think there are opportunities for us to be flexible when required certainly when we're looking at benefits to communities and I hope as we move forward and again you know acknowledging the hard work that councelor Gower has done charting this path in the future if there are challenges like this that come up that there's a free flowing conversation with either the mover of the motion or with committee and council members. Flexibility is what gets things done. I wouldn't want to see us lose opportunities for the benefit of our communities because we're following a policy too rigidly. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Brown. Councelor Dudas. >> Yes, thank you. Um, I had a I had a question in regards to municipal capital facilities. What could you explain a little bit more about what that is and how we've typically used this? I'll begin and then invite my uh colleagues to uh join in. Mr. Chair, so municipal capital facility is a provision under the act that allows the municipality to um uh provide some benefits to um in this case commercial operators to meet a city um in purpose or intent or provide a public good. Um the incentives that can be provided through the municipal capital facility do vary. In this case, we would be looking at um the opportunity to offer the below market um land value or a below market land long-term lease. >> Okay. And is this a is this an incentive program that we've used in the past in other venues or is this fairly new to us >> through the chair? So we have used this in different circumstances. Um one example would be using a municipal capital facility to provide some uh tax related incentives for um supporting affordable housing. So that's one example. Municipal capital facilities when um there is a facility that is providing directly a municipal service. So it could be for example a um police facility or any other municipal facility. um and that is to um provide the mechanism for the property uh waiverss as well. In terms of this particular use for a commercial um entity who is providing a um a public good that is desired by the by the city. We have not done that previously. This would be new. >> Okay. Interesting. Um I also the report mentions the cost to reszone and severance costs. Do we know approximately what those costs would be? Um um so the chair counselor staff did not anticipate the cost will be uh substantial like zoning bylaw cost about $20,000 and severance is a couple thousand dollars. >> Okay. So I I thank you for that. Um I also wanted to to you know do a shout out for councelor Gower. I think you've done a lot of heavy lifting with your motion. I will be supporting your motion and I think that you know by laser focusing incentivization for the public good. Um it will benefit you know not only the adjacent community and provide a service that is obviously in need uh for primary care but the the greater West End. I think that uh this will be an opportunity for all of us to to look as at this as a a particular option for future good. Uh so so councelor Gower, thank you for that and I do think that we'll be looking at this as an opportunity to use this as a tool potentially going forward when it when it warrants it. Um thank you very much Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Dudes. Councelor King. >> Uh, thank you so much, your worship. I do have a question uh uh for staff specifically. I was just wondering if staff could comment on whether they would anticipate any issues with the resoning uh building off uh councelor Dudas's line of of inquiry or does it generally fit into the official plan >> and I'll start counelor and and from a resoning perspective we'll look at the appropess of the land use under the framework of the official plan and uh the planning act the direction our preliminary assessment does not identify it being non non non-compliant with OP uh the other aspect is to double check the serviceability of the site so how the site could get the water sewer storm water so that is part of the due diligence that need to happen >> I appreciate that I think it's important under our official plan to see more investments in uh this uh type of uh land use. Uh for that reason, I will be supporting councelor Gower's motion and I want to thank him uh frankly for his persistence on this file. Um from the information he's provided us, we know that 19,000 residents in Sitzville and Canada don't have a family doctor or nurse practitioner. And I can relate to that. Um we've seen uh positive movement in both Overbrook and Vanet with the establishment of the nurse uh uh practitionerled clinic uh that's going to assist 14,000 uh residents who don't have a family physician. And I know there was a lot of uh discussion around this table around uh ensuring that the right conditions are created to attract um uh these types of uh facilities and and these types of centers. Uh so you know at the end of the day it's not an abstraction. It it means people uh going to walk-in clinics and emergency rooms uh for care that should come to a family practice and it is a problem uh that residents face in in my ward and obviously across the city. Uh the first RFP didn't work and staff were right not to accept a bid of about a dollar an acre for public land. But the lesson isn't that Maple Grove can't work. It's that the first RFP asked a wrong question. Um it asked who would buy 8 acres at full market value. No primary care operator can afford that. Uh so I think that this motion asks better questions and it fixes the problems one by one. It cuts the preferred parcel to 4 acres uh roughly having the land cost and leaving most of the site for future transit oriented uses. It lets staff use the tool uh uh that uh councelor Dudas was inquiring about to the municipal um you know in in terms of ensuring uh that uh we are are are looking at uh utilizing uh specific tools uh that uh allow us to examine uh the municipal capital facility agreement along with deferred payment and and shared uh servicing and it measures proposals on what actually matters. a physicianled team-based cure with a target of 5,000 net new patients attached. Um, so uh I think it's important uh that we have uh a new uh motion before us which uh aims also to protect the public interest uh through restrictive covenants performance milestones. uh and that means that the land isn't is uh that the land if it isn't used for primary care, it comes back to the city and it gives extra weight to proposals that added that add affordable housing which is a pri priority uh which I think we've all championed around the table. Uh finally, the motion sets a model uh that the whole city can use public land, a measurable health outcome and strong protections. And I hope we can apply that standard uh wherever residents lack primary care. So I am very pleased to uh support uh this motion that has been brought uh by councelor Gower. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and thank you, Glenn, for all the work you're doing. I I can't help but ask, um, where is the province? How come they're missing an action? And we're we're working on this so hard to bring medical, uh, primary medical care to to individuals across the the West End and across Ottawa. Um, it it's very frustrating. um we're picking up the slack of of something that should have been done at another level of government, but um it it's necessary and u I'm glad we recognize that and hopefully we can get some cooperation from the province because um I'm not seeing um their involvement and um this is very unfortunate because this is a golden opportunity and I and I hope that we can continue to see other models and I'm hoping for great success. Uh, thanks again, Glenn. >> Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. Councelor Gower, did you want to wrap up on your motion? >> Yeah, I have a quick question and then a brief wrap-up. My question is, can staff just give us some clarity if committee and council >> uh approve this motion? What are the next steps from here to April when you're reporting back? >> Thanks for the question, counselor to the chair. uh staff will be revising the RFP and uh because of the introduction of the potential use of the municipal facilities bylaw and an agreement we'll need to work closely with the uh legal our colleagues at the legal services to make sure the languages are effective and compliant with the municipal act. um we could take you know from mid November to mid December to uh produce the document then we're hitting the winter holiday season. So staff the current uh suggestion of the schedule is to release the uh RFP in early January. Um typically the RP runs uh three to four weeks but because of the uh feedback we received from uh some of the healthcare providers we are suggesting a six weeks uh running of the RP. So that would put us into the middle of the February then we'll do the evaluation the submission then that would bring us back to council to report a result in April. >> So there would be a report coming back to council and what what would that report be? What are the what would be in front of committee at that point? >> We would re we would update the recommended the result of the uh RP you know hopefully we'll have a successful uh submitter or no success that could be the possibility >> and then if council directed you to proceed with hopefully a a successful proponent there would then be some kind of a negotiation period a finalization of sale. >> Yeah. Yeah. So similar to a typical real estate transaction due diligence. >> Okay. And that would be through delegated we we'd give you delegated authority to complete that transaction at that point. >> And that would be depending on the amount of the transaction. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I'll wrap up. Um thank you to colleagues for your questions and for uh for your statements today. I appreciate that. Um this is a really important project for the West End and it it benefits the entire city of Ottawa. The more primary care providers we have in Ottawa, the better that is for our residents. Um, it was 10 years ago that former Canada North Counselor Maryanne Wilkinson started talking about a health hub in the west end of Ottawa. In fact, when she retired eight years ago, she had a retirement party and it was a fundraiser which provided some seed money for some initial research into healthc care gaps in the West End. and she set her eyes on the piece of land that we're talking about today. A piece of city land that uh there was no plans for from the city and really well located in Stitzville but very close to Canada North, Canada South, West Carlton, Rita Jock. Uh four years ago, Maryanne asked me to take over the reigns and keep the project moving forward. And so I started meeting with health care professionals, service providers, hospital officials, really anyone I could think of who might have an interest in health care services in our community. And very quickly it became apparent that primary care was the major gap and so that's where we put our focus. Uh two two years ago I met a doctor who had set up a a health hub in Perth, Dr. Taylor Frier and um that facility has attracted doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in an integrated model that quickly address the lack of doctors in Perth and it's the kind of model that I think would be perfect for the west end of Ottawa. As you heard, there are 19,000 people in Canada and Stitzville without a doctor. We have almost 60,000 people in Stitzville now and we have five doctors located physically in the community of Stitzville. Um that would be a crisis in any mun small municipality with 60,000 people. Simply not enough doctors. So what do people do? They line up in the wee hours of the morning to get the few spaces that are available in West End walk-in clinics or they go to the Queensway Carlton Hospital and overload their services looking for care or they just don't have doctor's care. they don't get a immunization or they let chronic health problems uh persist until they're much more expensive and difficult to treat. So we launched the RFO process last October and unfortunately the report in front of us um is a summary from staff. They don't feel it was a successful process. Obviously I'm extremely frustrated with that but I do want to keep this process going. Uh carp road is not really an option because it won't be serviced for another three or four years. So, this would be delaying the project for just far too long in the future. And we've got an urgent need right now. And so, um, I believe this motion takes account of the lessons learned and gives some, uh, stronger and clearer direction to staff about, uh, what council wants to see in a health hub. Um, this is incredibly important to residents. So, I appreciate committee's support with this. And I want to thank all the colleagues who've worked with me on this to get here and your support on this file. And thank you to Mayor Suckliffe as well for your support. And thank you to staff for your collaboration over the last week to to get this motion together. Um I'll I'll end with a baseball analogy for the mayor, uh which is I was hoping to have a home run on this by the end of my term of council. Uh I won't have a home run, but at least with this motion, we're avoiding the strikeout, getting a hit, and and keeping the game alive. So, thank you. >> Yeah. Well, maybe you shouldn't have retired then. Uh, but you can still you can still make it into the Hall of Fame when Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Gower. Uh, so we're just to be clear, we will vote on the motion from councelor Gower. If that motion carries, then it replaces the staff recommendation. So, we will not be voting on the staff recommendation. Is that carried? >> Carried. Thank you everyone. Moving to uh item 8.4 which is the application for approval to expropriate lands for the Brian Coburn widening. We do have a delegation on that from Hisham Makum. Is that is that online? Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello, Mr. Hakum. >> Yes. Do you hear me? >> Yeah. Go ahead, please. Oh, >> okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> So, I have my presentation ready here. So, uh just me. Give me one second. Okay. So, uh uh good morning everybody, chair and members of the committee. My name is Makum. I speak uh for 861 9271 Canada Inc. the owner of 23D22 10 line road at the column of Brian Co and the Bulvar 10 line. Uh you have my written submissions. I do not speak uh here uh to oppose this road. I am here uh because the report in front of you does not reflect the full picture. So slide two uh what the report leaves out first the report says the intersection project is 90% complete with outstanding works be performed at 23 22 turn line uh it does not tell you that in spring city works uh uh reached my land without notice and without any my authorization. I first saw the work uh on May 20 and uh I told the contractor representative on May 11. On May 12th, the city project manager emailed me the construction drawing. Uh I will come back to that. On May 14, I wrote to the city project manager asking for the scope of the work uh on on my land. I never received a reply. On May 28th, the commit the the company uh the company lawyer wrote to the city project manager asking the city to stop uh the work. On May 15, the city confirmed it had encroached. On October 15, the city told me that the the encroachments had been addressed and it had remained of uh of the land. And here I would like the committee to ask the staff uh what is outstanding uh work and where it is. Slide uh three uh the city uh drawing 2020 uh 220 uh me square meters in May 1648 square meters in October. Uh the report joins uh uh joins has two uh the report joins two projects. One is intersection project CPP 00983 to be finished in 2027. The other is the widening uh which is uh the city told me uh planned for 2029. The drawings the city sent me on May 12th issued uh for construction on February 9 showed the work on my land as strip about 43 m long and 5 m deep. The city owned sketches in June puts that at 217 and 220 square meters. Slide four. The October drawing 12 October uh October uh 28 drawing uh the drawing in the application dated October 28 shows 1648 m 7 and a half times that 25% of the road would be taken away permanently. Slide five, the areas third. The report says staff tried to from May octo from May to October to reach negotiated settlement at fair market value. The city own city own may drawings give it a base of about 220 square meters and a negotiations could have started in May. Instead, the city proposed a temporary occupation in June for $2,413 over 5 months. The p the purchase of the then purchase of the whole uh property in September and on October 15, a draft agreement for 1458 square meters. the 1648 square meters uh uh the 1648 square meters first appeared on October 30th to October 30th the day this report was submitted. I have received no offer, no price and no appraisal for this specific land area in schedule B. I answered the October 15 draft in writing within 12 days with details questions and still waiting for the answers. Slide uh four. What I ask I'm not asking you to stop either project. I do not dispose a dispute that uh that the city may expropriate the the the land each project actually requires. Uh my concern is the amount the basis and the process. I agree with the reports that negotiations should continue in line with the city acquis acquisition acquisitions policy and exploration act. I ask the committee to direct the staff to five things. One address in the report the lack of notice and unauthorized access to my land before work started. Okay. Thank you sir. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh there are no other delegations. Um any questions or comments before we vote on that item? Okay. Is the item carried? Oh, sorry, Vice Chair Kits. Go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks. I was just hoping staff could comment um on the timeline that was presented by the delegate versus um staff's version of of how that happened. Is it is it aligned or is the understanding does the understanding differ in any way? >> Um so the chair councelor the timeline that the delegate um speaks on the real estate matter is uh consistent with our practice. We were informed by our uh colleagues at infrastructure services about the land needs in May and we approached the uh owner in June. At the very beginning, we're trying to uh negotiate through the free market value negotiation. Um but that uh did not progress to the extent that wouldn't need uh wouldn't meet the project timeline requirement. So that's why the report is here today. If I may, Mr. chair, I would just add that in terms of those timelines, um this came like in the various sides of the parcels and um that type of thing that really came from discussions with the proponent's lawyer um where what staff was trying to do is find a workable solution. So, initially it was a smaller strip that we looked uh to negotiate on. The lawyer then proposed another alternative which was the full parcel. So, we tried to pursue that. Um and then finally, what we have here today really is the portion that's required for the current and the future road uh work. Um and so while the sequencing is correct, the way it happened and how it unfolded, I don't think represents how we viewed it. It was really about trying to be flexible and negotiate a solution as quickly as we can. >> Okay. Thank you. And my understanding is negotiations can continue even if the report uh is carried. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Kitz. Is that item carried? >> Uh, no in camera items. I'll note the information previously distributed on the agenda. Any notices of motion. Any inquiries? Any other business? Motion to adjurnn. Is that carried? >> Thank you everyone.