Community League License Agreement (R. Noce).

Recommendation:
That the following report be received for information.

Report Summary

This report provides a response to an Administrative Inquiry from Councillor
R. Noce regarding the Community League License Agreement.

Previous Council / Committee Action

At the April 17, 2000 Community Services Committee, Councillor R. Noce made the following inquiry:

“In the fall of 1999, City Council approved the standard Community League License Agreement (“License Agreement”). The License Agreement, to be executed by individual community leagues and the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (“EFCL”), is to take the place of the present lease arrangement which is an over-hold position.

It is my understanding that the License Agreement was approved by a majority vote at the EFCL general meeting on September 13, 1999.

Further, it is my understanding that a number of community leagues have not executed the License Agreement. As well, City Council received a letter dated April 11, 2000, from a number of community leagues enclosing a revised license agreement.

I would be obliged if the Community Services Department (“Department”) would answer the following questions:

  1. How many community leagues have executed the License Agreement?
  2. How many community leagues have not executed the License Agreement and why?
  3. Does the Department have any concerns with the length of time it has taken to execute the License Agreement?
  4. Has the Department reviewed the revised license agreement which was provided to City Council by letter dated April 11, 2000?
  5. If the answer to question #4 is “yes”, then I would ask the Department to provide the Community Services Committee (“Committee”) with its thoughts and comments relating to the revised license agreement.
  6. If the answer to question #4 is “no”, what direction does the Department need from the Committee and/or City Council to resolve this outstanding issue?

I would appreciate a response for the May 15, 2000 Community Services Committee meeting.”

At the regular Council meeting of October 19, 1999 the following was passed:

  1. “That approval be given to enter into the standard Licence Agreement with the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (EFCL) and individual community leagues, plus any leagues formed during the term of the Licence Agreement. The terms and conditions (to be as per Attachment 1 of the September 28, 1999 Community Services Department report).
  2. That the Licence Agreement be acceptable in form to Corporate Services Department (Law Branch) and in content to the General Manager of the Community Services Department.”

Report

  1. How many have signed?
    Ninety community leagues have executed the License Agreement as of April 26, 2000.
  2. How many have not signed and why?
  • Forty-two community leagues have not signed as of April 26, 2000.
  • There are a number of reasons why some of the community leagues have not signed the License Agreement.

a)Some community leagues have sought independent legal counsel to review and comment on the License Agreement.

b)Other community leagues are in the process of informing their membership of the details of the License Agreement prior to signing.

c)Some community leagues have not placed the execution of the License Agreement as a priority and therefore have not signed the License Agreement.

d)Sixteen community leagues have proposed an alternative agreement.

e)Community leagues typically meet monthly. Therefore, informing their membership and asking for feedback can, at times, take months.

  1. Concerns with the length of time?

At this time, the Department is not concerned with the length of time it has taken to execute the License Agreement. Historically, the execution of 132 agreements has taken a substantial length of time.

  1. Has the Department reviewed the Revised License Agreement?
    The Community Services Department and the Law Branch, Corporate Services Department, have reviewed the proposed alternative agreement, which was provided to City Council by letter on April 11, 2000.
  2. The Department’s thoughts and comments relating to the Revised License Agreement.

The Department and the Law Branch do not support the proposed alternative agreement for the following reasons:

a)The current License Agreement is a license as opposed to the proposed alternative agreement which is a lease. This proposed lease contemplates that community leagues have exclusive use of sites. The current License Agreement and previous agreements between the City and community leagues for sites were based upon community leagues having non-exclusive use of the sites.

b)The EFCL is not party to the proposed alternative agreement; therefore this would not be a Tripartite License Agreement. The EFCL does not support the proposed alternative agreement, according to their Executive Director.

c)The current License Agreement is for a term of five years, with a five-year renewal. The proposed alternative agreement is for a term of twenty years, with a twenty-year renewal.

d)The current License Agreement states that the City may terminate the license on six months notice and the community leagues may terminate the licenses on 30 days notice. This provision has been deleted in the proposed alternative agreement.

e)The current License Agreement requires that community leagues will not assign this license or grant a sub-license of the site, without the consent of the City, which consent may be withheld if the purposes of the proposed assignment are contrary to the objectives of community leagues or the EFCL. This provision has been amended in the proposed alternative agreement by inserting a clause that consent is only required where the assignment or sublease is for a term longer than seventy-two hours and with no involvement of the EFCL.

f)The current License Agreement states that if non-City owned utilities require repair, the parties will review the matter on a case by case basis. This provision has been deleted in the proposed alternative agreement.

g)The current License Agreement states that community leagues are responsible for paying property taxes, if assessed, and if tax regulations change, community leagues may elect to pay taxes or terminate the licence. This provision has been amended in the proposed alternative agreement to require that the City be responsible for paying property taxes.

The Department and the EFCL will continue to work towards the goal of having 132 signed and sealed License Agreements.

Others Approving this Report

Al Maurer, General Manager, Corporate Services

(Page 1 of 3)