TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998
STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 2
1 Collective Bargaining Agreement - Local 113, Toronto Firefighters' Association
2 Separation Program for Executive Management and Non-Union Staff
3 Contract No. T-8-98 - Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto Terminal Railways South of
Front Street -Structure Rehabilitation
4 Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98 -Minor Bridge Repairs on Metropolitan Roads
5 Contracts Nos. T-2-98, T-3-98, T-4-98 and T-5-98 -Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts
6 Contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 -General Maintenance of Metropolitan
Roads
7 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets -Schedule and Public Consultation Process
8 1998 Capital Works Program - Preliminary Targets andStatus Report on Outstanding Debt
of the City of Toronto
9 Financial Relationships with theToronto District School Boards
10 Expenditure Reduction Proposals -Cost of Salaries, Wages and Benefits
11 1998 Operating Budget - A Phased Review Approach
12 1998 Interim Capital Budget - Capital Projects Requiring Urgent Financing Approval
13 Other Items Considered by the Committee
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 2
OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on February 3, 1998,
submitted by Mayor Mel Lastman, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998
1
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Local 113,
Toronto Firefighters' Association
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:
(1) the adoption of the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee embodied
in the following transmittal dated January 20, 1998, from the Corporate Services
Committee; and
(2) that Council resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to give consideration, in
camera, to the confidential report dated January 16, 1998, from the Commissioner of
Human Resources, a copy of which has been forwarded to all Members of Council
under "confidential" cover:
Recommendation:
The Corporate Services Committee on January 20, 1998, recommended to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that no further action be taken respecting the
matter of the Collective Bargaining Agreement - Toronto Firefighters' Association.
Background:
The Corporate Services Committee on January 20, 1998, had before it:
(i) a confidential report (January 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Human Resources
respecting the Collective Bargaining Agreement - Toronto Firefighters' Association; and
(ii) a communication (January12, 1998) from the Toronto City Clerk advising that City
Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, had before it a notice of motion moved by Councillor
Adams and Councillor Walker, and a confidential joint report dated January 8, 1998, from the
Commissioner of Human Resources and the Functional Lead for Legal Services respecting the
Toronto Firefighters' Association Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that Council referred
the aforementioned motion and report to the Corporate Services Committee for further
consideration and the Commissioner of Human Resources was requested to submit a further
report thereon to the Committee.
Mr. Mark Fitzsimmons, President, Local 113, Toronto Firefighters' Association, appeared
before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.
(Extract from the confidential report dated January 16, 1998,
addressed to the Corporate Services Committee from
the Commissioner of Human Resources)
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Council not approve the aforementioned settlement;
(2) Council direct staff to resume negotiations with Local 113 of the Toronto Fire Fighters
Association with a view towards concluding a collective agreement consistent with other fire
and municipal settlements for the years 1996 and 1997; and
(3) the Functional Lead for Legal Services be authorized to commence legal proceedings to
set aside and quash the Award of the Board of Arbitration including any necessary interim
proceedings to stay the enforcement of the Award and to defend any legal proceedings
commenced by the Firefighters Association against the City of Toronto, including contempt
proceedings and proceedings to quash the decision of the Financial Advisory Board.
2
Separation Program for Executive Management and
Non-Union Staff
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted the joint confidential report dated
January 19, 1998, from the Commissioner of Human Resources, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer, embodying the following recommendations,
as amended by the Budget Committee at its meeting held on January 26, 1998:
"It is recommended that:
(1) Council adopt the Separation Program for Executive, Management and Non-Union staff;
(2) this program replace all separation or exit programs, policies and practices in the former
municipalities;
(3) all employees of the (new) City of Toronto be advised that separation or exit programs,
policies and practices which may have been in place in the former municipalities are no
longer in force;
(4) Council approve the establishment of a Workforce Reduction and Retraining Reserve to
accommodate the funding for the Separation Program for Executives, Management and
Non-Union staff, with initial funding of $10 million to be allocated from existing reserve
funds;
(5) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer request the Province of Ontario for assistance
in funding the Separation Program required as a result of the amalgamation dictated by the
City of Toronto Act, 1997; and
(6) the Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the
Commissioner of Human Resources be authorized to take all the necessary steps to implement
these actions and to administer the Workforce Reduction Strategy."
Council also adopted the report dated February 3, 1998, from the Chief Administrative
Officer, subject to:
(1) amending Recommendation No. (1) by:
(a) inserting the words "or an Agency, Board or Commission funded in whole or in part by
the City", after the words "City of Toronto"; and
(b) inserting the words "or employment", after the words "for re-employment";
(c) deleting the words "five years" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "two years";
(2) amending Recommendation No. (2) by:
(a) deleting the words "with the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer in consultation
with the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee. Exceptions beyond six months must
receive the approval of Council", after the words "in duration", and inserting in lieu thereof
the words "on recommendation of the Chief Administrative Officer for approval by City
Council"; and
(b) adding thereto the words "such policy to apply whether employees are hired as
consultants or employees";
(3) striking out and referring Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4) back to the Chief
Administrative Officer for further consideration and report thereon to the Corporate Services
Committee, together with the following motions:
Moved by Councillor Pantalone:
"That the foregoing Clause be amended by inserting in Recommendation No.(3) the word
'permanent' after the words 'applied to'."
Moved by Councillor Holyday:
"That the foregoing Clause be amended by striking out Recommendation No.(4) and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
'(4) the re-employment policy also apply to former Members of Council seeking employment
with the municipality, and that they should not be allowed to seek employment with the
municipality during their severance period.' "
so that the recommendations embodied in the confidential report dated February 3, 1998,
from the Chief Administrative Officer, shall now read as follows:
"(1) employees who receive an exit or retirement package from the City of Toronto or an
Agency, Board or Commission funded in whole or in part by the City, or who received an exit
or retirement package from one of the seven former municipalities, will not be eligible for
re-employment or employment by the municipality for a period of two years; and
(2) in limited, exceptional circumstances, any employee may be re-employed on a contract
basis, for a defined period of time not to exceed six months in duration, on recommendation of
the Chief Administrative Officer for approval by City Council, such policy to apply whether
employees are hired as consultants or employees."
Council also adopted the following recommendations:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) any firm that is bidding on a contract with the City of Toronto and has hired a former
senior management employee of the former Metropolitan Toronto or Area Municipal
governments shall be required to provide the name of that former employee to the City;
(2) the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be
requested to re-examine why the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget
Committee review and make recommendations respecting Human Resources issues, given the
existence of a Corporate Services Committee;
(3) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to ensure that human resources issues are
submitted to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, in accordance with the
provisions of the Council Procedural By-law; and
(4) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee identifying the reserve fund sources and amounts allocated
to the Workfare Reduction and Retraining Reserve; such report to also address whether such
reserve can be self-funded from separation savings.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:
(1) the adoption of the joint confidential report (January 19, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Human Resources, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the
Chief Administrative Officer, as amended by the Budget Committee at its meeting held
on January 26, 1998, respecting a Separation Program for Executive Management and
Non-union staff;
(2) the adoption of the report (February 3, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer
respecting a restrictive policy for re-employment of staff who have received an exit or
retirement package; and
(3) that Council resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to give consideration, in
camera, to such reports.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council,
having requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Human
Resources to consider when looking at any downsizing, that all non-union staff be treated in a
fair and equitable manner and on the same basis as the union staff; and further that the Globe
and Mail and all media be advised of the foregoing.
(A copy of each of the aforementioned reports has been forwarded to all Members of Council
under "confidential" cover.)
(Extract from the confidential joint report dated January 19, 1998,
addressed to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
from the Commissioner of Human Resources
and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.)
"It is recommended that:
(1) Council adopt the Separation Program for Executive, Management and Non-Union staff;
(2) this program replace all separation or exit programs, policies and practices in the former
municipalities;
(3) all employees of the (new) City of Toronto be advised that separation or exit programs,
policies and practices which may have been in place in the former municipalities are no longer
in force;
(4) Council approve the establishment of a Reserve for Workforce Reduction to accommodate
the funding for the Separation Program for Executives, Management and Non-Union staff,
with initial funding of $10 million to be allocated from existing reserve funds;
(5) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer request the Province of Ontario for assistance in
funding the Separation Program required as a result of the amalgamation dictated by the City
of Toronto Act, 1997; and
(6) the Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the
Commissioner of Human Resources be authorized to take all the necessary steps to implement
these actions and to administer the Workforce Reduction Strategy."
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the
foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (January 28, 1998) from the City Clerk
addressed to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, forwarding recommendations
from the Budget Committee respecting a separation program for executive, management and
non-union staff.)
(Report dated February 3, 1998,
entitled "Re-Employment Policy",
from the Chief Administrative Officer, referred to above)
Purpose:
This report will respond to comments by the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee, at its
meeting of January 19, 1998, and by the Budget Committee, at its meeting of January 25,
1998, with respect to the policy for re-employment of staff who have received an exit or
retirement package.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that
(1) employees who receive an exit or retirement package from the City of Toronto or who
received an exit or retirement package from one of the seven former municipalities, will not
be eligible for re-employment by the municipality for a period of five years;
(2) in limited, exceptional circumstances, any employee may be re-employed on a contract
basis for a defined period of time not to exceed six months in duration, with the approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Corporate Services
Committee, exceptions beyond six months must receive the approval of City Council;
(3) this policy would be applied to staff who previously worked for Councillors and the
Mayor; and
(4) Council determine if this policy should be applied to former Members of Council seeking
employment with the municipality.
Discussion:
A report was before both the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget
Committee with respect to a separation program for executive, management and non-union
staff. Contained in the report was a proposed policy on re-employment of staff who receive an
exit or retirement package from the municipality.
The proposed policy recommendations have been amended based on suggestions by
Committee members.
The Budget Committee requested that Council determine if this policy should also be applied
to former Members of Council who may seek employment with the Municipality.
3
Contract No. T-8-98 - Bathurst Street Bridge over the
Toronto Terminal Railways South of Front Street -
Structure Rehabilitation
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee the adoption of the report (December 15, 1997) addressed to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee from the Commissioner of Transportation, which
recommended that:
"(1) financing in the amount of $2,161,173.58 gross, $1,253,173.00 net, to be debentured (if
necessary) for a term up to but not exceeding 20 years, be approved for this project;
(2) pre-budget approval be granted in the amount of $2,161,173.58 gross, $1,253,173.00 net
to accommodate the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge;
(3) Part "A" of Contract No. T-8-98 for the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge over the
Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street, be awarded to Grascan Construction Ltd.
and Torbridge Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of
$1,909,813.58;
(4) D.S. Lea Associates Ltd. be retained to perform the construction supervision for this
project; and
(5) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect
thereto."
The Budget Committee reports that it has included the Bathurst Street Bridge project in the
1998 Interim Capital Budget.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 21, 1998) from the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee, advising that it referred the transmittal letter (January 13, 1998)
from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Committee on
January 12, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and
Council, the adoption of the report (December 15,1997) from the Commissioner of
Transportation, recommending the award of a contract for the rehabilitation of the Bathurst
Street Bridge, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report
back to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
--------
(Report dated December 15, 1997, addressed to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee from the
Commissioner of Transportation)
Purpose:
To award a contract for the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge over the Toronto
Terminal Railways south of Front Street.
Funding Source:
The Transportation Department's 1998-2002 Capital Works Program Estimates include an
amount of $11,600,000.00 gross, $9,933,000.00 net, under Project No. C-TRO55, Bridge
Reconstruction Program. Contract No. T-8-98 forms part of that program, and the estimated
total project cost for Part "A" including contingencies and supervision is $2,161,173.58 gross,
$1,253,173.00 net. Approximately $908,000.00 is recoverable from Bell Canada, Toronto
Hydro, CN Railways and the Toronto Transit Commission. This project was also included as
part of the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Department's approved 1997-2001 Capital
Works Program. The total project cost is:
(1) Bid Price Amount Part "A" $1,909,813.58
(2) (a) Design 51,450.00
(b) Construction supervision, 22 weeks at
$3,805.00 per week (estimate) 83,710.00
(c) Traffic management study 16,200.00
(3) Other costs (estimate) 100,000.00
(a) Quality control testing
(b) Traffic signage ____________
Total Project Cost Part "A" $2,161,173.58
____________
To accommodate this work both capital financing and pre-budget approval in the amount of
$2,161,173.58 gross, $1,253,173.00 net, is required at this time. An expenditure of
$1,253,173.00 for this project can be financed by the issuance of debentures for a term up to,
but not exceeding, 20years.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) financing in the amount of $2,161,173.58 gross, $1,253,173.00 net, to be debentured
(ifnecessary) for a term up to, but not exceeding, 20 years, be approved for this project;
(2) pre-budget approval be granted in the amount of $2,161,173,58 gross, $1,253,173.00 net
to accommodate the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge;
(3) Part "A" of Contract No. T-8-98, for the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge over
the Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street, be awarded to Grascan Construction
Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of
$1,909,813.58;
(4) D. S. Lea Associates Ltd. be retained to perform the construction supervision for this
project; and
(5) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect
thereto.
Comments:
On December 4, 1997, the Metro Clerk's Department opened tenders for:
Contract No. T-8-98 Bathurst Street bridge over the TTR
Structure Rehabilitation
No. Name Part A Part B Total (A + B)
6 Grascan Construction Ltd. 1,909,813.58 1,044,728.74 2,954,542.32
and Torbridge Construction Ltd.
2 G. Tari Limited 2,450,819.49 1,119,656.56 3,570,476.05
8 Dufferin Construction Co. 2,435,286.83 1,278,194.93 3,713,481.76
4 Armbro Construction Ltd. 2,683,544.67 2,415,338.64 5,098,883.01
5 Soncin Construction Corp. 2,437,311.32 1,330,463.77 3,767,775.09
7 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 2,629,095.48 1,200,328.12 3,829,423.60
3 Bridgecon Construction Ltd. 2,710,793.08 1,540,113.69 4,250,906.77
9 Underground Services Ltd. 2,912,762.60 1,570,734.32 4,687,390.30
1 Graham Bros. Const. Ltd. 3,195,232.93 1,563,887.82 4,759,120.75
Tenders Nos. 3, 4 and 7 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised
figures are shown above.
The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades
Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his
sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety company
which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.
Scope of Work:
The work in this Contract comprises the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge over the
Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street. The work is divided into two sections, Parts
"A" and "B".
Work in Part "A" comprises the replacement of the deck at the CNR truss span and the steel
plate girder span between Front Street and the Fort York pedestrian ramp. This includes
sidewalk replacement on the girder span only, substructure repairs for the entire bridge,
aluminum handrail, TTC infill concrete, expansion joints, waterproofing, asphalt paving,
utility duct bank structures and structural steel repairs at the CNR truss span.
Work in Part "B" comprises replacement of the spans south of the plate girder span from the
Fort York pedestrian ramp to the south end of the structure north of Bremner Boulevard. Also
included within the scope of work is a new deck at the Fort York ramp, parapet walls, railings,
expansion joints, waterproofing, asphalt paving and streetlighting.
To complete the necessary work in as short a period as possible, this bridge will be closed to
all traffic between February and June, 1998. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has
agreed to remove streetcars from service between February 14 and June 14, 1998, to
accommodate this work. Any time extension beyond June 14, 1998, would severely impact on
the waterfront activities and TTC ridership in this corridor. In order to reopen the Bathurst
Street bridge for traffic by June 14,1998, only Part "A" of this contract can be completed. As
well, future development of the railway lands south of the bridge will likely impact on the
required bridge width within the Part "B" section. For example, the TTC has requested
widening the bridge south of the plate girder span in order to accommodate a southbound
left-turn lane at the proposed Bremner Boulevard intersection. For these reasons, it is
recommended that only Part "A" of this contract be awarded at this point in time.
Approval of Consultants:
The Transportation Department maintains a list of approximately 20 bridge consultants, who
have expressed an interest in gaining work with the Department. Following a review of four
proposals and taking into account their ability to provide the services required to successfully
complete the assignment on time and within budget, D. S. Lea Associates Ltd. was selected to
design the rehabilitation works and prepare contract documents for this structure. The
selection was made in accordance with Metropolitan Toronto's "Policy for Selection of
Architects and Professional Consulting Services".
The proposal submitted by these companies also identified their ability, experience and a cost
estimate for providing construction supervision services for this project, but no award for
these services was made at that time.
Based on the satisfactory performance of this consultant to date and their knowledge of this
project, it is appropriate that D. S. Lea Associates Ltd. also be retained to provide construction
supervision services for the project as outlined in this report, at a cost not to exceed $3,805.00
per week of construction. The consultant appointment will be subject to the completion of an
agreement containing clauses satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of
Transportation.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Mr. L. Rach, Director of Planning and Engineering, 392-5344.
--------
(Communication dated January 8, 1998, addressed
to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from
Councillor Joe Pantalone, Toronto-Trinity-Niagara)
Recommendation:
That the item be approved; and, further, that the Commissioners of Transportation and
Planning initiate the necessary studies for a pedestrian/bicycle overhead link between the foot
of Tecumseth Street and the Fort York lands.
The issue of a pedestrian/bicycle link parallel to Bathurst Street to divert pedestrian/bicycle
traffic from the Bathurst Street Bridge, south of Front Street, has been supported by the
adjacent Niagara neighbourhood and has been envisioned in planning documents for the area
west of Bathurst Street.
This link would connect the Niagara and other neighbourhoods to Fort York and its
surrounding park-like lands and the Martin Goodman Trail on the Western Waterfront. This
pedestrian/bicycle link is particularly required because of the unusual configuration of the
Bathurst Street Bridge, a configuration that limits the capacity for pedestrian and bicycle
users. This narrow configuration is not unusual on Bathurst Street (as a matter of fact, a
bicyclist was killed not far from this area on Bathurst Street at Queen Street West).
Given past planning objectives in favour of this link, given the potentially quick development
of the railway lands, the Molson lands in the area, and given its obvious linkage to the present
and future traffic flows on Bathurst Street, it makes eminent sense to request our staff to
initiate the process so that City Council will, in the future, be in a position to address this
issue.
My fellow City Councillor, Mario Silva, is also in strong support of this recommendation.
--------
(Transmittal Letter dated January 21, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)
Action:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on January 19, 1998, referred the letter of
transmittal from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13,
1998, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report back to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and5, 1998.
Background:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a letter of transmittal from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13, 1998, advising that the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended the
adoption of the report (December 15, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation,
respecting the award of a contract for the rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge over the
Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street.
--------
(Transmittal Letter dated January 13, 1998, addressed to the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee)
Recommendation:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report
(December15, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation respecting Contract
No.T-8-98.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having:
(1) requested the Interim Functional Leads for Transportation and Planning to initiate the
necessary studies for a pedestrian/bicycle overhead link between the foot of TecumsethStreet
and the Fort York lands; and
(2) requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to give consideration to any
public art opportunities during Part "B" of Contract No. T-8-98.
Background:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following report and
communication:
(i) (December15, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation respecting Contract
No.T-8-98 for the structural rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto
Terminal Railways, south of FrontStreet; and
(ii) (January 8, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Toronto - Trinity Niagara,
recommending that the report (December 15, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation
regarding Contract No. T-8-98 be approved; and, further, that the Commissioners of
Transportation and Planning be requested to initiate the necessary studies for a
pedestrian/bicycle overhead link between the foot of Tecumseth Street and the Fort York
lands.
4
Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98 -
Minor Bridge Repairs on Metropolitan Roads
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee the adoption of the report (December 16, 1997) from the Commissioner
of Transportation, which recommended that:
"the Contracts T-43-98 and T-44-98 for minor bridge repairs on major arterial roads be
awarded to Pave-Tar Construction Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount
of $312,012.00 and $317,469.00 respectively."
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 21, 1998) from the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee advising that it referred the transmittal letter (January 13, 1998)
from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Committee on
January 12, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and
Council, the adoption of the report (December 16, 1997) from the Commissioner of
Transportation, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report
back to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
(Report dated December 16, 1997, addressed to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee from the
Commissioner of Transportation)
Purpose:
To award two contracts for minor bridge repairs on major arterial roads.
Funding Source:
Funds have been provided in the Municipal Maintenance Management System Account
within the 1998 Current Budget Estimates, and monies have been allocated within the
Transportation Department's interim appropriation to accommodate these expenditures.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98, for minor bridge repairs on
major arterial roads, be awarded to Pave-Tar Construction Limited who submitted the lowest
price bid in the amount of $312,012.00 and $317,469.00, respectively.
Comments:
On November 27, 1997, the Metro Clerk's Department opened tenders for:
Contract No. T-43-98 Minor Bridge Repairs on "Metropolitan" Roads - East and West
Districts
No. Name $ Amount
8 Pave-Tar Construction Limited 312,012.00
11 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 312,616.55
13 Gazzola Paving Limited 316,934.00
4 Anscon Contracting Inc. and Janscon Holdings Inc. 333,786.50
12 Dufferin Construction Company 336,522.49
15 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 343,916.73
6 Underground Services (1983) Limited 347,173.06
9 Holloway Philp Construction Limited 354,885.83
5 MSO Construction Limited and T. H. Pounder Construction Ltd. 356,652.40
1 Dagmar Construction Inc. 364,656.00
10 Ferma Road Construction Limited 434,922.90
7 Toronto Zenith Contracting Limited 452,221.59
3 Jarlian Construction Inc. 509,493.87
2 Bridgecon Construction Limited and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd. 611,855.32
14 Armbro Construction Limited 664,151.35
Tenders Nos. 2 and 14 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised
figures are shown above.
Contract No. T-44-98 Minor Bridge Repairs on "Metropolitan" Roads - North and South
Districts
No. Name $ Amount
7 Pave-Tar Construction Limited 317,469.00
10 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 328,115.00
12 Gazzola Paving Limited 333,840.00
4 Anscon Contracting Inc. and Janscon Holdings Inc. 341,865.00
11 Dufferin Construction Company 353,174.90
6 Underground Services (1983) Limited 364,129.56
14 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 365,592.25
8 MSO Construction Limited and T. J. Pounder Construction Ltd. 377,924.00
5 Holloway Philp Construction Limited 382,728.30
1 Dagmar Construction Inc. 383,060.00
9 Ferma Road Construction Limited 454,429.00
13 Jarlian Construction Inc. 524,540.75
2 Bridgecon Construction Limited and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd. 625,815.18
14 Armbro Construction Limited 679,489.59
Tenders Nos. 2, 6 and 13 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The
revised figures are shown above
The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades
Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his
sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety companies
which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.
Scope of Work:
The work in Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98 includes undertaking minor bridge and
structural repairs on various bridges on major arterial roads. This involves repairs to bridge
components such as decks, sidewalks, parapets, handrails, bearings etc. and other small
structures such as retaining walls and stairs.
Conclusions:
Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98 should be awarded to Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. who
submitted the lowest bids for these contracts.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Mr. C.J. Hebbard, Assistant Director, Road Operations, 392-8320.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 21, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)
Action:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on January 19, 1998, referred the letter of
transmittal from the Urban Environment and Development Committee dated January 13,
1998, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report back to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
Background:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a letter of transmittal from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13, 1998, advising that the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended the
adoption of the report (December 16, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation,
respecting the award of Contracts Nos. T-43-98 and T-44-98 for minor bridge repairs on
"Metropolitan" roads.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 13, 1998, addressed to the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee)
Recommendation:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report
(December16, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation respecting Contracts
Nos.T-43-98 and T-44-98 for minor bridge repairs on "Metropolitan" roads.
5
Contracts Nos. T-2-98, T-3-98, T-4-98 and T-5-98 -
Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee the adoption of the report (December 16, 1998) from the Commissioner
of Transportation, which recommended:
"That the contract for Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts be awarded to the following
tenderers who submitted the lowest price bid:
Contract No. Name $ Amount
T-2-98 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Ltd., J.F. Paving Ltd. 760,491.80
T-3-98 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 619,503.25
T-4-98 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 390,753.30
T-5-98 Brennan Paving & Construction Ltd. 647,246.64"
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 21, 1998) from the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee, advising that it referred the transmittal letter (January 13, 1998)
from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Committee on
January 12, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and
Council, the adoption of the report (December 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Transportation, recommending the award of four contracts for permanent repairs to utility
road cuts, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report back
to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
--------
(Report dated December 16, 1998, addressed to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee from the
Commissioner of Transportation)
Purpose:
To award four contracts for the permanent repairs to utility road cuts.
Funding Sources:
These contracts are based on estimated quantities that can vary considerably, depending on the
level of utility company activity in 1998. All costs are fully recoverable from the appropriate
utility company. Funds have been provided in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current
Budget Estimates and monies have been allocated within the Department's interim
appropriation to accommodate these expenditures.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the contracts for Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts be awarded
to the following tenderers who submitted the lowest price bid:
Contract No. Name $ Amount
T-2-98 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Ltd., J. F. Paving Ltd. 760,491.80
T-3-98 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 619,503.25
T-4-98 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 390,753.30
T-5-98 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 647,246.64
Comments:
On November 20, 1997, the Metro Clerk's Department opened prequalified tenders in a
"Lottery" type order for Contracts Nos. T-2-98 to T-5-98. Procedures for the withdrawal of
tenders, in accordance with Ministry of Transportation regulations for prequalified contracts,
were applied at the opening. Specifically, at the conclusion of the reading out of bids on each
contract and before the opening of tenders on the subsequent contracts, the low bidder on that
contract has the opportunity of withdrawing its remaining tenders.
Tenders were opened in the following order:
Contract No. T-3-98 Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts -West District
No. Name $ Amount
6 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 619,503.25
2 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited, J.F. Paving Ltd. 627,153.75
4 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 649,393.86
7 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 728,389.93
1 Warren Bitulithic Limited 750,009.01
5 MSO Construction Ltd. and T.J. Pounder Ltd. 773,396.00
3 Gazzola Paving Limited 879,733.94
8 Ferma Road Construction Ltd. 881,626.50
Tender No. 6 contained a minor error in the calculation of the Goods and Services Tax. The
revised figure is shown above.
Contract No. T-4-98 Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts - East District
No. Name $ Amount
6 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 390,753.30
4 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 418,568.22
2 Ferpac Paving Inc. John Ferzoco Limited, J.F. Paving Ltd. 432,025.88
7 Sentinel Paving and Construction Ltd. 434,958.85
1 Warren Bitulithic Limited 449,503.68
5 MSO Construction Ltd. and T.J. Pounder Ltd. 480,296.25
3 Gazzola Paving Limited 500,615.55
Contract No. T-5-98 Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts-South District
No. Name $ Amount
4 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 647,246.64
7 Sentinel Paving and Construction Ltd. 664,296.66
2 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited and J.F. Paving Ltd. 675,523.10
1 Warren Bitulithic Ltd. 691,971.03
3 Gazzola Paving Limited 790,914.58
5 MSO Construction Ltd. and T.J. Pounder Ltd. 799,557.50
Tender No. 6, submitted by Pave-Tar Construction Ltd., was withdrawn in accordance with
procedures for the withdrawal of tenders. Tender No. 3 contained a minor error in the
extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.
Contract No. T-2-98 Permanent Repairs to Utility Road Cuts - North District
No. Name $ Amount
2 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited and J.F. Paving Limited 760,491.80
4 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 873,498.46
7 Sentinel Paving and Construction Ltd. 891,391.75
5 MSO Construction Ltd. and T.J. Pounder Ltd. 907,039.00
1 Warren Bitulithic Limited 907,184.84
3 Gazzola Paving Limited 1,030,190.65
8 Ferma Road Construction Ltd. 1,083,910.00
Tender No. 6, submitted by Pave-Tar Construction Ltd., was withdrawn in accordance with
procedures for the withdrawal of tenders.
The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades
Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his
sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety company
which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.
Conclusion:
Contracts Nos. T-2-98 to T-5-98 inclusive should be awarded to the low bidders.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Mr. C. Hebbard, Assistant Director, Road Operations, 392-8320.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 22, 1998, addressed
to the Budget Committee from the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)
Action:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on January 19, 1998, referred the letter of
transmittal from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13,
1998, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report back to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and5, 1998.
Background:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a letter of transmittal from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13, 1998, advising that the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended the
adoption of the report (December 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation,
respecting the award of four contracts Nos. T-2-98, T-3-98, T-4-98 and T-5-98 for permanent
repairs to utility road cuts.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 13, 1998, addressed to the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee)
Recommendation:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report
(December16, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation respecting Contracts
Nos.T-2-98, T-3-98, T-4-98 and T-5-98 for permanent repairs to utility road cuts.
6
Contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 -
General Maintenance of Metropolitan Roads
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee the adoption of the report (December 16, 1997) from the Commissioner
of Transportation, which recommended:
"That the contracts for general maintenance on major arterial roads be awarded to the
following tenderers who submitted the lowest price bid:
Contract No. Name $ Amount
T-6-98 Brennan Paving & Construction Ltd. 1,016,214.63
T-7-98 Pave-Al Limited & Orlando Corporation 952,468.53
T-21-98 Warren Bitulithic Limited 894,299.49
T-22-98 Brennan Paving & Construction Ltd. 1,002,436.15"
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 21, 1998) from the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee, advising that it referred the transmittal letter (January 13,1998)
from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Committee on
January 12, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and
Council, the adoption of the report (December 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Transportation, recommending the award of four contracts for general maintenance of
"Metropolitan" roads, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a
report back to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the
Council Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
--------
(Report dated December 16, 1997, addressed to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee from the
Commissioner of Transportation)
Purpose:
To award four contracts for general maintenance on major arterial roads.
Funding Source:
Funds have been provided in the Municipal Maintenance Management System Account
within the 1998 Current Budget Estimates, and monies have been allocated within the
Transportation Department's interim appropriation to accommodate these expenditures.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the contracts for general maintenance on major arterial roads be
awarded to the following tenderers who submitted the lowest price bids:
Contract No. Name $ Amount
T-6-98 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 1,016,214.63
T-7-98 Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation 952,468.53
T-21-98 Warren Bitulithic Limited 894,299.49
T-22-98 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 1,002,436.15
Comments:
On December 4, 1997, the Metro Clerk's Department opened prequalified tenders in a
"Lottery" type order for Contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98, T-22-98. Procedures for the
withdrawal of tenders, in accordance with Ministry of Transportation regulations for
prequalified contracts, were applied at the opening. Specifically, at the conclusion of the
reading out of bids on each contract and before the opening of tenders on the subsequent
contracts, the low bidder on that contract has the opportunity of withdrawing its remaining
tenders.
Tenders were opened in the following order:
Contract No. T-21-98 Roadway Maintenance on Metropolitan Roads - North District
No. Name $ Amount
5 Warren Bitulithic Limited 894,299.49
4 Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation 927,907.32
9 Brennan Paving and Construction Limited 994,475.39
7 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Ltd., J. F. Paving Ltd. 1,042,479.60
1 Ferma Road Construction Ltd. 1,062,416.38
2 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 1,082,251.50
3 Gazzola Paving Limited 1,084,943.09
6 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 1,144,971.05
8 Crownwood Construction Ltd. 1,330,438.00
Contract No. T-6-98 Roadway Maintenance on Metropolitan Roads - South District
No. Name $ Amount
7 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 1,016,214.63
1 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 1,042,582.86
2 Gazzola Paving Limited 1,145,492.03
5 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited, J. F. Paving Ltd. 1,200,006.07
6 Crownwood Construction 1,276,389.09
4 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 1,299,788.76
Tender No. 1 contained a minor error in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is
shown above. Tender No. 3, submitted by Warren Bitulithic Limited, was withdrawn in
accordance with procedures for the withdrawal of tenders.
Contract No. T-22-98 Roadway Maintenance on Metropolitan Roads - East District
No. Name $ Amount
7 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 1,002,436.16
1 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 1,014,253.00
2 Gazzola Paving Limited 1,142,291.88
5 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited, J. F. Paving Ltd. 1,205,527.27
4 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 1,272,212.23
6 Crownwood Construction Ltd. 1,298,289.85
Tender No. 7 contained a minor error in the calculation of the Goods and Services Tax. The
revised figure is shown above. Tender No. 3, submitted by Warren Bitulithic Limited, was
withdrawn in accordance with procedures for the withdrawal of tenders.
Contract No. T-7-98 Roadway Maintenance on Metropolitan Roads - West District
No. Name $ Amount
4 Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation 952,468.53
2 Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. 1,015,028.75
7 Ferpac Paving Inc., John Ferzoco Limited, J. F. Paving Ltd. 1,065,356.20
3 Gazzola Paving Ltd. 1,104,780.08
1 Ferma Road Construction Ltd. 1,125,854.00
8 Crownwood Construction Ltd. 1,203,001.00
6 Sentinel Paving and Construction Limited 1,209,817.17
Tender No. 2 contained a minor error in the calculation of the Goods and Services Tax. The
revised figure is shown above. Tender No. 5 submitted by Warren Bitulithic Limited, was
withdrawn in accordance with procedures for the withdrawal of tenders.
The awards are subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour
Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractors and
their sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety
companies who issued the Bid Bonds and Agreements to Bond.
Scope of Work:
The work in Contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 includes crackfilling,
grinding, paving, adjustment of maintenance hole covers and frames and catch basins, curb
and gutter, and the construction of sidewalk accessibility ramps on various major arterial
roads.
Conclusion:
Contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 should be awarded to the low bidders.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Mr. C.J. Hebbard, Assistant Director, Road Operations , 392-8320.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 22, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)
Action:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on January 19, 1998, referred the letter of
transmittal from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13,
1998, to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1998 Capital Budget and a report back to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to be held prior to the Council
Meeting to be held on February 4 and 5, 1998.
Background:
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a letter of transmittal from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated January 13, 1998, advising that the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended the
adoption of the report (December 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation,
respecting the award of four contracts Nos. T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 for general
maintenance of "Metropolitan" roads.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated January 13, 1998, addressed to the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the
Urban Environment and Development Committee)
Recommendation:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, recommended to
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report
(December16,1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation respecting Contracts
Nos.T-6-98, T-7-98, T-21-98 and T-22-98 for general maintenance of "Metropolitan" roads.
7
1998 Operating and Capital Budgets -
Schedule and Public Consultation Process
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(a) striking out the following recommendation embodied in the transmittal letter dated
January28, 1998, from the Budget Committee:
"(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to invite the Budget Chair and/or
his designate, other interested members of the Budget Committee and the Chairs of the
Standing Committees and/or their designates to attend staff Budget reviews, to obtain
necessary background information on the various departmental budgets."; and
(b) adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that a five-year planning process be continued with respect to the
Capital Budgets for the former Metropolitan Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January 28, 1998) from the Budget Committee, subject to including at the end of the
listing for the week of March 2, the words "Phase 1 and Phase 2" so that the listing now
reads as follows:
"Week of March 2 Committee of the Whole of City Council
- public meeting re Capital and Operating Budgets, Phase 1 and Phase 2".
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following transmittal letter
(January 28, 1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that:
(1) The following be the process and schedule for consideration and approval of the Capital
and Operating Budgets:
February 3, 1998 Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
(a) principles of budget
(b) budget process
(c) approve interim capital budget
February 4 Council approval of the above
February 9-19 Standing Committees and Community Council review Capital Budget and
receive a copy of the Phase 1 of Operating Budget for information
February 17 Budget Committee approval Phase 1 (cut$150million)
February 24 Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee approval of Operating Budget, Phase
1
Week of March 2 Committee of the Whole of City Council
- public meeting re Capital and Operating Budgets
March 23 - April 2 Standing Committees and Community Council review Operating Budget
and receive a copy of Phase 2 for information
March 31 Budget Committee finalize consolidated Operating and Capital Budgets
April 6 Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee receive and recommend approval of the
Operating and Capital Budgets to Council
April 15 City Council approval of Operating and Capital Budgets; and
(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to invite the Budget Chair and/or his
designate, other interested members of the Budget Committee and the Chairs of the Standing
Committees and/or their designates to attend staff Budget reviews, to obtain necessary
background information on the various departmental budgets.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (December 18, 1997) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer respecting the proposed 1998 Operating Budget Process.
The Budget Committee also had before it the following:
(i) a report (December 23, 1997) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the
proposed 1998 Capital Budget Process; and
(ii) a report (January 23, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting a
process for public consultation for the 1998 budget process.
Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government addressed the Committee.
--------
(Report dated December 18, 1997, from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
entitled "Proposed 1998 Operating Budget")
Purpose:
To establish a process and timetable to adopt the 1998 operating budget.
Source of Funds:
N/A
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Discussion:
The preparation of the 1998 Operating Budget has been underway for several months. A
significant work effort has been directed towards establishing common program and
sub-program definitions as well as harmonizing various accounting and budgeting practices
and policies.
Senior staff from the seven amalgamating municipalities have worked together in Service
Review Teams in developing proposals for the 1998 consolidated operating budgets.
Preliminary budget pressures have been identified and a budget framework has been
developed to address these pressures. Service Review Teams have been given preliminary
reduction targets and have submitted their resulting budget estimates in varying degrees of
completion in meeting those targets.
The receipt of the Transition Team budget report will kick-off the Budget Committee review
process for the 1998 Operating Budget which will include: addressing City budget pressures;
Provincial -downloading pressures; and funding one-time transition costs. The following
process and timetable in Appendix A is presented for consideration to meet an April 15
Council approval.
Because of tight timelines in this unusual initial operating year, the 1998 budget process has
been developed to address the current year's issues only, but with an identification of future
years' issues wherever possible.
Public meetings to review the departmental budgets would be set up at a cluster level and
would include the review of the budgets of the various agencies, boards and commissions.
These meetings could occur in one location or at the locations of the various Community
Councils.
Throughout 1998, the Standing Committees will consider policies and define the service
levels that will form the basis of the 1999 Budget while the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee in 1998 will consider financial policies that will be incorporated into 1999 and
future years' operating budgets.
In May 1998, after budget approval, Council will be required to approve the adoption of a
number of tax policies before tax rates can be established and final tax bills can be sent out.
This will have to wait until after the final assessment roll is received from the Province in late
April 1998. These policy decisions will focus around the following:
(1) whether to approve the establishment of a separate tax class for new multi-residential
units;
(2) whether to establish "bands" or sub-classes of commercial properties, and if so, how many
and at what levels;
(3) phase in periods for assessment increases and decreases;
(4) the nature of the tax relief for low income seniors and disabled (deferral/cancellation); and
(5) whether to shift tax burdens between tax classes i.e., Residential, multi-residential,
commercial, industrial.
These decisions will be required before tax rates are approved by Council and before tax bills
are sent out.
Appendix A
Proposed 1998 Operating Budget Process
Strategis Policies & Priorities
Committee |
January 19 |
Adopt 1998 Operating
Budget principles/direction. |
Budget Committee |
January 26 |
Receive Strategic Policies &
Priorities Committee 1998
Operating Budget direction.
Receive Transition Team
budget report.
Staff presentation on budget
pressures and work
completed to date in meeting
budget pressures.
Set Department, Agencies,
Boards and Commissions
budget targets and issue
guidelines. |
|
February 17 |
Departments, Agencies,
Boards and Commissions
present operating budgets that
meet 1998 Operating Budget
principles. |
|
February 24, 25, 26 |
Budget Committee detailed
review and analysis of
Department, Agencies,
Boards and Commissions
budgets. |
|
March 2, 3 or
March 23, 24, 25 |
Conduct public meetings |
|
March 31 |
Finalize consolidated 1998
Operating Budget and
forward to Strategic Policies
& Priorities Committee. |
Strategic Policies &
Priorities Committee |
April 6 |
Receive and recommend
1998 Operating Budget.
Forward to Council. |
Council |
April 15
May 13 |
Adopt 1998 Operating
Budget.
Adopt 1998 tax rates. |
Note: Budget Committee will need to meet in February on a more frequent basis than
currently scheduled.
(Report dated December 23, 1997 from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
entitled "Proposed 1998 Capital Budget Process)
Purpose:
To establish a process and timetable to adopt a 1998 Capital Budget.
Source of Funds:
N/A
Recommendation:
Receive as information.
Discussion:
The preparation of the 1998 Capital Budget has been underway for several months. A
significant work effort has been directed to identifying and categorizing proposed capital
projects as well as defining a level of capital expenditures that will not increase 1998
operating costs.
The proposed 1998 Capital Budget considers a two stage approval process -
(1) February 1998 approval of a 1998 Interim Capital Budget of critical projects/high priority
emergency projects, projects which avoid significant liabilities for the City, projects with
major savings and other critical projects. Transition costs where immediate investments are
required to realize the savings in operations.
(2) April 1998 approval of the 1998 Final Capital Budget. New projects, existing projects
requiring additional funding or with significant cashflow/scope change from prior years'
programs as well as a status report on previously approved projects would be included in this
Final Budget.
The process as presented addresses only the need for a capital budget for 1998. Subsequent to
the passage of the 1998 Capital Budget, a five year Program needs to be adopted by Council
later in 1998 to address Council's long term objectives for the City.
The following process and timetable is presented in Appendix A and B for consideration:
Appendix A
1998 Interim Capital Budget - Proposed Process
Strategic Policies & Priorities
Committee |
January 19 |
Establish overall preliminary
1998 Capital Budget Target |
Council |
February 4 |
Adopt 1998 Capital Budget
target. |
Budget Committee |
January 26 |
Review critical projects that
form 1998 Interim Capital
Budget.
Review and recommend 1998
Interim Capital Budget. |
Strategic Policies & Priorities
Committee |
February 3 * |
Review and recommend 1998
Interim Capital Budget. |
Council |
February 4 |
Adopt 1998 Interim Capital
Budget. |
* Needs to be scheduled.
Appendix B
1998 Final Capital Budget - Proposed Process |
Budget Committee |
January 26 |
Set preliminary target and
guidelines for departments,
agencies, boards and
commissions.
Review and adopt project
categorization and priority
setting mechanisms. |
|
February 17 * |
Departments present 1998
Capital Budget requests. |
|
|
Review consolidated service
team/department final 1998
Capital Budget. |
|
|
Refer relevant projects within
defined targets to Community
Councils for comment. Meet
with Community Councils. |
|
|
Refer relevant projects within
defined targets to Standing
Committees for comment. |
Community Councils |
February 18-20 |
Review projects included in
1998 Capital Budget with
Budget Committee.
Recommend adjustments, if
any, to Budget Committee. |
Standing Committee |
March 23-30 |
Review projects included in
1998 Capital Budget.
Recommend adjustments, if
any, to Budget Committee. |
Budget Committee |
March 31 |
Review comments/
recommendations from
Community Councils and
Standing Committees.
Recommend changes to 1998
Final Capital Budget. |
Strategic Policies &
Priorities Committee |
April 6 |
Review and approve 1998
Final Capital Budget. |
Council |
April 15 |
Adopt 1998 Final Capital
Budget. |
* Budget Committee should set meeting date prior to February 17, 1998.
8
1998 Capital Works Program - Preliminary Targets and
Status Report on Outstanding Debt of the City of Toronto
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that:
(1) Recommendations Nos. (2), (5) and (6), embodied in the report (January 19, 1998) from
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be adopted, subject to deleting Recommendation
No.(2)(v), so that Recommendations Nos. (2), (5) and (6) now read as follows:
(2) that the interim Capital Management Guidelines as outlined in this report be used in the
capital budget process:
(i) limit debt charges for tax supported programs to 10 percent of the municipal property tax
levy;
(ii) the capital budget should include items with a useful life greater than the standard term of
debenture borrowing - 10 years;
(iii) maintain capital from current funding at approximately $100 million with a view to
increasing this level where possible;
(iv) fund capital maintenance and rehabilitation projects to the greatest extent possible from
capital from current;
(v) explore alternative sources of capital financing, including the implementation of a
City-wide development charges regime;
(5) that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to report on transitional
projects and potential funding sources for transitional costs required to support the
amalgamation process;
(6) that appropriate staff be requested to bring forward as soon as possible recommendations
on appropriate road, bridge and facility maintenance standards and related longer term capital
requirements;
(2) that the level of debt for capital budgets for future years be the subject of a further report
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer prior to the establishment of the five year
capital plan; and
(3) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the Budget Committee on
his plan for asset rationalization and disposal of property in short, medium and long term, so
that those capital dollars can be reinvested in the City's Capital Budget.
The Budget Committee reports having referred the following motion to the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee and requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to
that Committee on February 3, 1998, on which projects are affected and what the
consequences would be if the motion were adopted:
"That any project for which prior approval has been given, but for which funding has not
been provided and a contract has not been signed or issued, should not proceed until
specifically approved by Council; and
That the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to:
(i) the Budget Committee on all 1997 and 1998 unfunded Capital projects; and
(ii) the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on any projects that require immediate
approval."
The Budget Committee also reports that it has deferred the following
recommendations/motions until its next meeting on February 17, 1998, pending receipt of the
above requested report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
(1) Recommendations Nos. (1), (3) and (4) embodied in the report (January 19, 1998) from
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, as follows:
(1) that the 1998 gross capital budget target for property tax supported entities be set at $587
million, requiring estimated borrowing of $146 million;
(3) that the 1998 gross capital target allocations in Appendix A be adopted and used as a
benchmark against which the capital requests are analyzed throughout the political review
process; and
(4) that Standing Committees be directed to prioritize capital projects within the target
allocations for consideration of the Budget Committee at its meeting on March 31, 1998,
through to Council via the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.
(2) Motion by Councillor Jakobek:
"That the Capital Budget guidelines include:
(i) no further debentures/debt;
(ii) a maximum $300 million Toronto Transit Commission Capital (instead of $349 million),
except for the Sheppard Subway; and
(iii) $275 million consolidated capital for other municipal areas (making a total of $575
million instead of $587 million)."
(3) Motion by Councillor Shiner:
"Whereas in 1997, seven municipalities approved capital works programs that used different
sources of funding being operating, reserves, grants and debt; and
Whereas projects with previous approvals will require the use of debt in order to finance the
projects completely; and
Whereas it is estimated that approximately $200 million will need to be borrowed in 1998 to
cover these projects; and
Whereas the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has submitted a report on interim capital
guidelines where debt is recommended as a source of financing the 1998 capital budget.
Therefore Be it resolved that only approved and started projects from prior years be funded
from any new issue of debt in 1998; and
Be it further resolved that the level of debt to be used to finance the 1998 Capital Budget be
$110 million (other than that required to complete the Sheppard Subway) - a no tax impact
level of debt."
(4) Motion by Councillor Chow:
"That Recommendation No. (2)( v) embodied in the report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer, titled "1998 Capital Works Program - Preliminary Targets"
be amended to read:
'(v) put the highest priority on capital maintenance and rehabilitation projects, including those
showing extreme need, urgency, and timing necessity and phase in partnership applicability.'"
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer recommending preliminary targets for the 1998 Capital Works program
to assist Council and its committees in reviewing the capital requests of the various program
areas.
The Budget Committee also had before it a report (January 23, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer providing the status of the outstanding debenture debt and related debt
charges assumed by the City of Toronto as of January 1, 1998.
--------
(Report dated January 19, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To set preliminary funding targets for the 1998 Capital Works Program to assist Council and
its committees in reviewing the capital requests of the various program areas.
Financial Implications:
The recommended capital targets would result in a $1 million increase in debt charges in 1998
and $17 million in 1999 if the same level of capital targets were again set in 1999. These
impacts are exclusive of possible additional transitional capital costs related to amalgamation
which are in the process of being quantified and for which possible funding sources are being
reviewed.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the 1998 gross capital budget target for property tax supported entities be set at $587
million, requiring estimated borrowing of $146 million;
(2) the interim Capital Management Guidelines as outlined in this report be used in the capital
budget process:
(i) limit debt charges for tax supported programs to 10 percent of the municipal property tax
levy;
(ii) the capital budget should include items with a useful life greater than the standard term of
debenture borrowing - 10 years;
(iii) maintain capital from current funding at approximately $100 million with a view to
increasing this level where possible;
(iv) fund capital maintenance and rehabilitation projects to the greatest extent possible from
capital from current;
(v) put the highest priority on capital maintenance and rehabilitation projects; and
(vi) explore alternative sources of capital financing, including the implementation of a
City-wide development charges regime.
(3) the 1998 gross capital target allocations in Appendix A be adopted and used as a
benchmark against which the capital requests are analyzed throughout the political review
process;
(4) standing committees be directed to prioritize capital projects within the target allocations
for consideration of the Budget Committee at its meeting on March 31, 1998, through to
Council via the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;
(5) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to report on transitional projects and
potential funding sources for transitional costs required to support the amalgamation process;
and
(6) appropriate staff be requested to bring forward as soon as possible recommendations on
appropriate road, bridge and facility maintenance standards and related longer term capital
requirements.
Council Reference:
Council, at its meeting of January 6, 1998, adopted a report dated December 23, 1997 from
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Proposed 1998 Capital Budget Process",
which outlined a review process for committee and Council review of the 1998 capital budget.
Contained in that process was the establishment of preliminary 1998 capital budget targets by
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for presentation to Council in February, 1998.
Discussion:
The 1998 Preliminary Capital Request:
Each former municipality prepared preliminary capital project requests for 1998 to 2002. This
report deals only with 1998 capital requirements. Post 1998 capital expenditures will be
considered separately, given the need to develop longer term debt management policies and to
evaluate in detail the capital needs of the new City.
Capital requests have been based on existing budgeting and financing policies which vary
from municipality to municipality and, in general, these estimates have not been extensively
reviewed by individual municipalities. The actual level of borrowing required may change
from that shown in this report, once budgeting policies have been standardized. A large
number of projects has been submitted which have not been considered or approved by
previous Councils, mostly for rehabilitation and maintenance initiatives. Further, the capital
requests do not yet include any transitional costs for the new City (which are being tabulated
and reviewed), or capital cost requirements of Provincially downloaded functions such as
social housing and GO transit. However, the capital requests provide a useful starting point
for review by Council.
The expenditures, funding and borrowing for the consolidated preliminary capital request for
property tax supported projects in 1998 is currently estimated as follows:
Requested Capital
Program ($Million)
Gross Expenditures 708
Funded by:
Provincial Grants (231)
Other External Revenue/Reserves (85)
Capital From Current and Other Internal (125)
Less: Potential Underspending (39)
Borrowing 228
The chart below details the impact on net debt outstanding of the requested 1998-2002 capital
program.
Funding of Capital Works Program:
Gross capital expenditures are supported by various funding sources:
(1) Provincial and external funding. This is almost exclusively related to funding of capital
projects of the Toronto Transit Commission. Under a five year subsidy agreement entered into
between the Province and Metro in 1996, the Province agreed to phase in and maintain a 50
percent subsidy formula for the TTC's base capital program through to the year 2000, to a
subsidy limit of $915 million, and a further $511 million for the Sheppard Subway. Since
then, transit subsidies to other jurisdictions have been eliminated as part of the Provincial
downloading process. The implication in 1998 is that some projects are now being funded at
50 percent compared with the traditional 75 percent level and this is causing upward pressure
on the borrowing requirements of the City as it relates to the TTC. By 2001, the entire subsidy
will be eliminated and the City will be faced with substantial increases to annual
commitments to the TTC's capital maintenance and rehabilitation requirements;
(2) Internal sources - reserves and reserve funds, proceeds from property leases and sales, and
other sources. To the extent that the City can secure additional revenues from sources such as
development charges or third party agreements, higher capital expenditures can be incurred or
debt issuance can be lowered;
(3) the level of "pay as you go" financing, commonly referred to as capital from current.
Direct contributions to the capital program from the operating budget is an effective debt
management tool which helps the City avoid future debt charges; and
(4) Debt.
The capital targets contained in this report are based entirely on the best estimates of existing
funding sources.
Historical Context of Capital Program:
The pressures on the capital budget are to a large extent, a continuation of the trends which
were identified in aggregate in prior approvals of capital programs unrelated to the
amalgamation process. There are a few significant influences which have raised the 1998
capital requests above a level which would produce stability in borrowing which may have
been possible two years ago:
(1) the reduction in Provincial subsidy to the TTC has added about $50 million to the 1998
budget in comparison with the traditional 75/25 cost sharing;
(2) the TTC's capital request advanced the purchase of replacement buses, totalling $44
million gross/ $22 million net into 1998. (Funding for this item is recommended to be
deferred, as discussed below.) As well, additional cost estimates have been added to overhaul
subway cars and for other priorities under the TTC's "State of Good Repair" program;
(3) the requested 1998 gross transportation capital budget request is about the same as
historical levels, but the elimination of Provincial subsidies has increased the net expenditure
request by almost $50 million. Approximately $17 million of this subsidy elimination has
been recognized in the net expenditure levels associated with the recommended gross
expenditure targets;
(4) solid waste management expenditures have risen by about $20 million over previous years,
largely as a result of investments in recycling facilities;
(5) the capital program of the police has increased by approximately $20 million, mainly from
investments in technology to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of officers' time; and
(6) parks and recreation expenditures have increased from historical levels.
As a benchmark, were the City to borrow, on average, $110 million per year to support future
capital programs, then the total debt charges in the operating budget would stay more or less at
the 1998 level. The capital budget pressures shown above mean that the capital requests
would require borrowing of $228 million per year, more than double that level. Each of these
components will be re-evaluated through the 1998 capital budget review process with a view
to minimizing where possible, the borrowing impact of the various items.
Debt Management Considerations:
It is essential that the new City establish some preliminary debt management guidelines to
assist in the 1998 capital budget priority setting process and to provide early indications to the
credit rating agencies of the longer term financial policies and plans of the Corporation. The
rating agencies have not yet established a credit rating for the new City, but ratings have a
direct impact on the borrowing costs of the Corporation.
As an interim indicator, it is recommended that the City's 1998 capital program and resulting
debt impact be monitored through the ratio of debt charges as a percentage of municipal
property taxes and that the longer term level be set at a maximum of 10 percent. This is a
valid, easily understood and simple measure which indicates the proportion of the property tax
dollar which is dedicated to debt servicing versus that which is available for operating
purposes. (The 1998 debt charges are7.5percent of property taxes, so the 10 percent level can
be considered to be an upward limit to manage the City's capital expenditure and funding
decisions over time).
Other indicators often used in respect of municipalities include debt charges (principal and
interest payments) as percent of total revenues or own source revenues (e.g. property taxes
plus user fees), debt as a percent of total reserve balances, or, as used by New York and Los
Angeles, debt as a percent of the total assessed value of properties in the municipality, similar
in concept to the debt equity indicator used in the private sector. Longer term financial
policies are being developed and will be presented to Council as soon as possible.
By a number of measures, the new City is in sound financial condition. Rating agencies use a
broad number of measures in establishing their ratings, but consistently gave Metro,
previously as the borrowing source for the former seven municipalities and the school boards,
good marks for relatively low debt levels, high reserves, and progressive pay as you go capital
financing policies. Before amalgamation, Metro Toronto had the equivalent of a triple A
credit rating from the two Canadian rating agencies, Canadian Bond Rating and Dominion
Bond Rating. Two U.S. based agencies, Standard and Poor's and Moody's, downgraded the
rating in 1996 from the former triple A level, due to the economic uncertainty in the Toronto
area and possible downloading from the Provincial government.
In terms of the recommended interim debt measure, Toronto's debt charges as a percent of
property taxes tend to be comparatively high in comparison with GTA regional governments:
Debt Charges as % of
Property Taxes (Net Levy)
Peel 0.1
Durham 0.3
York 3.0
Halton 6.7
Toronto 7.5
The regions of Peel and Durham have been successful at moving away from debt. However, it
should be noted that, unlike Toronto, these areas have significant growth and therefore are
currently able to fund their capital programs from development charges and assessment
growth to a much larger extent. Further, no other municipality in the Province has the major
capital infrastructure items which must be maintained by Toronto, such as the elevated
Gardiner expressway, subway tunnels, tracks and cars, or streetcar tracks and cars. As well,
the infrastructure in the surrounding regions tends to be younger and therefore generally less
expensive to maintain.
Interim Capital Management Guidelines:
A more comprehensive debt management strategy will be presented to the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee in the next quarter. Further analysis and policy development is being
undertaken as well on the appropriate use of reserves, appropriate funding mechanisms for
vehicle replacements and facility rehabilitation and maintenance, and development of a full 5
year capital works program. In the mean time, it is necessary to establish some interim capital
management guidelines. These include:
(1) debt charges for property tax supported programs should not, over time, exceed 10 percent
of municipal property tax revenues. Although there are no established standards which
determine this to be the most appropriate level, this simply means that 90 percent of every tax
dollar raised is available for operating purposes. As well, this amount is in keeping with
Toronto as a mature municipality with limited potential for significant assessment and
revenue growth, particularly in comparison with other large Ontario municipalities. The
former City of Toronto used 10 percent as a guideline. Metro's guideline was 15 percent,
however, based on the additional tax base from Provincial downloading, and adjusted to
eliminate the self-supporting water pollution control operation from the calculation, the
effective ratio was also very close to 10 percent;
(2) the capital budget should only include items which have a useful life greater than the
standard term of debenture borrowing, 10 years. For example, vehicle and replacement
microcomputer related expenditures should be funded from reserves or the operating budget;
(3) the existing consolidated capital from current level of approximately $100 million should
be maintained as a minimum, to reduce future borrowing, particularly for ongoing
maintenance requirements. One way to mitigate the long term fiscal consequences of
increased debt is to use direct contributions from the operating budget for capital funding
(capital from current) to a greater extent. A phased increase of capital from current funding as
a permanent addition to the property tax base is advisable over the next five years if long run
operating impacts associated with new capital funding responsibilities for transit and roads are
to be minimized. Options will be presented to Council as part of a strategy for longer term
financing strategies. While no increase to capital from current has been included in the
operating budget for 1998, every attempt should be made to increase this amount in future
years;
(4) Capital projects of a rehabilitation or maintenance nature (i.e. expenditures which return
an asset in its original state of repair and service level) should be funded to the extent possible
from capital from current. Full funding of these items through capital from current is not
achievable in 1998. Other initiatives should be funded through debt, for example, service
enhancements and expansion. As a rule, new projects have a longer useful life than
rehabilitation and it is therefore advisable in the longer term to minimize the use of debt to
finance ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance;
(5) Capital projects of a rehabilitation or maintenance nature should be considered the highest
priority. Projects with significant health and safety considerations, those with legislated
requirements or those which will produce sustainable operating savings, should also be
considered to be of high priority. Because of the constraints facing the capital and operating
budgets, new initiatives should generally be required to produce demonstrable ongoing
operating efficiencies and savings; and
(6) the City should examine alternative funding sources for the capital program. Two such
sources which could play a prominent role in funding capital include the use of development
charges and user fees. A report detailing the merits of these sources of funding will be
presented to Council, for its consideration, in the next few months.
Benchmark Capital Borrowing Level:
To assist Council in its review of the 1998 capital requests from the various departments, five
capital expenditure and borrowing options have been identified and analyzed for property tax
supported operations. Rate supported capital expenditures, such as those for self-supporting
water and sewer operations, are excluded as these do not impact the property tax base.
Further, the Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP), i.e. Sheppard Subway and Wilson
Yard Expansion, has been excluded from the benchmark calculation since debt charges for
these programs are currently funded from the reserve established for that purpose through
annual contributions of about $12 million in the operating budget.
Option (1) A status quo borrowing level - Maintain debt charges at the current 7.5 percent of
property taxes by financing $110 million in capital expenditures annually through borrowing.
In 1998, this would support gross expenditures of about $560 million. This would, on average
over a number of years, result in no increase in the operating budget due to higher debt
charges and would maintain the debt charges, on average, at the current level of $190 million
(exclusive of $12 million funded from the RTEP reserve).
Option (2) Recommended 1998 target level - The individual targets recommended in this
report would require borrowing in 1998 of $146 million. At this level of borrowing in both
1998 and 1999, the operating budget would rise by $1 million in 1998 and by a further $17
million in 1999. The 1998 gross expenditures associated with this target is $587 million.
Option (3) Higher borrowing level. - Constrain debt charges at 10 percent of the property
taxes. This would result in operating budget pressures of $7 million annually on average over
a 10 year period to fund higher debt charges. This scenario would allow the City to borrow
$160 million annually and would support, in 1998, a gross budget of approximately $620
million.
Option (4) Lower borrowing level - (Reduce over time the debt charge over taxes ratio to, say,
5 percent). Significant reductions to the capital program, or the implementation of alternative
funding sources which would avoid debt would have to be introduced. Under this scenario,
the City would have to reduce its annual borrowing to, on average, $60 million through a long
term debt reduction strategy. This level of borrowing would support a 1998 gross budget of
approximately $500 million. To adequately fund infrastructure maintenance requirements at
this level of borrowing would require significant funding changes through, for example,
higher levels of reserve contributions, dedicated user fees, and/or capital from current
increases. These and other options will be evaluated as part of a comprehensive review of
capital financing policies.
Option (5) 1998 capital requests - The consolidated requests for tax supported programs have
a 1998 gross capital expenditure level of $708 million, with borrowing projected at $228
million. Were this level of borrowing to occur in 1998 and future years, the debt charges over
property tax ratio would rise from the current level of 7.5 percent to over the 10 percent
guideline by 2003 and to almost 13 percent within 10 years. This would translate into annual
average operating budget increases of $15 million due to higher debt charges.
Given the constraints currently being placed on the operating budget, Option 1) would be
preferable in the long term. However, the capital funding pressures as outlined in this report
have resulted in recommended 1998 targets above this level and therefore, Option 2) is
recommended. Approving capital expenditures above this level would mean higher debt
charges or an increase in capital from current, where either one increases the operating budget
for capital financing.
The borrowing scenarios identified above would result in the following total debt charge
impacts on the 1998 operating budgets, in comparison with the requests:
Change in Operating Budget
Due to Debt Charges ($Million)
1998 1999
Annual Borrowing:
$60 Million: (2) 4
$110 Million: 0 11
$146 Million (Recommended) 1 17
$160 Million: 2 19
$228 Million (Requests) 4 33
Recommended 1998 Targets for Programs:
An allocation of capital expenditure targets for programs has been made as a starting point to
assist Council and its committees in the review of the capital requests. These have been based
on an analysis of the historical level of capital expenditures for each function in the seven
municipalities, funding committed to projects approved by previous Councils, and a
preliminary review of the requested capital program consolidation of the former seven
municipalities. The following strategies have been taken into consideration in setting the
targets:
(1) there may be opportunities for infrastructure rationalization made possible by the
amalgamation. On this basis, facility related expenditures may be reduced through the
disposal of surplus properties which might otherwise have had to be maintained. Information
technology and communications related expenditures may benefit from a more corporate
approach, rather than specific directions determined by each department or agency. Further,
vehicle purchases can be re-examined to determine the longer term strategies for funding these
items through the operating budget and reserves; and
(2) priority should be placed on rehabilitation and maintenance projects, or those which will
enhance health and safety or result in future operating budget savings. As such, new initiatives
which would increase future operating budgets would be generally considered as a lower
priority.
The recommended targets are shown in Appendix A. They would result in a borrowing level
of $146 million. While this is in excess of a "no tax impact" level of $110 million, there are a
number of issues and commitments as described in more detail below, which would make it
difficult for the City to reduce its borrowing requirements to that level in 1998, as described
below.
Target Rationale:
Toronto Transit Commission:
The TTC's capital program is by far the largest component of the City's capital requests.
Expenditures relating to the construction of the Sheppard Subway and Wilson Yard have been
isolated from the property tax supported targets, since the debt charges for the next two years
for these RTEP projects can be completely funded from the dedicated tax and reserve
established for that purpose in 1996. As originally projected, by the year 2000, RTEP debt
charges will have an impact on the operating budget.
The majority of the balance of the TTC's program is for "state of good repair", or maintenance
and rehabilitation items, including the replacement of subway and surface vehicles. Because
of the Provincial funding agreement described earlier, some projects will be funded in 1998 at
25 percent City and 75 percent Provincial, while other projects will be at a 50/50 ratio. Any
arbitrary reduction to the balance of the program would result in a simple deferral which could
mean that the City would be forced to pay 100 percent for items in the future which could be
completed for a 25 to 50 percent City share if done now. The following adjustments have been
made to the TTC target:
(1) half of the funding for replacement buses ($22 million gross/$11 million net) has been
deferred based on indications that the buses may not be purchased in 1998; and
(2) the new Queens Quay LRT extension has been treated as a new item and $7 million gross
in funding has therefore been deferred, consistent with the target treatment of other programs.
This item can still be considered, should Council determine it to be of a high priority.
Transportation:
The second largest tax supported component of the program is for road resurfacing, bridge and
road reconstruction, and various other road related projects. The target has been established at
a gross level of $100 million, or approximately $30 million below the historical budgeted
level of expenditure. An inventory of the state of repair of arterial and local roads must be
completed and road maintenance standards need to be developed to determine the longer term
capital requirements. It is recommended that the appropriate staff bring forward
recommendations as soon as possible in this regard. In the mean time, since the majority of
the requested capital program is for maintenance and rehabilitation, it is recommended that
funding be maintained for these works. To arbitrarily stop such work would in all likelihood
mean the continued deterioration of roads, bridges and expressways which are known to
increase the longer term costs.
Solid Waste:
The majority of solid waste projects have received previous Council approval and therefore,
only a minor overall reduction has been indicated.
Police:
The Police request includes a number of new automation projects which are designed to
increase the operating efficiency of the service and replace outdated equipment. The
recommended target will provide for the majority of the requested works and will allow the
City to evaluate the required funding for communication upgrades in the context of the overall
emergency requirements of police, fire and ambulance, as well as corporate wide financial
system requirements.
Fire and Ambulance:
Pending consolidated facilities and vehicle requirements studies, and based on the premise
that vehicles such as pumpers should be funded from reserves or the operating budget, the fire
and ambulance targets have been set at a level of $1 million each.
Parks and Recreation:
A sizeable portion of the Parks and Recreation capital program relates to facility upgrades
such as swimming pool rehabilitation and upgrades, and various new facilities. The target has
been set at approximately the historical level of $20 million. Within the constrained capital
program, as indicated in the guidelines described earlier, emphasis should be placed on
rehabilitation and maintenance and new facilities should be generally considered as a lower
priority.
Community Services:
The bulk of the request for Community Services is for completion of renovations to the
Cummer Lodge home for the aged and the Seaton House hostel. No adjustment has been
suggested.
Library:
At this point, funding for library expansion and rehabilitation has been set at $3 million,
pending complete facility requirement and condition studies.
Zoo, Conservation and Exhibition:
The requests for these items have not been adjusted. The funding levels for the Conservation
Authority and Exhibition Place have been at about the same level for a number of years and
this level represents the ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation levels. The normal annual
level for the Zoo is approximately $4 million to $5 million but, because certain works were
completed in 1997, the 1998 request is lower than usual, about $2 million.
Historical Board:
Funding has been set at $1 million, pending an analysis of the longer term requirements.
Facilities:
A significant reduction to the facilities funding level is recommended, pending a
comprehensive analysis of facility needs, state of repair and capital requirements. However, it
is acknowledged that there will be a requirement for some level of facility rehabilitation and
maintenance funding in the future. It is therefore recommended that the appropriate staff bring
forward recommendations on the City's long term capital facilities maintenance requirements.
It should be noted that other facility upgrade costs are shown in other areas, for example,
Parks and Recreation, Libraries, etc.
Corporate:
This account includes funding for the capitalization of temporary borrowing costs associated
with all tax supported capital expenditures. No adjustment has been made, but this item will
be the subject of further analysis and capital management policy development discussed
earlier.
Transitional Costs
The transition to a new City requires certain one time investments. The actual investment will
vary with the decisions of Council (specifically, the location of the various service centres and
the structure of service areas). Very preliminary estimates indicate that 1998 transition costs
could range between $100 million and $175 million. These expenditures consist of computer
technology (required to accomplish the efficiencies associated with the identified savings),
accommodation, relocation and retrofitting costs, and human resource costs.
The exact funding mechanisms for the transition costs are being assessed. Possible methods
include:
(1) application of the $50 million grant which will be available from the Province (amount to
be determined when terms and conditions are clarified); and
(2) the use of available non-restricted reserve funding. Reserves are being reviewed and
further information and recommendations will be presented to Council.
It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to report on
potential funding sources for transitional costs required to support the amalgamation process.
Rate Supported:
Although the capital expenditures of the rate supported programs do not impact the property
tax base, it is important to carefully manage these expenditures to limit future rate increases.
The targets for the sewer and water programs, parking and economic development have been
based on the same approach as that taken for property tax supported programs. The target for
the Sheppard Subway and Wilson Yard, both RTEP projects, have not been adjusted, since
these are fully approved works in progress funded under the five year subsidy agreement with
the Province. For 1998 and 1999, the debt charges of these projects will be fully funded from
the reserve established for that purpose in 1996.
1999 and Future Pressures:
Future capital budgets will be under further pressure as a result of factors such as:
(1) the expiry of a five year Provincial funding agreement by the year 2001 will mean an
ongoing additional net capital requirement for the TTC of some $110 million annually above
the requested 1998 level and $180 million above a more typical year's budget. About $50
million of the subsidy loss was reflected in the 1998 request and the 1998 request was a
further $20 million net higher than a typical year due to the cash flow timing of projects, for
example bus purchases;
(2) the aging of capital infrastructure, particularly transit and roads. As major capital
expansion of the 1950's and 1960's ages, the capital maintenance and replacement costs
increase. A prime example is the Humber bridges replacement project for the Gardiner
Expressway and Lakeshore Blvd., which, under the revised accelerated plan included in the
requested budget, is expected to have a net expenditure averaging about $15 million annually
over the next five years. Also, Provincial grant reductions and expenditure restraint of the
early 1990's has led to an increasing backlog in capital road work, facilities, and other
infrastructure;
(3) additional/potentially sizeable capital expenditures have not yet been quantified. For
example, the cost of a replacement landfill site, should Council opt to construct its own site
following the closure of the Keele Valley landfill site, could be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. Further, financial responsibilities associated with GO Transit and social housing could
increase future costs significantly; and
(4) possible further pressures from equalization of certain service levels across the new City.
The majority of these cost pressures reflect permanent changes to the annual capital needs of
the new city. They cannot be deferred or eliminated, and to the extent that they must be
funded by the municipality, debt is the most expensive financing tool in the long run.
Conclusion:
Capital expenditures in 1998 will not be a significant source of pressure or savings for the
1998 operating budget. Their impact will largely be felt in 1999 and thereafter. To assist
Council in its review of the capital requests, targets have been prepared to serve as a
benchmark against which the requests can be compared. Reviews by the standing and budget
committees should provide further information to allow Council to approve a detailed 1998
capital works program by April 1998. Further work is underway in the mean time toward
establishing longer term capital management strategies, policies and guidelines. The funding
of transitional costs due to amalgamation will be brought forward for the consideration of
Council as soon as possible.
Contact Names:
Len Brittain, 392-5380
Donald Altman, 392-1529
Ross Cuthbert, 396-7241
--------
Appendix A
RECOMMENDED 1998 CAPITAL TARGETS ($MILLION)
Historic Request Target
Gross Net Req.ts* Gross Net Req.ts* Gross Net Req.ts*
TAX SUPPORTED
Urban Environment & Development
TTC Excl. Sheppard Subway (RTEP) 190 46 378 129 349 114
Transportation 131 69 129 118 100 90
Exhibition Place 6 4 8 4 8 4
Zoo 5 5 7 2 7 2
Conservation Authority 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sub-Total 336 128 526 257 468 214
Works and Utilities Solid Waste 13 6 32 29 31 28
Emergency and Protective Services
Police 18 18 37 37 31 31
Fire 2 1 5 1 1 1
Ambulance 4 4 2 2 1 1
Sub-Total 24 23 44 40 33 33
Community and Neighbourhood Services
Parks and Recreation 22 19 55 27 20 20
Community Services 14 6 23 11 23 11
Library 7 5 5 4 3 1
Historical Board 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-Total 44 31 84 43 47 33
Corporate Services
Facilities Management 12 11 19 16 5 4
Corporate 21 20 3 3 3 3
Sub-Total 33 31 22 19 8 7
Total 450 219 708 388 587 315
Less: Potential Underspending or Cash Flow Deferrals (39) (48)
Less: Capital from Current and Other Internal Funding (121) (121)
Projected Borrowing Requirements 228 146
TRANSITIONAL COSTS
Various Items N/A N/A 100-175 100-175
Provincial Grant (50)? (50)?
RATE SUPPORTED AND OTHER
Sheppard Subway, Other R.T.E.P. 53 13 177 44 177 44
Water Pollution/Water Supply 95 52 155 19 155 19
Economic Development 4 3 13 0 13 0
Parking 12 12 11 0 11 0
Harbour Commission 1 1 1 0 1 0
Total 165 81 357 63 357 63
GRAND TOTAL (Excluding Transitional Costs) 615 300 1,065 451 944 378
* Net Requirements is Gross Expenditures, less Provincial Grants, Other External Revenues and Reserve Funding. It
represents the amount that must be raised from capital from current, other internal sources, and borrowing.
--------
(Report dated January 23, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
This report provides the status of the outstanding debenture debt and related debt charges
assumed by the City of Toronto as of January 1, 1998.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Background:
Section 107(1) of Bill 148, an Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new
City of Toronto, states that "the city stands in the place of Metro with respect to debentures
issued by Metro on which the principal remains unpaid on December 31, 1997; the city is also
responsible for payment of any related debt charges payable on or after January 1, 1998". This
report presents outstanding debt and related debt charges which are being assumed by the new
City of Toronto for the former Metropolitan Toronto and the area municipalities.
Comments:
Municipalities utilize debentures and other debt instruments as a means to finance long-lasting
improvements and rehabilitation requirements to its infrastructure and properties. Debt
financing accomplishes two major goals as they enable the municipality to finance, in
conjunction with other sources, required capital expenditures without placing an undue burden
upon the current operating budget and spreading the cost of projects over their useful
economic life, thereby enhancing their affordability by allocating a portion of these costs to
future beneficiaries. When making decisions about debt issuance, the municipality must
consider both the total amount of debt that can be incurred and the affordability of the annual
debt service (principal, sinking fund deposit and interest) as well as current market conditions.
Capital Market Activity During 1997:
During 1997, Metropolitan Toronto issued $205 million of sinking fund debentures in the
domestic market, with $200 million being syndicated in the public market and $5 million
being placed with the Metropolitan Toronto Sinking Fund on a private placement basis. Both
issues received excellent receptions in the market. The first debenture issue of $105 million
has an interest rate coupon of 6.10 percent with a 10 year maturity due August 15, 2007. The
second debenture was also issued with a coupon of 6.10 percent with a 20 year maturity due
December 12, 2017. Of these amounts, $75.8 million was issued on behalf of the Metropolitan
Toronto School Board, $71 million for Metropolitan Toronto purposes, $25.3 million on
behalf of Toronto Hydro, $24.2 million for the Sheppard Subway and $8.7 million for an area
municipality.
On an historical basis, it is interesting to note that the last Metro debenture having an interest
rate of 6 percent was issued in March, 1967.
Debt Structure:
Municipal debt in Ontario, including the City of Toronto, is generally issued as instalment or
sinking fund debentures, since there is a requirement that a portion of the principal must be
repaid on an annual basis, either in the form of a payment to the investor or the sinking fund.
Upon the issuance of instalment debentures, incremental principal payments become due on
an annual basis until the entire issue has been retired. Sinking fund debentures specify a
specific sum which shall be levied on an annual basis which, together with the interest earning
on these sums, will be sufficient to repay the principal of the debentures at maturity. Due to
recent capital market conditions, an earnings rate of 5 percent has been adopted as a more
conservative interest assumption than the previous rate of 6 percent used during 1996.
Debenture Terms:
In the past, Metro has generally issued debt with a maturity of 10 years for capital
expenditures for projects pertaining to the maintenance or renovation of existing infrastructure
and for a 20 year maturity for growth-related projects with a longer useful economic life such
as the Trade Centre and the Sheppard Subway. This policy has provided an effective means of
ensuring that debt is maturing on a regular basis and providing a portion of the capacity for
fulfilling new issuance requirements without creating a debt burden that will not provide any
maturities for a 20 year term.
--------
Gross Debt Outstanding
($Millions) |
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003-17 |
Metro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General |
817.0 |
754.6 |
746.9 |
659.1 |
589.4 |
438.8 |
Water
Pollution
Control |
194.0 |
174.3 |
155.6 |
119.1 |
72.6 |
26.4 |
Water Supply |
18.1 |
17.5 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
4.1 |
0.0 |
Metro
Sub-Total |
1,030.0 |
946.4 |
909.9 |
785.6 |
666.1 |
465.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Area
Municipalities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
East York |
14.7 |
7.7 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
Etobicoke |
79.2 |
64.6 |
56.1 |
44.0 |
42.9 |
27.8 |
North York |
34.2 |
21.6 |
14.8 |
13.9 |
8.0 |
0.0 |
Scarborough |
0.9 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Toronto |
132.1 |
71.5 |
53.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
York |
28.1 |
22.6 |
20.9 |
10.4 |
9.9 |
7.8 |
Area Sub-Total |
289.2 |
188.2 |
147.0 |
69.4 |
61.8 |
35.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Toronto
Total |
1,318.9 |
1,134.6 |
1,056.9 |
855.0 |
727.9 |
500.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Etobicoke
Hydro |
20.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Toronto Hydro |
81.5 |
78.6 |
75.4 |
72.1 |
68.4 |
64.5 |
Municipal
Hydro Total |
102.0 |
78.6 |
75.4 |
72.1 |
68.4 |
64.5 |
Toronto
District School
Board |
245.0 |
244.0 |
243.1 |
243.1 |
243.1 |
243.1 |
Total Debt
Outstanding |
1,666.0 |
1,457.2 |
1,375.4 |
1,170.2 |
1,039.0 |
808.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City's Annual
Maturities |
26.1 |
184.3 |
77.7 |
201.9 |
127.1 |
227.1 |
Based upon current and forecasted long-term interest rates and a sinking fund earnings
assumption of 5 percent, the City could issue an average of $110 million debentures annually
for the next 5 years with a 10 year maturity which would replace the maturing debt and not
increase debt charges over current levels.
Projected Net Debt Outstanding*
($Millions) |
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003-17 |
Metro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General |
547.4 |
392.4 |
328.6 |
263.6 |
235.8 |
175.5 |
Water
Pollution
Control |
130.0 |
90.6 |
68.5 |
47.6 |
29.0 |
10.6 |
Water Supply |
12.3 |
9.1 |
3.3 |
3.0 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
Metro
Sub-Total |
689.7 |
492.1 |
400.4 |
314.2 |
266.4 |
186.1 |
Area
Municipalities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
East York |
6.0 |
3.6 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
Etobicoke |
53.1 |
30.4 |
23.6 |
23.3 |
19.3 |
12.5 |
North York |
22.8 |
10.2 |
6.2 |
5.6 |
3.6 |
0.0 |
Scarborough |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Toronto |
88.5 |
33.6 |
22.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
York |
18.8 |
10.6 |
8.8 |
4.4 |
4.0 |
3.1 |
Area Sub-Total |
189.6 |
88.5 |
61.7 |
33.8 |
27.3 |
15.6 |
City of Toronto
Total |
879.3 |
580.6 |
462.1 |
348.1 |
293.8 |
201.7 |
Etobicoke
Hydro |
13.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Toronto Hydro |
54.6 |
29.9 |
24.9 |
21.6 |
19.2 |
18.1 |
Municipal
Hydro Total |
68.0 |
29.9 |
24.9 |
21.6 |
19.2 |
18.1 |
Toronto
District School
Board |
209.7 |
114.7 |
107.0 |
97.2 |
87.5 |
72.9 |
Total Net Debt
Outstanding |
1,157.0 |
725.1 |
593.9 |
466.9 |
400.4 |
292.7 |
* Net debt is based upon projected sinking fund
balances. |
|
|
|
Due to the operation of the sinking fund having total assets of approximately $550 million
which have been set aside to retire maturing debt in the future, it is important to consider the
net debt position of the City since it is one of the indicators which is monitored by the credit
rating agencies. For 1998, gross outstanding debt is $1,318.9 million and projected net debt is
$879.3 million.
Of the outstanding City's gross debt, approximately 35 percent or approximately $460 million
as at December 31, 1998 has been issued for growth-related projects such as the Trade Centre
at Exhibition Place, RTEP (Sheppard Subway), the Spadina LRT, Metro Hall and various
systems such as the Police Information System (METROPOLIS) and Community Services'
Caseload Management System. The remaining 65 percent or $860 million has been issued for
maintenance and rehabilitation projects such as major road and bridge reconstruction and the
TTC "state of good repair" program.
--------
Projected Debt Charges re: Outstanding Debt
($Millions) |
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003-17 |
Metro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General |
124.7 |
124.6 |
112.1 |
108.9 |
95.7 |
394.3 |
Water
Pollution
Control |
34.6 |
33.8 |
29.2 |
23.8 |
19.1 |
18.5 |
Water Supply |
3.8 |
3.8 |
3.1 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
Metro
Sub-Total |
163.1 |
162.2 |
144.4 |
133.9 |
116.0 |
413.5 |
Area
Municipalities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
East York |
2.9 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
1.4 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
Etobicoke |
13.1 |
13.1 |
10.8 |
9.4 |
7.5 |
20.5 |
North York |
6.4 |
6.0 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
2.5 |
3.9 |
Scarborough |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Toronto |
41.0 |
22.5 |
12.4 |
7.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
York |
5.3 |
4.8 |
3.9 |
3.4 |
1.9 |
3.7 |
Area Sub-Total |
69.4 |
49.3 |
35.9 |
25.7 |
12.3 |
28.7 |
City of Toronto
Total |
232.5 |
211.5 |
180.3 |
159.6 |
128.3 |
442.2 |
Etobicoke
Hydro |
3.3 |
3.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Toronto Hydro |
13.1 |
13.1 |
13.1 |
13.1 |
13.1 |
56.0 |
Municipal
Hydro Total |
16.4 |
16.4 |
13.1 |
13.1 |
13.1 |
56.0 |
Toronto
District School
Board |
35.2 |
34.2 |
33.8 |
32.9 |
32.9 |
178.7 |
Total Debt
Charges |
284.1 |
262.1 |
227.2 |
205.6 |
174.3 |
676.9 |
It should be noted that approximately 60 percent of the above debt charges represent principal
repayment to the sinking fund and 40 percent is paid as an interest expense. For 1998,
approximately $140 million represents principal payments and $92.5 million represents
interest expense.
Conclusion:
This report presents the status of the outstanding debt as assumed by the City of Toronto as of
January 1, 1998. The capacity to issue additional debt in the future for the financing of capital
expenditures is related to our current position and will be further addressed during the
operating and capital budget process in a report recommending debt management guidelines
for the City.
Contact Name:
Martin Willschick, Manager Capital Finance
Phone: 392-8072
Fax: 392-3649
E-mail: Willschick, Martin W
9
Financial Relationships with the
Toronto District School Boards
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(a) deleting from Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) embodied in the transmittal letter dated
January 28, 1998, from the Budget Committee, the references to the date "June 1, 1998" and
inserting in lieu thereof "August 31, 1998", so that such recommendations shall now read as
follows:
"(1) that the effective date of the change to quarterly payments be August 31, 1998, and that
the former financing arrangements in effect in 1997 continue until that time without prejudice
to the City of Toronto;
(2) that City and School Board officials present an agreement before August 31, 1998, that
addresses the City use of daycare and school facilities for parks and recreation purposes into
a new master agreement between the City and the School Boards;"; and
(b) adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that Council appoint a delegation composed of Councillors
Bussin, Jakobek, McConnell, Walker and any other interested Councillors, to meet with
officials of the Ministry of Education and Training with respect to education costs that are no
longer covered by Provincial funding.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) embodied in the report (January
15, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be struck out and the following be
inserted in lieu thereof, so that the recommendations in the report now read:
(1) that the effective date of the change to quarterly payments be June 1, 1998, and that the
former financing arrangements in effect in 1997 continue until that time without prejudice to
the City of Toronto;
(2) that City and School Board officials present an agreement before June 1, 1998, that
addresses the City use of daycare and school facilities for parks and recreation purposes into a
new master agreement between the City and the School Boards;
(3) that City staff continue to work with the school boards to reach a mutually satisfactory
arrangement regarding City use of school facilities for consideration in the 1998 operating
budget; and
(4) that the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action
to give effect thereto.
The Budget Committee reports having requested:
(i) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back to the Budget Committee prior to
June 1, 1998, on the status of this matter so that the Committee may determine whether or not
the former financing arrangements should continue beyond June 1, 1998; and
(ii) the Acting Executive Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report
on shared service opportunities between the City and the School Boards.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 15, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer recommending a policy concerning the timing of payment of taxes
collected for education purposes to the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic
District School Board, and to outline further anticipated changes in the financial relationship
with the Toronto School Boards.
The Budget Committee also had before it the following:
(i) a communication (January 26, 1998) from Mr. Joseph Martino, Chair, Toronto Catholic
District School Board;
(ii) a communication (January 23, 1998) from Ms. Gail Nyberg, Chair, Toronto District
School Board; and
(iii) a further report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
responding to recommendations adopted by City Council at its meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and
9, 1998, and providing additional information regarding the financial relationship between the
City and the Toronto School Boards.
The following addressed the Committee:
- Mr. Joseph Martino, Chair, Toronto Catholic District School Board; and
- Ms. Gail Nyberg, Chair, Toronto District School Board.
--------
(Report dated January 15, 1998, addressed to the Budget Committee
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To recommend a policy concerning the timing of payments of taxes collected for education
purposes to the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board,
and to outline further anticipated changes in the financial relationship with the Toronto
District School Boards.
Source of Funds:
The recommended policy of making quarterly instalments of education taxes to the Toronto
District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board, as permitted by legislation,
rather than in accordance with previous policies will increase 1998 budgeted investment
income by approximately $13.9 million.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) taxes collected by the City for education purposes be paid to the Toronto District School
Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board in quarterly instalments in accordance with
the provisions of Section 257.11 of Bill 160 (an Act to reform the education system);
(2) the City lend funds to either School Board, on their request, at an interest rate that
approximates the City's cost to borrow similar amounts for a similar period of time;
(3) City staff continue to work with the School Boards to reach a mutually satisfactory
arrangement regarding City use of school facilities for consideration in the 1998 operating
budget; and
(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Bill 160, the Act to reform the education system, received Royal Assent on December 8, 1997.
Certain sections of the Act have a significant impact on the City's financial relationship with
the Toronto District School Board, formerly known as the Metropolitan Toronto District
School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, formerly known as the
Metropolitan Separate School Board. Specifically, Sections 154 and 160 of the Act repeal The
Metropolitan Separate School Board Act, 1953 and Part VIII of the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Act, respectively. These pieces of legislation, rather than the Municipal
Act, formed the basis of the Area Municipalities and Metro advancing to the school boards the
portion of the tax levy raised for education purposes.
Section 257.11 of Bill 160 requires municipalities to pay amounts levied for school purposes,
public and separate, in quarterly instalments on March 31, June 30, September 30 and
December 15. This is the same schedule of payment dates currently used by the majority of
municipalities to pay school boards their portion of the levy, based on interpretation of the
Municipal Act. This section of Bill 160 also allows a municipality, with the consent of the
school board, to pay in advance of these dates and allows the municipality to discount these
payments at the prevailing prime rate of interest. However, Section 257.11 also allows a
school board, with agreement with a majority of the municipalities in its area jurisdiction, to
vary the number of instalments and their amounts and dates.
The following outlines previous policy with respect to tax levy collection and payments:
Formerly, the Area Municipalities collected the education portion of the tax levy at the same
time that they collected taxes for their own purposes and for the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto. The separate school board's portion was remitted to the board monthly by each of the
Area Municipalities although the dates were not consistent among the municipalities. Three
municipalities paid the separate school board on the last business day of each month, two
municipalities on the 15th of each month and one municipality on the first business day of
each month. The basis for these monthly payments was Section 16(2) of the Metropolitan
Separate School Board Act 1953 which stated "money payable to the Metropolitan Board shall
as far as possible be paid in monthly installments or from time to time as the Metropolitan
Board shall require."
On the other hand, the Area Municipalities remitted the public school board's and Metro's
portion of the levy to Metro, ten business days after each of the Area Municipalities' levy
dates. The basis for this policy was an agreement reached between the Area Municipalities
and Metro in 1989 and ratified by Metro Council at its meeting on May 24, 1989. Metro
retained and managed the public school board's portion and credited the public school board
with interest on these funds from the day Metro received the funds from the Area
Municipalities. The basis for this policy was an administrative arrangement between Metro
and the public school board, as the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act did not specify
the timing of payments to the public school board. Metro also lent funds, at market rates of
interest, to the public school board from time to time, especially in the beginning of the year
prior to the receipt of the first interim levies from the Area Municipalities.
A separate matter affecting the City's relationship with the school boards is the use of school
board facilities by the City to deliver day care services and parks and recreation programs.
School officials and trustees have raised concerns that up to $50.0 million of costs associated
with various Community Support Services currently funded by the boards will not be
recognized under the new education funding formulae, the details of which have yet to be
announced.
In anticipation of this change, staff have been examining several specific areas where there
may be a financial impact on the City. The City currently has 300 child care centres located in
facilities owned by the school boards and there are numerous agreements between the old
Municipalities and their existing Boards of Education covering the use of arenas, pools and
community centres. As well, some of the old municipalities provide additional services to the
boards such as grass cutting and snow ploughing. All of these services would be at risk if the
new school boards were to levy a charge for the City's use of the school facilities.
Presently, the basis for the agreements vary throughout the City but overall, the intent has
been to maximize the use of the facilities for the overall benefit to the community without
either party making a profit from the arrangement.
Discussion:
There are two issues to be considered in this report: (a) the impact of the new legislation on
cash flow of tax levy payments to school boards and interest income of the City and the school
boards and (b) the use of school board facilities by the City to provide services.
(A) Cash Flow of Payments to School Boards:
(i) Impact of Quarterly Instalments:
Adoption of the quarterly tax levy payment provisions of Bill 160 will have a significant
beneficial impact on the City's operating budget and corresponding negative impact on the
school boards' budgets. It is estimated that the benefit to the City of the payment provisions in
Bill 160 is an increase in 1998 budgeted investment income (assuming a short term
investment rate of 4.5 percent) of $13.9 million of which $11.9 million is due to the change in
payment dates to the public school board and $2.0 million to the separate school board. The
greater amount for the public school board is due to the larger proportion of school taxes
collected on behalf of the board but also due to the fact that under the previous arrangements
the public school board received its portion of the levy on average earlier than the separate
board.
City staff are of the opinion that the proposed change in the schedule of payments to the
school boards is just one of the many changes to the relationship among the City, the school
boards and the Province. This happens to be one of the few options that is beneficial to the
City. Moreover, the change in legislation brings consistency to the payment dates of
educational taxes across the Province. Rather than the City attempting to continue the
previous payment arrangements, it will be more effective for the school boards collectively to
negotiate with the Province to incorporate the impact of Section 257.11 of Bill 160 into their
funding formula with the Province. It is recommended, therefore, that the City make quarterly
payments of the education portion of the levy to the Toronto District School Board and the
Toronto Catholic District School Board in accordance with the dates in Section 257.11 of Bill
160.
(ii) Provisions for Funding:
It is also anticipated, assuming that the Province remits its portion of funding to the school
boards monthly, that the school boards will for most of the year need to borrow funds rather
than be in a position to invest surplus funds. This results from the fact that (a) the school
boards will now receive a significant portion of their current funding after they have already
made the corresponding expenditures, (b) the school boards have little in the way of cash
reserves, and (c) the public school board usually carries significant unfunded capital
expenditure balances. City staff recognize the need to assist in the cash flow funding of the
school boards and recommend lending financial assistance in a manner to benefit the taxpayer.
In this respect, it is recommended that the City lend funds to either school board in amounts
necessary to ensure that the school boards can meet their financial commitments on a timely
basis. Ontario Regulation 438/97, the most recent legislation governing permissible municipal
investments, permits the City to invest in securities of a Canadian school board provided the
funds received by the school board are used for school purposes and the security is to be
repaid entirely from taxes or government grants. The City's investment policy, adopted by
Council at its inaugural meeting on January 6, 1998, allows the City to invest in the securities
of Canadian school boards. This proposed assistance is consistent with that provided
previously by Metro to the public school board. In anticipation of the school boards'
requirements and other possible needs, the City has arranged lines of credit with its bankers in
the amount of $500 million and has established short term credit ratings for its promissory
notes in the event that the City needs to borrow on a temporary basis. It is further
recommended that the interest rate on any loans to the school boards be approximately the
same as the cost to the City to borrow such funds, or stated another way, the opportunity cost
of not investing surplus funds elsewhere, rather than the prime rate of interest as legislated in
Section 257.11 of Bill 160 for school board advances. This concession provides for the best
joint use of funds.
(B) Use of School Board Facilities:
(i) Day Care Facilities on School Property:
Currently, 40 percent of licensed child care spaces in the new City are located in facilities
owned by the Board of Education. Day care facilities located in schools are charged for
caretaking and maintenance costs but the rent for the space in the facilities varies from a
minimal $1.00 per year to a per square foot charge below the market rate. Over the last few
years more boards have started to charge a per square foot rate for the use of the property for
child care. East York, for example, which had historically provided free accommodation and
caretaking to child care programs began charging $3.50 per square foot in 1996 with further
increases planned. Children's Services have estimated that the incremental cost of moving
from the current average rent of $102.00 per space per year paid to the Metropolitan Toronto
District School Board to an estimated $498.00 per space, (i.e. market rate), is $5.0 million
annually. School board officials have indicated that the minimum cost could be in the range of
$3.5 million in additional charges.
Failure to provide adequate funding to cover the occupancy cost could result in the closure of
the affected centres and the potential loss of up to 500 subsidy spaces. Any reduction in the
level of subsidized services provided will place the new City in contravention of the Service
Contract between the City and the Province, which requires the maintenance of the 1997
service level in 1998. Failure to maintain the 1997 service level will result in the loss of the
use of all the user fees under Regulation 262 of the Day Nursery Act. The City will be
required to return to the former practice of having to share the user fee with the Province on a
80/20 basis. Having access to only 20 percent of the user fees will mean that existing tax
dollars raised for day care will not be adequate to provide sufficient funding for the number of
spaces in existence now and consequently more spaces would be lost.
(ii) Parks and Recreation Use of School Facilities:
There are numerous agreements and arrangements between the City and both the public and
separate schools boards for shared use of Community Recreation Centres, playgrounds or
other miscellaneous facilities.
In North York, for example, the City provides grass cutting for the school board in exchange
for the use of the facility for the Community. The former City of Toronto, for example, has 89
formal agreements with the public school board and 9 agreements with the separate school
board. Appendix "A" provides a summary of annual hours of school use by the former
Municipalities.
The former City of Toronto has provided capital contributions to the public school board for
construction of recreational facilities or community centres on its property and the board in
exchange allows the City exclusive rights to operate City facilities on board property and to
use the shared facilities (e.g. pools or playground) after 6:00 p.m. weekdays and on Saturdays
and Sundays throughout the year. In most cases, the boards have the responsibility to provide
caretaking and maintenance but recover any of the costs incurred by the boards as a direct
result of use by the City. The new education funding formulae for all these facilities may put
at risk all non-teaching activities provided by the school boards. If that is the case, the school
boards, in order to maintain and keep the facilities operational will start to charge market rates
for any use by the City. The value of the capital contribution made to the boards by the former
City of Toronto will have to be taken into consideration when negotiating any charges to be
incurred by the new City of Toronto.
The overall principle that needs to be maintained is that these facilities have been brought
into existence by the use of tax dollars and the ultimate objective should be to maximize their
use for the students and the community. Currently when a school facility is not in use by the
students, the community has free access to it, subject to City reimbursement of school
janitorial costs.
(C) School Board Reaction:
During December 1997, City staff met with representatives of both school boards to discuss
the provisions of Bill 160. City staff indicated their intention to recommend, effective
January1, 1998, payment of quarterly instalments of education taxes to the school boards,
while continuing the previous practice of lending funds to the school boards from time to
time. City staff also noted that the issue of fees for use of school board facilities by the City
was complex with numerous formal and informal agreements in place and that further
discussions were required to resolve these issues. Not surprisingly, the school board officials
were strongly opposed to any change in the timing of payments of education taxes, preferring
to maintain the status quo. In their opinion, the changes to the legislation still allow for a
municipality to vary payment dates and the City is taking advantage of Bill 160 to download
some of its budgetary pressures onto the school boards. The school boards further indicated
that a fee for services for non-educational activities of the school boards would not help offset
the interest on temporary loans, since losses in provincial subsidy are expected on
non-educational activities.
Conclusions:
It is recommended that taxes collected by the City for education purposes be paid to the
Toronto District School Boards in quarterly instalments in accordance with Section 257.11 of
Bill 160. This policy will increase 1998 budgeted investment income by an estimated $13.9
million. However, the City recognizes the need to assist in the temporary financing of the
school boards and it is recommended that the City lend funds to the school boards from time
to time at interest rates equivalent to the City's borrowing rate for similar terms.
The appropriate application of school board fees for the City's use of school facilities to
provide services and programs is complex. City staff will work with the school boards to
reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement for consideration in the 1998 City of Toronto
operating budget.
Contact Names:
Charles Milne, Finance Manager
Phone number: 392-8100
Fax number: 392-3649
E-Mail address: charles_r.c._milne@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
Shekhar Prasad, Director of Financial Planning and Analysis
Phone number: 392-8095
Fax number: 392-3649
E-Mail address: shekhar_prasad@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
--------
Appendix A
Annual Hours of School Use
for Parks and Recreation Purposes
Former
Municipality |
Classroom/
Gymnasia |
Pools
at Public Schools |
Toronto |
Public Board 66,600 hours |
12 shared use pools 24,000
hours |
|
MSSB 7,400 hours |
9 board pools 17,010 hours |
North York |
Public Board 69,179 hours |
13 pools 13,777 hours |
|
MSSB Limited Use |
|
York |
Public Board 5,575 hours |
5 pools 4,673 hours |
|
MSSB 347 hours |
|
Etobicoke |
Public Board 65,151 hours |
2 pools operated by Parks &
Recreation |
|
MSSB 5,361 hours |
Scarborough |
Public Board 40,613 hours |
13 shared use pools 31,276
hours |
|
MSSB 2,966 hours |
|
East York |
Public Board 859 hours |
2,215 hours (by dept)
1,609 hours (by public swim
club) |
|
MSSB Limited Use |
|
(Report dated January 22, 1998, addressed to the Budget Committee
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To respond to Recommendations (7) and (9) regarding Notice of Motion (b) adopted by
Council at its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 and to provide additional information
regarding the financial relationship between the City and the Toronto District School Boards.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information purposes.
Background:
At its meeting of Jan 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 Council adopted the following recommendations:
"(7) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to ensure that the School Board
costs to the residential taxpayers are spread equally over the 1998 tax billing period, provided
Provincial legislation does not prevent or penalize City Council from doing so; and
(9) prior to property taxes collected being sent to the Toronto Boards of Education, the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to Council on the total cost for
Provincial services that are now the financial responsibility of the new City of Toronto and the
funds available to pay for these services from the Provincial changes to the education portion
of the residential property taxes in Toronto."
This report addresses these recommendations and also presents additional information
concerning the financial relationship of the City with the Toronto District School Boards.
Discussion:
The City raises taxes on an interim basis and on a final basis. All other things being equal (e.g.
no tax increase), the interim levy is approximately the same as the final levy so that the
taxpayer is billed equally over the tax billing period. Prior to 1998, the school board portion of
the tax levy was requested by the school boards and was also collected from the taxpayer
equally over the tax billing period. The total amount raised by the 1998 interim levy has been
calculated as 50 percent of the 1997 total estimates of the former Area Municipalities, Metro
and the School Boards; therefore, there is no increase in total taxation revenue in the interim
levy and the cost to all the taxpayers will be spread out evenly over the tax billing period. The
one difference this year is that the portion of taxes collected for education will be less and the
portion for the City greater in order to account for the restructuring of responsibilities. At this
time the relative amounts are uncertain and require further information from the Province on
many items. City staff are working with the Province to provide definitive answers to this
question.
Bill 160, the Act to reform the education system, is quite specific as to the dates and amounts
of the payment of taxes raised for education purposes to school boards.
Section 257.11 subsection (1) of the Act states:
"(1) In each calendar year, a municipality or board shall pay amounts levied for school
purposes in the following instalments:
(1) Twenty-five percent of the amount levied for the previous calendar year, on or before
March 31.
(2) Fifty percent of the amount levied for the current calendar year less the amount of the
instalment under paragraph 1, on or before June 30.
(3) Twenty-five percent of the amount levied for the current calendar year, on or before
September 30.
(4) The balance of the amount levied for the current calendar year, on or before December
15."
However, to accommodate 1998, which is a transition year, Section 257.11 subsection (9) of
the Act states for 1998, only the total payment on or before March 31, 1998 shall be the sum
of,
(a) 12.5 percent of the amount levied for school purposes for 1997 on residential and farm
assessment, within the meaning of section 248 of this Act as it read on December31, 1997, in
the area in respect of which the municipality or board levies taxes under section 257.7; and
(b) 25 percent of the amount levied for school purposes for 1997 on commercial assessment,
within the meaning of section 248 of this Act as it read on December31,1997, in the area in
respect of which the municipality or board levies taxes under section 257.7."
These pieces of legislation provide the basis for municipalities to remit education levies to
school boards quarterly in approximately equal payments. The total 1998 payments to the
school boards are uncertain. The first quarterly payment, calculated in accordance with
Section 257.11, subsection (9) of Bill 160, is estimated at approximately $476.7 million, the
amounts of the remaining quarterly payments are uncertain at this time. It should be noted
that, in accordance with legislation, it is the intention of the City to continue the practice of
remitting to the school boards the total amount levied for educational purposes regardless of
whether the City has collected the full amount. The City bears the carrying cost of delinquent
payments although the City collects and retains penalty interest on both the City's and the
school board's portion of the levy.
The total cost for Provincial services that are now the financial responsibility of the City is
estimated at $736.7 million. Final amounts are not yet available. Moreover, the timing of
payment for the transferred responsibilities is still to be determined. The funds available to
pay for these services, that relate to the portion of residential taxes that formerly went to the
school board, are estimated by the Province at approximately $573.2 million. City staff have
yet to hear from the Province on how this amount was determined.
The first payment of the education portion of the levy to the school boards, the only amount
known with any degree of certainty and which is due on or before March 31, 1998, will be
approximately $476.7 million. By that time it is estimated that the City will have loans
outstanding to the public school board of $400 million on account of current expenditures and
$100 million on unfunded capital expenditures. The City will net the payment due to the
public school board against the sum of the loans outstanding. Any excess will be invested on
behalf of the school board and any deficit be lent to the school board until June 30, the next
quarterly payment date. The separate school board has not requested the City to provide
interim financing.
The report entitled "Financial Relationships with the Toronto District School Boards" which
was submitted to the Budget Committee for consideration at its meeting of January 26, 1998,
recommended that the education levy to School Boards be remitted at the end of each quarter.
Discussions with other municipalities across Ontario indicate that the overwhelming majority
of municipalities have always remitted education taxes quarterly. Three cities that had
arrangements in 1997 which were more favourable to the school boards indicate that they plan
to change to quarterly payments in 1998.
Conclusions:
Bill 160 prescribes the minimum amounts and times of payments to the school boards, and
has provisions for 1998, the transition year, to ensure that these payments are spread evenly
over the 1998 tax billing period. The latest estimate for the total cost for Provincial services,
that are now the financial responsibility of the City, is $736.7 million. The funds available to
pay for those services, that are available from the portion of residential taxes that formerly
went to the school boards, have been estimated by the Province at $573.2 million.
Contact Name:
Charles Milne, Finance Manager
Phone number: 392-8100
Fax number: 392-3649
E-Mail address: charles_r.c._milne@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
Shekhar Prasad, Director of Financial Planning & Analysis
Phone number: 392-8095
Fax number: 392-3649
E-Mail address: shekhar_prasad@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
--------
(Submission dated January 26, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from Mr. Joseph Martino, Chair,
Toronto Catholic District School Board)
Good Morning, Councillors. We appreciate receiving a place on your agenda for what is to us
a matter of great importance. Although we have been just presented with an amendment to the
staff recommendation, it does not address our circumstances.
I believe you have received the text of our reasons for appearing here today regarding the
frequency of transfer payments of education taxes collected by the City on behalf of the Public
and Catholic School Boards which serve our City's children.
As you know the Toronto District School Board is also here today and we share a common
concern regarding the recommendations by the Chief Financial Officer of the City.
Since 1953, the former Metropolitan Separate School Board received its tax instalments from
the Metropolitan Toronto municipalities monthly. The decision to change these payments to
quarterly arises from the Education Quality Improvement Act -- Bill 169. It would be too easy
to immediately criticize the Bill as it does provide flexibility.
As your staff report indicates, the Bill specifies that municipalities "shall" pay to boards
monthly. However, four paragraphs later, the Act states "despite (quarterly payments) a board
may make an agreement with the municipality to vary the amount and number of (tax)
instalments". This is unchanged from the former Education Act.
Therefore, it is totally within the power of this committee to reject the staff recommendation.
Instead, this committee can make the right decision, an informed decision and reject doing
anything that would put further undue financial pressure on either the Public of Catholic
schools of our City.
The impact on our Board by this change to our tax payments is two million dollars annually in
interest costs to finance our cash flow. This is calculated at today's prevailing interest rate.
The impact in a higher interest rate environment would be even more profound. For the
context of the total budget year for the City which approaches six and one-half billion dollars
the two million dollar cash flow cost to our Board represents 0.0003 percent of the City's
budget. Yet for us the amount, if lost, represents a great deal to our schools and our children -
the children who live here in the City. They are the same children whose parents, aunts, uncles
and grandparents are your constituents living in all neighbourhoods of this City.
Let us be clear about another factor. In 1997 while receiving monthly payments our
calculations reveal that the combined municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto
earned approximately 2.9 million dollars on cash flow of the tax levy withheld from us
between payments.
Using 1997 figures, if we were paid quarterly last year that figure would have risen
dramatically to 4.4 million dollars out of the classrooms of catholic school children. While in
1998, these figures would be halved, this is certainly enough money to recoup any extra
administrative costs to sending us twelve cheques a year versus four.
The City staff report acknowledges that this change would be "beneficial" to the City at the
expense of both Public and Catholic School Boards and that the City would profit by 13.9
million dollars from funds which are paid by property taxpayers for education purposes.
To our schools 2 million dollars represents 34 teachers or 52 support staff or 8 percent of the
cost of the classroom supplies or 28 percent of our junior kindergarten budget. Based on the
4.4 million that the City would actually earn on our money and you can more than double
those figures. 70 teachers or almost 60 percent of our junior kindergarten budget!
Some may say that school boards should be equally prepared to make reductions in costs to
balance the budget. As a School Board that is dependent on provincial grants, we have seen
reductions since 1990.
We have cut our staff by over 500, reduced programs, tolerated substandard facilities, and the
list goes on. Our schools have been historically underfunded.
We are not in a position to take another 2 million dollars out of our budget while at the same
time trying to cope with an accumulated deficit of over 6 million dollars and an uncertain
short year grant and new funding formula.
We understand the City's problem with provincial downloading. We have been party to this
since 1990. However, these funds are meant for the education of our children in our schools
and in Toronto's public schools.
In your information package you will find a cash-flow forecast. The reality is if these staff
recommendations proceed, the City will be responsible for our Board incurring a cash flow
shortfall in June 1998 of almost 120 million dollars.
When ratepayers pay their tax bill, I am certain that they expect that the City and the School
Boards cooperate to ensure that all taxpayers receive value for their money. We are, hopefully,
working toward the same end - to make this City a better place for all to live, work and learn
together.
We believe the property taxes fixed through the rates set by the provincial government, and
collected by the City on our behalf, are meant to be used as expeditiously as possible by the
applicable School Boards within this City.
We have outlined in your package what 2 million dollars means to our Board, to the children
we educate. We urge you to do what is right for our ratepayers, for our children, by rejecting
the quarterly payments.
We are asking the committee to show good faith to all citizens of Toronto, but especially to
the children in our Public and Catholic schools and adopt our request and that of our friends in
the Toronto District School Board for a return to fairness. Our coterminous boards received
their funds on a more frequent basis than Catholic schools.
In the spirit of Bill 160's theme of "fair and non-discriminatory funding" and the right of all
citizens to equity, our request is for the same fiscal transfer arrangement as the Toronto
District School Board. At the very least, we expect a return to what is to us a forty-five year
precedent of receiving our ratepayers' tax dollars monthly.
Thank you.
--------
(Toronto District School Board Meeting of January 23, 1998,
with the Chair of the Budget Committee)
(Speaking notes)
The Issues:
(1) The City of Toronto faced with significant budget/cost impact from the Provincial
disentanglement.
(2) The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) also faces significant funding reduction:
(a) January, 1998 to August, 1998 = $37 million.
(b) Anticipated funding cuts starting in September, 1998 to August, 1999 fiscal period = $150
to $300 million.
(3) The City has identified a significant area in which to reduce its costs by $14 million by
changing to a quarterly payment of School Taxes.
(4) The agreement that existed with the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will be
changed by the City to be in conformity with Section 257.11(1) of the Education Act to
provide quarterly payments of the school taxes to the TDSB.
(5) The estimated annual revenue reduction to the TDSB is about $15 million based on current
interest rates, $7.5 million in our Short Period.
(6) This will impact classroom support expenditures.
(7) It will compound our Provincial funding cuts now and in the future.
(a) It is additional job loss and reduced classroom support.
(8) The City has several options in dealing with its budget problems. TDSB has only one.
(9) The budget reduction faced in our 1998 Short Period of $37 million will bring an
aggregate total cost reduction since 1992 of approximately $250 million.
(a) During this period, our enrolment has increased by 25,000 students.
(b) The tax base has declined 10 percent or $200 million lower than 1992
(c) Tax withdrawal expenditures to be absorbed were an average of $63 million or $40
million higher than 1992.
(d) Average mill rate increase of 1.9 percent over the past five years.
(10) The TDSB has made a significant revenue contribution to the city of Toronto in prior
years:
(a) Increased taxes from updates to vacancy report = $39 million in 1997
(b) Participation in property tax appeals have contained the level of revenue loss.
(11) TDSB has offered to continue our work on a cost recovery basis plus a small share of the
revenue gained. Net win for the City.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a healthy, vibrant and attractive city needs an education system that has the
required funding to sustain the acknowledged quality of its programs and services. The lost
revenue will negatively impact its education system.
The Public School Board and the Separate School Board and the 400,000 students they serve,
petition the Mayor and Council of the City of Toronto to continue to honour the agreement
regarding the payment of school taxes on the same basis as the former Metro Council had
agreed to in 1991.
--------
Toronto District School Board
Briefing Notes
Change in Timing of School Tax Payments
by the City of Toronto to the Toronto District School Board
The reputation of the City of Toronto on a national and international level for its quality of life
and high standards of service to its community is in large measure based on the quality of its
education system. The strength of the education system is due to the quality of its programs
and the outstanding teaching staff and support services. This in turn is a function or our ability
to sustain the appropriate level of funding to support the education system.
The Toronto District School Board's (School Board) ability to sustain its programs and
services is threatened by the provincial government current and planned funding models just
as the City of Toronto is under significant financial pressures as a result of the recently
revealed costs of disentanglement.
While the School Board recognizes the significant challenges faced by the City in addressing
its 1998 budget, the City's cost increases are no less significant than the School Board's
reduced funding that it will have to adjust to in the short and long term.
(1) The funding shortfall from the Province for the Short Period January 1, 1998 to
August31,1998, is estimated to be $37 million or $44 million, including the impact of the
City's change in payment of the school taxes.
(2) The anticipated cut in funding when the new funding model begins to be implemented in
the year September 1998 to August 1999 is estimated to be in the range of $150 million to
$300 million. Until the new funding is released by the Ministry of Education, we are uncertain
what reductions will be imposed and if a phase-in period will be provided.
The City's action of transferring part of its budget problems onto the students of the School
Board will reduce our funding in the Short Period by about $7.5 million and on an annual
basis this will be a $15 million loss to the School Board.
The province will not recognize this lost revenue because its objective is to reduce the overall
costs of education just as the province is downloading its costs onto municipal governments.
The School Board has had a long standing agreement with the former Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto since 1990 for the timely payment of school taxes. To change the basis
of payment at a time when the Province cuts the funding to education and when the school
system has committed its budget half way through the school year, leaves the School Board
facing decisions that may impact classroom support. Further, the School Board's legal Counsel
has advised that the arrangement constitutes an agreement and as such, in order for the City to
change the basis of payments of school taxes, they should have notified us by October 31,
1997, which is required by the Education Act under Section 243(4) which is now covered by
the Education Quality Improvement Act under Section257.11(8).
In meetings with members of the Transition Team and senior City officials in the fall, we were
led to believe that the tax payment system would not be significantly altered. It was only on
December 22 that we were advised of the change in the City's plans.
The City has several options to address its budget problems:
(1) reduce costs of its programs and services just as the school board is doing;
(2) increase user fees for certain services;
(3) consolidate the property tax billing and collection system and processes, and in the longer
term consider establishing a GTA agency to handle all billing and collection of property taxes;
and
(4) modest increase in property taxes.
The School Board has only one option to deal with the funding shortfall now and in the future.
It must reduce support services to the classroom and in the future re-examine other areas such
as community use of school facilities where little or no costs are being recovered. The new
education funding model is not expected to recognize the cost of providing community use or
municipal use of our school facilities.
The fact that the City has recognized the need to re-examine the cost sharing arrangements
with the School Board is a positive step, however, this will in no way offset the loss of
revenue from the change in tax payments. We will lose our funding to cover the shared service
costs and therefore we will either have to begin to seek full cost recovery and/or significantly
reduce or eliminate access.
The Toronto District School Board has made a significant contribution to the former Metro
municipalities' ability to maintain low or zero mill rate increases over the past several years.
This is due to the Public School Board's activities:
(a) in large commercial and industrial property tax appeals where we have defended the tax
base to ensure fair and reasonable settlements of tax appeals; and
(b) since 1995, providing updates to the commercial and industrial "vacancy" reports where
tenants are found to be occupying property reported as vacant. A vacant commercial/industrial
property pays tax at the residential rate and no business tax.
In 1997 alone, our "vacancy" work resulted in assessment role updates provided to
municipalities having an annualized tax increase worth over $39 million including 1996 and
1995 back taxes of about $14 million. Many tenants had occupied the "vacant property" for
two or three years. In spite of this contribution, the City's REWARD is to transfer over $16
million of its costs to the Public and Separate School Boards.
We have presented an offer to senior City officials, as well as the Ministry of Finance, to
continue providing our services to pursue the "vacant report" update work. Neither the City
nor the Ministry of Finance have sufficient trained staff nor the support systems to carry out
this function. The potential recovery of tax revenue would offset the gain the City will obtain
from changing the timing of school tax payments. The cost of this service would pale in
comparison to the potential revenue gain. We have had no response to our offer from the City.
The vacancy report for 1998 lists over 22,000 vacancies of which 10 percent to 15 percent are
likely occupied and not paying a fair share of taxes. We look forward to a timely agreement
which will result in a contribution to the City's zero mill rate target.
In conclusion, a healthy vibrant and attractive city needs an education system that has the
required funding to sustain the acknowledged quality of its programs and services. The lost
revenue will negatively impact its education system.
The Public School Board and the Separate School Board and the 400,000 students they serve
petition the Mayor and Council of the City of Toronto to continue to honour the agreement
regarding the payment of school taxes on the same basis as the former Metro Council had
agreed to in 1991.
Thank you.
(A copy of background material attached to the communication dated January 26, 1998, from
Mr. Joseph Martino, Chair, Toronto Catholic District School Board, was forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
meeting of February 3, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(Councillor Cho, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his
interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a teacher on leave of absence from the Toronto
District School Board.)
(Councillor Moscoe, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared
his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he has three children who are employed by the
Toronto District School Board.)
10
Expenditure Reduction Proposals -
Cost of Salaries, Wages and Benefits
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January28,1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that:
(1) the joint report (January 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioner
of Human Resources and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted, which
recommends the following:
"It is recommended that the Budget Committee adopt the proposals and recommendations for
reduction in the cost of salaries, wages and benefits, as outlined in this report."; and
(2) the Agencies, Boards and Commissions of the City be urged to apply the same proposals
and recommendations set out in the aforementioned report and that they be asked to also
restrict external hiring, as much as possible, and look to the municipality for possible
candidates for vacant positions.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 26, 1998) from the Chief
Administrative Officer, Commissioner of Human Resources and Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer responding to the request of the Budget Committee with respect to proposals and
recommendations to reduce the cost of salaries, wages and benefits.
--------
(Joint report dated January 26, 1998, addressed to the Budget Committee
from the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioner of Human Resources and
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
This report responds to a request of the Budget Committee with respect to proposals and
recommendations to reduce the cost of salaries, wages and benefits.
Financial Implications:
It is not possible at this time to quantify the actual savings that will accrue as a result of these
proposals. The intention is to ensure that there are the appropriate processes and controls in
place to freeze the cost of salaries, wages and benefits while restructuring and budget
initiatives are underway. The latter two initiatives will provide a clearer picture of the positive
financial implications of the recommendations within this report.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Budget Committee adopt the proposals and recommendations for
reduction in the cost of salaries, wages and benefits, as outlined in this report.
Background:
The attached motion by Councillor Jakobek was before the Budget Committee on January 20,
1998, and was referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Human
Resources and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for report to the Budget Committee
meeting onJanuary26, 1998.
Discussion:
(1) Implementation of a Hiring Freeze:
It is appropriate that a hiring freeze be supported by the Budget Committee, as long as there is
a process to allow exceptions for those positions which provide direct, front-line, essential
services to the public. An appropriate example for an exception is where a vacancy has
occurred in a service that has mandatory staffing levels - e.g., a home for the aged.
Recognizing that there are collective agreement provisions that must be respected, that there
are critical services which cannot be altered and that staff should be moved to the highest
priority work, the following actions will be taken:
(i) vacant positions will remain unfilled, unless an exception is granted (see next section);
(ii) internal promotions or transfers will be made on a temporary/acting basis with the
provision that these will revert back. An ongoing review process will be implemented (e.g.
every six months). During the temporary/acting period, a significant alternate position must be
left vacant;
(iii) transfers across the former geographic boundaries should be facilitated; and
(iv) external recruitment will be limited to casual, temporary and short-term contract staffing
where the employment relationship can be concluded with four (4) weeks or less notice.
These recommendations mirror what generally occurred in most of the former municipalities
during the past six months leading up to amalgamation. Again, exceptions have been and must
continue to be made to ensure efficient and effective service delivery.
Agencies, Boards and Commissions will be asked to restrict external hiring and, as much as
possible, look to the municipality for possible candidates for vacant positions.
(2) Process for Exceptions:
Exceptions must be restricted to positions that provide direct, frontline, essential services to
the public. Council's goal to ensure no disruption in service delivery must be preserved. While
departments will be asked to be diligent and creative in moving staff around to accomplish
reductions in staffing costs, there will be situations where positions will have to be filled.
It is proposed that the following process be followed when an exception is contemplated:
(i) exceptions will be approved by the Commissioner of Human Resources and the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer;
(ii) the request must be supported by the interim functional lead for the service area and the
appropriate Acting Executive Commissioner;
(iii) the request must include a discussion of impact on service delivery, cost implications,
future plans for the position and other alternatives explored; and
(iv) a list of exceptions granted will be provided to the Budget Committee on a regular basis
for information.
(3) Position and Establishment Control:
A process has been put in place by the Human Resources Department which ensures position
and establishment control. A senior human resources employee has been assigned to each
functional area to provide control, guidance and assistance as the departments plan their
amalgamation. The internal audit function will also be used throughout the early months of
1998 to monitor the control mechanisms.
Departments have also been asked, through the 1998 budget process, to identify vacant
positions. Where possible, subject to restructuring, these positions will be deleted.
The Finance and Human Resources Departments, in conjunction with the internal auditor, are
actively creating an integrated control system which would ensure monitoring of position and
establishment control through both the Financial Information System and the Human
Resources Information System.
The former City of Toronto had a process whereby positions that were not funded as part of
the budget process, remained listed on the establishment for the department. This was to allow
the department to re-justify the need for the position during a future budget year. Given that
we are in a different fiscal and operating environment, it is also recommended that positions
currently listed as part of the establishment, but unfunded, be immediately deleted from the
establishment.
(4) Conversion of Full-Time Positions to Part-Time Positions:
This is an appropriate concept if the department, subject to collective agreement provisions,
can re-organize the work to allow for a part-time employee instead of a full-time employee. It
is also appropriate if the department is required to find budget reductions and is not able to
fully eliminate the position.
(5) Restrictions on Conversion of Positions of Part-Time Positions to Full-Time Positions or
Temporary Positions to Permanent Positions:
It is appropriate to introduce both of these restrictions as part of the general hiring restrictions.
Conversions must be justified through the exception process outlined above, through the 1998
budget process, or through the department's restructuring plans.
(6) Job-Share Policy:
Several of the former municipalities had a job-share policy in place. The Human Resources
Department is developing a common policy for Council's approval. It is an appropriate way to
reduce expenditures while allowing flexibility based on changing lifestyle needs of the
employees, as long as the operational requirements of the department are considered.
(7) An Appropriate Gapping Policy:
The introduction of an appropriate gapping policy is being assessed in the context of the 1998
Budget. A further report will be submitted to the Budget Committee in the near future. A
gapping provision of between 1 percent and 5 percent of expenditures on salaries and wages is
being contemplated.
(8) Voluntary Leaves of Absence:
Many of the former municipalities used voluntary leaves of absences over the past several
years to generate expenditure savings. It should be noted that these are not permanent savings
and cannot be counted on to reduce the ongoing expenditure levels. However, this concept
was well supported by employees and, as long as departments were allowed to accept or reject
requests based on operational needs, was endorsed by management.
It is recommended that the Commissioner of Human Resources implement a voluntary leave
of absence program for 1998.
(9) Accelerated Savings on Benefit Plans Administration:
Staff is in the process of reviewing recommendations from a Benefits Consultant hired
through the Toronto Transition Team. It is anticipated that a report will be before the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee in February or March. The idea of accelerating
administrative cost reductions for benefits plans will be contained in that report.
(10) Employee Separation Programs:
It is recommended that the Budget Committee support the funding requirements of the
Employee Separation Program that was proposed to the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee on January19, 1998. This is a critical area where reductions will be generated in
the cost of salaries and benefits for several key employee groups.
A separation program for union employees is being developed for consideration by the
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in February or March. The approval of the Budget
Committee for additional funding will be required at that time.
(11) Review of Compensation and Benefit Plans:
The result of a Request for Proposal to review and recommend a new Compensation Scheme
for the corporation will be before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on February
24. The consideration of the Budget Committee, for funding approval, will be required.
(12) Re-Training and Re-Skilling Strategy:
Plans and expenditures for a re-training and re-skilling strategy will be placed before the
appropriate committees and Council. The strategy will be tailored to the needs of the
corporation and employees as a result of 1998 budget initiatives and departmental
restructuring plans. Approval of funding by the Budget Committee will be required at the
appropriate time.
The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will include a provision for the re-training and
re-skilling strategy in the upcoming report to the Budget Committee on transition costs.
Longer-term plans for re-training and re-skilling will be included in the Strategic Human
Resources Plan to be placed before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in August
1998.
Conclusion:
The initiatives outlined in this report will serve to "freeze" the cost of salaries, wages and
benefits while allowing staff and Council time to consider the 1998 budget requirements for
these types of expenditures. Further action to reduce costs in these areas will be targeted for
completion during, and as a result of, the strategic restructuring initiative.
It is recommended that the Budget Committee support the recommendations contained in this
report.
--------
(Motion of Councillor Jakobek)
WHEREAS the City of Toronto is facing a budget shortfall in 1998 as a result of financial
pressures and provincial downloading; and
WHEREAS, because of the magnitude and scope of the initiative, the 1998 budget process
and schedule will take several months to complete; and
WHEREAS it is important to begin to generate savings in the expenditures of the City to
assist with accommodating the pressures on the 1998 Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS the costs of salaries, wages and benefits are a large component of the
expenditures of the City;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT:
(1) the Chief Administrative Officer immediately implement a hiring freeze, with the
exception of those positions which provide direct, front-line, essential services to the public;
(2) any exceptions made to the hiring freeze for positions in direct, front-line, essential
services be approved by the Chief Financial Officer and Commissioner of Human Resources
and reported quarterly to the Budget Committee;
(3) Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the
Commissioner of Human Resources be instructed to submit a report to an early meeting of the
Budget Committee on methods to achieve savings in the cost of salaries, wages and benefits;
(4) the report include expenditure reduction proposals and recommendations for:
(a) processes to ensure position and establishment control;
(b) conversion of full-time positions to part-time positions as appropriate based on
operational needs;
(c) restrictions on the conversion of part-time positions to full-time positions;
(d) restrictions on the conversion of temporary positions to permanent positions;
(e) a job share policy;
(f) an appropriate gapping policy;
(g) the use of voluntary leaves of absence;
(h) accelerated savings on benefit plans administration;
(i) additional ideas on expenditure reductions for salaries, wages and benefits;
(5) the accelerated implementation of employee separation programs be supported by Council;
(6) the review of compensation and benefit plans be accelerated; and
(7) a report be submitted to the appropriate Standing Committee with respect to plans and
expenditures for re-training and re-skilling employees whose positions have been declared
redundant.
11
1998 Operating Budget - A Phased Review Approach
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter
(January 28, 1998) from the Budget Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on January 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that:
(1) the report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted,
which recommended that:
(a) Phase 1 in the budget review process focus on a review of the base budgets and the work
of the Transition Team as it relates to the City budget pressures;
(b) Phase 2 in the budget review process focus on the options available to address the $164
million in provincial downloading; and
(2) the target for each Department, Board and Commission be up to 15 percent in cuts, and
include those reductions already found by the Transition Team, and that the recommendations
be reported back to the Budget Committee by listing the impact of each percentage reduction,
such recommendations not to include front line services.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer providing an overview of the operating budget pressures and the work
to date, and a recommended overall strategy for dealing with the budget.
--------
(Report dated January 19, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the operating budget pressures and the
work to date and a recommended overall strategy for dealing with the budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Phase 1 in the budget review process focus on a review of the base budgets and the work
of the Transition Team as it relates to the City budget pressures; and
(2) Phase 2 in the budget review process focus on the options available to address the $164
million in provincial downloading.
Background:
The Provincial Transition Team in co-operation with the staff of the former cities has recently
released a preliminary 1998 operating budget based on maintaining property tax stability (zero
percent increase) and maintaining service levels that focused on addressing City budget
pressures of approximately $150 million.
Discussion:
(1) City Budget Pressures:
City Budget pressures of $150 million were identified, (5.8 percent potential tax increase),
resulting from normal year to year pressures. The Transition Team's report identifies actions
to address $117million of the $150 million pressures and deemed the remaining $33 million
worth of reductions as achievable to essentially offset the normal year to year pressures. This
would result in a zero increase to the budget prior to the provincial downloading.
The Budget Committee, as its first priority, will need to focus on identifying the $33 million,
in addition to reviewing the recommended $117 million in proposed savings.
(2) Provincial Downloading:
On December 12, 1997, the Province revised its estimates of the cost of downloading to the
City to be $164 million. Since August, those costs had been estimated at $66 million. If the
downloading had been totally revenue neutral, then the 1998 operating budget would have
achieved a zero tax increase.
Council has various options available to address the downloading of costs. These options
include offsetting the downloading of the $164 million by: (1) substantially reducing services
and/or increasing revenues through new user fees or increased rates; (2) increasing taxes; or
(3) accepting the proposed offer of assistance from the Province.
In order for Council to choose between the options, more information concerning the impact
of each option needs to be developed. One of the goals of the budget review process will be to
develop that information. The other important goal of the review process must be to provide
an early review of the $150 million in reductions proposed by the Transition Team required to
address the normal City year to year pressures.
A Phased Review:
It is proposed that a two phase review process be undertaken as detailed in Appendix A. Key
to addressing the normal year to year pressures is early consideration of the work done in 1997
by the various service review teams, departments and agencies. Failure to address these
proposals in a timely fashion will result in reduced savings in 1998. Therefore, it is
recommended that the first phase of the process occur in late January and early February. It is
proposed that the Budget Committee meet with the individual departments and agencies to
review their base budgets and the proposed changes developed in 1997. Once reviewed and
approved by the Budget Committee through to Council, departments can begin implementing
these changes in order to ensure that the savings are realized as soon as possible in 1998.
It is recommended that Phase 2 of the budget review process focus on considering the options
available to address the $164 million in pressures associated with the provincial downloading.
Between now and the middle of February, departments and agencies would be required to
prepare plans which would present how each area would manage a further reduction in
funding. The plans would also tie into the overall plans for amalgamating the former
departments. The plans would deal with the reduction in both a one year or two year time
frame. Between the middle of February and March, these plans would be presented to the
Budget Committee for review and to consider the merits of all of the options and to
recommend a strategy to Strategic Policies and Priorities on to the April15 meeting of
Council.
Staff would continue meeting with the Province to better define their offer of assistance.
Specifically, the terms of the repayment plan, the conditions associated with the plan, the
required savings plan, impact on the City's credit rating, the criteria for the use of the plan, etc.
all need to be defined and further explored with provincial officials.
Summary:
It is proposed that Phase 1 of the 1998 budget process begin with the work of the Transition
Team and with review and development of recommendations and proposals to address City
budget pressures of $150 million. The work completed to date needs to continue to finalize
the $150 million in savings required to meet a zero increase target for City pressures. It is
proposed that Phase 2 of the budget process focus on reviewing all available options that
would be necessary to address the $164 million in provincial downloading.
Contact Name:
Shaun Hewitt, 392-5174, Fax No. 392-3649,
Internet: shaun_a._hewitt@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
--------
Appendix A
Proposed Budget Review Process (Detailed)
Step |
Date |
Action |
1 |
Mid January to Mid February |
(1) Phase 1 - Budget
Committee meets to review
work of the Transition Team
in meeting the $150 million in
City budget pressures.
Recommend action to
Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee where
deemed appropriate to address
City budget pressure of $150
million
(2) Individual budgets are
presented to the relevant
Standing Committees
(3) Phase 2 - Departments and
Agencies prepare plans to
identify methods to address
the $164 million provincial
downloading. The plans
consider both a one and two
year time frame (i.e. 1998 and
1999) |
2 |
Mid February to Mid March |
Budget Committee considers
plans from
department/agencies and input
from Standing Committees to
address $164 million (Phase
2) |
3 |
March |
Budget Committee hears
public deputations on budget
with all Members of Council
invited to attend |
4 |
Mid March to Early April |
Budget Committee considers
issues raised through
deputations, reviews the $164
million plans and other
strategies. Develops proposals
for Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and
Council |
5 |
April 15 |
Council review of proposals |
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (January
29, 1998) from the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission:
This is in response to the request made of the TTC at the January 26, 1998, City of Toronto
Budget Committee meeting. Since I do not have a copy of the minutes from that meeting, I'd
ask that you forward this letter to the appropriate Committee on our behalf.
Specifically, the TTC was requested to provide details on the impact of the following:
(1) A 15 percent Cut in TTC Gross Expenditures:
The report requested details on a cut of 15 percent of gross expenses. This amounts to a cut of
over $100 million (15 percent of $692 million) for the TTC Conventional system and almost
$6 million (15 percent of $38.1 million) for the Wheel-Trans Budget. Presumably, the intent
was for 15 percent cuts to the net TTC budgets. Cuts of that magnitude would be as follows:
($Million) 1997 Subsidy 15% Cut Balance
TTC Operating $160 $24 $136
Wheel-Trans $37.5 $5.6 $31.9
Operating
These figures are the same as the cuts suggested by the Transition Team in its August 12,
1997, letter to the TTC. Our response to these questions remain unchanged, and I have
attached a copy of our August 29, 1997, response to them. In addition, I have also attached a
November 5, 1997, letter to Wanda Liczyk, City Treasurer, responding to an almost identical
suggestion made by her.
(2) Cut 1998 TTC Capital Expenditures from $378 Million to $300 Million:
The 1998 capital expenditures contained in the 1998-2002 TTC Capital Budget approved by
the Commission on November 12, 1997, called for a total of $378 million to be spent on
non-RTEP (Sheppard Subway and Wilson Yard Expansion) projects.
The Treasurer's January 19, 1998 report to the Budget Committee entitled "1998 Capital
Works Program - Preliminary Targets" recommended the following changes:
1998 Capital Expenditures
Commission approved on November 12, 1997 $378 million
less:
(1) Deferral of some 1998 bus purchases (22)
(Based on advice of TTC staff)
(2) Deferral of the Queen's Quay (7)
Connection to the CNE
__________
Recommended by Treasurer $349 million
On January 26, 1998, the Budget Committee requested a report on the implication of cutting
that figure to $300 million, while leaving the 1998 Sheppard Subway expenditures unchanged.
The 1996-2000 TTC Capital Program for the first time combined and prioritized all of the
Commission's capital needs into one budget. Long-term, comprehensive, reinvestment plans
were developed and multi-year budgets prepared based on life-cycle replacement programs,
implementation of necessary safety improvements and the need to overcome the effects of
previously deferred maintenance/investments.
In approving that budget, the Commission and Metro Council formally adopted the following
priorities, highest to lowest, for capital spending relating to the TTC:
(i) state-of-Good-Repair/Safety;
(ii) legislative;
(iii) improvement; and
(iv) expansion.
These priorities remain unchanged to this day. The debate in the fall of 1996 on the final
approval of the Sheppard Subway and the acceptance of the 5-year TTC/Metro/MTO Capital
Subsidy Agreement combined both the Sheppard Subway and the State-of-Good-Repair
Budget into a single budget. Both levels of government reviewed the budgets in detail and
agreed in writing to fund both parts.
The 1997-2001 and the 1998-2002 TTC Capital Program both adhere to the approved
priorities and represent the current rolling 5-year plan of the on-going system needs. The
needs are based on the following:
(i) realistic life cycle budgets;
(ii) implementation of safety improvements; and
(iii) overcoming deferred maintenance.
As noted by Richard M. Soberman, Professor of Civil Engineering University of Toronto, in
his report entitled, "The Track Ahead" for an organization with physical assets worth almost
$7 billion, annual replacement costs of over $250 million plus should be set aside each and
every year simply to cover the cost of replacing or rehabilitating the existing plant. The
average expenditures in the 1998-2002 State-of-Good-Repair budget are:
$1.2 Billion = $250 million/year
5 years
The 1998 costs are higher because there is a very large ($143 million) payment on the contract
for the delivery of the T-1 Subway cars replacing old H-1 cars.
Simply put, if the City needs to cut $50 million per year out of the TTC's capital budget,
follow the capital priorities and cut the $50 million from the lowest priority.
(A copy of the letter dated November 5, 1997, referred to in the foregoing communication,
was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda, of the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee special meeting of February 3, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following
communication (February 2, 1998) from the President of Canadian Union of Public
Employees (CUPE) Local79:
CUPE Local 79 is the union for 12,000 members working in the former Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, the former City of Toronto and The Riverdale Hospital.
With the creation of the new City, we are embarking on a challenge in which everyone who
works and lives here has a stake. Council must ensure that citizens feel involved and
committed to working together in order to tackle issues and find solutions. CUPE Local 79
representatives have a respected history of active participation in the democratic process. We
have always followed the budget process with great care and vigilance because of its impact
on the programs that we deliver to the public.
The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer is recommending a two-phased approach to the
budget. In fact there are three: implementing the Transition Team's reductions, cutting the
remaining $33 million, and the $164 million in reductions due to provincial downloading.
This will have a devastating effect on programs. Maintaining services to the community will
be the greatest challenge for the new Council. We urge Committee members to reconfirm
their commitment to maintaining services to the taxpayers.
Your Chief Administrative Officer has written that "employees are our greatest resource". It is
the front-line employees who provide the valuable programs which are so visible to the
public. We do not believe that the creation of more temporary and part-time jobs is an
appropriate solution to the budget pressures. There is a value and worth to the whole
community when employees are reasonably paid and fully employed. There are already too
many long-term temporary employees who are without the security of a permanent position.
We fear that the estimates of proposed staff reductions seem to be growing. For those
employees who wish to retire or leave the employ of the City, improved exit packages and
early retirement incentives will provide an opportunity. Increased accessibility to the
Voluntary Leave of Absence program and other similar programs is mutually beneficial.
Effective retraining and educational opportunities are key to success in restructuring
initiatives.
The former cities have invested billions of dollars in the creation of their infrastructures: they
are invaluable long-term assets. Ongoing maintenance and care is required to ensure that their
value is retained. Citizens are proud of the quality of our transportation, water and sewage
systems.
Toronto is still vital, dynamic and growing -- we have a city that works. Throughout the 1998
Budget debates, we urge Councillors to preserve the integrity of the City's services for present
and future generations.
12
1998 Interim Capital Budget - Capital Projects Requiring
Urgent Financing Approval
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:
(1) the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the
following transmittal letter (January 28, 1998) from the Budget Committee; and
(2) that the Toronto Police Service's request to acquire a new Radio Dispatch System, be
referred to the Budget Committee for a report back with the 1998 Capital Budget on
April 15, 1998.
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on January 20, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee that the recommendations contained in the report (January 21, 1998)
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be amended to read as follows, and the report
as so amended, be adopted:
(1) that Appendix "A", be amended by deleting - Project No. 9 - Vehicle Standardization, and
the remaining projects in Appendix "A", (tax supported capital works) be given prior
authorization in the City's 1998 Capital Budget with City Financing to be provided from the
sources indicated;
(2) that Appendix "B", be amended by referring Project No. 35 - Watermain Capital
Maintenance back to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for report setting out a
complete list of City-wide watermain realign projects, and the remaining projects in Appendix
"B", (rate [own sources] supported capital works) be given prior authorization in the City's
1998 Capital Budget with financing to be provided from the agency's own sources;
(3) that the projects in Appendix "C", (transition costs and projects not recommended at this
time) continue to be reviewed and refined for inclusion in subsequent and comprehensive
reports to the Budget Committee; and
(4) that Appendix "D", which provides the justification pages for the projects being
recommended for advance approval, be amended as follows:
(i) by correcting - Project No. A-5 - Park Land Acquisition, so that the funding for the three
parcels of land is from the former City of Toronto Park Land Acquisition fund and not from
the operating budget or debt;
(ii) by referring Project No. A-5(c) - Park Land Acquisition, 40 Wabash Avenue back to the
Budget Committee; and
(iii) by amending Project No. A-5(b) - Park Land Acquisition, so that the sale of 219 Dufferin
Street is credited to the Park Land Acquisition Fund.
The Budget Committee reports that is has requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
and the Toronto Police Service to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on
February3, 1998 on Project A-8 - DSC System Upgrades as follows:
(i) tendering the Intelligence Communication Intercept System;
(ii) details of the $1.75 million; and
(iii) information regarding why this new system does not have to be compatible with the other
police service communication system;
The Budget Committee also reports that with respect to Appendix "A", Project No. 9 -
Vehicle Standardization, it has requested the Fire Chief to report to the Emergency and
Protective Services Committee, on his plan respecting standardization of the fire vehicles, for
subsequent report to City Council.
Background:
The Budget Committee had before it a report (January 21, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer respecting the 1998 Interim Capital Budget and providing a list of
capital projects which require urgent financing approval in advance of the 1998 Capital
Budget.
--------
(Report dated January 21, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee, from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer)
Purpose:
This report provides a list of capital projects which require urgent financing approval in
advance of the approval of the 1998 Capital Budget.
Financial Implications:
These projects are, for the most part, the service areas' highest priorities and as such will not
impede the Budget Committee's ability to present an affordable 1998 Capital Budget. The
table below indicates the financial impact of these approvals on the 1998 capital budget
situation. The Target columns are the recommended 1998 Capital Budget Targets, and the
Interim columns are the amounts being recommended in this report. The net amount
represents the amount which would be financed through a combination of capital from
current, other internal sources of revenue, and debt.
Impact of Advanced Approvals on 1998 Capital Budget ($millions)
Target Interim
Gross Net Gross Net
Tax supported (excl. RTEP) 587 315 37 24
Rate supported/RTEP 357 63 14 0
Total 944 378 51 24
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the projects in Appendix "A" (tax supported capital works) be given prior authorization in
the City's 1998 Capital Budget with City Financing to be provided from the sources indicated;
(2) the projects in Appendix "B" (rate [own sources] supported capital works) be given prior
authorization in the City's 1998 Capital Budget with financing to be provided from the
agency's own sources; and
(3) the projects in Appendix "C" (transition costs and projects not recommended at this time)
continue to be reviewed and refined for inclusion in subsequent and comprehensive reports to
the Budget Committee.
Council Reference:
Council, at its meeting of January 6, 1998, adopted a report (December 23, 1997) from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Proposed 1998 Capital Budget Process", that
outlined a timetable for committee and Council review of the 1998 Capital Budget and
included a provision for the consideration of urgent financing for projects that cannot wait
until the expected approval date of April 1998. Further, the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee, at its meeting of January 19, 1998, had before it two communications from the
City Clerk:
(1) dated January 13, 1998, submitting a recommendation from the January 12, 1998 meeting
of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, with respect to the Transportation
capital project, Bathurst Street Bridge over the Toronto Terminal Railways, south of Front
Street; and
(2) dated January 15,1998, forwarding a recommendation from the January 13, 1998 meeting
of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, entitled "Radio Communications
Switch for the Toronto Police Service" with respect to funding in the amount of $5 million for
the replacement of radio switching equipment.
Background:
Each municipality was requested by the Transition Team in the summer, to submit a 1998
Capital Budget and Proposed Capital Works 1999 to 2002. These submissions were to be
consistent with the Capital Budget submissions that each municipality would have used to
start its capital budget process had there been no amalgamation. These projects were vetted by
budget staff and some were subject to an approval process in their respective municipalities.
The recommended 1998 Capital Budget is scheduled to be before the Budget Committee at its
meeting of March 31, 1998, for final approval by Council on April 15, 1998. However, certain
projects require prior authorization of Council because of an urgent financing requirement. As
such, departments and agencies were asked to submit by early January, requests for projects
which, in their view, needed earlier financing approvals. There are three types of capital
budget submissions in this report requesting advanced approval: those that were in the original
capital budget submissions, those that are expected to be transition costs, and other. These
requests were reviewed by Finance staff, through meetings with the various service areas to
clarify the urgency of the requests.
Discussion:
The projects recommended for urgent financing approval are listed in Appendix A and B (tax
and rate supported capital projects, respectively). It should be noted that these projects have
not been vetted by any Committee of this Council due to the urgent nature of the requests. For
the most part these are projects that were submitted as a part of the capital works program,
would be funded in 1998 as high priority items, and have a proven need to be prior authorized.
In some cases the work is in progress and requires additional financing in 1998. In some cases
the work is of an urgent nature and requires authorization now to mitigate any damages. In
other cases the justification for advanced approval is to give the service area in question an
early start in tendering contracts and thereby take advantage of traditionally favourable prices
in the construction industry in the early part of the year.
Appendix "C" shows the balance of projects which departments and agencies requested for
urgent financing approvals, but which are not being recommended at this time. These include
transition projects, such as information technology investments, facility changes or fleet
investments, and other projects which require further review. It is felt that more time is
required to assess the need for each of these projects to confirm the quantum of funds
requested, to analyze potential operating savings, to ensure that there is no duplication
between projects, and to allow time for information technology staff, facility management
staff and fleet professionals to further review the projects. It should also be noted that, in
many cases, projects proposed by a service area involve a service delivered by another
component of the corporation.
Appendix "D" consists of the justification sheets for each of the recommended projects in
Appendices "A" and "B". These are based on information provided by departments and
agencies.
With respect to the two items referred to the Budget Committee from standing committees via
the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Bathurst Street Bridge project has been
recommended in this report as part of the Bridge Reconstruction program. Transportation staff
have indicated that the timing of the construction season makes early approval necessary and
that design work and tender documents are complete. The Police Radio Communications
Switch project was considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting of January 20, 1998,
wherein the project was referred to staff for a further report. As such, that item will be
considered separately and has not been included in this report.
Conclusions:
Approval of the projects in Appendix "A" totalling $37 million gross for tax supported
projects will not prejudice the Budget Committee's ability to present a 1998 Capital Budget
which is affordable. The total 1998 Capital Budget target for tax supported projects is $587
million on a gross basis, of which approximately $300 million is already committed from
financing approvals of previous Councils. In aggregate, the addition of $37 million of
advanced approvals of high priority items will have little impact on the flexibility remaining
to the Budget Committee to present Council with an affordable 1998 Capital Budget. The
recommended rate supported financing approvals total $14 million gross, compared with a
total recommended target of $357 million.
Contact Names:
Donald Altman 392-1529 (tel.) 392-6963 (fax)
Len Brittain 392-5380 392-3649
Ross Cuthbert 396-7241 396-5677
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 1
Service Area: Arts, Culture and Heritage
Project Name: Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre
Description:
Funds identified in long range capital plan for repairs/stabilization of brick roadway, a site
feature dating from 1900-1920. The roadway serves as the main vehicular access to the
museum and grounds. Work identified for 1998 is part of a three-year plan for the road
stabilization that began in 1996.
Justification:
(i) identified for immediate capital work priority in long range capital plan;
(ii) at present, road poses risk to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
(iii) no alternatives exist for remedial repairs; and
(iv) long-term preservation of this original site feature requires its repair and maintenance.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Work deferred will result in negative impact to museum and arts centre users and visitors due
to site disruption. Loss of program revenue would be expected due to lack of site access
during peak season. Window of opportunity for road work is April 1 to 30, 1998 due to
program activities and weather constraints. Potential health and deterioration of the road and
higher repair costs in the future.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 130,000
(total for three-year project (1996-1998))
Previously Approved Financing 80,000
Requested Financing (for 1998) 50,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 50,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 2
Service Area: Arts, Culture and Heritage
Project Name: Marine Museum Redevelopment
Projects: $
Redevelopment 436,753
IT 34,000
Total 470,753
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 2 (a)
Service Area: Arts, Culture and Heritage
Project Name: Marine Museum Redevelopment
Description:
245 Queen's Quay West, North Building
Retrofit and installation of exhibits in the north building located on Toronto's waterfront.
Heritage Toronto has been working toward the relocation of the Marine Museum from the
Stanley Barracks location to the waterfront since 1988. The current facility being land-locked
by parking lots limits the potential of the program. The Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works
Program (COIW) funding of $1.5 million started the first phase of the project as an
Interpretive Centre on Spadina Pier. Prior to construction of the new building, the Board of
Heritage Toronto decided to investigate other opportunities including the purchase of the
Dredge "Primrose" and, most recently, relocation to Pier4 North Building.
City Council and Transition Team approval were given in June 1997 for the redevelopment of
the Marine Museum into the Pier 4 site as supported by a business plan "Re-establishment of
the Marine Museum as a Waterfront Interpretive Centre on Toronto's Waterfront", prepared by
the Economic Planning Group.
This request outlines City Council funding approval for 1997 and 1998 budget cycles. The
Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Program supports this project.
Justification:
This project is supported by a comprehensive Business Plan approved by the former City of
Toronto Council in 1997. Work on the project is well underway and the opening day has been
announced as July 1, 1998.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
This project is the result of a considerable investment of resources, including other former
City of Toronto departments and funding from the Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works
Program. Deferring completion of the project will result in loss of considerable investment,
implications of not fulfilling obligations of the COIW grant, and a significant cost in
termination of contracts, returning the building for use for alternate purposes, and determining
the future of the Marine Museum and its collection.
Project Details: Capital Only
$000s $000s
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,329,573 (a)
Previously Approved Financing 893,000 (b)
Requested Financing 436,573
1997 1998 Total
Capital Only:
Gross Expenditures 734,844 594,729 1,329,573
External Revenues:
Federal 203,281 19,385 222,666
Provincial 203,281 19,385 222,666
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
(a) does not include restoration of the tug Ned Hanlan.
(b) phase one project costs for video, project management and exhibit work amount to
$332,000.00.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 2 (b)
Service Area: Arts, Culture and Heritage
Project Name: Marine Museum Redevelopment
Description:
(I) 245 Queen's Quay West, North Building
(ii) Purchase and installation of equipment to service the connection of the relocated Marine
Museum (the Pier Project) to the existing Heritage Toronto serves
Justification:
The new Marine Museum site will be opening on July 1, 1998 and a result of considerable
investment of resources, including other former City of Toronto departments and funding
from the Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Program. The computerization program is
required by April 1, 1998 to meet the operational and revenue targets of this heritage
attraction.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Deferring completion of the project will result in loss of considerable investment, implication
of not fulfilling obligations of the COIW grant, and a significant cost in termination of
contracts, returning the building for use for alternate purposes, and determining the future of
the Marine Museum and its collection.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 34,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 34,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 34,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 3
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Pool Capital Maintenance
Projects: $
Alderwood Pool 200,000
Scadding Pool 150,000
Total 350,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 3 (a)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Pool Capital Maintenance
Sir Adam Beck Multi-use Facility - Ph. 2 (Ph. 1 in progress)
Description:
Ph. 2 of the Sir Adam Beck Multi-use Facility project involves the replacement and upgrade
of the pool piping at the existing Alderwood Pool which is one component of the Multi-use
Facility. In concert with replacing the piping work on the deck, drains, gutters and rails will be
performed. (The renovation of the pool change-rooms and the replacement of the pool
filtration system are components of Ph. 1 of the project which was previously approved as a
1997 project and is currently in progress.)
Justification:
The existing cast iron piping which is now over 40 years has corroded internally. Rust from
the pipes is periodically blown into the pool affecting the water clarity/quality. The rust
build-up in the pipes over the years has also decreased the flow rate of the water by 15-20
percent and as a result, the system is operating at 75-80 percent efficiency and decreasing
yearly. The filtration system (mechanical room equipment) for the pool is being replaced with
a high rate sand filter system as part of a previously approved project (Ph. 1). This system will
provide a four-hour run over rate as required by code instead of the current 5-8 hours.
Without replacing the pool piping the benefit of replacing the filtration system and increasing
the flow rate will not be fully realized as the new system will not be able to run at capacity
without dislodging more rust particles and increasing the pressure on the pipes which may
cause underground leaks. As well as replacing the piping, it is also proposed that the overflow
gutter be replaced with a Skimmer System to prevent water from going directly to waste
(estimated at 4,000 gallons daily). Installing the Skimmers, piping, inlets and a single pump
system will all decrease current operating costs.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The installation of the new filtration system (Ph. 1) is the first part of a two-part project, with
the piping replacement being the second part. In order to obtain maximum efficiency of the
new equipment, new Skimmers, inlets and related piping are all required.
We are requesting early approval for this project in order that it can be implemented with the
filtration system replacement which is being done as part of the 1997 Sir Adam Beck project.
If the pool piping replacement is deferred the pool will require a shutdown of at least six
weeks on top of the 3-month shutdown which is required for the 1997 project and the related
revenue will be lost.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 200,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 200,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 200,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 3 (b)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Pool Capital Maintenance
Scadding Court Swimming Pool Replacement
Description:
The Scadding Court site is part of program that was developed to renovate or reconstruct
existing deteriorated swimming pool facilities. Scope of work entailed repair and upgrade of
filtration piping and pool decking. Renovation to the small swimming pool is currently
underway; the construction company is on site. This construction company has already
submitted a bid price for the large pool. Funds for renovation of the large pool are being
requested.
Justification:
Replacement of mechanical systems is necessary before the commencement of spring
programs. Immediate processing is necessary to allow for a reasonable project timeframe to
meet with program scheduling. Filtration piping is badly deteriorated. Its condition poses a
flood threat to the rest of the facility.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Immediate project approval will allow for continuous service to the public and reduce threat
of damage to the rest of the facility.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 150,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 150,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 150,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 4
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Pool Expansions
Lord Dufferin Swimming Pool - PH1
Description:
Funds are required for completion of Phase 1 of the construction a replacement swimming
pool facility at Lord Dufferin Public School. The Board of Education is responsible for project
and construction management.
Justification:
Construction is currently in progress. Phase 1 of the project ($700,000.00) was approved by
City Council and FAB recommended that funding be found within the capital budget to meet
our requirements in 1997. Funds of $230,000.00 have already been committed to the project
in 1997.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The pool is in very poor condition, which has resulted in numerous shutdowns. Other pools in
the area are currently operating at capacity.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,500,000
Previously Approved Financing 230,000
Requested Financing 470,000
1998
Gross Expenditures
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 5
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Park Land Acquisition
Projects: $
TRCA 4 Wynnview Cr. 250,000
41R Dundonald 475,000
40 Wabash 175,000
Total 900,000
See attached for details
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 5 (a)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Park Land Acquisition
TRCA 4 Wynnview Cr.
Description:
Requesting immediate approval of $250,000.00 from the Parkland Requisition Reserve in
order to enable the TRCA to finalize the purchase of No.4 Wynnview Court prior to March 2,
1998 closing of the property purchase option.
Justification:
This property occupies a strategic location along the Toronto waterfront between Rosetta
McClain Gardens Park and Scarborough Heights Park. The acquisition will preserve this
strategic property as public land which will afford the opportunity to link the two
aforementioned parks by an integrating trail.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Property could be sold to private interests which would preclude the integration of public
waterfront properties and linked trail opportunities.
Access across the waterfront in this area would then rely on using roadways which poses
safety concerns. It is noted that the TRCA has approved this acquisition subject to Toronto's
approval to fund 50 percent of cost.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 250,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 250,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 250,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 5 (b)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Park Land Acquisition
41R Dundonald Street
Description:
Funds are required for acquisition of this property. This property is immediately adjacent to
existing city owned parkland and allows for the opportunity of expansion.
Justification:
This project was approved by both City Council and FAB. FAB approval was conditional on
the funds being provided from the sale of city property at 219 Dufferin Street. However, the
closing of this sale is delayed due to environmental concerns and is scheduled for later this
year. This will be too late to comply with the closing date set out in the purchase agreement
for 41R Dundonald Street which is currently February 5, 1998.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
High priority consequence of not completing the transaction will be that the property could be
sold to another purchaser.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 475,888
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 475,888
1998
Gross Expenditures 475,888
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 5 (c)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Park Land Acquisition
40 Wabash Avenue
Description:
An offer of purchase has been made by the City for this property. Immediate funding of
$50,000.00 is required to perform soil testing analysis. If soil testing analysis indicates the
property is suitable for purchase, then a deposit of $125,000.00 will be required. Full City
funding is approved contingent on the sale of a city property, however, the closing date of the
sale of this other property will occur too late for needed funding
Justification:
Request for this project is to permit compliance with the contract and to make the stipulated
deposit. This project was approved by both City Council and FAB.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
As per the purchasing agreement, the City has a 90 day decision period to assess and decide
on the feasibility of this site for purchase.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,462,000
Previously Approved Financing 1,462,000
Requested Financing 175,000
1998
Gross Expenditures
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 6
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Arena Capital Maintenance
Projects:
$
Trinity Bellwoods 700,000
McGregor Arena 500,000
McGregor Park Recreation Centre 250,000
Total 1,450,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 6 (a)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Arena Capital Maintenance
Trinity Bellwoods
Description:
This 35 year old artificial ice rink floor located in Trinity Bellwoods Park is scheduled for
replacement in 1998 as part of a program that encompasses the long term replacement of
artificial ice rink refrigeration equipment floor and floodlighting in order to reduce continuous
repair and is essential for safety and to keep facilities open and usable.
Justification:
Consulting engineers have prepared a report indicating that this rink requires immediate
replacement and is the #1 priority among 27 artificial ice rinks. The consultant advises that
conditions at this rink constitute a public hazard. Authority to proceed is required at this time
to enable construction to be completed prior to the program season.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Consequences of deferring project approval would lead to service reduction as the ice rink
will not be ready for public use for the 1998/99 season. The deteriorated piping in this
ammonia feed rink poses a risk of injury to staff and patrons.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 700,000
Previously Approved Financing
Requested Financing 700,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 700,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 6 (b)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Arena Capital Maintenance
McGregor Arena
Description:
New rink boards, painting, flooring, etc. in the arena
Justification:
With the pool and (6 (c)) arena projects being completed together, the building will be fully
modernized and maintenance free for years to come. Cost efficient to do this project with the
main pool project.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Current maintenance costs will continue. Furthermore, if early approval is not granted the
project can not take place this year so as to tie-in to the pool work currently under
construction.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 500,000
Previously Approved Financing
Requested Financing 500,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 500,000
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 6 (c)
Service Area: Parks and Recreation
Project Name: Arena Capital Maintenance
McGregor Park Recreation Centre
Description:
Construction currently in progress. Additional funding for the pool renovation.
Justification:
Funding for the McGregor Park Recreation Centre project was reduced (by $297,208.00 as per
developer agreement) from its original $3,920,000.00 Section 37 funding (see 1997 Capital
Budget, Project #9270-0). It is anticipated that approximately $250,000.00 in alternative
funding will be required to finance the completed project.
The source of the alternative funding for the McGregor Park Recreation Centre will come
from "previously" approved Works & Environment Capital Levy by reducing the 1997
Landfill Survey Project No. 8580-0 by $250,000.00.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Reduced scope of work for the pool renovation contract which is now under construction and
this is not practical.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 250,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 250,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 250,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 7
Service Area: Police
Project Name: Migration of Mugshot System
Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace the obsolete and failing hardware used by the
Service's mugshot application. This application is critical to the Service's business; it
photographs individuals during the booking process; the bank of photos is then used to
generate lineups, for witness viewing and suspect identification.
Justification:
The system was implemented in 1993 on NeXT hardware. This hardware has been used 24
hours a day since implementation, and is beginning to fail on a regular basis. The hardware is
no longer manufactured, and a maintenance contract beyond May 1998 cannot be secured with
the vendor (COMNETICS). When the contract ends, the vendor will no longer search for
replacement parts for this system.
Alternative 1:
Migrate to a standard workstation with the NeXTStep operating system. The overall cost for
this option is approximately $325,000.00. The risk of this alternative is that the lifespan of the
NeXTStep operating system is also questionable. In addition, this system cannot be supported
internally, and maintenance costs will continue (current costs are $25,000.00 per year).
Alternative 2 (recommended):
Migrate to a standard workstation with the Windows NT operating system. The cost of this
option is $450,000.00, which includes workstations, the software license, and implementation
services. Support for the hardware will then be available within TPS.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The vendor requires approximately six months to convert the application. The later the start
date, the greater the risk of having hardware failures that cannot be resolved. Should this
occur, TPS would be required to revert back to a manual process to take photographs and
record descriptors of arrested persons. This would lengthen each booking significantly, and it
would make it extremely difficult to use the information for suspect identification.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 450,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 450,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 450,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 8
Service Area: Police
Project Name: DSC System Upgrades
Description:
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the hardware and software used for the Service's
specialized Intelligence Communications Intercept System. The Intelligence Unit provides
these services to all investigative units in TPS.
Justification:
The system was acquired in 1993. A maintenance contract cannot be secured past June 1998,
as parts for a number of critical components are no longer available. In addition, the system
cannot handle the current workload. Some investigative projects have been on waiting lists for
up to four weeks. If the Toronto Police Service is to continue to provide specialized
Intelligence communications services, the system will have to be upgraded.
Alternative 1:
Leave the present system intact. The system may have to be shut down shortly after June 1998
(as soon as any critical component requires replacement). TPS will have to obtain these
specialized services from the RCMP in Newmarket. Each project would cost approximately
40 percent more than running it in Toronto, and the lead-time in starting each project would
be increased.
Alternative 2 (recommended):
Upgrade the existing equipment. This new configuration will enable Intelligence Services to
handle the TPS workload. It will also eliminate potential loss of evidence and increase
efficiencies in the case preparation process. The cost of this option is $1,750,000.00. This
includes the hardware, software, installation and training. The vendor has committed that
maintenance costs for the upgraded system will not increase over present levels.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The vendor requires 120 days to perform the upgrade (i.e., if funding is made available by
February, the project can be completed before support for the old system stops). This would
limit any potential loss of functionality or data.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,750,000
Previously Approved Financing
Requested Financing 1,750,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 1,750,000
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 9
Service Area: Fire
Project Name: Vehicle Standardization
Description:
During 1997, the City of Toronto signed contracts for vehicles that are now under
construction and can be converted to the new multi-purpose standards. Three are aerial
vehicles under construction with Smeal Fire Apparatus in Nebraska. This request is to convert
the apparatus to quints which will provide for more effective use and versatility across the
new City. Also identified are six pumpers with Fort Garry Fire Trucks, five of which that can
still be converted to rescue pumpers.
Justification:
Conversion of the above apparatus will allow for greater versatility across the new city, rather
than a restricted area. The only alternative is that of not converting these vehicles. This option
would restrict the assignment of the vehicles and limit the effectiveness to certain geographic
areas.
Cost for the aerial conversions is $159,000.00; cost for the rescue pumper conversions is
$30,000.00.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
If these vehicles are not converted during construction, they will be delivered as is, and in use
for 10-15 years thereby delaying the City's multi-purpose concept.
Project Details:
Overall Gross Project Cost 189,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 189,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 189,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 10
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Old City Hall
Description:
The Old City hall asset preservation program is a continuation of a program started in 1997 as
a result of two condition surveys carried out by C.A. Ventin and Nelson Wong Architects Inc.
which recommended major building systems to be reviewed and replaced as well as a program
of life-cycle costing implementation to ensure longevity and the health and safety of the
occupants and visitors to the facility.
Justification:
The condition surveys indicated the Old City Hall required a major investment by Metro to
address deficiencies and replacement cycles to major building systems such as roofs, building
envelopes, building structure, H.V.A.C. systems, fire and life safety, and mechanical and
electrical systems.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Severely disadvantage the public who are required to attend Court and offices of the
Provincial Court system - will jeopardize future lease revenue. Will have a serious effect on
the future lease revenue; the facility will continue to deteriorate and expose the occupants and
visitors to risk; will not be ready for the 1999 centenary of this important landmark. This
request allows for continuation of work currently under way.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 5,891,000
Previously Approved Financing 1,495,000
Requested Financing 1,051,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 1,051,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 11
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Other Buildings Capital Maintenance
Projects: $
Pape Recreation Centre 20,000
Alan Gardens 80,000
666 Eglinton Ave. W. 35,000
Total 135,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 11 (a)
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Other Buildings
Pape Recreation Centre
Description:
953 Gerrard Street East (Pape Recreation Centre). Replace electrical panels in boiler room.
Replace "rusted out" electrical panels which could potentially be unsafe. Panels currently are
overheating.
Justification:
Occupant and Building Safety.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Potential for fire/accident due to present condition of panels. These panels must be removed
and new ones installed in a dryer location.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 20,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 20,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 20,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 11 (b)
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Other Building
160 Gerrard Street East (Alan)
Description:
160 Gerrard East, install fall arrest system on greenhouses and dome.
Justification:
Required by legislation
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Must be installed prior to start of rehabilitation work planned for 1998.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 80,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 80,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 80,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 11 (c)
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Other Buildings
666 Eglinton Avenue West, Area Buildings and Inspection Office
Description:
Replace air conditioning
Justification:
Will not be able to provide air conditioning during upcoming summer months if early
approval is not forthcoming (existing unit is beyond repair).
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Operational efficiency at local Buildings and Inspections Office.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 35,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 35,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 35,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 12
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: 1200 Lansdowne Avenue
Description:
1200 Lansdowne Avenue, replace pool ceiling.
Justification:
Support structure is decayed.
Consequences of deferring project approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Consultant's Report and recommendation to replace as soon as possible because of potential
structure failure.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 65,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 65,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 65,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 13
Service Area: Facilities Management
Project Name: Casa Loma, 1 Austin Terrace
Description:
Casa Loma, 1 Austin Terrace, masonry repairs
Justification:
Required to replace loose masonry. Consultant's reports on file.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Potential hazard to the public.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 900,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 900,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 900,000 15,200,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 14
Service Area: Solid Waste Management
Project Name: Keele Valley Development
Description:
The Keele Valley Landfill Site is located in the City of Vaughan, and currently serves the
waste management needs of the Regions of York and Durham and the new City of Toronto.
Since disposal operations began on November 28, 1983, more than 20 million tonnes of waste
have been landfilled. Current projections estimate that Keele Valley's capacity will be
exhausted by the year 2002.
The Keele Valley Development project provides the design and construction of the
infrastructure and engineered environmental controls required for the management of the 100
hectare landfill site which will contain approximately 25 million tonnes of solid waste at
capacity. Activities from 1998 to 2002 include provision for site services, clay liner
monitoring, inspection and maintenance of leachate collection systems, expansion of leachate
recirculation systems, purge wells, odour control and water monitoring systems, as well as the
progressive final restoration of completed areas of the landfill site and the borrow areas.
Justification:
Certificate of Approval requires that this work be done.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Deferring project approval until April 1998 or thereafter would result in insufficient funding
for the Keele Valley Capital Works Project. Therefore, no further expenditures related to this
project could be undertaken.
Failure to incur the necessary expenditures would result in this project being in contravention
of the condition of the Certificate of Approval and subject to prosecution for violation of the
Environmental Protection Act.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 106,046,000
Previously Approved Financing * 87,223,000
Requested Financing * 700,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 3,712,000 14,412,000
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
Note: * The requested funding of $700,000.00 is in addition to the recommended funding
transfer of $1,373,000.00 funding from the Recycling Project SW660 to the Keele Valley
Development Project SW165. This recommended transfer was approved by the Treasurer of
the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in December 1997.
A report requesting Council's approval of this transfer will be submitted in February 1998.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Projects:
$
Lawrence/Humber 2,500,000
Bloor/Dundas 750,000
Dundas/Etobicoke Creek 1,000,000
Don Mills/Don River 2,600,000
Bathurst/Railway 2,161,173
Total 10,011,174
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15 (a)
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Lawrence/Humber
Description:
Lawrence Avenue/Humber River - East of Scarlett Road - Major Bridge Rehabilitation.
Justification:
Bridge requires major rehabilitation - elements have reached end of service life.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Work requires seven months to complete. Any delays in the schedule would affect our ability
to complete the work this year.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,500,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 2,500,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 2,500,000 0
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15 (b)
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Bloor/Dundas
Description:
Bloor Street/Dundas Street Bridge - Major Bridge Rehabilitation.
Justification:
Bridge requires major rehabilitation - elements have reached end of service life.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Work requires five months to complete. It is important to complete this work in good weather
conditions, particularly the bridge waterproofing membrane. Early contracts result in attractive
prices and to delay this work would further compress an already short construction season.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 750,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 750,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 750,000 0
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15 (c)
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Dundas/Etobicoke Creek
Description:
Dundas Street/Etobicoke Creek - Major bridge rehabilitation work to be done in cooperation
with City of Mississauga.
Justification:
Bridge requires major rehabilitation - elements have reached end of their service life.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
(I) Work requires six months to complete.
(ii) Scheduled jointly with City of Mississauga.
(iii) Delay in award may affect ability to complete this project before winter.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,000,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 1,000,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 2,000,000 0
External Revenues 1,000,000 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15 (d)
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Don Mills/Don River
Description:
Rehabilitation Don Mills Road/Don River and Don Mills Road/CNR Bridges south of
Overlea Boulevard.
Justification:
Bridge requires major rehabilitation - elements have reached end of their service life.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
(I) Work requires six months to complete.
(ii) Delay in award may affect ability to complete this project before Winter.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,600,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 2,600,000 1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 2,600,000 0
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 15 (e)
Service Area: Transportation
Project Name: Bridge Reconstruction Program
Bathurst/Railway
Description:
Bathurst Street Bridge over Toronto Terminal Railways south of Front Street.
Deck Replacement, Major Rehabilitation.
Contract recommended for award at January 12, 1998 Urban Environment and Development
Committee.
Justification:
Bridge requires major rehabilitation, streetcar tracks require replacement.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Require contract to begin early February 1998 in order to reopen bridge by June 14, 1998 to
handle summer traffic demands.
Construction requires all traffic including streetcars to be prohibited from using bridge
between February and June 1998.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,161,173
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 2,161,173
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 2,161,173 0
External Revenues 908,000 0
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 16
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Traction Power / Substation Electrical Rebuild
Description:
The Commission owns 50 substations (two of which have been decommissioned), 30 breaker
rooms and rents 4 Toronto Hydro substations for the supply of both traction and AC power.
The 1998 schedule consists of design work, rebuild of TTC rented substations by Toronto
Hydro forces, the design and rebuild of Warden and Islington to eliminate environmental
(water and condensation) and insulation breakdown problems, and an engineering study to
identify and specify additional substation overhaul requirement.
Justification:
The existing substation electrical equipment has developed defects over the years. The
equipment is obsolete, and parts are not available for proper maintenance. The old units were
not built according to the latest industrial and safety standards, and their operation is subject
to failure.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Failure of the obsolete equipment could inhibit its normal operation, resulting in substation
shutdown, potential safety hazards to maintenance personnel and disruption to revenue
services.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,360,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 1,360,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 350,000 1,010,000
External Revenues 263,000 757,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 17
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Power Distribution/Electrical Systems
Projects: $
SRT Power Rail Heaters 400,000
Greenwood Yard Lighting 300,000
Security Lighting - Stations 300,000
Total 1,000,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 17 (a)
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Power Distribution / Electrical Systems
SRT Power Rail Heaters
Description:
To replace the non-functioning power rail heaters which have reached their 10-year life
expectancy.
Justification:
Long stretches of power rail heaters on the northbound rails are not functioning as they have
reached their designed life expectancy of 10 years. This affects the operation of the system
during winter when ice builds up on the rails and can make power pickup impossible thus
stopping service. As a result, delays occur which in turn cause inconvenience to our patrons.
The use of glycol as an alternate is not recommended, as it is not environmentally acceptable.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Continued service delays and inconvenience to patrons.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 400,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 400,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 200,000 200,000
External Revenues 100,000 100,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 17 (b)
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Power Distribution / Electrical Systems
Greenwood Yard Lighting
Description:
To replace and upgrade the existing yard lighting including feeder cables. Most of the existing
yard lighting was installed during the construction of the yard 32 years ago, and now is in
disrepair. A lighting survey conducted by Safety Department in November 1996 concluded
that lighting levels were below current industry standards and recommended the upgrading of
the lighting system.
Justification:
(I) Existing yard lighting fixtures have deteriorated beyond economical repair;
(ii) Lighting levels are below TTC and Illumination Engineering Society (IES) design
standards;
(iii) Lighting installations do not conform to present Electrical Safety Code and pose a safety
hazard to maintenance personnel; and
(iv) Light fixtures are not energy efficient.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Reduction in service personnel safety and productivity as existing light fixtures deteriorate
further.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 300,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 300,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 150,000 150,000
External Revenues 75,000 75,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 17 (c)
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Power Distribution / Electrical Systems
Security Lighting - Stations
Description:
To provide security lighting at various subway stations.
Justification:
In 1997, Corporate security audits were conducted at nine stations in addition to Kennedy
Station which was audited in 1996. The project should reduce the risk of security and criminal
incidents at identified locations and assist customers in their ability to see and identify
someone if an incident occurs.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Potential for continued security incidents against customers and employees, negative
perception of security in these areas, and loss of community support in continuing audit
process.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 300,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 300,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 150,000 150,000
External Revenues 75,000 75,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 18
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Communications
Projects: $
Security System Upgrade 40,000
C.I.S. Signpost Transmitter 355,000
Total 395,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 18 (a)
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Communications
Security System Upgrade
Description:
To facilitate radio communications by installing a radio base in the Patten Building Security
Pod as well as a review and upgrade of the Security Pod layout and workstation to ensure
appropriate workplace conditions.
Justification:
Installation of a radio base station, to replace reliance on hand held radios, will facilitate and
improve the quality of radio communications while increasing the efficiency of security
operations.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Protective Security Officers at the Patten Building will continue to work in cluttered
workplace, contributing to inefficiency, low employee morale and increased risk of injury.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 40,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 40,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 40,000
External Revenues 20,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 18 (b)
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Communications
C.I.S. Signpost Transmitter
Description:
CIS signposts are used to verify the location of surface vehicles as part of the CIS system. The
purpose of this project is to upgrade the CIS 10.05 Ghz transmitting signposts to 10.5 Ghz.
This will be done by retrofitting a new oscillator diode in the 714 existing transmitting
signposts.
Justification:
Existing transmitting signposts are 15 years old surpassing the 10-year life expectancy of the
main component - the oscillator diode. Also, due to a recent ruling by the Department of
Industry, the Commission would have to pay a licensing fee of $68.00 per sign post per year
or $48,522.00 per year in total if we continue to use the 10.05 Ghz frequency. It is possible the
10.5 Ghz frequency range is exempt from licensing fees and staff are in the process of
confirming this with the Department of Industry. Should the ruling not be favourable, it may
be necessary to withdraw this project.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Transmitting signposts will have to be replaced as they fail, causing communication
disruptions for the CIS system. As well, the Commission will incur $48,554.00 licensing fees
for the existing signposts per year of deferral of project.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 355,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 355,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 125,000 230,000
External Revenues 63,000 115,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 19
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Signal System
Projects: $
Flashing Red Aspects 1,500,000
Event Recorders at Signal Interlockings 367,000
Modifications to permit facing Route Selections 48,000
Total 1,915,000
See attached for details.
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 19(a)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Signal System/Flashing Red Aspects
Description:
At the present time, a red signal aspect can have two meanings:
(i) stop and stay; and
(ii) timed signal ("grade timed")
This can be confusing to the train operators if they forget the previous signal indication.
Justification:
Implementation will improve safety, bring the existing signal system to a state of good repair
and provide an appropriate migration path to Automatic Train Control (ATC) in the future.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Deterioration of the performance of the existing signal equipment, and exposure to the risk
that could result from failure of vital signalling components.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,500,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 1,500,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 1,500,000
External Revenues 750,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 19(b)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Signal System/Provide Event Recorders at Signal Interlockings
Description:
Design Signal System interface for 30 interlockings, procure event recorders and modems,
implementation and testing in 1998. Implementation and testing in 1999.
Event recorders are electronic devices which allow discrete information to be recorded and
stored for future playback. When interfaced into the signal system, the event recorder time
stamps and records the time that a change in state occurs in a signal function, thus enabling a
historical record of the events occurring in the interlocking (in real time) to be saved and
replayed on a Personal Computer. Presently the terminal stations (Kipling, Kennedy, Finch
and Downsview) have permanently wired event recorders c/w modems at all interlocking
relay rooms in the subway. Procurement and installation of event recorders at all interlockings
will provide signal system operating data which can be used to analyze subway operation and
provide a basis for signal system component replacement, as well as a means of accumulating
data for the Facilities Management System. Implementation of event recorders at all
interlockings will make subway operating data more readily available to supervisory and
maintenance staff. This data will assist supervisory staff in directing maintenance personnel to
areas where immediate maintenance attention can assist in avoiding delays in the subway
operation, or resolving ongoing operational issues.
Justification:
Implementation will improve safety, bring the existing signal system to a state of good repair
and provide and appropriate migration path to Automatic Train Control (ATC) in the future.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Deterioration of the performance of the existing signal equipment, and exposure to the risk
that could result from failure of vital signalling components.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 19 (c)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Signal System Modifications to Permit Facing Route Selection
Description:
Add facing route selection capability to the existing subway signal system at 9 interlockings
located throughout the subway and provide the remote control and indication of the affected
signals at Transit Control. This project will increase the flexibility of the signal system by
providing the ability of staff at Transit Control to re-route trains in order to service additional
platforms at times when delays occur on the line which prevent through routing to a terminal
station.
Justification:
(i) increase subway reliability and headway adherence benefitting customers and ridership;
and
(ii) reduces occurrence of platform over-crowding - a safety hazard.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Delayed implementation, lost opportunity savings.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 48,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 48,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 48,000
External Revenues 24,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 367,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 367,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 215,000 152,000
External Revenues 108,000 76,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 20
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Finishes
Duncan Receiving Bay Modification
Description:
Converting the existing interior receiving bays at General Stores, Shipping and Receiving -
Duncan Building to exterior bays by filling in existing interior bays Nos. 2 and 3, thereby
relocating the loading dock edges to the exterior.
Justification:
This project will provide the extra receiving space required to effectively and safely marshall,
process and distribute the increased volume of material receipts. This modification will also
enable the General Stores section to achieve and maintain its dock-to-stock target for goods
received and eliminate potential work-place hazards due to material congestion of the shop
floor. In addition, the project will greatly reduce atmospheric pollution and will reduce
collisions with overhead doors.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Delayed implementation, lost efficiency opportunity.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 150,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 150,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 150,000
External Revenues 75,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 21
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Equipment
Control Thermostat Replacement
Description:
Replacement of existing controls with set-back thermostats will enable proper temperature
and time of operation control of HVAC equipment, resulting in heating and other related
energy cost savings. Centralized control will further enable monitoring/control for better
resource utilization.
Justification:
Set-back thermostats will provide proper control of temperature and time of operation to meet
Occupational Health and Safety Act requirements, without wastage of heating fuel and other
related energy consumption. The Commission will assume a break-even point in five years.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Wastage of heating fuel and other related energy consumption will continue, with increase in
operating cost as a consequence.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 354,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 354,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 101,000 253,000
External Revenues 50,000 127,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 22
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Yards & Roads
Control Troughs & Duct Bank
Description:
To replace and stabilize existing cable troughs and duct bank on the northbound mainline
through Wilson Yard.
Justification:
Because of unstable soil conditions, the cable troughs for power and signals are sliding down
the embankment placing the cables under stress.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Cables will break resulting in a loss of power and communications, therefore resulting in a
shutdown of service.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 600,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 600,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 600,000
External Revenues 300,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 23
Service Area: TTC
Project Name: Bridges and Tunnels
Station Leak Remediation Program
Description:
To implement a comprehensive station leak remediation program to reduce maintenance costs
of structural members, station finishes, electrical fixtures and improve station aesthetics,
reduce cost of claims and potential injuries.
Justification:
On average approximately $374,000.00 per annum is spent on remedial repairs to address the
effects of station leakage problems (excluding claims). This station leak remediation program
is necessary to ensure that water leakage problems do not cause further deterioration of
expansion/construction joints, major structural member and station finishes to a point that
they jeopardize the safety of the traveling public and have a negative effect on ridership due to
the impacts on station appearance.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The structure and its subsystem will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate,
compromising the safety, structural integrity of subway stations and compromising the safety
of our patrons.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,086,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 1,086,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 593,000 493,000
External Revenues 296,000 247,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 24 (a)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Buildings and Structures, Yonge/Bloor Platform Projection
Description:
Expenditure required to close out the project
Justification:
Request reflects project final close-out costs.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Payment of final project costs would be delayed.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 23,310,000
Previously Approved Financing 23,192,000
Requested Financing 118,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 118,000
External Revenues 88,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 24 (b)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Buildings and Structures, Harvey Shop renovation
Description:
Rehabilitation of D.W. Harvey Shop to upgrade the facility to present standards. The work
includes Building Structure and Systems rehabilitation as well as facility production
improvements.
Justification:
Request reflects project final close-out costs.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Payment of project costs would be delayed.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 14,851,000
Previously Approved Financing 13,301,000
Requested Financing 1,550,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 1,550,000
External Revenues 775,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 25
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Buildings and Structures, Spadina Subway Extension
Description:
Final close-out costs associated with extending the subway north from Wilson Station to new
station at Sheppard Avenue and Allen Road (Downsview Station).
Justification:
Project approved and undertaken in 1992.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Outstanding work and resolution of deficiencies identified on the project will not be
addressed.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 123,349,000
Previously Approved Financing 123,249,000
Requested Financing 100,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 100,000
External Revenues 75,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 26
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Streetcar Overhaul, ALRV Axle Replacement
Description:
A four year project to replace all ALRV axles as a result of corrosion damage.
Justification:
See deferral impact.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Vehicles will become unavailable for service.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,400,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 2,400,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 600,000 1,800,000
External Revenues 450,000 1,300,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 27
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Non-Revenue Vehicles, Five Vehicles for Various Departments
Description:
This project includes:
(i) two trailers to transport skid steer loaders to various Streetcar work locations;
(ii) one crew cab pick-up truck and one van for the Signal Construction Project; and
(iii) one 3+ 3 crew cab pick-up truck for regularly scheduled and budgeted preventative,
maintenance work on all bridges and the SRT.
Justification:
The current method of relocating Bobcats is time consuming and only allows for the
relocation of one Bobcat at a time. Furthermore, Bobcats can be secured from theft if returned
to a secured area after use each day.
As a result of work on the signal system, the construction workforce was increased and
consequently so was the need for crew cabs projects.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Lost opportunity for increased productivity, disruption of capital work efforts, and
maintenance objectives will be jeopardized.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 116,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 116,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 116,000
External Revenues 116,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 28
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Tools and Shop Equipment
Description:
This project covers the purchase of:
(i) the Russell Carhouse Wheel Lathe Control,
(ii) the modifications to the Roncesvalles Carhouse hydraulic hoist,
(iii) VXI Event Logging equipment,
(iv) a Freon (R134-A) recovery unit, and
(v) Pallet (skid) Racking and one PROTEMA mini-lift for Greenwood Stores.
Justification:
Justification for each of the components is as follows:
(I) the current lathe controls and associated display equipment and software malfunction on a
regular basis which calls for much unnecessary and costly breakdown maintenance. Lathe
downtime greatly impacts wheel maintenance scheduling, and downtime costs;
(ii) this modification will enable the carhouse to complete repairs to ALRV and CLRV
streetcars which are currently transported to Harvey Shop for repair;
(iii) facilitates isolation of intermittent streetcar faults, reducing component exchanges,
diagnostic time and increasing both reliability and availability of vehicles;
(iv) allows the Commission to replace the (R-12) Freon with the environmentally friendly
Freon (R134-A) to comply with current legislation (Bill 189-94) and maintain a responsible
corporate image;
(v) Pallet (skid) Racking addresses sustained increased demand from users which have
caused increases in levels of inventory;
The Mini-Lift has become necessary since approximately 75 percent of the storage area at
Greenwood involves lifting materials in lots weighing up to 200 lbs. to storage location
heights of 8 feet.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Lost opportunity for increased quality and productivity of Streetcar Operations.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 481,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 481,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 481,000
External Revenues 481,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 29
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Revenue and Fare Handling Equipment
Refurbish 525 Fareboxes
Description:
Rebuild 525 fareboxes for installation on surface vehicles.
Justification:
Fareboxes being removed from decommission surface vehicles are not suitable for installation
on rebuilt vehicles. The cost of replacement with new fareboxes is more than twice the cost of
rebuilding.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
There will be insufficient fareboxes to equip our surface vehicle fleet unless the damaged
fareboxes are reinstalled as is or rebuilt to an acceptable standard.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 451,000
Previously Approved Financing 300,000
Requested Financing 151,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 151,000
External Revenues 151,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 30
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Computer Equipment and Software
Projects: $
Year 2000 Project 3,253,000
System Updating 2,700,000
Facilities Maintenance Project 795,000
Total 6,748,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 30 (a)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Computer Equipment and Software
Year 2000 Project
Description:
The purpose of this project is to prepare all computer systems and corporate technologies for
multi-century dates processing (i.e. change all 2-digit year fields to 4-digit year fields, as
required).
Justification:
This project is required to keep existing computer systems functional through the year 2000.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
A variety of system malfunctions will occur if this project is significantly delayed.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 4,463,000
Previously Approved Financing 1,210,000
Requested Financing 3,253,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 3,253,000
External Revenues 1,773,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 30 (b)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Computer Equipment and Software
System Updating (SMS/CMS/VMS)
Description:
This project involves evaluating, selecting and implementing a common work order system
for maintenance of the TTC's revenue vehicle fleet. An "off the shelf" client server based
maintenance application will be selected and implemented in order to replace the existing
systems used to maintain subway vehicles, buses and streetcars. These systems include the
Subway Maintenance System (SMS), the Carhouse Maintenance system (CMS) for streetcars,
and the Vehicle Maintenance System (VMS) for the bus fleet.
Justification:
Proceeding with the implementation of an integrated vehicle work order system will eliminate
the need for the Subway Maintenance System - Rehabilitation project ($1,065,000.00)
budgeted in the 1997 -2001 program. Also, the forecasted operating savings of $200,000.00
annually associated with reducing the spare component inventory will still be achieved,
commencing in 1999 after this new system has been implemented.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Since the current SMS and CMS systems are not Year 2000 compliant, delaying the
implementation of this project may ultimately result in the need to first rehabilitate the SMS
and CMS systems regardless. Valuable opportunity to development a common work order
system concurrently with the new maintenance procedure manuals being developed in
Operations will be missed.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,700,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 2,700,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 840,000 1,860,000
External Revenues 420,000 930,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
A - 30 (c)
Service Area: Toronto Transit Commission
Project Name: Computer Equipment and Systems
Facilities Maintenance System
Description:
This project involves implementing a Facilities Maintenance System (FMS) in the Electrical
and Communications sections of the Signals/Electrical/Communications Department. An
FMS system based on the MAXIMO software application was designed, developed and
successfully implemented in the Signals section in 1997.
Justification:
This project creates the ability to track equipment failures and maintenance activities at a level
according to specific equipment detail. The Coroner's Jury Due Diligence Checklist included a
recommendation on the implementation of computerized systems to identify and analyze
maintenance and defect trends. This recommendation is also tied into the requirement for a
comprehensive, predictive and preventative maintenance practice. These issues can only be
addressed by developing a work order system that capture defects, problems and maintenance
activities at a detailed level.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Continued inadequate and restricted ability to monitor, document and schedule work for both
the Electrical and Communications sections personnel. The opportunity to constructively
reduce the number of work order backlogs in the Electrical and Communication sections will
be deferred.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 795,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 795,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 455,000 340,000
External Revenues 228,000 70,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 31
Service Area: Parking Authority
Project Name: Electronic Parking Equipment Purchase
Description:
Purchase of electronic on-street parking equipment.
Justification:
To install meters at new strategic locations and replace obsolete mechanical meters with
electronic equipment to readily facilitate rate changes and hours of operation. Electronic
meters/pay and display equipment accommodate all denominations of coin as well as provide
audit capabilities.
The purchase will be funded from combined reserves.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Failure to meet projected revenue targets.
Project Details:
$ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 7,000,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 3,825,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 3,825,000 3,175,000
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 3,825,000 3,175,000
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 32
Service Area: Toronto Economic Development Corporation
Project Name: Capital Improvements
Projects: $
Basin Street Extension 164,384
Infrastructure Improvements 25,000
63 Polson St. 15,625
Total 205,009
See attached for details.
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 32 (a)
Service Area: TEDCO
Project Name: Economic Development
Basin Street Extension
Description:
Western limit of existing Basin Street to Cherry Street; Don Roadway south of
Commissioners Street.
Construction of one kilometre of new road and services constructed to municipal standards
linking Basin Street and Cherry Street and upgrade of Don Roadway, south of Commissioners
Street.
Justification:
Job creation - Construction; 78 person years; Long term: 1,815 jobs.
Creation of public access to development site and existing sites.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Delay in first phase contract award.
Delay in attraction of new investments; runs counter to marketing effort in place.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 5,166,733
Previously Approved Financing 1,766,416
Requested Financing 164,384
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 1,711,700 3,233,933
External Revenues 1,711,700 3,233,933
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 32 (b)
Service Area: TEDCO
Project Name: Infrastructure Improvements
Description:
Funding for projects identified in TEDCO's Strategic Plan whose timing may change in
response to market opportunities, discussion/agreements with third parties and emergency
requirements.
Justification:
Infrastructure improvements to allow for new developments in response to the market;
unexpected emergency repairs.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Market opportunity lost; delay in attraction of new investments. Delay in repairing damaged
infrastructure; worst case, dangerous situation.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 7,938,848
Previously Approved Financing 200,000
Requested Financing 25,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 100,000 7,838,847
External Revenues 100,000 7,838,847
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 32 (c)
Service Area: TEDCO
Project Name: Economic Development
Polson Street Building
Description:
Tenant improvements; repair and maintenance of multi-tenant building.
Justification:
Job creation - Construction: 16 person years; Long term: 40 jobs
Provision of small industrial/office space.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Delay in leasing to new tenants and/or renewing tenants; deterioration of the building
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 1,348,810
Previously Approved Financing 1,296,032
Requested Financing 52,778
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 15,625 62,500
External Revenues 15,625 62,500
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 33
Service Area: Toronto Harbour Commission
Project Name: Leslie St. Landfill
Description:
Construction of Leslie St. Headland.
Justification:
The T.H.C. has an ongoing obligation to develop this site.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The T.H.C. will not be fulfilling its obligation.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost
Previously Approved Financing
Requested Financing
1998
Gross Expenditures 280,000
External Revenues 280,000
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 34
Service Area: Water Supply
Project Name: Water Connections
Description:
Supply and installation of water meters for residential, commercial and industrial customers
that request a new water service at various locations throughout Scarborough. This is
necessary to ensure their water consumption can be accurately registered and billed.
Justification:
Policy - To 100 percent meter the water consumption of all customers (Scarborough).
Cost/Benefit - New water services and meters are installed at the customer's request. Water
meter costs are recovered through the water rates and funded by the capital budget. By
tendering for all water meters required in 1998, the overall unit cost of meters is reduced due
to the volume of the purchase and savings in administration of purchasing costs.
Alternatives - Not install water meters or purchase a small volume of water meters on a
monthly basis at an increased cost.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Presently, SPUC has a one-month inventory of meters which will last until early February/98.
Deferring approval will result in un-metered water services and customers receiving estimated
water bills which negatively affects customer satisfaction, revenue collection and the cost of
billing. Installing water meters has proven effective in raising customers awareness of
efficient water use.
Project Details:
$ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 4,700,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 350,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 940,000 3,760,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 35
Service Area: Water Supply Program
Project Name: Watermain Capital Maintenance
Description:
Cement mortar lining of deteriorated iron mains to improve the structural integrity of the pipe
and improve the quantity and quality of water transmission.
Justification:
Unlined watermains result in high iron and rusty coloured water. This can exceed standards
and cause customer complaints. Also the unlined watermains can result in lower service
pressures potentially affecting customer satisfaction and fire fighting ability. Replacement of
the watermain is generally more expensive and only used when otherwise required.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
This work must be completed between March and November due to weather restrictions.
Also, there are only four or five contractors presently capable of undertaking this type of
work. Therefore, tendering must be done strategically and begin early in order to ensure
optimal pricing. To continue with this multi-year priority program, early financing approval is
required. Deferral would result in higher costs or an inability to complete the work resulting in
delayed improvements to water quality and service.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 76,325,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 6,950,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 17,721,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 36
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: Sewer Improvements
Description:
Quantitative and qualitative flow monitoring and flow tracing for optimum efficiency.
Purchase of monitoring equipment.
Justification:
Condition of Approval from M.O.E.E.
To validate intendant function.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Must commence with the start up of the facility so adjustment can be made by construction
contracts, within the contracted maintenance period.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 400,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 100,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 200,000 200,000
External Revenues 100,000 100,000
Available Reserve Funding 0 0
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 37
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: New Sewers
Toronto
Description:
Construction of sewers at various locations (Annette Street, Scott Street and Scott Lane).
Justification:
The funds requested for 1998 are required for the construction of sewers at various locations
to improve roadway drainage and divert storm flows from the sanitary sewer system and the
treatment plant. Prior authorization of funds, in the amount of $750,000.00 gross which
constitutes 50 percent of the gross 1998 authorization requirement, is requested to allow for
the early tender of the Annette Street Reconstruction Work.
The construction of the Annette Street sewer is required in 1998 because of defects of the
sewer and the need to maintain drainage services to residents and business. The early
tendering of the Annette Street project (e.g., January 1998) is necessary in order to complete
the project in time to allow the scheduled road reconstruction on Annette Street to be
completed in 1998.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The scheduled road reconstruction on Annette Street may not be completed in 1998 if
approval of the Annette Street sewer construction is deferred until April 1998 or thereafter.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 6,500,000
Previously Approved Financing 0
Requested Financing 750,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 1,500,000 5,000,000
External Revenues 0 0
Available Reserve Funding 750,000 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 38
Service Area: Water Supply
Project Name: Engineering Studies
Description:
This project will provide a full schedule of infrastructure requirements, using emerging
optimization technologies to meet long term water demands within City of Toronto and the
southern part of Region of York. This will include development of a computer model of the
distribution system and field calibration of the model. The model will be the basis of network
analysis with optimization methods applied to infrastructure changes to identify the best
solution. Also included will be a high level assessment of a Greater Toronto Area (GTA) wide
water services strategy to identify potential linkages and their costs and benefits between the
systems in the City of Toronto, York, Peel and Durham Regions. The study will be carried out
by a consultant, managed jointly by staff from City of Toronto and Region of York. The cost
of the study will be cost-shared on an equal basis with the Region of York.
Justification:
The Toronto water supply system, in its current form, is a large integrated system comprised
of four (4) filtration plants, 18 pumping stations, 10 major storage reservoir, four (4) elevated
tanks and 487kilometres of water main. The system provides treatment, storage and
distribution of water within the City and Region of York, servicing 2.75 million people. To
meet changing service demand, long term master plans, historically revised at five-year
intervals, have been prepared.
The most recent of these is the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study (WSJS) completed in
conjunction with the Region of York. This study addressed production and distribution
requirements. Infrastructure requirements to meet demand projections to the year 2011 in the
City and provide 259 megalitres per day (ML/d) average day to the Region of York were
identified. The total Capital costs for the necessary work is in the order of $250,000,000.00.
Studies of this nature are driven largely by two components, the first being water demand
projections, the second being modelling technologies which identify the production and
distribution infrastructure necessary to meet projected demands. Projecting demands,
particularly within the City, is more difficult as the traditional growth patterns are not
applicable. Metro has generally seen primary development completed throughout its areas.
Further, water demand in the City and the Region of York is affected by changes in level and
type of employment (eg. there is less water intensive industry). The basis of the previous
study, the 1995 WSJS, was for average day supply of 259 ML to the Region of York which
would only meet a portion of their projected demand. Region of York long term demand
projections have recently been revised downward as indicated in their long term water project
Master Plan. Also, within the City, projected employment population levels have not
materialized. This will likely result in less increase than previously allowed for to the Metro
base demand. Also, modelling and optimization technologies have developed rapidly in recent
years. This provides an opportunity to develop a more detailed system model, input of current
demand projections and apply optimization techniques which analyze a very large number of
options before identifying solutions. As a result of new demand projections in the Region of
York and the City, coupled with new optimization technologies, there would likely be a basis
for an increase to the 259ML/d volume allowed for as supply to the Region of York in the
1995 WSJS. Any change would be subject to overall cost benefit analysis and other factors.
Recent provincial legislation will result in changes to water supply within the new city area,
and the formation of GTSB will provide other alternatives which may result in more effective
water supply options. Specifically, the new city will allow full integration of the water supply
network and the GTSB would allow interconnections to other neighbouring regions. A Joint
Optimization Study would allow for this and may identify more optimum infrastructure
changes than those previously identified. A high level assessment of the potential impact of
GTSB interconnected services is also prudent at this time.
An alternative to this study would be to defer or cancel the study. This would require either
proceeding with major planned Capital Works or deferring them until the study is completed.
This would negate potential savings or result in an inability to meet demand. Also this would
not proactively address issues concerning the New City and the GTA.
Consequences of deferring project approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Deferring the project would result in construction of less than optimal infrastructure,
excessive costs or inadequate service delivery.
Project Details: $ $
Overall Gross Project Cost 2,163,000
Previously Approved Financing 1,602,000
Requested Financing 498,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 504,000 157,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 39
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment
Projects: $
Ozone System 177,000
Pumps 245,000
Ventilation System 250,000
Total 672,000
See attached for details.
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 39 (a)
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: Replacement of Ozonator
Description:
The existing ozone system is about twenty years old and is in need of replacement. The
system is located in the Ozone House located above the aeration tanks. The present system
consists of two 120 lbs/day units and it is proposed that one of these units will be replaced
with a new 85 lbs/day ozonator. The unit can be installed by the vendor with the assistance of
plant personnel. Being a sewage treatment plant near residential areas, the system is needed to
treat the odorous gases given off by the aeration tanks. This will minimize the complaints
about the nuisance from the nearby communities.
Justification:
In order to minimize complaints from neighbours, and threat of charges from MOEE, the
odour control system is needed to treat the off-gases emitted by the aeration tanks. The present
system for tanks 1 to 9 is past its useful life and is in need of replacement.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Good relationship of this facility with the neighbouring residences is of utmost importance.
The reliable operation of the odour control equipment will ensure this harmony, and will
minimize or eliminate encounters with MOEE enforcement personnel.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 137,907,000
Previously Approved Financing 91,351,000
Requested Financing 177,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 177,000
External Revenues 0
Available Reserve Funding 0
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 39 (b)
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment
Main Treatment Plant Pumping Station
Description:
The pumps and drives of the raw sewage pumps in the T-Building, which operate without
upstream screens, are failing due to large pieces of debris going through the pumps. Some
casings and impellers have been damaged by this debris. Due to their large capacity and the
fact that these pumps were manufactured in Europe, the replacement and spare parts for the
pumps and their drives are expensive, and their purchase cannot be accommodated under the
plant operation budget.
Justification:
The five pumps in T-Building normally handle approximately 55 percent of the total
incoming flow to the plant, or 100,000 m3/d. Usually, two pumps are run with two pumps on
stand-by, and one pump being repaired. Large pieces of debris going through the sewer
system have caused deterioration of the pumps. With a complete breakdown of the pumps, the
mid-Toronto interceptor would have to be put into gravity mode, resulting in an increase in
combined sewer overflow during wet weather events. This would lead to a reduction in near
shore water quality.
Consequences of deferring Project Approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
Risk of increasing the volume of combined sewer overflows due to loss of the pumps
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 137,907,000
Previously Approved Financing 91,351,000
Requested Financing 245,000
1998
Gross Expenditures 245,000
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
--------
1998-2002 Capital Works Program
Capital Project Information Summary
B - 39 (c)
Service Area: Water Pollution Control
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment
Ventilation System - Biosolids Loading Facility
Description:
The project will involve the evaluation, design and installation of a ventilation system in the
biosolids loading facility. The facility is used for the storage and loading of dewatered
biosolids to transport trucks for removal off site. The facility is located on the south side of
the incineration complex. The system will eliminate complaints from staff and the public, and
eliminate potential charges from both the MOEE and MOL for emission to atmosphere and
safety violations. The project will be a contract tender.
Justification:
There have been complaints by plant workers since the building started operations in the
summer of 1996, as well as odour complaints by the public. The potential for a work stoppage
and intervention by the enforcement authorities is present.
Consequences of deferring project approval (until April 1998 or thereafter):
The installation of an improved odour control system is the only alternative. No action option
will likely cause more complaints and work stoppages, resulting in possible charges by the
MOEE and MOL.
Project Details: $
Overall Gross Project Cost 514,431,000
Previously Approved Financing 510,282,000
Requested Financing 250,000
1998 Future Years
Gross Expenditures 245,000 606,000
External Revenues
Available Reserve Funding
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report
(January29,1998) from the Chief of Toronto Police Service:
Subject: Capital Projects Requiring Urgent Financing Approval
Recommendation:
That the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee receive the additional information
requested for project A-8: Detective Support Command System Upgrades; and for project
A-9: Mugshot system upgrade.
Background
Specific information was requested by the Budget Committee at its meeting on January 20,
1998, for Project A-8 on:
(i) the tendering of the Intelligence Communications Monitoring System;
(ii) details of the $1.75 million project cost; and
(iii) why the recommended system does not have to be compatible with other police service
communication systems.
Responses to these specific questions are contained in the report that follows. The report also
contains additional information about the Mugshot system upgrade project.
Intelligence Communications Monitoring System Upgrade:
Background:
The mandate of the Technical Support Section of Intelligence Services is to provide the
Toronto Police Service (TPS) with lawful electronic surveillance applications in support of
investigations. The investigations supported range from thefts and property damage to the
criminal conspiracies of organized criminal groups. The Unit is responsible for activities
which include interceptions, information storage, monitoring and transcribing, case
preparation and court playback. The Unit consists of ten permanent staff and temporary staff
which can number up to seventy at any given time, depending upon the workload.
Monitoring is the investigative technique of last resort; without the evidence gained from this
process, there could be no charges laid in investigations that require it. In addition to the
RCMP and the OPP, most large police agencies in the province have their own monitoring
units.
In 1996, the Unit provided over 400 interceptions for 49 separate projects. On average,
monitoring lasts approximately 60 days, resulting in 50 active monitoring projects per month.
With the present configuration, backlogs can occur; some projects have had to wait up to 4
weeks for service. TPS has had to use the services of the RCMP approximately 6 times in
1997. In each case, project costs were approximately 40 percent due to the long-distance costs
for the lines, and travel time required of the investigators. In addition, the Service is frequently
called upon to provide this function to outside police agencies and has great difficulty meeting
their demand.
The current system and equipment were acquired in 1993 (from the same vendor supplying
the RCMP), to enable the Section to handle the communications technologies that were
introduced at that time. It also enabled the Section, by switching from tapes to audio disks, to
save over $50,000.00 annually in staff time required for transcribing.
The system is quite complex; the configurations required to accurately capture, record, and
transcribe information are specialized, and much of the hardware and software has been
customized or specially built to support this function.
At this time, the system is largely based on configurations that have since become obsolete. It
can no longer meet the monitoring needs of the Service, and requires an upgrade if TPS is to
continue performing this function. An example of the system's obsolescence is its inability to
monitor digital signals that have been adopted by carriers such as Clearnet and Fido. Finally,
there are some components of the system which are not year 2000 compliant.
In addition to functional obsolescence and capacity limitations, the system now also suffers
from lack of serviceability. The vendor has advised TPS that as of June 1998, they will no
longer be able to support a number of critical components in the system due to the
unavailability of parts. These include the optical disk jukeboxes and optical disk drives, the
database itself, and several components in the microcomputer (386) workstations. The system
also does not have a capability for disk mirroring (real time backups), which would avoid loss
of data (evidence) in the event of disk failure or corruption. There has recently been such a
failure; it did result in loss of evidence which jeopardized the investigation for which the
monitoring was taking place.
Alternatives Considered:
(1) Outsource monitoring services (e.g. to the RCMP): Experience has demonstrated that
monitoring projects cost approximately 40 percent more than in-house costs, when the service
is purchased from the RCMP. In addition, monitoring projects can be time sensitive, rendering
control of priority for service a key consideration. External agencies such do not have the
capacity to service the work volume from TPS.
(2) Discontinue use of monitoring: The mandate of Detective Support Command is to provide
cost effective investigative support services to the organization. The implementation of this
project is in keeping with this mandate, and specifically with that of Intelligence Services to
provide specialized investigative surveillance support services to all units of the Service, and
to other law enforcement agencies as approved by the Unit Commander. The provision of
monitoring services directly supports several 1997 Corporate Goals and Objectives approved
by the Police Services Board. These include enhancing public safety through strengthening of
enforcement activities, co-ordination of investigative personnel, and improved crime
information and analysis.
(3) Maintain the existing system as is, with its functional gaps and capacity limitations: The
vendor has been approached on two separate occasions to extend the maintenance contract
beyond June 1998, until June 1999. In each case the vendor has responded that there are some
components of the system that simply cannot be supported beyond 1998, and that the costs of
those that can approach the costs of replacement with current technology.
(4) Tender for a new system: The field of communications monitoring is highly specialized. In
addition to the unique technical requirements for such a system, the tender would include the
requirement to be compatible with the RCMP, to provide a seamless conversion of existing
data, and to handle the volume of traffic TPS deals with. TPS is aware of those limited
competing systems available on the market today and of their capabilities. TPS estimates that
a complete replacement system would cost in excess of $2M. In addition, the introduction of a
completely new system would require a substantial effort in staff training and in conversion of
data, without any noticeable added benefit. As the tender requirements would not result in
meaningful alternatives, TPS has elected not to consider a vendor change at this time.
(5) Upgrade (largely replace) the existing system: This is the recommended option based upon
the Service mandate, and cost considerations.
Deliverables and Objectives:
The proposed system will meet the operational needs of the unit, and provide the following
features:
(i) Voice capture;
(ii) Mirrored storage to avoid loss of data;
(iii) Restoring and transcribing facilities; and
(iv) Production of audio recordings onto compact disks for court.
TPS has detailed information on all the system components; due to the sensitive nature of this
project, these details are not for public release. The information can be made available in a
confidential session.
The specific objectives are to:
(i) Replace all obsolete hardware and software components with technology that will provide
a minimum of a 3 year life for continued monitoring service;
(ii) Be operational no later September 1998 in order to minimize disruption potential to the
existing service;
(iii) Remain compatible with the RCMP system for co-operative and redundancy capability;
(iv) Remove risks of loss of evidence currently inherent with the lack of disk mirroring; and
(v) Ensure backward compatibility with the current system to enable access to prior data sets.
Part 6 of the Criminal code (Privacy Act) states that it is against the law for someone to
divulge the contents of a recorded conversation. Technical Support must be able to
demonstrate that this information can absolutely not be accessed by a third party. It is essential
that this system be self-contained, without direct links to other current or future TPS systems,
such as Case Management. Should a future requirement arise for information integration, the
underlying database technology and information protocols are compatible with existing TPS
standards.
The vendor will continue to develop additional functionality and options for this system. TPS
will review each of these options and those of any competing vendors as the business needs of
the Technical Support Unit evolve.
Costs:
The projected Capital costs for the project, inclusive of taxes, are as follows:
Capture system, audio management system,
central storage |
$900,000 |
Monitoring and transcribing workstations
with audio capture software and hardware |
$470,000 |
Court playback and other recording facilities |
$320,000 |
Installation and Training |
$60,000 |
Total |
$1,750,000 |
The full cost breakdown is available in the vendor's ten page upgrade quote. The requirement
for internal labour will be minimal (approximately 2 months over the duration of the project).
The ongoing maintenance of this system will not exceed the current cost of $210,000.00,
which is funded out of the operational budget.
TPS is in the process of establishing a formal chargeback process to handle monitoring
services provided to other police agencies. Any chargeback fees will be used to offset the
maintenance cost identified above; it is expected that they will be negligible.
The upgrade of this system requires the construction, customization and low-level testing of
many components. The vendor has indicated this process will require 120 days after approval
to proceed. If the project is deferred, there continues to be an ongoing risk of encountering
hardware failures that cannot be resolved as there is no maintenance contract past June1998.
Once these failures occur, there is an immediate risk of loss of evidence; following this, the
Section would have no option but to shut down monitoring services. This would have a
significant negative impact on ongoing and future investigations.
Benefits:
The primary benefit of this investment is the ability to sustain a business function which is
considered core to the Policing business. Should the investment be approved, there are
additional benefits that the new system will provide to the work process. These include:
(i) Elimination of potential loss of evidence;
(ii) Ability to monitor newer communications technologies;
(iii) Improved efficiency in case preparation;
(iv) Elimination of 500 hours of temporary staff time for transcribing;
(v) Additional capacity to meet project demand;
(vi) Ability to provide monitoring services to outside agencies as required; and
(vii) Improved ability to meet disclosure demands.
Project Milestones:
The vendor will perform the installation, system testing, conversion, and deliver training.
Within TPS, the Technical Support section of Intelligence Services will be performing user
acceptance testing; the role of C&T is limited to managing the vendor on behalf of the user.
Key project milestones will be as follows:
Milestone |
Date |
Command and Board approval
Capital funding approved |
Jan 1998
Feb 1998 |
Equipment delivery |
May 1998 |
Training |
May 1998 |
System Implementation and Data conversion |
June 1998 |
TPS acceptance |
Sept 1998 |
Project complete |
Sept 1998 |
Migration of the RICI Mugshot System
Background:
The RICI mugshot system supports a core function of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) under
the authority of the Identification of Criminals Act. It captures photographs and descriptors of
arrested persons during the booking process at eight central lockups across the City. This
information is stored in a central database and can then be retrieved to create lineups, for
witness viewing, and for suspect identification. The system captures approximately 200
images per day, which represents over 70,000 captured images each year. At present, it
contains over 500,000 images, of which 300,000 are purely digital.
The Bail and Parole Reporting Centre relies heavily on the images in this system to correctly
identify reportees. In addition, TPS provides hundreds of lineups each month to other polices
agencies.
The system was installed in early 1992 on NeXT hardware. The implementation resulted in
the elimination of 25 clerical positions (to enter physical descriptors of arrested persons), and
5 photo-processing technicians (to process the 35mm negatives).
At the time, the NeXT platform offered superior image processing; there was no equivalent
functionality available on an Intel platform, which was and still is the TPS standard. Even
today, there are very few vendors who offer this type of functionality for a police organization
that processes over 70,000 images per year.
NeXT hardware has since become obsolete; it is no longer manufactured and component parts
are consistently failing. The only company in North America still willing to provide
maintenance for this hardware can now only locate replacement parts with great difficulty; as
a consequence TPS can no longer secure a maintenance contract beyond May, 1998. When
there is a hardware failure, divisions must go to one of the other lockups (which already have
a full workload) until the component can be replaced. Extra officers must be mobilized for
prisoner transportation. In addition, the wait at the booking station can prevent prisoners from
reaching court on time, which impacts court procedures.
In addition to resolving the reliability issue, the proposed upgrade will also enable other
benefits to be realized. Although the software has the functionality TPS requires, much of this
(e.g., generating lineups) remains a centralized function due to the limitations of the hardware
and operating system. Divisions are therefore required to process all mugshots through
Forensic Identification Services located at Police Headquarters. This process is extremely
inconvenient and time-consuming for both police officers and witnesses.
Alternatives Considered:
(1) Shut down the present system: TPS is required by the Identification of Criminals Act to
photograph offenders charged with indictable offenses and dual procedure offenses. To
continue this function, TPS would have to revert to a manual photography system using 35
mm cameras. In addition to the loss of functionality, this would be a very costly option; new
photographic equipment and supplies would cost at least $200,000.00; 30 additional staff
would be required for an annual cost of $1,200,000.00; training in the manual process would
take up 480 person days of operational staff. It is not known at this time whether the 300,000
digital images could even be converted to negatives or whether they would be lost.
(2) Tender for a new Mugshot application: TPS is aware of the few competing systems that
are available on the market. The RICI system meets the functional requirements of this
organization. Regardless of the system acquired, there will be a workstation cost of
$250,000.00 to replace the NeXT workstations. A new system would require the replacement
of all components of the application, not just the portion that runs on the desktop. There
would be a substantial effort required to convert all the current data, and to retrain the staff,
without any noticeable added benefit. As a result, TPS has elected not to consider a vendor
change at this time.
(3) Migrate the application to a standard workstation with the NeXTStep operating system:
The cost for this option is approximately $325,000.00 for workstations, software licenses, and
installation services. Support for the operating system would have to be provided externally,
as it is not known at all to TPS. In addition, the lifespan of the NeXTStep operating system is
itself questionable. Both the industry in general and the system vendor are adopting NT as a
standard. This could only be an interim step.
(4) Migrate to a standard workstation with the Windows NT operating system. The cost of this
option is $450,000.00, which includes workstations, the software license, and implementation
services. There is no change required for the current server or database hardware or software.
Support for the hardware and the operating system will then be available within TPS. This is
the recommended option, based on cost considerations and the requirements of the Service.
Deliverables and Objectives:
The project will:
(i) upgrade the client portion of RICI (the part of the application that runs on the desktop) to
run under the NT operating system, which is the standard desktop operating system of the new
City;
(ii) replace all NeXT workstations ( in the Forensic Identification Unit and in the central
lockups) with standard workstations that have enhanced video cards for image processing
(supplied by the TPS vendor of record); and
(iii) leave the hardware and software used for the for the server and database intact, as they are
not affected by this upgrade.
The proposed upgraded system from the vendor will enable lineups to be created directly at
the central lockups. Further, as the RICI mugshot application will be converted to run under
the Windows NT operating system on a standard workstation, support can readily be provided
by internal Computing and Telecommunications staff. These workstations will then be part of
the Lifecycle Management Program, under which workstations are actually leased and
regularly upgraded.
This will represent a savings of approximately $25,000.00 per year in hardware maintenance
costs, which were funded out of the operational budget.
The workstations running the Mugshot application will then be able to use other standard
software available at TPS.
Costs:
The projected Capital costs for the project, inclusive of taxes, are as follows:
Replacement workstations |
$250,000 |
Software conversion |
$125,000 |
Implementation Services |
$75,000 |
Total |
$450,000 |
The vendor is prepared to deliver a system ready for user acceptance testing in June 1998
conditional on an early February approval to proceed. If the project is deferred, there
continues to be an ongoing risk of encountering hardware failures that cannot be resolved as
there is no maintenance contract past May 1998. Once these failures occur, as TPS is required
by law to provide this function, there will be no option but to have to immediately move to
implement alternative 1 (i.e. purchase photographic equipment and supplies, hire temporary
staff, etc.) at a significant cost to the organization.
The RICI mugshot system is in its sixth year of operation; it is anticipated that this investment
should provide TPS with another five years of functionality.
Project Milestones:
The vendor is responsible for the client software migration. TPS is responsible for hardware
acquisition, user acceptance testing, implementation and training. Key project milestones will
be as follows:
Milestone |
Date |
Command and Board approval |
January 1998 |
Capital funding approval |
February 1998 |
System delivery |
June 1998 |
User Acceptance Testing |
July 1998 |
Implementation and Training |
September 1998 |
Project complete |
September 1998 |
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report
(February2, 1998) from the Chair of the Budget Committee:
Subject: Toronto Police Service Request to Acquire a New Radio Dispatch System
Purpose:
To consider the above-noted request within the context of the City's 1998 Capital Budget.
Recommendation:
That the matter of the acquisition of a new Radio Dispatch System for the Toronto Police
Service be referred to the Budget Committee for a report back with the 1998 Capital Budget
on April 15, 1998.
--------
Councillor Rae, (Ward 24 - Downtown), declared his interest in the foregoing matter insofar
as it pertains to 41R Dundonald Street, "Capital Project Information Summary" - A - 5(b), as
he resides in close proximity to the subject property.
(Councillor Rae, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his
interest in that portion of the foregoing Clause pertaining to Project A-5(b) - Park Land
Acquisition - 41R Dundonald Street, as he resides in close proximity to the subject property.)
13
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a) City of Toronto Administrative Structure
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following
transmittal letter:
(i) (January 29, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Special Committee to Review the
Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on January 28, 1998, amongst other things,
concurred with Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated January 22, 1998, from
the Chief Administrative Officer, viz:
"(2) this report be forwarded, for information, to a special meeting of the Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee to be held prior to the February 4, 1998, Council meeting."
(b) Motion - No Increase in Taxes for three years
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following
transmittal letter from the Budget Committee back to the Budget Committee for
consideration as part of the 1998 budget process:
(i) (January 28, 1998) from the Budget Committee recommending:
(a) that the motion from Councillors Minnan-Wong and Mammoliti requesting that there be
no increase in taxes for three years and that a public referendum be held before increasing the
mill rate, which City Council at its meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, referred to the
Budget Committee for consideration, be received; and
(b) the Budget Committee establish as an objective for the 1998 Budget a "zero" tax increase
with maintenance and protection of all current levels of service to the public, subject to the
reality of provincial operating and capital downloading.
(c) Ratification of Senior Staff
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having recommended to City
Council the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from Mayor Mel
Lastman:
(i) (February 2, 1998) from Mayor Mel Lastman recommending the ratification of senior staff.
Respectfully submitted,
MEL LASTMAN,
Chair
Toronto, February 3, 1998
(Report No. 2 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto
was adopted as amended by City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)
|