1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(A)the adoption of the Recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to:

(i)amending Recommendation No. (9) as embodied in the 1999 Capital Budget Book, to include the Scarborough District and the Riverlea Seniors Club; and

(ii)including the Chinese Cultural Centre Gardens in the Capital Budget at zero funding to the City of Toronto; and

(B)the adoption of the report (January 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Spending Authorizations for the 1999 Capital Budget and Commitments".

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the Budget Committee to:

(i)address the issue of building conditions at 11 and 14 Division, Toronto Police Service, in its upcoming five-year Capital Plan; and

(ii)give consideration to the installation of a Toronto Transit Commission island at St.Clair and Via Italia, and submit a report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999, when this matter is being considered;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to report, in an expeditious manner, to the Budget Committee, on the outstanding Urban Design Project Items 1-9 (Page 170 of the Capital Budget Book); such report to also include information respecting Garrison Creek Linkages;

(3) requested Commissioners to submit a report to the Budget Committee, no later than the last meeting in July, 1999, on any projected unexpended funds, or projected funds, respecting the following two projects: "Jane\Finch and Sheppard" in order that they can be reallocated to other projects;

(4)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Special Meeting of the Budget Committee, for report thereon directly to Council, with respect to the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts and any Capital items that need advance approval;

(5)referred the communication (January 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council, entitled "Feasibility Study - Proposed Etobicoke Centre for the Performing Arts", to the Budget Committee for consideration during the Operating Budget deliberations; and

(6)directed that the 1999-2003 Capital Budget and the Recommendations of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in regard thereto, be submitted to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (January21,1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(i)the adoption of the following Recommendations Nos. (1) to (18) embodied in the report (January 14, 1999) from the Chair, Budget Committee:

"(1)The City's total 1999 - 2003 Capital Works (Tax Supported) Program of $3.8 billion as outlined on page 1 of Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, as recommended in page 1 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $2.5 billion with 1999 cash flow of $1.197 billion; and future commitments of $607 million in 2000; $339 million in 2001; $172 million in 2002; and, $162 million in 2003, be approved;

(3)The 1999 City's fleet budget be presented to the Budget Committee early in 1999;

(4)The Departments, Agencies and Boards, reflect the operating budget savings of $15.8 million projected for 1999 (as set out in Appendix F) in their respective program area's 1999 operating budget submissions;

(5)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Parking Authority of $81.9 million gross, $0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(6)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Parking Authority as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $41.1 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $33.6 million gross, $0 net; and future commitments of $7.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, be approved;

(7)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Economic Development Corporation of $39.5 million gross, $0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(8)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation as recommended in page 2 of Appendix A which contains projects totalling $17.4 million gross, $0 net, with a 1999 cash flow of $12.7 million gross, $0 net and future year commitments of $4.7 million gross, $0 net in 2000 be approved;

(9)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners of $38.8 million gross , $ 31.9 million net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(10)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $5.8 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $5.8 million gross, $0 net, be approved;

(11)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for Water Services of $531.1 million (gross), $ 0 net as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(12)The 1999 Capital Budget for Water Services as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $136.6 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $83.1 million gross, $0 net and future commitments of $27.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, $20.2 million gross, $0 net in 2001, $5.8 million gross, $0 net in 2002, be approved;

(13)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for Waste Water of $603.3 million (gross), $0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(14)The 1999 Capital Budget for Waste Water as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $288.4 million gross,$0 net with 1999 cash flow of $165.9 million gross, $0 net and future commitments of $79.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, $34.8 million gross, $0 net in 2001, $8.2 million gross, $0 net in 2002, be approved;

(15)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer present, no later than April 1999, the City's growth related capital works program to be identified through the development charges review process;

(16)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back early in 1999 with an updated status on spending related to previously approved capital projects and impact on the 1999 capital program;

(17)All capital projects which has been deferred and / or included as part of the future years (2000-2003) projections be considered as place holders and subject to full review as part of the 2000 - 2004 capital budget review process, unless a project and an amount has been specifically identified as relating to a future year; and

(18)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in consultation with appropriate program staff report back to the Budget Committee in September 1999 on the impacts and a phase in plan for the capital expenditure definition guidelines."; and

(ii)the adoption of the following Recommendation No. (19) embodied in the aforementioned report (January 14, 1999) from the Chair, Budget Committee:

"(19)The recommendation set out in the attached program area reports setting out the recommended 1999 capital budgets be adopted.",

subject to the amendments shown below to (F) Parks and Recreation; (J) Transportation; and (Y) Waste Water:

Directly Controlled Programs - Operations

(A)Toronto Ambulance

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Toronto Ambulance of $6.88 million in Gross Expenditure as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Toronto Ambulance consisting of two projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $350 thousand be approved. No commitments are made for 2000 from the approval of these two projects;

(3)Toronto Ambulance report to the Budget Committee on the results of negotiations with the Ministry of Health for financial support in the replacement of the communication equipment for the Central Ambulance Communication Centre and on the outcome of discussions with Police and Fire Services regarding the Radio Communication System Infrastructure;

(4)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance report back on the recommendations of the KPMG Fire/Ambulance Location Study relative to Ambulance Station Renovations Project in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Works Program submission; and

(5)Prior to any expenditures being incurred, Toronto Ambulance must submit all outstanding reports as requested by Budget Committee and Emergency and Protective Services Committee.

(B)Arts, Culture and Heritage

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Arts, Culture and Heritage of $65,520,000.00 as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Arts, Culture and Heritage consisting of nine projects and thirteen sub-projects as recommended in Appendix A and Appendix B with a 1999 cash flow of $3,900,000.00 be approved. Commitments totalling $1,800,000.00 are made for 2000 and $200,000.00 for 2001 from the approval of these nine projects;

(3)Arts, Culture and Heritage report on a long-term City wide plan and priorities for major new site and facility development in time for the 2000 - 2004 Capital Budget; and

(4)Arts, Culture and Heritage report on a comprehensive strategy and funding requirements for the acquisition, conservation and restoration of the City of Toronto outdoor art, memorials and monuments in time for the 2000 -2004 Capital Budget.

(C)Economic Development

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Economic Development totalling $13,890,000.00 as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Economic Development consisting of four projects and nine sub-projects as recommended in Appendix A and Appendix B with a 1999 cash flow of $2,716,000.00 be approved;

(3)The 1999 Operating Budget for Economic Development be adjusted by $280,000.00 to reflect the transfer of the Commercial Facade Improvement project from the Operating Budget to the Capital Budget;

(4)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism in consultation with other related program areas, prepare a report to be tabled in time for the 2000-2004 Capital Budget recommending a City wide strategy for all revitalization and improvement programs;

(5)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report on options for enhanced cost sharing policies between the City and the organizations that benefit from the revitalization and improvement programs; and

(6)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Economic Development Committee on whether there is a capital program to accommodate the request from the Bloor-Yorkville BIA and to the Budget Committee on the financial implications resulting from the request.

(7)The request for $200,000.00 from the Pearl Street merchants for Streetscape improvements along a portion of Pearl Street between Duncan and Simcoe Streets be approved conditional on the Pearl Street merchants funding 50 percent of the project cost. The funding to be received by the City prior to starting the project.

(D)Fire Services

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Fire Services of $54.982 million (gross) and $44.411 million (net) as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Fire Services consisting of 3 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $23.213 million be approved. Commitments totalling $10.0 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these 3 projects; and

(3)A joint report outlining the savings achieved through joint initiatives among the three emergency services be submitted by the Fire Chief, the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance Services, and the Chief of Police to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee by the end of 1999.

(E)Homes for the Aged

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Homes for Aged Division of $54.028 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Homes for the Aged Division consisting of 3 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $15.402 million be approved. Commitments totalling $2.626 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these 3 projects; and

(3)The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to Budget Committee on the financial implications of renovating and rebuilding the 2 older facilities (379 beds) before the construction phase of this project begins.

(F)Parks and Recreation

The Budget Committee recommends that Recommendations Nos. (1) to (15) embodied in the portion of the 1999 Capital Budget book, entitled "Parks and Recreation" be amended to provide as follows:

St. Basil's Community Centre

(a)That $150,000.00 of reserves identified in the 1999 budget submission to fund the St. Basil's Community Centre sub-project be allocated to fund the Stanley Community Centre Expansion of Seniors Room in 1999;

(b)that the remaining $800,000.00 of such reserves identified for the St.Basil's project be encumbered, and be considered for the construction of a community centre (temporarily named the Humber/Sheppard Community Centre), in the year 2000; and

(c)that the Community Centre be renamed Humber/Sheppard Community Centre (formerly known as St. Basil's Community Centre) in the interim until such time as a permanent name can be determined by a community process organized by the Ward Councillors.

St. James Town

(d)That the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to meet with the Ward Councillors, Toronto Hydro and the Toronto Parking Authority to determine whether Section 37 funds could be applied to a design which would be affordable and phased and report back to the Budget Committee through the Economic Development Committee in that regard.

Parkette - Broadview and Gamble, East York

(e)Funding in the amount of $10,000.00 be approved for the subject project.

Kiwanis Pool (East York)

(f)$75,000.00 be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the installation of a tube water slide at Kiwanis pool in the former Borough of East York;

(g)that the future operating implications of staffing and maintaining a tube water slide at Kiwanis pool be considered within the context of the Department's 1999 Operating Budget; and

(h)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Playground Inspection Program (CSA Standards)

(i)Consideration be given to a one time allocation of $60,000.00 in the Current Budget of the Parks and Recreation Division to allow the project to proceed in 1999, in house; and

(j)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Recommendations as Embodied in the 1999 Capital Budget Book:

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for the Parks and Recreation Program of $246 million (gross) as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Parks and Recreation, consisting of 12 projects as recommended in Appendix A (and related sub-projects in Appendix B), totalling $45.1 million gross, with 1999 cash flow of $33.6 million gross, and the year 2000 cash flow of $11.5 million gross be approved;

(3)With regards to the Main Square RC sub-project (Community Centres Project, Toronto Community Council), a joint venture with the Central Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC):

(i)if CMHC's funding commitment is exhausted in 1999, City funding of up to $1.5 million of the City's share of the cost be immediately provided on an as needed basis, prior to the approval of the year 2000 Capital Budget, in order to maintain continuity in construction activities, and avoid construction contract legal claims;

(ii)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to identify the appropriate funding source, to give effect to recommendation 3 (I) above;

(iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be authorized to disburse funds identified in 3 (ii) above, on an as needed basis, up to $1.5 million; and,

(iv)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report jointly to the Budget Committee in the event that it was necessary to disburse any of the City's share of the cost of this project prior to the approval of the year 2000 capital budget, and the appropriate increase to the Parks and Recreation 1999 capital budget;

(4)With regards to the York Mills Park Baseball Diamond Lighting Upgrade sub-project (Outdoor Recreation Facilities Project, North York Community Council), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism request that B'nai Brith be asked to contribute funding towards this project, in accordance with the motion passed by the North York Community Council on December 3, 1998;

(5)With regards to the Don Russel Park - New Parking Lot sub-project (Parking Lots/Tennis Courts Project, Etobicoke Community Council), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism request that the Lakeshore Lions Club and the Gus Ryder Pool be asked to contribute funding towards this project, in accordance with the motion passed by the Etobicoke Community Council on December 2, 1998;

(6)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report on how the St. Jamestown project will be accommodated in the Parks and Recreation 5-year Capital Works Plan, in time for inclusion in the 2000 - 2004 capital program;

(7)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, report in time for the year 2000 Capital Budget process on the priority ranking of the proposed St. Jamestown project, as part of the forthcoming report from the Commissioner on a Citywide needs assessment of such facilities;

(8)That the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report in time for the year 2000 Capital Budget process, on a long-term integrated prioritized Parks and Recreation capital works program, in consultation with Facilities Management, as work on their Capital Asset Management Plan addresses Parks and Recreation-related capital works;

(9)That the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Budget Committee, in time for the year 2000 Capital Budget process, with respect to covering bocci courts in the Etobicoke district, to be identified by members of the Community Council, including those at the Ourland Community Centre and the North Kipling Community Centre. The report should include cost savings that could be realized if done in conjunction with the construction of a new school at 2 Rowntree Road;

(10)With regards to the North District Street Tree Planting sub-project (Environmental Initiatives Project, Multiple Wards), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism request the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) to provide funding of $50,000.00 for this sub-project, and report back to the Budget Committee on TAF's decision;

(11)With regards to the "state of good repair" of Parks and Recreation facilities (including a study of facility components such as roofs, walls, foundations, HVAC, glazing, electrical, and exterior amenities such as parking lots/lighting, prioritized as to repair and standardization), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, report to the Budget Committee on the scope and scale of the study of such facilities, the estimated costs of such a study, and the implications of the Development Charges Act as a source of funding for projects/initiatives emanating from the study;

(12)With regards to the Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Funds - Proposed Policy, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Budget Committee during the 1999 budget process on the status of the proposed policy for Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Funds, in accordance with City Council's directive as contained in recommendation 2 in the 1998 approved capital budget, concerning the report (March 30, 1998) on the proposed policy for Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Funds;

(13)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Budget Committee, in time for the year 2000 budget process, on revised corporate guidelines for defining operating and capital items;

(14)With regards to the St. Basil's CC sub-project (Community Centres Project, North York Community Council - recommended for deferral to the year 2000), reserves of $950,000.00 as identified in the 1999 Capital Budget Submission be encumbered, pending a further report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, on other ways to mitigate the impact on the community, in accordance with the motion passed by the North York Community Council on December 3, 1998; and

(15)With regards to the Woodbine Park Development sub-project (Park Development Project, Toronto Community Council - total gross project cost of $5 million), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Budget Committee on the availability of appropriate reserves that could be used to offset the total cost of this project, as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.

(G)Shelter, Housing and Support

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Shelter, Housing and Support Division in the amount of $6.650 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Shelter, Housing and Support Services consisting of 2 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $3.050 million be approved. Commitments totalling $3.6 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these 2 projects;

(3)The increase in expenditures of $1.0 million to retrofit the annex building in conjunction with the higher costs at Seaton House project be approved subject to the Province funding this additional amount at 50 percent which is currently available for the $6.0 million approved amount; and

(4)The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Budget Committee on a funding strategy to address any future initiatives dealing with the ongoing need for additional shelters.

(H)Social Services

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Social Services of $104 thousand (gross)/$12 thousand (net) as outlined in Appendix A be received; and

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Social Services consisting of one project as recommended in Appendix A with a 1999 cash flow of $104 thousand (gross)/$12 thousand (net) be approved. This represents the final phase of the project carried forward from the previous year, and will not require any additional funding or commitments beyond 1999.

(I)Solid Waste Management

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Solid Waste Management of $112.987 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Solid Waste Management consisting of 6 projects as recommended in Appendix A with a 1999 cash flow of $21.6 million be approved. Commitments totalling $12.4 million in 2000; $4.6 million in 2001; $4.5 million in 2002; and $3.6 million in 2003 are made from the approval of these projects;

(3)The Chief Financial Officer review the status of the Perpetual Care Reserve for Landfills (former Metro) 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;

(4)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer explore and report back during 1999 on the cost-effectiveness of leasing options versus debenturing for new recycling and waste processing facilities;

(5)The General Manager of Solid Waste Management 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 1999; and

(6)The General Manager of Solid Waste Management be requested to report on the necessary funding to settle the contractor's delay/impact claim respecting the Commissioners Street Transfer Station project.

(J)Transportation

The Budget Committee recommends that Recommendations Nos. (1) to (8) embodied in the portion of the 1999 Capital Budget book, entitled "Transportation", be amended to provided that:

Mystic Point and Park Lawn (Sidewalks)

(a)Consideration be given to acquiring funding for this project from the Developer as part of the Development Charges.

Recommendations as Embodied in 1999 Capital Budget Book:

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of the Transportation Division of $901.805 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Transportation consisting of 60 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $121.9 million be approved. Commitments totalling $59.770 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these projects;

(3)The funding requested for the Gardiner East Dismantling Project in the amount of $10.32 million (deferred by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of December 5th, 1998) be re-allocated to 1) re-instate the CAO's recommended reductions ($4.5 million); and 2) to provide additional funding as follows: increase bridge rehabilitation ($3.250 million); road resurfacing ($1 million); SCOOT program (.42 million); advancing of $.113 million for the Fort York Blvd. Project; provide $.5 million for the Long Branch Main Street project; replace the North York Local Improvements project on Forest Heights Blvd. with the project on Arjay Crescent (additional cost of $.477 million); to provide $60 thousand for a temporary sidewalk between Park Lawn Blvd. and Mystic Point and to provide $3 million for red light cameras (net of $0);

(4)The Division provide an additional $500 thousand for the Prince Edward Viaduct relating to suicide prevention barrier, by absorbing within their current capital program;

(5)The Division provide $500 thousand for improvements to the Humber River Bike Trail, by absorbing within their current capital program;

(6)The Division report to Budget Committee on the back log of arterial road reconstruction and a recommendation on how this back log can be addressed;

(7)The Division provide to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Budget Committee a detailed report on traffic calming; and

(8)Funding in the amount of $700 thousand be added to the Division's 1999 Capital Program to provide for engineering and preliminary design plans with respect to the Dufferin Street Jog Elimination Project, as approved by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.

(K)Urban Planning and Development Services

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for urban design projects of $4.377 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for previously approved urban design projects as recommended in Appendix B totalling a 1999 cash flow of $3.838 million be approved. Commitments totalling $0.539 million are required for 2000 from the approval of these projects;

(3)The capital program for the remaining urban design projects outlined on Appendix B be deferred for consideration in the 2000 - 2004 Capital Budget pending a comprehensive report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism in consultation with the appropriate program areas. The report will outline strategic priorities for streetscaping projects across the entire City, including criteria that defines where City funding for beautification projects should be 100 percent, 50 percent or other amounts and defining community relationships on such projects;

(4)The General Manager of Transportation Services to report back on funding priorities and the possibility of absorbing the cost of the Jane Finch Phase I streetscape project within the Transportation capital program. The recommended funding for the Jane Finch Phase I streetscape project be subject to approval of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Support Services and Other

(L)Facilities Management

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Facilities Management of $103.73 million as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Facilities Management consisting of 22 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling $26.078 million with 1999 cash flow of $18.343 million, 2000 cash flow of $2.14 million, 2001 cash flow of $2.14 million, 2002 cash flow of $2.14 million and 2003 cash flow of $1.315 million be approved;

(3)The 1999 Capital Budget for Facilities Management consisting of 146 sub-projects as recommended in Appendix B be approved;

(4)The following projects: Civic and Office Space Consolidation/Implementation ($10.5 million), City Hall - Floor Renovations $40.0 million ($15.0 million - 1999, $15.0 million - 2000, $10.0 million - 2001) and City Hall - Security System ($1.0 million) related to the amalgamation of the new City totalling $51.5 million be removed from the Facilities Management capital program and that they be transferred to transition projects for consideration;

(5)The Strategic Asset Management System project $1.24 million ($689 thousand -1999, $551 thousand - 2000) be removed from the Facilities Management capital program for consideration with the Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan;

(6)The Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer implement a standard policy for the City for funding the replacement of underground fuel tanks;

(7)Facilities Management develop a city-wide, comprehensive, prioritized Capital Asset Management Plan (ie. "state of good repair" budget) and that the Plan form the basis of the 2000 - 2004 capital budget submission for all facilities maintenance and rehabilitation;

(8)All program requests for 2000 - 2004 be reconsidered in 2000 once the corporate Capital Asset Management Plan is complete;

(9)The Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to Budget Committee on a corporate strategy to implement the plan;

(10)Approval of the $639 thousand for Fire facilities be contingent upon the completion of the Fire/Ambulance Location study and a final determination of the use of the facilities in the new City and that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to Budget Committee on this matter;

(11)The Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to Budget Committee on accessibility to the Council Chambers at Toronto City Hall;

(12)The Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to Budget Committee on the status of barrier free accessibility in City facilities;

(13)The Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report back to Budget Committee, as part of the 2000 - 2004 capital budget submission, on a listing of projects which are absolutely critical; absolutely critical being defined as projects that would begin to lose money after a defined period (eg. five years) if the investment of funds is not made and to provide a business plan for each project;

(14)The Commissioner of Corporate Services request funding from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund for the Energy Retrofit Project totalling $275 thousand in 1999 and report back to Budget Committee on this matter.

(M)Clerk's

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Clerk's of $13.05 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Clerk's consisting of one project, as recommended in Appendix A, totalling a 1999 cash flow of $1.0 million be approved. Commitments totalling $12.05 million are made for 2000, from the approval of this project;

(3)The Clerk's Program be directed to prepare a comprehensive report by April 1999 on the process for Election 2000, including the updated costs of a recommended voting and vote tabulation system for Council approval;

(4)The recommended 1999 expenditure of $1.00 million, be subject to Council's direction on the Election 2000 process, and approval of a specific voting and vote tabulation system; and

(5)That the above-mentioned report discuss, in detail, the costs and benefits of alternative voting and vote tabulation options, both financial and other, permissible within the new legislation governing municipal elections.

(N)Transition Projects

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for transition projects of $159.184 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for 24 previously approved transition projects as recommended in Appendix B totalling a 1999 cash flow of $37.356 million be approved. Commitments totalling $3.843 million are required for 2000 from the approval of these projects;

(3)The 1999 Capital Budget for 1 previously approved transition project with change in scope as recommended in Appendix B totalling a 1999 cash flow of $1.286 million be approved. Commitments totalling $0.373 million are required for 2000 from the approval of this project;

(4)The 1999 Capital Budget for 11 new transition projects as recommended in Appendix B totalling a 1999 cash flow of $40.498 million be approved. Commitments totalling $34.538 million are required for 2000 and $16.29 million for 2001 from the approval of these projects;

(5)The Civic and Office Space Consolidation / Floor Renovations project (Facilities Management), with a 1999 cash flow of $25.5 million be subject to further review and reporting to Budget Committee, with the understanding that the project costs are not fixed and have been earmarked for future adjustments;

(6)The Unified Business System Application project (Transportation), with a 1999 cash flow of $0.1 million for an Information Technology Plan be approved and the balance of the funding requested for 1999 totalling $4.205 million be deferred subject to completion of the plan and a further report to Budget Committee;

(7)The Coordination of Intake System project (Health), be subject to a further report to Budget Committee once the feasibility study is completed;

(8)The envelope amount for staff severance costs expected for 1999 downsizing as recommended in Appendix B, estimated at $25.0 million be approved; and

(9)The estimated savings of $14.7 million from transition projects as outlined in Appendix D be reflected in the 1999 departmental operating budgets.

(O)Year 2000 Project

Approval of this report would add $150.0 million in gross expenditures to the 1999 Capital Budget.

Special Purpose Bodies

(P)Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority of $ 21.7 million be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority consisting of five projects as recommended in Appendix A with 1999 gross expenditures totalling $4.26 million (net expenditures - $3.03 million) and 2000 gross expenditures of $1 million (net expenditures - $1 million) be approved;

(3)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority consisting of sub-projects as recommended in Appendix B be approved;

(4)The approval for the Port Union Waterfront Development Project be given subject to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority receiving matching funds from the Federal and Provincial levels of governments;

(5)The Legal Department consult with legal counsel for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and report back to the Budget Committee with respect to the liability for 'Soil Erosion Control' costs; and

(6)The part of the funding for the Soil Erosion Control, Remedial Action Plan, Flood Control, Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Projects which relates to improvement in water quality to the extent it is so indicated by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be appropriately funded out of the Water Pollution Reserve.

(Q)Exhibition Place

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Exhibition Place totalling $30,620,000.00 as outlined in Appendix A be received; and

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Exhibition Place consisting of 10 projects as recommended in Appendix A with a 1999 cash flow of $5,685,000.00 be approved.

(R)Library Services

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of Library Services of $48.775 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Library Services consisting of 9 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $3.8 million be approved. Commitments totalling $2.475 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these 9 projects;

(3)The Malvern Library Expansion project be deferred at this time but be included in the Development Charges Capital Budget that will be before Council in February or March 1999;

(4)The Single Card Strategy project be deferred and that a corporate team be established to examine the applicability of this strategy across relevant City programs including Parks and Recreation;

(5)The City Librarian be requested to report to Budget Committee on the proposed catchment area for libraries as part of the service delivery model and determine if a library located in the St. James Town neighbourhood is required before committing any expenditures on the project;

(6)The City Librarian be requested to report to the Budget Committee on the proposed Service Delivery Model that incorporates designating libraries as local, district/regional and any other designation, including the role of the Reference and Research Library in this strategy;

(7)The results from the Bulk Building Study be incorporated into the 2000-2004 budget submission and adjustments be made accordingly;

(8)The City Librarian be requested to report to Budget Committee on the details/justification of the estimated $2.9 million Eatonville reconstruction expenditures before any construction related expenditure is incurred;

(9)The increase in expenditures of $65 thousand in 1999 and $300 thousand in 2000 required for the Leaside Accessibility project be approved pending the City Librarian report to Budget Committee on an overall evaluation of the Leaside Public Library facility; and

(10)The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to direct the CEO/City Librarian to report to the York Community Council on the changes to the Materials Budget of the former York Library system, having regard to the new formula for this line item (in the operating budget).

(S)Toronto Police Service

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of the Toronto Police Service of $66.093 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Police Service consisting of 14 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $19.5 million be approved. Commitments totalling $12.043 million for the year 2000 will result from the approval of these 14 projects;

(3)In future years' Capital Works Program submissions, the fiscal impacts presented under the Occurrence Re-engineering and MDT Replacement (Occurrence Re-engineering) projects be consolidated under the Occurrence Re-engineering project;

(4)The Service's requirements for the integration of its financial management system with the City's system be explored with respect to the timing, overall costs, and appropriate budget "location", and be reported on as a separate project in next year's Capital Works Program. It is important to note that the current recommended Program does not provide any funding for this project;

(5)The technology outlined in the Automatic Vehicle Location System project be identified as a Corporate application, and that a Corporate team representing Works and Emergency Services staff be created to explore methods to optimize the use of same;

(6)The Budget Committee further review the Front Counter Renovations project, and subsequently recommend appropriate amended cash flows for same; and

(7)Police staff investigate the possibility of utilizing TEDCO facilities for the storage of video tapes (re Video Tape Storage Facility project).

(T)Toronto Transit Commission

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of the Toronto Transit Commission of $1,712.699 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission consisting of 51 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling a 1999 cash flow of $644.667 million be approved. Commitments totalling $417.029 million are made for 2000 from the approval of these 51 projects;

(3)A five-year decreasing target for the TTC base capital expenditures be adopted on the basis of the 1999-2003 program request adjusted for the recommendations in this document, to be reviewed on a periodic basis;

(4)A reserve mechanism for the replacement of revenue vehicles (subway cars, buses and streetcars) be established by the end of the five-year period of this program, through a mechanism that captures part of the decreasing level of requirements;

(5)The TTC report to the Budget Committee prior to July 31, 1999 on the possibility of modifying its structural paving rehabilitation program on the basis of the standards applied by City Transportation in the rehabilitation of the arterial roads; and on the change to the projected expenditures for 2000 - 2003 (Project 332 Structural Paving Rehabilitation) resulting from the modifications;

(6)The TTC report to the Budget Committee prior to May 31, 1999 on the difference between the service life standards used by the TTC to renew non-revenue vehicles (cars and trucks) and the standards used by the City (Project 470 Replacement of Automotive Non-Revenue Vehicles);

(7)The TTC review, prior to the 2000-2004 capital program submission, the costs per unit and total expenditures of Project 120 Surface Track on the basis of the 1999 actual experience after the consolidation of the funding and planning of this project under TTC's responsibility, previously shared between the TTC and City Transportation;

(8)The CFO and Treasurer, and the Chief General Manager of the TTC report back to the Budget Committee on solid financing options for the Union Station Second Platform prior to the 2000-2004 capital program submission;

(9)Future sales of TTC surplus property by the City Property Management Department be applied to fund Project 380 Bus Garage Replacement up to the amount of $5.0 million, representing the cost of the property for the new garage, as per the recommendation adopted by Metro Council in February 1997;

(10)The City Property Management Department, in consultation with the TTC, report to the Budget Committee on the estimated revenues from sales of surplus property of the TTC, including possible sale-lease options of the properties at the current Danforth and Eglinton bus garage sites prior to July 31, 1999;

(11)The TTC submit the pertinent application for the financing of the Control Thermostat Replacement project (included in Project #320 Equipment - Various) from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund;

(12)The TTC report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the location of the transit shelters to be installed in 1999 under the Project #921 Transit Shelters and Loops;

(13)The TTC and City Transportation submit a joint report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the future process for the planning and co-ordination of the construction and replacement of shelters to be funded by the Project #921 Transit Shelters and Loops; and

(14)The TTC report to the Budget Committee throughout the year 1999 on the actual project allocation of the $2.137 million unspecified reduction included in the funding recommendations of this report.

(U)Toronto Zoo

(1)The revised 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of the Toronto Zoo of $30.565 million in Gross expenditures as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo consisting of seven projects as recommended in Appendix A with 1999 gross expenditures totalling $5.589 million (net expenditures - $3.848 million) and 2000 gross expenditures of $2.639 million (net expenditures - $2.421 million) be approved;

(3)The 2000 to 2003 phases of the projects other than Gorilla I: Tropical Rainforest project, be considered, reviewed and recommended in the years in which the expenditures are planned;

(4)The Toronto Zoo, in conjunction with the Zoological Society, expand their fund raising efforts to identify additional funding sources including federal, provincial and corporate funding to finance projects, such as, the Canadian Domain. Further, the Zoo report back to the Budget Committee on the potential results of the fund-raising effort in conjunction with the Capital Works Program for 2000-2004;

(5)The Toronto Zoo be requested to review and benchmark its operations against similar Zoos in North America and report back to the Budget Committee. Further, the Zoo consider new activities which will enhance its ability to attract visitors, such as a water rides attraction;

(6)The Province incorporate the Toronto Zoo as part of the mandate for the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board, since the 1997 and previous years surveys have indicated that a substantial number of visitors (1997-54 percent) attending the Zoo are from jurisdictions other than the City of Toronto, such that a similar portion of Zoo costs be recovered in part from the Province or the surrounding regions; and

(7)The appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Non-Mill Rate

(V)Toronto Parking Authority

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program of the Toronto Parking Authority of $81.9 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Parking Authority consisting of 19 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling $41.1 million gross and $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $33.6 million gross and $0 net be approved. Commitments totalling $7.5 million gross and $0 net in 2000 are made from the approval of these projects; and

(3)The Toronto Parking Authority's 1999 capital expenditures be restricted to maintaining expenditure commitments for approved projects within the funding level available at the time expenditures are to take place.

(W)Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO)

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation of $39.5 million (gross) as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget of the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, consisting of 10 projects as recommended in Appendix A, totalling $17.4 million, with 1999 cash flow of $12.7 million gross, $0 net, and year 2000 cash flow of $4.7 million gross and $0 net, be approved;

(3)In accordance with TEDCO's policy and previous undertaking in prior years capital budgets, capital expenditures related to new building development must not be incurred until secured tenancies and third party arrangements are in place;

(4)Commencing in 1999:

(i)on the third anniversary of a project approval, if minimal or no funds have been expended, that the project be cancelled, unless TEDCO can justify its retention and funding for a further period not exceeding three years;

(ii)if it is determined that, as part of the annual capital budget process, previously approved projects and/or funding levels cannot continue to be justified, then the projects be cancelled prior to the anniversary date, and funding authorization be adjusted accordingly; and

(iii)TEDCO report to the Budget Committee on options for reallocation of funds released from cancelled projects and adjustments to project funding.

(X)Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC)

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners of $38.8 million (gross) as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)(i)the 1999 Capital Budget of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, consisting of 10 projects as recommended in Appendix A, totalling $5.8 million, with 1999 cash flow of $5.8 million gross be approved;

(ii)approval of the 1999 capital budget for Project # 813, City Centre Airport - Building ($535,000.00) and Project # 814, City Centre Airport - Equipment ($1,310,000.00) included in the recommended 1999 cash flow of $5.8 million be subject to the consideration and endorsement by City Council of the Toronto City Centre Airport Business Plan 1998;

(iii)City staff report to the Budget Committee if there is a need to engage the services of independent consultants to report on the Toronto City Centre Airport Business Plan 1998;

(iv)approval of the 1999 capital budget for Project # 801, 60 Harbour Street ($490,000.00) included in the recommended 1999 cash flow of $5.8 million be subject to the approval by the THC's board of an appropriate business plan for the Building Modifications/Renovations sub-project for $415,000.00, as decided at the THC's board meeting of December 14, 1998;

(3)Capital expenditures be restricted to projects/initiatives in the approved capital budget, in accordance with the funding approved for each project/initiative;

(4)Reallocation of approved capital funding be submitted to the City for consideration and approval;

(5)Consistent with the existing subsidy agreement with the THC, the 1999 approved Capital Budget and cash flow for 1999 is to be fully funded from the THC's own reserves and reserve funds;

(6)Commencing in the year 2000, any capital subsidy request from the THC must exclude the following:

(i)any additional funding for projects/initiatives approved prior to the year 2000;

(ii)the future years funding of projects approved prior to the year 2000;

(iii)funding for work-in-progress and unstarted projects approved prior to 2000, that may be re-budgeted in 2000 and onwards;

(7)The THC be solely responsible for ensuring that adequate funding is available from its own reserves and reserve funds to fully finance projects referred to in recommendation (6) above, to completion; and

(8)The City Solicitor be requested to review the existing subsidy agreement, and report to the Budget Committee in January, 1999 on the implications of recommendation (6) above on the subsidy agreement, and what revisions and/or amendments to the subsidy agreement are necessary to give effect to recommendation (6) above.

(Y)Waste Water

The Budget Committee recommends that Recommendations Nos. (1) to (5) embodied in the portion of the 1999 Capital Budget book, entitled "Waste Water, be amended to provide that:

(a)That the existing consulting services agreement between the City and the firm of R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for engineering services, related to the implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP), by an additional amount of $1,250,000.00, including Goods and Services Tax (GST) and a contingency allowance of $110,000.00 to cover additional work, if necessary; as authorized by the Commissioner, in accordance with the terms of the existing consulting services agreement, be adopted, subject to the City Auditor being requested to review this project as to whether or not the scope of work required is necessary, or could be done "in house" or whether the scope of work, if changed, requires a new request for proposal (RFP).

(b)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report to the Urban Environment and Development Committees prior to any sewer work being carried out to enhance development prospects in a given area, the said report to provide information as to whether or not the City concurs with the development proposal.

Recommendations as Embodied in the 1999 Capital Budget Book:

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for Waste Water of $603.3 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Waste Water consisting of 15 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling $283.4 million gross, $0 net with a 1999 cash flow of $165.9 million gross, $0 net be approved. Commitments totalling $79.5 million gross, $0 net for the year 2000, $34.8 million gross, $0 net for 2001, and $8.2 million gross, $0 net for 2002 are made from the approval of these 15 projects;

(3)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the General Manager of Water and Waste Water, report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by August 1999 with a comprehensive financial plan which confirms the assumptions and estimates for the planned capital works during 1999-2003 and which incorporates the financing needs of the sewer and water mains infrastructure maintenance program on the basis of life cycle analysis without the issue of any new debt;

(4)The General Manager, Water and Waste Water Division, provide to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, as part of the capital works program for the year 2000-2004, a comprehensive status report concerning the current plant maintenance standards and practices, the impact of alternative service delivery options on maintenance cost and plant downtime, and the impact of such down time on the firm capacity of the existing plant installation; and

(5)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the General Manager of Water and Waste Water, report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by February 1999 on the potential for funding of Environmental Initiatives in the Parks Capital Works Program through the Water capital works.

(Z)Water Services

(1)The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works program for Water Services of $531.1 million as outlined in Appendix A be received;

(2)The 1999 Capital Budget for Water Services consisting of 19 projects as recommended in Appendix A totalling $136.6 gross, $0 net with a 1999 cash flow of $83.1 million gross, $0 net be approved. Commitments totalling $27.5 million gross, $0 net for the year 2000, $20.2 million gross, $0 net for 2001, and $5.8 million gross, $0 net for 2002 are made from the approval of these 19 projects.

(3)The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the General Manager of Water and Waste Water, report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by August 1999 with a comprehensive financial plan which confirms the assumptions and estimates for the planned capital works during 1999-2003 and which incorporates the financing needs of the sewer and water mains infrastructure maintenance program on the basis of life cycle analysis without the issue of any new debt;

(4)The Water Efficiency Study in the Engineering Studies (Project #WS363) be conducted by the Water and Waste Water Division in consultation with the Finance Department and the scope of the study include rate analysis for wholesale and retail water sales; and

(5)The expenditure for the Valve Chamber Cover Replacement Project ($48 thousand) be provided for from the 1999 Operating Budget.

--------

(Report dated January 14, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chair, Budget Committee)

Purpose:

This report presents a 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for the City of Toronto and recommends projects and cash flow for 1999 for approval. The report also provides an overview of the capital budget process, and summarizes the various issues and challenges currently faced by the City.

Financial Implications:

Approval of the 1999 capital component of the tax supported recommendations will add $1.197 billion in gross capital expenditures to the 1999 Capital Budget and $607 million in 2000; $339 million in 2001; $172 million in 2002; and, $162 million in 2003. The financing options and strategy will be addressed in a separate report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

Approval of the 1999 capital component of the rate supported and other programs will add $301.1 million gross and $0 net capital expenditures to the 1999 Capital Budget and $126.9 million gross, $0 net in 2000; $61.9 million gross, $0 net in 2001; $ 17.7 million gross, $0 net in 2002; $3.7 million gross, $0 net in 2003.

Approval of the 1999 capital budget (exclusive of Transition Projects) will result in net operating budget efficiency savings of $1.1 million in 1999; $3.7 million in 2000; $10.2 million in 2001; $16.4 million in 2002; and $20.6 million in 2003.

In addition to the above, the amalgamation related operating budget savings from transition projects are estimated at $14.7 million for 1999 and $35.0 million annualized, to be realized by 2001.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City's total 1999 - 2003 Capital Works (Tax Supported) Program of $3.8 billion as outlined on page 1 of Appendix A be received;

(2)the 1999 Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, as recommended in page 1 of AppendixE which contains projects totalling $2.5 billion with 1999 cash flow of $1.197 billion; and future commitments of $607 million in 2000; $339 million in 2001; $172 million in 2002; and, $162 million in 2003, be approved;

(3)the 1999 City's fleet budget be presented to the Budget Committee early in 1999;

(4)the Departments, Agencies and Boards, reflect the operating budget savings of $15.8 million projected for 1999 (as set out in Appendix F) in their respective program area's 1999 operating budget submissions;

(5)the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Parking Authority of $81.9 million gross , $ 0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(6)the 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Parking Authority as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $41.1 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $33.6 million gross, $0 net; and future commitments of $7.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, be approved;

(7)the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Economic Development Corporation of $39.5 million gross, $0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(8)the 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation as recommended in page 2 of Appendix A which contains projects totalling $17.4 million gross, $0 net, with a 1999 cash flow of $12.7 million gross, $0 net and future year commitments of $4.7 million gross, $0 net in 2000 be approved;

(9)the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners of $38.8 million gross , $ 31.9 million net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(10)the 1999 Capital Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $5.8 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $5.8 million gross, $0 net, be approved;

(11)the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for Water Services of $531.1 million (gross), $ 0 net as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(12)the 1999 Capital Budget for Water Services as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $136.6 million gross, $0 net with 1999 cash flow of $83.1 million gross, $0 net and future commitments of $27.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, $20.2 million gross, $0 net in 2001, $5.8 million gross, $0 net in 2002, be approved;

(13)the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for Waste Water of $603.3 million (gross), $0 net, as outlined on page 2 of Appendix A be received;

(14)the 1999 Capital Budget for Waste Water as recommended in page 2 of Appendix E which contains projects totalling $288.4 million gross,$0 net with 1999 cash flow of $165.9 million gross, $0 net and future commitments of $79.5 million gross, $0 net in 2000, $34.8 million gross, $0 net in 2001, $8.2 million gross, $0 net in 2001, be approved;

(15)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer present, no later than April 1999, the City's growth related capital works program to be identified through the development charges review process;

(16)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back early in 1999 with an updated status on spending related to previously approved capital projects and impact on the 1999 capital program;

(17)all capital projects which has been deferred and / or included as part of the future years (2000-2003) projections be considered as place holders and subject to full review as part of the 2000 - 2004 capital budget review process, unless a project and an amount has been specifically identified as relating to a future year;

(18)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in consultation with appropriate program staff report back to the Budget Committee in September 1999 on the impacts and a phase in plan for the capital expenditure definition guidelines; and

(19)the recommendations set out in the attached program area reports setting out the recommended 1999 capital budgets be adopted.

Discussion

Background:

In August 1998, four months after Council approval of the 1998 Capital Budget, work began on this 1999 - 2003 Capital Program. Upfront, it should be recognized that it was virtually impossible to create a full and complete five year capital program particularly in the amalgamating programs in the four month period. The focus in the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program was therefore on preparing solid projects for 1999 for approval, and preparing preliminary plans for future years that would be reviewed but only received. The 2000 - 2003 Capital Program is presented to give an indication of the magnitude of projected spending. Therefore, the capital projects which have been deferred and/or included as part of the future years (2000 - 2003) projections should be considered as placeholders and are subject to a full review as part of the 2000 - 2004 capital budget review, unless a project and an amount has been specifically identified as relating to a future year. In 2000, a full and complete five year plan will presented for approval and all projects revisited.

The five year capital program request (tax supported) for Departments, Agencies and Boards totals $3.8 billion in gross expenditures and cash flow requirements. The TTC five year capital program, totalling $ 1.7 billion in gross expenditures and cash flow requirements, accounts for 45 percent of the total program. The balance of $2.1 billion or 55 percent is for other City Programs, Agencies and Boards.

The 1999 Recommended Capital Program:

After a comprehensive review process, the Chief Administrative Officer, in his report of November9, 1998, recommended a capital works program for 1999 which contained projects totalling $2.5 billion with 1999 cash flow of $1.175 billion and future year commitments of $1.325 million. The projected borrowing requirements totalled $557 million.

Following preliminary review meetings held in early November, 1998 with Departments, Agencies and Boards, the Budget Committee distributed the Chief Administrative Officer's Recommended Budget (in three binders) to all members of Council, Standing Committees and Community Councils for their review and recommendations.

After consideration of these recommendations and a final round of meetings with staff, the Budget Committee is recommending a capital works program for 1999 which represents tax supported projects totalling $2.5 billion with a 1999 cash flow of $1.197 billion; and future commitments of $607 million in 2000; $339 million in 2001; $172 million in 2002; and, $162 million in 2003. The projected borrowing requirements of the recommended budget totals $557 million. Appendix H attached provides a summary of the adjustments recommended by the Budget Committee.

The recommended 1999 capital program for the rate supported and other programs will add $301.1 million gross and $0 net capital expenditures to the 1999 Capital Budget and $126.9 gross, $0 net in 2000; $61.9 million gross, $0 net in 2001; $ 17.7 million gross, $0 net in 2002; $3.7 million gross, $0 net in 2003.

The chart below highlights the total recommended 1999 capital program of $1.498 billion gross expenditure between tax supported and rate supported /other programs.

The 1999 recommended program of $1.197 billion for the tax supported capital projects very clearly has two components:

(i)Base Program$744 million62 per cent

(ii)Extraordinary Projects$453 million38 per cent

$1.197 billion100.0per cent

(i)The Base Program of $744 million accounts for only 62 per cent of the total program and is comprised of the following elements:

The TTC dominates the base program, accounting for 60 percent or $446 million. All other City departments, agencies, boards and commissions represents 40 percent of the City's base program.

The following are some of the significant projects / programs included in the 1999 base tax supported capital budget:

(a)replacement and rehabilitation of subway cars, buses and surface track;

(b)replacement of Transit Control Centre including technology upgrades;

(c)replacement of bridges on arterial roads;

(d)major rehabilitation and maintenance for expressways - ie. DVP, Humber Bridge and Gardiner Expressway to Hwy 427 ;

(e)construction of new marine-based Harbourfront fire station;

(f)replacement of integrated Fire and Police radio system;

(g)construction of a second material recovery facility and a demonstration mixed waste processing facility;

(h)assessment and remediation of former landfills;

(i)continued operation and development of Keele Valley Disposal facility;

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

(k)upgrades to Casa Loma;

(l)rehabilitation and expansion of various library facilities;

(m)homes for the Aged - 391 bed rehabilitation projects;

(n)hostels and Seaton House rehabilitation ;

(o)renewal and development of Toronto Zoo African Pavilion and retrofit of monorail track;

(p)various waterfront development and valley erosion control initiatives; and

(q)demolition of Exhibition Stadium.

(ii)The City is faced with extraordinary projects that should be considered apart from the City's base program.

(a)Continued Transition Projects104

(b)Year 2000 Project150

(c)Continued Sheppard Subway199

453

In terms of perspective, the consolidated capital program of the City is at its highest since 1992 as can be seen in the chart below. The City's base program, excluding the TTC on the other hand, has remained fairly stable. The increase in 2000 reflects the deferral of a number of requests during the 1999 review process. Projects and business cases also proposed in the 2000 - 2004 have not yet been reviewed. A project proposed in 2000 - 2004 could be deleted when the next review period is undertaken.

(iii)Rate Supported and Other Programs

The 1999 recommended rate supported and other programs totals $301 million gross and $0 net. The Waste Water and Water Services Capital Works Program accounts for $249 million or 83 percent of the recommended gross expenditure. The expenditures for these programs are entirely funded by the water rate.

The planned expenditures for Waste Water totals $165.9 million gross, $0 net. The projects in this program primarily consist of water treatment plant maintenance and upgrades and sewer maintenance and improvements.

The Water Services 1999 gross expenditures total $83.1 million gross, $0 net. The projects in this program relate to water main reconstruction and rehabilitation.

The "other" capital programs consist of the Toronto Parking Authority, TEDCO and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. The 1999 recommended capital expenditures for these programs total $52.1 million gross, $0 net.

Capital Program Priority Setting:

All of the projects and sub-projects requested by the various program areas have been categorized as one of the following: Legislated, Asset Rehabilitation, Asset Replacement, Growth/Expansion, and Service Improvements.

Appendix C sets out the 1999 recommended program by these categories. Appendix D sets out the 1999 recommended program and the 2000 - 2003 requests also by these categories. The chart below highlights the 1999 recommended program.

Major maintenance and rehabilitation accounts for 75 percent of the total recommended tax supported capital program. The next largest category is growth/expansion at 20 percent, which is mainly related to the continued construction of the Sheppard Subway. Service Improvements account for only 3 percent of the recommended budget.

Now that the City is one year old, it was appropriate to review the requested projects in light of the above categories. Of the utmost importance are projects that are legislated or required for health and safety purposes, followed by asset replacement and rehabilitation. Not unlike the TTC, the City has a tremendous inventory of community centres, libraries, fire halls, police stations, arenas and other facilities that require yearly maintenance ranging from minor to major work. In fact, the insured replacement value of our facilities is $ 8.5 billion. Unlike the TTC that has identified a "state of good repair" budget that should be in the $240 - 250 million range, the City has not yet been able to make this assessment for its facilities and infrastructure for the 1999 Capital Budget.

Program areas over the past six months have been working hard to assess and prioritize the "state of good repair" within their own envelope of responsibility. This work is not complete in all program areas. Projects proposed represent the best identification possible of the facilities in most need of repair at this time.

There has been no attempt in the 1999 recommended Capital Budget to prioritize the individual program projects against each other. For example, a process has not been implemented that weighs the relative merits of a parks and recreation project for asset rehabilitation against a Police request for asset replacement. It is recommended that the 2000 - 2004 Capital Program incorporate a corporate-wide interprogram prioritization.

Assessment of Community Needs:

This capital budget very clearly demonstrated that the City is being faced with harmonization issues. In the area of capital, there are two harmonization issues:

(1)Harmonization of facility maintenance; and

(2)Harmonization of the number and quality of facilities, i.e. needs based facility improvements and additions.

While the harmonization of the number and quality of facilities should be considered over the next decade, it should be recognized that the City's priority should be assessing and standardizing the level of major maintenance required for the City's existing inventory of facilities. There is no shortage of projects that fit these categories. In fact, it is evident that across the seven former municipalities there were differing standards and attention to what has been commonly known as the "state of good repair".

Growth Related Capital Program:

The assessment of community need for facilities is an important component of the City's capital program for the next decade. However, the former municipalities inability in addressing the varied needs of their respective communities over the last decade cannot be readily corrected in a short period of three years. Instead, a long-term plan must be developed that addresses the need for new facilities or expansion/improvements that is based on providing a minimum standard level of service across the new City.

The assessment of community needs is also impacted by Council's adoption of a work plan to facilitate the implementation of a uniform development charge by-law by September 1999. An important component of this work plan is the assessment of the current standard of capital infrastructure in the City and determining the average level over the past ten years. Once completed, this information will be used to establish a base standard for the application of development charges.

This average level will also, as a byproduct, help focus work on identifying communities that are below the average City level and put in motion a method of determining priorities among the various communities. The calculation of this average will not be complete until early 1999 (April). Therefore, consideration of capital projects for service improvement should be deferred pending review and assessment of the implications on the City's future capital program.

The development charges base standard will also determine the benchmark for new growth related facilitates and infrastructure that will culminate in a Development Charges Capital Budget being brought forward for approval. This budget will identify all projects that are proposed in growth related areas of the City. Projects in the 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget that were identified as substantially growth/expansion have been deferred for consideration at this time and will be reviewed in the context of the Development Charges Capital Budget.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will be reporting by April 1999 on the City's growth related capital works program to be identified through the development charges review process.

Future Year Impact of 1999 Recommended Capital Budget:

The recommended 1999 Capital Budget impacts both the future year's capital and operating budgets.

(a)Impact on the future years capital budget:

As indicated in Appendix E, the total recommended 1999 Capital Program of $3.0 billion has a cash flow impact of $1.5 billion in 1999 and a future year (2000 - 2003) commitment of $1.5 billion.

The 1999 tax supported Capital Budget as recommended approves $2.5 billion in projects with a cash flow impact of $1.197 million in 1999. The future years impact (2000 - 2003) totals $1.3 billion with a cash flow of $607 million in 2000 and $339 million in 2001; $172 million in 2002; and $162 million in 2003.

As the graph below illustrates, the impact of approving the 1999 tax supported capital program means that the City will commit to $1.3 billion in future years expenditures. This ultimately restricts the amount of funding available for new spending priorities.

Appendix E outlines the impact of the 1999 recommended budget program on future years capital budgets in detail by program area.

(b)Impact of Capital Budget on Operating Budget - Expenditures:

The Capital Budget also impacts the Operating Budget in three ways:

(1)direct contributions to the capital program to reduce annual borrowing requirements - this is referred to as "Capital from Current";

(2)direct operating impacts of operating new or expanded facilities, as indicated in Appendix F (e.g. salaries, maintenance costs, heat and hydro); and

(3)principal and interest payments on debt issued for capital purposes.

The Capital from Current assumed in Appendix B is $143.4 million. This represents an increase of $29.5 million over the 1998 level of $113.9 million, with $25 million of the increase relating to the financing strategy dealing with the TTC downloading pressures and $4.5 million pertaining to a shift in expenditures from operating to capital in Transportation's 1999 Capital Program. The principal and interest payments on debt issued for capital purposes will depend on the Capital Management Financing Strategy adopted. The financing options are contained in a separate report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

(c)Projected Operating Budget Impact - Net Savings:

The future year's cumulative Operating Budget impact resulting from the recommended 1999 capital budget has been projected at a net savings of ($55.6) million; ($35.0) million relates to amalgamation related savings while ($20.6) million relates to savings captured from efficiencies. The staffing impact of the recommended budget totals a net reduction of 622 FTE's.

The chart below highlights the impact of the recommended 1999 Capital Program on the Operating Budget.

Listed below are the Programs projecting significant 1999 savings that are to be realized by the year 2003 and incorporated into their 1999 Operating Budget Submission.

Program Cumulative Impact

MillionsFTEs

TTC(10.1)(53)

Police(5.0)(139)

Solid Waste(6.3)(2)

Parks and Recreation+1.7+ 23

Fire(1.2)(16)

Other Programs (Net) +0.3 0

sub total - net reductions(20.6)(187)

Transition Projects(35.0)(435)

Total - net reductions(55.6)(622)

The net savings of ($10.1) million in TTC's five year plan relates primarily to the following projects: Bus Garage Replacement Project ($3.2 ) million; Replacement of 127 Wheel Trans Vehicles ($2.2) million; the Tunnel Leak Redemption Program ($1.7) million; and, the Installation of signal priority equipment for transit vehicles at signalized intersections ($1.1) million. By the year 2002, the Police are projecting net savings of ($5.0) million resulting from various technology/re -engineering projects. The net operating budget savings projected in the Solid Waste program of ($6.3) million in 2003 results from the construction of new recycling and waste processing facilities. The Computer Aided Dispatch project included in the Fire Program estimates a ($1.2) million dollar savings by the year 2000.

Investments in the transition projects will enable the city to achieve the long-term Operating Budget savings and efficiencies related to amalgamation and restructuring. Annualized savings of ($35.0) million are projected of which ($14.7) million will be reflected as part of the 1999 Operating Budget submissions. A reduction of 435 FTEs are anticipated. The bulk of these projects consist of technology initiatives and facility rationalization needed to realize these efficiencies.

Technology driven savings of ($15.095) million and 170 FTE's will be realized from the new FIS and HRIS System and Tax Billing System in Finance. The Integrated Library Cataloguing System and standardization of other systems in Library Services will result in annualized savings of ($8.532) million and a reduction of 93 FTE's. The Permit Development Approval and Licensing System in Urban Planning will generate ($3.67) million in savings and will help achieve restructuring targets by trimming 50 FTE's. Various business applications in the Clerk's program will realize ($2.4) million in savings and reduce 56 FTE's.

The Station Location Study and the Headquarters Consolidation (phase 1) and other related projects in Fire Services will reduce operating budget requirements by ($3.682) million and 50 FTE's.

It is anticipated that the estimated net operating budget savings of $ 15.7 million projected for 1999 will be reflected in the program area's 1999 operating budget submission. The balance of the savings totalling $39.9 million will be fully realized by the year 2003.

The operating budget impacts are also discussed in more detail in the individual program reports. Appendix F to this report provides a more detailed reconciliation of the operating budget impact by program and year.

Previously Approved Projects:

Over the past six months, Program areas have undertaken the completion of the 1998 approved capital projects. The late start (April 1998) has resulted in underspending of the 1998 component of the 1999 capital budget that has directly impacted the 1999 cash requirement. In addition, many projects approved in 1998 had cash flow requirements for 1999 and even 2000. The requirement for the 1999 component of these projects has been examined and in some cases deferred to 2000 given the scope of work that is achievable in the 1999 calendar year in light of 1998 underspending.

The capital budget instructions issued by Finance requested all Departments, Agencies, Boards, and Commissions to include all active 1998 and prior year projects into their submission so that cash flow requirements for 1999 would be included. They were also requested to advise us as to which projects were completed so that the capital accounts could be closed out.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will report back in early 1999 with an updated status on spending related to previously approved capital projects and impact on the 1999 capital program.

The five year submission is displayed into three components:

(1)Previously Approved Projects;

(2)Prior Year Projects With Change in Scope and/or Cost Estimates; and

(3)New Projects.

Appendix G outlines the 1999 recommended tax supported capital program in this manner.

The chart below demonstrates the impact of categorizing projects in the above components. 66 percent or $785 million of the 1999 recommended budget relates to prior year approved projects while 34 percent or $412 million is for new projects. Of the new projects, $216 million relates to the extraordinary projects -transition projects ($66 million) and the Year 2000 ($150 million) while the balance of new projects substantially relates to Transportation projects ($104 million).

Conclusion:

The 1999 total Capital Program as summarized in Appendix A totals $3.0 billion in gross capital expenditures, with a 1999 cash flow of $ 1.5 billion and a future year commitment (2000 - 2003) of $1.5 billion is recommended for approval.

Given the existing investment in City facilities and infrastructure the City's top priority should be to provide an adequate level of major maintenance. The Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in conjunction with other City Commissioners, will report back on these matters in time for the 2000 - 2004 Capital Works Program. In addition to inventorying and prioritizing within the programs, the report (s) will address options on how the City sets capital priorities across the programs; and lay out a strategic work plan which will outline affordable financing options to address the issues.

The recommended 1999 program has focussed on this priority in the face of scarce resources and severe expenditure pressures. The City's base capital program has increased due to the accelerated purchase of TTC subway cars, while a significant expenditure is required to address extraordinary projects for transition, Y2K and the Sheppard Subway. The pressure on the expenditures side of the Capital Budget is exacerbated by severe revenue shortfalls that are a result of Provincial downloading, i.e. withdrawal of Provincial capital subsidies for TTC.

Contact Names:

Michael R. Garrett, Chief Administrative Officer, 392-3551.

Wanda Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 392-8773.

--------

(Report dated December 18, 1998, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report provides details in response to a question raised by the Budget Committee at the December 15th, 1998 meeting to discuss the department's 1999-2003 Capital Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

The recommended $90,000.00 for external resources required to audit and prioritize playground upgrades to meet the new CSA Standards would be an additional budget allocation to the department's 1999 Capital Works Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Budget Committee give consideration to approving $90,000.00 in the 1999 Capital Budget for review of all playgrounds in the City for compliance to CSA Standards; and

(2)that the foregoing recommendation go forward to Council as part of the Parks and Recreation capital works.

Council Reference/Background/History:

During presentation of this department's 1999-2003 Capital Works Program, additional information was requested on the cost and timing to inspect all City playgrounds to ensure compliance with the new Canadian Standards Association Playground Standards.

Comments:

In 1998 the CSA released new standards for playground equipment and related apparatus. Currently, this department has some 833 playground sites within its jurisdiction which include thousands of individual pieces of play apparatus for different age groups. Council's interest in ensuring that these playgrounds meet the new CSA Standards was confirmed earlier with the adoption of Report 2, Economic Development Committee, Item 12, which included the recommendation that "The Government of Ontario should be requested to consider regulating all public and private playgrounds, including their maintenance, through the Ontario Building Code Act using the CSA Standards Z614-98 as the basis for such regulations."

Recognizing the number of play structures within this department's portfolio and the thousands of users, it is essential to develop an action plan to address required upgrades to meet the new CSA Standards. The actual upgrades can be phased over time as funds are made available, however, a strategic action plan is required now to confirm the scope and scale of the upgrades and likely costs. This action plan could be developed in several ways:

(1)Use external consultants to review and report on each and every playground using fast track methodologies. This is likely to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars;

(2)A second approach would be to use the services of the department's eight certified playground inspectors. These individuals are responsible for various inspections, repair and maintenance activities related to playgrounds as well as other park structures. To divert them totally to the playground audit function at this time would compromise their ongoing surveillance, repair and maintenance duties and likely involve considerable overtime; and

(3)A third approach, and one that we favour, would be to use a combination of external and internal resources. This approach would have the benefit of outside expertise, proven updated reporting mechanisms and an opportunity for our staff to learn directly from others. In addition, it would ensure our own staff involvement and commitment to the project by being part of the original study and audit teams, as well as being able to communicate and update park users and residents.

Conclusions:

The City of Toronto requires an approach which will ensure that playgrounds will, through a program of phased replacements and improvements, meet the new CSA Standards. We are recommending that the first phase of this program include a detailed audit of our playgrounds that would enable priorities and associated costs to be included in future Capital Works Programs.

Contact Name:

Frank KershawNeil Zaph

392-8199395-6065

--------

(Report dated January 7, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Urban Planning and Development Services)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Budget Committee's request of December 18, 1998, to report on the feasibility of carrying out Phase I, Stage II of the Sheppard Avenue East Streetscape project between Leslie Street and Bayview Avenue in light of the current TTC construction schedule for the reconstruction of Sheppard Avenue East.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Sheppard Avenue East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan (OPA 392) was adopted by the former North York Council at its meeting of December 11, 1996. In April 1997, a team of consultants developed a streetscape design concept for Sheppard Avenue East, between Leslie Street and Hycrest Avenue, which was adopted by the former North York Council on September 17, 1997.

On April 30, 1998, City of Toronto Council approved funds to construct the first stage of Phase I of this project which included the planting and construction of a recreational trail on the north side of Sheppard Avenue, between Hawksbury Drive and the railway overpass. This portion of the project is now underway. The second stage of this project consists of the construction of a planted median, valley gateways, planting and street furniture around Leslie Station. The budget amount to complete the implementation of this stage was set by consultants at $941,000.00.

Comments:

The Toronto Transit Commission's updated construction schedule indicates that the road restoration between Leslie Street and Old Leslie Street will be done between May 1999 and May 2000; the road around Bessarion Station will be done between April 2000 and October 2000; and the area at Bayview Station between April 2001 and October 2001.

The road restoration at the Leslie Station, the area where the median is proposed, is planned to start in May 1999. In order to provide cost savings and avoid traffic inconveniences in the area, the construction of the planted median could be coordinated with the TTC work, scheduled in spring 1999. The valley gateways, additional planting and street furniture could be implemented with minimum interference with the subway construction. The breakdown in the cost estimate indicates that approximately $440,000.00 would be required to construct the planted median while $500,000.00 would be necessary to implement the valley gateways, additional planting and street furniture.

Conclusions:

It appears that it is feasible to combine the construction work of Phase I, Stage II with the reconstruction work carried out by the TTC, and that probable cost savings and a reduction in traffic inconvenience would result.

Contact Name:

Mihaela Marcu, Civic Improvement, Urban Design, Tel: 416-392-1136, Fax: 416-392-1330;

Email: mmarcu@toronto.ca.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

sheppard ave e - streetscape project

--------

(Report dated January 6, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To address a request arising from the Budget Committee's review of the 1999 Capital Works Program at a special meeting held on December 18, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications contained in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this report be received for information; and

(2)$250,000.00 in consultants costs be deferred for consideration with the year 2000 capital budget and that the 1999 capital budget request for the perpetual care of landfills be reduced accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Solid Waste Management Services 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program (CWP) was reviewed by the Budget Committee at its meeting of November 13, 1998. At this meeting staff were requested to provide a list of consultants and amounts budgeted relating to the Capital Budget. A report including this information was before the committee at its meeting held December 18, 1998, at which a further request was made of staff to report back on the feasibility of reducing consultant costs by ten percent.

Discussion and Justification:

The report before the committee on December 18, 1998 included a list of the consultants included in the 1999 Solid Waste Management Capital Works Program (SWMCWP). That list has been included in this report for further reference and is shown as Table 1.

The consultant costs have been included in one of six projects in the SWMCWP and a review has been conducted to determine the feasibility of reducing costs as was requested by the committee. The results of the review are as follows:

Project No. 165 - Keele Valley Development:

1999 Request:$439,000.00

Reduction Recommended:none

The consultants used for this project provide technical advice and monitoring of the development of the landfill as required by the Certificate of Approval for the site. The knowledge to provide this service is of a specialized nature such as hydrogeology, hydrology and geotechnical engineering, which is not available in-house. These consulting services are required on an ongoing basis and will continue once the site is closed as part of the perpetual care program for the landfill. It is not feasible to reduce the consulting costs in this project.

Project No. 305 - Perpetual Care of Landfills:

1999 Request:$1,129,000.00

Reduction Recommended:$250,000.00

The consultants used for this project provide technical advice on the management and monitoring of the former landfills within the City of Toronto as required by Ministry of the Environment regulations or the Certificate of Approval for the former landfill. The knowledge to provide this service is of a specialized nature such as hydrogeology and hydrology and is not available in-house. These consulting services are required on an ongoing basis and will continue as part of the perpetual care program for the landfills which is expected to be in place for 30 to 50 years. The consultants required for the assessment of the Scarborough Community Council Area's closed landfills have not been retained yet and it is estimated that $250,000.00 of the budget required for the retention of these consultants in 1999 can be deferred to the year 2000 in order to meet the committee's request to reduce consultant costs by 10 percent in the 1999 SWMCWP.

Project No. 350 - Improvements to Transfer Stations:

1999 Request:$227,000.00

Reduction Recommended:

none

The consulting services provided for this project are of a specialized nature and are not available in-house. These consulting services are only required for the year 1999. It is not feasible to reduce the consulting costs in this project.

Project No. 168 - Waste Management Planning:

1999 Request:$375,000.00

Reduction Recommended:none

The consulting services provided for this project are related to the planning and legal expertise required to acquire long term solid waste disposal capacity and to identify waste diversion options as well as new and emerging technologies. The knowledge needed to provide these services requires macro environmental analysis skills including life cycle analysis. The consultation is required up to the time the City signs contracts for the long term management of its waste, which is estimated to be late 2000 or early 2001. The work plan for these consultants was adjusted after their budget was established in order to accommodate Council's direction to engage the marketplace to identify waste diversion options in addition to long term waste disposal capacity options. As a result the consultants have been requested to expand their work plan while maintaining their original budget, therefore it is not feasible to reduce the consulting costs in this project.

Project No. 004 - Recycling Facilities:

1999 Request:$380,000.00

Reduction Recommended:none

The consultants used for this project provide technical advice and engineering on the design and construction of recycling facilities which is an expertise not available in-house. The consultation is required until the facilities are constructed. The facilities presently being designed are projected to be constructed by the year 2000. The consulting costs for the MRF were reduced at the time the capacity of the MRF was downsized. It is not feasible to reduce the consulting costs in this project any further.

Project No. 075 - Commissioners Street Transfer Station:

1999 Request:$32,000.00

Reduction Recommended:none

The costs for the consultants in this project is $32,000.00. The consultants are helping the City prepare arguments to reduce the damages and claims being made by the contractor of the Commissioners facility. It is not feasible to reduce the consulting costs in this project.

Conclusions:

The total consultant costs in the SWMCWP for 1999 have been reduced by approximately ten percent by deferring $250,000.00 for consideration in the SWMCWP for the year 2000.

Contact Name:

Angelos Bacopoulos, P. Eng. General Manager, Solid Waste Management Division,

Phone: (416)392-8831; Fax: (416) 392-4754;

E-Mail: angelos_bacopoulos@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

(Report dated December 29, 1998, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chairman,

Toronto Police Services Board)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting on December 15, 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report December 9, 1998 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

Subject: 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget -Response to the City's Emergency and Protective Services Committee's Recommendations and Request for Reports.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Board approve these responses to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Budget Committee.

Background:

The Board has before it a report dated December 3, 1998, seeking the Board's approval on the Service's position relative to the City's Budget Committee's recommendations on the 1999 -2003 Capital Budget.

This report responds to recommendations and reports requested by the Emergency and Protective Services (EPS) Committee at a meeting held on December 2, 1998. At that meeting, Mr. Hugh Moore, CAO - Policing presented an overview of the Service's 1999 - 2003 Capital Program along with the Service's position on the Budget Committee's recommendations. The EPS Committee adopted the following recommendations:

(1)that the Toronto Police Service be authorized to expend $2.6 million in 1998 for the radio system re-engineering project.

The Budget Committee approved this recommendation at its meeting of December 8, 1998.

(2)that the $600,000.00 capital budget expenditure for 11 and 14 Division be deferred until the year 2000.

Consistent with the response to the Budget Committee, the Service, with the support of the Board, recommends that the $600,000.00 be maintained in 1999 and funding for construction in years 2000 and 2001.

(3)that the Chief Administrative Officer's recommendation with regard to the timing of 51 Division be adopted.

The Service agrees with this recommendation. This would allow for the purchase of a site in 1999 and funding for construction in years 1999 to 2001.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee (EPS) also requested reports on various projects. Responses to these are attached.

The Budget Committee is expected to finalize the City's Capital Program by next week and the Service's budget is scheduled for discussion on December 18, 1998. As the EPS Committee is not scheduled to meet prior to the Budget Committee reviewing the Capital Budget, the Committee directed that this response be forwarded directly to the Budget Committee. In order to ensure this report is before the Budget Committee for its upcoming meeting, an advance copy has been forwarded to the Budget Committee Secretariat.

It is recommended that the Board approve these responses to the EPS Committee and Budget Committee.

Mr. Hugh Moore, CAO - Policing (8-8005) and Mr. Frank Chen, Director, Finance and Administration (8-7877) will be present at the Board meeting to respond to any questions that the Board may have."

Conclusions:

The Board approved the foregoing.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angelo Cristofaro, Manager, Budgeting and Control, Telephone No. 808-7113.

--------

(Report dated December 29, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chairman,

Toronto Police Services Board)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting on December 15, 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report December 3, 1998 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

Subject: 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget - Response to the City's Budget Committee's Recommendations.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Board approve this response to the City's Budget Committee's recommendations.

Background:

The City's Budget Committee, at its meeting of November 10, 1998, considered the Board's 1999-2003 Capital Program. At that meeting, Mr. Hugh Moore, CAO-Policing presented an overview of the Service's Capital program and priorities. After responding to questions posed by members of the Budget Committee, several motions were put forward which, in our opinion, would impact on our ability to address:

(i)potential risk to public and police safety;

(ii)overcrowding in facilities that are inefficient to operate and prolong the implementation of the Board approved long-term facility plan; and

(iii)programs that are mandated or require immediate enhancement to the infrastructure.

The Board's Policy and Budget Sub-committee, at its meeting of December 1, 1998, was given a verbal presentation on the content of this report. With the consent of Chairman, this report has been forwarded to the Budget Committee Secretariat. This will ensure that it is included in the Committee's Agenda for December 11, 15, 18 and 21, 1998, at which time, the Budget Committee is scheduled to meet to finalize the 1999 - 2003 Capital Program.

Following are the recommendations and the respective summarized impacts related to those recommendations. More detailed impact statements on some of the projects are attached.

Recommendation No. (1).

"Staff to look at refining Capital Budget from 21 million to approximately 17 million, given that it is a 24 per cent increase, to include comments on the effect of transferring capital expenditures to operating".

The Service's Budget staff have been working with the City's Budget staff to respond to this recommendation.

Notwithstanding this review on the budget target and the average historical expenditure, it is hoped that the consideration of the Service's budget submission would be viewed in the context of the business cases and the priorities as approved by the Board. Furthermore, acknowledging the City's fiscal position, Service staff have been very responsible in working with the City's CAO and his staff to compromise on deferrals in achieving the City-designated 1999 Capital Budget Target for the Toronto Police Service of $21 million.

Recommendation No. (2).

"Staff examine means to hedge against currency fluctuations rather than entering into potential premature negotiations with Motorola"

The City staff will be responding to this recommendation. In the meantime, the Board approved negotiations with Motorola in the event currency hedging is not a viable option.

Recommendation No. (3).

"51 Division - purchase the site with no other expenditure until 2000; the design phase and the construction of the station not to take place until the Year 2001-2002"

This recommendation would set our long-term facility plan back by another 4 years, considering that this plan has been in the Capital Budget since 1996. Further, during last year's capital budget discussion, the Board and City Council agreed that the 51 Division project is considered a high priority, and approval was provided to proceed with the purchase of a site. Because of the delays in acquiring a site, the cash-flow for this project was revised and forms part of the City's CAO recommendation to the Budget Committee. It is expected that the purchase of the site can be finalized by mid 1999 followed by design, tendering and construction with completion by 2001.

This recommendation would result in a complete stoppage of work. Design work would not proceed further until the budget is approved for 2000. By the time the design and tendering of construction are completed, it would be into 2001 before construction would get underway. The project would be completed by 2003. The full impact of the postponement is outlined in the attachment provided.

This project is very important to the community and staff at 51 Division. Therefore, it is recommended that the Budget Committee provide the necessary funding for the project to start in 1999 for completion in 2001.

Recommendation Nos. (4) and (5).

"14 Division - attempt to acquire and secure a government owned site but no design until 2001"

"11 and 23 Division - be taken out of the Capital Budget until the Year 2002".

As with 51 Division, the above three divisions require funding over the next two years so that progress can be made to address the problems in those divisions. The Service acknowledges that the issue of boundaries still requires further review and consultation. As a result of this, during our discussion with the City staff, it was agreed that the funding could be delayed. However, further deferral beyond that being recommended by the City's CAO would increase pressures to deal with the many facilities related problems in these divisions; problem that are similar in nature to those in 51 Division. The deferral of funding would seriously hamper the ability to examine potential building sites. In the case of 14 Division, even if a government site could be secured in 1999, design work would not take place until 2001, with no assurances as to when funding would be available for construction. The consequences of further delays are outlined in the attachment.

Therefore, it is recommended that funding be provided as recommended by the Board and by the City's CAO.

Recommendation No. (6).

"Building Wiring Upgrades - $50,000.00 in 1999 and $50,000.00 in 2000 with the request that there be a thorough review of the Building Wiring Program"

At the meeting, there were questions whether this should be included in the Capital or Operating Budget. After confirmation with the City Corporate Services staff, it was agreed that this infrastructure enhancement would qualify under the Capital Budget Guidelines. Admittedly, in the past, problems related to this project were addressed in the Operating Budget. They amounted to approximately $30,000.00 a year. However, given the accelerated change in technology, the Service decided that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue proactively, and to include this as a one-time project under the Capital Program.

There are five locations with the sub-standard wiring that must be upgraded immediately to network standard cabling in order to reduce the network problems currently being experienced. The total cost for these locations is approximately $70,000.00. The remaining funds for this project would have to be considered in 2000.

It is therefore recommended that the funding of $70,000.00 be included in the 1999 Capital Budget and the remaining funding be deferred to 2000.

Recommendation No. (7).

"Boat Replacement - none in 1999 and 2000"

As indicated in our business cases, there are major risks (e.g. public and police safety, liability) in continuing to operate the present boats. As part of our long-term plan, in 1997/98, the Service conducted a comprehensive evaluation of our vessel fleet and the responsibilities of the Marine Unit. As a result, a phased replacement program was developed which now forms part of the 1999 -2003 Capital Program.

The Recommendation of the Budget Committee would prolong these risks for another three years.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Budget Committee consider two of the three boats in 1999 (i.e. dive boat and patrol vessel), and the third boat to be deferred to Year 2000.

Recommendation Nos. (8) (a), (8) (b), (8) (c).

"Reduce the cost and scope of the new Firearms Facility"

"Property Management team to review the increase in cost from $7.9 million to 13.75 million for the Firearms Facility"

"Request the Provincial Government to cost share in Firearms Facility due to the fact that it is due to their mandatory changes that the new facility is required"

The cost increase and possible changes to the scope of this program are outlined in the attached Impact Statement document. Possible changes in scope, which are not recommended, include the elimination of the driver training facility and the reduction of the firearms training facility so only the required additional firing positions are provided.

The cost increases are also summarised in the Impact Statement document. The cost increases are associated with the allowances for the site decontamination and any possible demolition, which may be required. In the past, the Service has not budgeted for this type of work. In addition, the scope of the program has been expanded to include an ammunition storage facility and the driver training facility, which is presently located in the City-owned Downsview site with a trailer housing the staff. Cost reduction, of approximately $1.6M for decontamination is possible if a commitment can be made to retain an larger site within the City-owned Downsview site.

Enquiries with the Provincial Government concerning the possible cost sharing of the facility have not been well received. However, enquiries are ongoing but should not delay this program.

Therefore, it is recommended that funding be maintained including $700 thousand for 1999 so that a more comprehensive plan and estimate can be available for the 2000 -2004 Capital Budget.

Recommendation No. (9).

"Headquarters relocation - be deferred until 2002 unless a business plan proving otherwise can be provided"

At this time, it is difficult to provide any hard dollar savings other than efficient use of space and streamlining of processes.

Therefore, it would be acceptable to defer this project; however, a more comprehensive business case and cost estimate would be provided for the 2000 -2004 Capital Budget.

Recommendation No. (10).

"Provide the series of auditing management letters that were presented to the Police Services Board respecting changes to the Police audit system, 45 per cent of which have not been implemented, and have City auditors look at whether or not some of the suggestions can be implemented at this time"

In reviewing the recommendations that have not been implemented, it should be noted that the majority of the recommendations pertain to systems that are to be replaced in the near future, or are not considered a priority in the total context of systems enhancements. For example, the Service made a conscious decision that no further enhancements will be undertaken to the current systems given the fact that the Service will be replacing the Financial and Time and Labour systems.

Recommendation No. (11).

"Defer Front Counter Renovations Program until the year 2001"

The Front Counter Renovation Program is part of the Service's program to resolve issues detailed in the Occupational Health and Safety/Employment Equity Study. This study was completed three years ago. The consequences of postponing this program are detailed in the Impact Statement attached.

The program is a proactive response to an identified problem. Incidents involving divisional front counters have occurred in other Police jurisdictions. Although there have been no critical injury incidents in Toronto, the Service did, at the request of the City's CAO, provide a list of 67 security incidents. Of these incidents 20 percent occurred in the front counter area. These front counter renovations are intended to improve security while maintaining an open concept consistent with the Community Based Policing philosophy. Currently, No. 41 Division and the Property Unit have the newly designed front counters.

This Front Counter program will also resolve the issue of firearms storage in the divisions. The renovations will include an area for the purchased firearm lockers, which is required for safe storage under the new Firearms Legislation. The inclusion of this portion of the Front Counter program is a result of an earlier suggestion from the then Metro Budget Committee.

At the request of the City's CAO during budget discussions, the funding was spread over three years as opposed to two years. It is therefore recommended that the funding be retained as recommended by the City's CAO.

Recommendation No. (12).

"Reporting Centre - look into the possibility of incorporating the Reporting Centre into Police Headquarters"

It would appear that the Budget Committee acknowledges the need to move the Reporting Centre from its present site. There is no appropriate space available at Police Headquarters to accommodate the Reporting Centre. However, several discussions have taken place with the City's Real Estate Department to locate a suitable City-owned space for this unit. As this unit deals strictly with persons on conditional release, site selection is very important.

It is recommended that the Board support and approve the position of the Service.

Mr. Hugh Moore, CAO-Policing and Mr. Frank Chen, Director of Finance and Administration will be present at the Board meeting to answer any questions the Board may have."

Conclusions:

The Board approved the foregoing.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angelo Cristofaro, Manager, Budgeting and Control, Telephone No. 808-7113.

--------

(Report dated January 13, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee on January 13, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report dated January 12, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting an amendment of the existing consulting services agreement between the City and the firm of R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for engineering services related to the implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant.

--------

(Report addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to amend the consulting services agreement, subject to approval of the 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program, in order to prepare predesign reports for auxiliary facilities required for timely implementation of the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The necessary funding has been included in the proposed 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program Account No. WP 160 MTP, Item No. S20515 Biosolids Use Program, to be presented for approval by Council at its meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, subject to approval of the necessary funding included in the 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program, authorization be given to amend the existing consulting services agreement with the engineering consulting firm of R. V. Anderson Associates Limited for predesign services pertaining to design/build assignment arising from the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP), by an additional amount of $1,250,000.00, including Goods and Services Tax (GST), and including a contingency allowance of $110,000.00 to cover additional work, if necessary, and as authorized by the Commissioner, all in accordance with the terms of the existing consulting services agreement.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By adoption of Clause No. 16 of Report No. 28 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. City Council, on October 1, 1998, endorsed the engagement of the firm of R. V. Anderson Associates Limited (RVA) to assist City staff in the preparation and evaluation of the Expressions of Interest and Requests for Proposals for the establishment of the beneficial biosolids reuse facilities and for the design/build construction of the biosolids loading facilities, odour control facilities and heat generation facilities at the MTP in the amount of $845,000.00 net after the GST municipal rebate.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In order to minimize time required for the implementation of the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the MTP, and to allow for shutdown of the plant's sludge incinerators by the end of the year 2000, the Department, in consultation with the specially formed Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) and Technical Review Committee (TRC) decided to construct the necessary facilities based on design/build contracts.

However, awards of such contracts require preparation, in advance, of predesign reports defining basic functional and technical requirements for the facilities (e.g., locations, capacities, technology to be used, process line and utility connections, etc.) based on which the selected design/build contractors will carry out their work, including detail design and construction of the facilities.

RVA, due to its present involvement with the MTP biosolids project, including preparation of RFPs for the beneficial biosolids reuse and evaluation of the received proposals is, in our opinion, best suited to complete the predesign work within the very tight time schedule of the program.

The City Purchasing procedures normally require selection of consultants based on evaluation of competitive proposals from consulting firms in the field. In this case, however, due to time which would be required to prepare request for proposal documents, solicit proposals, evaluate proposals and select a new consultant, as well as the time needed by the selected firm to familiarize its staff with the subject, including many complicated procedural and technical issues, we propose to make an exception. Otherwise the Council established deadline for implementation of the project, the end of the year 2000, would be greatly jeopardized. Accordingly, it is also proposed that RVA should perform as well resident engineering services during construction and commissioning of the facilities including installation of the biosolids heat drying and pelletization process equipment at the MTP, if required.

The total cost of the project involving auxiliary facilities necessary for the 100 Percent Beneficial Biosolids Use at the MTP is estimated at about $50,000,000.00.

Cost of the related consulting engineering services to be provided by RVA could be as follows:

Predesign Services$1,250,000.00

Services during construction of the auxiliary$1,570,000.00

facilities (Sludge Loading, Odour Control,

and Heat Generation facilities)

Services during installation of RFP Heat$ 900,000.00

Drying and pelletization facilities

For a total of $3,720,000.00 including GST

Authorization is now sought to include, in the existing consulting services agreement with RVA, additional work related to preparation of predesign reports for the auxiliary facilities only.

Conclusions:

It is recommended to amend the existing consulting services agreement with RVA by $1,250,000.00 for a total amount of $2,120,000.00 including the original value of the agreement and full GST to cover, in addition to the original scope of work, preparation of predesign reports for auxiliary facilities required to implement the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the MTP by the end of the year 2000.

Contact Names:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control, Telephone: (416) 392-8230, Fax: (416) 397-0908; E-mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

Mr. W. G. Crowther, Director, Engineering Services - Major Facilities, Telephone: (416) 392-8256,

Fax: (416) 392-4594; E-mail: William_g._crowther@ metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

(Report dated January 19, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report relates to funding indicated in the 1999 Capital Program for St. Basil's Community Centre.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

The 1999-2003 Capital Works Program includes $950,000.00 from the former municipality of North York reserve funds for the St. Basil's Community Centre Project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The $950,000.00 in reserve funding originally allocated for the St. Basil's Community Centre Project be retained for this use pending the completion, later this spring, of the needs assessment and feasibility study of proposed future community centres;

(2)a further report be submitted at the conclusion of the above noted needs and feasibility study; and

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

Background:

The provision of community centre facilities in what is now Ward 6 was approved in 1997 by the former City of North York Council at a budget of $950,000.00. This project was to be implemented in partnership with the then Metropolitan Separate School Board (MSSB) at the new St. Basil's The Great School east of Weston Road and south of Sheppard Avenue West. The proposed community centre facilities included a 5,000 square foot facility with multi-purpose space for seniors and day care programs. A joint development/shared use agreement would be executed by the two partners clarifying operating, programming and maintenance responsibilities. The intent was to construct the community centre component coincident with the construction of the new school which is scheduled for completion in 1999. It was on this basis that funds were originally included in the City of North York's 1997 capital budget and subsequently the City of Toronto's capital budget programs in 1998 and 1999.

While the new school is nearing completion, the community centre component unfortunately has not proceeded. Initially the Financial Advisory Board, established by the Province of Ontario at the time of municipal government amalgamation, did not approve this municipal expenditure and referred the project to the new City of Toronto Council for approval. Council did approve the $950,000.00 in project funding as part of the 1998 Capital Works Program.

Subsequently, community meetings were held in the spring of 1998 regarding the project which resulted in the formation of a Steering Committee to fine-tune the program and confirm the most appropriate options to follow. Arising from the work of the Steering Committee, this department was requested to explore other options for the required community facilities at other school sites and existing parks and recreation facilities in Ward 6. This analysis confirmed that these other options were not deemed feasible for various spatial, technical and cost reasons, and that the only other possible viable option might be to lease space in the existing facilities at St. Basil's seminary site on Weston Road.

Further to this analysis, staff of the school board advised that they did not wish to proceed with the partnership agreement as the community centre program elements would be of marginal benefit to the school and that their preference would be for a gymnasium rather than the proposed community meeting rooms. Unfortunately, the $950,000.00 budget was not sufficient for a gym. On September 1, 1998, a letter was received from the Toronto Catholic School Board stating that at their August 20, 1998 meeting they approved the resolution "That the City of Toronto Parks and Recreation, North York Region be advised that the Board is not interested in the development of a community centre on the St. Basil's School site on the terms and conditions as outlined by City staff".

Subsequent to the above decision, and concerns raised by the Ward 6 Councillors on how the funding might be used for other initiatives in the ward, the North York Community Council on December 3, 1998, as part of their review of the Capital Works Program, recommended that:

"Therefore be it resolved that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the December 11, 1998 meeting of the Budget Committee in the event that the project does not proceed, on other ways to mitigate the impact on the community; and that both Ward Councillors supply a list of priorities to the report being drafted."

At the December 15, 1998, Budget Committee meeting the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submitted the list of priorities supplied by Ward 6 Councillors as follows:

At this same Budget Committee meeting correspondence was circulated from the Humberlea Community Ratepayers' Group Inc. requesting that, if the funds could not be applied to a community centre by the end of 1998, the money be carried over to a later year.

The Budget Committee requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the January 19, 1999 Budget Committee as to department priorities for the alternative use of the funds in collaboration with the two Ward Councillors.

Comments:

A review of the background information related to the community centre project indicates a requirement for further program and needs clarification both at a department and community level. This work will provide a better understanding of needs, program requirements, site location costs, and priority ranking of this facility against other similar initiatives elsewhere in the City. This same study also involves community and stakeholder input.

In light of the above, we believe that an appropriate course of action, at this time, would be to leave the $950,000.00 indicated for the St. Basil's Community Centre Project in 1999 as is, pending completion of the aforementioned study. If a community centre in this area is not a high priority judged against other centres proposed elsewhere in the City, the funding could be reallocated later this year for other alternatives in the ward or elsewhere in North York.

Contact Name:

Frank Kershaw, 392-8199.

--------

(Report dated January 19, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report will provide information requested by the Budget Committee related to the impacts and costs to undertake a review of all 833 play areas in Toronto by using certified playground inspectors currently on staff.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statements:

The funding needed is not capital in nature and, as such, during deliberations of the 1999 Current Budget for the Parks and Recreation Division, consideration should be given to consider a one time allocation of $60,000.00 to allow the project to proceed.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Budget Committee consider a one time allocation of $60,000.00 in the Current Budget of the Parks and Recreation Division to allow the project to proceed in 1999; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Committee at its December 15, 1998, meeting received a request from the North York Community Council to refurbish and, if necessary, bring up to standard two playgrounds per Ward. The Budget Committee received this request and asked that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report on ways and means to review all 833 play sites in our parks.

The intent was to determine which ones did not comply with the new Canada Standard Associations standards for playgrounds, including any costs that would be needed to bring them to standard. The intent was to do this review as quickly as possible, as input to future Capital Programmes.

It was reported to the Budget Committee at its January 13, 1999, meeting that it would cost $90,000.00 to use consultants to assist the existing City staff to complete the review in this year. The Budget Committee requested we review this and report back with the implications and costs of doing the review with our own qualified staff.

Comments:

Last spring the Canadian Standards Association adopted "standards" for play spaces, as compared to the "guidelines" that were used in past. As part of the shift to "standards" there is a requirement for inspections of play spaces and apparatus to be undertaken by certified playground inspectors. To become certified, one must attend a seminar coordinated by the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association and pass a written test. For the Committee's information, the seminars are heavily subscribed to, and we were able to secure only a limited number of spaces as the sessions had to accommodate people from across the Province.

There are currently eight certified inspectors in our department. It was recognised that the inspections could be done with internal staff but it would take longer, other responsibilities the inspectors are responsible for would suffer, and there would not be the benefits of outside expertise and the staff learning directly from them.

If we are to conduct site inspections using only existing certified staff, it will be necessary to create a team of the eight inspectors led by one supervisor and clerical support staff. These individuals would be relieved from their current duties, where they do other work in addition to playground inspections, such as maintenance of play equipment, graffiti removal, and parks maintenance. In order to continue with these other important duties we would propose to back fill these positions with student workers. Clerical support would be provided either through a secondment of a permanent staff member, or by hiring temporary clerical staff for the project's duration.

The actual in-field inspections of the 833 sites are estimated to take thirteen (13) weeks to complete. Depending on weather conditions, we plan to start mid-April and complete the field inspections by August 1999. Once the inspections are completed, the certified inspectors can then be returned to their regular duties.

The team supervisor and clerical staff will then have to input the data, analyse it and determine costs to bring the sites to standard, in time for input in to the Year 2000 Capital Programme.

Our estimate of costs total some $60,000.00 comprised of: (a) Staff replacement at $53,500.00 and (b) supplies, photographic and paper records at $6,500.00.

Conclusions:

The work can be undertaken without use of consultants by certified City playground inspectors in time for review and inclusion of any necessary repair or replacement costs for the 2000-2004 Capital Budget submission. The costs to do the work solely by City staff would have a cost impact of $60,000.00.

Contact Name:

Frank Kershaw, 392-8199

Neil R. Zaph, 395-6065

--------

(Report dated January 19, 1999, addressed to

the Budget Committee from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

This report provides information requested related to costs to install a tube water slide and staffing of pools when water slides are added to pools, as requested by the Budget Committee at its special meeting of January 13, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

The 1999-2003 Capital Programme will increase by $75,000.00 to accommodate this project, and there may be implications to the Department's 1999 Operating Budget, pending further discussions.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)$75,000.00 be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the installation of a tube water slide at Kiwanis pool in the former Borough of East York;

(2)that the future operating implications of staffing and maintaining a tube water slide at Kiwanis pool be considered within the context of the Department's 1999 Operating Budget; and

(3)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

During Capital Budget deliberations by the East York Community Council on December 8, 1998 and by the Budget Committee on December 15, 1998, the department was requested to report on the costs to install a slide at Kiwanis outdoor pool in the former East York area.

A report was presented to the Budget Committee at its special meeting held on January 13, 1999 which indicated that capital costs to install a tube water slide were $60-100,000.00 while a regular open sided slide could be provided at a cost of approximately $7,000.00. This report also noted that if slides of either type were installed there would be a requirement to add staff for the supervision of this facility.

The Budget Committee requested that the department look at installing a tube water slide, and asked for further information on the operational costs.

Comments:

There is a need for additional recreational amenities in the former East York and observations indicate that adding a slide to a pool should significantly increase participant use of the facility. The cost to install a tube water slide at Kiwanis pool is estimated to be $75,000.00.

There are potential operating costs that need further discussion and evaluation. Once a slide is installed in a pool, the entire pool is governed by the Amusement Devices Act, General (R.R.O. 1990, reg,20). Part V, Section 69 (1) and (2) govern the "Operation" of water slides and read as follows:

"69.(1)The area at the top of every water slide shall be supervised by at least one attendant who shall have continuous and direct supervision of that area and who shall be responsible for:

(a)ensuring that persons using the water slide conduct themselves in an orderly manner, that there is no running or other unsafe behaviour in the upper part of the water slide channels and starting areas and that persons enter and leave the starting zone at safe intervals; and

(b)Supervising all areas of the water slide other than the splash pool area, that are visible to the attendant from the attendant's station.

(2)The splash pool area of every water slide shall be supervised by at least one attendant who is a lifeguard who shall have continuous and direct supervision of that area and who shall be responsible for ensuring that persons using the water slide,

(a)move into and out of the splash pool in a quick and orderly manner; and

(b)conduct themselves in an orderly manner and that there is no running or other unsafe behaviour in the lower part of the water slide, channels, splash pool or pool deck."

Further dialogue needs to occur to discuss how best to meet the staffing requirements inferred above. Preliminary estimates based on two additional persons (one attendant and one lifeguard) for the summer season are $9,735.00. An audit by the Life Saving Society of Canada will be helpful in confirming exact requirements based on the design of the slide, blind spots, pool scheduling etc.

Conclusions:

There is a need to improve the recreational facilities in the former Borough of East York and a tube water slide can be installed for a cost of approximately $75,000.00. Any additional operational costs and staffing concerns will be addressed prior to the project starting.

Contact Name:

Frank Kershaw, 392-8199

Neil R. Zaph, 395-6065

--------

The Budget Committee also had before it the following communications pertaining to specified 1999-2003 Capital Budget Programs:

(i)(December 15, 1998) from Ms. Anna Maria Ruberto, Anna Maria Fashion Designer Ltd. (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(ii)(December 15, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Cinello, Chair, Oakwood/Vaughan Arts and Culture Group (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(iii)(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Tim Jones, Executive Director, Artscape (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Space);

(iv)(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Dougal Bichan, President, Earlscourt Residents Association (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(v)(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Domenic Saragosa, Branch Manager, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(vi)(December 17, 1998) from Ms. Sandra Walker, Toronto (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(vii)(December 17, 1998) from Ms. Marlene Semple, Toronto (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(viii)(December 18, 1998) from Mr. Nelson Wong, Chair, Oakwood/Vaughan Secondary Plan Implementation Committee (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(ix)(December 18, 1998) from Mr. Dan Yashinsky, Vice-Chair, The Storytellers School of Toronto (Oakwood/Vaughan Arts Centre);

(x)(November 4, 1998) Newspaper article entitled "Where do we draw the line on poverty?" by Mr. David Crane, The Toronto Star (as requested by Children's Action Committee at its meeting of November 23, 1998, that this article be forwarded to the Budget Committee); and

(xi)(December 18, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell requesting the opportunity to address the Budget Committee before it makes the final decisions on the Water and Wastewater budget.

--------

The following Members of Council appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and

-Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber.

The following persons appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

The Budget Committee reports having received the foregoing deputation and requested that it be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its consideration.

-Mr. Buksbaum, President, Direct Care Patient Transfer, respecting Ambulance Services.

The Budget Committee reports having received the foregoing deputation and requested the Director of Ambulance Services to report thereon to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, if necessary.

--------

A copy of the following was forwarded to all Members of Council and Senior Officials with the agenda of the Budget Committee for its meeting held on January 19, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-Appendices A - H and the 1999 Capital Budget Book, referred to in the foregoing report dated January 14, 1999, from the Chair, Budget Committee;

-Table 1 - Solid Waste Management Services Consulting related Expenditures Contained in the Capital Works Program, referred to in the foregoing report dated January 6, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

-The Toronto Police Service, Emergency and Protective Services Committee. Response to Questions, referred to in the foregoing report dated December 29, 1998, from the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board; and

-The Toronto Police Service, Emergency and Protective Services Committee, Business Case Impact Study, referred to in the foregoing report dated December 29, 1998, from the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board;

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report (January26,1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report seeks spending approval for the 1999 Capital Budget as recommended by the Budget Committee and seeks authority for financing of the gross expenditures for each 1999 capital project. The capital projects will be financed from a combination of debenture financing, reserve funds, capital from current and other sources. Specific spending authority for 1999 projects is recommended along with approval for 1999 projects spanning more than one year.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 Tax Supported Capital Budget as recommended by the Budget Committee contains projects totalling $2,451.9 million in gross expenditures with 1999 cash flow of $1,197.4 million, and future year commitments of $600.9 million for 2000, $334.7 million for 2001, $166.5 million for 2002 and $152.3 million for 2003. The recommendations in this report would approve the spending of $1,197.4 million required for 1999, as well as sufficient spending authority to meet commitments in the year 2000, and where necessary, beyond.

As well the recommendations contained in this report would entail the use of $386.5 million from City reserve funds to fund the tax supported projects in the 1999 Capital Budget. Such funding is available as noted in Appendix C and as applied to specific projects as in Appendix D.

The Rate Supported Capital Program includes; (i) the Toronto Parking Authority, (ii) the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, (iii) the Toronto Harbour Commission, and (iv) the Water Supply and Waste Water programs. The Rate Supported Capital Program is ultimately funded from user fees.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that

(1)the gross cash flow spending authority in the amount of $1,197.4 million for 1999, and future year commitments of $600.9 million for 2000, $334.7 million for 2001, $166.5 million for 2002 and $152.3 million for 2003, as outlined on a project 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)funds be withdrawn in the indicated amounts from reserve funds as outlined in Appendix C of this report to partially fund the 1999 Capital Budget as applied in Appendix D;

(4)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to Budget Committee on recommended closures to previously approved capital spending authorizations not contained in this report; and

(5)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with department, board and agency heads, recommend for the year 2000 Capital Budget and beyond, a program of capital works that minimizes the future year commitments required to be approved in conjunction with the annual capital request.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Committee at its meeting of January 19, 1999 recommended the 1999 Capital Budget for each program area. This report formalizes the 1999 Capital Budget and specific project financing based on the recommendations made at that meeting.

Discussion:

Table 1 contains a summary, Appendix A the details by project and Appendix B the sub-project details for some projects, of the 1999 Capital Budget recommended by the Budget Committee.

Appendix C summarizes the proposed financing from City reserve funds to support the gross expenditures in the 1999 Tax Supported Capital Budget. Appendix D allocates reserve funds to specific projects for 1999 only. There are sufficient funds in the required accounts to provide for the requisitions requested by program areas in 1999.

Further analysis will be undertaken to confirm that the reserve accounts and reserve funds will be adequate to support the 5 year capital plan. Caution should be used in drawing any further in 1999 on these accounts, since the available balances may change as a result of the year-end closing procedures as capital accounts are closed. Further clarification of the purpose, use and availability of uncommitted funds will continue throughout 1999 and will be reported to the Budget Committee.

The recommendations contained herein would result in projected borrowing for property tax supported programs of up to $557.3 million. The latter amount is net of an increase to the capital from current contribution of $25 million that will be contained in the preliminary 1999 Operating Budget. Further analysis is underway to identify other possible offsets which will reduce the borrowing required to support the 1999 Capital Program at least below $500 million.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in accordance with provincial regulations, has certified that expenditures in the amount of $557.3 million for the projects contained and detailed in Appendix C of the 1999 Capital Budget as recommended by the Budget Committee can be financed by the issuance of debentures and is within the City's updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit. Authority for debenture terms not exceeding 20 years is being sought in accordance with the report (January 12, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Budget Committee entitled "Authority to Issue Debentures During 1999".

The Rate Supported Capital Program includes: (i) the Toronto Parking Authority; (ii) the Toronto Economic Development Corporation; (iii) the Toronto Harbour Commission; and (iv) the Water Supply and Waste Water programs. The Rate Supported Capital Program is ultimately funded from user fees.

In the past financing approvals sought in conjunction with the capital budget approval process generally provided two year cash flow approvals to expedite the tendering process for some program areas. As noted above, the approval of the 1999 capital program of $1,197.4 million will be committing the City to a further $1,254.4 million in expenditures for 2000 and beyond. It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the department, board and agency heads, review the capital budget procedures with an eye to minimizing this level of future year commitment and only recommending multi-year spending approvals where absolutely necessary. It is further recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to Budget Committee on recommended closures to previously approved capital spending authorizations not contained in this report. This will enable technical amendments to be made to spending authorizations in respect of specific projects once 1998 accounts have been finalized.

Conclusions:

The recommendations contained in this report will allow Council to formally adopt the 1999 Capital Budget as recommended by Budget Committee, allocate funding from reserve funds where applicable and authorize debenture financing for each capital project.

Contact Name:

N. Donald E. Altman, Manager, Financial Planning, Phone: (416) 397-4220; Fax: (416) 392-3649;

E-mail: daltman@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (January20,1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that $20,000.00 be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for a Feasibility Study to identify potential capital and operating cost savings to be gained by attaching the proposed Performing Arts Centre to the existing Etobicoke Civic Centre.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having:

(1)requested that all appropriate background information be submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration with this matter; and

(2)directed that the Facilities and Real Estate working group looking at the utilization of Civic Centres be advised of the foregoing.

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a communication (December 11, 1998) from Mr.D.Moffat, Moffat Kinoshita Architects Inc., reviewing the history of a proposed centre for the performing arts in the former City of Etobicoke and outlining the need for a study to identify potential capital and operating cost savings to be gained by attaching the facility to the existing Etobicoke Civic Centre.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (January20,1999) from Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber:

Subject: Parks and Recreation - 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program

Etobicoke Community Council on December 2, 1998, when considering the 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget, requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Budget Committee with respect to covering bocce courts in the Etobicoke district, to be identified by members of the Community Council, including those at the Ourland Community Centre and at the North Kipling Community Centre.

In the report dated January 14, 1999, the Budget Committee has recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Budget Committee, in time for the year 2000 Capital Budget process, with respect to covering bocce courts in the Etobicoke district.

As I would like to ensure that the Riverlea Seniors Club site is definitely included in any studies that are conducted, I would gratefully request that recommendation No. 9, contained in the report dated January 14, 1999, be amended to also include this site.

--------

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also had before it the following which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 26, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-communication dated December 11, 1998, addressed to Councillor Elizabeth Brown from Mr.Don Moffat of Moffat Kinoshita Architects Inc., which was attached to the communication from the Etobicoke Community Council; and

-background information respecting the Proposed Etobicoke Centre for the Performing Arts, mentioned in the foregoing communication dated January 20, 1999, from the City Clerk.

-Table 1, entitled "City of Toronto Capital Works Program, 1999 Recommended Budget and Capital Financing Authorizations by Program - Gross Expenditures ($000); and Appendices "A" to "D" attached to the foregoing report (January 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown;

-Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown;

-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber;

-Councillor Blake F. Kinahan, Lakeshore Queensway; and

-Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

(Councillor Prue declared his interest in the foregoing matter insofar as it pertains to a Conservation Authority Project listed in Appendix (d) embodied in the Capital Budget Book, in that his principle residence is immediately adjacent to such project.)

Respectfully submitted,

COUNCILLOR CASE OOTES,

Acting Chair

Toronto, January 26, 1999

Patsy Morris

Tel. (416) 392-9151