2000-2004 Capital Budget and Five Year Capital Program

The Policy and Finance Committee recommends:

(I)the adoption of the Recommendations of the Budget Advisory Committee embodied in the communications:

(i)(January 14, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "2000-2004 Capital Budget and Five Year Capital Program";

(ii)(January 14, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "Request for $1,080,000.00 of Funding from the City Transition Budget", approving funding in the amount of $540,000.00 in each of the years 2000 and 2001 for a total of $1,080,000.00 from the City Transition Budget for the addition of seven technical staff for the new Police/Fire radio communication system; and

(iii)(January 12, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "Project Spending Approval for TTC 2001 Capital Maintenance Expenditures", granting project and spending approval for $71.161 million in Capital maintenance projects in 2001;

(II)that with respect to the Recommendation of the Budget Advisory Committee regarding the deletion of $1 million for the North District Soccer Facility, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on this request being a new project and that the project not receive any approval without the identification of funds available and a report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(III)the adoption of the report (January 20, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled "2000-2004 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program Amendment to Capital Financing Report", wherein it is recommended that:

"(1)the gross expenditures in the amount of $980.4 million for 2000, and future year commitments of $407.1 million for 2001, $189.6 million for 2002, $113.6 million for 2003 and $96.4 million for 2004, for a total cost of $1.78 billion as outlined on a program basis in Appendix A of this report, be approved;

(2)financing in an amount not to exceed $500 million to be debentured, if required, for a term up to, but not exceeding 20 years be approved;

(3)total net debt financing (after provisions for underexpenditure of $77 million) for the 2000 capital program be limited to no more than $324 million as outlined in Appendix B, consisting of $110 million baseline debt and $214 million new debt; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;" and

(V)that there be a five year cap on Capital spending that the City can afford to pay back over the next five years; and that the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chair of the Budget Advisory Committee be requested to submit a report to the Budget Advisory Committee and subsequently Council on what that cap would be.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on January 27, 2000, on:

(i)the sustainability of the Capital Program and identifying the amount of funding required from the senior levels of government;

(ii)a recommended strategy that would secure capital monies from the senior levels of government that would allow the City to work with other cities to accomplish a gas tax allocation towards Public Transit and Transportation in general; and

(iii)the $2,000,000.00 in reserve funding in the former City of York budget being used for the acquisition of land for a new Community Centre in the Eglinton Black Creek area;

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on January 27, 2000 on:

(i)the booming economy and the increased revenue of the Federal/Provincial governments (particularly income and sales taxes) juxtaposing these increased revenues with the City's financial stresses;

(ii)whether Council should be requesting the Federal/Provincial Government to increase their funding and/or accelerate the expected Infrastructure Works Program; and

(iii)the precise financial impact of the assessment growth and the CVA on the City;

(3)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on:

(i)the potential savings that could result from public/private partnerships in Transportation, Water and any other utilities or facilities that operate within the City boundaries; and

(ii)a Capital Budget process that allows sufficient time for Standing Committees to review the recommended Capital Programs;

(4)requested the Chief Administrative Officer:

(i)in developing the Transportation Hub at Union Station, in accordance with his report dated December 8, 1999, entitled "Funding for the Creation of a Transportation Hub at Union Station", give consideration to incorporating a commuter bicycle parking facility similar to that found in many European cities; and

(ii)to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the establishment of a Policy Sub-Committee of the Policy and Finance Committee to consider policy issues on completion of the budget, and that such sub-committee be in place by the first term of the next Council;

(6)referred the communication (January 19, 2000) from the Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration during the 2000 Operating Budget deliberations; and

(7)conveyed its appreciation to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the staff in the Finance Division for their efforts in preparing the Capital Budget.

The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following communication (January 14, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "2000-2004 Capital Budget and Five Year Capital Program":

Recommendations:

The Budget Advisory Committee on January 14, 2000, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council:

(1)Section I - Corporate Report (Capital Budget 2000-2004 Binder)

The adoption of the Corporate report (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that:

(a)the 2000-2004 Tax Supported Capital Program for the City, with a cash flow totalling $4.056 billion as outlined in Appendix "A1-2", be received;

(b)the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for new projects with a total cost of $548.891 million as recommended in Appendix "A2-1" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $359.567 million and future year commitments totalling $91.021 million in 2001; $49.938 million in 2002; $26.537 million in 2003 and $21.828 million in 2004;

(c)the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with change in scope with a total cost of $421.012 million as recommended in Appendix "A-3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $143.525 million and future year commitments totalling $81.320 million in 2001; $70.687 million in 2002; $62.883 million in 2003 and $62.597 million in 2004;

(d)the operating budget impact, identified in Appendix "E", that results in cumulative net expenditure impact of $2.1 million in 2000; $1.3 million by 2001; ($0.1) million by 2002; $1.3 million by 2003 and $2.9 million by 2004 be reviewed in conjunction with the 2000 Operating Budget submission within the respective program areas;

(e)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report in February 2000 to the Budget Advisory Committee on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program;

(f)an interim cash flow of $21.704 million be approved for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending a review of the capital requirements for the Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program;

(g)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the 2000 Capital Program for the City's fleet requirements in February 2000;

(h)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back in February 2000 on the status of previously approved capital projects and provide recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee on completed projects to be closed;

(i)all capital projects which have been deferred and/or included as part of the future years capital program (2001-2004) be considered placeholders and subject to full review during the 2001-2005 Capital Budget review process, unless a project and its future year commitments have been recommended for approval in the 2000-2004 Capital Program;

(j)the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with a total cost of $818.649 million and a cash flow of $480.833 million in 2000 and future year commitments of $232.587 million in 2001; $69.037 million in 2002; $24.211 million in 2003 and $11.981 million as outlined in Appendix "A4-1", be received;

subject to:

(i)the amendments shown in Section III - Program Recommendations;

(ii)the 2001 Capital Budget being prepared and presented to the Budget Advisory Committee by the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer based on a freezing of the debt; and

(iii)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer being requested to submit a report, prior to the end of this term of Council, on a reduction plan beginning in the year 2002;

(2)Section II - 2000 Recommended Capital Program Financing - Tax Supported (Capital Budget 2000-2004 Binder)

The adoption of the 2000 Recommended Capital Program Financing - Tax Supported report (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that:

(a)the capital from current contributions be increased by $7 million from the comparable level in 1999, and that this recommendation be approved in conjunction with the approval of the 2000 Operating Budget;

(b)the City's share of the GO Transit budget surplus for January 1 through August 7, 1999, estimated to be $6.3 million, be applied against tax supported capital borrowing requirements in 2000;

(c)an amount of $14 million be accepted as a transfer from the Toronto Parking Authority and be applied to reduce borrowing requirements for the tax supported capital program;

(d)the Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP) Reserve Fund be closed out as of December 31, 1999, and any remaining balance be funded from or contributed to the Sheppard Subway Capital Subsidy Reserve; and,

(e)the total net debt financing (after provisions for underexpenditure of $77.4 million) for the 2000 Capital Program be limited to no more than $326.0 million, consisting of $110 million baseline debt and $216.0 million new debt.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having received the report (January 11, 2000) from the Chief financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Analysis of the Status of the City's Capital Financing Position".

(3)Section III - Program Recommendations (Capital Budget 2000-2004 Binder)

The adoption of the Program Recommendations, subject to the amendments made by the Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting on January 12 and 14, 2000, as shown below:

Ambulance Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Ambulance Services, with a cash flow totalling $18.680 million be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Ambulance Services consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $0.510 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; this project requires a 2000 cash flow of $0.510 million;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Ambulance Services consisting of four new projects with a total cost of $6.009 million (gross) and $1.229 million (net) as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $4.092 million (gross) and $1.107 (net) and commitments totalling $1.917 million (gross) and $0.122 million (net) in 2001;

(4) the operating impact that results in $40 thousand in increased expenditures in 2000, $110 thousand in 2001, $182 thousand in 2002, $194 thousand in 2003 and up to $251 thousand in 2004 (these may be partially offset by a minimum of 50 percent provincial funding), be approved;

(5) the General Manager of Ambulance Services report back to Budget Advisory Committee before conclusion of the 2000 budget review to confirm whether 100 percent provincial funding will be available for financing of the AVTEC and BACC projects;

(6) the General Manager of Ambulance Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back on efforts to secure a formal cost-sharing arrangement with the Province in support of Ambulance Services Capital and Operating expenditures, including a mechanism for determining eligibility for 50 percent versus 100 percent provincial funding;

(7) the General Manager of Ambulance Services be requested to report back on the success of the efforts to secure 50 percent funding for the Vehicle Venting Emissions and Monitor Defibrillator projects; and,

(8) a working group be established, consisting of representatives from Fire, Ambulance, Facilities and Finance to develop a longer term Fire Station construction/reconstruction plan to address needs for Fire Services and Ambulance Services; and replacement of the aging infrastructure; it is further recommended that this working group report back to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to consideration of the Ambulance Services' 2001 capital program.

Children's Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Children's Services, with a cash flow totalling $2.0 gross and net $0.0 as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Children's Services consisting of one new project with a cost of $2.0 million gross and zero net as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; and

(3) the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor, be requested to ensure that all conditions embodied in the legal agreements with Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. and Imperial Oil Limited for receipt of funding of $2.0 million are complied with prior to commencement of the project; and further the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ensure that funding of $2.0 million is received from Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. and Imperial Oil Limited prior to the commencement of construction of this project.

Culture

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Culture Capital Program with a cash flow totalling $90.115 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of five new projects with a cost of $4.179 million as recommended in Appendix "B3"be approved; these projects require a one-year cash flow only;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $3.65 as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the operating budget impact that results in a net cost of $37 thousand in 2000, $63 thousand in 2001, $55 thousand in 2002, $38 thousand in 2003 and $32 thousand in 2004 be approved;

(5) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to proceed with a Cultural Facilities Masterplan including needs assessment and business cases for new Arts facilities, including the Oakwood - Vaughan Arts Centre, in future years as a part of business planning prior to the 2001 capital cycle;

(6) the following actions be taken to support the required capital maintenance and restoration of Casa Loma and its associated buildings:

(i) that, effective in 2001, rental revenue from Casa Loma, the Casa Loma Stables and the separately leased Casa Loma Hunt Lodge be transferred to a reserve dedicated to capital maintenance of these City properties; that this reserve be applied to these ongoing capital maintenance projects starting in 2001; and that the 2001 Operating Budget of Facilities and Real Estate be adjusted accordingly;

(ii) the funding for the projects for rewiring and boiler replacement for the Casa Loma Hunt Lodge (Casa Loma Residential Building) be deferred, pending a report back from the Commissioner of Corporate Services when a lease agreement is in place and that revenue from the lease will be allocated to the reserve for maintenance of Casa Loma, the Stables and the Hunt Lodge; and

(iii) the future lease agreements for all of the Casa Loma properties be negotiated in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture Tourism and in consideration of the need to ensure a State of Good Repair for these properties over time; and

(7) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of three Previously Approved projects with cash flow carry-forward and 2000 approved cost totalling $0.915 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Economic Development

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Economic Development, with a cash flow totalling $21.395 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Economic Development consisting of three new projects with a gross 2000 cost of $3.672 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $3.672 million and are based on one-year capital project proposals; no future year cash flow commitments or operating budget impacts result from approval of the 2000 Capital program;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to prepare amendments to the City's Community Improvement Plans under Section 28 of the Planning Act to permit grants under the Commercial Facade Improvement Program to be disbursed by cheque rather than tax credit in all areas of the City;

(4) staff be requested to review the Commercial Facade Improvement Program to determine whether the $5,000.00 limit requirement is an impediment to businesses participating in the program, and report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in January, 2000 on the feasibility of lowering the limit to encourage participation;

(5) staff be requested to determine cost estimates to eliminate the safety hazard created by the yield sign on the traffic island at the intersection of Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue West for the large numbers of seniors in this area attempting to cross the street by removing the traffic island and installing a signalized right turn lane, and that this amount be included as a recommendation to the Budget Advisory Committee; and

(6) reiterate that the $60,000.00 approved in the 1999 Capital Budget for the Leaside Business Project not be used for the installation of the two stone gateways but for other streetscape projects.

The Budget Advisory Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having deferred consideration of the communication (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, with regard to the allocation of funds for the Dundas West Area, to the 2001 Capital Budget deliberations.

Fire Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Fire Services, with a cash flow totalling $55.087 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cost of $19.480 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with cash flow requirements of $.415 million in 2000 as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of 14 new projects with a cost of $4.863 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $4.701 million and commitments totalling $.162 million in 2001;

(5) the operating budget cost of $1.549 million in 2000 be approved; and future operating impacts at a cost of $.121 million in 2001; $.085 million in 2002; $.085 million in 2003 and savings of $.007 million in 2004 be received;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide a report to the Budget Advisory Committee for the 2001 capital budget process on the training needs and facilities for the amalgamated Fire Services, addressing: (a) number of facilities required; (b) current usage statistics; (c) revenue-generating potential; and (d) specific equipment needs;

(7) a working group be established, consisting of representatives from Fire Services, Ambulance Services, Facilities and Real Estate and Finance, to develop a longer term Fire Station construction/re-construction plan to address needs for Fire Services and Ambulance Services and replacement of the aging infrastructure; it is further recommended that this working group report back to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to consideration of the Fire Services 2001 Capital Program;

(8) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide a report on false alarms, including total number of calls, the number of calls that were false alarms for 1999 and the recovery of fines in that regard; and

(9) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief be requested to provide a report on:

(i) how emergency services are being delivered on the waterfront, i.e., the role of the Police Marine Unit, the role of Fire and Ambulance Services, the number of staff and the number of pieces of equipment for each unit as of January 1, 1998, January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000; and

(ii) how waterfront marine services are provided elsewhere along Lake Ontario communities and the most appropriate way of eliminating duplication.

Homes for the Aged

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Homes for the Aged with a cash flow totalling $42.376 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Homes for the Aged consisting of one new project with a total cost of $38.0 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; this project requires a 2000 cash flow of $2.0 million and commitments totalling $10.0 million in 2001; $10.0 million in 2002; $10.0 million in 2003; and $6.0 million in 2004;

(3) the commencement of the construction phase totalling $38.0 million be approved subject to provision of a report by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services in response to the following directive made during the 1999 capital process that "The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to Budget Advisory Committee on the financial implications of renovating the two older facilities (379 beds) before the construction phase of this project begins";

(4) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to include the appropriate financing costs incurred by the City during the construction phase of the Site Redevelopment Project, in the final costs submitted to the Province for cost sharing; and

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for Homes for the Aged consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cost of $4.376 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Parks and Recreation

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meetings on January 12 and January 14, 2000, amended the 2000-2004 Capital Budget for the Parks and Recreation Division as follows:

(a) Lawrence Heights - $243,000.00 be added for the installation of a Water Park at this location;

(b) Central Eglinton Community Centre - $150,000.00 approved for refurbishing the Central Eglinton Community Centre;

(c) Rexdale Park Redevelopment - reinstate up to $200,000.00 for Phase I in 2000;

(d) Rexdale Park Redevelopment - $200,000.00 for Phase II be approved in 2001, subject to funds being available;

(e) 110 Wildwood Crescent - add $130,000.00 as a Capital adjustment on the basis that the proceeds from the sale of 110 Wildwood Crescent would fund the necessary park improvements; and further that the funding source for the parkland improvements at Wildwood Park be amended to read, "the Toronto Community Council Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund - New Development Component";

(f) Wabash Recreation Centre - funding for the Recreation Centre be accelerated from 2004 to 2002, providing funds are available;

(g) Mimico Tennis Club - approved the contribution of $4,000.00 per year for 10 years from the Mimico Tennis Club as stated in the communication (January 11, 2000) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway;

(h) North District Soccer Facility - delete $1 million;

(i) Robert Street Facility - delete $700,000.00 in 2000 and add $1.5 million in 2001, subject to successful negotiations of a 'shared use' agreement between the City of Toronto and the University of Toronto and the appropriate report being submitted to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in that regard;

(j) Maple Cottage - delete the words "subject to matching funds being available";

(k) adopt the report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, wherein it is recommended:

(1) Council approve, in principle, the C.S.A. Playground Compliance Program outlined in this report bringing all substandard City playgrounds to C.S.A. standards by the end of 20003; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take all necessary action to give effect thereto;

(l) the priority list for recreation/community centres be addressed on a 'most needed' basis across the City;

(m) the installation of water parks in the future be considered on the basis of the 'greatest need' areas across the City; and

(n) in future years the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be required to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee to seek approval for the range and size of recreation/community centres across the City.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Parks and Recreation):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Parks and Recreation, with a cash flow totalling $347.601 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of seven Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $13.245 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $11.945 million and commitments totalling $1.3 million in 2001;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of thirteen new projects with a cost of $42.13 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $26.875 million and commitments totalling $8.857 million in 2001 and $6.398 million in 2002;

(4) the recommended operating budget impact of $0.275 million emanating from the approval of the 2000 Capital Budget be considered within the overall scope of the Parks and Recreation program's 2000 operating budget submission;

(5) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, on the feasibility of establishing a reserve for golf course maintenance that will be funded through a surcharge on golf green fees;

(6) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report back, in consultation with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, prior to the 2001 capital budget process on:

(i) the backlog related to the "State of Good Repair" of Parks and Recreation facilities; and

(ii) how the backlog will be addressed in the 2001-2005 capital program request for Parks and Recreation;

(7) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the availability of reserve and development charge funding that can be applied to the St. Jamestown Recreation Centre sub-project as part of the 2001-2005 capital program request;

(8) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to consider the proposed York, Western North York, Parkdale and South Etobicoke Recreation Centres in the Long Term Plan for Parks and Recreation Facilities - All Wards, and that the Plan also encompass the proposed expansion of existing Parks and Recreation facilities;

(9) the Long Term Plan for Parks and Recreation Facilities - All Wards, be considered within the context of the Program's 2001-2010 capital program request;

(10) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of thirteen Previously Approved projects with a cost of $40.992 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $32.595 million and commitments totalling $8.397 million in 2001;

(11) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee for its meeting of January 14, 2000 and the Scarborough Community Council for its meeting of January 18, 2000 on fund raising activities for the Chinese Cultural Centre and what kind of support is needed from the City to support this project;

(12) Bayview Arena/Edithvale Community Centre: the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report further on this project providing more details during the 2001 Capital Budget deliberations, the said report to include the needs component;

(13) Playground Rehabilitation: the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on:

(i) whether or not the funds are being expended for the express use as directed by City Council; and

(ii) each of the proposed playground replacements as to the actual cost on a per park basis for each of the replacements and advise as to where the balance of the funds are being allocated;

(14) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, together with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be requested to report during the year 2000 budget process, if possible, on the funding required and its source, to implement the proposed bicycle paths under the railway portion of the Humber Bridges in the year 2001;

(15) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the status and develop a plan for the Earl Beatty R.C. improvements for inclusion in year 2001 budget consideration, provided funds are available;

(16) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back on the feasibility of selling the golf courses;

(17) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the total cost to build a recreation or community centre over the past five years, as soon as possible;

(18) Greenwood Park: accelerate $100,000.00 to 2000 to address park deficiencies, subject to the sale of surplus property adjacent to the park;

(19) Maple Cottage: accelerate $177,000.00 for restoration to 2000 subject to matching funds being available;

(20) Don Valley Practice Range: referred for consideration in the 2000 operating budget deliberations;

(21) Child Care Centres: funding for playground renovations/replacement be referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for report thereon to the Community Services Committee;

(22) St. Jamestown Community Centre: endorse the Capital Budget allocation for St. Jamestown Community Centre as City Council's first priority for a new community centre as recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer; and further that there be no user fees for the usage of same when completed and this statement be added to any future reports;

(23) Kiwanis Pool: $5,000.00 be given prior approval in the 2000 operating budget to provide an outdoor shower;

(24) Rouge Community Complex: to be considered within the context of the future needs plan; and

(25) the York Civic Centre Land as a base for a new recreation centre be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for future consideration.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having:

(i) received the report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled "FY2000 to FY2004 Capital Works Program of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department - All Wards";

(ii) received the report (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled "Additional Information - Northern District Soccer Facility - Ward 7";

(iii) received the communication (January 13, 2000) from School Trustee Mary Cicogna, Toronto Catholic District School Board in support of the proposed joint soccer stadium development at Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School;

(iv) received the communication (May 6, 1999) from the North York Soccer Association forwarding a short list of priority items needed by the District;

(vi) requested the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to report to the January 27, 2000, special Council meeting considering the 2000-2004 Capital Budget, providing information with regard to recreation facilities at housing projects;

(vii) requested the Scarborough Community Council, upon consideration of the Chinese Culture Centre matter at their meeting of January 18, 2000, if they recommend that the City partake in some form of cost sharing for this project, to identify the source of funds in detail for same, i.e., reserve funds, "in kind" contribution, etc.;

(viii) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to:

(a) report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the funding required for the installation of equipment that was previously removed to complete the CSA program;

(b) provide a detailed report to the Budget Advisory Committee, prior to the final design on the St. Jamestown Recreation Centre or any other recreation Centre, on the cost of recreation/community centres built in the five years prior to amalgamation, including a breakdown of the standard cost and size (footage), the uses in the centres, and a comparison with the private sector in terms of gym facilities, i.e., quality of programs offered, etc., undertaking that the requested report would not have an impact on the St. Jamestown Recreation Centre and be forwarded to Economic Development and Parks Committee for its consideration;

(c) seek approval from the Budget Advisory Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee with regard to the range and size of recreation/community centres across the City in future years;

(ix) requested the City Solicitor to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on whether the City is obliged to comply with the CSA standards and what the consequences would be if the City does not comply with the said CSA standards.

Shelter, Housing and Support

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Shelter, Housing and Support with a cash flow totalling $47.981 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Shelter, Housing and Support consisting of two new projects with a total cost of $43.0 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.5 million and commitments totalling $13.0 million in 2001; $8.5 million in 2002; $7.0 million in 2003; and $7.0 million in 2004;

(3) that the funding envelope in the amount of $7.0 million gross and $3.5 million net included in the recommended budget (Appendix "B3"), to provide funding for short term shelter accommodation, be subject to matching funds being received from the Province; and

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Shelter, Housing and Support consisting of three Previously Approved projects with a cost of $4.981 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

The Budget Advisory Committee, further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having received the report (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled "Proposed $7.0 million Capital Budget for improving the Emergency Shelter System".

Social Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program submission of Social Services, with a cash flow totalling $13.238 million be received;

(2) the Social Services 2000 Capital Budget request of $13.238 million projected costs for relocating two Social Services offices beginning in 2000 be deferred until the Corporate Master Plan is completed and approved; and

(3) the Social Services Division negotiate through the Corporate Services lease renewals for the sites located at 220 Attwell Drive and 5639 Finch Avenue East for terms up to, but not exceeding five years.

Solid Waste Management

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Solid Waste Management, with a cash flow totalling $127.711 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of three Previously Approved projects with a cost of $17.776 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of two Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $2.472 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; the increase in cost for these projects is $1.6 million and mainly reflects a project expansion to include new diversion initiatives as part of the TIRM Project RFP process and Material Recovery Facilities upgrades to handle more types of recyclable materials in accordance with Council's policy respecting waste diversion targets; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.074 million and commitments of $.298 million in 2001 and $.100 million in 2002;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of two new projects with a cost of $2.044 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $1.478 million and commitments totalling $.566 million in 2001;

(5) the operating impact that results in expenditures of $148 thousand in 2000, $766 thousand in 2001, $1.4 million in 2002 and savings of $2.8 million in 2003 and $9.2 million in 2004 once expected savings from various recycling facilities are realized, be approved;

(6) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer review the status of the Perpetual Care Reserve for Landfills and report back, in consultation with the General Manager of Solid Waste Management, on any required change to the paid tonnage contribution rate to ensure that adequate funding is available to cover the future expenditure requirements for the perpetual care of landfills; and

(7) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the progress in securing an extension of the City of Vaughan's by-law to allow the City of Toronto to operate the Avondale Composting Facility beyond May 2000.

Transportation

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the Transportation Division 2000-2004 Capital Budget by approving a $1 million gross, $345,000.00 net, cash flow in 2000/2001, for the Executive Court Extension - Scarborough Malvern, subject to the Developer making a contribution that is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and further that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the aforementioned to the Transportation Committee prior to any expenditure being made.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Transportation):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Transportation, with a cash flow totalling $1,291.190 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of one Previously Approved Project with a cash flow of $4.2 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of six Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects, with a cash flow for 2000 of $29.750 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of 50 new projects with a cash flow for 2000 of $130.800 million, as recommended in Appendix "B3", be approved; commitments of $25.530 million in 2001, $15.020 million in 2002, $7.760 million in 2003 and $8.060 million in 2004 also be approved;

(5) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report on the future implications to the City's budget of undertaking the 'state of good repair' in areas where such information is readily available, said report to be provided no later than in time to be considered in conjunction with the City's 2001-2005 capital program;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the possibility of including the expansion of Port Union Road from three lanes to four lanes within the Program's 2001-2005 capital program;

(7) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the possibility of advancing the Scarlett Road/St. Clair Avenue West/Dundas Street project and report back to the Community Council;

(8) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the funding required and its source, to implement bicycle paths under the railway portion of the Humber Bridges in the year 2001;

(9) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the January 14, 2000 meeting on the Executive Court Extension project; on the percentage of this project to be funded by the City and the percentage to be funded through Development Charges; and

(10) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the development of a road near the Railway Lands and the timing of such development.

The Budget Advisory Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having:

(i) received the report (January 11, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "Executive Court Extension - Funding Scarborough Malvern";

(ii) referred the communication (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, regarding the Humber Bridges Rehabilitation Project, East Side Pedestrian Cycling Paths, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee detailing costs, etc.;

(iii) requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the impact of front yard parking increases on the value of homes and the negative impact of the said increases.

Urban Development Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Urban Development Services, with a cash flow totalling $42.197 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Urban Development Services consisting of two new projects with a cost of $1.96 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $1.96 million, with no future year commitments;

(3) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to identify the maintenance costs in future years associated for each project, and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to indicate their concurrence of the costs and the responsibility for the maintenance;

(4) the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2000 Operating Budget review on which capital program umbrella the streetscaping projects should be assigned to;

(5) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to coordinate each project with the work of other departments/agencies;

(6) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to ensure that, in the future, staff consult with the local ward Councillor prior to submitting main street improvement projects in the budget;

(7) the Garrison Creek projects continue to be funded from the Urban Development Services capital program;

(8) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee, in conjunction with the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, on providing a Public Art program within the capital budget;

(9) the Scarborough Community Council be advised that the Kingston Road Improvements will be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process, provided funds are available, and that the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the administration of streetscape projects, including the issue of ongoing maintenance and public/private partnerships to secure the maintenance;

(10) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to report to the appropriate Standing Committee on the feasibility of including Danforth Avenue between Victoria Park Avenue and Danforth Road as part of the Main Street Improvement Program and defer consideration of this project to the 2001 Capital Budget process, provided funds are available;

(11) the Sheppard and Provost streetscape project be approved at $60,000.00 for 2000 with the balance to be considered in 2001, provided funds are available; and

(12) the 2000 Capital Budget for Urban Development Services consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a cost of $5.509 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports, for the information of the Policy and finance Committee, and Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Policy and Finance Committee for its meeting of January 20, 2000, on the appropriate accountability for public art and its maintenance, such report to include which department would be responsible for both, and include the appropriate accountability and maintenance for streetscaping, public right-of-way improvements, etc.

City Clerk's

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the City Clerk with a cash flow totalling $12.05 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the City Clerk's 2000 Capital Budget consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cash flow in 2000 of $12.05 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be approved.

Corporate

The Budget Advisory Committee reports having, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the Corporate 2000-2004 Capital Budget by adopting the report (undated) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, entitled "2000-2001 Forecast for Staff Redeployment and Retraining", wherein it is recommended:

(a) the funds remaining from the allocations of 1998 and 1999 be reserved for the purposes of redeployment and retraining in the year 2000;

(b) that $2,000,000.00 be included in the Staff Exits Transition project in 2001 to provide for additional demands for staff retraining and redeployment.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Corporate):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for Corporate projects with a cash flow totalling $20.5 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the Corporate 2000 Capital Budget consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cash flow in 2000 of $10.5 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be approved.

Facilities and Real Estate

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the Facilities and Real Estate 2000-2004 Capital Budget as follows:

(a) reinstated $120,000.00 for replacing windows and other frames with safety glass at the Day Care Facility at 43 Grange Road, University Settlement;

(b) deferred the Concrete Rehabilitation Project at the top of the City Hall ceremonial ramp ($150,000.00) for consideration in 2001; and added back funding ($150,000.00) for the Central Eglinton Community Centre;

(c) deferred the following projects in the amount of $855,000.00 for consideration in 2001:

399 The West Mall, Etobicoke Civic Centre

(i) Replace boilers and convectors ($75,000.00);

(ii) Replace roofing - council chambers ($200,000.00); and

(iii) Replace roofing - south block ($200,000.00);

2700 Eglinton Avenue West, York Civic Centre

(i) Replace boiler ($100,000.00);

(ii) Replace roof membrane - Archive Room ($150,000.00); and

(iii) Replacement of doors and windows ($130,000.00);

(d) recommended that funding for an emergency be taken, if required, from the $1.2 million Emergency Capital Repairs allocation;

(e) adopted the report (December 1, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Facilities and Real Estate Division Business Process Integration Project" subject to adding the following:

(i) as part of the Business Integration Project, the Facilities and Real Estate Division establish management reporting standards to benchmark building related expenditures for all City buildings, including the housing portfolio; and

(ii) the Commissioner of Corporate Services, on an annual basis, report on cost efficiency benchmarks for all City buildings, including the housing portfolio;

(f) adopted the report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Transfer of Small Dollar Projects and those with Less than 10 Years to the 2000 Operating Budget", subject to the pending report requests from the City Auditor, Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, relating to AOCC accounting process, governance and capital maintenance being consolidated into one comprehensive report, wherein it is recommended:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer request current financial information from the AOCC Centres to ascertain if there are available reserve funds which could be applied to the capital maintenance of their buildings or premises and request such participation if available; and

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to review the agreements in place governing the use of City buildings by community agencies to ascertain possible participation in the funding of capital projects.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Facilities and Real Estate):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Facilities and Real Estate, with a cash flow totalling $85.404 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of 13 new projects with a cost of $14.528 million (gross) as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $14.528 million, with no future commitments and no operating impacts;

(3) the Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of two Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $7.272 million and a 2000 cash flow of $2.243 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; future year cash flows for these projects are $2.143 million in 2001; $1.843 Million in 2002; and $1.043 million in 2003 with no operating impacts;

(4) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to continue to develop a full assessment of the backlog of the projects under the Division's jurisdiction as well as ongoing and cyclical State of Good Repair projects for inclusion in the five year 2001 Capital Program;

(5) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee in the 2001 Capital Budget process on the specific applications of the $1.2 million provided for emergency repairs in the 2000 Capital Budget, as well as providing this information with all Capital Budget variance reports during the year;

(6) that the Chief Administrative Officer, in conjunction with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism, be requested to review the long term plan for the use of Old City Hall (60 Queen Street West) and report to Policy and Finance Committee by August 2000;

(7) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure that all costs for 100 Queen Street West (City Hall) appear together in future Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget submissions;

(8) the 2000 Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of six Previously Approved projects with cash flow carry forward and 2000 approved cost totalling $ 9.723 million (gross) and $9.035 million (net) with no operating impacts, as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; and

(9) that the $7 million included for Previously Approved projects (Appendix "B1") be released conditional upon the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services providing an assessment of each prior year capital project that has not yet been closed, and reporting this information to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer by April 1, 2000.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having:

(i) received the report (December 3, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Security System Upgrades at Various Key City Facilities";

(ii) received the report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Facilities and Real Estate Division, Capital Works Program 2000-2004 - Request for Additional Information";

(iii) received report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Further Reductions to the Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget; and

(iv) requested the City Solicitor to report back on:

(a) the legality of turning back the date of the security system at Scarborough Civic Centre to avoid Y2K problems; and

(b) clarification of the following statement embodied in the report (December 3, 1999 - Page 3, first paragraph) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services as to whether the Toronto Police can refuse to attend further alarms under the Police False Alarm Reduction Program:

"Presently at most Civic Centres, key areas are equipped with "panic" buttons which ring to an off-site monitoring company who then either dispatches a private security guard firm or the police. This service is costly as each area must pay for a monthly monitoring contract and false alarms can result in the Police refusing to attend further alarms under the City of Toronto's Police False Alarm Reduction Program."

Finance Department

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the Finance Department with a cash flow totalling $1.55 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;and

(2) the Finance Department's 2000 Capital Budget consisting of two new projects with total project costs of $1.55 million and a gross and net cash flow in 2000 of $1.5 million and zero respectively, as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require commitments totalling $0.05 million in 2001.

Fleet Management

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the 2000-2004 Capital Budget of Fleet Management by adopting the report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Fleet Management Services 2000-2004 Capital Budget", subject to:

(a) deleting the words "Policy and Finance Committee" in Recommendation No. (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Budget Advisory Committee", so that such recommendation now reads:

"(1) The Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the July 2000 Budget Advisory Committee on the actual costs incurred for external heavy duty diesel emissions testing during the first six months of the year and advise Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of performing such testing;

1.1 The Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers" be authorized in the amount of $100,000.00 for the acquisition of heavy duty diesel emissions testing equipment contingent upon Council review of the recommendations contained in the report noted above; and

(b) deleting the words "Policy and Finance Committee" in Recommendation No. (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Budget Advisory Committee" so that such recommendation now reads:

"(2) The Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Budget Advisory Committee in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the actual costs incurred for external gasoline and light duty diesel emissions testing to date and advise Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of such testing;

2.1 $700,000 of Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Budget request (Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers") be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process subject to Council review of the report noted above."

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Fleet Management):

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Fleet Management Services with a cash flow totalling $1.2 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 204, "Amalgamation of Fleet Maintenance Locations", consisting of total project costs of $0.4 million be approved; and

(3) the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers" be deferred for consideration pending a report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to be presented at the January 12, 2000 Budget Advisory Committee meeting.

The Budget Advisory Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to arrange to have the Budget Advisory Committee Members attend a demonstration of diesel emission testing.

Information Technology

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the Information and Technology 2000-2004 Capital Budget by reducing the said budget by $250,000.00 by commencing the Network and Telecom Upgrade projects on a delayed implementation schedule.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations- Information and Technology):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Information and Technology, with a cash flow totalling $20.649 million as recommended in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital budget for Information and Technology consisting of five new projects with a cost of $20.649 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects required a 2000 cash flow of $7.846 million and commitments totalling $9.247 million in 2001; $2.177 million in 2002; $0.727 million in 2003; and $0.652 million in 2004;

(3) that the operating budget impact of $2.498 million in 2000, $2.491 million in 2001, $2.141 million in 2002, $2.09 million in 2003 and $2.04 million in 2004 associated with the recommended projects included in 2000-2004 Capital Program for Information and Technology, be considered with the Information and Technology 2000 Operating Budget;

(4) that Information and Technology in consultation with the City departments develop, for Council approval prior to the 2001-2005 capital budget request, a corporate Information and Technology strategic plan and multi-year capital investment program that:

(i) outlines and addresses corporate infrastructure and other corporate Information and Technology requirements;

(ii) identifies and provides solutions to operational needs;

(iii) provides links between corporate and operational capital requirements for Information and Technology; and

(iv) provides a framework for the 2001-2005 Information and Technology Projects;

(5) that in regard to the Data Warehousing Strategy and Pilot sub-project, the amount of $750.0 thousand be approved to carry out the feasibility study and the program be directed to bring forward to Budget Advisory Committee the recommendations of the feasibility study as part of their 2001-2005 capital budget request;

(6) that in regard to the Electronic Service Delivery Project, the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to bring forward to Budget Advisory Committee in March 2000, prior to wrap-up of the 2000 Operating Budget, the departmental components that will enable the City to use this technology to allow online services together with the operational savings and benefits that will be realized in the various operating departments;

(7) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the next meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on the feasibility of transferring the Information and Technology Division under the umbrella of the Finance Department as opposed to Corporate Services;

(8) that the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure the City's web site is updated on a daily or weekly basis;

(9) the Information and Technology 2000 Capital Budget be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(i) Pilot Project for Document Imaging and Management Study be reduced by $500,000.00;

(ii) that a further reduction of $250,000.00 be looked at, if necessary, and report back to the January 12, 2000 meeting in that regard; and

(iii) that the report dated December 8, 1999 from the City Auditor, entitled "Information and Technology 2000-2001 Capital Program", be adopted.

The Budget Advisory Committee, further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having received the report (December 17, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "2000-2004 Budget Review Response from Information and Technology Services - Budget Advisory Request from December 10, 1999".

Works and Emergency Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Works and Emergency Services, with a cash flow totalling $7.100 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Works and Emergency Services consisting of five new projects with a cost of $3.400 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.600 million and commitments totalling of $.800 million in 2001.

Exhibition Place

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Exhibition Place with a cash flow totalling $32.4 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Exhibition Place consisting of seven new projects with one-year cash flow of $4.245 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require no future year cash flow;

(3) the operating budget impact that results in savings of $75 thousand in operating costs in 2000, and each year thereafter, be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget of Exhibition Place consisting of Previously Approved projects with a cash flow carry-forward of $1.43 million be received (Appendix "B1");

(5) that Exhibition Place and the CNEA take all necessary actions, including advertising in newspapers, to ensure a 100 percent rental of the Food Building during the CNE; and

(6) that the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place and the CNEA:

(i) reconsider the two percent three year rentals in the Food Building;

(ii) consider an inflationary yearly increase; and

(iii) report directly to City Council for its meeting of February 1, 2000, on these matters.

Public Health

The Budget Advisory Committee reports, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, having amended the Public Health 2000-2004 Capital Budget by adopting the report (January 12, 2000) from the Executive Director of Information and Technology, entitled "Provision of Information and Technology Requirements Related to the Public Health 2000 Capital Budget" wherein it is recommended that:

(1) the Executive Director of Information and Technology provide Public Health with its critical information and technology requirements for 2000 from existing Y2K (Project Management Office) stock and the recommended 2000 capital budget, as detailed in this report and consistent with existing corporate standards and practices;

(2) this report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Public Health):

(1) the Public Health 2000 Capital Budget be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(i) the Public Health business case be referred to the Executive Director of Information and Technology for assessment and report thereon to the January 12, 2000 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the said report to include:

(a) Information and Technology requirements that will be provided and funded from the 1999 and 2000 approved Capital Budget for Y2K, consistent with existing corporate practice, policy and standards; and

(b) the Operating Budget implications, including staffing, licensing and other related IT costs in 2000 and future years;

(ii) that the requested report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(iii) the Executive Director of Information and Technology, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to the Board of Health, in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the long-term IT needs of the Public Health Program, including state of inventory and capital and operating budget implications.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with a cash flow totalling of $40.195 million be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority consisting of six new projects with a cost of $5.115 million be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $5.115 million with no future year commitments; and

(3) a previously approved project, Port Union Waterfront Development, with a 2000 cash flow requirement of $1.0 million, will be deferred to year 2001.

Toronto Police Service

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Toronto Police Services, with a cash flow totalling $121.057 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a total cost of $9.903 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $8.608 million in 2000, and a future year cash flow commitment of $1.295 million in 2001;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $13.563 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; this project requires a 2000 cash flow of $4.313 million and commitments of $5.250 million in 2001 and $4.000 million in 2002;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of ten new projects with a total cost of $9.791 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; the projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.441 million in 2000 and a future year cash flow commitment of $2.350 million in 2001; and

(5) the operating impacts that result in $0.195 million increase in gross operating costs in 2000 and decreased operating costs of $1.783 million in 2001; $4.202 million in 2002; $3.562 million in 2003; and, $3.562 million in 2004, respectively be approved.

Toronto Public Library

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the 2000-2004 Capital budget of the Toronto Public Library by adding the following:

"In the event the Toronto Public Library Board recommends the disposal or sale of library properties during the Capital Budget deliberations, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer assure the Budget Advisory Committee that the monies received be reinvested in the Library Program."

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations- Toronto Public Library):

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Toronto Public Library with a cash flow totalling $69.950 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Public Library consisting of seven new projects with a total cost of $63.859 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.666 million and commitments totalling $15.398 million in 2001; $19.583 million in 2002; $16.561 million in 2003; and $9.651 million in 2004;

(3) with respect to the Maria A. Shchuka District Library Reconstruction Project (gross and net project cost $5.460 million), it is recommended that:

(i) the commencement of the project be subject to the Toronto Public Library reporting on the results of the design studies for reconstruction, for which $0.150 million was approved in the 1999 Capital Budget, and an additional $0.066 is included in the 2000 recommended budget, (Appendix "B3");

(ii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Toronto Public Library be requested to report jointly, in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the implications of the City's "Lets Build" affordable housing initiative on this project;

(4) with respect to Malvern District Library Expansion Project (gross $4.408 million and net $3.691 million project cost), it is recommended that:

(i) this project be deferred for consideration with the year 2001 Capital Budget process to allow the program time to complete all appropriate needs assessments to justify expansion of facilities at this site; and

(ii) the Toronto Public Library report in time for the year 2001 Capital Budget process on the needs assessment and justification for the expansion of the existing facility from 15,000 S.F. to 25,000 S.F.;

(5) with respect to Toronto Reference Library Renovation Project (gross $0.900 million and net $0.300 million project cost), it is recommended that commencement of this project be contingent on the Toronto Public Library securing funding of $0.600 million from the Toronto Star;

(6) with respect to Dawes Road Neighbourhood Library Renovation Project, (gross project cost $0.750), it is recommended that:

(i) the project be approved strictly for critical structural repairs (roof and stairs), and necessary building system upgrades as identified in the Consultant (Norr) report;

(ii) the project be contingent on the following:

(a) the Toronto Public Library report, in consultation with City Solicitor, on the Toronto Public Library's responsibility for repairs/maintenance and other costs due to Toronto Public Library's 53 percent ownership of common elements of the condominium structure in which the Library is situated;

(b) the Toronto Public Library securing appropriate co-owners legal agreement for their share of the costs, satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(c) the co-owners share of this project cost be credited as recoveries in the project, and City funding be limited to the net cost after such recoveries;

(7) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Public Library consisting of five Previously Approved projects with a 2000 cost of $4.291 million and a 2001 cost of $1.800 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Toronto Transit Commission

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of the Toronto Transit Commission, with a cash flow totalling $1,062.505 million Toronto Transit Commission projects excluding Sheppard and $318.832 for the Sheppard Subway as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission consisting of 13 Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $130.481 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $51.911 million and commitments totalling $27.0 million in 2001; $20.6 million in 2002; $13.9 million in 2003; and $17.1 million in 2004;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission consisting of 27 new projects with a cost of $115.020 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $111.846 million and commitments totalling $2.6 million in 2001; $.3 million in 2002; $.2 million in 2003; and $.1 million in 2004;

(4) the operating budget impact that results in savings of $2.743 million in operating costs in 2000, $6.1 million in 2001, $8.3 million in 2002, $9.2 million in 2003 and $9.7 million in 2004 from the capital program excluding Sheppard, and increased expenditures of $0.65 million in 2002 and $0.5 million in 2003 and savings of $0.3 million in 2004 from the Sheppard Subway be approved;

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission, excluding Sheppard Subway, consisting of 12 Previously Approved projects with a cost of $106.649 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(6) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cost of $185.710 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(7) since the items contained in the Toronto Transit Commission's 2000-2004 Capital Program outside of the "Status Quo" portion of the budget are not presently recommended for approval, should additional funding for these items be provided by either the Federal and/or Provincial governments, these projects be reassessed, taking into consideration the additional funding and the impact on the overall City funding requirements; and that the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Toronto Transit Commission's Chief General Manager, be requested to report to Council through the Budget Advisory Committee in that regard;

(8) the Policy and Finance Committee be advised that the Budget Advisory Committee reaffirms the installation of the Streetcar Island Platform at Via Italia and St. Clair West; that the project ($60.0 thousand) be re-budgeted in the 2000 Capital Budget; and that the project be retendered early in the year, for completion by spring;

(9) a $5 million unspecified reduction be applied to the 2000 capital expenditure (cash flow) of the Toronto Transit Commission, on the understanding that all projects included in the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended 2000 capital program will proceed as planned and that the Toronto Transit Commission will manage the expending in such a way as to meet the recommended $5 million reduction on the 2000 cash flow payments;

(10) the report (December 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer in response to the request from the Budget Advisory Committee to address the issue of Union Station, i.e., provide information as to how the City should position itself with regard to Union Station, noting that Union Station is an entity and a transportation hub and important to the whole country therefore should the City request monies from the Federal and Provincial governments as well as the Greater Toronto Area for GO and subway improvements be received; and a copy of which be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for information; and

(11) the technical amendments for carry forward capital expenditure from 1999 to 2000 totalling $8.188 Million reflected in the Chief Administrative Officer recommended budget be approved; the breakdown is as follows: Project No. 393 (new maintenance facility) for $1.129 million; Project No. 395 (the Birchmount garage renovation) for $1.887 million; Project No. 415 (127 replacement Wheel-Trans vehicles) for $2.133 million; and Project No. 710 (computer equipment and software) for $3.039 million.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having received the report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Sheppard Subway - Impact of its Mothballing".

Toronto Zoo

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Toronto Zoo, with a cash flow totalling $37.356 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo consisting of six new projects with a total project cost of $4.229 million, be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $3.351 million and a commitment for $0.878 million in 2001 as seen in Appendix "B3";

(3) the operating impact that results in increased net revenues of $46 thousand in 2000 and future years as increased Zoomobile revenue is realized be approved;

(4) that Pre-Engineering work for new Toronto Zoo projects become the first phase of these projects in future Capital Program submissions, thus more correctly reflecting the true project cost; and

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a cost of $6.105 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Transition Projects/Y2K

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of January 14, 2000, amended the 2000-2004 Capital Budget of the Transition Projects/Y2K as follows:

(a) adopted the report (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Transition Projects - Y2K Project 2000-2004 Capital Program";

(b) adopted the report (December 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "Transition Funding for a Unified Business System for the Transportation Division";

(c) adopted the report (December 29, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled "Official Plan: 2000-2001 Transition Funding Allocation";

(d) adopted the joint report (January 7, 2000) from the Project Atlas Steering Committee, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Information and Technology, entitled "2000 Transition Program - Project Atlas (Financial and HR/Payroll)"; and

(e) approved $230,000.00 for critical items (East York Civic Centre $30,000.00; North York Civic Centre $100,000.00; and Scarborough Civic Centre $100,000.00).

It is recommended that (Program Recommendations - Transition Project/Y2K):

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Transition Projects, with a cash flow totalling $117.103 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of six Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total cost of $28.632 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of four new projects with a cost of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved subject to a review of the business cases for these projects;

(4) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Provincial Offences Transfer Project, with recommendations to include this project in the capital program once the task force has reported to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(5) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee with a summary of the staff exit costs incurred to date and the requirement for the additional funding in 2000;

(6) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 24 Previously Approved projects with a cost of $37.535 million in 2000, $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(7) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Y2K Project with a cash flow totalling $20.5 million in 2000 as outlined in Appendix "A" be approved;

(8) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cost of $8.4 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; and

(9) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $12.1 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved.

The Budget Advisory Committee, further reports, for the information of Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having:

(i) received the report (January 13, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "2000 Transition Program - Project Atlas Additional Information Re: Change Requests and Project Expenses";

(ii) received the report (January 13, 2000) from the Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, entitled "Year 2000 Transition Project - Security System Upgrades at Various Key City Facilities";

(iii) requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Policy and Finance Committee prior to the expenditure of this program, providing a business case specifically with regard to 'pay back' and how many FTE's are on contract at the present time; and

(iv) requested the Chief Administrative Officer to identify, during consideration of the 2001 Operating Budget, on the $1.5 million savings to the City in 2001 due to the implementation of the recommendations and the potential for savings in the following years.

Toronto Parking Authority

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Toronto Parking Authority, with a cash flow totalling $89.581 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of twenty Previously Approved projects with a cost of $35.136 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $16.865 million and commitments of $8.921 million in 2001, $2.250 million in 2002 and $7.100 million in 2003;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of seven Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $8.770 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.950 million and a commitment of $.820 million in 2001;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of seven new projects with a cost of $13.8 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.5 million and commitments totalling $6.3 million in 2001;

(5) if after five years from the date of approval, an authorization for a project remains unspent and no expenditures are committed against it, then the authorization should be cancelled and the funds returned to the City, unless the Toronto Parking Authority can justify the retention of the project approval beyond the current year as part of the annual capital budget review process; and

(6) the operating impact that results in net revenues of $16 thousand in 2000, $1.905 million in 2001, $2.027 million in 2002, $2.152 million in 2003 and 2004 once the various parking facilities are operational, be approved.

TEDCO

Given that there is no activity, the 2000 Capital Budget for TEDCO represents the carry forward of the 1999 approved Capital Budget. It is, therefore, recommended that:

(1) TEDCO submit its 2000-2004 Capital Works program on a five year project cost and cash flow basis, to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, prior to Capital project activity, either previously approved, or new in nature;

(2) TEDCO's proposed 2000-2004 Capital Works program be reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and relevant Committees of Council, as conducted during the annual Capital Budget process; and

(3) TEDCO review all previously approved projects and any project activity or requests planned for future years, for the purpose of assessing changes in scope or activity, and updating priorities, and that this re-assessment be conducted prior to a Capital Budget submission to the City of Toronto, for its consideration and approval.

Toronto Port Authority

There are no recommendations at this time as the review is currently in progress.

The Budget Advisory Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, having:

(1) referred the Toronto Port Authority 2000-2004 Capital Budget to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for a more detailed report with a request that she report back to the Budget Advisory Committee, prior to the Special Council meeting of January 27, 2000, as to whether every attempt was made to ensure that the Toronto Port Authority Capital Budget would not draw on the City's Capital funds i.e., have a '0' effect on the City's Capital funding; and

(2) requested that the Policy and Finance Committee be advised that the Budget Advisory Committee will forward the Toronto Port Authority Capital Budget directly to Council for its special meeting of January 27, 2000.

Water and Wastewater Services

It is recommended that given that the Water and Wastewater Program is a Non-Tax Supported operation and its Capital Budget is funded through the water rate which impacts on the Operating Budget and the review is currently in progress:

(1) the 2000 Non-Tax Supported Capital Program for Water and Wastewater with an estimated cost of $293.967 million be received and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2000 Operating Budget process on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program; and

(2) an interim cash flow of $21.704 million be approved for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending the review of the capital requirements and report thereon as part of the Operating Budget process.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee had before it the following reports and communications:

(1) (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that:

(a) the 2000-2004 Tax Supported Capital Program for the City, with a cash flow totalling $4.056 billion as outlined in Appendix "A1-2", be received;

(b) the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for new projects with a total cost of $548.891 million as recommended in Appendix "A2-1" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $359.567 million and future year commitments totalling $91.021 million in 2001; $49.938 million in 2002; $26.537 million in 2003 and $21.828 million in 2004;

(c) the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with change in scope with a total cost of $421.012 million as recommended in Appendix "A-3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $143.525 million and future year commitments totalling $81.320 million in 2001; $70.687 million in 2002; $62.883 million in 2003 and $62.597 million in 2004;

(d) the operating budget impact, identified in Appendix "E", that results in cumulative net expenditure impact of $2.1 million in 2000; $1.3 million by 2001; ($0.1) million by 2002; $1.3 million by 2003 and $2.9 million by 2004 be reviewed in conjunction with the 2000 Operating Budget submission within the respective program areas;

(e) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report in February 2000 to the Budget Advisory Committee on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program;

(f) an interim cash flow of $21.704 million be approved for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending a review of the capital requirements for the Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program;

(g) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the 2000 Capital Program for the City's fleet requirements in February 2000;

(h) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back in February 2000 on the status of previously approved capital projects and provide recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee on completed projects to be closed;

(i) all capital projects which have been deferred and/or included as part of the future years capital program (2001-2004) be considered placeholders and subject to full review during the 2001-2005 Capital Budget review process, unless a project and its future year commitments have been recommended for approval in the 2000-2004 Capital Program; and

(j) the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with a total cost of $818.649 million and a cash flow of $480.833 million in 2000 and future year commitments of $232.587 million in 2001; $69.037 million in 2002; $24.211 million in 2003 and $11.981 million as outlined in Appendix "A4-1", be received.

(2) (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that:

(a) the capital from current contributions be increased by $7 million from the comparable level in 1999, and that this recommendation be approved in conjunction with the approval of the 2000 Operating Budget;

(b) the City's share of the GO Transit budget surplus for January 1 through August 7, 1999, estimated to be $6.3 million, be applied against tax supported capital borrowing requirements in 2000;

(c) an amount of $14 million be accepted as a transfer from the Toronto Parking Authority and be applied to reduce borrowing requirements for the tax supported capital program;

(d) the Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP) Reserve Fund be closed out as of December 31, 1999, and any remaining balance be funded from or contributed to the Sheppard Subway Capital Subsidy Reserve; and

(e) the total net debt financing (after provisions for underexpenditure of $77.4 million) for the 2000 Capital Program be limited to no more than $326.0 million, consisting of $110 million baseline debt and $216.0 million new debt;

(3) Section III - Program Recommendations

Ambulance Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Ambulance Services, with a cash flow totalling $18.680 million be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Ambulance Services consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $0.510 million as recommended in Appendix B2 be approved. This project requires a 2000 cash flow of $0.510 million;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Ambulance Services consisting of four new projects with a total cost of $6.009 million (gross) and $1.229 million (net) as recommended in Appendix B3 be approved. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $4.092 million (gross) and $1.107 (net) and commitments totalling $1.917 million (gross) and $0.122 million (net) in 2001;

(4) the operating impact that results in $40 thousand in increased expenditures in 2000, $110 thousand in 2001, $182 thousand in 2002, $194 thousand in 2003 and up to $251 thousand in 2004 (these may be partially offset by a minimum of 50 percent provincial funding), be approved;

(5) the General Manager of Ambulance Services be requested to report back to Budget Advisory Committee before conclusion of the 2000 budget be requested to review to confirm whether 100 percent provincial funding will be available for financing of the AVTEC and BACC projects;

(6) the General Manager of Ambulance Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back on efforts to secure a formal cost-sharing arrangement with the Province in support of Ambulance Services' Capital and Operating expenditures, including a mechanism for determining eligibility for 50 percent versus 100 percent provincial funding;

(7) the General Manager of Ambulance Services be requested to report back on the success of the efforts to secure 50 percent funding for the Vehicle Venting Emissions and Monitor Defibrillator projects; and,

(8) a working group be established, consisting of representatives from Fire, Ambulance, Facilities and Finance to develop a longer term Fire Station construction/reconstruction plan to address needs for Fire Services and Ambulance Services; and replacement of the aging infrastructure; it is further recommended that this working group report back to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to consideration of the Ambulance Services' 2001 capital program.

Children's Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Children's Services, with a cash flow totalling $2.0 gross and net $0.0 as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Children's Services consisting of one new project with a cost of $2.0 million gross and zero net as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; and

(3) the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor be requested to ensure that all conditions embodied in the legal agreements with Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. and Imperial Oil Limited for receipt of funding of $2.0 million are complied with prior to commencement of the project; and further the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ensure that funding of $2.0 million is received from Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. and Imperial Oil Limited prior to the commencement of construction of this project.

Culture

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Culture Capital Program with a cash flow totalling $90.115 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of five new projects with a cost of $4.179 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a one-year cash flow only;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $3.65 as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the operating budget impact that results in a net cost of $37 thousand in 2000, $63 thousand in 2001, $55 thousand in 2002, $38 thousand in 2003 and $32 thousand in 2004 be approved;

(5) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to proceed with a Cultural Facilities Masterplan including needs assessment and business cases for new Arts facilities, including the Oakwood - Vaughan Arts Centre, in future years as a part of business planning prior to the 2001 capital cycle;

(6) the following actions be taken to support the required capital maintenance and restoration of Casa Loma and its associated buildings:

(i) that, effective in 2001, rental revenue from Casa Loma, the Casa Loma Stables and the separately leased Casa Loma Hunt Lodge be transferred to a reserve dedicated to capital maintenance of these City properties; that this reserve be applied to these ongoing capital maintenance projects starting in 2001; and that the 2001 Operating Budget of Facilities and Real Estate be adjusted accordingly;

(ii) the funding for the projects for rewiring and boiler replacement for the Casa Loma Hunt Lodge (Casa Loma Residential Building) be deferred, pending a report back from the Commissioner of Corporate Services when a lease agreement is in place and that revenue from the lease will be allocated to the reserve for maintenance of Casa Loma, the Stables and the Hunt Lodge; and

(iii) the future lease agreements for all of the Casa Loma properties be negotiated in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture Tourism and in consideration of the need to ensure a State of Good Repair for these properties over time; and

(7) the 2000 Capital Budget for Culture consisting of three Previously Approved projects with cash flow carry-forward and 2000 approved cost totalling $0.915 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Economic Development

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Economic Development, with a cash flow totalling $21.395 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Economic Development consisting of three new projects with a gross 2000 cost of $3.672 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $3.672 million and are based on one-year capital project proposals; no future year cash flow commitments or operating budget impacts result from approval of the 2000 Capital program;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to prepare amendments to the City's Community Improvement Plans under Section 28 of the Planning Act to permit grants under the Commercial Facade Improvement Program to be disbursed by cheque rather than tax credit in all areas of the City;

(4) staff review the Commercial Facade Improvement Program to determine whether the $5,000.00 limit requirement is an impediment to businesses participating in the program, and report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in January, 2000 on the feasibility of lowering the limit to encourage participation;

(5) staff be requested to determine cost estimates to eliminate the safety hazard created by the yield sign on the traffic island at the intersection of Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue West for the large numbers of seniors in this area attempting to cross the street by removing the traffic island and installing a signalized right turn lane, and that this amount be included as a recommendation to the Budget Advisory Committee; and

(6) reiterate that the $60,000.00 approved in the 1999 Capital Budget for the Leaside Business Project not be used for the installation of the two stone gateways but for other streetscape projects.

Fire Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Fire Services, with a cash flow totalling $55.087 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cost of $19.480 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with cash flow requirements of $.415 million in 2000 as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of 14 new projects with a cost of $4.863 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $4.701 million and commitments totalling $.162 million in 2001;

(5) the operating budget cost of $1.549 million in 2000 be approved; and future operating impacts at a cost of $.121 million in 2001; $.085 million in 2002; $.085 million in 2003 and savings of $.007 million in 2004 be received;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide a report to the Budget Advisory Committee for the 2001 capital budget process on the training needs and facilities for the amalgamated Fire Services, addressing: (a) number of facilities required; (b) current usage statistics; (c) revenue-generating potential; and (d) specific equipment needs;

(7) a working group be established, consisting of representatives from Fire Services, Ambulance Services, Facilities and Real Estate and Finance, to develop a longer term Fire Station construction/re-construction plan to address needs for Fire Services and Ambulance Services and replacement of the aging infrastructure; it is further recommended that this working group report back to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to consideration of the Fire Services 2001 Capital Program;

(8) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide a report on false alarms, including total number of calls, the number of calls that were false alarms for 1999 and the recovery of fines in that regard; and

(9) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief be requested to provide a report on:

(i) how emergency services are being delivered on the waterfront, i.e., the role of the Police Marine Unit, the role of Fire and Ambulance Services, the number of staff and the number of pieces of equipment for each unit as of January 1, 1998, January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000; and

(ii) how waterfront marine services are provided elsewhere along Lake Ontario communities and the most appropriate way of eliminating duplication.

Homes for the Aged

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Homes for the Aged with a cash flow totalling $42.376 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Homes for the Aged consisting of one new project with a total cost of $38.0 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; this project requires a 2000 cash flow of $2.0 million and commitments totalling $10.0 million in 2001; $10.0 million in 2002; $10.0 million in 2003; and $6.0 million in 2004;

(3) the commencement of the construction phase totalling $38.0 million be approved subject to provision of a report by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services in response to the following directive made during the 1999 capital process that "The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, report to Budget Advisory Committee on the financial implications of renovating the two older facilities (379 beds) before the construction phase of this project begins";

(4) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to include the appropriate financing costs incurred by the City during the construction phase of the Site Redevelopment Project, in the final costs submitted to the Province for cost sharing; and

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for Homes for the Aged consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cost of $4.376 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Parks and Recreation

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Parks and Recreation, with a cash flow totalling $347.601 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of seven Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $13.245 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $11.945 million and commitments totalling $1.3 million in 2001;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of thirteen new projects with a cost of $42.13 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved' these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $26.875 million and commitments totalling $8.857 million in 2001 and $6.398 million in 2002;

(4) the recommended operating budget impact of $0.275 million emanating from the approval of the 2000 Capital Budget be considered within the overall scope of the Parks and Recreation program's 2000 operating budget submission;

(5) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, on the feasibility of establishing a reserve for golf course maintenance that will be funded through a surcharge on golf green fees;

(6) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report back in consultation with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services prior to the 2001 capital budget process on:

(i) the backlog related to the "State of Good Repair" of Parks and Recreation facilities; and

(ii) how the backlog will be addressed in the 2001-2005 capital program request for Parks and Recreation;

(7) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the availability of reserve and development charge funding that can be applied to the St. Jamestown Recreation Centre sub-project as part of the 2001-2005 capital program request;

(8) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to consider the proposed York, Western North York, Parkdale and South Etobicoke Recreation Centres in the Long Term Plan for Parks and Recreation Facilities - All Wards and that the Plan also encompass the proposed expansion of existing Parks and Recreation facilities;

(9) the Long Term Plan for Parks and Recreation Facilities - All Wards, be considered within the context of the Program's 2001-2010 capital program request;

(10) the 2000 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation consisting of thirteen Previously Approved projects with a cost of $40.992 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $32.595 million and commitments totalling $8.397 million in 2001;

(11) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Budget Advisory Committee for its meeting of January 14, 2000 and the Scarborough Community Council for its meeting of January 18, 2000 on fund raising activities for the Chinese Cultural Centre and what kind of support is needed from the City to support this project;

(12) Bayview Arena/Edithvale Community Centre: the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report further on this project providing more details during the 2001 Capital Budget deliberations, the said report to include the needs component;

(13) Playground Rehabilitation: the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on:

(i) whether or not the funds are being expended for the express use as directed by City Council; and

(ii) each of the proposed playground replacements as to the actual cost on a per park basis for each of the replacements and advise as to where the balance of funds are being allocated;

(14) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, together with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report during the year 2000 budget process, if possible, on the funding required and its source, to implement the proposed bicycle paths under the railway portion of the Humber Bridges in the year 2001;

(15) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the status and develop a plan for the Earl Beatty R.C. improvements for inclusion in year 2001 budget consideration, provided funds are available;

(16) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back on the feasibility of selling the golf courses;

(17) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the total cost to build a recreation or community centre over the past five years, as soon as possible;

(18) Greenwood Park: accelerate $100,000.00 to 2000 to address park deficiencies, subject to the sale of surplus property adjacent to the park;

(19) Maple Cottage: accelerate $177,000.00 for restoration to 2000 subject to matching funds being available;

(20) Don Valley Practice Range: referred for consideration in the 2000 operating budget deliberations;

(21) Child Care Centres: funding for playground renovations/replacement be referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for report thereon to the Community Services Committee;

(22) St. Jamestown Community Centre: endorse the Capital Budget allocation for St. Jamestown Community Centre as City Council's first priority for a new community centre as recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer; and further that there be no user fees for the usage of same when completed and this statement be added to any future reports;

(23) Kiwanis Pool: $5,000.00 be given prior approval in the 2000 operating budget to provide an outdoor shower;

(24) Rouge Community Complex: to be considered within the context of the future needs plan; and

(25) the York Civic Centre Land as a base for a new recreation centre be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for future consideration.

Shelter, Housing and Support

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Shelter, Housing and Support with a cash flow totalling $47.981 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Shelter, Housing and Support consisting of two new projects with a total cost of $43.0 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.5 million and commitments totalling $13.0 million in 2001; $8.5 million in 2002; $7.0 million in 2003; and $7.0 million in 2004;

(3) that the funding envelope in the amount of $7.0 million gross and $3.5 million net included in the recommended budget (Appendix "B3"), to provide funding for short term shelter accommodation, be subject to matching funds being received from the Province; and

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Shelter, Housing and Support consisting of three Previously Approved projects with a cost of $4.981 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Social Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program submission of Social Services, with a cash flow totalling $13.238 million be received;

(2) the Social Services 2000 Capital Budget request of $13.238 million projected costs for relocating two Social Services offices beginning in 2000 be deferred until the Corporate Master Plan is completed and approved; and

(3) the Social Services Division negotiate through the Corporate Services lease renewals for the sites located at 220 Attwell Drive and 5639 Finch Avenue East for terms up to, but not exceeding five years.

Solid Waste Management

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Solid Waste Management, with a cash flow totalling $127.711 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of three Previously Approved projects with a cost of $17.776 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of two Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $2.472 million as recommended in Appendix B2 be approved; the increase in cost for these projects is $1.6 million and mainly reflects a project expansion to include new diversion initiatives as part of the TIRM Project RFP process and Material Recovery Facilities upgrades to handle more types of recyclable materials in accordance with Council's policy respecting waste diversion targets; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.074 million and commitments of $.298 million in 2001 and $.100 million in 2002;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of two new projects with a cost of $2.044 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $1.478 million and commitments totalling $.566 million in 2001;

(5) the operating impact that results in expenditures of $148 thousand in 2000, $766 thousand in 2001, $1.4 million in 2002 and savings of $2.8 million in 2003 and $9.2 million in 2004 once expected savings from various recycling facilities are realized, be approved;

(6) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to review the status of the Perpetual Care Reserve for Landfills and report back in consultation with the General Manager of Solid Waste Management on any required change to the paid tonnage contribution rate to ensure that adequate funding is available to cover the future expenditure requirements for the perpetual care of landfills; and

(7) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the progress in securing an extension of the City of Vaughan's by-law to allow the City of Toronto to operate the Avondale Composting Facility beyond May 2000.

Transportation

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Transportation, with a cash flow totalling $1,291.190 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of one Previously Approved Project with a cash flow of $4.2 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of six Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects, with a cash flow for 2000 of $29.750 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of 50 new projects with a cash flow for 2000 of $130.800 million, as recommended in Appendix "B3", be approved; commitments of $25.530 million in 2001, $15.020 million in 2002, $7.760 million in 2003 and $8.060 million in 2004 also be approved;

(5) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report on the future implications to the City's budget of undertaking the 'state of good repair' in areas where such information is readily available, said report to be provided no later than in time to be considered in conjunction with the City's 2001-2005 capital program;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the possibility of including the expansion of Port Union Road from three lanes to four lanes within the Program's 2001-2005 capital program;

(7) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the possibility of advancing the Scarlett Road/St. Clair Avenue West/Dundas Street project and report back to the Community Council;

(8) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on the funding required and its source, to implement bicycle paths under the railway portion of the Humber Bridges in the year 2001;

(9) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the January 14, 2000 meeting on the Executive Court Extension project; on the percentage of this project to be funded by the City and the percentage to be funded through Development Charges; and

(10) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back on the development of a road near the Railway Lands and the timing of such development.

Urban Development Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Urban Development Services, with a cash flow totalling $42.197 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Urban Development Services consisting of two new projects with a cost of $1.96 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $1.96 million, with no future year commitments;

(3) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to identify the maintenance costs in future years associated for each project, and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to indicate their concurrence of the costs and the responsibility for the maintenance;

(4) the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2000 Operating Budget review on which capital program umbrella the streetscaping projects should be assigned to;

(5) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to coordinate each project with the work of other departments/agencies;

(6) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to ensure that, in the future, staff consult with the local ward Councillor prior to submitting main street improvement projects in the budget;

(7) the Garrison Creek projects continue to be funded from the Urban Development Services capital program;

(8) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee, in conjunction with the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, on providing a Public Art program within the capital budget;

(9) the Scarborough Community Council be advised that the Kingston Road Improvements will be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process, provided funds are available, and that the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the administration of streetscape projects, including the issue of ongoing maintenance and public/private partnerships to secure the maintenance;

(10) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Development Services be requested to report to the appropriate Standing Committee on the feasibility of including Danforth Avenue between Victoria Park Avenue and Danforth Road as part of the Main Street Improvement Program and defer consideration of this project to the 2001 Capital Budget process, provided funds are available;

(11) the Sheppard and Provost streetscape project be approved at $60,000.00 for 2000 with the balance to be considered in 2001, provided funds are available; and

(12) the 2000 Capital Budget for Urban Development Services consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a cost of $5.509 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

City Clerk's

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the City Clerk with a cash flow totalling $12.05 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the City Clerk's 2000 Capital Budget consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cash flow in 2000 of $12.05 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be approved.

Corporate

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for Corporate projects with a cash flow totalling $20.5 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the Corporate 2000 Capital Budget consisting of two Previously Approved projects with a cash flow in 2000 of $10.5 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be approved.

Facilities and Real Estate

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Facilities and Real Estate, with a cash flow totalling $85.404 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of 13 new projects with a cost of $14.528 million (gross) as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $14.528 million, with no future commitments and no operating impacts;

(3) the Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of two Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $7.272 million and a 2000 cash flow of $2.243 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; future year cash flows for these projects are $2.143 million in 2001; $1.843 million in 2002; and $1.043 million in 2003 with no operating impacts;

(4) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to continue to develop a full assessment of the backlog of the projects under the Division's jurisdiction as well as ongoing and cyclical State of Good Repair projects for inclusion in the five year 2001 Capital Program;

(5) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee in the 2001 Capital Budget process on the specific applications of the $1.2 million provided for emergency repairs in the 2000 Capital Budget, as well as providing this information with all Capital Budget variance reports during the year;

(6) that the Chief Administrative Officer, in conjunction with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism, be requested to review the long term plan for the use of Old City Hall (60 Queen Street West) and report to Policy and Finance Committee by August 2000;

(7) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure that all costs for 100 Queen Street West (City Hall) appear together in future Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget submissions;

(8) the 2000 Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate consisting of six Previously Approved projects with cash flow carry forward and 2000 approved cost totalling $ 9.723 million (gross) and $9.035 million (net) with no operating impacts, as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; and

(9) that the $7 million included for Previously Approved projects (Appendix "B1") be released conditional upon the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services providing an assessment of each prior year capital project that has not yet been closed, and reporting this information to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer by April 1, 2000.

Finance Department

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the Finance Department with a cash flow totalling $1.55 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received and;

(2) the Finance Department's 2000 Capital Budget consisting of two new projects with total project costs of $1.55 million and a gross and net cash flow in 2000 of $1.5 million and zero respectively, as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require commitments totalling $0.05 million in 2001.

Fleet Management

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Fleet Management Services with a cash flow totalling $1.2 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 204, "Amalgamation of Fleet Maintenance Locations", consisting of total project costs of $0.4 million be approved; and

(3) the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers" be deferred for consideration pending a report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to be presented at the January 12, 2000 Budget Advisory Committee meeting.

Information Technology

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Information and Technology, with a cash flow totalling $20.649 million as recommended in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital budget for Information and Technology consisting of five new projects with a cost of $20.649 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects required a 2000 cash flow of $7.846 million and commitments totalling $9.247 million in 2001; $2.177 million in 2002; $0.727 million in 2003; and $0.652 million in 2004;

(3) that the operating budget impact of $2.498 million in 2000, $2.491 million in 2001, $2.141 million in 2002, $2.09 million in 2003 and $2.04 million in 2004 associated with the recommended projects included in 2000-2004 Capital Program for Information and Technology, be considered with the Information and Technology 2000 Operating Budget;

(4) that Information and Technology in consultation with the City departments develop, for Council approval prior to the 2001-2005 capital budget request, a corporate Information and Technology strategic plan and multi-year capital investment program that:

(i) outlines and addresses corporate infrastructure and other corporate Information and Technology requirements;

(ii) identifies and provides solutions to operational needs;

(iii) provides links between corporate and operational capital requirements for Information and Technology; and

(iv) provides a framework for the 2001-2005 Information and Technology Projects;

(5) that in regard to the Data Warehousing Strategy and Pilot sub-project, the amount of $750.0 thousand be approved to carry out the feasibility study and the program be directed to bring forward to Budget Advisory Committee the recommendations of the feasibility study as part of their 2001-2005 capital budget request;

(6) that in regard to the Electronic Service Delivery Project, the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to bring forward to Budget Advisory Committee in March 2000, prior to wrap-up of the 2000 Operating Budget, the departmental components that will enable the City to use this technology to allow online services together with the operational savings and benefits that will be realized in the various operating departments;

(7) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the next meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on the feasibility of transferring the Information and Technology Division under the umbrella of the Finance Department as opposed to Corporate Services;

(8) that the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure the City's web site is updated on a weekly or daily basis;

(9) the Information and Technology 2000 Capital Budget be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(i) Pilot Project for Document Imaging and Management Study be reduced by $500,000.00;

(ii) that a further reduction of $250,000.00 be looked at, if necessary, and report back to the January 12, 2000 meeting in that regard; and

(iii) that the report dated December 8, 1999 from the City Auditor, entitled "Information and Technology 200-2001 Capital Program", be adopted.

Works and Emergency Services

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Works and Emergency Services, with a cash flow totalling $7.100 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received; and

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Works and Emergency Services consisting of five new projects with a cost of $3.400 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.600 million and commitments totalling of $.800 million in 2001.

Exhibition Place

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Exhibition Place with a cash flow totalling $32.4 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Exhibition Place consisting of seven new projects with one-year cash flow of $4.245 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require no future year cash flow;

(3) the operating budget impact that results in savings of $75 thousand in operating costs in 2000, and each year thereafter, be approved;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget of Exhibition Place consisting of Previously Approved projects with a cash flow carry-forward of $1.43 million be received (Appendix "B1");

(5) that Exhibition Place and the CNEA take all necessary actions, including advertising in newspapers, to ensure a 100 percent rental of the Food Building during the CNE; and

(6) that the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place and the CNEA:

(i) reconsider the two percent three year rentals in the Food Building;

(ii) consider an inflationary yearly increase; and

(iii) report directly to City Council for its meeting of February 1, 2000, on these matters.

Public Health

It is recommended that:

(1) the Public Health 2000 Capital Budget be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(i) the Public Health business case be referred to the Executive Director of Information and Technology for assessment and report thereon to the January 12, 2000 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the said report to include:

(a) Information and Technology requirements that will be provided and funded from the 1999 and 2000 approved Capital Budget for Y2K, consistent with existing corporate practice, policy and standards; and

(b) the Operating Budget implications, including staffing, licensing and other related IT costs in 2000 and future years;

(ii) that the requested report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(iii) the Executive Director of Information and Technology, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to the Board of Health, in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the long-term IT needs of the Public Health Program, including state of inventory and capital and operating budget implications.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with a cash flow totalling of $40.195 million be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority consisting of six new projects with a cost of $5.115 million be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $5.115 million with no future year commitments; and

(3) a previously approved project, Port Union Waterfront Development, with a 2000 cash flow requirement of $1.0 million, will be deferred to year 2001.

Toronto Police Service

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Toronto Police Services, with a cash flow totalling $121.057 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a total cost of $9.903 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $8.608 million in 2000, and a future year cash flow commitment of $1.295 million in 2001;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $13.563 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; this project requires a 2000 cash flow of $4.313 million and commitments of $5.250 million in 2001 and $4.000 million in 2002;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Police Service consisting of ten new projects with a total cost of $9.791 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; the projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.441 million in 2000 and a future year cash flow commitment of $2.350 million in 2001; and

(5) the operating impacts that result in $0.195 million increase in gross operating costs in 2000 and decreased operating costs of $1.783 million in 2001; $4.202 million in 2002; $3.562 million in 2003; and, $3.562 million in 2004, respectively be approved.

Toronto Public Library

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Program of Toronto Public Library with a cash flow totalling $69.950 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Public Library consisting of seven new projects with a total cost of $63.859 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $2.666 million and commitments totalling $15.398 million in 2001; $19.583 million in 2002; $16.561 million in 2003; and $9.651 million in 2004;

(3) with respect to the Maria A. Shchuka District Library Reconstruction Project (gross and net project cost $5.460 million), it is recommended that:

(i) the commencement of the project be subject to the Toronto Public Library reporting on the results of the design studies for reconstruction, for which $0.150 million was approved in the 1999 Capital Budget, and an additional $0.066 is included in the 2000 recommended budget, (Appendix "B3");

(ii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Toronto Public Library be requested to report jointly, in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the implications of the City's "Lets Build" affordable housing initiative on this project;

(4) with respect to Malvern District Library Expansion Project (gross $4.408 million and net $3.691 million project cost), it is recommended that:

(i) this project be deferred for consideration with the year 2001 Capital Budget process to allow the program time to complete all appropriate needs assessments to justify expansion of facilities at this site; and

(ii) the Toronto Public Library report in time for the year 2001 Capital Budget process on the needs assessment and justification for the expansion of the existing facility from 15,000 S.F. to 25,000 S.F.;

(5) with respect to Toronto Reference Library Renovation Project (gross $0.900 million and net $0.300 million project cost), it is recommended that commencement of this project be contingent on the Toronto Public Library securing funding of $0.600 million from the Toronto Star;

(6) with respect to Dawes Road Neighbourhood Library Renovation Project, (gross project cost $0.750), it is recommended that:

(i) the project be approved strictly for critical structural repairs (roof and stairs), and necessary building system upgrades as identified in the Consultant (Norr) report;

(ii) the project be contingent on the following:

(a) the Toronto Public Library report, in consultation with City Solicitor, on the Toronto Public Library's responsibility for repairs/maintenance and other costs due to Toronto Public Library's 53 percent ownership of common elements of the condominium structure in which the Library is situated;

(b) the Toronto Public Library securing appropriate co-owners legal agreement for their share of the costs, satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(c) the co-owners share of this project cost be credited as recoveries in the project, and City funding be limited to the net cost after such recoveries;

(7) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Public Library consisting of five Previously Approved projects with a 2000 cost of $4.291 million and a 2001 cost of $1.800 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Toronto Transit Commission

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of the Toronto Transit Commission, with a cash flow totalling $1,062.505 million Toronto Transit Commission projects excluding Sheppard and $318.832 for the Sheppard Subway as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission consisting of 13 Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $130.481 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $51.911 million and commitments totalling $27.0 million in 2001; $20.6 million in 2002; $13.9 million in 2003; and $17.1 million in 2004;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission consisting of 27 new projects with a cost of $115.020 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $111.846 million and commitments totalling $2.6 million in 2001; $.3 million in 2002; $.2 million in 2003; and $.1 million in 2004;

(4) the operating budget impact that results in savings of $2.743 million in operating costs in 2000, $6.1 million in 2001, $8.3 million in 2002, $9.2 million in 2003 and $9.7 million in 2004 from the capital program excluding Sheppard, and increased expenditures of $0.65 million in 2002 and $0.5 million in 2003 and savings of $0.3 million in 2004 from the Sheppard Subway be approved;

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission excluding Sheppard Subway consisting of 12 Previously Approved projects with a cost of $106.649 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(6) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cost of $185.710 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(7) since the items contained in the Toronto Transit Commission's 2000-2004 Capital Program outside of the "Status Quo" portion of the budget are not presently recommended for approval, should additional funding for these items be provided by either the Federal and/or Provincial governments, these projects be reassessed, taking into consideration the additional funding and the impact on the overall City funding requirements; and that the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Toronto Transit Commission's Chief General Manager, be requested to report to Council through the Budget Advisory Committee in that regard;

(8) the Policy and Finance Committee be advised that the Budget Advisory Committee reaffirms the installation of the Streetcar Island Platform at Via Italia and St. Clair West; that the project ($60.0 thousand) be re-budgeted in the 2000 Capital Budget; and that the project be retendered early in the year, for completion by spring;

(9) a $5 million unspecified reduction be applied to the 2000 capital expenditure (cash flow) of the Toronto Transit Commission, on the understanding that all projects included in the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended 2000 capital program will proceed as planned and that the Toronto Transit Commission will manage the expending in such a way as to meet the recommended $5 million reduction on the 2000 cash flow payments;

(10) the report (December 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer in response to the request from the Budget Advisory Committee to address the issue of Union Station, i.e., provide information as to how the City should position itself with regard to Union Station, noting that Union Station is an entity and a transportation hub and is important to the whole country, and therefore, should the City request monies from the Federal and Provincial governments as well as the Greater Toronto Area for GO and subway improvements be received; and a copy of which be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for information; and

(11) the technical amendments for carry forward capital expenditure from 1999 to 2000 totalling $8.188 Million reflected in the Chief Administrative Officer recommended budget be approved; the breakdown is as follows: Project No. 393 (new maintenance facility) for $1.129 million; Project No. 395 (the Birchmount garage renovation) for $1.887 million; Project No. 415 (127 replacement Wheel-Trans vehicles) for $2.133 million; and Project No. 710 (computer equipment and software) for $3.039 million.

Toronto Zoo

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Toronto Zoo, with a cash flow totalling $37.356 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo consisting of six new projects with a total project cost of $4.229 million, be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $3.351 million and a commitment for $0.878 million in 2001 as seen in Appendix "B3";

(3) the operating impact that results in increased net revenues of $46 thousand in 2000 and future years as increased Zoomobile revenue is realized be approved;

(4) that Pre-Engineering work for new Toronto Zoo projects become the first phase of these projects in future Capital Program submissions, thus more correctly reflecting the true project cost; and

(5) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo consisting of six Previously Approved projects with a cost of $6.105 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received.

Transition Projects/Y2K

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Transition Projects, with a cash flow totalling $117.103 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of six Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total cost of $28.632 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of four new projects with a cost of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved subject to a review of the business cases for these projects;

(4) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Provincial Offences Transfer Project, with recommendations to include this project in the capital program once the task force has reported to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(5) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee with a summary of the staff exit costs incurred to date and the requirement for the additional funding in 2000;

(6) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 24 Previously Approved projects with a cost of $37.535 million in 2000, $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received;

(7) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Y2K Project with a cash flow totalling $20.5 million in 2000 as outlined in Appendix "A" be approved;

(8) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project consisting of one Previously Approved project with a cost of $8.4 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; and

(9) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project consisting of one Previously Approved with Change of Scope project with a cost of $12.1 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved.

Toronto Parking Authority

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of Toronto Parking Authority, with a cash flow totalling $89.581 million as outlined in Appendix "A" be received;

(2) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of twenty Previously Approved projects with a cost of $35.136 million as recommended in Appendix "B1" be received; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $16.865 million and commitments of $8.921 million in 2001, $2.250 million in 2002 and $7.100 million in 2003;

(3) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of seven Previously Approved with Change of Scope projects with a cost of $8.770 million as recommended in Appendix "B2" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.950 million and a commitment of $.820 million in 2001;

(4) the 2000 Capital Budget for Toronto Parking Authority consisting of seven new projects with a cost of $13.8 million as recommended in Appendix "B3" be approved; these projects require a 2000 cash flow of $7.5 million and commitments totalling $6.3 million in 2001;

(5) that if after five years from the date of approval, an authorization for a project remains unspent and no expenditures are committed against it, then the authorization should be cancelled and the funds returned to the City, unless the Toronto Parking Authority can justify the retention of the project approval beyond the current year as part of the annual capital budget review process; and

(6) the operating impact that results in net revenues of $16 thousand in 2000, $1.905 million in 2001, $2.027 million in 2002, $2.152 million in 2003 and 2004 once the various parking facilities are operational, be approved.

TEDCO

Given that there is no activity, the 2000 Capital Budget for TEDCO represents the carry forward of the 1999 approved Capital Budget. It is, therefore, recommended that:

(1) TEDCO submit its 2000-2004 Capital Works program on a five year project cost and cash flow basis, to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, prior to Capital project activity, either previously approved, or new in nature;

(2) TEDCO's proposed 2000-2004 Capital Works program be reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and relevant Committees of Council, as conducted during the annual Capital Budget process; and

(3) TEDCO review all previously approved projects and any project activity or requests planned for future years, for the purpose of assessing changes in scope or activity, and updating priorities, and that this re-assessment be conducted prior to a Capital Budget submission to the City of Toronto, for its consideration and approval.

Toronto Port Authority

There are no recommendations at this time as the review is currently in progress.

Water and Wastewater Services

It is recommended that given that the Water and Wastewater Program is a Non-Tax Supported operation and its Capital Budget is funded through the water rate which impacts on the Operating Budget and the review is currently in progress:

(1) the 2000 Non-Tax Supported Capital Program for Water and Wastewater with an estimated cost of $293.967 million be received and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2000 Operating Budget process on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program; and

(2) an interim cash flow of $21.704 million be approved for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending the review of the capital requirements and report thereon as part of the Operating Budget process;

(4) (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, reviewing and commenting on the City's capital financing position with respect to whether there are any long-term borrowing obligations that have not yet been financed; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(5) (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing a report on additional sub-projects in the Facilities and Real Estate 2000 Capital Budget that could be deferred or deleted; and providing a comparison to the 1999 Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(6) (January 11, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, responding to a request by the Budget Advisory Committee during the review of the Transportation Services 2000 Capital Works Program at its meeting of December 10, 1999; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(7) (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer: reporting on the status of the transition projects and the Y2K project; and recommending that:

(a) the 2000-2004 Capital Program for the Transition Projects, with a cash flow totalling $117.103 million as outlined in Appendix "A", "B", "C" and "D", be received;

(b) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of six prior year projects with a change in scope with a cost of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total cost of $28.632 million as recommended in Appendix "C", be approved;

(c) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of four new projects with a cost of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million as recommended in Appendix "D", be approved, subject to a review of the business cases for these projects;

(d) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Provincial Offences Transfer Project, with recommendations to include this project in the capital program once the task force has reported to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(e) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Budget Advisory Committee with a summary of the staff exit costs incurred to date and the requirement for the additional funding in 2000;

(f) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project with a funding request for Priority No. (2) and No. (3) projects of $12.2 million be incorporated into the cash flow requirement of $20.5 million in 2000 as recommended in Appendix "G", be approved; and

(g) the 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 24 prior year projects with a cost of $37.535 million in 2000, $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million as recommended in Appendix "B", be received;

(8) (December 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending that:

(a) transition funding, in the amount of $11,300,000.00, be approved in support of automation projects for the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department; and

(b) the total amount of $11,300,000.00, less the $100,000.00 previously approved to be spent on an Information Technology Strategic Plan, be approved with $4,500,000.00 to be spent in 2000, $4,550,000.00 in 2001, and the remainder in 2002;

(9) (December 29, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services, recommending that:

(a) City Council authorize the carry-over of approximately $472,000.00 of which $362,000.00 is contractually committed;

(b) City Council approve funding in the amount of $530,000.00 for 2000, and an additional $395,000.00 for 2001 from transition funding for the preparation of a new Official Plan; and

(c) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;

(10) (January 7, 2000) from the Project Atlas Steering Committee, outlining the current expenditures on the implementation of Project Atlas (the SAP implementation of the Financial and HR/Payroll systems); providing a projected budget to completion; requesting an amendment to the project budget; and recommending that the project budget for the implementation of the SAP Project Atlas be increased by $7 million (gross and net) to offset additional costs expected from higher than projected staff backfills and unanticipated sustainment costs;

(11) (January 13, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, responding to the Budget Advisory Committee's request for on additional information on details of approved and projected change requests as well as general project expenses; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(12) (December 1, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:

(a) the Business Process Integration Project as detailed in Appendix 1 with a cash flow of $1.5 million in 2000 and $.5 million in 2001, be approved;

(b) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to ensure that the operating budget of the Division for the year 2002-2003 and beyond appropriately reflects the annualized savings from this project, estimated at $2.0 million per annum;

(c) interim funding authorization be granted to the extent of $300 thousand to commence the project work in January 2000, pending the final approval of the capital budget; and

(d) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on a six month basis to provide a project progress update;

(13) (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, responding to issues raised by the Budget Advisory Committee on December 10, 1999; and recommending that:

(a) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee at its July 2000 meeting, on the actual costs incurred for external heavy duty diesel emissions testing during the first six months of the year, and to advise City Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of performing such testing:

"1.1. The Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers" be authorized in the amount of $100,000.00 for the acquisition of heavy duty diesel emissions testing equipment contingent upon City Council review of the recommendations contained in the report noted above."; and

(b) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the actual costs incurred for external gasoline and light duty diesel emissions testing to date and to advise City Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of such testing:

"2.1. $700,000.00 of Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Budget request (Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers") be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process subject to City Council review of the report noted above.";

(14) (Undated) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, providing information as to the needs for the year 2000 for staff redeployment and retraining, and recommending that:

(a) the funds remaining from the allocations of 1998 and 1999 be reserved for the purposes of redeployment and retraining in the year 2000; and

(b) $2,000,000.00 be included in the Staff Exits Transition Project in 2001 to provide for additional demands for staff retraining and redeployment;

(15) (January 12, 2000) from the Executive Director of Information and Technology, responding to the Budget Advisory Committee's request made at the December 9, 1999 Capital Budget 'wrap-up' meeting respecting requirements which will be provided and funded from the 1999 and 2000 approved Capital Budget; the Operating Budget implications and related information and technology costs in 2000 and future years; and recommending that:

(a) the Executive Director of Information and Technology provide Public Health with its critical information and technology requirements for 2000 from existing Y2K (Project Management Office) stock and the recommended 2000 Capital Budget, as detailed in this report and consistent with existing corporate standards and practices;

(b) this report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(c) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;

(16) (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing a list of sub-projects costing $50,000.00 or less and those with less than a 10 year lifespan and the implications to program budgets and the budgets of other community organizations; and recommending that:

(a) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer request current financial information from the AOCC Centres to ascertain if there are available reserve funds which could be applied to the capital maintenance of their buildings or premises and request such participation, if available; and

(b) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to review the agreements in place governing the use of City buildings by community agencies to ascertain possible participation in the funding of capital projects;

(17) (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, recommending that the $3.3 million gross balance be designated in 2001 commitments for the following reasons:

(a) with respect to the recent federal announcements on its multi-year $753 million homelessness initiative, the implications for the City of Toronto are not yet known;

(b) the Province has not yet indicated how it will respond to the federal announcements; and

(c) cost-sharing may be required from the City of Toronto in some components of the federal initiative;

(18) (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing the following amendment to Section III Program Recommendations to include the following recommendation by the Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting of November 16, 1999, which was inadvertently omitted:

"In the event the Library Board recommend the disposal or sale of library properties during the Capital Budget deliberations, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer assure the Committee that the monies received be reinvested in the Library Program.";

(19) (December 8, 1999) from the City Auditor, recommending that:

(a) the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division, prepare a report as soon as possible, outlining in detail the business case, including a range of viable options, for one project selected by Budget Advisory Committee in consultation with the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division;

(b) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer engage an appropriate third party to, jointly with the City Auditor, perform a review of the report requested in Recommendation No. (1) above identifying any significant deficiencies or weaknesses in that report;

(3) the third party report be forwarded to Budget Advisory Committee; and

(4) the City Auditor be requested to include in his 2000 workplan and future workplan as appropriate, an ongoing review of the project management controls and procedures in place for the following Information and Technology capital projects:

(a) Data Retention Implementation - Phase 1;

(b) It Network Upgrade;

(c) IT Telecommunication Upgrade; and

(d) Electronic Service Delivery;

(20) (December 17, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, responding to an inquiry as to whether Information and Technology Division could further reduce its proposed 2000 Capital Budget expenditures by an additional $250,000.00;

(21) (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing additional information, as requested by the Budget Advisory Committee at its January 12, 2000 meeting, regarding the above facility; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(22) (January 13, 2000) from Trustee Mary Cicogna, Toronto Catholic District School Board, in support of the joint development of a soccer stadium at Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School;

(23) (May 6 1999) from the North York Soccer Association, Toronto, Ontario, providing a list of priority items needed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(24) (January 13, 2000) from the Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, providing the Budget Advisory Committee with clarifications and additional information for consideration in the determination of the security systems related needs for certain City civic centres; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(25) (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, requesting the Budget Advisory Committee to consider allocating funds of $80,000.00 to the Dundas West Area for façade improvements;

(26) (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, requesting the Budget Advisory Committee to provide funding to ensure that a pedestrian cycling path on the east side of the Humber is included in the bridge reconstruction program;

(27) (December 17, 1999) from Councillor Michael Feldman, North York Spadina, requesting Members of the Committee to re-open the Lawrence Heights Water Park and to make funds available in the 2000-2004 Capital Budget;

(28) (December 7, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing the status of call volumes handled by the Call Centre of the Revenue Services Division, Finance Department; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(29) (December 8, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing the status of tax and assessment appeals processed; advising that casual staff will continue to be required until April 30, 2000; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(30) (December 3, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that the funding for the upgrade and replacement of the security systems at various City buildings, estimated at $800 thousand, be approved;

(31) (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that the Budget Advisory Committee consider the additional information related to the Chinese Cultural Centre in its decision concerning the FY2000 to FY2004 Parks and Recreation Capital Program;

(32) (January 4, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, providing the Budget Advisory Committee with clarifications and information requested at its meeting of December 10, 1999, in relation to the years 2000-2004 Capital Works Program of the Facilities and Real Estate Division of the Corporate Services Department; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(33) (January 7, 2000) from Mr. Alex Vander Veen, Member, Board of Management, Central Eglinton Community Centre, requesting the Budget Advisory Committee to re-consider the Central Eglinton Community Centre's 2000 Capital Budget for its newly leased space on the second floor at 160 Eglinton Avenue East;

(34) (January 6, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services, recommending that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services continue to work on and meet with relevant departments including Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Culture Division and the Parks and Recreation Division), to formulate strategies and procedures that will ensure that a new City Public Art Program is effectively implemented and co-ordinated on a City-wide basis;

(35) (January 6, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending that:

(a) the Budget Advisory Committee be requested to recommend the approval of interim spending authority in the amount of $21,704,000.00 for the projects identified in Appendix "A", prior to the approval of the Water and Wastewater Service Division's 2000-2004 Capital Works Program; and

(b) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(36) (January 10, 2000) from Councillor Bruce Sinclair, Rexdale Thistletown, requesting consideration of reinstatement of $400,000.00 in the Parks and Recreation Budget for the year 2000 for Rexdale Park Redevelopment (Project No. 80);

(37) (December 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, recommending that:

(a) the Mayor's Office be requested to approach the Federal and Provincial governments for capital funding for an inter-modal transportation hub at Union Station;

(b) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission initiate a dialogue with GO Transit officials to more accurately assess the impact on the Subway Station resulting from GO Transit's proposed expansion plans and to justify and request a financial contribution to upgrading the Subway Station; and

(c) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(38) (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, responding to request on the savings to be made by "mothballing" the Sheppard Subway, until such time as the Province agrees to co-fund the Toronto Transit Commission; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(39) (December 15, 1999) addressed to Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto and Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, regarding the sale of the westerly portion of 110 Wildwood Crescent to cover the cost of parkland improvement to the east of this site; and

(40) (January 11, 2000) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore - Queensway, advising that the Mimico Tennis Club would be pleased to contribute $4,000.00 per year for ten years toward the rebuilding of the facility and is slated to be completed in the year 2001 at a cost of $150,000.00; and requesting that the project be moved forward to this fiscal year knowing that the Club will contribute their portion over the next ten years.

(Report dated January 12, 2000, from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "City of Toronto 2000-2004 Recommended

Capital Program - Expenditures".)

Purpose:

This report presents a 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the City of Toronto and recommends projects and cash flow for 2000 approval. The report also provides an overview of the capital budget process and summarizes the various issues and challenges currently faced by the City. Finance has endeavoured to reflect all of the amendments and recommendations of the Budget Advisory Committee during the capital budget process up to and including the wrap-up meeting of December 9 and 10, 1999.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of the 2000 recommended Tax Supported Capital Program will require the following total cash flows and future year commitments; $983.925 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000; $404.928 million in 2001; $189.662 million in 2002; $113.631 million in 2003 and $96.406 million in 2004, for a total cost of $1.788 billion.

The total project costs of $1.788 billion consist of previously approved and new projects, as follows:

For new projects, cash flow requirements are; $359.567 million in 2000; $91.021 million in 2001; $49.938 million in 2002; $26.537 million in 2003 and $21.828 million in 2004, for a total cost of $548.891 million.

For previously approved projects with change in scope, cash flow requirements are; $143.525 million in 2000; $81.320 million in 2001; $70.687 million in 2002; $62.883 million in 2003 and $62.597 million in 2004, for a total project cost of $421.012 million.

For previously approved projects, cash flow requirements are; $480.833 million in 2000; $232.587 million in 2001; $69.037 million in 2002; $24.211 million in 2003 and $11.981 million in 2004, for a total project cost of $818.649 million.

The 2000 recommended Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program has the following estimated cash flows; $342.587 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000; $318.718 million in 2001; $295.306 million in 2002; $282.246 million in 2003 and $256.495 million in 2004, for a total cost of $1.495 billion. The Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program is entirely financed from the water rate and other sources.

The Tax Supported Capital Program has estimated cumulative net operating budget cost of $2.1 million in 2000; $1.3 million by 2001; ($0.1) million by 2002; $1.3 million by 2003 and $2.9 million by 2004. Staffing (FTE) impacts in the operating budget are 16 new in 2000; (28) by 2001; (270) by 2002; (390) by 2003 and (528) by 2004. This excludes the operating budget impacts relating to transition projects, which have already been incorporated into the operating budget.

Recommendations:

Corporate Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The 2000 - 2004 Tax Supported Capital Program for the City, with a cash flow totalling $4.056 billion as outlined in Appendix A1-2 be received;

(2) The 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for new projects with a total cost of $548.891 million as recommended in Appendix A2-1 be approved. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $359.567 million and future year commitments totalling $91.021 million in 2001; $49.938 million in 2002; $26.537 million in 2003 and $21.828 million in 2004;

(3) The 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with change in scope with a total cost of $421.012 million as recommended in Appendix A-3 be approved. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $143.525 million and future year commitments totalling $81.320 million in 2001; $70.687 million in 2002; $62.883 million in 2003 and $62.597 million in 2004;

(4) The operating budget impact, identified in Appendix E, that results in cumulative net expenditure impact of $2.1 million in 2000; $1.3 million by 2001; ($0.1) million by 2002; $1.3 million by 2003 and $2.9 million by 2004 be reviewed in conjunction with the 2000 operating budget submission within the respective program areas;

(5) The Commissioner Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report in February 2000 to the Budget Advisory Committee on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program;

(6) An interim cash flow of $21.704 million be approved for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending a review of the capital requirements for the Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program;

(7) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Commissioner, Corporate Services report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the 2000 Capital Program for the City's fleet requirements in February, 2000;

(8) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back in February, 2000 on the status of previously approved capital projects and provide recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee on completed projects to be closed;

(9) All capital projects which have been deferred and / or included as part of the future years capital program (2001 - 2004) be considered placeholders and subject to full review during the 2001 - 2005 capital budget review process, unless a project and its future year commitments have been recommended for approval in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program; and

(10) The 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program for previously approved projects with a total cost of $818.649 million and a cash flow of $480.833 million in 2000 and future year commitments of $232.587 in 2001; $69.037 million in 2002; $24.211 in 2003 and $11.981 million as outlined in Appendix A4-1 be received.

Program Recommendations:

Refer to Section III of the Capital Budget document for the Program Area Recommendations.

Background:

Upon the conclusion of the 1999 - 2003 Capital budget cycle, Council effectively approved a 1-year capital program, with associated cash flows. All prior year approved projects were re-visited, primarily to determine their active status and incorporate cash flow requirements carried forward. Current year (1999) projects received spending approval for up to a maximum of two years. Future year projects, commencing in 2000 and beyond, were received for information. Feasibility studies and needs assessment initiatives were not complete to support a defensible future year capital program. Prioritization of these projects was also not possible. In essence the future year component of last year's capital program reflected a preliminary outlook of a 5-year capital program.

On July 20, 1999, the Policy and Finance Committee adopted a process, timetable and guidelines for the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program and 10-Year Capital Plan.

The Capital Budget Vision 2001 - 2005:

The capital planning process proposed a strategic approach to ensure Council's capital program priorities are balanced with the City's ability to finance capital infrastructure over the long-term. The goal is to develop a mature capital budget consisting of a fully-justified 5-year capital program, with enhanced role and priority-setting responsibilities for the Standing Committees.

A mature capital budget implies that all projects within the 5-year program will be approved to proceed. If projects outside of the 5-year program need to be accelerated or new projects added, trade-offs (i.e. deferrals, deletions or phasing of projects within the 5-year program) would be required to maintain the capital program within the original funding envelope. As a mature 5-year capital program becomes a reality, the future budget cycles would roll forward year 6 of the capital plan into year 5, with the first four years already adopted. Project approvals would also include approval of all operating costs associated with the project, including transfers to reserve funds for future capital replacements.

A mature capital budget involves approval of a 5-year capital program based on feasibility studies and justifications for each new project. In the long-term, a mature capital budget will be developed that incorporates an evaluation tool that prioritizes projects across programs. However, this can only occur once a standardised evaluation tool is developed and accepted at the program level. As more rigor is added to the capital planning cycle and the respective Standing Committees conduct comprehensive reviews of the various standards, policies and related studies that have been or will be developed by the program areas as a basis of their capital program, Council will have moved from receiving a "soft" 5-year capital program into approving a "solid" 5-year capital program.

The capital program will become integrated with multi-year business planning and linked to Council's strategic priorities. A 10-year planning horizon will provide an enhanced decision-making tool to highlight long-term issues and accommodate the long-term growth related capital projects related to the new Development Charges By-law. The capital program will be re-evaluated in every budget cycle and integrated with the multi-year business plans in each program area, which are in turn linked to Council's Strategic Plan. In the long-term, a mature capital budget will be developed that incorporates an evaluation tool that prioritizes projects across programs.

2000 - 2004 Capital Budget Process and Guidelines:

In August 1999, the process, timetable and guidelines for the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program and 10-Year Capital Plan, as adopted by Council, were provided to the program areas.

Capital program targets were not issued with the capital budget guidelines. This allowed program areas to first specify their requirements without imposing financial constraints up-front. The objective for future capital budget cycles is to set capital envelopes based on affordability levels and then have the Standing Committees review priorities and policies before the capital program submission is developed.

Program areas were provided with an optional ranking tool to assist in prioritizing capital projects within their respective program areas. The system involves the evaluation of a capital project by assigning a point rating to several pre-defined criteria (i.e. capital project category, service level standards, link to Council's strategic plan etc.).

A new capital data management system was developed and provided the program areas a streamlined system to develop their detailed business cases. The new system effectively reduced paper flow and provided improved systems support to eliminate duplicate systems and increase efficiency. Councillors and their staff were also provided training and access to the system to improve turnaround time for information throughout the capital budget process. Presently, there are approximately 3 ,800 business cases input by program staff on the system, representing a 10-year planning horizon for the City's capital program.

Capital Program Request

The five-year capital program request (tax supported) for Departments, Agencies and Boards totalled $4.9 billion in gross expenditures and cash flow requirements. The TTC five-year capital program request totalled $2.1 billion in gross expenditures, representing 42 percent of the total program. The balance of $2.8 billion or 58 percent relates to other City Programs, Agencies and Boards.

The 2000 component of the five-year capital program request (tax supported) totalled $1.1 billion in gross expenditures, with $0.6 billion or 52 percent relating to previously approved projects and $0.5 billion or 48 percent relating to new projects. The majority of the new projects requested ($0.4 billion) are categorized as "State of Good Repair" and "Legislated / City Policy".

The five-year capital program request (non-tax supported) for Departments, Agencies and Boards totalled $1.3 billion in gross expenditures and cash flow requirements. Of this total, $1.1 billion relates to the Water and Wastewater programs, with the balance pertaining to capital requirements for the Toronto Parking Authority, TEDCO and the Toronto Port Authority. The non-tax supported capital program is fully funded from reserves.

The 2000 component of the five-year capital program request (non-tax supported) totalled $342.587 million in gross expenditures, with $293.967 million relating to the Water and Wastewater programs. The Water and Wastewater capital program will be considered with the 2000 Operating Budget in order that financing options may be fully considered. An interim capital cash flow of $21.704 million is recommended, pending this review.

Administrative Review Process:

During October and November, 1999, the capital program submissions were reviewed by Budget Services staff in conjunction with the program area. The recommendations from this review were subsequently considered by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer. Review meetings were also conducted with staff from specific program areas (e.g.: TTC, Transportation, Police etc.) to discuss major program issues.

The program submissions for the 2000 Tax Supported Capital Program totalled $1.166 billion in gross expenditures and $980.3 million in net expenditures. Of the total program request, $682 million or 59 percent represented a combination of backlog and on-going State of Good Repair requirements. Of the total State of Good Repair program requested, $274 million or 40 percent related to previously approved projects and $408 million or 60 percent was identified for new projects. The backlog related to the State of Good Repair program had developed largely as a result of capital project deferrals in previous years.

The base level expenditures for the tax supported program submission totalled $918 million, requiring $430 million in borrowing, an increase of $320 million over the stable borrowing level of $110 million. It was determined that this level of borrowing was not sustainable over the long-term and that a strategy needed to be developed to address this pressure.

The 2000 - 2004 recommended capital program was developed in accordance with the following principles and guidelines:

(1) Priorities were balanced with the corporate affordability target. A borrowing level of $170 million provided an envelope for the Tax Supported Base Program of $678 million in gross expenditures. Of the $678 million available base envelope, $333 million was provided for previously approved projects, leaving $345 million for new projects.

(2) Projects categorized as "State of Good Repair" (including "Legislated / City Policy" projects) were given high priority. These projects address core infrastructure requirements and are basically fixed over the 5-year plan. Corporately, $266 million or 80 percent of the $345 million available envelope for new projects was allocated to State of Good Repair initiatives. The backlog related to these infrastructure projects is generally to be amortized over 5 years. A strategic assessment of the city's facilities will be completed next year.

(3) Corporate priorities also recognized the need for strategic investments in service improvement / expansion projects. These projects provide for enhancements to the physical and social infrastructure arising from growth-related issues. Corporately, $79 million or 20 percent of the $345 million available envelope for new projects was allocated to the service improvement / expansion category.

(4) Capital project harmonization and service levelling issues related to maintenance and facilities have been considered. Capital project harmonization related to service standards and development related issues have been amortized over 10 years.

(5) The capital program is categorized into previously approved, previously approved with change in scope and new projects. Program areas analyzed the status of previously approved projects to determine which projects can be closed and which projects need carry-forward funding in 2000 to provide for completion of the project. Previously approved projects have been reviewed to ensure they are within budget and consistent with the scope approved by Council. These projects were not subject to review unless project costs or scope changed significantly.

(6) For the 2000 - 2004 capital program, projects will receive total project cost approval and full cash flow approval, based on future year commitments resulting from the approval of the 2000 capital program. Cash flow projections will be used to determine long-term financing requirements and develop a comprehensive debt management policy.

The Chief Administrative Officer, in conjunction with the Senior Management Team, reviewed program priorities and set a corporate envelope of $678 million for the base capital program. At this expenditure level, $170 million of borrowing would be required, an increase of $60 million over the stable borrowing level of $110 million. With $333 million already committed for previously approved projects, $345 million was available to provide for new projects. The State of Good Repair program was determined to be a higher priority set of infrastructure projects and therefore 80 percent or $266 million of the available envelope of $345 million was allocated to State of Good Repair initiatives. The balance of $79 million or 20 percent was allocated to strategic investments in growth and service expansion projects.

As a result of the administrative review, a 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program, totalling $678.877 million in gross expenditures and $553.843 million in net expenditures for the city's base program was submitted to the Budget Advisory Committee at the preliminary review meetings held on November 15, 16, and 17, 1999. Subsequent to the Budget Advisory Committee review, carry-forward and technical adjustments of $30.59 million gross and $27.35 million net were added to the CAO's Recommended Capital Program. This revised the CAO's Recommended Capital Program to $709.467 million in gross expenditures and $581.198 million in net expenditures. The adjustments relate to capital underspending for previously approved projects that require cash flow in 2000. Corporately, there is no net impact from these adjustments since the corporate provision for capital underspending is increased by the amount of the carry-forward for previously approved projects.

Political Review Process:

An overview presentation of the 2000 - 2004 capital program was provided to a joint meeting of the Policy and Finance and Budget Advisory Committees on November 15, 1999 by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Budget Advisory Committee, at its preliminary review meetings held on November 15, 16, and 17, 1999, identified potential increases to capital requirements of $23.1 million in gross expenditures and $17.3 million in net expenditures for the tax supported base program.

The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommended capital program and a package of supplementary information by Community Councils was then forwarded to the respective Standing Committees and Community Councils for consideration during the political review meetings held from November 29 to December 6, 1999.

The Budget Advisory Committee conducted a final review and wrap-up of the capital program on December 9 - 10, 1999. Budget Advisory Committee conducted a comprehensive review of each program area and considered financial issues and other recommendations raised at the Standing Committee and Community Council reviews. Appendix F provides a summary of the issues referred to Budget Advisory Committee and the financial impact of the recommendations.

For the tax supported base program, Budget Advisory Committee recommended $677.6 million in gross expenditures, a reduction of $1.86 million from the $678.9 million CAO recommended budget. On net expenditures for the tax supported base program, Budget Advisory Committee recommended $548.2 million, a reduction of $5.54 million from the CAO recommended budget of $553.8 million. Carry-forward and technical adjustments of $30.59 million gross and $27.355 million net, result in a revised tax supported base program of $707.566 million in gross expenditures and $575.65 million in net expenditures.

Included in Budget Advisory Committee's recommended capital program is a transfer of all projects less than $50,000 into the operating budget, with the total reduction in gross expenditures of $4.5 million. This was fully offset by a corresponding transfer of capital from current funding.

The final wrap-up notes for each program area, included in Section IV of the Capital Budget document, provides a summary of the Budget Advisory Committee's financial adjustments to the CAO's recommended budget, highlights the disposition of other recommendations and outlines all other recommendations considered but not recommended for 2000.

Budget Advisory Committee 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program:

The five-year Tax Supported Capital Program for the City totals $4.056 billion as outlined in Appendix A1-2. The estimated gross expenditures are $983.925 million in 2000; $876.221 million in 2001; $739.747 million in 2002; $761.323 million in 2003 and $695.59 million in 2004. The future year estimates include ongoing / phased and deferred projects which must be re-visited in future budget cycles.

Capital projects which have been deferred and / or included as part of the future years capital program (2001 - 2005) are considered placeholders and will be subject to full review during the 2001 - 2005 capital budget review process, unless a project and its future year commitments have been recommended for approval in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program. Pending the development of a mature capital budget consisting of a fully-justified 5-year capital program, it is recommended that the five-year capital program as summarized in Appendix A be received.

The Budget Advisory Committee's 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program represents tax supported projects with a total cost of $1.788 billion as outlined in Appendix D. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $983.925 million and future year commitments totalling $404.928 million in 2001; $189.662 million in 2002; $113.631 million in 2003 and $96.406 million in 2004.

New projects included in the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program have a total cost of $548.891 million as outlined in Appendix A2-1. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $359.567 million and future year commitments totalling $91.021 million in 2001; $49.938 million in 2002; $26.537 million in 2003 and $21.828 million in 2004.

Previously approved projects with change in scope included in the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program have a total cost of $421.012 million as outlined in Appendix A3. These projects require a 2000 cash flow of $143.525 million and future year commitments totalling $81.320 million in 2001; $70.687 million in 2002; $62.883 million in 2003 and $62.597 million in 2004.

Previously approved projects included in the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program have a total cost of $818.649 million as outlined in Appendix A4-1. The cash flow reflects the 2000 instalment required for the completion of these projects. It is recommended that these projects be received.

Budget Advisory Committee 2000 Recommended Capital Program:

The following chart highlights the total 2000 Recommended Capital Program of $1.3 billion, with $984 million or 74 percent related to Tax Supported Programs and $343 million or 26 percent related to Non-Tax Supported and Other Programs:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1.3billioncashflow

The 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Programs have a total cost of $1.495 million as highlighted in Appendix A1-3. These projects have an estimated 2000 cash flow of $342.587 million. An interim 2000 cash flow of $21.704 million is recommended for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending a review of the capital requirements for the Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program in conjunction with the 2000 Operating Budget process.

The following chart highlights the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program by prior approved and new programs:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

$984cashflow

The 2000 recommended tax supported capital program of $984 million provides for $707 million or 72 percent for the Base Program and $276 million or 28 percent for extraordinary projects. Of the $707 million for the Base Program, $359 million or 36 percent reflects expenditures for new programs and $625 million or 64 percent relates to previously approved projects.

The prior approved extraordinary projects, with a total cost of $276 million, consist of $186 million for the Sheppard Subway, $70 million for Transition Projects and $20.0 million for the Y2K Project.

The 2000 cash flow component for all active 1999 and previously approved projects have been included in the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will report back in February, 2000 on the status of previously approved capital projects and provide recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee on completed projects to be closed.

The following chart illustrates the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program of $984 million by base programs and extraordinary programs:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

taxsupported$984

As indicated, $507 million or 72 percent of the Base Program of $708 million relates to three major program areas; TTC, Transportation and Parks and Recreation.

The following chart illustrates the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program of $984 million by major program area:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

capprog tax supported prog$984 cashflow

As indicated, the TTC dominates the capital program, accounting for $456 million or 46 percent of the total tax supported program. All other city departments, agencies, boards and commissions combined represent $528 million or 54 percent of the total.

Historical and Projected Trends:

The following chart provides a snapshot of the Capital Program trends from 1992 to 2004 split between the City Base Program, TTC Base Program and Extraordinary projects:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

hist&projected 1

The historical stable borrowing level of $110 million equates to a gross expenditure of $613 million. Expenditures over this level puts additional debt requirements on the City. The 2000 Recommended Capital Program has a base program of $707 million for the TTC and City combined. Much of this additional pressure arises from the need to address State of Good Repair issues.

The following chart highlights the Capital Program trends from 1992 to 2004 split between the TTC Base Program and TTC Vehicles:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

hist&projected 2

The historical spending average for the TTC prior to 1999 was $240 million. For the period from 1999 - 2003 the average was forecasted to be $239 million and included the Council approved accelerated subway car purchase of $46 million. The 2000 - 2004 capital program request averaged $348 million and included a request to accelerate a second subway car purchase of $94 million. This was determined to be unaffordable. The recommended program for the TTC holds the capital program at the previously approved envelopes. New requests will be considered in 2004.

The following chart highlights the Capital Program trends from 1992 to 2004 for the City's Base Program, excluding the TTC and extraordinary projects:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

historical&projected - 3

The 2001- 2004 average expenditure level of $499 million is 50 percent higher than the historical average of $318 million over the past 10 years. The future year estimates are indicative of the requests from the various program areas, which include a significant amount of service expansion projects. As the City moves towards a mature capital program, the future year projects will be fully-justified within the five-year timeframe, as Standing Committees conduct comprehensive reviews and set priorities.

Capital Program Priorities:

To provide criteria for assessing capital program priorities, in July 1999, Council approved the following 4 capital project categories;

(1) State of Good Repair - This category reflects capital projects required for maintenance, repair and replacement of existing assets, including replacement to meet health and safety issues or to extend the useful life of the asset by 10 years or more. (e.g.: TTC surface track replacement program).

(2) Legislated / City Policy - This category, a higher level of "State of Good Repair", defines projects which are required to meet Provincial or Federal legislation or to comply with City policy (e.g.: Environmental Initiatives).

(3) Growth / Expansion - This category provides for projects that support growth and development across the City, with associated development charge revenues. (eg: a new day-care facility required as a result of population growth).

(4) Service Improvement - These projects provide for improvements in service delivery above the current Council approved standard or provides for the introduction of new services (eg: urban streetscape / beautification projects).

Projects defined by Categories 1 and 2 are combined into a State of Good Repair classification and projects defined by Categories 3 and 4 are combined into Service Expansion / Improvement classification.

The following chart illustrates the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program of $984 million for both new and previously approved projects by each category:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

'00 rectax supported cap bud

State of Good Repair for prior approved projects and new projects total $541 million or 55 percent of the total tax supported program. The backlog relating to these projects is generally being amortized over 5 years.

The following chart illustrates the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program of $359 million for new projects, allocated by category:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

new projects by category

Priority has been placed the State of Good Repair and Legislated/City Policy categories. These categories combined account for $270 million or 75 percent of the total allocated to new projects. Corporate priorities also recognized the need for strategic investments in service improvements and expansion projects, as indicated by the allocation of $89 million or 25 percent to the Service Improvement and Growth-Related categories for new projects. Appendix C highlights the 2000 Recommended Capital Program for each category, split between previously approved and new projects.

The following chart illustrates the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program for the State of Good Repair component:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

state of good repair

The City has a tremendous inventory of community centres, libraries, fire halls, police stations, arenas and other facilities that require annual maintenance. The insured replacement value of these facilities is estimated at $22 billion. A standard benchmark based on 2.5 percent or $550 million of this insured value provides an estimate of annual state of good repair or maintenance capital expenditures necessary to sustain the city's facilities. A comprehensive strategic assessment of the city's facilities is underway and will be completed next year.

In summary, the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program strategically addresses State of Good Repair issues. The goal is to identify a level spending envelope to ensure future infrastructure and facility maintenance requirements do not cause fluctuations in the capital program. There is a need to address the backlog of maintenance projects and achieve a sustainable level for State of Good Repair expenditures. The longer it takes to clear the backlog, the higher the sustainable level. The long-term objective is to finance State of Good Repair projects through Capital from Current funding, reflecting a pay-as-you-go policy, with these projects completed within a one year timeframe.

Project Highlights:

The following are some of the significant projects included in the 2000 Recommended Capital Program:

(1) rehabilitation and upgrades to various recreation and community centres, arenas, playgrounds and pools;

(2) various parkland development projects;

(3) new funding required for St. Jamestown Recreation Centre Development;

(4) funding to complete the following previously approved projects:

(i) Lord Dufferin Pool replacement;

(ii) McCormick Community Centre renovation;

(iii) Main Square Recreation Centre and Pool;

(iv) Pinepoint Outdoor Pool reconstruction;

(v) New Maryvale/Wexford Community Centre; and

(vi) New Heron Park Community Centre.

(5) Lakeshore Assembly Hall cultural infrastructure development;

(6) rehabilitation and expansion of various library facilities;

(7) various local, major road and sidewalk reconstruction and resurfacing projects;

(8) Gardiner Expressway dismantling from DVP to Leslie Street;

(9) major expressway rehabilitation - Humber bridges;

(10) Fort York boulevard construction project;

(11) various waterfront development and erosion control projects;

(12) various streetscape improvement projects across the city;

(13) new Ambulance station construction - Morningside and Sheppard;

(14) uppgrades to communications switching equipment for the ambulance service;

(15) construction of new fire stations in Scarborough;

(16) commencement of the Guild re-vitalization project;

(17) construction of a child care facility in North York;

(18) renovations to Cummer Lodge;

(19) Black Creek Pioneer Village retrofit and development project;

(20) major structural repairs to Casa Loma;

(21) Fort York restoration project;

(22) rehabilitation and improvements to Nathan Philips Square; and

(23) major renovations to Seaton House.

Harmonization Issues:

The City continues to address the harmonization and service levelling issues in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program. Across the seven former municipalities, there were differing standards for (i) service levels and (ii) maintenance or State of Good Repair.

The harmonization of service levels involves an assessment of the number and quality of facilities across the city. This assessment will identify needs based facility improvements and additions. Although the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program allows for strategic investments in service improvement and expansion projects, it is expected that service leveling and harmonization will be amortized over a 10 year timeframe.

Future Year Impact of 2000 Recommended Capital Program:

As highlighted in Appendix E, approval of the 2000 Recommended Capital Program impacts both the future year's capital and operating budgets.

The following chart highlights the future year capital commitments resulting from the approval of the 2000 cash flow component of the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

future yr commitments

Approval of the $984 million for the 2000 Recommended Capital Program entails future year commitments of $405 million in 2001; $190 million in 2002; $114 million in 2003 and $96 million in 2004, for a total cost of $1.78 billion. This represents cash flows on multi-year projects that require financial commitments over the next 3 - 4 years. Assuming the City maintains the base program at the $678 million affordability level, there is limited room available to add new projects in the future year capital program.

The capital budget impacts the operating budget in four areas:

(i) Increased operating costs related to new or expanded facilities;

(ii) Efficiency savings from investments that reduce operating costs;

(iii) Direct contributions to the capital program to reduce annual borrowing requirements (ie: "Capital from Current") and;

(iv) Principal and interest payments on debt issued for the capital program

The following chart highlights the future year operating budget costs excluding debt costs resulting from the approval of the 2000 cash flow component of the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

impact of rec 2000 cap bud op bud

As indicated, cumulative net additional expenditures of $2.9 million excluding debt costs and a reduction of 528 full-time equivalent positions are forecast in the operating budget by 2004. Projects in the TTC and Police Service programs are expected to generate efficiency savings, while Parks and Recreation projects will add operating costs as a result of new facilities coming on stream. The following is a summary of the projected operating budget impact of the capital program for the major program areas(excluding debt costs):

Program 2000 2001 2004

$M FTE's $M FTE's $M $FTE's

TTC (2.7) 12 (6.1) 34 (9.7) 64

Police 0.19 0 (1.6) (70) (12.9) (636)

Parks and Recreation 0.28 4 1.4 8 8.7 46

Information Technology 2.5 0 5.0 0 11.3 0

Other Programs (net) 1.8 0 2.6 0 5.6 (2)

Total Net Exp. Impact 2.1 16 1.3 (28) 2.9 (528)

The net savings of $12.9 million by 2004 in the Toronto Police Service five-year capital program relates to the MDT Replacement and Occurrence Re-Engineering projects.

The net savings of $9.7 million by 2004 in the TTC's five-year capital program relates primarily to the following projects; Comstock Bus Garage, Tunnel Leak Remediation, Transit Priorities, Bus Purchases and equipment replacement.

The $8.7 million increase in the Parks and Recreation five-year capital program is driven mainly by new community centres, pools and park development.

The operating budget impact for the Tax Supported Base Program, identified in Appendix E, results in increased operating costs of $2.1 M (16 FTE's) in 2000 and $1.3 M (reduction of 28 FTE's) in 2001; and cumulative net expenditure impact of $2.953 million and a reduction of 528 full-time equivalent positions by 2004 will be reviewed in conjunction with the 2000 operating budget submission within the respective program areas. The operating budget impacts are discussed in more detail in the individual program area reports. Operating budget savings of $35.0 million related to the transition projects have already been incorporated into the operating budget.

Capital Budget Financing:

Appendix B summarizes the 2000 Recommended Capital Program by financing source. For the Tax Supported Program, gross expenditures of $984 million are financed by $9.675 million Provincial Subsidy, $8.744 million from Development Charges, $90.410 million from TTC Reserve Funds and program revenues, and $100.945 million from Reserve Funds. Net debt requirements, after corporate revenues and capital underspending, total $634.501 million.

Capital Budget Policy Development:

Prior to the start of the 2001 Capital Budget cycle, several capital budget policies will be developed. A capital policy project team has been established, with the objective of developing capital budget policies in the following areas:

(1) Definition of Capital Projects: For the 2000 capital budget, Council originally approved a minimum level of $250,000 at the project level as one criterion for defining a capital project. Individual sub-projects could be grouped to meet the $250,000 threshold level. During the 2000 Capital Budget reviews, Budget Advisory Committee has recommended that this criterion be revised to $100,000 at the sub-project level for the 2001 capital budget cycle.

(2) Activity Based Costing: For the 2001, capital budget cycle, program areas will be asked to identify the staff involved in capital projects and the budget amounts. This will assist in developing a consistent accounting treatment.

(3) Land Acquisition Costs: Presently, land acquisition costs associated with specific capital projects are not reflected in the capital program. While this practice protects the City from market factors related to potential property acquisitions for key projects, it has the impact of understating capital requirements. For the 2001 capital budget cycle, a policy will be developed to incorporate the anticipated land acquisition component assumed within the 5-year capital program while maintaining confidentiality.

(4) Fleet Capital Program: Fleet capital requirements for the City's 2000 vehicle and equipment replacement program are being developed by Fleet Management in conjunction with Finance staff. For the 2001 capital budget cycle, the fleet program will be fully integrated into the capital budget process. The 2000 Capital Program for the City's fleet requirements and proposed policies will be presented to the Budget Advisory Committee in February 2000.

Conclusions:

The 2000 - 2004 Total Capital Program, highlighted in Appendix A, totals $5.55 billion in gross capital expenditures, with a 2000 estimated cash flow of $1.3 billion.

Approval of the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program will require the following total cash flows and future year commitments; $983.925 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000; $404.928 million in 2001; $189.662 million in 2002; $113.631 million in 2003 and $96.406 million in 2004, for a total cost of $1.788 billion, as outlined in Appendix D.

The 2000 Non-Tax Supported and Other Capital Program has the following estimated cash flows; $342.587 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000; $318.718 million in 2001; $295.306 million in 2002; $282.246 million in 2003 and $256.495 million in 2004, for a total cost of $1.495 billion, as outlined in Appendix A1-3. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will report back to the Budget Advisory Committee in February 2000 on the capital requirements for the Water and Wastewater program. An interim 2000 cash flow of $21.704 million is recommended for approval for the Water and Wastewater Capital Program pending this review.

The Tax Supported Capital Program has estimated cumulative net operating budget impact of $2.1 million in 2000; $1.3 million by 2001; ($0.1) million by 2002; $1.3 million by 2003 and $2.9 million by 2004 and will be reviewed in conjunction with the 2000 operating budget submission within the respective program areas.

Priorities were balanced with the corporate affordability target. A borrowing level of $170 million provides an envelope for the Tax Supported Base Program of $707 million in gross expenditures. Of the $707 million available base envelope, $333 million is provided for previously approved projects, leaving $345 million for new projects.

Projects categorized as "State of Good Repair" (including "Legislated / City Policy" projects) were given high priority. These projects address core infrastructure requirements and are basically fixed over the 5-year plan. Corporately, $282 million or 82 percent of the $345 million available envelope for new projects is allocated to State of Good Repair initiatives. The backlog

related to these infrastructure projects is amortized over 5 years. A strategic assessment of the city's facilities will be completed next year.

In summary, the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program strategically addresses State of Good Repair issues. The goal is to identify a level spending envelope to ensure future infrastructure and facility maintenance requirements do not cause fluctuations in the capital program. There is a need to address the backlog of maintenance projects and achieve a sustainable level for State of Good Repair expenditures. The longer it takes to clear the backlog, the higher the sustainable level. The long-term objective is to finance State of Good Repair projects through Capital from Current funding, reflecting a pay-as-you-go policy, with these projects completed within a one year timeframe.

The City continues to address the harmonization and service levelling issues in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program. Across the seven former municipalities, there were differing standards for (i) service levels and (ii) maintenance or State of Good Repair.

The harmonization of service levels involves an assessment of the number and quality of facilities across the city. This assessment will identify needs based facility improvements and additions. Although the 2000 - 2004 Recommended Capital Program allows for strategic investments in service improvement and expansion projects, it is expected that service levelling and harmonization will be amortized over a 10-year timeframe.

Fleet capital requirements for the City's 2000 vehicle and equipment replacement program are being developed by Fleet Management in conjunction with Finance staff. For the 2001 capital budget cycle, the fleet program will be fully integrated into the capital budget process. The 2000 Capital Program for the City's fleet requirements and proposed policies will be presented to the Budget Advisory Committee in February 2000.

Contact:

Glenn Vollebregt, Director, Budget Services Division, 392-8095

John Di Lallo, Manager, Budget Services Division, 397-4207

Wanda Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 392-8773

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA1-1

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Summary of Gross Expenditures A1-2

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA1-3

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA2-1

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA2-2

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA3-1

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA3-2

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA4-1

Insert Table/Map No. 9

Summary of Gross ExpendituresA4-2

Insert Table/Map No. 10

Appendix b

Insert Table/Map No. 11

Appendix c

Insert Table/Map No. 12

Appendix d

Insert Table/Map No. 13

Appendix e

Insert Table/Map No. 14

Appendix f

Insert Table/Map No. 15

Appendix f1

Insert Table/Map No. 16

Appendix f2

Insert Table/Map No. 17

Appendix f3

Insert Table/Map No. 18

Appendix f4

Insert Table/Map No. 19

Appendix f5

Insert Table/Map No. 20

Appendix f6

Insert Table/Map No. 21

Appendix f7

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (January 4, 2000) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton:

There is an issue with the Capital Budget process that I would like to raise. The issue speaks to the difficulty City Councillors are having in prioritizing needs in our Wards.

I would like to highlight the case of Ward 28. The 2000 Capital budget has only $120,000.00 devoted to Parks and Recreation. This is certainly among the smallest sums on a per Ward basis. Ward 28 has no community centres and few parks. Because we have no facilities, we lose in a budget that focuses on state of good repair rather than service equity. Thus, the Arts Centre that was proposed fell off the table.

At the same time, Ward 28 is receiving a fair amount of road reconstruction, more in fact that it ever has before. The road work is needed.

My point here is that the Capital Budget Program for Ward 28 lacks balance. Hard infrastructure needs repair and improvement; but softer, social infrastructure is also needed for the health of our community.

I request that $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 of roadwork in Ward 28 be deferred to allow the Art Centre to go forward. The business plan for the Centre is currently being worked on. The community, working with Artscape, now needs to identify a site.

The community has already waited two years for the project to go forward, and from a healthy community perspective, an arts space is a priority at least equal to roadwork.

This request does not increase the Capital Budget monies requested. It simply transfers money within a Ward to provide for a better balance of community needs.

(Report (January 11, 2000), from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "2000 Recommended Capital Program Financing - Tax Supported")

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a capital financing strategy for the 2000 budget year. It also identifies the anticipated operating impact in 2000 and 2001, and provides a five year capital budget financial impact forecast.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 2000 capital budget as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee consists of $983.9 million in tax supported capital expenditures.

The recommendations in this report would result in tax supported capital funding of $178.3 million from "Corporate Revenues", $256.1 million from reserves (including $9.7 million from subsidies and grants), $146.2 million in capital from current, and a maximum of $326.0 million in debenture financing, after a $77.4 million provision for under expenditures.

If adopted, the recommendations of this report would result in a 2000 operating budget impact of $32.8 million, comprising an estimated $7.0 million increase in capital from current, an $5.6 million net increase associated with capital leasing in 1999, a $11.2 million increase in debt service costs resulting from capital expenditures in 1999, and a $9.0 million increase in debt service costs resulting from capital expenditures in 2000. The operating budget impact in 2001 for capital from the 2000 capital program expenditures would be an additional $18.3 million in debt service costs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) capital from current contributions be increased by $7 million from the comparable level in 1999, and that this recommendation be approved in conjunction with the approval of the 2000 Operating Budget;

(2) the City's share of the GO Transit budget surplus for January 1 through August 7 1999, estimated to be $6.3 million, be applied against tax supported capital borrowing requirements in 2000;

(3) an amount of $14 million be accepted as a transfer from the Toronto Parking Authority and be applied to reduce borrowing requirements for the tax supported capital program;

(4) the Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP) Reserve Fund be closed out as of December 31, 1999 and any remaining balance be funded from or contributed to the Sheppard Subway Capital Subsidy Reserve; and,

(5) total net debt financing (after provisions for underexpenditure of $77.4 million) for the 2000 capital program be limited to no more than $326.0 million, consisting of $110 million baseline debt and $216.0 million new debt.

Background:

(A) 1999 Operating Budget:

In approving the 1999 Operating Budget, Council endorsed a plan to increase CFC contributions so as to gradually eliminate impact of the $180 million TTC annual capital subsidy loss on the operating budget over 10 years. Increases of $15 million and $25 million were approved in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Based on the 1999 - 2003 capital forecast, the plan assumed a nominal CFC increase of $7 million in 2000, and a debt service cost annualization in 2000 of $23.9 million (resulting from 1999 budgeted expenditures).

(B) 2000 Capital Budget Status:

The capital program has been reviewed by the Budget Advisory Committee and circulated to Standing Committees for comment. On January 14, 2000 the final review by the Budget Advisory Committee will occur, and the budget will be recommended for consideration by the Policy and Finance Committee on January 20 and Council on January 27, 2000.

The review has focussed by necessity on the year 2000 budget rather than the 2001 to 2004 forecast. Therefore, there is less confidence in the accuracy of the forecasted expenditures. To mirror anticipated reductions upon future review of the forecast, this report assumes a gross expenditure reduction of 5 percent for the years 2001 through 2004 for all program areas.

The capital forecast submissions did not identify the amount of expenditure on one time initiatives such as those needed to address maintenance backlogs or to provide unique improvements. Consequently, appropriate long term annual maintenance expenditure targets have not been identified. Instead, this report illustrates the operating impact of various annual expenditure levels, for consideration in long term planning and future capital program reviews.

(C) 2000 Operating Budget Status:

The operating budget is scheduled to be presented to Council for final review on April 26 and 27, 2000. At that time, final approval of the capital from current contribution will be sought.

Comments:

(A) Expenditures:

The recommended 2000 capital budget and 2001 to 2004 capital forecast are based on expenditure levels well in excess of stable funding sources. In 2000, the overage is attributable to the TTC capital subsidy loss and "one time" expenditures such as the Sheppard Subway project, Transition Projects and an infrastructure maintenance backlog. At present, the portion of the 2001 to 2004 forecasted expenditures related to one time initiatives has not been identified.

The funding gap as shown below is projected to continue at an average of $270 million throughout the forecast period. In part, the gap is due to the loss of TTC capital subsidy reserves yet to be replaced by capital from current funding increases (about $140 million in annual increases yet to be implemented). In addition, the gap reflects revised annual infrastructure maintenance cost estimates. However, these figures do not include the City's share of the estimated $800 million annual shortfall in GTA transit and transportation expansion project expenditures. The City's share for Go Transit Capital alone could add as much as $40 million annually to the funding shortfall.

(IBI Hemson, Funding Transportation in the GTA - H/W, May 1999)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

sustainable funding/text/cap bud rec funding sources

Under expenditure provision:

The capital budget is regularly under expended due to the influence of delays, and cost estimate refinements. Accordingly, a corporate provision for under expenditure is made. In 2000, the estimated tax supported under expenditure provision is $77.4 million, based on emperical evaluation. Throughout the remainder of the forecast period, a figure of $50 million has been assumed.

Capital From Current:

The capital from current funding level incorporated in the 1999 operating budget was $143.4 million. In approving the operating budget, Council endorsed a schedule that would increase CFC by $7 million in 2000 as part of a ten year plan to increase CFC by $180 million annually.

As part of the capital budget deliberations, approximately $4.2 million in expenditures and offsetting CFC contributions were deemed to be more appropriately funded in the operating budget and have been recommended for transfer to operating with no net operating impact. The revised recommended capital from current contribution for 2000 is therefore $146.2 million.

During the 1998 budget cycle, Council endorsed the concept of using capital from current financing for capital maintenance expenditures and debt primarily for one time or new expenditure requirements. As long term net capital maintenance requirements are clarified, it is anticipated that the CFC strategy will be refined to match these requirements over time.

Corporate Revenues:

Recommended corporate revenues for capital purposes include revenues from the City's investment in Toronto Hydro ($88 million), the OMERS premium holiday benefit in 1999 and 2000 (estimated $45 million), specified proceeds from sale of property in 1999 and 2000 ($25 million), a portion of the 1999 GO Transit surplus ($6.3 million) and a contribution from the Toronto Parking Authority ($14 million). Council approved the use of both the OMERS benefit and property sales revenue during the 1999 operating budget debate, and the application of Hydro revenues to capital when Hydro was incorporated in the summer of 1999.

Other unallocated revenues of $14 million arising from the Toronto Parking Authority are recommended to be applied to reduce borrowing in 2000.

The City's share of the GO budget surplus for the period January through August, 1999, estimated to be $6.3 million, will be returned to the City. It is recommended that the surplus amount be applied to reduce borrowing for the City's capital program in 2000.

Toronto Hydro:

Toronto Hydro is now a fully owned subsidiary of the City of Toronto. The application of Hydro proceeds to capital was approved as part of the report authorizing incorporation of the new Toronto Hydro. The financial returns on this investment will depend on the financial performance of Hydro, the City's policy decisions regarding the shareholder direction, and the City's investment management decisions regarding the debt and equity.

Toronto Hydro has provided a five year financial forecast which is currently under review by the City's CFO and Treasurer. The forecast identifies a range of shareholder interest and dividend expectations. In 2000 that range runs from $80 to $88 million. For the purposes of this report annual returns of $100 million are assumed to occur in each of the five years except in 2000, for which the $88 million figure is assumed. Within five years the returns are projected to surpass $120 million annually, as the retail company becomes less dependent on equity infusions from its parent, Toronto Hydro.

Payments to the shareholder are not without risk, as distribution earnings are subject to approval by the Ontario Energy Board, and competitive energy markets will affect actual cash requirements of the retail subsidiary. A subsequent report will comment on the risk element in the business plan and the appropriateness of the City's shareholder direction with respect to dividend policy.

Council endorsed the view that Toronto Hydro should be retained as long as returns on the investment were comparable to returns on sale. Subject to Council's directions on the considerations for the process for obtaining prices and initiating a sale, an equity sale transaction could potentially be completed during 2000. However, it is not feasible to determine the amount of proceeds in time to influence an adjustment to the 2000 capital budget funding assumptions. Also any sale of equity would reduce the annual dividend stream commensurately.

Sale of all or part of the Hydro debt ("monetizing" the debt) could also be completed in 2000. In this case some portion of the debt could be available to fund 2000 capital expenditures. The minimum amount of debt that could be sold in the first instance would be in the order of $100 to $150 million. This then, reflects the minimum amount of cash that could be counted on to be liquidated from the Hydro investment in 2000. Any sale of debt would reduce the interest earnings from the Toronto Hydro investment commensurately.

A decision to sell all or part of the Hydro investment to fund capital expenditures should take into consideration of such things as the comparative avoided cost (or earning rate) of capital, the relative investment risk, and City policy with respect to application of 'one time' revenues against program costs. A full discussion of these issues will be provided under a separate report.

Reserves and Subsidies:

Funding from program reserves in the amount of $256.1 million has been identified for 2000 (including $9.7 million in Provincial subsidies). In the 2001 through 2004 forecast period, reserve funding averaging $95 million annually is anticipated. The reserve funding assumptions in the program forecasts are currently being studied to determine whether the underlying reserve contribution levels and positive balances are sustainable. Until this review is complete, the long term reserve funding assumptions in the forecast should be considered approximate.

The Rapid Transit Expansion Program (RTEP) Reserve Fund was created to allow a separate accounting of quantum operating contributions and annual debt service charges arising from RTEP subway expansion projects. These projects now consist solely of the Sheppard Subway, and the reserve is no longer useful. Also, at year end 1999, the reserve balance will be approximately $0. It is therefore recommended that the reserve be closed, and any nominal balances be fund from or contributed to the Sheppard Subway capital subsidy reserve. All future debt service impacts for the project will be funded directly from the operating budget, as with most other capital projects.

The lack of Provincial and Federal funding for required infrastructure maintenance and development has been the subject of previous Council reports. Discussions regarding funding are continuing on a number of fronts. Interim funding for eligible projects in the form of a new federal infrastructure works program is expected to be clarified in 2000.

Debt:

At current interest rates, the City is able to issue approximately $110 million in debenture financing each year on average without impacting the operating budget, due to the expected pattern of debt maturities. Each year that a greater amount of debt is issued will increase total debt servicing costs.

The recommended capital budget for 2000 contemplates a total of $326.0 million in debt issued, or an increase of $216.0 million above zero impact expenditures. An increase of approximately $60 million from the $110 level is being recommended for the base program. The balance of the increase is related to the extraordinary projects program (Sheppard Subway $127 million, Y2K $21 million, and Transition projects $4 million). The capital forecast indicates that debt requirements well in excess of the stable borrowing level are expected to continue. The projected level of capital expenditure will severely increase capital financing expenditures in the operating budget over time, as illustrated in the section D.

(C) Impact on Operating Budget:

The recommended tax supported capital budget for 2000 is a gross expenditure of $983.9 million. If the recommendations in this report are approved, offsetting funding comprising $256.1 million in reserves, $146.2 million in CFC, $178.3 million in corporate revenues, and $77.4 million in underexpenditures, will result in a total debt requirement of $326.0.

If adopted, the recommendations of this report would result in a 2000 operating budget impact of $32.8 million, comprising an estimated $7.0 million increase in capital from current, an $6.7 million net increase associated with capital leasing in 1999, an $10.1 million increase in debt service costs resulting from capital expenditures in 1999, and a $9.0 million increase in debt service costs resulting from capital expenditures in 2000. The operating budget impact in 2001 for capital from the 2000 capital program debenture would be an additional $18.3 million in debt service costs.

These impacts translate into a tax impact in 2000 of $32.8 million or 3.5 percent on the residential assessment base.

The debt requirement in the 2001 - 2004 forecast period is similar to that for 2000. The impact of sustained use of debt financing is discussed in the next section.

(D) Longer Term Capital Affordability/Impact:

Capital expenditures above a certain stable funding level will increase capital financing costs over time. Currently, the City has a number of relatively stable sources of capital financing as follows:

$ millions

Capital From Current 146.0

Reserve Funding (long term average, s.t. audit) 95.0

Provision for under expenditures 50.0

Return on Toronto Hydro Investment 100.0

Stable borrowing level 110.0

Total 501.0

Therefore, under current conditions, annual tax supported capital expenditures of about $500 million can be sustained without impact on the operating budget. Higher expenditure levels, without new offsetting revenues, will impact the budget over time as illustrated on the graph below. The average expenditure level in the 2001 to 2004 forecast (after 5 percent downward adjustment to all department, agency, board and commission submissions) is $770 million, and has been used to extrapolate the graph below to 2009.

The line on the graph below shows a cumulative operating budget impact of about $360 million over ten years at projected spending levels. Recall that these spending projections currently do not incorporate provisions for GO Transit, TTC or Transportation service expansion required to meet anticipated growth over the period, which have been estimated to add $800 million annually to the capital infrastructure cost GTA wide. The costs of increasing service demands in other capital intensive service areas (such as social housing) are similarly absent from this forecast.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

cumulative op impact

The 10 year tax impact of $360 million on the assessment base for such an increase would be approximately 38 percent or $667 for a residential property valued at $220,000 if imposed on the residential tax base, and approximately 14 percent or $246 for a residential property valued at $220,000 if spread over the entire assessment base.

(E) Impact on Net Tax Supported Debt:

The projected level of capital expenditure will steadily increase the City's net debt (gross debt less accumulated sinking funds). The graph below also illustrates the reductions to capital spending that would be required to avoid increasing debt levels. The stable funding level (no operating impact) is $500 million, and the average expenditure level illustrated is $770 million per annum.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

net debt

(F) Future Considerations:

The following is a list of issues that need further study or refinement before a definitive impact forecast can be prepared.

Expected Resolution Date

Review/testing of reserve funding assumptions Feb. 2000

Review/testing of Toronto Hydro business case/dividend

assumptions Feb. 2000

Review/testing of potential proceeds from sale of Toronto Hydro 2000

Clarification of nature of long term capital

expenditure requirements 2000

Resolution of requests for Provincial and Federal infrastructure funding 2000

Resolution of cost shares and expenditure requirements for 2000

GTA transportation infrastructure investments

The majority of these issues will not be resolved prior to the approval of either the capital or the operating budget for 2000. Consequently, the recommendations of this report deal only with short term funding issues.

Conclusions:

This report recommends a strategy for initially setting the capital from current contribution increase at $7 million for the 2000 operating budget. It also recommends the application of proceeds of $6.3 million received from the 1999 GO Transit budget surplus against borrowing for the 2000 capital program, and $14 million received from the Toronto Parking Authority reserve.

The capital financing cost increases resulting from this strategy at the recommended capital expenditure levels are $32.8 million in 2000 and $18.3 million in 2001. The 2000 impact is equivalent to a tax increase of 3.5 percent on the residential assessment base or 1.3 percent if recovered from the entire assessment base.

This report identifies the probable long term consequences of capital expenditures at currently forecasted levels, based on returns on the Toronto Hydro investment of $88 million in 2000 and $100 million for the subsequent four years. It also identifies a number of issues requiring resolution before a long term financing plan can be recommended.

Contact:

Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services, Phone: 392-5380, Fax: 397-4555

E-mail: lbrittai@toronto.ca

(Report (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Analysis of the Status of the City's Capital Financing Position".)

Purpose:

To review and comment on the City's capital financing position with respect to whether there are any long-term borrowing obligations that have not yet been financed.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received as information.

Background:

At its meeting held on November 15, 1999, the Budget Advisory Committee requested information regarding the amount of debentures that have not been issued pertaining to ongoing capital projects and not included in the City's outstanding debt and the amount of any commitments to issue debt based upon these projects.

Comments:

When Council approves a capital project, a budget is established to control the payment of the expenditures related to the project. If the project is designated to be financed by debt, it is financed on a temporary basis from the City's operating funds until a point is reached where the sum of temporary financing as well as capital market conditions necessitates seeking permanent financing. Due to the timing of capital expenditures, it would be expected that at any given point a project could be over or under financed.

For example, the issuance of debt may be either delayed or accelerated due to capital market conditions and the level of interest rates and the receipt of these funds may not conform to the City's fiscal year-end. In this situation, projects may be under-financed at year-end if the City did not issue debentures during the year or had not received provincial grants as expected and then fully-financed in the first half of the next year as the various proceeds are received.

The "Analysis of Consolidated Capital Operations" contained in the City's audited financial statements illustrates whether the City has any future obligations to issue debt that are not reflected in its outstanding liabilities. A financing deficiency could indicate the need for additional debt issuance while a financing excess could show that the City has proceeds that were raised before being required or have not been applied to projects due to expenditure timing differences. As of December 31, 1998, the City had an excess capital financing position of $41.6 million that occurred because the City decided to issue debt in December 1998 that was in excess of its immediate requirements to take advantage of extremely favourable interest rates. In contrast, the City did not issue any debentures in 1999 due to capital market conditions but expects to proceed with an issue in the first half of 2000 that will include previous as well as current capital financing requirements.

The following table illustrates the actual debentures issued by the City compared with the projected borrowing identified in respect of each year's capital budget review, i.e. the $110 million base level of borrowing plus the new debt (in $million):

Budgeted and Actual Debt Issued:

* The 2000 amount will depend upon the actual under/over financing situation at year end 1999, the level of the approved 2000 capital budget and the market conditions that exist at the time of the actual debenture issue.

In Appendix I, a forecast of the City's net debt is provided, based upon the 2000 to 2004 recommended capital budget.

Conclusions:

As of December 31, 1998, the City had an excess of $41.6 million in capital financing that was available to be applied to capital projects during 1999 and did not have any outstanding commitments to issue debentures that that were not reflected in its outstanding net debt of $1.066 billion.

Contact:

Len Brittain, Director of Treasury and Financial Services, 392-5380, fax 397-4555

Martin Willschick, Manager of Treasury Services, 392-8072 , fax 397-4555

(A copy of Appendix 1, entitled "City of Toronto Forecast of Net Debt - 1999-2004, attached to the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Further Reductions to the Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget")

Purpose:

To provide a report on additional sub-projects in the Faciltites and Real Estate 2000 Capital Budget that could be deferred or deleted and provide comparison to the 1999 Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

An additional reduction of up to $ 1.005 million could be achieved by deferring one low priority project and six projects involved with two civic centres whose future use by the City is presently under review.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting on December 10, 1999, the Budget Advisory Committee requested that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to review the Facilities and Real Estate budget, particularly the areas where additional expenditures over and above last year are requested, and look for any further reductions and report thereon to the January 10, 2000, meeting.

Comments:

The presented CAO/CFO Facilities and Real Estate budget reflected the recommended program. Reductions and transfers to the Operating Budget of $ 4.192 million were made by the Budget Advisory Committee. The deferrals discussed here are not recommended and have not been agreed to by the Program.

The following provides a comparison of categories of projects the Facilities and Real Estate Capital budget:

The major significant difference year to year is the major roof project on Old City Hall. The Roof Inspection report, which forms the basis of this project, was tabled with the Clerk of the Budget Advisory Committee on December 10, 1999.

A further review of the Facilities and Real Estate 2000 Capital Budget indicates one low priority project, costing $150,000, which could be deferred - the concrete rehabilitation at the top of the City Hall ceremonial ramp.

Following Council's adoption at it's meeting of December 14, 1999, of the Chief Administrative Officer's report on the future use of civic centres, it is clear that six projects, totalling $ 855,000, at York and Etobicoke Civic Centres should be deferred pending determination of the City's future use of these buildings. If these capital repairs become urgent, the $1.2 million fund for Emergency Repairs could used during 2000.

The Program staff were consulted in developing these further reduction proposals. However, they did not agree with further reductions being made to the Facilitates and Real Estate 2000 Capital program.

The sub-projects proposed for further deferral, totalling $1.005 million, are listed in Appendix A to this report.

Conclusions:

An additional $1.005 million can be deferred for future consideration from the 2000 Facilities and Real Estate Capital Budget. Projects of an emergency nature during 2000 at the Etobicoke and York Civic Centres can be funded, if required, through the $1.2 million Emergency Capital Repairs allocation.

Contact:

Judy Skinner, 397-4219, fax 397-4465

Val Sequeira, 397-4225, fax 392-3649

Glenn Vollebregt, 392-8095, fax 397-4465

Wanda Liczyk, 392-8773, fax 397-4465

Finance Department

(A copy of Appendix A, entitled "City of Toronto 2000 Capital Projects - Facilities and Real Estate Sub-projects Suggested for Deferral", attached to the foregoing, report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (January 11, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and

Emergency Services addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Executive Court Extension - Funding (Scarborough Malvern)".

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to a request by the Budget Advisory Committee during the review of the Transportation Services 2000 Capital Works Program at its meeting of December 10, 1999.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications with respect to this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting held on December 10,1999, in considering the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program for Transportation Services, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the January 14, 2000 meeting on the percentage of the Executive Court Extension that is to be funded by the City and what percentage is to be funded by Development Charges.

Comments:

Executive Court is currently a dead end cul-de-sac extending south easterly from Milner Avenue within the north-west quadrant of the Highway 401/Markham Road interchange. The extension easterly of Executive Court to Markham Road was identified in the Milner Avenue Corridor and Markham Gateway Transportation Study in 1990 and was approved in principle by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario at that time. The extension would facilitate the development of adjacent lands, improve network connectivity in the area, provide traffic relief to the Markham Road/Milner Avenue intersection and provide increased access to the Milner Avenue Corridor.

The Executive Court Extension was shown on the former City of Scarborough Official Plan and was included in the former Scarborough Development Charges By-law. This project was identified as an increased service need in the City of Toronto Development Charge Background Study with an estimated gross capital cost of $1 million. The background study attributed this project as 100 percent growth related, and as such, would have been totally funded through development charges with $400,000 and $600,000 assigned to the residential and non-residential shares respectively.

Under the Development Charges By-Law approved by City Council in 1999, no development charges are to be imposed on non-residential development. Council further directed that development charges be imposed at less than the maximum permissible rate on residential development. Therefore, the development related component of the Executive Court Extension that can be imposed on residential development amounts to approximately $310,000 (78.2 percent of $400,000). The balance, in the amount of $690,000 (or 69 percent) will have to be funded by the City.

The Executive Court Extension is currently included in the 2001 Transportation Services Capital Works Program. There are currently several alternative alignments under consideration and discussions are ongoing with Ministry staff in this regard. It should be noted that the ultimate configuration selected may impact on the total project cost and accordingly, any changes to funding needs will be addressed in the 2001 Capital Budget submission.

Conclusions:

The Executive Court Extension has an estimated cost of $1 million, 69 percent of which is to be funded by the City and 31 percent to be funded by Development Charges. Staff of the Finance Department were consulted in the preparation of this report and concur in its contents.

Contact:

John Niedra, Manager, Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming, Tel: 392-5348, Fax:  392-4426, E-mail: jniedra@toronto.ca

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Transition Projects/Y2K Project - 2000-2004 Capital Program")

Purpose:

This report presents a 2000 - 2004 Capital Program and status report for the Transition Projects and the Y2K Project. It recommends projects and cash flow for 2000 approval.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of the 2000 recommended capital program for Transition Projects will require the following total cash flows; $70.149 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000, $30.568 million in 2001 and $15.550 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total project cost of $117.103 million. These cash flows cover both previously approved, change in scope and new projects.

For previously approved (ongoing) projects, cash flow requirements are; $37.535 million in 2000, $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total of $66.035 million.

For previously approved projects with a change in scope, cash flow requirements are $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total of $28.632 million.

For new projects, cash flow requirements are $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total of $22.436 million.

Approval of the new project for the Facilities Business Process Integration will result in net expenditure savings in the operating budget of $2.1 million by 2001.

Approval of the 2000 recommended capital program for the Y2K Project will require $20.5 million in gross capital expenditures in 2000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The 2000 - 2004 Capital Program for the Transition Projects, with a cash flow totalling $117.103 million as outlined in Appendix A, B, C and D be received;

(2) The 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 6 prior year projects with a change in scope with a cost of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total cost of $28.632 million as recommended in Appendix C be approved;

(3) The 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 4 new projects with a cost of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million as recommended in Appendix D be approved subject to a review of the business cases for these projects;

(4) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Provincial Offences Transfer Project, with recommendations to include this project in the capital program once the task force has reported to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(5) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Advisory Committee with a summary of the staff exit costs incurred to date and the requirement for the additional funding in 2000;

(6) The 2000 Capital Budget for the Y2K Project with a funding request for Priority #2 and #3 projects of $12.2 million be incorporated into the cash flow requirement of $20.5 million in 2000 as recommended in Appendix G be approved; and

(7) The 2000 Capital Budget for the Transition Projects consisting of 24 prior year projects with a cost of $37.535 million in 2000, $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million as recommended in Appendix B be received.

Discussion:

Background:

The Transition Projects 2000 - 2004 Capital Program submission was reviewed by Budget Services staff in conjunction with the respective program areas. Recommendations from this review were subsequently considered by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. The administrative review focused on previously approved projects with change in scope and new projects.

Appendix A provides a summary of the transition projects completed to date. A total of 20 projects with a cost of $20.685 million have been completed. Savings of $8.987 million related to these projects have been incorporated in the 1998 operating budget.

Appendix B highlights transition projects previously approved and ongoing. A total of 25 previously approved projects have cash flow requirements of $37.535 million in 2000; $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million. Forecasted savings for these projects total $12.281 million.

Appendix C lists 6 previously approved projects with a change in scope with a cash flow of $24.614 million in 2000; $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total cost of $28.632 million. The 2000 change in scope component for these projects is $14.0 million and the change in scope for the total project cost totals $27.0 million.

Appendix D lists 4 new projects with a cash flow of $8.0 million in 2000; $9.05 million in 2001; $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million. Savings of $2.1 million are forecasted to be realized in the operating budget by 2001 from the Facilities Business Process Integration project and $1.2 million for the Unified Business Application System.

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its preliminary review of November 15, 1999 of the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program, requested an update on the Transition Projects.

Program Priorities:

The following chart depicts the allocation between Prior Year Approved projects, Change in Scope projects and New projects:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

transition projects

As indicated in the previous chart, $37.5 million or 54 percent of the 2000 recommended program consists of previously approved projects. The prior year approved projects were reviewed to ensure they are within budget, consistent with the scope previously approved by Council. Of the $37.5 million, $15.0 million is included in the 2000 cash flow for carry-forward requirements and $22.5 million represents the 2000 component approved in prior years.

The change in scope projects represent $24.6 million or 35 percent of the 2000 recommended program. Of this total, $14.0 million reflects the incremental (new) portion of change in scope projects, with $10.6 million reflecting the previously approved portion. The change in scope for the total project costs increased $27.0 million. A further discussion of the change in scope projects is included in the body of this report.

Four new projects account for $8.0 million or 10 percent of the 2000 recommended program. These projects require $9.05 million in 2001; $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $22.436 million. These projects are noted below:

The Facilities Business Process Integration project has a cash flow of $1.5 million in 2000 and $0.5 million in 2001 for a total cost of $2.0 million and is required to rationalize business processes and integrate management information for the Facilities and Real Estate Division.

The Civic Spaces Associated with Civic Centres project related to the main floor of City Hall has a cash flow requirement of $1.0 million in 2000; $4.0 million in 2001; $2.4 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $8.236 million. The financial recommendations relating to the Civic Spaces Associated with Civic Centres project was adopted by Council on December 14, 1999.

The Unified Business Application System project has a cash flow requirement of $4.5 million in 2000; $4.55 million in 2001 and $2.15 million in 2002 for a total cost of $11.2 million.

The Standardization / Rationalization Studies project requires a 2000 cash flow of $1.0 million. This is to provide for the continuation of various studies related to standardization, rationalization and harmonization issues across the City. Details of the amalgamation studies previously approved are outlined in Appendixes B-1, B-2 and B-3.

A further discussion of the new transition projects is contained in the body of this report.

The following chart outlines the 2000 recommended budget by category:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

transition projects - by category

As highlighted in the previous chart, $60.9 million or 87 percent of the recommended program provides for State of Good Repair initiatives and $9.2 million or 13 percent relates to Legislated or City Policy issues. The bulk of the transition projects involve the replacement of major technology assets or the rehabilitation / rationalization of facilities (totalling $54.853 million of the $70.149 million or 78 percent for 2000 recommended program). These projects enable the City to realize long-term efficiencies and savings from amalgamation. The program is consistent with corporate priorities that place a high priority on the City's State of Good Repair program.

Projects Completed in 1998:

Appendix A provides a summary of the transition projects completed in 1998. As indicated, these projects had a total cost of $20.685 million, with forecasted savings of $8.987 million. The savings related to these projects have been incorporated into the program area operating budgets to meet downsizing and restructuring targets related to the amalgamation of the former municipalities.

Previously Approved (Ongoing) Projects:

Appendix B lists the transition projects that were previously approved and have ongoing cash flow requirements needed to complete these projects. Of the total approved budget of $92.694 million, approximately $24.257 million is projected to be spent by December 31, 1999. The 2000 cash flow requirement consists of $15.0 million in carry-forward requirements and $22.535 million for the amount previously approved for the 2000 component for a total 2000 cash flow of $37.535 million.

The City Hall Floor Renovations project has a cash flow of $14.8 million in 2000; $14.0 million in 2001 and $10.2 million in 2002 for a total cost of $39.0 million. The prior year actual of $9.69 million reflect approved renovations to the East Tower of City Hall, including renovations to the Council member offices, Council Chamber and Committee rooms, as well as the consolidation of Pensions, Payroll and Employee Benefits and Accounting staff at Metro Hall and Revenue Division staff at the North York Civic Centre. Previously, the total budget envelope approved for this project was $50.5 million approved in 1999. A master plan for office accommodation was adopted by Council at its meeting of December 14, 1999.

Change in Scope Projects:

Appendix C summarizes the 2000 recommended capital program for 6 previously approved projects with change in scope. The total approved budget was $85.880 million, with a recommended increase of $27.0 million to $112.96 million. These projects have a cash flow of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total of $28.632 million.

The Caseload Transfer from the Province (FBA) project has a cash flow of $5.449 million in 2000. The previously approved budget for this project was $5.906 million, for a reduction in total project costs of $0.457 million. The project is required as a result of Provincial legislation that transferred to the City responsibility for handling sole support caseload to the City. The renovation and / or relocation component of this project has been reduced, based on more up-to-date information.

The FIS and HRIS System project has a cash flow of $10.0 million in 2000, with $3.0 million representing the amount approved in the prior year and $7.0 million reflecting the change in scope requirement. The change in scope increases the total project cost to $33.3 million from the previously approved budget of $26.3 million. Of the $7.0 million change in scope, staff backfills account for $3.4 million of the increase (previously identified to Council in December 1998), while costs for sustainment and change requests reflect the balance. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has provided a further report to this Budget Advisory Committee on the change in project costs related to the FIS / HRIS System.

The Consolidation of Clerk's Records, Elections and Printing project has a cash flow of $1.65 million in 2000 for the change in scope component and $0.478 million for the prior year carry-forward, for a total cash flow of $2.128 million in 2000. The previously approved budget for this project was $1.659 million, for an increase in total project costs of $ 1.449 million to $3.108 million. Council, on December 14, 1999, considered a report on this issue from the Budget Advisory Committee and recommended that the matter be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer with a request that; (i) the space required by the Elections function be accommodated as soon as possible internally i.e. City-owned property; and (ii) the Records Centre accommodation be revisited with the Toronto Economic Development Corporation.

The New Official Plan project has a cash flow of $1.012 million in 2000 and $0.460 million in 2001 which increases the total project cost to $1.7 million from the previously approved budget of $0.7 million. The original approved budget provided for initial consultation and studies. The change in scope portion is $1.0 million and provides for more extensive public consultation and public events research, publications, advertising and Council roundtables. The cash flow in 2001 provides for an Action Plan to implement the directions of the new Official Plan. A report from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to this Budget Advisory Committee meeting is included to support the change in scope for this project.

The Staff Exit Costs project had a total budget envelope approved at $50.0 million, with an estimated actual of $60.02 million to December 31, 1999. An additional $3.81 million requested in 2000 and $2.758 million in 2001. The $3.81 million requested in 2000 relates to the continued cost of exit packages already approved and the $2.0 million requested in 2001 is to provide for the continuance of the Employee Retraining / Redeployment project.

The Retraining / Redeployment component was previously approved by Council in 1998, with a cost of $2.5 million, of which an estimated $0.7 million has been spent. The change in scope of $2.0 million increases this component to a total cost of $4.5 million. The change in scope increases the staff exit component from $47.5 million to $61.5 million. Both of these components increases the total project cost from $50.0 million to $66.5 million. The project is funded from the Employee Benefit Reserve Fund, with funds transferred to the Workforce Reduction Reserve Fund. Since this is entirely funded from reserve funds, there is no net cost for this project in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

A report to the Budget Advisory Committee with a summary of the staff exit costs incurred to date and a substantiation of the additional funding required in 2000 will be provided. The report will identify the total commitments incurred to date for the program, cash flow, number of staff and a breakdown by program area.

In 1998 and 1999, due to transitional issues, many departments were not in a position to conduct a thorough needs assessment to identify employee skill sets based on their business plans. A comprehensive needs analysis will be completed during 2000 and will form the basis for retraining needs through 2000 and 2001.

The Human Resources (Various) project has a cash flow of $2.215 million in 2000, with $0.715 million representing the carry-forward amount and $1.5 million reflecting the change in scope. The total project cost is increased to $2.815 million from the previously approved budget of $1.315 million. The change in scope relates to additional resources required for the Labour and Employee Relations project to provide for external legal services related to amalgamation of bargaining units and first contract negotiations. Contract negotiations are expected to continue in 2000 and additional transitional funding is required to provide for interest arbitration and grievances resulting from first contract interpretation.

New Projects:

Appendix D summarizes the 2000 recommended capital program for 4 new projects totaling $8.0 million. These projects have a cash flow of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total of $22.436 million. It is recommended that the new projects be approved.

The Facilities Business Process Integration project has a cash flow of $1.5 million in 2000 and $0.5 million in 2001 for a total cost of $2.0 million. This project is to provide for the rationalization of business processes and integration of management information across the Division. This is required as a result of the amalgamation of the property and real estate functions of the seven former municipalities. A full project payback can be accomplished in 1 year, with a net expenditure savings of $2.1 million in the operating budget by 2001. A report which supports the business case for this project has been submitted to this Budget Advisory Committee meeting.

The Civic Spaces Associated with Civic Centres project has a cash flow of $1.0 million in 2000, $4.0 million in 2001, $2.4 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total cost of $8.236 million. The project is to provide for modifications to the main floor of city hall as well as $0.5 million for a design competition for Nathan Philips Square. Council, at its meeting of December 14, 1999, approved the financial recommendations.

The Unified Business System Application project has a cash flow of $4.5 million in 2000, $4.55 million in 2001 and $2.15 million in 2002 for a total cost of $11.2 million. In 1999, Council approved $0.1 million for an Information Technology Strategic Plan related to this project, with a report back to the Budget Advisory Committee before approval of the $11.2 million for implementation.

A report summarizing the results of the Information Technology Strategic Plan for the Unified Business System Application project is provided to this meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee. It substantiates the need for a fully integrated business system to support the new District offices, the harmonization of services and the rationalization of business practices. The new system will eliminate the reliance on paper based systems and improve customer service, operational performance and controls in all areas of work management.

The Standardization / Rationalization Studies project has a cash flow of $1.0 million in 2000 and provides new rationalization studies across the City particularly for Parks and Recreation facilities. Details of the amalgamation studies previously approved are attached in Appendixes B-1, B-2 and B-3.

Other Issues:

The Provincial Offences Act (POA) sets out the procedures for processing offences for provincial legislation, including municipal by-laws such as parking and licensing. The Ministry of the Attorney General currently provides the courts administration functions and prosecutions for parking infractions. In 1997, the provincial government passed Bill 108, which provides for a municipality and the Ministry of the Attorney General to enter into an agreement to transfer responsibility for courts administration of POA charges to the municipality.

At its meeting of March 25, 1999, the Administrative Committee recommended to Council that a task force be established to examine the implications to the City of assuming responsibility for administration of the POA. The task force is expected to report back early in 2000. However, staff have estimated capital costs of approximately $2.4 million to administer the POA. It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Provincial Offences Transfer Project, with recommendations to include this project in the capital program once the task force has reported to the Policy and Finance Committee

Y2K Project:

The Y2K Project, previously approved with a total cost of $149.6 million, requires a cash flow of $20.5 million in 2000, with $8.4 million reflecting the carry-forward from the prior year and $12.1 million representing funding for the change in scope, increasing the total project cost to $161.7 million. The Priority No. 1 business cases, with a Council approved budget of $149.6 million is on budget with a projected actual spending of $146.8 million. The $12.1 million for the new request, is the net funding required for Steering Committee approved change requests for Priority No. 2 and No. 3 business cases previously identified in a report to Council in February, 1999, but for which no funding allocation had been approved.

Appendix E provides a detailed summary of the Y2K project, identifying the Council approved budget, change requests, total adjusted budget and project to date actuals for Priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 business cases. Appendix E also shows the state of system amalgamation. The Y2K project has achieved its objective in ensuring that the City of Toronto can deliver "Business as Usual" on January 1^st, 2000 and beyond. In addition, the Year 2000 Program has provided substantial collateral benefits to the new City of Toronto. These include:

(1) upgrading of all technology and implementing maintenance programs to ensure the continued availability of the technology;

(2) implementation of enterprise licensing agreements to ensure legal compliance and simplified administration of Information Technology contracts;

(3) consolidation of business applications;

(4) implementation of technology to provide harmonized services across the Corporation;

(5) implementation of standards to facilitate the effective sharing of information across the Corporation;

(6) consolidation of hardware platforms thereby simplifying the technology infrastructure of the new City.

A full project report will be tabled to the Policy and Finance Committee in March, 2000 as the project winds up.

Financing:

Appendix F provides a financing summary for the Transition Projects. Total project costs projected to 2000 amount to $193.481 million, financed by $131.0 million from provincial loans, $57.8 million from Employee Benefit Reserve Fund for staff exit costs, $0.4 million from other sources and $4.271 million from debentures.

For the total program to 2003, total costs based on budget, are projected to be $240.435 million, financed by $131.0 million from provincial loans, $57.8 million from reserve funds, $0.4 million from other sources and $51.225 million from debentures.

Appendix G provides a financing summary for the Y2K Project. As discussed in the body of this report, the total project costs have increased by $12.1 million from the original approved budget of $149.6 million to $161.7 million for Priority No. 2 and No. 3 projects previously identified to Council. The Y2K project is financed by $43.15 million from operating budget leases, $16.71 million from the water rate and $19.4 million from GO Transit operating budget surplus, with the balance of $82.439 million from debentures. The financing recommendations relating to the water rate and GO Transit surplus were approved by Council in the 1999 Capital Financing report.

Conclusions:

For the transition projects completed in 1998, these projects had a total cost of $20.685 million, with forecasted savings of $8.987 million. The savings related to these projects have been incorporated into the program area operating budgets to meet downsizing and restructuring targets related to the amalgamation of the former municipalities.

Transition projects that were previously approved have ongoing cash flow requirements needed to complete these projects, with the 2000 cash flow requirement consisting of $15.0 million in carry-forward requirements and $22.535 million for the amount previously approved for the 2000 component for a total 2000 cash flow of $37.535 million. These projects have cash flow requirements of $37.535 million in 2000; $17.9 million in 2001 and $10.6 million in 2002 for a total cost of $66.035 million. It is recommended that these previously approved projects be received.

There are 6 transition projects, previously approved by Council, have changed in scope and have resulted in incremental project costs of $14.0 million in 2000 and $27.0 million in total. These projects have a cash flow of $24.614 million in 2000, $3.618 million in 2001 and $0.4 million in 2002 for a total of $28.632 million. This report identifies the issues related to the change in scope projects and recommends approval for the change in scope.

There are 4 new transition projects with a cash flow of $8.0 million in 2000, $9.05 million in 2001, $4.55 million in 2002 and $0.836 million in 2003 for a total of $22.436 million. It is recommended that the new projects be approved.

The Provincial Offences Transfer project has not been included in the recommended Transition Program. The financial implications will be identified once the task force reports to the Policy and Finance Committee.

The Y2K Project, previously approved with a total cost of $149.6 million, requires a cash flow of $20.5 million in 2000, with $8.4 million reflecting the carry-forward from the prior year and $12.1 million representing new funding, increasing the total project cost to $161.7 million.

Contact:

Paul Chenery, 397-4204, fax 397-4465

John Di Lallo, 397-42107 fax 397-4465

Glenn Vollebregt, 392-8095, fax 397-4465

Wanda Liczyk, 392-8773, fax 397-5236

Finance Department

(A copy of the Appendices attached to the foregoing report respecting the 2000 Recommended Capital Program and Future Year Impact, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (December 8, 1999) ,from the Commissioner of Works

and Emergency Services addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Transition Funding for Unified Business System for

the Transportation Division").

Purpose:

Implementation of unified business systems and applications to support the management and operation of the City's roads infrastructure and transportation systems.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds associated with the unified business systems and applications were identified in the 1999 Capital Budget Transition Projects Business Cases as of January 21, 1999.

These funds are still available in the Capital Budget but are subject to an Information Technology Strategic Plan being produced to support the projects identified in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 15 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "Transition Projects" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on July 29, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the transition funding in the amount of $11,300,000.00 be approved in support of automation projects for the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department; and

(2) the total amount of $11,300,000.00, less the $100,000.00 previously approved to be spent on an Information Technology Strategic Plan, be approved with $4,500,000.00 to be spent in 2000, $4,550,000.00 in 2001, and the remainder in 2002.

Background:

As a result of amalgamation, Transportation Services have been consolidated across the City. Within the new City structure, Transportation Services are organized into four geographic Districts based on the boundaries of the previous municipalities. In addition to the Districts, there are two business units that have responsibility for centralized functions for Traffic Control Systems and Infrastructure Planning/Policy. District offices now combine standards, practices and computer systems from two or more environments.

Since amalgamation, the transportation business systems inherited from the former municipalities continue to be used. As a result, there are significant differences across the City in both the availability of data and the use of automated solutions for planning and managing transportation-related business operations.

In order to facilitate and support the harmonization of business procedures and the standardization of services across the City, a unified set of business systems (applications and data) are required. This is a significant undertaking that will, however, leverage off existing technology. The scope of activities may include service rationalization followed by process redesign, data consolidation, system development and City-wide deployment of the technology solutions. The Strategic Information Technology Plan addresses the issues of consolidating systems from the seven former municipalities. In addition to dealing with the transition issues faced by Transportation Services, this plan takes a wider view and also addresses department-wide issues. This ensures that opportunities for consolidation takes place, where appropriate across divisions.

At its meeting of July 24, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee approved projects TP-1, TP-9 and TP-10 of the Transition Projects. The 1999 Capital Budget Transition Project Business Cases, dated January 21, 1999 (containing the business cases for TP-1, Unified Business System Application) that was forwarded to the Province, recommended that "funds in the amount of $100,000.00 be approved … to prepare an information technology plan and implementation strategy and report back to Budget Committee" before approval of the remaining $11.2 million.

This report addresses the recommendation from the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee to report back to Budget Committee having completed the required information technology plan and implementation strategy.

Comments:

The information technology strategic plan substantiates the need for a fully integrated business system to support the new District offices, the harmonization of services, and rationalization of business practices.

The Unified Business System for Transportation Services Division will eliminate the reliance on paper based systems, and improve customer service, operational performance and controls in all areas of work management. This level of automation will ensure that operations staff are managing field activities rather than completing forms. Examples of field activities include:

(i) scheduled maintenance;

(ii) contract management;

(iii) maintenance from public requests;

(iv) improved customer service;

(v) two way communications between the various support groups - customer service, administration, and operations;

(vi) effective and efficient deployment of staff; and

(vii) provision of performance measurement data.

Only one of the four Districts currently provides automation in support of work order processing from an operational perspective, i.e., managing crews, balancing workloads, etc. All four Districts will have a single system for work order costing at the activity level to complement the City's financial reporting as well as internal work management.

It will be possible to respond to requests illustrating the nature of service requests, their source and location within the City through integration with the City's GIS system.

Overall unification of business systems is required to support the consolidation of operating functions across the former municipalities. The strategic plan has identified a series of projects that address these needs through the enhancement, implementation and deployment of key business applications and datasets. These projects include:

Implementation of Business Systems/Applications:

(1) maintenance management system (TMMS) deployment;

(2) road allowance control system (RACS) enhancements;

(41) capital project systems:

(a) Project Planning; and

(b) Project Tracking and Financial Costing;

(4) development application tracking system;

(5) engineering document/drawing management system;

(6) customer service tracking system;

(42) transportation asset management systems:

(a) Pavement Management;

(b) Bridge/Structure Management; and

(c) (c) Streetlighting etc.;

(8) transportation modelling/analysis applications enhancements;

(9) permit parking (residential on-street parking);

Consolidation of Data:

(10) municipal infrastructure data (e.g. transportation and utilities);

(11) spatial/spatially-referenced data (e.g. street centrelines, properties, addresses);

(12) Transportation data (e.g. traffic counts, accident data, etc.);

Standardization and Integration of Technology:

(1) standard technologies:

(a) GIS technology;

(b) public access technology;

(c) automated data collection equipment (e.g. mobile systems); and

(d) internet and e-commerce;

(14) migration of applications and data from mainframe systems; and

Upgrades to the Computing Framework:

(15) departmental networking and server upgrades.

While business systems support specific functions, it is the overall integration of complementary systems that provides the basis for realizing many of the benefits. The following table illustrates this by outlining specific business objectives, key projects that address these objectives and descriptions of the benefits that can be expected. Note that projects 10 and 15 (Municipal Infrastructure Data Project and the Networking and Server Upgrade Project) are foundation projects and are prerequisites for the successful standardization and integration of business systems across the division.

The total project cost for the Unified Business Systems Project is $11,300,000.00. The costs are assigned on an annual basis as follows:

1999 $ 100,000.00

2000 $4,500,000.00

2001 $4,550,000.00

2002 $2,150,000.00

The costs cover activities that include business process redesign, technology acquisition and deployment, application development and customization, data acquisition and user training.

The benefits summarized in the previous table are both tangible and intangible. The tangible benefits that will accrue on an annual basis at the end of the transition period include:

Maintain Service Levels

This covers the avoidance of direct financial expenditures for additional services by the Division to maintain service levels. Included in this category are the costs for the continued operation of the mainframe and the increases in budget for transportation infrastructure replacement.

The total savings on external cost avoidance on an annual basis at maturity are $1,680,000.00.

Productivity Improvements

If this project is not undertaken the Division will be under pressure to add up to 18.5 FTE's to perform clerical, administrative and technology functions currently undertaken by operations staff in addition to their core operational duties. Investment in these automated solutions will eliminate the need for this growth and allow the focussing of operational staff in their core service delivery functions. The value of the 18.5 FTE's is $1,150,000.00.

Total potential benefits that accrue on an annual basis at the end of the transition period are estimated up to $2,830,000.00. The resulting payback period is four years.

Conclusions:

Approval of the contents of this report is a key component to the amalgamation efforts of the Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services Department. The Information and Technology Division of Corporate Services Department has reviewed this report and supports its submission.

All systems and applications will conform to Corporate standards and policies where applicable.

This report is supported by a full report outlining the Strategic Information Direction for the Division.

Contact:

Ted Smith, Director, Information and Technology Services, Works and Emergency Services, Telephone: 392-9251, Fax: 392-4426, E-mail: tsmith0@toronto.ca

(A copy of the attachments to the foregoing report respecting the Unified Business System for the Transportation Division, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (December 29, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of

Urban Development Services, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Official Plan: 2000 and 2001 Transition Funding Allocation").

Purpose:

On December 10, 1999, the Budget Advisory Committee requested that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services report back to Budget Advisory Committee on January 10, 1999 with a business case to support the change in scope for the new Official Plan with respect to the additional funding requirements for the years 2000 and 2001.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $530,000 is being requested for 2000; $395,000 for 2001; in addition to the $472,000 carryover from the 1999 approved budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council authorize the carryover of approximately $472,000 of which $362,000 is contractually committed;

(2) Council approve funding in the amount of $530,000 for 2000 and an additional $395,000 for 2001 from transition funding for the preparation of a new Official Plan; and

(3) The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On February 1, 1999, Council approved funds in the amount of $700,000 from Transition funding for the preparation of a new Official Plan. The new Official Plan qualifies as a transition project because the need for a new Plan arises as a result of amalgamation. There are clear benefits to having an Official Plan that addresses the new city as a single municipality. The existing Official Plans, contain over 2000 pages of differing policies and do not provide either a clear direction or a workable planning framework for the amalgamated City. The benefits of a new Official Plan include:

(1) the development of strategic policies that will position the City to attract our share of the projected regional population growth;

(2) positioning the City to capture economic growth in order to compete in the global economy and sustain a high quality of life;

(3) providing a guide to make the best and most effective use of public and private investment in the City;

(4) allowing more effective use of our limited staff resources: a new plan providing for a consistent policy direction will enable staff to move easily from one location to another; and

(5) fewer site specific official plan amendment applications.

It is important to stress that the new Plan is not merely a consolidation of the existing plans, but rather will be a new Plan that will help to position the City to capture growth and reinvestment over the next 20 to 30 years. The new Plan will put in place Council's agenda for its future.

The total project flows over a three year timeframe. However, in preparing the Official Plan budget for 1999, Staff requested transition funds for 1999 only, anticipating to again request funds for 2000 and 2001. Staff is now advised that the total funding requirements for the Official Plan should have been made as one request. As a result this revised request includes the full cost of production and consultation of the Plan over the remaining two years the project is projected to take to complete.

Comments:

1999 Budget Allocation for the New Official Plan

In March of 1999, Council adopted "The Framework for the New Official Plan" which provided the general direction for the Official Plan process. The Official Plan process was officially launched on April 7, 1999, with a City sponsored public forum entitled "Shaping Toronto's Future". Since the launch, the process has proceeded on multiple fronts including an active public awareness and community consultation strategy, a research program and the initiation of a number of major background studies.

Of the $700,000 originally budgeted, approximately $228,000 has been spent. Final invoices are pending which will increase the amount actually spent in 1999. Of the remaining $472,000, $362,000 is committed towards consultant contracts negotiated in November and December of 1999, but for which billing will not commence until 2000. This leaves a balance of approximately $110,000 that has been allocated to ongoing public communications and consultation in 2000. Therefore, Staff seeks Council's approval to carry forward the unspent $472,000 into the 2000 Official Plan budget.

The necessity to carryover a portion of the 1999 budget allocation is explained by a combination of factors relating to staffing, timing and the nature of how the Official Plan process has evolved.

The 1999 Official Plan budget was prepared in November 1998, before Council adopted the "Framework for the New Official Plan" and well before Staff could benefit from the advice and direction from the Council Reference Group. As such, the work program has evolved since Council approved the 1999 Budget request. In order to properly understand the complexity of a number of issues facing the City, additional consultant studies and research has been required than originally projected.

This has been further complicated by the delay in staffing the Official Plan Team. The Official Plan Team reached its full staffing complement in October 1999. The longer than expected period of understaffing severely challenged the Team's ability to meet it's originally identified timelines. Understaffing has had a twofold impact. First, it necessitated the need to contract out more work that would have been done internally had Staff resources been available. Second, it delayed initiation of certain consultant's studies since, by their innovative nature, the types of studies proposed for the Official Plan require a great degree of Staff preparation, participation and project monitoring. Several of the studies initiated in 1999 will actually be completed in 2000, meaning that the associated community consultation will have to take place in 2000.

The following chart demonstrates the approved 1999 budget and where Staff originally anticipated expenditures to occur and the actual and committed budget expenditures per area.

Estimated 1999 Actual/Committed

Expenditures 1999 Expenditures

Communications/Consultations: $400,000 *$130,000

Research/Consultants: $250,000 *$441,000

Council Roundtables: $ 50,000 *$ 19,000

Total: $700,000 *$590,000

* Figures are approximate

$110,000 - unspent funding

2000 Budget Allocation for the New Official Plan:

Staff is requesting an additional $530,000 as part of the 2000 budget allocation exclusive of the 1999 carryover. The monies required for 2000 are for costs associated with the further development of the new Plan. The budget requirements are as follows:

Communication and Public Consultation: $150,000

Advertising: $ 35,000

Major Public Events and Forums: $ 75,000

Publications: $100,000

Consultants/Surveys/Research: $150,000

Council Workshops/Reference Groups: $ 20,000

Total: $530,000

The monies proposed to be allocated will enable Staff to continue and to expand the public consultation process and broad mandate for policy development in accordance with the framework approved by Council. It is envisioned that major reports will be released in 2000 for discussion purposes, which will require consultation. Staff is currently preparing a Status Report on the direction of the Plan to be presented to Council in March. In order to facilitate discussion with stakeholders, Staff will need to conduct strategic consultations. Staff will also continue to prepare newsletters/brochures to convey the direction of the Plan to the public and to solicit public feedback.

It is also anticipated that a portion of the funding dedicated to the 2000 budget will be directed at consultants to prepare additional reports, particularly pertaining to transportation. Transportation has been identified as a leading issue for the new Official Plan, particularly with regard to priority setting activities of the Greater Toronto Services Board for GTA wide transportation policies and funding initiatives. In addition, the increasing importance of efficient truck movement for the economic competitiveness of the City and the GTA must be recognized.

2001 Budget Allocation for the New Official Plan:

Staff is requesting a further $395,000 as part of the 2001 budget allocation. The monies required for 2001 are for external costs of the new Plan. The budget requirements are as follows:

Communication and Public Consultation: $250,000

Advertising: $ 35,000

Major Public Events and Forums: $ 50,000

Publications: $ 40,000

Council Workshops/Reference Groups: $ 20,000

Total: $395,000

Finalization of the new Plan is anticipated to be dealt with by the new Council in January/February 2001. Extensive public consultation, advertising and the preparation of a newsletter advising residents, the business community and stakeholders of the Plan will be required.

In addition, Implementation and Action Plans will be developed to implement the directions of the new Plan. A significant amount of work will be dedicated to developing Action Plans which are intended to effectively position the City to respond to change as community conditions evolve over the life of the Plan.

If the Plan is not fully funded as a transition project over the next two years:

(i) we will be unable to carry out the broad consultation directed by Council;

(ii) we will have to forego external consultation and expertise required to expedite the process and learn from others;

(iii) we will lose the momentum that has been generated around this project, particularly the interest shown by a wide range of stakeholders;

(iv) we will lose the ability to adequately set priorities for the effective expenditure of capital funds to support development and encourage investment in the City;

(v) we will be unable to address pressing regional issues which may threaten our ability to position the City to attract economic reinvestment; and

(vi) we will be unable to identify meaningful indicators to measure progress toward meeting the strategic objectives of improving the City's quality of life.

Conclusions:

Council has recognized the benefits of developing a new Official Plan and has already approved its funding as a transition project. In order for the Official Plan Team to continue its extensive public consultation program and broad analysis of issues, as previously directed by Council, an additional $925,000 in transition funds are required for 2000-2001. In addition, Council approval is required for the carryover of transition funds not expended on the Official Plan process in 1999.

Contact:

Kerri A. Voumvakis, Manager Official Plan and Zoning, Metro Hall, Tel: (416) 392-8126, Fax:  (416) 397-4080

(Report (January 7, 2000) from the Project Atlas Steering Committee,

addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee, entitled "2000 Transition

Program - Project Atlas (Financial and HR/Payroll Project)".

Purpose:

This report outlines the current expenditures on the implementation of Project Atlas (the SAP implementation of the Financial and HR/Payroll systems), provides a projected budget to completion and requests an amendment to the project budget.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report would increase the funding approval to the Council approved Project Atlas by $7 million (gross and net).

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the project budget for the implementation of the SAP Project Atlas be increased by $7 million (gross and net) to offset additional costs expected from higher than projected staff backfills and unanticipated sustainment costs.

Background:

Council, at its meeting of July 1998, approved the selection of SAP for the Financial and Human Resources/Payroll systems of the City. In December 1998, Council approved the terms and conditions for the City's contract with SAP Canada. As part of the December 1998 report, it was identified that $3 million in staff backfill costs could be required as part of the project implementation. Additional project funding would be subject to a report to Budget Committee being provided.

When the project budget was constructed, the major components included SAP contractual payments for licenses and implementation milestones. The project budget contingency of less than 10 percent was to cover project change requests and project office expenses for office accommodation, legal, audit and general office expenses such as printing, telephones, etc.

Comments:

(1)Project Milestones:

Project Atlas has certain contracted milestones be implemented from June 1998 through to the end of 2000. The following milestones have been implemented to date:

Financial System:

(a)June 1999 - live with former North York, York, East York and Etobicoke financial systems;

(b)August 1999: - live with former Metro, Scarborough and Toronto financial systems;

(c)November 1999: - live with Capital Projects systems, expanded purchasing functionality; and

(d)December 1999: - live with Accounts Receivable system Phase 1.

Human Resources/Payroll System:

(a)August 1999: - live with former North York, York and East York payroll systems

(9,000 employees); and

(b)November 1999: - live with former Metro and Scarborough payroll systems

(16,000 employees)

These milestones have been implemented as outlined originally to Council in July and December 1998 with some minor milestone adjustments due to implementation strategies.

The following milestones remain to be implemented in 2000:

Financial System:

(a)February 2000: - Accounts Receivable Phase 2; and

(b)September 2000: - Budget preparation (also part of Stage 4 of HR/Payroll project)

HR/Payroll System:

(a)February 2000: - former Etobicoke payroll system go live;

(b)April 2000: - former Toronto payroll system go live;

(c)May 2000: - Stage 2 - additional HR and payroll functionality; and

(d)September 2000: - Stage 4 - additional HR and payroll functionality;

Note: Date is subject to scoping exercise to be done in early 2000.

(2)Project Budget:

The following identifies the approved cash flows (excluding the $3 million potential identified in December 1998), the projected cash flows and variance:

Variance Analysis:

As noted above, approximately $22.5 million is expected to be spent by December 31, 1999 against approved cash flows of $23.3 million. Contracted milestone commitments to be paid in 2000 amount to $4.3 million, while approved unpaid change requests amount to $1.1 million for a total of $5.4 million of contracted commitments.

The requested additional $7 million in project funding is comprised of the following:

(a) Staff Backfills:

As noted, the December 1998 report identified that $3 million in staff backfill costs was identified that was not included in the original approved project budget. Funding approval was subject to a report to Budget Advisory Committee. Now that the project is underway and having achieved all scheduled milestones, the assessment of what has occurred and what is projected can be made with a high degree of accuracy.

The Council approved project budget assumed that staffing from the City would be provided for the project in the areas of: Finance - Accounting, Purchasing and Materials Management, Budget and Payroll, Pension and Employee Benefits Divisions; Corporate Services - Human Resources, Information Technology, Communications Divisions and Department resources. Actual resourcing for the project through 1999 for the project was as follows:

1999 was a year of immense activity for the City's Y2K initiatives. Many City resources were allocated first to work on Y2K projects since this project began prior to the start-up of the SAP project in 1998. The SAP project did not begin until January 1999 and as such, suffered from a depleted availability of required resources in all areas. The SAP project was a Y2K solution for several of the City's payroll and financial systems. Resources from Finance, IT and Human Resources were required not only for the SAP project, but also for work on remediating systems that were required for Y2K contingency purposes (Cyborg, Banner, SFG) and for maintaining operations to produce service to the City's employees while at the same time downsizing by 15 percent.

Unanticipated contracted resources have been and continue to be required to work on the SAP project in the areas of deployment, communications, and training. While the Y2K initiative will wind down over the early part of 2000 and can result in additional City resources being made available, the projected budget attempts to balance the need for resources with the available potential resources. Efforts will continue to mitigate the need for contracted resources particularly in the communications area. Staff backfills for deployment purposes in 1999 amount to $1.4 million with a further $0.9 million for 2000. Training and communications support for both the financial and HR/Payroll systems has amounted to $0.6 million with $0.5 million expected for 2000.

Approximately $3.4 million is required for staff backfills as follows:

(b) Sustainment:

The City's implementation of the HR/Payroll part of the project has a very aggressive timetable in the SAP client base. The City's primary objective in implementation was to move to one system as quickly as possible. As such, the City has relied upon SAP to take the lead to 'configure' the system rather than take the time to train City staff to do these tasks. Now that the system is live for 25,000 employees, there are issues that arise that require City staff to make 'fixes' i.e. implementing new collective agreement terms and conditions, correcting problems etc. SAP resources are required beyond the 30 day post implementation support as contemplated in the contract in order to maintain the system and to train City staff in the ongoing maintenance of the system. In approving the SAP resources for sustainment, a key element is the knowledge transfer to City staff which includes Finance, HR and I.T. staff. Approximately $500,000 has been spent in 1999 for unanticipated sustainment purposes with an additional $1.5 million required for 2000 based on 1999 experience.

(c) Change Requests and Project Expenses:

The contract with SAP defined very specific milestones for delivery based on functionality as described in the City's RFI. As implementation has continued, there have been changes to the scope of the project from the original plan. It is projected that $3.4 million in change requests will be required over the life of the project with $1.7 million having been spent for 1999 and the balance for 2000. The $3.4 million in change requests is split between the financial system at $1.4 million, $1.4 million for the human resources/payroll system, and $600,000 for training. These changes are formally raised at the project level and are approved by the Project Advisory Committee. Significant change requests are brought forward to the Project Steering Committee for approval. Change requests for the financial system have focussed on automating conversions, implementing project systems for capital projects to replace internal order implementation and for training material. It is estimated that additional change requests will be made for accounts receivable and further product functionality not originally defined in the RFI.

Change requests for the HR/Payroll system have focussed on additional automated interfaces, faster data entry screens and development of reports. Future change requests will arise from the continued implementation of the former Toronto and Etobicoke go-lives and the additional functionality implementation.

Project office expenses are projected to be $900,000 with $530,000 having been spent in 1999 and the balance for 2000. The major costs are the 2-year office accommodation costs at $300,000, legal and audit fees at $400,000 with the balance for printing, telephones and miscellaneous expenses.

In summary, the project budget allowed for $2.5 million in funds beyond the contracted amount with SAP for change requests and project expenses. This amount is not sufficient for additional costs for change requests, staff backfills and sustainment that for the entire project are estimated to be $7.0 million. If these funds are not approved, the project has already committed contractual obligations of approximately $5.4 million for milestones and already approved change requests.

Conclusions:

Project Atlas has met established targets and projected functionality on time, at a pace that is considered intense. Work continues to improve system implementation but additional resources are required to enable the project to continue successfully to ultimate completion. Detailed estimates have been provided in this report to support additional project funding of $7 million.

Contact:

Wanda A. Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 392-8773.

Mandy Rattner, Project Director, 397-4980.

(Report (January 13, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer) addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "2000 Transition Program - Project Atlas: Additional

Information re: Change Requests and Project Expenses").

Purpose:

To respond to the Budget Advisory Committee on additional information requested on details of approved and projected change requests as well as general project expenses.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The requested addition to the project budget of $7 million has change requests and project expenses estimated to be $1.5 million above previously funded levels of $2.5 million.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received as information.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of January 12, 2000, had before it a report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer as Chair of the Project Atlas Steering Committee outlining the current expenditures on the implementation of the SAP FIS and HR/PAY and recommending that the project budget be increased by $7 million to offset higher than projected staff backfills and unanticipated sustainment costs.

The Budget Advisory Committee requested additional information be provided with respect to the change requests and project expenses element of the request.

Discussion:

Attached as Appendix A is a detailed list of change requests issued to date along with a further breakdown of project expenses. As noted, the actual change requests for 1999 total $1.6 million for the FI, HR/Pay and Training components of the system implementation with an additional $1.6 million projected for 2000. Project expenses total almost $400,000 in 1998 and 1999 with another $400,000 projected to the end of 2000.

Conclusions:

Further information requested on change requests and project expenses is provided in Appendix A.

(A copy of Appendix A attached to the foregoing report, entitled "Change Request and Project Expenses Detail" was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (December 1, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of

Corporate Services addressed to the Budget Advisory

Committee entitled "Facilities and Real Estate Division,

Business Process Integration Project"

(submitted as part of the group of Transition projects)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Budget Advisory Committee with an overview and justification for the Business Process Integration Project for the Facilities and Real Estate Division included as a new item under the group of Transition Projects as part of the capital works program.

Financial Implications:

Approval of this project will result in a one time expenditure through the capital budget of $ 1.5 million in the year 2000 and $ 0.5 million in 2001 for a total of $2.0 million. The benefits of the project are expected to result in an annualized savings of about $2.0 million in the operating budget for the Division; the savings will be the result of the efficiencies realized through the process rationalization, higher productivity levels, improved cost control initiatives and appropriate use of technology.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the:

(1) Business Process Integration Project as detailed in Appendix 1 with a cash flow of $1.5 million in 2000 and $.5 million in 2001 be approved;

(2) Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ensure that the operating budget of the Division for the year 2002-03 and beyond appropriately reflects the annualized savings from this project, estimated at $2.0 million per annum;

(3) interim funding authorization be granted to the extent of $300 thousand to commence the project work in January 2000 pending the final approval of the capital budget; and,

(4) Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Budget Advisory Committee on a six monthly basis to provide a project progress update.

Background:

The Facilities and Real Estate Division was created in 1998 from the amalgamation of the property functions and the real estate functions of the seven former municipalities. Each of the amalgamating organizations had different mandates, business policies, and systems and procedures for providing services. During the period since amalgamation (1998-99), the Division has made some progress in the harmonization of business practices; however, it has been forced to function as a collection of disparate units of the former municipalities rather than as one cohesive unit. The principal purpose of this project is to enable that much needed integration to occur through the rationalization of business processes and the integration of management information across the Division.

It is the vision of the Facilities and Real Estate Division to function as an integrated business unit providing efficient, value added, quality services to the City departments. Further, it is management's intent that all of the services from the Division will eventually be offered on a full cost recovery basis as part of the overall common service delivery model promoted by the C.A.O. and the Corporate Services Department. Towards that end, and, in order to be competitive and win the business of the City departments, the Division recognizes timely, reliable information to be a key ingredient to its potential success. This project will provide that edge to the Divisional management through process redesign and rationalization and effective use of technology.

Project Overview:

This project is about the rationalization of the business processes in the Division and the implementation of appropriate information management systems to support the Divisional operations. It comprises of the following 11 steps:

(a) Review of Business Processes:

(1) Current Situation Assessment;

(2) Process Re-engineering;

(3) Development of Business Policies;

(4) Definition of Management Information Requirements;

(5) Definition of Information Architecture;

(6) Interface with Divisional and Corporate Systems; and

(7) Identification of Potential Systems and Efficiencies.

(b) Systems Implementation:

(8) Establishment of Systems Production and Maintenance Strategies;

(9) Development of Required Systems;

(c) Training and Savings:

(10) Training of Staff; and

(11) Tracking and Reporting of Savings.

Details of the activities to be carried out in each step and the expected deliverables are outlined in the appendix to this report.

Potential Project Benefits:

The project will benefit the Divisional operations and several different ways:

(1) Costing of building services: at the present time, the existing corporate systems such as SAP have a generic financial focus in their use. In order to provide for improved monitoring of job costs for specific tasks such as the provision of building services or various maintenance activities, managers require proper tools that will enable them to set benchmark standards and monitor the actual levels of efficiency and productivity achieved. This project will address those management needs which is expected to lead to improved performance;

(2) Benchmarks and Standards: During the 1999 operating budget process, the Budget Committee had requested the Division to provide detailed building cost statistics in relation to different building services such as janitorial, maintenance, etc. At the present time, there are no tools to track such benchmarks. One of the outcomes of this project will be the ability to set benchmarks and monitor actual results with a view to finding improvements; and

(3) Alternative Service Delivery: Alternative service delivery options will be explored to find potential savings. Pursuing that option requires an enabling environment in which the cost related to existing operations can be accurately gauged and analyzed so that the City can be assured that the decisions are being made on the basis of valid, defensible, information.

Project Cost and Justification:

The project is estimated to cost about $2.0 million; this estimate is based on the expenditures incurred by the City in some other program areas for review of program operations and for the development of new support systems. The project will be managed by Divisional staff and most of the work will be done using contract staff during the period 2000-01. Most of the resources will be used for labour to analyze existing processes; identify potential improvements; policy development; systems specifications, design and development; and training. Some of the resources may also be used for hardware upgrade or software licenses.

It is estimated that the rationalization of policies, procedures, systems, and the proper use of technology will result in a cumulative gross savings of about 3 percent over a 2 to 3 year period (equivalent to about $2.5 million). Salary expenditures constitute about 40 per cent of the Division's budget with most of the balance being reflected by cost of utilities and contracted services. Therefore, from a budget perspective, most of the anticipated savings will be reflected in lower future salary costs (equivalent to about 5 per cent of the salary budget).

The resources required to support the new systems are estimated at $500 thousand annually, resulting in a net annual expenditure reduction of about $2.0 million; accordingly, the project pay back period is estimated at about 2 years assuming that the full impact of the potential savings will be realized by the end of the year 2002. It is to be noted that regardless of the expected savings, the rationalization of the business process is crucial if the Division is to effectively manage its portfolio of land and buildings.

Tracking of Savings:

The tracking of savings is an integral part of this project. Savings will arise gradually during the implementation phase and they will be identified and tagged for subsequent verification by the Finance Department. The budgets for the years 2001-2002 will reflect a portion of the potential savings with the full savings of $2.0 million being reflected in the year 2003.

Interim Financing:

In order to complete the project as planned, it is essential to commence work as soon as possible. The capital budget is expected to be approved some time in April/May of year 2000 and that would have the effect of causing almost a six month delay. It is therefore requested that interim expenditure authority be granted, subject to a limit of $300 thousand to commence work early in the year 2000.

Conclusion:

The Business Integration Project is essential to the efficient functioning of the Division. It will help rationalize the business policies and processes, streamline workflow, enable benchmarking and introduction of standard costing principles in work management, provide an enabling environment for the introduction of alternative service delivery, and, enable a continuous review of organizational performance with a view to achieving ongoing improvements.

The project will pay for itself within two years and will result in continuing accrual of benefits to the City thereafter through a reduction in the annual operating expenditures. In order to expedite the project, an interim expenditure authorization is sought for $300 thousand to enable commencement of the work pending the final approval of the capital budget for year 2000.

Contacts: (Facilities and Real Estate Division)

Cyrus Patel, Manager Business Support Services, 392-4878

Mark Davies, Director, Facilities Services, 397-0850

Susanne Borup, Executive Director, 397-4156

Appendix

Facilities and Real Estate

Project: Business Process Integration

Key Steps and Deliverables

The project scope is comprised of the following 11 key components:

(1)Current Situation Assessment:

In this step, the existing business processes and the information currently available in the Division will be documented and analyzed for continued relevancy with specific reference to the Division's mandate, the service delivery model adopted by the Division, City's priorities in relation to Divisional operations, and other changes that have taken place across the corporation (e.g., new SAP financial systems).

Deliverable: a document that assess the current situation and presents alternative options to be considered for the future.

(2)Process Re-engineering:

The purpose of this step is to evaluate the existing business processes in relation to the Division's defined mandate and identify the most suitable alternative ("Best Practices") that may be considered for adoption consistent with the objectives of business expediency and cost efficiency.

Deliverable: detailed definition of process to be adopted with flowcharts, information flows, and, internal control points. Operating managers will evaluate and endorse the re-engineered process before proceeding to the next step.

(3)Development of Business Policies:

In this step, detailed business policies will be developed to support the business operations. The policies will be linked to the business process flows, internal controls implemented, management information to be processed, and the basis for performance assessment of specific functions linked to the business process.

Deliverable: Business Policy manual that standardizes business policies, identifies information requirements and establishes the basis for performance management.

(4)Definition of Management Information Requirements:

The purpose of this step is to define the details of the management information required to support the business operations based on the re-engineered model and the business policies adopted. It will include: identifying who will need/use what information, how the information is to be used and how the effectiveness of the operations is to be monitored.

Deliverable: Formal, detailed definition of information requirements across the Division.

(5)Definition of Information Architecture:

The overall information needs identified will have to be integrated into an efficient architecture model: the objective is to have a place for everything, and everything in its place. This will be the foundation for the subsequent data warehousing that is an essential requirement for the efficient management of the Divisional information.

Deliverable: An information management plan that outlines how the information will be structured, stored, coded, accessed, and, how quality control assurance will be provided.

(6)Interface with Span, Delphi and SAP Systems:

There are three key systems on which the Division relies very heavily; they are: SPAN, Delphi, and the corporate SAP system. Any information management solution in the Division must be integrated with these systems and provide a seamless continuity for management information processing. In this step, the requirements for the appropriate interfaces will be identified with documentation on how they will interface with any Divisional information management system.

Deliverable: Definition of interfaces required between Divisional information plan and the information residing in other key systems in use in the Division; integration of the information in other external systems with the Division's information architecture plan.

(7)Identify Potential Systems And Resulting Efficiencies:

The whole purpose of this exercise is to help the Division become more efficient and competitive in the delivery of services. In this step, in relation to each potential computer based system identified for implementation, the potential efficiencies to be realized will be identified and confirmed by the manager(s) who will be using the systems. The systems development schedule will be prioritized based on the business urgency and the anticipated savings. Existing systems will also be examined for potential future use with minor modifications.

Deliverable: Schedule of priority for the development of systems required to support business processes and the potential savings resulting therefrom.

(8)Establish Systems Production and Maintenance Strategies:

The purpose of this step is to establish the capability for the development of the required systems in an economical and affordable manner. Activities to be carried out will include: establishing a systems development strategy; identification of tools and technologies to accelerate systems development; establish standardized methodologies for systems design, user interface, interface between different systems, systems and user documentation, and methods for ongoing systems maintenance and support.

Deliverable: A strategy that supports economical development of systems, their documentation, continued use, and maintenance.

(9)Prioritize and Develop Systems:

In this stage, the systems identified in the above step will be undertaken for development. All systems developed will be consistent with the strategies identified in the previous step for systems development and maintenance.

Deliverable: Functional systems designed to meet specific management information needs and support the adopted business processes.

(10)Training:

In this step, staff in the Division will be extensively trained in the use of the systems as well as in the proper use of the re-engineered business processes. Training manuals may also be developed as required.

Deliverable: Training of staff; development of training manuals.

(11)Track and Report Savings:

In this step, the actual savings and efficiencies realized or, the new expenditures avoided will be traced. This will enable management to assess the benefits realized from the implementation of this project.

Deliverable: Schedule of savings accomplished or new expenditures avoided.

(Report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Fleet Management Services 2000-2004 Capital Budget")

Purpose:

This report will provide a response to the issues raised at the December 10, 1999 Budget Advisory Committee with respect to the Fleet Management Services 2000 - 2004 Capital Works Program.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Acceptance of the recommendations contained in this report will result in a reduction in the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Works Program of $0.7 million. At present the 2000 Capital Works Program consists of two new projects totalling $1.2 million. This report proposes a reduction in Capital Project #203 "Emissions Testers" from $0.8 million to $0.1 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the July 2000 Policy and Finance Committee on the actual costs incurred for external heavy duty diesel emissions testing during the first 6 months of the year and advise Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of performing such testing;

(1.1) the Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers" be authorized in the amount of $100,000 for the acquisition of heavy duty diesel emissions testing equipment contingent upon Council review of the recommendations contained in the report noted above.

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Policy and Finance Committee in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the actual costs incurred for external gasoline and light duty diesel emissions testing to date and advise Council on the most cost-effective method (external versus internal) of such testing;

(2.1) $700,000.00 of Fleet Management Services 2000 Capital Budget request (Project No. 203, "Emissions Testers") be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process subject to Council review of the report noted above.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting of December 10, 1999 requested:

(a) the report (December 7, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services with regard to a revised business case for emission testing equipment be referred back to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Auditor, to report thereon to the January 12, 2000 meeting, and (i) provide a better business plan for emission testers, to include where this stands and the reasons why the fleet emission testing can not be kept at the same cost as the Police; (ii) calculate the costs of having emission testing done externally and whether or not this method is more cost efficient than being done internally; (iii) City Auditor to report on the two types of testing, i.e. gasoline and diesel; and

(b0 that Councillors Pitfield, Balkissoon and Shiner meet with the City Auditor, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Fleet Management staff to address the aforementioned matter, related issues and review the requested report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and City Auditor, the said meeting to be held prior to the Budget Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for January 12, 2000;

Comments:

On December 20, 1999 staff from Budget Services, the City Auditor and Fleet Management Services met with Councillors Pitfield, Balkissoon and Shiner. The December 7, 1999 report from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services was discussed, as well as other issues related to the acquisition of emissions testing equipment.

Budget Services staff contacted the Toronto Police Services (TPS) to discuss their emissions testing program. It should be noted that the TPS does not "charge-back" operating departments for services rendered. As such an accurate comparison is difficult. Nevertheless based on a brief discussion it would appear that labour costs between FMS and TPS are quite similar. However, the capital cost of the equipment was significantly different. Following the December 20, 1999 meeting Fleet Management Services staff were requested to obtain additional information from TPS with respect to the type and cost of emissions testing equipment purchased.

In the report dated December 7, 1999 the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services provided information with respect to the costs associated with several different options for emissions testing and repairing. Included in this analysis was a failure rate estimate based on data obtained from the Ministry of Transportation, as well as an estimate for the cost of vehicle downtime. Rather than provide a further cost benefit analysis based on estimates, it was determined that the most prudent course of action would be for Fleet Management Services to report back at a later date after having undertaken external emissions testing during the first half of 2000. In this regard it should be noted that approximately 75 per cent (1350 vehicles) of the City fleet due for testing in 2000 must be completed prior to a March 31, 2000 deadline. Fleet Management Services has in fact identified a $1.1 million pressure for emissions testing in their 2000 Operating Budget submission. Therefore, subsequent to the licensing deadline FMS will have a considerable amount of information upon which to assess the actual costs and benefits of external versus internal emissions testing.

At the meeting of December 20, 1999 it was noted that the vehicle emissions testing equipment included several components that could be purchased separately. The cost to purchase the heavy-duty diesel component is approximately $0.1 million as compared to the cost of the gasoline/light duty diesel component of $0.7 million. It was further noted that the cost of testing heavy-duty diesel externally was $75 - $125 as compared to the cost of gasoline/light duty diesel of $33.50. Given the (relatively) low capital cost of heavy-duty diesel testing equipment it would be appropriate for FMS to pursue the acquisition of heavy-duty diesel emissions testing equipment in time for the 2001 licensing deadline.

Therefore, Fleet Management Services has been advised to report back after having assessed the actual costs incurred for heavy duty diesel emissions during the first half of 2000. Said report should include a comparison of external testing costs and internal testing costs. The report should also address the optimum number of testers that would be required should internal testing be recommended.

Gasoline/light duty diesel testing will be deferred for consideration in the 2001 Capital Budget process. Fleet Management Services will be requested to provide a report on the actual costs incurred for gasoline/light duty diesel testing during 2000. Said report should also include a comparison of external testing costs and internal testing costs. The report should also address the optimum number of testers that would be required should internal testing be recommended.

Conclusions:

Fleet Management Services will be required to contract with external emissions testing service providers to test the majority of the City's Fleet prior to the March 31, 2000 licensing deadline. Following the testing of these vehicles Fleet Management Services will have a considerable amount of information upon which to re-evaluate the costs and benefits of performing emissions testing internally.

The low cost of equipment and high cost of external testing for heavy duty diesel emissions testing suggests it is prudent to consider acquisition of testing equipment in time for the 2001 licensing deadline. The relatively high cost of gasoline testing equipment and low cost of external gasoline testing suggests that significant additional cost would not be incurred by deferring consideration of acquiring gasoline testing equipment until the 2001 process.

Contacts:

Jeff Linden, Senior Budget Analyst

(B) 397-4556, (F) 392-3649, jlinden@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Val Sequeira, Manager, Budget Services

(B) 397-4225, (F) 392-3649, vsequeira@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Glenn Vollebregt, Director, Budget Service

(B) 392-8095, (F) 397-4465, gavolleb@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Wanda A. Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(B) 392-8773, (F) 397-5236, wliczyk@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(Report (undated) from the Executive Director of Human Resources

addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "200-2001 Forecast for Staff Redeployment and Retraining")

Purpose:

Funds in the amount of $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00 were allocated in 1998 and 1999 respectively to support retraining and redeployment of staff in the newly amalgamated city. The need for a further allocation of $2,000,000.00 was originally projected for the year 2000. A strategy outlining the purpose of the funds and the way in which the funds would be disbursed was adopted by Council in April, 1998. This report forecasts the needs for the coming year, and as background, also accounts for how the money has been spent to date and explains the level of expenditure.

Financial Implications:

Approval of the recommendations would require $2.0 million in 2001.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the funds remaining from the allocations of 1998 and 1999 be reserved for the purposes of redeployment and retraining in the year 2000; and

(2) $2,000,000 be included in the Staff Exits Transition project in 2001 to provide for additional demands for staff retraining and redeployment.

Background:

In 1998, $500,000.00 was allocated from the Workforce Transition Fund to be spent on redeployment and retraining that resulted from amalgamation. The Human Resources division has worked with the departments to support their efforts to retrain and redeploy staff.

The need for retraining has developed slowly since retraining must follow the sequence of restructuring, staffing, and deployment.

The following criteria are used in the selection of the retraining proposal applications:

(1) funds are available to support individuals who require short-term retraining for his/her current position;

(2) funds are available to support work teams who require training to bring their existing core skills or knowledge to a common standard established as a result of downloading or amalgamation;

(3) skills or knowledge identified for retraining must reflect business priorities and the general direction of the department or division;

(4) the result of the retraining will be a common level of skill or knowledge base for the whole work group

(5) retraining is short term and must be completed within 3 months of the application date Retraining funds are available for training events, courses, workshops, needs assessments and course materials. Funds are not available for longer term training initiatives, apprenticeship training, conferences, career changes, or courses that are normally part of a unit's on-going core competency development plans;

(6) Directors/managers can access retraining funds by contacting the human resources consultant responsible for training and development on their HR business team or by calling a career development consultant; and

(7) requests for information technology (IT) courses will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Human resources staff may refer requests for these types of training courses to the Information Technology Division.

Attached as 'Appendix A' is a summary of the retraining programs that have been supported to date. As the report demonstrates both individuals and work units, and union and management staff have been able to upgrade their existing skills to meet the needs of the newly amalgamated units. To date, the expenditures have totalled $218,255.17.00.

At this point, it is difficult to predict precisely where redeployment and retraining will be needed. This will depend on the operational plans and priorities of the departments as they emerge over the next few months. The Human Resources staff will continue to work with the divisions and departments to identify the skills needed to carry out the work; the current skill levels; and the skill gaps that have to be closed through retraining. Human Resources will also keep the unions and management groups, including COTAPSAI, informed of the retraining initiatives.

Comments:

In the first phase of amalgamation, staff have continued to operate under the old processes, utilizing a wide range of skills and understanding. In order to meet the demand for continued and effective services, staff will have to be supported in the development of their skills to a common level. In addition, common standards and expectations will have to be established and staff supported in developing their skills to the established level.

The success of the organization will depend on committed and capable staff. Retraining and redeployment are two initiatives that will not only assist staff individually, but also signal that the organization is serious in its promise to develop and support staff.

Conclusion:

To date, the retraining money has sponsored a wide variety of retraining efforts for both individuals and work groups, including union and non-union staff. This support for retraining must continue and expand, in order to provide the services needed by the city.

(A copy of the Appendix attached to the foregoing report, entitled "Approved Requests for Retraining Funds (April - December, 1999) was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Executive Director of Information

and Technology, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Provision of Information and Technology Requirements

Related to the Public Health 2000 Capital Budget")

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Budget Advisory Committee request made on December 9, 1999 Capital Wrap-Up meeting for the following:

(i) Information and Technology requirements that will be provided and funded from the 1999 and 2000 approved Capital Budget; and

(ii) the Operating Budget implications and related information and technology costs in 2000 and future years.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Annual Leasing Costs:

It is estimated that the impact on the 1999 and 2000 Y2K Annual Operating Budget (incl. Taxes) is $49,068 for hardware and $26,959 for software in order to provide Public Health with its critical information and technology requirements for 2000 in accordance with existing corporate practices and standards.

Connectivity to 14 Sites:

Public Health has requested upgrades of data lines, hubs and switches at 14 sites. Information and Technology submitted a "Network and Telecom Upgrade" Business Plan as part of their 2000 Capital Budget submission. If approved, the connectivity upgrades undertaken would include the 14 sites requested by Public Health. The installation costs are estimated at $32,225. There is a management implementation consulting cost of $7,000 for a total cost of $39,225. This amount is included in the 2000 Recommended Information and Technology Capital Budget.

Other IT Costs estimated for 2000 and Future Years:

A preliminary analysis of information and technology costs associated with the Public Health Inventory upgraded through the Y2K and/or Lease program was completed and is attached in Appendix "A";

Nine new positions at a cost of $1,080,000 are required as part of the critical information and technology requirements for Public Health in 2000. These costs will be reviewed as part of the year 2000 operating budget process.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Executive Director of Information and Technology provide Public Health with its critical information and technology requirements for 2000 from existing Y2K (Project Management Office) stock and the recommended 2000 capital budget, as detailed in this report and consistent with existing corporate standards and practices;

(2) this report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee directed that the Public Health 2000 Capital Budget be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(a) the Public Health business case be referred to the Executive Director of Information and Technology for assessment and report thereon to the January 12, 2000 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the said report to include:

(i) Information and technology requirements that will be provided and funded from the 1999 and 2000 approved Capital Budget for Y2K, consistent with existing corporate practice, policy and standards; and

(ii) the Operating Budget implications and related information and technology costs in 2000 and future years;

(b) that the requested report be forwarded to the Board of Health for information; and

(c) the Executive Director of Information and Technology, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, report to the Board of Health, in time for the 2001 Capital Budget process, on the long-term information and technology needs of the Public Health Program, including the state of inventory and capital and operating budget implications.

Comments:

Sixty-nine desktops and associated software be provided to Public Health from existing Y2K's PMO (Project Management Office) stock consistent with existing corporate practices and standards.

Connectivity upgrades to the 14 Public Health Sites is contingent on the approval of the "Network and Telecom Upgrade" business plan component of the 2000 Information and Technology Capital Budget.

The nine new positions that are requested to address the current needs as well as support the IT equipment to be added in 2000 include four Desktop Support, one Business Analyst, two Programmers, one Technical Specialist and one Senior Systems Integrator. There were no provisions made to support the amalgamated Public Health information and technology infrastructure, systems and data resource needs. Support was previously in place only in the former City of Toronto. Public Health has one of the largest numbers of databases/applications environments in the Corporation (115.) Given the size of these databases and the sensitivity of the data they contain, any failure of these systems results in serious Public Health repercussions. The new amalgamated Public Health Division requires dedicated resources to meet the information and technology support needs of approximately 1,600 users in thirty-four locations across four regions.

The new positions and the $3.0 million Information and Technology Y2K costs will be reviewed as part of the Year 2000 Operating Budget process.

Conclusions:

Based on the review and assessment of the Business Case submitted by the Public Health Division: Information Technology Needs for Public Heath, Information and Technology confirms that the critical information and technology requirements for Public Health in 2000 will be provided from existing Y2K Project Management Office stock consistent with corporate practices and standards. Pending approval of Information and Technology's 2000 capital budget request for Network and Telecom upgrades, connectivity upgrades to 14 Public Health sites will be completed in 2000 as requested by Public Health.

Contact:

Sandra Crutcher, Director, Information and Technology Client Services, CNS, EDCT, UDS

Tel: (416) 338-2219; Fax: (416) 392-3821

(Report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Transfer of Small Dollar Projects and Those with Less

than a 10-Year Lifespan to the 2000 Operating Budget")

Purpose:

To provide a list of the sub-projects costing $50,000 or less and those with less than a 10 year lifespan and discuss the implications to program budgets and the budget of other communtiy organizations and provide an update on maintenance costs on the 1999 budget.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Transferring sub-projects costing $50,000 or less and those with less than a 10 year lifespan to the Operating Budget creates a 2000 Operating budget pressure of up to $ 4.248 million which will be financed from an allocation of Capital from Current. Community organizations using City buildings and AOCC Centres could be requested to report on their ability to participate in funding capital maintenance projects.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer request current financial information from the AOCC Centres to ascertain if there are available reserve funds which could be applied to the capital maintenance of their buildings or premises and request such participation if available; and

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, review the agreements in place governing the use of City buildings by community agencies to ascertain possible participation in the funding of capital projects.

Background:

At its meeting on December 10, 1999, the Budget Advisory Committee requested that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to bring back a revised budget with $50,000.00 and under projects or a lifespan of less than 10 years, transferred from Capital Budgets to Operating Budgets and report the implications to program budgets and the budgets of other community organizations.

This was a follow-up request to that made at the Budget Advisory Committee meeting on November 16. 1999:

(1) the impact of transferring all sub-projects up to $50,000 or a lifespan of less than 10 years, from the Capital Budget to the Operating Budget, and the implications to program budgets and the budgets of other community organizations, e.g. Arena Boards, Theatres, etc.; and,

(2) maintenance costs in the 1999 Operating Budgets, including painting and general maintenance for Facilities and Real Estate, Parks, and Works.

Comments:

Implications of the Transfer of subprojects to the Operating Budget:

The attached Appendix A provides a list of the sub-projects transferred and reflected in the report currently before the Budget Advisory Committee. It shows 156 projects totalling $4.519 million, with $ 0.271 million funded by reserves and a net cost of $4.248 million.

The impact of the transfer of these projects on the 2000 Program Operating Budget requests is shown below:

Implications for the transfer of projects relating to Community organizations:

A review was undertaken of the 1998 Audited Financial Statements for the AOCC centres with projects on this list. Only one of these Centres shows reserves without a specific purpose. For other organizations included with small projects, many have agreements with the City concerning the use of the building they occupy. The 14 projects not related to an Operating Budget program are shown as shaded lines on Appendix A and total $ 335,000.

A formal request, with an accompanying review of current financial information would be required to pursue the participation of AOCC's and community organizations in capital funding. Agreements concerning the use of City buildings would need to be researched.

Maintenance Costs in 1999 Operating Budgets

Information to complete the summation of maintenance costs in the 1999 Operating Budget for Facilities, Parks and Works is not yet available in the required format.

Conclusions:

Capital sub-projects costing $50,000 or less or having less than a 10 year life span have been transferred out of the 2000 Capital Budget. In future years such sub-projects will not appear in the Capital programme.

Staff continue to work on collecting information on maintenance costs included in the 1999 Operating Budgets, such as painting and general maintenance for Facilities, Real Estate and Works.

Contact:

Judy Skinner, 397-4219, fax 397-4465

Val Sequeira, 397-4225, fax 392-3649

Glenn Vollebregt, 392-8095, fax 397-4465

Wanda Liczyk, 392-8773, fax 397-4465

Finance Department

(A copy of Appendix A attached to the foregoing report, entitled "City of Toronto 2000 Capital Project Costs - Sub-Projects $50,000 or Less or with Less than a 10 year Lifespan", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Community

and Neighbourhood Services addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Proposed $7M Capital Budget for Improving

the Emergency Shelter System")

At the last Budget Committee meeting, Committee adopted the staff memo of December 7, 1999 in which 3 additional projects (totalling $3.7 M gross, $1.85 M net) to address the homeless problem were outlined.

Staff were requested to report back on plans for the balance of $3.3 M gross. For the following reasons, staff recommend that the $3.3 M be designated in 2001 commitments:

(1) with respect to the recent federal announcements on its multi-year $753 M homelessness initiative, the implications for the City of Toronto are not yet known;

(2) the Province has not yet indicated how it will respond to the federal announcements; and

(3) cost-sharing may be required from the City of Toronto in some components of the federal initiative.

(A copy of the communication dated December 7, 1999, from the Director, Hostel Services referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "Toronto Public Library - Technical Adjustment

to 2000-2004 Capital Budget Submission")

Purpose:

To provide for amendment to Section III Program Recommendations to include the following recommendation by Budget Advisory Committee of November 16, 1999, which was inadvertently omitted.

In the event the Library Board recommend the disposal or sale of library properties during the Capital Budget deliberations, the Chief Financial Officer assure the Committee that the monies received be reinvested in the Library program.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation.

Contact:

Nizam Bacchus, 397-4217, fax 392-3649

Mike Cormier, 397-4296, fax 392-3649

Finance Department

(Report (December 8, 1999) from the City Auditor addressed to the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "Information

Technology 2001-2004 Capital Program")

Purpose:

To provide the Budget Advisory Committee with comments arising from a review of the

2000 - 2004 Capital Program submitted by the Information and Technology Division of

Corporate Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division, prepare a report as soon as possible, outlining in detail the business case, including a range of viable options, for one project selected by Budget Advisory Committee in consultation with the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division;

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer engage an appropriate third party to, jointly with the City Auditor, perform a review of the report requested in recommendation (1) above identifying any significant deficiencies or weaknesses in that report;

(3) the third party report be forwarded to Budget Advisory Committee; and

(4) the City Auditor be requested to include in his 2000 workplan and future workplan as appropriate, an ongoing review of the project management controls and procedures in place for the following Information and Technology capital projects:

(a) Data Retention Implementation - Phase 1;

(b) It Network Upgrade;

(c) IT Telecommunication Upgrade; and

(d) Electronic Service Delivery.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting on November 15, 1999, requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back on the details of how each of the business plans (related to the Capital Budget of the Information and Technology Division of Corporate Services Department) will be reviewed from a stand aside viewpoint and brought forward for final approval by the Budget Advisory Committee. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Executive Director, Information and Technology, requested Audit Services' assistance in addressing the Committee request.

Comments:

Committees of Council have expressed concerns over planned information technology expenditures in the past. The current request from Budget Advisory Committee for an independent assessment of the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program of the Information and Technology Division reflects these same concerns. The concerns are primarily:

(1) Is the project properly justified?

(2) Were other appropriate alternatives explored?

(3) Are the amounts requested reasonable and complete?

(4) Have the operating budget impacts been properly identified?

The time that we have had to address these concerns was extremely limited. As such, we have not independently addressed the above concerns at this time but rather are commenting on the events that have occurred in the budget process to date and making some general recommendations that should provide the Committee with the assurances sought.

Business Cases:

The November 9, 1999, report from the Chief Administrative Officer that accompanied the Information and Technology 2000 - 2004 Capital Program identified that the City's overall Information and Technology strategy had not yet been formalized. That report also recommended that a strategy be developed for Council approval prior to the submission to Council of the 2001 - 2005 Information and Technology Capital Program. We concur with the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Officer as this would assist in any assessment of how individual projects fit in with the City's overall Information and Technology strategy.

Although we were able to review the business cases in support of the numbers presented, we found the business cases to be high level in nature with few firm details. Clearly, although the project may be approved in principal through the Capital Budget process, the project details need to be better defined prior to approval of the actual expenditures for the project. This will occur through normal City operating procedures and therefore no recommendation is required.

Best Solution

The highly technical aspects of the IT Division's capital program projects make it virtually impossible to obtain an informed, independent in-house opinion as to the appropriateness of the project in the context of City operations. In general, staff may be relied upon to make appropriate recommendations. However, independent opinions may be advisable where project expenditures are unusually significant and the project is of a highly technical nature. For example, the selection of the City's new Financial Information System was the subject of an external independent review. Should such an independent opinion be required for all or a portion of the 2000 - 2004 Information and Technology Capital Budget, it will be necessary to provide the funds to contract with outside consultants for this expertise.

While it may not be cost efficient to perform independent reviews on all projects included in IT Division's capital program, there is value in selecting one particular project for such a review. This approach would provide information as to the appropriateness of the recommended solutions while at the same time not over burdening the projects with third party reviews where they may not be required. Should the suggested review indicate significant deficiencies in the project as presented, further reviews could be commissioned to ensure similar deficiencies do not exist in other projects. The review need not delay approval of the capital program but rather could be established as a condition for the future project approvals required.

The review suggested in the previous paragraph could be accomplished in one of two ways. First, the complete review could be prepared by a third party and an appropriate report tabled with the appropriate Committee of Council. Second, the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division, could be requested to prepare a report to Committee, outlining in detail, the business case for the project, including a range of viable options. The report prepared could then be reviewed by a third party, selected by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, with instructions to report on any significant deficiencies or weaknesses in the report. The second approach would be the less expensive in terms of the cost of the review and should not be overly demanding on staff resources as most of the necessary information should already be on hand or would be required prior to receiving final project approval. In addition, it would be advantageous from a knowledge transfer perspective for Audit Services staff to work jointly with the third party in performing this review.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the:

(1) Executive Director, Information and Technology Division, prepare a report as soon as possible, outlining in detail the business case, including a range of viable options, for one project selected by Budget Advisory Committee in consultation with the Executive Director, Information and Technology Division;

(2) Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer engage an appropriate third party to, jointly with the City Auditor, perform a review of the report requested in recommendation (1) above identifying any significant deficiencies or weaknesses in that report; and

(3) third party report described in (2) above be forwarded to Budget Advisory Committee prior to any approvals being sought for actual project expenditures.

Reasonable Requests and Operating Budget Impacts:

The City's budget process involves a series of reviews to ensure that requests for funds as finally submitted to Council have been thoroughly vetted by the appropriate City staff. In the case of the Information and Technology Division Capital Program, the final information presented to the Budget Advisory Committee is significantly different from that initially presented to Finance Department staff. This provides some evidence to the Committee that the budget has undergone appropriate scrutiny. However, the highly technical nature of the IT projects requires that Finance Department staff place a certain degree of reliance on IT Division staff in verifying the reasonableness of dollars requested. Additional assurances would also be obtained through the third party report referred to in recommendation (2) above.

Project Monitoring:

One final issue worthy of mention is that of monitoring the project once it is approved. Recently, several large projects within the City have had the benefit of an independent review of the project management function. The most notable of these were the Year 2000 Project and the SAP Financial Information System (FIS) implementation. This independent review is particularly useful in providing the project manager or sponsor and politicians with added assurance that the project will reach a successful conclusion.

Given the level of uncertainty being expressed at the political level in relation to large technology projects, an independent review function may provide an additional level of assurance that projects, once approved, will be adequately controlled. Since numerous projects in the Information and Technology 2000 - 2004 Capital Program are of interest to the City Auditor, it would be practical for reviews of these projects to be included in the City Auditor's workplan.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the:

(4) City Auditor be requested to include in his 2000 workplan, and future workplans as appropriate, an ongoing review of the project management controls and procedures in place for the following Information and Technology capital projects:

(a) Data Retention Implementation - Phase 1;

(b) It Network Upgrade;

(c) IT Telecommunication Upgrade; and

(d) Electronic Service Delivery.

Conclusions:

On several occasions, Council has expressed concerns over the nature and extent of large capital projects with significant technology components. In some cases these concerns have been overcome through use of independent third parties. Given the uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of technology solutions for the City, it would be prudent to obtain third party assurances in relation to a sample project selected from the 2000 - 2004 Information and Technology Division's Capital Program. Depending on the findings, the results of this review could serve to alleviate or confirm the need for similar reviews in the future.

Contact:

Jerry Shaubel, Director, Audit Services; Tel: 392-8462; JShaubel@toronto.ca

(Report (December 17, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate

Services addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee,

entitled "2000-2004 Capital Budget Review - Response from

Information and Technology Services - Budget Advisory

Committee Request from December 10, 1999")

Purpose:

The Executive Director, Information and Technology response to an inquiry as to whether Information and Technology could further reduce it's proposed 2000 Capital Budget expenditures by an additional $250,000.00.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report, from the Executive Director, Information and Technology, be received by the Budget Advisory Committee in response to requests brought forward at the December 10^th 2000-2004 Capital Budget Review.

Background:

At the December 10^th, 2000-2004 Capital Budget Review, the following recommendations was made:

(a)Pilot Project for Document Imaging and Management Study - reduce by $500,000.00;

(b)that a further reduction of $250,000.00 be looked at, if necessary, and report back to the January 14, 2000 meeting in that regard; and

(c)(Chow) that the report (December 8, 1999) from the City Auditor be adopted.

In response to the above request, the Executive Director, Information and Technology, was asked to provide a report to address Part (b).

Response:

Through detailed review of the projects outlined in the Information and Technology 2000-2004 Capital Budget, it has been determined that the least disruptive and most effective method of further reducing our submission by $250,000.00, is to commence the Network and Telecom Upgrade projects on a delayed implementation schedule. Although these upgrades are necessary, we have determined that a phased implementation schedule will allow for the requested reduction of our 2000 Capital expenditures, to meet the Budget Committee's request.

Some of the sub-projects impacted by revising the implementation schedule, will include:

Single Sign On;

Directory Services; and

Integrated Voice Response.

In revising the implementation schedule, each sub-project's negative impacts must be reviewed and assessed. Some of the impacts to be assessed, included:

Delayed implementation of the Single Sign On (SSO) project will result in continued exposure to potential computer security threats.

Delayed implementation of the consolidated Integrated Voice Response (IVR) project may impact on some of the business units who require IVR solutions to meet their current business needs and may result in duplication of technologies throughout the business units.

Delayed implementation of the Directory Services will impact the ability of the Data Warehouse Strategy and Pilot to define and verify appropriate data warehousing standards.

Information and Technology is confident that a phased implementation schedule will achieve the necessary financial goals, while still accomplishing the essential service requirements to satisfy our client's business needs in regards to Network and Telecommunications services.

Conclusions:

An additional reduction of $250,000.00 from the Information and Technology 2000-2004 Capital Budget, will impact on the Network and Telecom Upgrade projects and will be accomplished through a delayed implementation scheduling process.

Contact:

Mr. Jim Andrew, Executive Director, Information and Technology, Phone: 392-8421, Fax: 696-3601, E-mail: jandrew@toronto.ca.

(Report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic

Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to the

Economic Development and Parks Committee and the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "C.S.A. Playground

Compliance Program - All Wards")

Purpose:

To report as requested on the allocation of playground funds and recommend a program that will bring into compliance all substandard City playgrounds by the end of 2003, as well as address various questions arising as part of the Budget Review process.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approximately $5.65 million is required to implement the recommended program. This includes a 1999 prior year approval of $1.6 million as part of the Capital Works Programme. Completion of the program requires another $4.0 million, of which $1.5 million was requested in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's 2000 Capital Budget submission but has been deferred to FY2001.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve in principle the C.S.A. Playground Compliance Program outlined in this report bringing all substandard City playgrounds to C.S.A. standards by the end of 2003; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On July 17, 1998, the Economic Development Committee considered a motion from the Mayor, that the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism - "report on a phased replacement program for all City playgrounds so that all playgrounds will eventually comply with the new C.S.A. standards; as well as developing a standard city-wide inspection system for all City playgrounds." The Committee requested the Commissioner to report on the Mayor's motion and other playground matters.

Council subsequently directed staff through Clause No. 12 of Report No. 2 of the Economic Development Committee, adopted by Council on October 1, 1998 - "to proceed with the assessment of playground equipment in City parks including a program for equipment replacement and upgrades to meet standards on a priority basis"

In approving the 1999 Capital Budget, Council added $1.6 million to the Parks and Recreation program to bring City playgrounds to the new Canadian Standards Association (C.S.A.) standards. Council directed that the "playground upgrades be undertaken, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, on a two playgrounds per Ward basis" and requested a joint report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer "on the allocation of playground upgrade funds" (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, as adopted by Council March 2, 3 and 4, 1999).

At the same meeting, Council also directed that $60,000.00 be included in the 1999 Parks and Recreation Operating Budget for an in-house safety review of all City playgrounds. This one-time allocation enabled the Department to backfill positions occupied by staff qualified to undertake the review. The review was intended to: determine which playgrounds did not comply with C.S.A. standards; prioritize replacement and repair work; and provide input to future capital programs.

Comments:

Certified playground inspectors on staff reviewed the City's 800 plus playgrounds and determined that some or all components of 782 playgrounds did not meet the new C.S.A. standards. Cost estimates for upgrading each non-complying playground were prepared and replacement and repair work was prioritized for each Ward. Input was solicited from Councillors for the playground upgrade programme by way a letter dated August 11, 1999. Written replies were received from seven Councillors offering input regarding their Wards.

The primary criterion for determining work priorities was the severity of non-compliance to C.S.A. standards. Priority-setting for replacement and repair work was also based on the following criteria: age and condition of equipment; cost to repair; site impacts; and replacement value.

Council's direction to upgrade playgrounds on a two playground per Ward basis can be accommodated within the $1.6 million budget. This amount, divided by 28 Wards, provides about $57,000.00 per Ward. For each Ward, the initial focus is on Priority 1 replacements followed by Priority 1 repairs as determined by the staff inventory and safety audit.

The proposed approach results in 145 rather than 56 playgrounds being brought to comply with C.S.A. standards in the first phase of remedial work. This reflects both Council's specific directions (e.g. to upgrade two playgrounds per Ward) and its broad intent to remedy non-complying conditions without delay (i.e. to upgrade as many playgrounds as possible with approved funds). Such an approach decreases risk liability from playground injuries while addressing public concern over playground safety.

The $1.6 million allocated by Council in 1999 represents only 28% of the resources required to bring all City playgrounds up to standard. The proposed C.S.A. Playground Compliance Program for 2001-2003 addresses the remaining 633 substandard playgrounds. Once the priority CSA programme is complete, staff will prepare a replacement programme starting in FY2004 to ensure there is a continuous replacement programme in place.

The objective of the compliance program is to have all City playgrounds meet the new C.S.A. standards as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The program, including 1999 work, consists of replacements at 54 sites and repairs at 728 sites. The total cost is $5.65 million, including the $1.6 million allocated in 1999 and another $4.0 million to complete the program. Of the latter amount, $1.5 million was to be included in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's 2000 Capital Budget submission, which has been deferred to FY2001

In response to the recommendation arising at the Budget Advisory Committee indicating that if "repairs only" as opposed to "repairs and replacement" were made the priority, that $3.1 million would be required to complete the program. It is our opinion that a balanced programme of replacements and repairs would provide the greatest benefit. This would then allow at least one replacement in Wards that require replacements and recognizing a total replacement was the higher priority as it involved more CSA infractions.

In terms of the expected expenditures for replacement it is not possible to forecast exact costing short of completing all detailed design work and tendering of these projects. This will take considerable time and will delay implementation of the work programme. We do know from past experience that typically the cost for a 4 to 5 piece playscape design with a sand base is approximately $50 thousand dollars. This price would be lower if site conditions allowed regrading of base material and re-use park furniture. In any event, if the tender price for the replacement was lower than the budgeted $50 thousand dollars, the residual would be available for further priority CSA repairs in that Ward.

Conclusions:

Using resources provided in 1999, staff evaluated all 800 plus City playgrounds against new C.S.A. standards and is proposing replacements or repairs at 145 sites by the end of FY2000. This work totals $1.6 million. Should replacement costs in any Ward be less than $50 thousand dollars, any residual will be directed to priority repairs within that Ward

A program is recommended to bring to compliance the remaining 637 substandard City playgrounds to C.S.A. standards by the end of FY2003 at a cost of $4.0 million.

Contact:

Frank Kershaw, Director Policy and Development, Tel: 392-8199, Fax: 395-0278; FKershaw@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic

Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "Additioinal

Information - Northern District Soccer Facility (Ward 7)"

Purpose:

To provide additional information as requested by the Budget Advisory Committee at its January 12, 2000 meeting regarding the above facility.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Year 2000-2004 Capital Works Program for Parks and Recreation includes $500,000.00 in approved funding carried forward from the 1999 Capital Works Program and an additional $800,000.00 in new funding ($500,000.00 in Year 2000 and $150,000.00 in each of year 2001 and 2002), for a total project cost of $1.3 million for the above noted facility.

In recent discussions with the Toronto Separate School Board officials they have indicated their willingness to secure a suitable site north of Finch Avenue for a north district soccer facility.

The City would in turn construct a fenced regulation lit soccer field with appropriate related support facilities at an estimated cost of $1.3 million.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information purposes; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

There is a need for a high quality regional soccer facility in the Black Creek Ward 7 area. Staff of the department have attempted to find an appropriate site for such a facility. Various options have been investigated including the redevelopment of Elm Park and facilities on TRCA land, and York University land, but to no avail.

Once the lands are finalized by the Toronto Separate School Board, the department would complete an operating and programming agreement with the School Board that would spell out the operating partnership and the protection of the City's investment at the site.

Conclusions:

The proposed soccer facility will go a long way to addressing needs for a high quality facility at a suitable site with partnership opportunities.

Contact:

Frank Kershaw, Director Policy and Development, Tel: 392-8199, Fax: 395-0278; frank kershaw@toronto.ca

(Communication (January 13, 2000) from Trustee Mary Cicogna,

Toronto Catholic District School Board addressed to the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "City of Toronto/Toronto Catholic

District School Board Joint Soccer Stadium Development

at Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School)

Please accept my regrets for not being able to personally attend the Budget Meeting this morning. Mr. Emidio Manini, Manager of Real Property will be presenting my views as well as those of the Toronto Catholic District School Board on this matter.

I want the Committee to be award that as a Trustee of the Board I fully endorse and support the Joint Development of a soccer stadium at Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School. The Board is presently negotiating the acquisition of lands from the Developer, to facilitate the stadium.

The building of a soccer stadium will greatly benefit the Regina Pacis students and the Jane and Finch community as a whole. The sports facilities at the school are inadequate, as the playing field is located under the hydro corridor. Hydro corridors produce electromagnetic fields. Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been linked to health hazards.

I personally began to make this dream become a reality nearly 10 years ago. I hope that the Committee will endorse the budget submission for this project.

(Communication (May 6, 1999) from the North York Soccer Association)

Pursuant to our discussion on Monday, May 3, 1999, the following is a short list of priority items in need by the District:

(1)chain link fence around outside Stadium Fields;

(2)City's involvement with Canada Lands in order to take over the Indoor Soccer facility at the Downsview Base and to reach an agreement with North York Soccer Association for the City to operate the facility on the same basis as a Hockey Arena;

(3)another field with lights in the west end; and

(4)use of office space at the St. Basil's complex.

Thanks in advance for your continued support.

(Report (January 13, 2000) from the Executive Director, Facilities

and Real Estate Division, addressed to the Budget Advisory

Committee, entitled "Year 2000 Transition Project - Security

System Upgrades at Various Key City Facilities)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Budget Advisory Committee with clarifications and additional information for consideration in the determination of the security systems related needs for certain City civic centres.

Financial Implications:

There are no new financial implications of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of January 12, 2000, the Budget Advisory Committee considered a report from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services for the upgrade of security systems at various key city facilities. The report requested that, as part of the Transition project, funding be authorized to the extent of $800 thousand. The seven buildings identified for security upgrade were: North York Civic Centre, Scarborough Civic Centre, East York Civic Centre, York Civic Centre, 75-81 Elizabeth Street, 112 Elizabeth Street, and 90 Niagara.

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration in this matter before the final decision relating to the funding request for this project; it also requests a much lower funding level for the project at $230 thousand to cover critical items instead of the previous request of $800 thousand for a fully enhanced system.

Comments:

Of the seven locations identified in the previous report for security systems upgrade, the situation in relation to three of them is critical and is discussed below; the three locations are the civic centres at North York, East York and Scarborough. As well, some technology related issues also need to be considered in relation to the existing systems.

East York Civic Centre:

During the morning of November 16, 1999, between 3 am and the close of office on the previous day, there was a break in at the East York Civic Centre. In that incident, 9 computers were stolen from the area used by the Clerk's Department, resulting in a loss of about $ 30 thousand. In addition, valuable data on those computers was lost. A complaint was filed with the 54 Division Police (No. K64688) on the day of the discovery of the incident. The data loss resulted in a significant inconvenience for the departmental operations which were disrupted for several days; as well, the confidential nature of the data on the stolen computers constitutes a potential leakage risk of leakage of sensitive information.

The Centre currently has a security system that is dysfunctional and does not sound any alarms. The system can be activated at a nominal cost of $30 thousand so that an alarm would sound to provide at least a minimal level of security that could alert the guard on duty.

The future of the Civic center is not clear at this stage; however, given the incident that has already occurred and the potential for similar future incidents, it is prudent to consider an expenditure of $30 thousand to provide some deterrent and safe guard City assets.

North York Civic Centre:

The system at the North York Civic Centre is about 12 years old and there is a history of regular breakdowns. The centre is an essential component of the City's space accommodation strategy and it is expected to be used by the City indefinitely into the future. The centre is used for many critical functions relating to the City's business; it also houses the City's Revenue Division of the Finance Department and there is potential for substantial amounts of cash to be located on site. Frequent failure of the security system represents a potential risk in relation to cash and other City property located at the centre.

Since the system is old, two technology related issues arise:

(a) parts for the old system are increasingly difficult to find; that may cause delays in responding to the system failures; as well, parts of the system can become permanently disabled in the event that replacement parts cannot be found. That situation would expose the centre to risk of break-ins similar to that faced by the East York Civic Centre; and

(b) the access cards used by the old technology systems are not sufficiently secure in that new technology now exists that can enable a hacker to decipher the codes of the current system and generate new access cards without the knowledge of the City staff. This potential for forgery diminishes the effectiveness of the current systems. An upgrade of the security system would enable the incorporation of techniques that would make it virtually impossible to create forged cards.

The original plan had included expenditures for new card readers and cameras for the North York Civic Centre. The current proposal is limited to ensuring the continuity of the current system without any system expansion; for this purpose, it is considered that an expenditure of $100 thousand is both appropriate and necessary to safe guard City interests.

Scarborough Civic Centre

The issues here are very similar to those in North York. The system is about 25 years old and suffers from non availability of replacement parts as well as risk of duplication of existing cards.

According to the Office Space Accommodation Plan, it is the intent of the City to continue using this location indefinitely into the future. Accordingly, it is requested that a funding request for $100 thousand for this location be considered in the context of the risk posed by a non functional security system.

Summary of Project Request:

This report requests that the Budget Advisory Committee consider the upgrading of the security systems at the following three locations:

It is to be noted that the intent of these initiatives is to ensure a minimum level of continued functionality of the existing security systems and not expand or enhance them in any way.

Conclusion:

This report highlights the current situation at the East York, North York and Scarborough Civic Centres in relation to their respective security systems. Breakdown or failure of these systems represents a potential financial loss to the City resulting from loss of property, loss of information, as well as potential exposure to liability from leakage of stolen information. The proposals in this report represent a much scaled down scenario with the funding request reduced from about $800 thousand to $230 thousand to allow for the replacement/renewal of key security system components to provide a minimum level of security for City assets.

Contacts: (Facilities and Real Estate Division)

Cyrus Patel, Manager Business Support Services, 392-4878

Chris Hubbard, Director of Operations, 397-5151

Susanne Borup, Executive Director, 397-4156

(Communication (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Betty Disero,

Davenport, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Allocation of Funds for Dundas West Area")

Could you please consider allocating funds of $80,000.00 to the Dundas West Area for façade improvements.

Thank you for your consideration.

(Communication (January 14, 2000) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski,

High Park, addressed to Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget

Advisory Committee entitled "Humber Bridges Rehabilitation

Project - East Side Pedestrian Cycling Paths")

I am writing to request that the Budget Advisory Committee take every initiative to ensure that funding is provided, to ensure that a pedestrian cycling path on the East side of the Humber is included in the bridge reconstruction program. This is the only opportunity that we will get to put in place this much needed pedestrian cycling path.

Your co-operation is greatly appreciated.

(Communication (December 17, 1999) from Councillor Michael Feldman

addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Lawrence Heights Community - Water Park")

I understand that the funding for the Lawrence heights water park has been withdrawn from the preliminary Capital Budget. The Lawrence Heights Community is a high needs area, therefore, I would strongly urge all members to re-open this issue and to make funds available in the 2001-2001 Capital Budget.

I believe that this community is long overdue for funding, for this type of recreational expenditure.

Thank you for considering this request.

(Report (December 7, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and

Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "2000 Capital Budget - Transition Program-Finance

Department - Revenue Division Call Centre Update")

Purpose:

This report provides the status of call volumes handled by the Call Centre of the Revenue Services Division, Finance Department.

Financial Implications:

There are no 2000 Capital Budget financial implications.

Staffing position transfers due to the City assuming responsibility for former York and Scarborough water billing and customer service functions previously performed by Toronto Hydro on contract will be used to augment the Revenue Division in Call Centre operations through 2000 and beyond.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received as information.

Background:

On April 26^th, 1999, through Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee Report No. 8, Clause 121(b), City of Toronto Council approved the recruitment of ten additional Call Centre operators on a contract basis for up to twelve months beginning May 1999. Funding for this item in the amount of $323,000 was allocated from the Transition Reserve Fund. This action was taken in acknowledgement of difficulties the Call Centre was experiencing in delivering service to the public.

At that time, Council also requested that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on the status of call volumes.

Comments:

Review of Call Volumes:

The attached appendices provide daily call volume statistics for the months of January through November 16, 1999.

The Revenue Division Call Centre utilizes the Corporation's Centrex system in combination with a "tracking" system known as "Bell Canada Per Agent Service (PAS)". If a call comes in and an operator takes the call, this is referred to on the schedules attached as "Number of calls answered". If an operator is not available to take the call, the caller is advised that they have reached the City of Toronto Tax and Water Information line and that their call will be answered as soon as an operator becomes available. While on hold, callers hear a pre-recorded message providing general tax and water information and a fax number that they can use if they wish to fax their inquiries. The column "Number of Calls Sent to Queue" includes the "Number of Calls Answered" in addition to "Calls Abandon Before Messaging" and "Calls Abandon after Messaging".

The Call Centre system is setup so that as soon as a caller in the queue is on hold for 4 minutes or there are 40 callers on the queue, additional callers receive a busy signal. The parameters of the system could be changed to allow more callers to be on hold at any one time. This will reduce the number of busy signals, but will increase the length of time a caller is on hold.

Until October 18^th, 1999 the Call Centre had 2 separate queues with 2 separate telephone numbers. This was largely due to the phased-in approach taken to implementing a Centralized Call Centre. One queue handled all tax inquiries and former City of Toronto water inquiries. The second, handled water inquiries for former East York, North York, and Etobicoke. On October 18, 1999 the two queues were merged. It is important to note that, before October 18^th, 1999 the statistics tracked and recorded were only those for the queue which was responsible for tax and former City of Toronto water enquiries. Given the Division's goal to merge the queues during 1999, arrangements to track on both queues were not made at the beginning of the year. Since the merging of the queues, statistics are being captured for all tax and water enquiries for all former municipalities with the exception of water enquiries for former York and Scarborough. At this time, although experience is limited to the month of October, it would seem that the merging of the queues has resulted in a substantial increase in the daily statistics recorded by the Call Centre. The statistics for October reveal that the number of calls sent to queue for the 15 days following the merging of the queues were on average 43 percent higher than during the first 15 days of the month.

Also important to note is that until November 1999, water billing, metering and customer service functions for the residents of former York and Scarborough have been provided by Toronto Hydro under contract to the City. The attached schedules therefore do not include the calls received from the residents in these former municipalities. The water billing conversion is scheduled for completion by December 1^st, 1999. After that date, the City of Toronto will assume full responsibility for servicing all former Scarborough and York residents in relation to water and tax inquiries.

In general, the Call Centre has been quite active all year. A review of the monthly averages as per (Appendix 1) indicates that the number of calls sent to queue daily range from between 1,366 to 2,439 and 24,188 to 53,666 on a monthly basis (Appendix 2). The average wait on the queue experienced ranges from between 1.49 minutes to 7.90 minutes. The average call duration is from 2.96 to 4.31 minutes, with the average maximum call duration ranging from 29.69 to 42.53 minutes.

Below are summarized the highlights of the schedules attached:

(a) call volumes were heaviest during the months of February, March, June and July. This is, of course, due to the issuance of the interim and final tax bills (Appendix 2);

(b) customers experienced the most busy signals on a daily basis during the months of January, February, March, and June. Again, this is attributed to the tax billing cycle. However, it should further be noted that the number of busy signals is not a clear indicator of the actual number of people that received a busy signal. One person may have redialed 20 times, which would register as 20 busy signals (Appendix 2);

(c) the average daily wait on the queue exceeded 5 minutes during the months of February, March, and April. In particular, during February the wait averaged eight minutes (Appendix 1);

(d) the average daily calls answered per agent have ranged from between 43 to 79 (Appendix 1). A review of the daily schedules, indicates that some days as many as 88 to 89 calls are processed by each agent. The number of calls answered by each agent is largely a function of the length of time calls consume on a particular day. Detailed review indicates that when inexperienced staff are seconded to the Call Centre from other areas within Revenue Services to assist in handling call volumes, the average number of calls answered per agent decreases;

(e) the lowest level of busy signals on a daily basis were experienced during the months of September, May, July and August. The indicators reveal that the highest number of calls are experienced during the 4 to 6 weeks following the issuance of a tax billing. In relation to August and September, Call Centre activity associated with water billing has been at a yearly low. Due to Y2K and the need to amalgamate all former water billing systems unto one system, the Finance Department has been converting all former municipal water billing systems to one system since August 1999. Given the delays associated with any conversion of this magnitude, mailing of water bills has been delayed. Again, this likely resulted in lower than normal volume of calls during these months (Appendix 1);

(f) for the last six months i.e., since the hiring of additional staff (May to October), the average number of calls answered daily is 6 percent better than for the first four months of the year (Appendix 1). It should be mentioned that in order to cope with call volumes in the months of January and February, staff from other areas of Revenue Services, were pulled to assist the Call Centre. This of course adversely impacts other operations;

(g) the average daily wait on the queue for the first four months of the year is 60 percent worse than the average for the six months that followed (Appendix 1); and

(h) the average number of busy signals experienced daily for the last six months of the year is greatly improved. However, this may be more due to the time of the year, than the performance of the Call Centre (Appendix 1).

The Call Centre currently has an approved FTE complement of 21 including one supervisor. In April, 1999, Council authorized the hiring of ten additional casual staff, brought on at the beginning of May 1999. The number of agents identified on the attachments include only those taking calls. Due to vacations, illness and other duties off the phones, not all staff are available for taking calls. During the months of May to the end of October, with 30 FTE's plus one supervisor available, the average number of agents taking calls on a daily basis is 22 or 73 percent of the total FTE (Appendix 1).

An analysis of the daily averages (Appendix 1) reveals that each agent taking calls can generally manage approximately 65 calls/day. In order to support the continuation of the casual staff in the Call Centre, calls sent to queue must exceed at minimum 1,430 on an average daily basis each month 1,430 calls/65 per agent (Appendix 1).

At first glance from (Appendix 1), it would seem that such level of activity is achieved consistently on a monthly basis. In addition, it must be kept in mind, that the statistics presented from January to October are not complete as they do not reflect the water queue for former East York, North York, and Etobicoke. The total water customers within these municipalities amounts to 252,634 or 40 percent of the City's total water customers. As noted above, the statistics increased significantly over the last ten days of October, when the queues were merged, as compared to the first ten days of the month. However, since October was also the month when water billings from the new system began to be sent out in greater numbers and a supplementary tax billing was sent out, the increase cannot all be completely attributed to the merging of the queues.

Further, the statistics also do not include call volumes for former York and Scarborough. Customers within these two former municipalities total or 237,910 or 38 percent of the total water customers.

To-date there is not enough experience gathered on the merged queue to complete a true analysis. However, the following schedule presents the FTE requirements, if the monthly average statistics identified in (Appendix 1) were increased by 25 percent and 30 percent to reflect a conservative increase.

If the above FTE averages are again adjusted by 27 percent to reflect the total FTE requirement to accommodate experience due to vacations, illness and other administrative assignments, a permanent staff requirement of 40 FTE's is justified. Staff position transfers from Toronto Hydro will augment the existing 22 FTE's to 40 for 2000 now that the conversion process is complete

Future Challenges:

The year 2000 will continue to be a year of transition and challenge for staff in the Call Centre. The Call Centre is not operating under "normal" business operations. The changes in the assessment system and the introduction of tax policies to ease the transition to Current Value Assessment (CVA) continue to result in many lengthy calls. The Call Centre continues to receive a large number of calls on capping, phase in and appeals.

Council will be considering in 2000 issues such as the harmonization of water billing schedules and the delivery of meter reading services for all customers. Water customers will see the introduction of a pre-authorized payment program citywide. The new bill format and the introduction of the block rate associated with the rate harmonization are expected to continue to raise questions. Until such time as these issues are fully recognized and understood by water customers, the Call Centre will receive an extraordinary number of calls.

It should also be noted that in an effort to streamline the water billing function, the Call Centre has also assumed added responsibilities, which previously were performed by water billing staff. Adding new responsibilities such as handling service order requests, shut-off and processing phone-in readings for all former municipalities will increase both call duration times and volumes.

In 1999, in an effort to improve customer service, the Call Centre provided extended hours for the three weeks following the mailing of tax bills. The Call Centre will again provide this service in 2000. Taxpayers will be advised of the extended hours on the tax bill or in the brochures.

Finally, in 2000, as described in the Department's capital budget request, the Revenue Services Division will be studying and is proposing the implementation of an Integrated Voice Response System which will provide callers with 24 hour access to their own tax and water account using a Personal Identification Number (PIN). The system will help manage and improve queues, response time, and customer service standards. The system can also be programmed to facilitate payments, registration, and access to information on commonly asked questions and account status. However, until such time as this system is implemented and the benefits are fully realized, the Call Centre must continue to provide full service.

Conclusion:

The 10 casual staff approved by Council in April, 1999 have provided required support to the staff in the Call Centre and have been essential to providing adequate levels of customer service. Although current statistics are incomplete, by adjusting accordingly to reflect more realistic figures, it is clear that the Call Centre will be requiring 40 FTE's on an on-going basis. This represents an additional 20 permanent FTE's from those approved or 10 additional FTE's from the current operating reality, given that Council authorized casual FTE's during 1999 for one year.

It should further be noted that this item is not expected to adversely impact the 2000 estimates as funding will be redirected from savings expected due to the City assuming responsibility for former York and Scarborough water billing and customer service functions previously performed by Toronto Hydro on contract.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will report back during the 2001 Operating Budget review process on the performance of the Revenue Services Call Centre.

Contact:

Giuliana Carbone, Director, Revenue Services, (416) 392-8065; e-mail: gcarbone@toronto.ca

(A copy of the Appendices attached to the foregoing report respecting Tax and Water Call Centre Daily Average Summary, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (December 8, 1999), from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "2000 Capital Budget - Transition Program - Finance

Department - Revenue Services Division Tax

and Appeals Processing Update")

Purpose:

This report provides the status of tax and assessment appeals processed and advises that casual staff will continue to be required until April 30, 2000.

Financial Implications:

Cash flow requirements for the continuation of casual staff totaling $135,000 and the associated funding from the Transition Reserve Fund were requested in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Works Program.

Funding is available from the carry forward of 1999 approved funding specified for this purpose, but not required in 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received as information.

Background:

On April 26, 1999, through Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee Report No. 8, Clause 121(a), City of Toronto Council was advised that there was a backlog of approximately 24,000 assessment appeals to be processed. Of these, approximately 4,800 related to 1996 and prior years and 19,200 related to 1997 and onward. Staff also advised that the Assessment Review Board (ARB) was operating on an expedited basis to clear its backlog, which was contributing to the issue at the time.

Given this information, Council authorized the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to hire 20 additional casual employees for a period not to exceed six months to assist in the processing of assessment appeals. The cost was not to exceed $325,000. Funding was provided from the Transition Reserve Fund.

The discussion below advises on progress made to date and on current status.

Comments:

Although Council approved the hiring of 20 additional casual staff to assist with the backlog of appeals, only 12 additional staff were employed by May 1999. Eight of the casual staff were hired for 6 months and 4 were summer students that returned to school in September 1999. By the end of September, the backlog on hand had been processed as promised. With the assistance of the casual staff, 24,926 decisions were processed between March and September 30^th, 1999. During this period, staff focused on processing decisions for 1997 and prior with mailing dates from the ARB to the City of Toronto of before April 30^th, 1999.

In September, a decision was made to extend the contracts for the 8 casual employees that were hired in May to the end of the year. The Unit has since then been operating with a staff complement of 25 full time equivalent (FTE's), including 1 supervisor

By the end of October 1999, the Assessment and Appeals Unit has processed an additional 4,983 decisions, which were largely for the 1998 tax year.

The following provides a breakdown, by month, of the appeals processed and identifies the average number of decisions processed by each employee:

Appendix 1, provides by former municipality and tax year, the number of accounts and the associated dollar value.

Prior to March 1999, staff were located across the former area municipalities. In addition, tax appeals processes and procedures were not harmonized. For these reasons, the number of appeals processed and the number of appeals processed/FTE's were low as compared to the months that followed. Centralization of appeals staff at 112 Elizabeth Street occurred in March 1999. By the end of March, procedures were harmonized and training on the new integrated tax system was completed. Staff was than ready to process tax appeals efficiently.

In late April 1999, eight casual staff were brought on and trained as required. Four additional casual staff was brought in May 1999 to assist in processing the backlog that had developed since amalgamation.

Although progress has been made with respect to the backlog, the following decisions require processing.

It must be noted that the mailing dates of these outstanding appeals are from April 1999 onward. Again, to the end of October 1999, staff concentrated on processing decisions from 1997 and prior with mailing dates before April 30, 1999.

For approximately half of the above decisions, the account analysis is done using the legacy systems. All accounts are analyzed for name changes, payments made, other decisions processed, Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeals pending, taxes outstanding for other years and particular notes that may relate to the issuance of the refund. Once a tax adjustment is calculated, staff must review the 1998 and 1999 frozen listing, make changes according to the decision and recalculate the phase-in and capping. Once the phase-in/capping is recalculated, the credit is refunded/transferred.

The monthly appeals processed/FTE as calculated for the ten month period from January to the end of October 1999 is 128. However, as January and February were difficult months from a processing perspective, this analysis will utilize the monthly average from March to end of October, which are 156. Given the current staff complement of 24 front-line FTE's and an adjusted average of 156 appeals processed by each employee per month, 3,744 decisions per month can be processed (24 employees x 156 decisions per month). Essentially, at this rate, the current volume of 12,449 decisions could be processed in just over 3 months.

However, during this time, it is expected that additional decisions will be forthcoming from the ARB at an accelerated rate. At this time, it is difficult to estimate the number of decisions that will be received each month. Best estimates indicate that between 2,000 and 3,000 will arrive/month, resulting in an additional 12,000 to 18,000 appeals to be processed (November to April) which will require from 3 to 5 months of staff time.

Assuming that the current staffing and performance levels continue during the later part of this year and into 2000, it will effectively take from 6 to 8 months to process all outstanding decisions and for the Assessment and Appeals Unit to be in a position were decisions are processed within one month of receipt. Achieving this objective will mitigate the need to pay interest on assessment appeals that have been processed after one month that the Notice of Decision is received from the Assessment Review Board.

Of the $325,000 approved in 1999 for casual employees, it is projected that $189 thousand will be spent by December 31^st, 1999. This report advises that the remaining funding totaling $135,000 will be carried forward to 2000 to permit the funding of the required staff until April 30, 2000.

Conclusion:

The Assessment and Appeals Unit has worked diligently to process the backlog of decisions resulting from appeals received from the ARB. By the end of September, with the assistance of casual staff the backlog identified in April had been resolved. However, a recent review indicates that approximately 12,449 tax appeals are currently on hand to be processed. Furthermore, it is expected that an additional 12,000 to 18,000 decisions will arrive from the ARB between October 31^st, 1999 and the end of April 2000.

In order to continue to provide timely processing of assessment appeals, 6 casual staff will continue service within the Assessment Appeals Unit to April 30^th, 2000.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will update on the status of appeals processing in the spring of 2000.

Contact:

Giuliana Carbone, Director, Revenue Services, (416) 392-8065; e-mail:  gcarbone@toronto.ca

(A copy of the attachment to the foregoing report, entitled "City of Toronto Tax Appeals Processed on Tax Accounts Excluding 441 Tax Write-Offs - January 1 to October 31, 1999", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Report (December 3, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of

Corporate Services addressed to the Budget Advisory

Committee entitled "Security System Upgrades at Various Key

City Facilities (submitted as part of the group of Transition Projects)"

Purpose:

To provide the Budget Advisory Committee with an overview and justification for the enhancement of building security at various key city facilities through the replacement or installation of a basic proximity card reader security system included as a new item under the group of Transition Projects as part of the capital works program.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The complete installation/replacement of the security systems at various City buildings is expected to cost about $800 thousand. The buildings identified for security upgrade are: North York Civic Centre, Scarborough Civic Centre, East York Civic Centre, York Civic Centre, 75-81 Elizabeth Street, 112 Elizabeth Street, and 90 Niagara.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the funding for the upgrade and replacement of the security systems at various City buildings, estimated at $800 thousand, be approved.

Background:

Currently, the North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, and York Civic Centres have some form of a card access security system. The systems at North York and Scarborough, are antiquated, prone to breakage and downtime, and requires total replacement. The systems at Etobicoke and York Civic Centres consist of a few readers running off of antiquated security systems. These systems are not expandable and require replacement.

The East York Civic Centre, 75-81 Elizabeth Street, 112 Elizabeth Street, and 90 Niagara have various types and degrees of after hour intruder alarm systems. The system at the East York Civic Centre no longer functions and was shutdown more than five years ago. The systems at 75-81 Elizabeth Street, 112 Elizabeth Street, and 90 Niagara are minimal and were obtained through different companies. These systems are monitored by external monitoring firms thereby requiring the City to pay for monthly monitoring and maintenance agreements.

Metro Hall, Toronto City Hall, Old City Hall, 590 Jarvis, the Records and Archives facility, 703 Don Mills Road, and 14 Social Services offices all utilize the same access control system thereby allowing an employee to use the same card for access and identification at each facility. The access control software is resident at one facility and all facilities share the same database/ software ensuring cost effectiveness and security. The security systems are up to date, expandable, and interchangeable.

Comments:

The overall philosophy for security at the key city facilities is to provide a base security system which will allow authorized after hours access control and intrusion detection in a cost-effective manner. This system would be standardized to match the existing systems already utilizing the one card access scenario.

The software is state of the art, can easily accommodate the present and future requirements for complete building security, and is year 2000 compliant. The one card technology allows a single card to be programmed for multiple facilities providing related cost savings. This system is currently used at 20 city facilities including Metro Hall, City Hall, and Old City Hall.

Having all access cards on the same database is cost-effective in many ways. Only one access/ID card is necessary to gain access to various facilities thereby saving the cost of making numerous cards. Additionally, staff transferring to a different facility are not required to obtain a new card thereby not only saving the time, materials, and labour necessary to produce and provide a new card but also saving the employees time from having to attend a badging session to provide photo ID.

In many of the other city facilities, access cards were produced and programmed by various staff - Human Resources, Building Managers, outside contractors, etc. With cards on the same database, card production and programming is completed by Security staff with the ability to program cards 24 hours per day (also providing the benefit of a quick turn around time).

Providing key City facilities with a similar access control / intrusion alarm system allows for building to share certain access control standards, enhance overall building security, and enable easier after-hours access. It is difficult for an employee to gain access after-hours at most key facilities and for a Security Guard (if one is provided) to determine whether the individual is indeed an employee and whether they are permitted to enter certain areas/facilities after-hours. Having a card reader at key entrance doors allows authorized employees quick access to their facilities and allows quick verification for Security staff.

A base security system also allows for greater flexibility, adaptability, and expansion. Presently at most Civic Centres, key areas are equipped with "panic" buttons which ring to an off-site monitoring company who then either dispatches a private security guard firm or the police. This service is costly as each area must pay for a monthly monitoring contract and false alarms can result in the Police refusing to attend further alarms under the City of Toronto's Police False Alarm Reduction Program. With a base security system in place, these "panic" buttons can be hooked into the base system which when activated would automatically notify the Security Control Centre and any other staff deemed appropriate. This set-up would eliminate the need for monthly external contracts, as all services would be provided in house by Corporate Security.

Since the systems are interchangeable, it is possible to relocate the base components of the security system from one facility and install them into a new facility or to enhance an existing system. This would be a probable set-up if the City were to sell a facility that had the City standard security system installed.

The total cost of all the security system improvements discussed above for the North York, Scarborough, East York, and York Civic Centres, as well as 75-81 Elizabeth Street, 112 Elizabeth Street, and 90 Niagara, is estimated at $800 thousand.

Conclusions:

Presently, it is very difficult to provide a basic, standard level of security to key City facilities with the current, antiquated systems or lack thereof. Without basic access control and the ability to monitor facilities it is becoming increasing difficult for buildings, assets, and employees to be protected. Approving the required funds to replace and/or install a basic security system at key city facilities will provide numerous cost-effective benefits and allow for required, upgraded, overall security.

Contact:

Chris Hubbard, Director, Facilities Operations, Corporate Services Department, Tel:  397-5151,Fax: 397-0825.

(Report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of Economic

Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to the Budget Advisory

Committee entitled "FY2000 to FY2004 Capital Works

Program of Economic Development - All Wards)

Purpose:

This report provides information to the Budget Advisory Committee as requested at its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1999.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financial implications for the Chinese Cultural Centre be considered by the Budget Advisory Committee during the FY2000 - FY2004 Capital Budget process. At this time, the entire amount is subject to fundraising by the community with a net cost of zero to the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Budget Advisory Committee consider the additional information related to the Chinese Cultural Centre in its decision concerning the FY2000 to FY2004 Parks and Recreation Capital Program.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1999, requested reports

(i) regarding the fundraising activities for the Chinese Cultural Centre and the types of support required from the City for that project; and

(ii) the number of recreation or community centres built over the past ten years and their associated costs.

Comments:

Chinese Cultural Centre:

With regard to fundraising activities for the Chinese Cultural Centre, the Chinese Classical Garden is an integral component of the Scarborough Community Complex, located on the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Progress Avenue. The first buildings, Burrows Hall Community Centre and Library, and the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto, opened in 1998.

The City of Toronto will build the Garden with design and development input from the Chinese Cultural Centre. This arrangement was formalized by an Agreement executed between the former municipality of Scarborough and the Cultural Centre. The capital costs of developing the Garden are to be raised by a fundraising committee, comprised of City Councillors and representatives of the Chinese Cultural Centre which was approved by Council at its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999 (Scarborough Community Council Report 1, Clause 10). The City of Toronto will own and operate the Garden.

The Fundraising Committee has concluded that raising the $6.5 million required for the first phase of the Garden would be extremely difficult without a substantial financial commitment from the City. A progress report from the Fundraising Committee is being prepared for consideration at the January 18, 2000, Scarborough Community Council meeting. The Fundraising Committee is seeking approval, in principle, that the City make a matching contribution to the Garden's capital cost.

The $6.5 million gross capital cost for the Chinese Classical Garden Project is included in the FY2001 and FY2002 Parks and Recreation Capital Program, with $2.75 million in FY2001 and $3.75 million in FY2002. At this time, the entire amount is subject to fundraising by the community with a net cost of zero to the City.

Number of Recreation/Community Centres Built over the Last Ten Years

With regard to the number of new recreation or community centres built in the last ten years and their associated costs, in total, there were sixteen (16) facilities built for a total construction cost of $71,210,000.00. In East York - 1 @ $1,560,000.00; in Etobicoke - 2 @ $4,700,000.00; in North York - 3 @ $8,270,000.00; in Scarborough - 7 @ $ 20,360,000.00; in Toronto - 3 @ $36,320,000.00, and none in York.

It should be further noted that this data reflects only the newly built recreation or community centres and not the many other renovations, additions or retrofits that have taken place over the last ten years.

Contact:

Frank Kershaw, Director of Policy and Development, Telephone: 392-8199, Facsimile: 395-0278

e-mail: fkershaw@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(Report (January 4, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of

Corporate Services addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Facilities and Real Estate Division, Capital Works

Program 2000-2004-Request for Additional Information")

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Budget Advisory Committee with clarifications and information requested at its meeting of December 10, 1999 in relation to the years 2000-2004 capital works program of the Facilities and Real Estate Division of the Corporate Services Department.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee, at its meeting of December 10, 1999, upon consideration of the C.A.O.'s report in relation to the 2000-2004 capital works program of the Facilities and Real Estate Division, made the following recommendations:

(a) that the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to the January 10, 2000 meeting on how much the City has to commit to cover the $460,000.00 project cost for buildings operated by community organizations and boards who do not receive operating funding from the City except through the Consolidated Grants Budget, and provide information as to whether or not any of these groups have reserves that could be used;

(b) 23 Grange Road, University Settlement - the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to the January 10, 2000, with regard to the request to replace all windows and frames (safety glass - daycare) at this site, including who requested the replacement and why, industry and government standards and where the daycare facilities are being run by government, their experience in that regard; and

(c) City Subway Easement - the Acting Commissioner Corporate Services be requested report back to the January 10, 2000 meeting providing more details on the subject project.

In addition, at the November 16, 1999 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, there was a request for information on the expenditures at New City Hall for the period 1990-1999; details of these expenditures for the period 1995-1999 were provided to the Budget Advisory Committee at its December 10, 1999 meeting. This report now provides the required expenditure details for the period 1990-1994.

Comments:

Maintenance Work Carried Out At City Hall (100 Queen Street) 1990 to 1994

The chart below provides details of the maintenance work carried out at the above location during the 5 year period 1990 to 1994; information relating to the following years (1995-1999) was considered by the Committee at its December 10, 1999 meeting.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

sched of cap exp at city hall/nathan phillips sq

Observations: The table shows that the average expenditure on the New City Hall building averages about $3.1 million per year during the period 1990-1994; the corresponding average during the following 5 year period 1995-1999 was $2.5 million per year. According to industry standards, an annual maintenance budget of between 2 to 4 percent of the replacement value of the building is essential to keep it in a state of good repair. The New City Hall building is about 35 years old and some of its structural components are vulnerable as a result of inadequate maintenance in the past. It is valued at $241 million for insurance purposes, and, assuming an annual maintenance budget of 3 per cent, it requires an annual funding of about $7.23 million to be maintained in a state of good repair. Unless the maintenance needs of the New City Hall building are considered more seriously, further deterioration in its structural condition is to be expected. With a planned expenditure of $4.4 million in year 2000, the maintenance needs of the building continue to be under funded. For a complete 10 year summary of expenditures, please refer to Appendix 1 to this report

Availability of Reserves for Community Organizations

The Finance Department which will address this matter in a separate report.

Day Care Facility at 23 Grange Road, University Settlement

On April 3, 1998, a five year old child was injured when the child's right hand went through a glass window. A "Serious Occurrence Preliminary Inquiry Report" was completed on April 6, 1999 and reported to the Ministry of Ontario Provincial Licensing Unit. The child incurred two cuts on the palm with some bleeding.

In the opinion of the Executive Director of University Settlement, the current situation represents a continued danger to the children using the facility.

The budget for year 2000 includes an amount of $120 thousand for the purpose of replacing windows and other frames with safety glass and had been identified as a potential budget reduction item (please refer to the attached list- Appendix 2).

City Subway Easement Protection:

An expenditure of $400 thousand was originally budgeted in 1999 for this sub project. At the time of commencement of the capital budget for year 2000 (August 1999), no expenditures were recorded against this item in the SAP accounting system. However, there was an indication that expenditures amounting to about $400 thousand were being incurred; therefore, a projected expenditure of $400 thousand was shown for the purpose of the year 2000 cash flow. Subsequent verification has established that the project expenditures amounting to $432.8 thousand have now been recorded in the SAP system pertaining to the 1999 expenditures and therefore this cash flow requirement does not exist for the year 2000. Accordingly, it is to be deleted from the year 2000 capital budget as a technical adjustment.

Conclusion:

This report provides all the information requested by the Budget Advisory Committee relating to New City Hall expenditures, day care safety glass replacement project, and the Subway Easement Protection project.

Contacts: (Facilities and Real Estate Division)

Cyrus Patel, Manager Business Support Services, 392-4878

Mark Davies, Director, Facilities Services, 397-0850

Susanne Borup, Executive Director, 397-4156

(A copy of Appendix 1 attached to the foregoing report, entitled "Schedule of Capital Expenditures at City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square 1995-1999", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Communication (January 7, 2000) from Mr. Alex Vander Veen,

Chair, Relocation Committee, Member, Board of Management,

Central Eglinton Community Centre, addressed to

Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget Advisory Committee)

On behalf of the Board of Management of Central Eglinton Community Centre, I am writing to the Budget Advisory Committee in regard to Central Eglinton Community Centre's Year 2000 Capital Budget for its newly leased space on the second floor at 160 Eglinton Avenue East.

I recently learned that this item, which is part of the Facilities budget for the year 2000, was removed from the budget at the December meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee. I would ask formally that the Budget Advisory Committee re-consider this item at their January 12^th meeting.

It should be noted that the City of Toronto currently is paying approximately $5,400.00 per month to lease space which was to be refurbished this year. This project, estimated at $150,000.00, would enable the space to be utilized by the local community. By not undertaking this project, the City of Toronto, while still legally committee to the lease, is incurring costs for unusable space. Further, the current physical conditions in the Centre present serious health and safety implications as well as impede our revenue-generating abilities.

I urge the committee to re-think this issue and approve this $150,000.00 project that in the long run will recoup this investment and enhance the quality of life in our local community.

(Report (January 6, 2000) from the Acting

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

addressed to theBudget Advisory Committee

entitled "Urban Development Services - Public Art Program"

Purpose:

The Budget Advisory Committee on December 9, 1999, in its final Capital Budget Review, requested that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, report back to the January 12, 2000, meeting on Public Art and Community Services and the future of the Public Art Program.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services continue to work on and meet with relevant departments including Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Culture Division and the Parks and Recreation Division), to formulate strategies and procedures that will ensure that a new City Public Art Program is effectively implemented and co-ordinated on a City-wide basis.

Background:

The Policy and Finance Committee on December 7, 1999, had before it a report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services entitled "Strategic Priorities for Civic Improvements - Capital Projects" and referred it to the Chief Administrative Officer for comment.

City Council, on December 14, 1999, adopted the report (November 23, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer entitled "Civic Spaces Associated with Civic Centres", subject to striking out and referring the following Recommendation No. 9 to the Departments responsible including the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and Urban Development Services for report thereon to the appropriate Committee:

"Recommendation No. 9: a City of Toronto Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC) be established with Terms of Reference as set out in Appendix "F".

Comments:

Within the context of the new Official Plan, Urban Development Services' staff are currently researching Public Art Programs in Canada and the United States and will be formulating public art policies in the new Official Plan that apply to public art on both private and public lands. Collaborating in this activity are staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Culture Division and Economic Development Division). Further, as a part of community consultation, Urban Development Services has established a Citizen Arts and Culture Advisory Committee, which has met twice to date, in the development of new arts policies in the Official Plan. The Culture Division, in consultation with the Toronto Public Art Group and the Planning Division has created a draft Public Art Plan for the new City.

Urban Design staff are also currently developing new policies and implementation strategies that are appropriate on a City-wide basis. The "Strategic Priorities for Civic Improvements - Capital Projects" report describes in detail the process of establishing priorities and criteria for civic improvement initiatives by Urban Development Services throughout the City of Toronto. As each civic improvement project is developed, public art opportunities will be identified and implemented in each of the three general categories of places, routes, and districts. The Public Art Commission for the former City of Toronto, which was established in 1985, continues to report to Council through the Urban Design Section of Urban Development Services.

With the recent appointment of the Managing Director of the Culture Division, discussions are underway on how our two Departments work together to establish an effective Public Art Program. An initial meeting has been set for late January 2000, with the aim to report back as soon as possible on the establishment of a Public Art Advisory Committee, as requested by Council on December 14, 1999.

Conclusions:

In order to formulate strategies and procedures that will ensure the City's Public Art Program is effectively implemented and co-ordinated on a City-wide basis, it is recommended that Urban Development Services continue to work and meet with the Culture Division and Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department.

Contact:

Jane Perdue, Public Art Co-ordinator, Urban Design , Tel: 416-392-1304, Fax: 416-392-1744, Email: jperdu@toronto.ca

Robert Glover, Director, Urban Design, Tel: 416-392-1126, Fax: 416-392-1744, Email: rglover@toronto.ca

(Report (January 6, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works

and Emergency Services, addressed to the Works Committee and the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "Interim Spending Approvals for the

2000 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program")

Purpose:

The report addresses the need for interim spending approval in the first few weeks of 2000 for those projects that are ongoing or expected to be tendered early in the year, as the capital works program is anticipated to be approved by Council in late April, 2000.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Interim approval of capital expenditures on the projects identified in the recommendations will pre-approve $21,704,000 (after Goods and Services Tax Rebate) of the Water and Wastewater 2000 Capital Budget. The divisional request for spending approval in 2000 amounts to $322,746,000. The interim approval represents 6.7 percent of the 2000 Capital Budget request.

The approval of the recommendations will not add to the 2000 request but merely give approval to continue on-going projects or commence new projects in February 2000.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Budget Advisory Committee be requested to recommend the approval of interim spending authority, in the amount of $21,704,000 for the projects identified in Appendix "A", prior to the approval of the Water and Wastewater Service Division's 2000-2004 Capital Works Program; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Water and Wastewater Service Division's 2000-2004 Capital Works Program was prepared and submitted on the assumption that approvals for 2000 expenditures would be obtained before the end of January, 2000 as originally scheduled. With the approval of the division's capital budget now deferred to late April, 2000 to be considered in conjunction with the Operating budget, interim spending authority is required to award projects in February, 2000 in order to continue programs commenced in 1999 and to expedite the execution of the 2000 program.

Comments:

There are projects underway within the division where funding approval only exists to the end of 1999, yet the actual work and the project timetable is dependent upon continuing into 2000 with the work program. As well, the successful execution of the complete 2000 Water and Wastewater program is dependant on early project scheduling in order to acquire the best price for contracts issued during the winter months and considering 2000 is an election year the majority of major capital projects will need to be awarded before October 2000.

As identified in Appendix "A", the applicable projects are as follows:

WP050 Equipment Replacement and Rehabilitation (Humber Treatment Plant):

Following the incident of a raw sewage spill, which occurred in July, 1999, the electrical systems at the Mimico Pumping stations were reviewed. In order to bring the system up-to-date and prevent future spillage incidents, it was determined that various pieces of equipment would have to be replaced.

Overflow chamber alarm and monitoring systems are required for each of the pumping stations encompassed by the Humber Treatment Plant collections system in order to detect the overflow occurrence and monitoring of the total volume of sewage discharged to the lake.

The request for interim funding approval of $1,017,000 for these projects is necessary in order to commence work in February, 2000.

WP160 Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant III:

Due to the design-build nature of the new odour control and biosolids loading facility, pelletization facility and plant heating project, early budget approval of $4.9 million is required to cover the cost or required design changes and additional demolition costs resulting from the discovery of asbestos contamination during the decommissioning of the existing incinerators.

The plant wide odour survey of the ABTP is an element of the Environmental Assessment mediation agreement and a requirement of the Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval for the biosolids project. Evaluation of all existing odour sources must be complete by the end of 2000. To meet this deadline, interim funding of $1.75 million is required as work will need to commence within the first quarter of 2000.

WP951 New Sewer Construction:

Construction of new sewers at various locations within the City is necessary in order to mitigate deficiencies in the storm and sanitary sewage collection system resulting from either an increase in local demand or development which cannot be resolved through the use of remedial measure with the existing system. It also serves to reduce wet weather flows to the combined system and reduce or eliminate the frequency of basement flooding. The interim funding request of $1.05 million will be used for consultant design of the sewers for construction in 2000.

WP952 Sewer Rehabilitation:

The sewer system rehabilitation program involves the replacement or repair of structurally deficient sections to extend the life of the system. It is necessary to prevent sanitary sewer backups, basement flooding, health and safety hazards, damage to adjacent infrastructure and environmental damage to local receiving waters through the direct discharge of untreated wastewater with minimal impact to residents and businesses. Due to the minimal amount of pre-engineering required, an early tender and award of sewer rehabilitation projects, totalling $2.5 million of interim funds, in February will ensure competitive rates as well as an early start on the projects.

WP953 Stormwater Management:

Terms of reference for the next phase of the development of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan are underway; interim funding of $500,000 is required to carry this phase through. The focus of this plan is for the control and reduction of wet weather flow impacts on area watercourses and the waterfront.

WP954 Watercourse Improvements:

A watercourse condition study will be undertaken to assess and prioritize erosion sites within all City watercourses. A standardized rating template will be used to assess the severity of erosion and the need for remedial works. This standardized approach will ensure a consistent and unbiased evaluation by which priorities can be established and a rehabilitation program developed. Interim funding of $160,000 is required to commence the study that will continue into 2001.

WS011 Distribution System Improvements:

Adjustment of the boundary between Pressure District 2 and Pressure District 3E is required so that the area bounded by Main Street, Gerrard Street, Victoria Park Avenue and Kingston Road, currently part of Pressure District 2, will be supplied by Pressure District 3E. This requires interim funding of $245,000 for the construction of a new watermain and a metering chamber. The resulting shift of the pressure district boundaries will supply water at higher pressure to the Main and Gerrard area to address complaints of low water supply pressures and flows.

WS018 Clark Residue Management Facilities:

To date, there has been no provision for the treatment of residue generated by the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant. The interim funding request of $231,000 addresses the execution of an environmental assessment and pre-design plan for the future construction of a residue management facility for the filtration plant to conform to the OWRA, EPA and MOE guidelines.

WS363 Engineering Studies:

As a continuation of the Deep Lake Water Cooling Study being carried out in partnership with the Toronto District Heating Corporation, interim funding of $98,000 is required to carry out the next phase which includes the technical and financial feasibility of withdrawing water from Lake Ontario for cooling Toronto's downtown business district. Currently, an environmental assessment for the project has been completed along with a preliminary engineering report.

In co-operation with the Region of York, a Joint Optimization Study was undertaken in 1999 to use planned population growth to determine long term water demands to the years 2011 and 2031 and identify the infrastructure required to meet these demands. The interim funding request for $470,000 is required to continue this study without interruption.

WS961 New Watermain Construction:

Construction of new watermains at various locations within the City is required in order to mitigate deficiencies in the water distribution system resulting from either an increase in local demand or a projected increase in demand as a result of new development. New watermains are required in areas where remedial measures such as watermain cleaning and lining cannot provide the necessary capacity. The interim funding request of $160,000 will be used for consultant design of the watermains for construction in 2000.

WS962 Watermain Rehabilitation:

The City's water distribution system was designed to provide a supply of water adequate to meet the domestic demand and fire flow protection for the areas serviced. As the distribution system ages, metallic pipe and appurtenances corrode and deteriorate. Internal corrosion of the pipe walls decreased the flow capacity of the system and causes rusty water problems. The system integrity is also compromised by external corrosion that leads to structural failures and watermain breaks. Where deficiencies in the system are a result of deterioration of the distribution system piping, consideration is given to the use of remedial measures such as watermain cleaning and lining, structural rehabilitation or reconstruction as well as water service replacement, fire hydrant renewal/replacement and cathodic protection. Due to the minimal amount of pre-engineering required, an early tender and award of watermain rehabilitation projects in February, totalling $8.6 million of interim funds, will ensure competitive rates as well as an early start on the projects.

Conclusions:

In order to address the expected delay in approval by Council of the 2000 Capital Budget, we have identified a need for interim capital funding approval in certain areas of the Water and Wastewater Services Division. These areas are critical in that work is either required to continue on from 1999 or needed to be started as soon as possible in 2000, in order to achieve the timetable associated with these various projects, and take advantage of better construction prices for contracts issued during the winter months.

Contact:

Michael A. Price, P.Eng., FICE, General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services Division,

Phone: (416) 392-8200, Fax: (416) 392-4540; E-mail: mprice@toronto.ca

________

Appendix A

City Of Toronto Works and Emergency Services 2000-2004 Capital Works Program

Interim Funding Request ($000's) Net After Gst Rebate

(Communication (January 10, 2000) from Councillor Bruce Sinclair,

Rexdale Thistletown)addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Rexdale Park - Redevelopment"

I make reference to my motion at the Etobicoke Community Council Special Meeting of December 3, 1999 to consider the Capital Budget, which called for the reinstatement of $400,000.00 in the Parks and Recreation Budget for the year 2000 for Rexdale Park redevelopment (Project No. 80, p.69). The motion was carried and went back to your Committee where it was, unfortunately, subsequently received.

The Rexdale Community is sorely in need of funding for this necessary upgrading of facilities and I ask you to honour the clear intention of Etobicoke Community Council that this issue be re-opened.

In these special circumstances I thank you for considering this request.

Etobicoke Community Council, - Special Meeting to consider the Capital Budget, December 3,1999

Moved by Councillor Sinclair:

That $400,000.00 be reinstated in the Parks and Recreation Budget for the year 2000 for Rexdale Park redevelopment, (Project No. 80, p.69)

Carried

(Report (December 8, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer

addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee, entitled

"Funding for the Creation of a Transportation Hub at

Union Station" from the Chief Administrative Officer)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to a request from the Budget Advisory Committee on how the City should position itself for the request of funds from Federal, Provincial and GTA governments for GO Transit, Union Station and the proposed TTC Union Subway Station (Subway Station) platform expansion.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City's proposed acquisition of Toronto Terminals Railway's (TTR) assets, which comprise of Union Station, the Rail Corridor and the CP Express Building, is the first step towards the achievement of a truly inter-modal transportation facility for Canada. By securing the transportation elements of Union Station, GO Transit will be in a more advantageous position to proceed with its capital expansion plans to accommodate its current and forecasted commuter ridership demand.

GO Transit's infrastructure expansion plans, a potential future transportation link to Lester B. Pearson International Airport and a proposed bus terminal for inter-city bus carriers in the vicinity of Union Station will necessitate a platform expansion to the Subway Station given the use of the Subway Station by these various commuters.

The capital resources required for the Subway Station's platform expansion, estimated at $58 million by the TTC, coupled with the funding pressures currently facing the City renders the platform expansion and the achievement of an inter-modal transportation hub unattainable.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Mayor's Office be requested to approach the Federal and Provincial governments for capital funding for an inter-modal transportation hub at Union Station;

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission initiate a dialogue with GO Transit officials to more accurately assess the impact on the Subway Station resulting from GO Transit's proposed expansion plans and to justify and request a financial contribution to upgrading the Subway Station; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

During its preliminary review of the 2000-2004 Capital Budget, the Budget Advisory Committee adopted the following motion: "The Chief Administrative Officer provide information as to how the City should position itself with regard to Union Station, noting that Union Station is an entity and a transportation hub and important to the whole country and therefore the City should request monies from the Federal and Provincial governments as well as the Greater Toronto Area for GO and subway improvements."

Comments:

Union Station:

The City is currently in the process of purchasing the assets of TTR, which comprise of Union Station, the Rail Corridor and the CP Express Building. The City will finance the net purchase price by the sale of the Rail Corridor, the CP Express Building and certain leasehold interests to GO Transit for the net purchase price with the City retaining ownership of Union Station. The acquisition of Union Station is the first step towards the achievement of a truly inter-modal transportation facility in Canada.

GO Transit currently has 35 million passengers passing through Union Station and this volume is expected to increase to 50 million passengers by 2010, a mere ten years from now. The commuter transportation infrastructure requires significant capital improvements to accommodate the current and forecasted demand for services.

Similar to the City, GO also has an acrimonious relationship with TTR which hinders GO's decision-making processes and delays the implementation of GO's plans for Union Station's environs. With GO's ownership of the Rail Corridor and the CP Express building, strategic assets for the delivery of its services, the implementation of its capital projects will be greatly simplified. City ownership of Union Station and GO ownership of the transportation related assets of TTR would serve to achieve a common objective of both parties: the increased use of public transit.

GO and VIA are the primary transportation anchor tenants of Union Station. While GO is the primary tenant given the volume of their commuter traffic, Union Station is the largest passenger handling station for VIA, a crown corporation of the Federal government. Union Station accommodates 2 million of VIA's inter-city passengers per year.

Union Station Subway Platform:

The Subway Station is a focal point for transit travel to and from the downtown area and according to the TTC, it is one of the worst stations in the TTC system for serving large volumes of customers because the platform is unusually small and disjointed. Over the years, the customer demand has increased significantly with intensification and development of the downtown area (e.g. SkyDome and the Air Canada Centre), its proximity to Union Station and the use of the Subway Station by GO and VIA commuter's.

The TTC proposes to construct a new platform on the south side of the existing subway tracks and to expand the Subway Station's mezzanine level to accommodate new stairs, escalators and a new elevator. According to the TTC's 2000-2004 Capital Program Submission, the estimated cost of the project is $58 million.

GO Transit commuters use of the Subway Station impact's its passenger handling capability. As such, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief General Manager of the TTC should initiate a dialogue with GO Transit officials to more accurately assess the infrastructure and financial implications of GO Transit's plans on the Subway Station. In addition, the CFO and CGM should justify and request a financial contribution from GO Transit as a result of the increased demand placed on the Subway Station by its commuters.

The Subway Station contributes to the inter-modality/transportation hub objective. Since the transportation functions will serve residents across Canada through VIA Rail and residents across the GTA through GO Transit, the Federal and Provincial governments should contribute their fair share of the capital funding requirements. From both a financial and public policy perspective, the City is not in a position to fund these capital requirements through its local funding sources while Union Station's transportation services will benefit a cross section of Canadian, and in particular, GTA residents. As such, staff from the Mayor's Office should initiate dialogue with the other levels of government in the pursuit of capital funding for this initiative.

Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth:

In April of 1999, the IBI Group/Hemson Consulting in Association with C.N. Watson and Associates prepared a report entitled: "Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth". The report concluded that a partnership is required between municipal and senior levels of government to maintain a competitive transportation system and that funding for, or the tools to fund, the required infrastructure improvements are urgently needed from senior levels of Government. These conclusions serve to substantiate the City's position in receiving financial contributions for transportation related capital improvements in Union Station's environs.

Conclusions:

Union Station has the potential to be a truly inter-modal transportation facility for Canada. Since the transportation functions of the building would serve residents across Canada through VIA Rail and residents across the GTA through GO Transit, the Federal, Provincial and GTA governments should contribute their fair share of the capital funding requirements.

Contact:

Joe Farag, Director, Development, Policy and Research, Tel: (416) 392-8108; Fax:  (416) 397-4465, E-mail : jfarag@toronto.ca

(Report (January 10, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Sheppard Subway - Impact of its "mothballing")

Purpose:

To respond to the request on the savings to be made by "mothballing" the Sheppard Subway, until such time as the Province agrees to co-fund the Toronto Transit Commission.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications with respect to this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting on December 6, 1999, the Toronto Community Council requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on savings to be made by "mothballing" the Sheppard Subway, until such time as the Province agrees to co-fund the Toronto Transit Commission

Comments:

The construction of the Sheppard Subway started shortly after its approval in 1996. The project is currently well underway, within the amended budget and on schedule, with its completion anticipated for 2002. The total project cost is $932.9 million gross and $352.8 million net.

The commitments to date in contracts awarded are $847 million or 90 percent of the total cost, and the incurred costs have been $625 million. On this basis, the interruption of the construction of the subway would result, at the most, in savings of $87 million or 10 percent of the total cost of the project.

However, the estimate of the savings has to take into consideration the costs that would be required for the "mothballing' of the already completed sections of the line, which TTC staff indicate can be roughly estimated at between $50 million to $75 million. In addition, TTC staff indicate that the re-start of the project after its interruption would result in additional costs of $100 million to $150 million.

Therefore, given the currently advanced stage of implementation of the Sheppard Subway the net impact of the interruption would result in increased costs of between $63 million to $138 million.

TTC indicates that five years after completion, it is anticipated that the operation of the Sheppard subway will result in a net annual savings to the TTC's operating expenditures, using a low ridership growth scenario. The estimated amount of fiscal impact, approximately $2.0 million annually, would not be realised until several years after the end of the current five-year planning period. Accordingly, the 2000-2004 capital program reflects operating budget impact of $650K net expenditures in 2002, $500K net expenditures in 2003 and net revenue of $300K in 2004.

Conclusions:

To date $847 million or 90 percent of the total cost has been committed in contracts awarded and the incurred costs have been $625 million. Given the currently advanced stage of implementation of the Sheppard Subway, once the additional costs resulting from the "mothballing" of the project are taken into consideration, the net impact of the interruption would result in increased costs of between $63 million to $138 million.

Contact:

Jacques Goyette, Senior Budget Analyst, 392-5377.

(Report (December 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, addressed to the

Budget Advisory Committee entitled "110 Wildwood")

Thank you for your letter of December 10, 1999 regarding the sale of the westerly portion of 110 Wildwood Crescent to cover the cost of parkland improvements to the east of this site.

The points raised in your letter are correct. Apparently a motion was not made at either the Administration Committee or Council to give effect to this suggestion. Our submitted 2000-2004 Capital Works Program does not include the Wildwood park project, as we had anticipated the work would be funded through the land sale.

In order to have this project included in the 2000 Capital, you could have a motion presented at the January 10, 2000 Budget Advisory Committee dealing with outstanding items. This item could be added as a Capital adjustment on the basis that the proceeds from the sale of 110 Wildwood would fund the necessary park improvements to an estimated cost of $130,000.00.

I trust this is helpful.

(Communication (January 11, 2000) from Councillor Irene Jones,

Lakeshore-Queensway, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee

entitled "Mimico Tennis Club")

Attached please find correspondence from the Mimico Tennis Club indicating that the Club would be pleased to contribute $4,000.00 per year for ten years toward the rebuilding of the facility.

This project is budgeted to cost $150,000.00 and is slated to be completed in the year 2001. Could this be moved forward to this fiscal year, knowing that the Club will contribute their portion over the next ten years.

(A copy of the communications referred to in the foregoing communication were forwarded to all Members of Council with the Agenda for the Budget Advisory Committee of January 14, 2000, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Communication (January 19, 2000) from the

Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place)

At its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1999, the Budget Committee requested the Exhibition Place reconsider the proposed increase of rental rates in the Food Building during the CNE and report to City Council for its meeting of February 1, 2000.

Attached is the report with recommendations from staff that has now been sent to the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Exhibition Association and the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place for their meetings on January 27, 2000 and January 28, 2000 respectively.

(A copy of the report referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following report (January 20, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "2000-2004 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program - Amendment to Capital Financing Report":

Purpose:

This report amends the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program to reflect the recommendations of the Budget Advisory Committee of January 14, 2000 and seeks authority for financing of the gross expenditures for the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program. The capital program will be financed from a combination of debenture financing, reserve funds, capital from current and other sources.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 2000- 2004 Tax Supported Capital Program as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee contains projects totalling $1.78 billion in gross expenditures with a 2000 cash flow of $980.9 million, and future year commitments of $407.1 million for 2001, $189.6 million for 2002, $113.6 million for 2003 and $96.4 million for 2004.

For the 2000 Recommended Capital Budget of $980.9 million, the recommendations in this report would result in tax supported capital funding of $178 million from Corporate Revenues, $256 million from reserves, $146 million from capital from current, and $324 million in debenture financing, after a $77 million provision for under expenditures.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that

(1) the gross expenditures in the amount of $980.4 million for 2000, and future year commitments of $407.1 million for 2001, $189.6 million for 2002, $113.6 million for 2003 and $96.4 million for 2004, for a total cost of $1.78 billion as outlined on a program basis in Appendix A of this report, be approved;

(2) financing in an amount not to exceed $500 million to be debentured, if required, for a term up to, but not exceeding 20 years be approved;

(3) total net debt financing (after provisions for underexpenditure of $77 million) for the 2000 capital program be limited to no more than $324 million as outlined in Appendix B, consisting of $110 million baseline debt and $214 million new debt; and

(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting of January 14, 2000 recommended the 2000 Capital Budget for each program area. This report amends the recommendations contained in the report dated January 11, 2000 from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on the 2000 Recommended Capital Program Financing - Tax Supported, to reflect the Budget Advisory Committee's Recommended 2000 Capital Budget and future year commitments.

Discussion:

Appendix A summarizes the 2000 Capital Program and Future Year Commitments by program as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee on January 14, 2000. For the 2000 Recommended Tax Supported Capital Program, gross expenditures total $980.9 million for 2000, and future year commitments of $406.1 million for 2001, $189.6 million for 2002, $113.6 million for 2003 and $96.4 million for 2004, for a total cost of $1.78 billion.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in accordance with the requirements of provincial regulations, certifies that expenditures in the amount of $326 million for projected borrowing requirements contained and detailed in the attached Appendix B as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee; (i) can therefore be financed by the issuance of debentures, (ii) is within the City's updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and (iii) authority for debenture terms not exceeding 20 years is being recommended.

Conclusions:

This report amends the recommendations contained in the report dated January 11, 2000 from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on the 2000 Recommended Capital Program Financing - Tax Supported, to reflect the Budget Advisory Committee's Recommended 2000 - 2004 Capital Program. The recommendations contained in this report will allow Council to formally adopt the 2000 Capital Budget as recommended by Budget Advisory Committee, allocate funding from reserve funds where applicable and authorize debenture financing. The capital projects will be financed from a combination of debenture financing, reserve funds, capital from current and other sources.

Contact Name:

Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services, Phone: (416) 392-5380: Fax:  (416) 392-3649, E-mail: lbrittai@toronto.ca

John Di Lallo, Manager, Budget Services, Phone: (416397-4207; Fax: (416) 392-3649, E-mail:jdilallo@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of Appendix A, entitled "City of Toronto 2000 Capital Budget Program Future Year Commitments of Total Recommended Projects", attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 20, 2000, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (January 14, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "Request for $1,080,000.00 of Funding from the City Transition Budget":

Recommendation:

The Budget Advisory Committee on January 14, 2000, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 12, 2000) from the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee had before it a report (January 12, 2000) from the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, recommending that the Budget Advisory Committee approve funding in the amount of $540,000.00 in each of the years 2000 and 2001 (total $1,080,000.00) from the City's Transition Budget for the addition of seven technical staff required for the new Police/Fire radio communications system.

(Report (January 12, 2000) from the Chair, Toronto Police

Services Board, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that: the Budget Advisory Committee approve funding in the amount of $540,000.00 in each of the years 2000 and 2001 (total $1,080,000.00) from the City's Transition Budget for the addition of seven technical staff required for the new Police/Fire radio communication system.

Background:

The $34.5 million joint Police/Fire radio system approved by the Toronto Police Services Board, (Minute No. 498/98 refers) and City Council in December 1998 has moved forward and is now in the implementation phase.

The Police and Fire Services have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), outlining respective responsibilities for ongoing installation, configuration, and operation of this new system. The system introduces a four-fold increase in fixed radio equipment, as well as an additional eight hundred mobile and portable radios over and above the current complement supported by the Fire and Police Services. The lowest cost and most effective option for implementation and administration was determined to be a model, whereby, the Police and Fire Services build upon existing infrastructure and skills in a shared manner (as opposed to a significant level of outsourcing to Motorola).

In December 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board, and City Council, approved the impact on the Operating Budget of the Police/Fire common radio system, as part of the Capital Budget approval for this project. The operating costs were identified to be $270,000.00, $345,000.00 and $580,000.00 for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The 2002 and onward impact was identified to be $155,000.00 per annum. Due to the decision to internally support the system, the actual funds required are approximately $1,150,000.00 lower (in total) for 2000, 2001 and 2002, and approximately $120,000.00 per year lower thereafter. At its upcoming Toronto Police Services Board meeting of January 26, 2000, it is the Toronto Police Services Board's intention to approve the increase of seven technical positions to achieve these savings.

At its Policy and Budget Sub-Committee meeting of January 12, 2000, members of the Toronto Police Services Board reviewed opportunities to reduce operating budget requests. In reviewing the Police/Fire radio project, it was noted that implementation would continue through 2000 and 2001. Further, it was concluded that the major driver for the proposed system resulted directly from the amalgamation requirements for the former Fire Services. Consequently, the Policy and Budget Sub-Committee recommends that the City Budget Advisory Committee approve funding of $540,000.00 in each of years 2000 and 2001 from the City's Transition Budget for the addition of seven technical staff required for the new Police/Fire radio communication system. Note that timing has not permitted the project's Steering Committee (comprised of Police, Fire, Ambulance, Works, and Audit members) to review this recommendation.

Approval of the recommendation will result in total Police/Fire reductions in current operating budgets of $540,000.00 in each of years 2000 and 2001. However, in years 2002 and thereafter, the combined operating budgets for Police and Fire would increase by $540,000.00. Please refer to the table following.

Mr. Frank Chen, Acting Chief Administrative Officer (808-8005), Mr. Larry Stinson, Director of Information Technology Services (808-7550), and Mr. Dan Perlstein, Manager of Wireless Network Services (808-6905) will be in attendance at the January 14, 2000 Budget Advisory Committee meeting to respond to any questions.

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (January 12, 2000) from the City Clerk, entitled "Project and Spending Approval for TTC 2001 Capital Maintenance Expenditures":

Recommendation:

The Budget Advisory Committee on January 12, 2000, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee had before it a report (January 11, 2000) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, requesting authority for the Toronto Transit Commission to commit $71.161 million expenditures in the 2001 recommended capital spending budget for selected Toronto Transit Commission capital maintenance projects; and recommending that the Toronto Transit Commission be granted project and spending approval for the said $71.161 million in capital maintenance projects in 2001, as listed in Appendix "A".

(Report dated January 11, 2000, addressed to the

Budget Advisory Committee from the

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

This report requests authority for the TTC to commit $71.161 million expenditures in the 2001 recommended capital spending budget for selected TTC capital maintenance projects.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of the recommendation will encumber the 2001 capital budget by $71.161 million.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the TTC be granted project and spending approval for $71.161 million in capital maintenance projects in 2001 as listed in Appendix "A".

Background:

For the 2000 capital budget, multi-year project and spending approval is being recommended for projects with multi-year phases that are generally new construction. In the case of ongoing capital maintenance projects that have a duration of generally less than one year, capital spending approval is limited to the 2000 capital requirements. It is intended that once a full five-year plan is adopted by City Council, spending envelopes for capital maintenance would be set for the entire program.

Comments:

The TTC has requested additional capital spending approval to cover the year 2001 requirements for selected ongoing maintenance projects for the following reasons:

(1) parts ordering lead time exceeding 12 months, mainly for surface and subway materials;

(2) project staffing requirements for the first quarter 2001; and

(3) prevent interruption of ongoing maintenance programs.

As it stands, the recommended 2000-2004 capital financing approval for the TTC recommended Capital Budget totals $465.277 million. The TTC request would increase the project and spending authorizations by $71.161 million as outlined in Appendix "A". It should be noted that in the prior years, TTC has been provided two-year spending authority requirements for ongoing capital maintenance projects.

Budget staff have reviewed the TTC request for selected ongoing capital maintenance projects and the justification for additional project and spending authority in 2001. The requirement for additional capital spending totalling $71.161 million for the purpose of state of good repair of the transit system in 2001 is reasonable and consistent with previous years practice.

Conclusion:

Increasing the TTC 2000-2004 capital project and spending approval by $71.161 million in 2001 is recommended for the state of good repair of the transit system.

Contact Names:

Mr. Jacques Goyette, 392-5377, Fax 397-4465.

Mr. John Di Lallo, 397-4207, Fax 397-4465.

______

Appendix "A"

TTC Capital Expenditure Requirements for 2000 and 2001

(Re: Ongoing Capital Maintenance Projects)

2001

Additional

Project 2000 Financing

No. Project Name Recommended Proposed

$ $

110 Subway Track 7,121.00 4,414.00

120 Surface Track 13,534.00 15,985.00

210 Traction Power 4,800.00 4,808.00

311 Roofing Rehabilitation 552.00 1,799.00

340 Bridges and Tunnels 14,428.00 8,634.00

341 Maintenance joint TTC/Toronto Bridges 646.00 956.00

431 Bus Heavy Rebuild - 12 Years 13,584.00 11,669.00

432 Bus Heavy Rebuild - 18 Years 16,446.00 9,812.00

460 Subway Car Overhaul Program 2,346.00 2,400.00

470 Automotive Non-Revenue Programs 1,686.00 1,899.00

530 Other Maintenance Equipment 948.00 791.00

710 Computer Equipment and Software 12,128.00 7,318.00

920 Transit Priorities 700.00 676.00

Total 88,919.00 71,161.00

The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a summary of items tabled at the Budget Advisory Committee from its meetings on January 12 and 14, 2000, prepared by the Finance Department, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

________

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer gave an overhead presentation to the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a copy of her presentation material.

Mr. Russell Walker, Budget Coordinator, For Youth Project, appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Bas Balkissoon, Scarborough Malvern.

- Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown;

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park;

- Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and

- Councillor Peter Li Preti, Black Creek.

(A copy of the Blue Budget Book entitled "Capital Budget 2000-2004" was forwarded to all members of Council by the Finance Department and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Respectfully submitted,

MAYOR MEL LASTMAN,

Chair

Toronto, January 20, 2000

Patsy Morris

Tel. (416) 392-9151