Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 25, 2002Cite PICKERING AGENDA FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Anne Greentree Supervisor, Legislative Services MARCH 25, 2002 HCKERICNG Finance & Operations Committee Meeting Monday, March 25, 2002 1:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Johnson ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of February 25. 2002 (11} 1 DELEGATIONS Glen Brown, Bowler Dr.. will address Committee to request that the three hour parking provisions contained in the Parking Bv-law be rescinded. The Chair shall ask if there are any persons who wish to address an item on the agenda. (ill) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OPERATIONS 8,: EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 008-02 PROPOSED EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF THE "ROLLING TO REDUCE" THREE STREAM CART BASED WASTE DIVERSION PILOT PROJECT PAGE 1-6 Deferred from the Council Meeting of February 25. 2002 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 013-02 REPORT ON THE REGION OF DURHAM'S PROPOSAL TO PASS A BY-LAW ASSUMING ALL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE REGION 7-12 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 005-02 DURHAM REGION "WHO DOES WHAT" STAGE II SERVICES REVIEW 13-66 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 04-02 LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH AREA - DETAIL RE\'IEW 67-71 CHIEF ADMINISTILATIVE OFFICER REPORT CAO 02-02 NEW FIRE HALL SITE AND BUILDING ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 72-85 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 012-02 2002 REGIONAL ROAD CAPITAL PROGtLAM AND FOUR-YEAR FORECASE 86-90 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 11-02 DON BEER ARENA - EXPANSION & RENOVATION 91-104 Finance & Operations Committee Meeting Monday, March 25, 2002 1:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Johnson STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT RECONIMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY 3 That the Joint Report OES ~)08-02 from the Operations and Emeruencv Services Department and Corporate Se~-xices Department. concerning Proposed Extension and Expansion of the ~Rollin,j to Reduce" Three Stream ('art Based \\'aste Diversion Pilot Project. be received for inibrmation: and That City Council pre-approve the new line item in the 2002. Solid \Vaste Current Budget for the Operations & Emergency Set\ices Department. Nlunicipal Property & Engineering Division, to extend the term of the existing pilot project bx nine (9)months/'rom April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, at a cost ofS155.;5C): and That a cop_,,' of this report be for\yarded to the Region of Durham and that the Region be requested to costshare on the extension and expansion of the pilot project on a 50/50 basis. PICKERIN_G REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Richard W. Holbom Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering DATE: FebrualT 18, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 008-02 SUBJECT: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the "Rolling to Reduce" Three Stream Cart Based Waste Diversion Pilot Project RECOMMENDATION: That the Joint Report OES 008-02 from the Operations and Emergency Services Department and Corporate Services Department be received for information: and That City Council pre-approve the new line item in the 2002, Solid Waste Current Budget for the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, to extend the term of the existing pilot project by nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31,2002, at a cost of $155,250; and That City Council pre-approve the new line item in the 2002, Solid Waste Current Budget for the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, to expand the cart based waste diversion pilot project into another neighbourhood area of approximately 500-600 homes for a period of seven (7) months from June 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, at a cost of $60,000; and That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham and that the Region be requested to costshare on the extension and expansion of the pilot project on a 50/50 basis. ORIGIN: The requirement of pre-budget approval by City Council to ex~cnd and also to expand the "Rolling to Reduce" Cart based Waste Diversion Pilot Project in order to secure equipment and to commence the introduction of the program to a new area. AUTHORITY: Not applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: An extension of the existing pilot project in the Amberlea Neighbourhood for nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, would require that the City incur the Cull lease cost on the Hell split cart waste collection vehicle. The monthly cost for this specialized equipment is $15,000 per month, plus P.S.T and G.S.T, for a total of $155,250 for the remainder o f 2002. The Labrie organics collection vehicle is wholly owned by Miller Waste Systems and as a result of their partnership on this project, no additional costs will apply for the use of this truck. Should the extension be approved, the proposed expansion of the cart based waste diversion pilot project to another area of 500-600 homes in the City would only result in an additional expenditure to purchase and deliver carts and to print various educational and marketing tools. The split waste collection carts used in the Town of Markham will be available for purchase at Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February 18. 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the x3,'aste Diversion Pilot Project Page 2 hall' their new cost or approximately $60 eacln, while the oryanics carts xxill again be loaned to tile City of Picketing by Schaefer industries. The proposed expansion to a new area of 500-600 homes would cost between S30.f)of} and $36,000, plus applicable transportation costs of approxilnately $5000 and an additional $5.000 for program marketing Ibr a total estimated cost of $50,000. Additional costs xxill not apply lbr tine collection vehicles since, under the premise that the extension is approved, tlaev xxill be ]eased exclusively to tile City of Picketing. New line items have been included in thc proposed 2002 Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division. Solid Waste Operating Budget lbr tile costs associated xvittn the proposed extension and expansion oF the x~ aste diversion pilot project. Amounts tmx'e been included in account 243i)-2393 Recxcling Collection lbr $160.Itti!t to provide tbr the extension of the current pilot project and for S6il./1011 to expand tile pilot project. EXECUTIFVE SUMMARY: The ~Rolling to Reduce" three-strean~ cart based xvasto divoi'sion pilot project, xxlaich has been operating in tine Amberlea Ncighbourhood since Nox'end0er 0. 21;i~l. t~as continued to produce very positive results. Tile waste dive,-sion IS'om landlfll ~'ate tbi' tt~c pilot project a~'oa during tine first three months of operation being. November. 2tii!l. Deccmbcz-. 211~.)1. and .lanuarv. 2002. averages 639,0. while the traditional svsten~ el'bags and bltie box collection for the same period is 28~J~,. Based on the encouraging waste diversion ~'osLzlts that have continued to bo presented and also the responses that bare been rcceixed IS-cna our recent z'csidcnt survey, an extension of the existing pilot project and an expansion to another' neigtTbouz'hood area is suggested. The extension and expansion of the program is l'ccommendcd to con~nqcnce on .April 1, 2002, and June 1. 2002. respectively, and continue until the end of tine xear. Pi'e-budget approval is required For both the extension and the expansion in or'der Ibr the Citx' to make commitments For equipment and to commence thc implementation of tiao progranq into a new area. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council Resolution =111/01, passed on September I7. 2(i)01, City staff implemented a three-stream cart based waste diversion pilot pro cot in tiao City. This pilot project involved a partnership between the City of Picketing. the Town of .Markham, Miller Waste Systems and the Region of Durham and v, as o/'ficiallv launched in the Amberlea Neighbourhood xvith the first automated collection on November O. 2001. A partnership with the Town of blarkham ,,vas required so that thc C'itv of Pickering could cost share on tiao lease cfa specialized collection vehicle equipped to automaticallx collect the split waste recycling cart. Although tine resolution directed that tile pilot project con~nlonce on October 1, 2001, for a six- month trial period, tile project co~ld not t0c implemented u~ntil .November. 2~101, xvtnen all of the necessary equipment and promotional matei'ials were on t~and. Council Resolution #111/01 also requested that tine Region of Durhan~ participate in tine fuiading of tins project on a 50/50 basis in tine amount of $75.1)00. To date. xxc have not received a response on t]qc request. Tile term of the existing pilot project is scheduled to end cc>incidin~L xxitta tho Toxxn of Markham's program on March 31,2002. From the on-set of the progranl, the xx aste diversion and operational data )~as proved to be very encouraging. During the fi['st three n~onths or' operation, Novcnd>er. 2/)Ill. Dccennbcr, 2001, and January, 2002, xxaste diversion i'atcs tfax'c axera~4cd <~3'!,,. xxhi]e tho rate using the traditional system of bags and blue box collection for tho sa~qle period stands ;_it 25",,. The tlnree-stream system of collection in tine Ambcrtea Neigtlbotu'hood is responsible Ibr an increase in the amount of materials recycled and for ove~' 0i) tonnos oi'orga~-llC nlatcrial being conqpostod to date. Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February 18, 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 3 On Tuesday, February 5, 2002, a resident survey was delivered to each of the 518 homes within the pilot project area. This survey requested individual responses from each household on a variety of issues including the applicability of the type and style of equipment used, comments on their personal waste management habits, the effectiveness of the pilot project and an overall rating of the collection system. To date, a total of 225 or 43% of the surveys have been returned. It's encouraging to note the fact that, ~vhen rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, the pilot project has been given an average score of 8.2 by residents. Of equal importance is thc finding that 88% of the respondents would continue to participate in the pilot project if it was extended. As can be noted in the findings of the surveys received to date, these results confirm that most residents are very pleased with the environmental benefits of the collection system and wish to continue with the program due to the relative ease of operation. Based on the results of the resident survey and also the xvaste diversion data, which continues to greatly outperform the traditional system of bags and blue boxes, an extension of the program beyond March 31, 2002, is suggested. The benefit of the extension would not only result in additional waste continuing to be diverted from landfill, but it would also provide staff with the ability to evaluate a cart based three-stream waste collection system during the spring, summer and fall months when other unknown operational challenges may arise. These particular challenges may include the attraction of animals or insects, smells associated with kitchen organics, boulevard trees being damaged, the continued long-term manageability and the aesthetic placement of the carts in an urban neighbourhood environment. An extended program will also provide better comparative data to help determine the long-term operational feasibility, acceptance and cost effectiveness of this type of collection system. Consideration has also been given to extending the three-stream cart based xvaste diversion system to another neighbourhood area of approximately 500-600 homes in the City. This opportunity is suggested due to the relatively low cost that would be incurred, providing an extension of the existing pilot project is approved. Given that the specialized collection vehicles will only be utilized on Tuesday of each week in the Amberlea Neighbourhood, a second area of the City could be collected on another day of the week. The only additional cost to the City for the proposed expansion program xvould be the purchase of split waste carts, the printing of promotional materials and a charge associated with the delivery of the units. Our investigations have confirmed that the extension of the "Rolling to Reduce" pilot project in the Amberlea Neighbourhood for another nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, can be easily accommodated with a few minor contractual arrangements. An expansion of the program to another neighbourhood in the City could also be managed without major difficulty. All matters have been discussed with the various parties involved resulting in the following preparatory agreements being reached: The Region of Durham has agreed to continue processing and marketing the commingled recycling materials from the City's Pilot Project(s). The Region has advised that all materials from both the proposed extension and expansion areas can be accommodated. All charges for the manual sorting of these materials will be charged to the Regional Waste Management levy resulting in no direct costs being incurred by the City of Picketing for this component of the program. The Town of Mar ~kham's pilot project is scheduled to officially end on March 31, 2002. The Bonar Plastics Split Waste Collection Carts that they are currently using will be available for purchase and could be obtained for our proposed expanded pilot project area. The Town of Markham is expected to sell the split carts for approximately half the original cost or $60 per unit. The termination of Markham's pilot project will also require that the City of Pickering sign a lease agreement with Joe Johnson Equipment to secure the use of the Heil Split waste collection vehicle by Miller Waste Systems on our pilot project. Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: Februan,' 18, 2002 ~'}/~, 5, Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 4 SSI Sclnaeffer the supplier of the compostainer organics carts and thc kitchen catcincrs has agreed to extend thc present loan on their carts Ibr the full term of thc project at Ilo additional cost to the Citx of Picketing. SSI Schaeffcr has also agreed to provide the City of Picketing with the compostainer organics carts and the kitchen catchers currently used in the` Town of Mar ~kham also at no extra cost should tine expansion program be approved. SSI Schaefer will, however, require that the City pa5' for all costs required to deliver ttqe equipment to the expanded pilot project area. Miller \Vaste__~_vstems tile owner and operator of the Labile organics collection vehicle and its robotic arm has agreed to maintain service tbr the full term of the pilot project at ilo cost to tho City. As a result of Miller's partnership on this project, the organics collection truck will be available to service both the existing and an expanded pilot pro cot area. Joe ,lohnson E tqxuJ-)ment has agreed to lease tile Heit split cart x~ astc collection truck to the City of Picketing following the termination of their existing lease agreement v, ith tile Tov,-n of Markham on .March 31, 2002. A letter of intent, however, must bc l'orv, arded to Joe Johnson equipment immediately following Council's approval of this proposal to secure tile truck tbr our extended and or expanded waste diversion pilot programs. Tile extension of tile pilot project will require that thc City incur thc /'till lease cost on thc Hell split cart waste collection vehicle Ibr tile proposed nine (9) month extension from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002. The 2dl lease cost ~brttle tfcil waste collection vchiclcis S15,000per month, plus P.S.T and G.S.T. Ibr a total of 5155,250 Ibr tile remainder of 2002. Tile proposed expansion of tile cart based xx aste dixersion pilot project to anotlner area of approximately 500 (500 homes in the City of Picketing will only result in additional costs lbr the purchase and transportation of carts and various educational and marketing tools. Thc split waste collection carts used in the Town of Markham will be available lbr purchase at half their new cost or approximately 560 each, while tile. organics carts x~ ill be loaned to the City of Pickering by Schaefer industries. Given a proposed expansion to a new area of 51)l ~-6!)1') homes, the used split carts are expected to cost between 530.000 and $30.~;{~. plus applicable transportation costs of approximately S5,000 from tile Tov,'n of Marktnam and an estimate of 55.000 Ibr program marketing materials for a total estimated cost of 55!).()()(). Additional costs will not apply Ibr thc use of the collection vehicles since they would alreadx be leased exclusively re the City of Pickering. Although the above arrangements have been discussed and are feasible, it should be noted that the Town of Markham has just recently announced that their pilot pro.iect max again be extended for another three (3) month period from April 1, 2002. to June 3I). 2()/)2. II' .Markham Council confirms this decision, a new cost share arrangement would be implemcntcd to jointly lease the Hell split cart waste collection vehicle bctx~ eon tile Tov,'n o1' .\larkham and tine City of Pickering on a cost share basis. A cost savings o~' up to 51),, or 525.875 x~ould be recognized from this type of lease arrangement, however, new split carts would i~ave to be purchased by the City to expand thc pilot project to a ncxv area at a cost of bctxxecn $Ol/./~{)ii and 572,000. The net increase in cost to expand the program after purclnasing new cat-ts and factoring in tile truck lease savings would be between $4, i25 and $10.125. Should Xlarkham's program be extended SSI Schaeffer has again agreed to loan a sut-~cicnt ntzmber of ncx~ cans to tine City of Picketing for tho full term et'the pilot project folloxx lng which time tiao carts would either tnave to be purchased or cleaned and returned. It should be noted that even rheum,h= an extension and an expansion of this program are recommended in this report, tine long-term sustainability of thc three-stream cart based system of waste collection in tile City max be presently unactnievable. Tile commingled recycling stream ultimately requires a mechanical sorting process for which local facilities may not exist. The hand sorting operation that is being undertaken as t0an of this pilot project is not maintainable from an economic perspective. As a result, tho longevit.,, of' tints type of system will require that tile Region of Durham either adopt a commingled recyclin~ stream and construct the necessary Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February 18, 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 5 infrastructure or that the City of Pickering seek private arrangements to process the materials elsewhere. As the pilot project develops these types of issues will be investigated further. New line items have been included in the 2002 Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, Solid Waste Operating Budget for the costs associated with the proposed extension and expansion of the waste diversion pilot project. Amounts currently included in account 2430-2393 Recycling Collection are for $160,000 to provide for the extension of the current pilot project and $60,000 to expand the pilot project. This cost will form part of the total 2002 Current Budget for the City to be financed through property taxes. ATTACHMENTS: Not Applicable Prepared By: C. Stephen Brake .2 Supervisor, Traffic Engineering & Waste Management Approved / Endorsed By: Everett B~ntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services Submitted By: Richard W. !fi61born DiVision Hehd, Municipal Property & Engineering Approved/Endorsed By: Gillis Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council T4~~l~Chief~d~ve 6fficer 00 7 RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMNIITTEE DATE MOVED B'~' 1 That Report OES 013-{_t£ regarding solid waste management responsibilities be received; and That tine Region of Durhan~ be advised that tine Citx of Picketing will be a "non- participating- municipality in the Region's acceptance of all waste management powers; and That in accordance with Section 151)(£) off tine ]~c?4/.~d .\lu~zc'z/~dZz/c.s .qc't'. tile City of Picketing requests to be exempt from tile Region or' Durham's proposed by-law transferring all waste management pow ers to tile Region: and That staff continue to work cooperatively with the staff o/'ttle Region and the other area municipalities on developing new waste diversion initiatives and improved collection and processing procedures: and That a copy of' this report and the applicable Council resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham for information PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Richard W. Holborn, P.Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property 8: Engineering DATE: March 14, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 013-02 SUBJECT: Report on the Region of Durham's proposal to pass a by-law assuming all Solid Waste Management responsibilities within the Region RECOMMENDATION: That Report OES 013-02 regarding solid vcaste management responsibilities be received; and That the Region of Durham be advised that the City of Pickering will be a "non- participating" municipality in the Region's acceptance of all waste management powers; and That in accordance with Section 150 (2) of the Regio~tal Munici?alities Act, the City of Picketing requests to be exempt from the Region of Durham's proposed by-law transferring all waste management powers to the Region; and That staff continue to work cooperatively with the Staff of the Region and the other area municipalities on developing new ~vaste diversion initiatives and improved collection and processing procedures; and That a copy of this report and the applicable Council resolution be Ibrwarded to the Region of Durham for information. ORIGIN: Correspondence from the Region of Durham dated March 8, 2002, requesting that the area municipalities determine whether they wish to be a "participating" or "non-participating" municipality in the Region's acceptance of all ~vaste management powers. ,AUTHORITY: Regional Municipalities Act, Part X, section 150 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS' An exemption from the Region's proposed by-law to adopt all waste management responsibilities will result in no change to the City's annual current budget. The decision to become a "participating" municipality, however, will result in the direct transfer of the City's solid xvaste budget for collection to the Region Solid Waste Tax Levy. In 2002, thc costs in budget account 2430 are estimated to be approximately S 1,400,000. Report to Council OES 01.>-0.~ Date: March 14, 2002 Subject: Durham Region's proposal to assume all Solid \Vaste responsibilities Page 2 kXECUTI\' E SUMMARY: Regional Report #2002-J-10. outlines the process that the Region has Iblloxved to develop and recommend an integrated eno-tier solid x~aste collection sxstcm Ibr thc Xtunicipality of Clarington and the Toxxnships of Uxbridgc. 5cu~o_ and Brock. Also contained within thc Report is the recommendation tbr tho Region to pass a bx'-Iaxx in accordance xxith Section 150 (1) of the Regio~tal Muttzcz)~dm'es' :lc[. x~ hich will ei'lbctix clx allow thc Region to assume all waste management powers and to recover thc costs tbr those serx ices throu?n the Regional Solid Waste l.cvv. Those municipalities, including thc City of Picketing. xx hich arc currenth' not pat1 of the integrated one-tier solid waste collection sxStcln can rectuest an exemption fi'om thc by-law m Based on a number of issues and concerns with the Region's curt'tnt approach to waste collection and processing and also thc fhct that t}1o City has a very succcssff~l waste diversion pilot project presently on-going, it is recommended that the City of Pickcnn5 should be a "non-participating" municipality in the Region's proposal to adopt all xxastc nqanagcment poxxcrs at this time. Should it become apparent in tho I'uturc. however, that thc Region of Durham's approach to waste collection and processing is the best alternative Ibr Picketing residents, the City has the option to request to become a -participating- municipalit). BACKGROUND: Beginning in April. 2001. stalY fi'om the RegionaI \\'or-ks LHld Fillancc Dcpar-tmClUS began xx orkin-= xvitln willing,= area municipalities on thc dex eiopmcnt o1' an acceptable inteuratcd~ one-tier solid waste collection system. The intended bcncI]ts of this system would be to provide a unilbrln level of' se~'ice dclive~x' and also to implelnCnt a new cur'bsidc organics collection program, which would ultimately assist thc Region in attaining a 5{ >~',, xx aste diversion target by 2007. Given that the waste collection contracts in thc Nlunicipalit> of Clarington and the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge. were set to expire a~ about the same time as the Region's Blue Box collection contract, an opportunity existed to ilavestigatc collection options with these pamicular municipalities In August. 2001. Regional Council approxed Request Ibr Proposal RFP 434-2001 for the collection of' non-hazardous garbage, organics and recvclablc xvastc fi'om residences and small businesses in the Municipality o£ Clarington and the Toxx nships of Brock. Scugog and Uxbridge. Based on the submissions received, the Region has recommended, in Regional Report #2002-J- 10, that the lov,'est cost innovative bid #3 from Miller Waste Sx stems be accepted. This proposal provides for the following collection sen'ices for a period of six {0) years scheduled to commence on September 1, 2002: · Food waste and garbage are collected weekh in txxo compartment compactor trucks; · Blue Box recyclables are collected once every tx~o x~ ccks in tx~o compartment recycling tracks (one compamnent tbr co-mingled containers and thc other tbr co-mingled papers and cardboard); All waste materials arc delixcred to Miller's xxastc I~cilitv in Pickerin~j /bt ff~nher processing, except garbage i~oill Brock Toxxnship. xxhich is to be delivered to the Region's landfill site; The garbage is hauled fi'om Picketing and landfitIcd at thc WNII Pinctroe Acres landfill site in Michigan; The fbod waste is hauled l~onq Picketing and tempested at thc Nlillcr Waste compost site in Richmond Hill: Blue Box recyclables arc sorted and baled in Picketing bx NIillor Waste fbr tho Region to exclusiveh' market and sell: - Brush. leaves, yard waste and Christmas trees arc hauled and compostcd bx Ontario Disposal at a compost site in Oshaxva or at thc NIillcr Waste compost site in Richmond Hill; * White goods are processed at thc Miller Waste site in Pickorinz. Report to Council OES 013-02 Date: March 14, 2002 Subject: Durham Region's proposal to assume all Solid Waste responsibilities Page 3 In addition to the above referenced services, the contract will also result in the expansion of the Blue Box program to include new materials such as all plastic bottles and empty paint and aerosol cans. Additional materials will continue to be introduced ~vhere there is a demonstrated market with non-prohibitive collection and processing costs. The Region and the participating area Municipalities are also currently reviewing their policies on bulky and white goods collection and the option of implementing a user pay service. This level of service, if implemented, will be cost recovery based and will have no impact on the existing contract pricing. In order to facilitate the integrated one tier solid waste collection system, Regional staff has further recommended in Regional Report #2002-J-10, that in accordance xvith Section 150 (1) of the Regional Municipalities Act that the Region pass a by-law to assume all solid waste responsibilities. Based on the successful transfer of these responsibilities the Region will recover the costs associated with the integrated solid waste management system through the Regional Solid Waste Tax Levy of the participating municipalities. Given that the proposed by-law will include all of the municipalities in the Region of Durham, the four (4) remaining municipalities being the Town's of Whitby and Ajax and the City's of Oshawa and Pickering can request to be exempt from the by-law as permitted under the Regional Municipalities Act, Section 150 (2). After due consideration of this proposal, a number of issues suggest that the City of Pickering should be a "non-participating" municipality in the Region's proposal to adopt all waste management powers at this time. These issues include, amongst others, the follo~ving concerns: A full and proper evaluation of the City's "Rolling to Reduce" cart based waste diversion pilot project has not yet been undertaken. The most recent results, however, indicate that an average of over 60% of xvaste can be consistently diverted from the waste stream. The cart system is regarded by most residents in the pilot project area as an easy and innovative method to immediately increase the amount of recyclables collected and the amount of food waste captured. Since very few problems have arisen with this form of automated three (3)-stream collection, a thorough review of the cost-effectiveness of the system should be completed. The Region's recommendation to proceed with Innovative Bid #3 from Miller Waste Systems will introduce a four (4)-stream system of collection in the Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge. The decision for the City to become a "participating" municipality at this time would effectively eliminate the ability for the City to adjust collection programs and/or the levels of service which may be more efficient and ultimately preferred by Pickering residents. The cost of the Region's adopted manual system of Blue Box recycling and separate food and yard waste collections may actually be higher than other systems. Automated collection systems increase productivity, divert more waste, are publicly acceptable, produce fewer vehicle emissions and lead to reduced WSIB claims. These improvements should potentially lead to lower collection costs providing that the higher equipment capital costs can be depreciated over a longer contract terns. Although processing costs could be higher at the Materials Recovery Facility, additional savings may be achieved with proper process control. Blue Boxes and every other week collection may not be the best alternative for recycling practices. It has been found that the weekly collection of recyclables removes more items from the waste stream. As the curbside Blue Box program is expanded and more materials are included residents may become frustrated with the number of containers they are required to store and carry to the roadside. This frustration might result in a limited increase in diversion rates as additional recyclables may be included with the garbage. In order for an enhanced recycling collection system to be well accepted the program must be easy to use. Report to Council OES 013-02 Date: March 14, 2002 Subject: Durham Region's proposal to assume all Solid \\'aste responsibilities Page 4 Oll The Region's food waste collection program being implelneiucd under Innovative Bid #3 has not yet been tested. -File curbside collection coiuainors to 'toe used on the new contract in Clarington, Uxbridgc, Scugog and Brock may resemble units recently approved by the City of' Toronto for usc in a pilot pi'ogran~. Those particular containers exist only as prototypes at this time and tmxc not been properly evaluated ibr durability, odours, security from animals, etc. Tine \Vaste Diversion Organization (\\'DO) introduced by tine Province of Ontario is expected to share up to 50°o of tile Inet recycling collection costs Wheln tiao legislation is approved. The WDO is also expected to acknoxvlcdge better rLm programs with incentives and inay also expand furttner to include ortner waste streams in tile future. By selecting a program to divert as much waste as possible, tile City may be able to capitalize on the incentives offered from the WDO. Picketing residents readily identiI\' the collection of solid waste to be a City responsibility. For this reason, the City would continue to receive the majority of collection complaints anti inquiries in the short teton. By transtbmng all rcsponsibilit> Ibr waste management to tine Region, the City would simply become a coilduit ibr complaints xsith no direct attthoritv to resolve specific concerns or issues xx ith thc respcctixe collection contractor. Such bas been the case with the Blue Box collection contract which has been under Regional control tbr many years. Given the Citx's interest in providing quality Customer Service and a one-stop shopping approach, rclkrring residents or becoming a call center is considered unacceptable. Education methods are currently customi×ed tbr Pickei-ing residents. One example of this approach is the annual waste management calendar. Residents have become vc~' dependant on this docclnlcnt and bx translkrring all responsibility to tlqc Region a more generic collection calendar may be produced which could be InlOFC 0it'ficuh to understand and overall more costly to print and dolix er. Industry advisors are beginning to suggest that a three (3)-stream system of collection is recommended for large urban centers. A ttnree-stream collection svsteln consists of organics, commingled recycling materials and garbage. The Region of Durham's preferred innovative collection option #3 is for a four (4) stream system of collection comprised of organics, co- mingled recycling containers, co-mingled paper and cardboard and garbage. Tine decision to move forward v,'ith a four-stream system of collection for all of Durham Region would preclude any future shift to a three-stream systein presently being considered and adopted in many areas. Should it become apparent in the future that the Region of Durham's approach to waste collection and processing is the best altematix e for Picketing residents, tiao City tins tile option to request to become a "participating" municipality. ,ATTACHMENTS: Not Applicable Prepared By: C. Steptnen Brake Supervisor, Traffic Engineering & Waste Management /' Director. Operations & Emergency Services N1n Report to Council OES 013-02 Date: March 14, 2002 Subject: Durham Region's proposal to assume all Solid Waste responsibilities Page 5 Submitted By: --7' / /,-, j.; Richard W. Hq}Bom, P. Eng. D/vision Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Y~omas J. Qml~n. Chief Adnnn lve Officer RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS CONINIITTEE DATE MOVED B5T 4 That the joint Report OES 005-02 be received: and That the Durham Region -\Vho Does WhaC Stage 11 Services Review Business Case Report - January. 2002 prepared by Deloitte & Touche bc received for information; and That an Implementation Strateg? tbr the Road Netx~ork Rationalization Business Case using the one-way Funding model and special consideration xvitln respect to funding for Finch Avenue be prepared, through the "\Vho Does \~,hat- Committee for consideration by the Councils of the Area Municipalities and the Region or' Durham: and That Implementation Strategies For Depot Rationalization and Engineering Development Approvals be prepared through the \VDkV Committee For consideration bv the Councils of the Area Municipalities and the Region of Durham: and That an Implementation Strategy For Regional Road X, laintenance not be pursued due to the negative Business Case: and That the consideration of an Implementation Strategy tbr Solid \Vaste Collection be deferred until information from current initiatives is axailable that validates the business case~ and That the "Who Does \Vhat" Committee remain intact to deal with customer service enhancements, and service delivery optimization and agreements regarding road-related permits, vehicle and equipment purchasing, ongoing review of road network and depot rationalization, lead role on infrastructure projlects and standardization of chargebacks, and report back to .Area Municipal and Regional Councils xx ith future recommendations; and That Report OES 005-02 and Council's recommendations be For~varded to Regional Staff to be received as the City of Pickering's comments on Region or' Durham Report 2002-J-5. 0.14 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MEMORANDUM March 20, 2002 To~ Mayor Arthurs Members of Council From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer S ubj ect: Durham Region "Who Does What Committee" Stage II Services Review File: CA4020 Report OES 005-02 is a joint report from the Operations & Emergency Services Department and the Corporate Services Department. It provides a synopsis of the teclmical and financial impacts on Pickering that the public works services Business Cases prepared by the "Who Does What" Committee have determined. There are some ve~ important points raised in the report that 1 feel is worth repeating to caution you and assist you as you consider this report and its recommendations. The recommendations imply only an approval in principle to the study. They do not imply that an implementation of the change in service delivery is approved, only that the process should continue on some business cases to the next step, which is the development of Implementation Strategies. Within the Road Rationalization Business Case, the package of roads to be transferred to Pickering includes RR #37, Finch Avenue, from Altona Road to Brock Road. (11.95 lane km.). As you are well aware, Finch Avenue has many operational inefficiencies and problems, is a rural cross section road without sidewalks, for the most part, and requires substantial reconstruction along its length. The report recognizes approximately $5.9M of needs from 2002-2012. Accepting this road, with or without a one-way general levy funding transfer of only $364,500, will severely burden this municipality with pressures to invest millions of dollars for its upkeep. Is this a liability you are willing to accept? Report OES 005-02 recommends that special funding consideration be given to Finch Avenue during the preparation of the Implementation Strategy; otherwise it shall be removed from the transfer package. Mayor ~,\rthurs ?,lembers of Council March })age 2 01 :'5 The one-time tax increase decrease for each taxpayer determined within the business cases is based oil tile net present xalue of the estimated costs over a 19- year period. As a result, most of the business cases present a tax impact that appears minimal when spread out over 19 years. Furthermore. the use ora 19- year time frame obscures thc short-terln cft'ects by simply extending the time fralne until positive financial results are visible, ttoxvever, specifically for the Road Network Rationalization business case the projected costs are expected to occur within the first 10 years primaril> duc to tine projected costs related to bringing Finch Avenue up to urban road stmldards. Finch Avenue estimated costs represent a 3% increase in the City's portion of taxes to fund debt charges oxer 10 years. Tine Solid Waste Collection Business Case is to be received only. The Implementation Strategy is to be deferred until information from tine Region's RFP for tine three northern municipalities and Clarington cmn be processed. City of Pickering staff is preparing a separate report on tine significance of the Regional Solid Waste RFP. Until a final decision is made at tine Provincial tcvel with respect to tile continuation of downloading pressure and governance issues, it is unrealistic to expect that both thc regional and local municipalities can continue to carry tho financial burden imposed by the Province. and xvt will continue to be laced with these financial challenges. While we recognize tine need to streamline processes to provide our constituents with efl'ective services, there are substantial obstacles that must be overcome. Case in point - there are certain regional roads within our municipality that must be attended to in order to deal with thc traffic gridtock that is occurring on such roads as Finch Avenue. Brock Road and :\ltona Road. ()ur constituents are faced with these ongoing day-to-day issues, and it is difficult to come to some sort of resolution on these matters when tile responsibility is shared between two levels of' government. I concur that as a municipality it is incumbent on us to deal effectively with maintenance matters such as snow clearing, and it is ludicrous ttmt our snow ploughs clean only certain portions of a road and tlnen the Region clears another section. This is certainly a cumbersome way to do business. However, given the financial constraints we are lhcing, it is difficuh to maintain our status quo, without even considering increasing the scope of our service delivery and placing an additional burden oil both our financial and hmnan resources (particularly since xvt are not being financially compensated in anyway whatsoever). 01(; Mayor Arthurs Members of Council March 20.2002 Page 3 Please keep in mind that the Report before you (OES 005-02) is recommending an approval in principle to the study. It does not imply that we should implement a change in our service delivery, but simply suggests that we should proceed to the next stage by preparing business cases in preparation of the next step, which is the development of hnplementation Strategies. J. Q TJQ0h Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering City Clerk PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL 017 FROM: Richard W. Holborn, P. Division Head Municipal Property& Engineering DATE: March 18, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 005-02 SUBJECT: Durham Region "Who Does \Vhat" Stage Il Services Revicxv RECOMMENDATION: 1. That thejoint Report OES 005-1)2 be received; That the Durham Region "\\'tie Does What" Stage II Scrxices Review Business Case Report - January 2002 prepared by Deloitte & Touche be rcccix cd for intbrmation; That an Implementation Strateg} for the Road Net\york Rationalization Business Case using the one-\\ay funding model and special consideration with respect to funding for Finch Avenue be prepared, through the "Who Docs WhaC ('ommittee lbr consideration bythe Councils of tho Area Nlunicipalitics and thc Rcgiol7 of Durham' That Implementation Strategies ibr Depot Rationalization and Engineering Development Approvals be prepared throu*~h thc \VDhV (_'ommittee for consideration bv the Councils of the Area Municipalities and tiao Region of Durham: That an lmplementatiola Stratcg} lbr Regional Road 3, laintonanco not be pursued due to the negative Business Case: That tile consideration of an hnplemcntation Strategy Ibr Solid Waste Collection be deferred until int'ormation from current initiatives is available that validates thc business case; o That the "Who Does What" Committee remain intact to deal with customer service enhancements, and service deliver' optimization and agreements regarding road-related pen'nits, vehicle and equipment purchasing, ongoing rcvicv, o£ road network and depot rationalization, lead role on infrastructure projects and standardization of chargebacks, and report back to Area Municipal and Regional Councils with future recommendations and, That Report OES 005-02 and CounciI's rccommendatioias be for\yarded to Regional Staff to be received as the City of Pickering's comments on Re,ion of Durham Report 2002-J-5. ORIGIN: Region of Durham, Works Committee Report 2)1~2-1-5 and thc Region's Finance Administration and Works Committee Resolution requesting comments by :\priI 5. ' "' _~ ~{)_. AUTHORITY: Council of the City' of Picketing Resolution = 121 0i). Item =5 Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" Stage Ii Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial results reviewed during each business case preparation were to assess if each case, overall, had a positive financial outcome, and to assist in determining whether or not it is appropriate for the business case to proceed to the implementation stage, which in some cases this has been supported. Hoxvever a number of financial issues will need to be further refined during the implementation stage. The one-time tax increase/decrease for each taxpayer reported within each business case for each municipality is calculated based on the net present value of the estimated costs over a 19-year period. As a result, most business cases present a tax impact that appears minimal when considering the cost impact relative to the qualitative impact. However, for some business cases, the costs in the short term, 3 to 5 year time frame, can be quite significant for a municipality and these are discussed further under each business case. The financial analysis presented under the business cases represents the impact on the City of Pickering only. It should be noted that the transfer of Finch Avenue to the City, if approved, carries with it the need for a significant financial commitment over the next few years. The Road Rationalization base case reflects no transfer of funding. While other funding models were studied, the "Who Does What" Committee delayed the selection of funding to be a consideration during the implementation stage. There are no immediate financial implications of receiving this report or Report 2002-J-5, or the Stage II Services Review Business Case Report. it is only upon adopting an Implementation Strategy of a Business Case that changes will occur. The recommendations do ho~vever imply approval in principle to the study, ensuring the process will continue through development of implementation strategies up to and including final approval by respective Councils. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Public Works Officials "Who Does What" (WDW) Committee has been given the mandate to investigate ways to improve upon service delivery at less cost to the taxpayer. In response, the WDW Committee prepared the Stage I Report May 2000, which identified service delivery concepts that should be investigated further through the development of business cases and implementation strategies. This report identified eleven (11) recommendations related to public works services. Business Cases have been prepared for eight of the eleven recommendations through the Stage II Services Review by Deloitte & Touche and the WDW Committee. The following business cases were reviewed as part of the Stage II Review: · Road Rationalization · Regional Roads Maintenance · Depot Rationalization · Solid Waste Collection · Engineering Development Approvals · Weed Control Account · Road Related Permits · Vehicle and Equipment Purchased The remaining three recommendations did not require business cases. The Report has not been reproduced due to its size and complexity in printing. It is available for viewing in the offices of the Division Head, Muncipal Property & Engineering and the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does \VhaC Stage II Services Review Date: March 18. 2002 Page 3 BACKGROUND: At the Council meeting of September 1S. 2000, the Council of the City of Picketing passed Resolution g 121/00, Item =5. The resolution, among other ttdngs, endorsed Pickering's participation in Stage II of the Services Rcvicxx. Tine \VD\V Committee prepared Terms of Reference, issued a Request for Proposal. heard presentations from candidates and in April 2001, retained the firm of Deloitte & Touche to prepare business cases and implementation strategies. During the summer of 2001, Treasurers and finance staff were invited to participate given thc emphasis of Stage 1I on financial analysis. In September 2001, an Interim Report on tine progress o~'tlnc Stage II Review was presented to tiao Region of Durham Works Committee and was rcccixcd Ibr inibnnation. During the i~11, tiao City's Operations & Finance stalT were working extcnsixclv on the business cases through meetings and review of reports. At the Council meeting of December 3, 20()1, the Council oC tine City oC Pickering passed _ ~,-01 from the Director, Resolution # 160/01, Item # 1 receiving._, a status report. Report OES Operations & Emergency Ser¥ices. Attached to this report is Report 2()(C-J-5 from the Commissioner of \Vorks. Region of Durham and thc Durham Region "Who Docs What" Stage II Services Revlon\ Business Case Repo~ January 2002, Executive Summarx. presented to thc Regioin's Joint Finance & Administration and Works Committee on January 10.2~}{)2. The Committee considered this matter and passed a resolution requesting the report be lb~varded to all local Area Nlunicipalitics Cot review and comment, with all comments to be received by April 5. 20~)2. Further. Regional staff, through the "Who Does What" Committee is to rot>on back to Regional Committees with a summa~ of input received and proposed next steps by Nlav 29. The Region's Report 2002 J-5 provides inlbrmation of tiao \VDXV Con2mittee membership and resources as well as their mandate and method oI'discussion. It also provides an over-,'iew of the business cases completed by Deloitte & Touche and tine business cases completed by the WDW Committee. It contains recommendations that are consistent with the recommendations of the consultant, Deloitte 8,: Touche and the \\'DX\' Committee xvit}n one exception, the Solid Waste Business Case, which is discussed further in this report. Business Cases 1. Road Net~vork Rationalization The objective of this business case is to realign tine ov, ncrstnip of tiao road net\york throughout Durham, to better reflect the nature of usage and inter-connectivity betv,'een and among the Region and Area Municipalities. The Business Case is summarized ira Attachment #1. The recommendation from the Stage II Services Review is that rationali×ation of tile existing road net\york should proceed according to tine proposal put ~brth by the \VDkV Committee. The recommendation from Report 2002-J-5 is ttnat tine Business Case be received and a detailed hnplementation Strategy report be prepared. This case involves the transfer of 3( 9 95 lane km oi' RogionaI Roads to the Area Municipalities and tile transfer of 46.58 lane km of local roads to tine Re<iota of Durham. Ttnese numbers include the City of Oshawa, wino did not pa~ticipatc in tiao Stage II Rcvicx~. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" Stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 4 The City of Pickering would receive the following roads, to be transferred from the Region. RR # 37 Finch Avenue (Altona Road to Brock Road) 11.95 RR #38 Whites Road (Bayly Street to south limit) 1.70 RR #1 Brock Road (Bayly Street to south limit) 8.60 RR #29 Liverpool Road (Kingston Road to Finch Avenue) 4.60 RR # 24 Church Street (Bayly Street to Ajax/Pickering borders) 2.00 lane km lane km lane km lane km lane km TOTAL = 28.85 lane km *The City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax would revise the boundary, road agreement to include shared maintenance cost responsibilities on a 2.0 lane km segment of Church Street from Bayly Street to Aj ax/Pickering borders. The City of Picketing would transfer the following road to the Region Third Concession Road (future Rossland Road) 0.85 lane km The net impact in Pickering is an increase of 28.00 lane km which is a 2.9~; increase over the existing 981.00 lane km that is the responsibility of the City. The base case scenario, was developed around five important criteria. · the present and future capital costs would be the responsibility of the municipal jurisdiction receiving the road there are no funding transfers between municipalities for improvements forecasted in the five-year horizon (no-way funding), however, development charges will be transferred. · municipalities have identified wherever capital improvements will be re-prioritized to a different time frame (re-prioritized) · on-going maintenance costs would be the responsibility of the municipal jurisdiction receiving the road (including traffic signal maintenance for nine locations in Pickering) · roads would not be transferred to or from the City of Oshawa Financial Analysis It is important to note that the no-way funding transfer, as the base case, is not consistent with the recommendation from the Stage I Services Review which recommended one way funding. The Stage II Report, however, provides total tax impact calculations for one-way funding (Region --> Area) and two-way funding. The report also provides impacts if Oshawa is included and if roads are "re-purposed", which is defined as capital improvements over and above ordinary levels. Pickering staff identified the following capital improvement costs and timing for the roads being transferred to the City of Pickering from the Region. This information, although speculative, was incorporated into the base case model for financial impact calculations: RR # 37 Finch Avenue $5,875,579 RR # 38 Whites Road $ 168,000 RR # 1 Brock Road $ 390,553 RR # 29 Liverpool Road $ 308,053 RR #24 Church Street $3,183,193 (2002 - 2006,2009-2012 (2004,2005)* (2008) (2018) (2003,2013-2015) * An additional $587,000 was identified and is categorized as re-purposing and is not included in the base case. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" Stage II Sen'ices Review Date: March 15, 2002 Page 5 The base case presents the tax impact of reprioritization with a no-way funding scenario. The results shov,' an estimated one-time increase in taxes on an average household with CVA of 5200,000 to be 0.16%. This represents an increase of 1.-4~'o oil tile City's portion of taxes and a 0.55°~0 reduction on the Regional portion of taxes. These percentages are based on a 19-year net present value of cash floxvs and can haxe qt~ite a different impact on a year-to-year basis. Depending on how the City chooses to fund these costs, tile impacts can va~' widely. Furthermore, the use of a 19 year time frame for financial impact obscures the short term effects by simply extending the time frame until positive financial results are visible. For the City, the major contributor to the increased costs would be estimates ~br capital costs related to bringing Finch Avenue up to urban road standards and the improvements identified for Church Street. For the 19-year period where estimates were provided, a significant part of the costs occur in the first 10 years. The Finch Avenue estimated costs represent a 3% increase in taxes to fund debt charges over 10 years. City of Pickering staffhave a significant concern with tiao transfer of Finch Avenue to Picketing in its current state. There are inherent operational and iinancial liabilities with this road which haxc been ignored by the Region. Tile pressures to improve the road xviIt rest entirely on the City of Picketing. For this reason, it is recommended that Finch :\venue be ~iven special consideration with respect to funding from the Region during the implementation strategy. Should the consideration not be acceptable, the business case would have to be revised to exclude the transfer of Finch Avenue to tile City of Picketing. The Implementation Strategy for Church Street needs to address maintenance and construction cost staaring Ibr tile portion of the road that fen'ns the boundary of.Ajax and Picketing. There were three funding options considered Ibr the Road Netxvork Rationalization business case: no-way funding; one-xvav funding: and tv,'o-v,'av funding. These funding scenarios consider additional funds over and above the transfer of development charges. With no-way funding there was no transfer of general levv fullds betv, een tiao municipality or the Region. One-way funding included a transfer of general levv funds, related to thc transferred roads, from the Region to the municipality of capital budget amounts included in the Regional forecast for the period of 2002 to 2004. For the City of Picketing this included a Regional forecasted amount of 5364,500 to be transferred related to Finch Avenue. Tx~o-xvav funding considered the transfer of municipal and Regional forecasted budget capital amounts related to tile transferred roads. For the City of Pickering, the txvo-xvav funding scenario is tile same impact as the one-way funding scenario as no capital costs are associated with tile portion of thc Third Concession to be transferred from Pickering to Durham..As mentioned earlier, the base case was presented on a no-way funding scenario. For tile one-way funding scenario, the results show an estimated one- time increase in taxes on an average household with CVA et' $20/Ltttl0 to be 0.150,'/, and 0.12% for the two-way funding scenario. The difference would be tile result of the Regional portion of the tax rate declining from the two-way funding option. Tile funding option will be discussed further and decided upon during implementation stage, based on comments received by municipalities. The base case for Road Netxvork Rationalization inclt~des reprioritization, which considers the work identified by the City as nccessarx on the transferred road is not different from the type of work identified as a need by thc Region. There x~crc other scenarios run that considered repurposing which means tile work identified by thc C'itx as necessary on the transferred road is different than the t?pe of work identilScd as a need by the Region. For example, a road may be considered a major arterial road by tile City but xtas not Ibr tine Region. For re-purposing the results show a one-time increase in taxes of512.36 or/~.43",, on an average household with CVA o f S200,000. Additional outstanding issues to be resoh'ed during implementation strategy preparation are Oshawa's future participation, funding options, timing of changes to development charge bylaws at local and Regional levels and the timing of development charge road transfers. 099 Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" Stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 6 It is recommended that an Implementation Strategy for the Road Network Rationalization Business Case using the one-way funding model be prepared, through the "Who Does What" Committee, for consideration by Council. 2. Regional Roads Maintenance The objective of the business case is to have the maintenance on all Regional Roads performed by local area municipalities. The Business Case is summarized in Attachment # 1. The recommendation from the Stage II Services Review is that the Business Case not be pursued in its current form. Report 2002-J-5 recommends that the Business Case be received and the suggestions for enhanced co-operative efforts as outlined in the Business Case Report be pursued. This case involves the maintenance of 2061.90 lane km of Regional Roads be performed by the municipality in which the roads are located. This would, in effect, eliminate road maintenance service at the Regional level, however, the Region would still have ownership and jurisdiction of the road. The municipalities would invoice the Region for the maintenance costs. In Pickering, this would result in an increase of 280.15 lane km of roads to be maintained, xvhich is a 29% increase over the existing 981.0 lane km maintained by the City. Contrary to the Stage I Report expectations, this business case resulted in a tax increase due to two main factors: 1) Limited efficiency gains by the area municipalities (staff, equipment, materials) 2) Lost synergies between road maintenance and sewer and water staff and resources at the Regional level The Business Case outlines some recommendations to be pursued to maximize operating efficiency across municipal boundaries rather than solely within. Examples include increased partnerships, new partnerships, equipment efficiencies, and route optimization studies. Financial Analysis Overall this business case showed a negative cost/benefit analysis that resulted primarily from the shared resources that currently exist between the Regional road maintenance and Regional water and sewer services. Transferring road maintenance to the local level resulted in estimated additional costs (0.16% for Pickering) to the water and sewer services due to additional Regional staff and equipment required to replace that which could bc transferred to area municipalities. This would be financed through the water user rate (1.9% increase). It is recommended that an Implementation Strategy for the Regional Roads Maintenance Business Case not be pursued. 3. Depot Rationalization The objective of this business case is to rationalize the existing twenty-two (22) depot locations within the Region by reducing the number to fifteen (15) in the short-term, through combining or decommissioning. The Business Case is summarized in Attachment # 1. The recommendation from the Stage II Services Review is that the Depot Rationalization process be undertaken as proposed. The recommendation from Report 2002-J-5 is that the Business Case rationalizing existing depots be received and a detailed Implementation Strategy Report be prepared. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region -"Who Does \Vhat" Stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 7 In this business case, the City of Pickering's Works Centre is not affected. It is proposed that the Region's depot, located in Ajax, which set7 ices both the Toxvn of Ajax and the City of Picketing, will also house the Ajax Operations Centre operations as a combined depot. There are two other depots that will be combined to house both Regional and Area Municipal operations arid these are located m Brock and Scugog. There are four Area Municipal depots that arc recommended tbr decommissioning, txvo in Brock. one in Clarington and one in Scugog. The merits of tile business case include reduced facility operating costs, improved resource utilization, improved public perception, reduced future capital costs and one-time facility disposal revenue. Financial Analysis Although there is no direct operational or financial impact on tile CS~v of Picketing. d~e~'e is an indirect financial impact through a c}~ange in the Regional portion of the taxes. Overall. this would result in a slight one-time reduction oi'50.24 or !i.tll' ,, on a~2 average household with CMA of S200,000. It is recommended that an hnt>lelnentation Strategy for Depot Rationalization Business Case be prepared, through the "Who Does \Vlxit" Committee for consideration by Council. 4. Solid ~¥aste Collection The objective o£ this business case is to determine the beneI2ts o£ consolidating service delivery of all waste management services at tile Regional level. A second objective is to determine if additional savings could be actiieved while increasing diversion levels through source streaming at a one-tier level. The Business Case is sunlmarized in Attachnlent -~1. The recommendation from the Stage 1I Services Reviexx is that tile Business Case be approved so that an Implementation Strategy can bc developed. The recommendation from Report 2002-J-5 is that the Solid Waste Collection Business Case Report be received and preparation of a detailed implementation Strategy Report be deferred until such time as further inIbrmation is available related to current waste collection initiatives. There are many new initiatives that municipalities within tile Region are investigating involving diversion and source streaming which may result in potential cost savings or long-term environmental advantages. The City of Picketing is currently operating a Waste Diversion Pilot Project of 500 homes using a can-based collection system diverting all organics (kitchen waste) from the garbage stream. The Region of Durham arid thc .Xlunicipalities of Clarington, Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge are currently reviexving proposals from an RFP tbr the curbside collection of non-hazardous garbage, organics and recxclablc xxaste from residences and businesses. An award cfa contract is expected in the near future. These factors, as well as an uneasiness of an assumptio~q of an immediate 15"o savings achieved in collection costs under a one-tier structure, led tho WDW Committee to recommend defe~al of the ~plementation Strategy at this time. Tho BL~sincss Case demonstrates that overall, the Region can enhance its cu~ent source streams and still operate at a loxxor cost under a one-tier se~ice delive~ modal. Financial Analvsis This case xvould involve the transfer of responsibilities for the collection and delixer~' of solid xvaste materials,o,,arba,.c· ~, and compostable yard waste, includim, Christmas trees from the City of Pickering to tile Region. Tile City of Pickcring's 20()1 budget for Solid \Vastc 5,1anagcment Sen'ices was 51,4o0.>>., for collection, advertising and other programs administration. O?4 Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" Stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 8 The net savings of 0.03% or $ 0.85 on an average home with CVA of $200,000 that are reported for Pickering from this business case represents a one-time decrease in taxes based upon a 10- year present value of cash flows. However, this figure represents the ultimate savings and will not be realized immediately since the City of Pickering is currently in a contract that does not expire until March 31, 2009. The calculations were completed on the assumption that the status quo would remain until the expiry of current contracts and that the transfer of responsibilities would not take place until a future point in time. Therefore, the analysis did not include any costs related to the cancellation or re-negotiation of contracts and was based on a 10 year present value of cash flows. Given that the study period represents a time period of 10 years from now, any financial analysis done today would be relatively meaningless. Given that Pickering's contract has seven years remaining, our collection costs will probably not decrease. Moreover, depending upon any further analysis and how the Region decided to recover collection costs from the municipalities, Pickering's costs could actually increase. It is recommended that the consideration of an Implementation Strategy for Solid Waste Collection be deferred at this time. 5. Engineering Development Approvals The objective of this business case is to transfer the service of processing engineering drawing approvals for devclopment applications to the area municipal level. This will provide a one- window approval to coordinating approvals which is expected to enhance customer service. The Business Case is summarized in Attachment # 1. The recommendation from the Stage II Service Review is that the business case be approved so that an implementation strategy can be developed. The recommendation from Report 2002-J-5 is that the Business Case assessing the concept of a "one-window" approach to coordinating approvals of the engineering component of development applications at the Area Municipal Level be received and a detailed Implementation Strategy report be prepared. For Pickering, this case involves the utilization of existing staff in the Development Control Section of the Planning & Development Department taking on an expanded project coordination role. The role will allow for one-point-of-contact for the customer in dealing with Area Municipal and Region review of drawings, but each jurisdiction will maintain their current areas of responsibility and accountability. The business case determined that detailed cost analysis was not necessary, as the changes would have been very minor, if any, cost impact. There may be an increase in time-demands, and a slight change in responsibilities. It is recommended that an Implementation Strategy for the Engineering Development Approvals Business Case be prepared through the "Who Does What" Committee for consideration by Council. 6. Weed Control Act Enforcement The objective of this business case is to transfer the responsibility of this service to the Area Municipalities. This will provide an ability for the Area Municipality to determine and direct its own level of service, and possibly enhance public perception. The Business Case is summarized in Attachment #1. The recommendation from the Stage II Services Review is that enforcement of the Weed Control Act remain the responsibility of the Region of Durham to coordinate and administer. The recommendation from Report 2002-J-5 is that the Weed Control Act Enforcement Business Case be received and that no change occurs to the current service delivery model. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does \Vhat" StaKe I1 Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 9 Over the last five years, the number of inspections occurring out of complaints in Pickering ranged from 84 in 1996 to 61 in 2000. The most recent connpliance rate (2000) was 52.5%, leaving the Region to cut 47.5% and impose charge-backs. .~Xlthough this workload is n~anageable, and is a service that is essentially a local matter that would seem to support a transfer to the Area Municipalities. it has been calculated that transferring the program to Area Municipalities would only result in a S1000 annual savings to thc Region, based on 2001 projections. It is recommended that an hnplementation Strategy i'c)r the \Veed Control ,Act tEnforcement Business Case not be pursued. 7. Road Related Permits The objective of this business case is to provide a one-window approach to processing road related permit applications, such as entrances and road occupancy permits. It was envisaged that an applicant could go to any municipality within thc Region to complete a standardized form and could also have permits that cross nlunicipaI boundaries, processed at one location. The recommendation l'rom tile Stage I1 Serx ices Rex iex~ is ttiat a "onc-xvindow" approach to road related peri,nit processing not bc pnrst~cd, lind that tlqc WDW C'om~qittee 127cilitate introduction of customer service enhancements to road related pcr~xnittin5. as outlined in the Business Case. The recommendation tkom Repo~l 2002-J-5 is that tt~c Business Case assessing the concept ora "one- window" approach to Road-Related Pc~x~nit .~pplications processing be received and that the WDW Committee facilitate introduction of customer service enhancements as outlined in the Business Case. The enhancements to be considered include sharin~z basic inlbtnn~ation with respect to each other's processes should an applicant need to inquire, standardizing tbnnls, requirements and fees. Picketing issued approximately 5t! entrance pe~TllitS. 55 I~lnq permits and 1000 Road Occupancy permits in the year 200Q. It is recommended that customer service enhanccnlents and service delivery optimization agreements be reviewed regarding road related pcnllits through tile "Who Does What" Committee. 8. Vehicles and Equipment Purchasing The objective of the business case is to purchase vehicles and equipnlent on a co-operative tender basis. Since many goods and scrx'iccs are currently purchased this wax' and economies o£ scale can provide savings, then this f0nn of acquisition should be pursued for vehicles and equipment. The recommendation from the StaKe I[ Sc~'ices Reviev, is that tine \VD\V Committee facilitate the formation of a committee of public works staff to v, ork in consultation with the Durham Purchasing Cooperative to effect the suggestions outlined in the Business Case. The reconmlendation from Report 2002-J-5 is the same, but also recomn~cnds that the business case be received. Similar to other co-operative purchasing el'Ibrts, there is opportunity for tile City o~' Picketing to specit~' their needs and requirements, stlould tile choice be made to participate. Purchases that are common amongst participants tnaxe tine potential to result in lower pricing due to interest f'rom a wider spectrum of dealers (connpetitixe pricing) and xolume (economies of scale). The Region purchases its vehicles througtl a long established reserve well in advance off the annual budget process. In order for Picketing to meet the Region's schedule For tendering, either pre- budget approval would be required to secure current model ,,'car product, or an initial time lag would have to be realized, resulting itl a delax to receive purchases. It is recommended that the "\V}~o Does \\'hat" Committee look at further options to enhance vehicle and equipment purchasing on a cooperative basis. Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region - "Who Does What" stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 10 9. Ancillary Recommendations There are three other recommendations that were addressed in the Stage I Report that did not require business cases or implementation strategies to be prepared. Both the Stage II Services Review and the Region Report 2002-J-5 recommend: 1) That the WDW Committee be the forum for on-going review and rationalization of the road network and depot locations to provide a periodic evaluation mechanism for these business programs. 2) That the proponent/initiator of an infrastructure project involving more than one municipality take the lead in the design, supervision of construction and contract administration throughout the project, it being pointed out that the current practice of each jurisdiction collaborating with one another would also continue. 3) That the municipalities xvithin Durham Region (including the Region), establish service agreements, including standardizing administration fees and labour burden costs for road related services in order to provide greater accountability, and the Works Officials be requested to detail the service components within the engineering fee structure being performed on behalf of another municipality in order that, with the assistance of the Treasurers, a fee may be established for each engineering service. These recommendations, if acted upon, would require the involvement of staff from the Corporate Services Department and the Operations & Emergency Services Department in continuation with the Public Works Officials, Who Does What Committee and, subject to acceptance of the business cases and implementation strategies, an on-going role in road network rationalization and depot location optimization, it would also require City of Picketing staff resources in creating service agreements with the Region for services provided and/or received related to the public works area. The recommendation regarding the proponent/initiator of infrastructure projects may require City Staff to enroll in sewer and watermain design courses to increase revenue (fee for service) from the Region for their components. Conclusion This process of service delivery review has been very long and involved, requiring an extensive amount of staff resources, with end results that are not as definitive as originally hoped. The failure to identify savings at the Regional level and the long time frame for financial impacts make a meaningful quantitative analysis difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, some matters need a simple discussion based upon the best service model for two governments serving the public. A quantitative analysis does not take this into consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Region of Durham - Report 2002-J-5 2. Public Works Officials xvithin Durham Region, "Who Does What" Stage II Services Review Business Case Report - January 2002 - Executive Summary Report to Council OES 005-02 Subject: Durham Region -"\Vho Does \Vhat" Stage II Services Review Date: March 18, 2002 Page 11 Prepared Bx': Richard W. Holhom, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property ,L,C Engineering Approved 'Endorsed By,~? ~~/ Director. Operations & Emergency Services Kristine Senior Manager, Accounting Services RH:ds Attachments Cop>.': Chiei'Admiifistratix'e OITiccr I:",(7OIJN('II Ot ~,-~ui5-~)2 docMar-(i2 ©ilIis Paterson Director. Corporate Sen'ices & Treasurer Recommended lbr the consideration of Picketing City Council ~]s~l. Ou~/~, Chief Ad~istrative OI'fi~r /~,TTACHMFi, r: - J Regional Muni¢ipnlity of Durhnm To: The Works CommiJtee From: Oommissioner of Works Report: 2002-J- 5 Date: January 16, 2002 SUBJECT: Public Works Officials 'Who Does What' Committee - Stage Ii Review RECOMMENDATIONS: a) THAT this report be received for information; and b) THAT this report be forwarded to all local Area Municipalities for review and comment with all comments to be received by March 29, 2002; and c) THAT upon receipt and review of comments from the Area Municipalities, Regional staff reports back to Committees by May 29, 2002 with a summary of input received and proposed next steps. REPORT: Attachment No. I Public Works Officials Within Durham Region "Who Does What" Services Review - Stage II Review - Executive Summary of Business Case Reports - January 2002 In February 2001, Council authorized a Request for Proposals be issued for the detailed Stage II Review of the earlier Public Works Officials Stage I Report findings. A contract was awarded to Deloitte & Touche in association with Earth-Tech and IMOS, in April 2001. An Interim Report, outlining the status of the Stage II Review, was submitted to Regional Works Committee in September 2001. Public Works Officials "Who Does What" Committee The purpose of the Public Works WDW Committee is to determine how to improve upon and carry out changes to service delivery in order to provide better, ,more efficient and effective service and at less cost to the taxpayer. The WDW Committee, Deloitte & Touche and Area Municipal and Regional staff resources met frequently over several months to develop the Business Case Report. The City of Oshawa did not participate in the Stage I~ review. 09 Report No,: 2002-J-5 ATTACHMENT# '/ TOREPORT# 0~-~ 005--62, P~e No.: 2 Members of the Public Works WDW Committee are currently as follows: · Jack McCorkell, Commissioner of Works, Region of Durham · Brian Skinner, Director of Operations & Environmental Services, Town of Ajax · Judy Avery, Director of Public Works, Township of Brock · Fred Horvath, Director of Operations, Municipality of Clarington · Richard Holborn, Div. Head, Municipal Property & Engineering, City of Pickering · Larry Postill, Director of Public Works, Township of Scugog · Ben Kester, Director of Public Works, Township of Uxbridge · Wayne Hancock, Director of Public Works, Town of Whitby Members also have designated Alternates to attend in their absence. In addition, the Committee is pleased to have expertise and assistance from't~e Region's Finance. Department and Area Municipal Finance Departments, given the emphasis of the Stage II Review on financial analysis. The following staff are Resources and/or Alternates to the Committee who attend WDW Committee meetings: Finances Resources and/or Alternates: · Jim Clapp, Commissioner of Finance, Region of Durham · Mary Simpson, Director of Financial Planning, Region of Durham · Greg Kirkbride, Director of Finance/Treasurer, Town of Ajax · Yvonne deWit, CAO, Township of Scugog · Elaine Bellamy, Treasury Services Manager, Town of Ajax · Michael Legge, Treasurer, Township of Brock · Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance, Municipality of Ctarington · Lori Gordon, Manager of Accounting, Municipality of Clarington · Gil Patterson, Director of Corporate Services & Treasurer, City of Picketing · Kristine Senior, Manager of Accounting Services, City of Pickering · Kathy McCann, Treasurer, Township of Scugog · Ron Mitchell, Treasurer, Township of Uxbridge · Ken Nix, Treasurer, Town of Whitby · Denise Pascoe, Manager of Treasury Services, Town of Whitby Public Works Resources and/or Alternates: · Tony Prevedel, Director of Transportation, Region of Durham · Ken Thompson, Director of Environmental Services, Region of Durham · Cliff Curtis, Manager of Development Approvals, Region of Durham · Peter Watson, Manager of Waste Management, Region of Durham · Ted Mortson, Operations Manager, Town of Ajax · Sara Brown, Manager of Engineering Services, Town of Ajax · Thom Gettinby, Deputy Clerk Administrator. Township of Brock · Tony Cannella, Manager of Engineering, Municipality of Clarington · Alex Grant, CAO, Township of Uxbridge 03O Report No.: ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT# O E_S 0o5-O,;~ 2002-J-5 Page No.: 3 · Ted Rule, Manager of Operational Services, Town of Whitby · Bill Watson, Manager of Development Services, Town of Whitby Susan Siopis, Manager of Transportation Special Projects, acts as Committee Liaison & Project Manager on behalf of Durham Region Works Department. Ainslie Wood of Wood-Sloan Inc., who was retained by the WDW Committee for Stage I of its Review, continues in her role as Committee Facilitator and acts as overall Project Manager for the Stage II Review. WDW Committee Members & Resources have met ten times through completion of this Business Case Report. Agenda and Minutes are prepared for each meeting. In additiOn, numerous one-on-one meetings have occurred with each Area Municipality and with the Region, throughout this Review, to obtain/clarify information and to strategize on business case methodology and approach. The Business Cases The Stage ~) II Review Business Case Report contains two submissions, as follows: Business Cases prepared by Deloitte & Touche containing the detailed financial and qualitative analyses for Roads Network Rationalization, Regional Roads Maintenance, Depots Rationalization, Solid Waste Collection and Engineering Development Approvals. 2) Business Cases prepared by the WDW Committee containing analyses for Weed Control Act Enforcement, Road-related Permits and Vehicle/Equipment Purchasing, ancillary recommendations, and a report from the Area Municipalities and Regional Treasurers' group on the issue of standardizing chargebacks between and among municipalities for work carried out on the other's behalf. Regional Staff support and endorse the findings of the Business Cases developed by both Deloitte & Touche and the WDW Committee. The Stage II Review has two distinct components separating Business Case development from Implementation Strategy development. This allows for the Business Case recommendations to be considered prior to expending resources on Implementation Strategies. The Stage II Review Business Case Report recommends the following: 1) Road Network Rationalization 'THAT the Business Case rationalizing the existing road network be received and a detailed Implementation Strategy report be prepared.' This business case studied the financial impact and validated the qualitative benefits of realigning the ownership of the road network throughout the Region of Durham R..~D Ort No.: 2002-J-5 ATTACHMENT ~/__~___ TO REPORT #_0__~_S 021 Pao._~. No.: 4 in an effort to better reflect the nature of usage and interconnectivity throughout the Region as a whole, as proposed in the Stage I Report. The proposal called for a total of 309.95 lane kilometres to be transferred from the Region to the Area Municipalities and 46.58 lane kilometres to transfer from the Area Municipalities to the Region as detailed in the following table: Location: Town of Ajax Township of Brock Municipality of Clarin_g. ton City_ of Oshawa City of ~__ Township of Scu_EEg_Eg Township of Uxbridge Town ~ Totals: Lane Kilometres To Be Assumed By Local Area 31.00 Lane Kilometres To Be Assumed By Region-of- Durham 20.33 13.00 0.00 5.20 6.00 176.50 2.8O 28.85 23.20 0.85 0.00 0.00 10.60 32.2O 6.00 309.95 46.58 The Deloitte & Touche study recommends that Rationalization of the Road Network proceed to the implementation strategy phase. 2) Regional Roads Maintenance 'THAT the Regional Roads Maintenance Business Case be received and the suggestions for enhanced co-operative efforts as outlined in the Business Case report be pursued.' The Regional Roads Maintenance business case investigated the financial and qualitative aspects of having the maintenance of regional roads performed by the local Area Municipalities. The recommendation resulting from this study, based on the financial analysis, does not support regional road maintenance being done at the local level but instead recommends pursuing optimal operating efficiencies by continuing to review the provision of various services without regard to municipal boundaries or jurisdictions. 3) Depot Rationalization 'THAT the Business Case rationalizing existing Depots be received and a detailed Implementation Strategy report be prepared.' ATTACHMEK!? ~/TO REPORT# Report No.: 2002-J-5 , ' Paqe No.: 5 The Depot Rationalization business case considered the financial impact and qualitative benefits of rationalizing the existing twenty-two (22) depot locations across the Region by reducing the number of depots to fifteen (15) in the shod term. The following locations have been identified as opportunities for action in the near future: For Combining: Ajax Operations Centre and Ajax/Pickering Regional Depot - Ajax Operations Centre operations to be located at the Region's Ajax/Picketing Depot Brock Townships's Sunderland Depot and the Region's Sunderland Depot - Brock's Sunderland Depot operations to be located at the Region's Sunderland Depot Scugog's Port Perry Depot and the Region's Scugog Depot - Scugog's Port Perry Depot operations to be located at the Region's Scugog Depot For Decommissioning: Brock's Beaverton Depot Brock's Cannington Depot Clarington's Orono Depot Scugog's Island Depot Deloitte & Touche has recommended proceeding to the implementation strategy stage with this business case and further recommends that the review continue to allow for the identification of any future opportunities as they arise. 4) Solid Waste Collection 'THAT the Solid Waste Collection Business Case Report be received and preparation of a detailed Implementation Strategy report be deferred until such time as further information is available related to current waste collection initiatives.' This business case investigated the impacts and benefits of consolidating all waste management services at the Regional level. The study examined current and enhanced levels of service in diversion and source stream separation. The study determined that there are savings to be recognized under a one-tier system both with current levels of service and future enhanced levels of service. In fact the study indicates that a one-tier system can provide an enhanced level of service at a lower cost than current levels of service in the two-tier system are provided today. Deloitte & Touche recommends proceeding to the implementation study strategy. However, the WDW committee agreed to recommend deferral at this time in order to evaluate the results of waste collection initiatives currently underway. 13 R_~ort No.: 2002-J-5 / 'tO REPORT# 033 Paq_~. No.: 6 5) Engineering Development Approvals 'THAT the Business Case assessing the concept of a 'one-window' approach to coordinating approvals of the engineering component of development applications at the Area Municipal level be received and a detailed Implementation Strategy report be prepared.' As per the recommendations of the Stage I report, the concept of the Area Municipalities taking the lead in processing engineering development applications was investigated. The study resulted in the recommendation to proceed with an implementation strategy being developed for a 'one-window' approach with each jurisdiction providing a project coordination role to allow for one-point-of-contact for the customer while maintaining their current areas of responsibility and accountability. " 6) Weed Control Act Enforcement 'THAT the Weed Control Act Enforcement Business Case be received and that no change occur to the current service delivery model.' This business case investigated the possible impacts and benefits of providing this service at the local level as per the Stage I Report recommendations. The review resulted in the WDW Committee's recommendation to continue this service delivery at the Regional level. 7) Road-Related Permits 'THAT the Business Case assessing the concept of a 'one-window' approach to Road- related Permit Applications processing be received and that the WDW Committee facilitate introduction of customer service enhancements as outlined in the Business Case.' As per the recommendations of the Stage I report, the concept of a 'one-window' approach for receiving and processing road related permit applications was investigated. The results of this study do not support a one-window approach; however, the business case does identify several areas where customer service enhancements would improve the permitting process. The WDW committee supports the recommendation to fudher opportunities in specific areas of permitting. 8) Vehicles & Equipment Purchasing 'THAT the Business Case assessing the feasibility of purchasing vehicles and equipment on a co-operative tender basis be received and that the WDW Committee facilitate the formation of a committee of public works staff to work in consultation with the Durham Purchasing Cooperative to effect the suggestions outlined in the Business Case.' This business case resulted in support for the concept of co-operative tendering for the purchase of vehicles and equipment. The WDW Committee supports the ATTACHMENT # Report No.: 2002.~1-5 ~a~e ~o.: 7 recommendation to further this opportunity through development of standard specifications for vehicles and equipment through a staff team working in co-operation with the Durham Purchasing Co-operative. 9) Forum for On-going Review of Road Network Rationalization and Depot Rationalization 'THAT the Public Works Officials' WDW Committee be the forum for on-going review and rationalization of the road network and depot locations to provide a periodic evaluation mechanism for these business programs.' 10) Lead on Infrastructure Projects involving more than one Municipality 'THAT the proponent/initiator of an infrastructure project involving more than one municipality take the lead in the design, supervision of construction and contract administration throughout the project; it being pointed out that the current practice of each jurisdiction collaborating with one another would also continue.' 11) Standardization of Chargebacks 'THAT the municipalities within Durham Region (including the Region) establish service agreements, including standardized administration fees and labour burden costs, for road- related services in order to provide greater accountability; and the Works Officials be requested to detail the service components within the engineering fee structure being performed on another municipality's behalf in order that, with the assistance of the Treasurers, a fee may.be established for each engineering service.' As requested by the Stage I review, the Treasurers have identified the inconsistencies in the current roads related charges amongst the municipalities (including the Region) and offer some recommendations. Analysis indicated that it would not be equitable to impose standardized fees as the Area Municipalities have different service levels and different labour costs / contractual obligations. However, it is recommended that service agreements be established between the Region and each Area Municipality and between the Area Municipalities if appropriate. Further, it is recommended that the administration fee for the processing of invoices be standardized. It is also recommended that labour burden costs be standardized to the extent possible and be set based on approval in the service agreements. The benefits of standardizing comparable services delivery processes are largely qualitative in nature. The main benefits include identification of the services and explicit service levels; harmonization of fees, including administration and staff costs; accountability between municipalities; and definition of responsibilities. Re~or~ No.: ,ATTACHMENT ~. ~__[__. TO R~# 6~$ 2002-J-5 Pao.~.No,: 8 Engineering fees were reviewed by the Treasurers who determined that there were wide variations in the processes for charging back for service delivery on construction contracts. Some municipality's charge a percentage (10% - 15%) of the total construction costs whereas others charge based on proportionate share of actual invoices received for contracted services. The components to be included within the engineering fee structure also varied considerably along with how the service was performed (i.e. in-house, outside consultant, or a combination of both). NEXT STEPS This report recommends that the Stage II report be forwarded to the local area municipalities for review and comment by March 29, 2002. Upon receipt of any comments a further report, making recommendations to Committees regarding, future Implementation Strategies; will be prepared for those Business Cases where approval to proceed to the next reporting phase has been granted. The Implementation Strategy Report will then be submitted for consideration and direction to proceed with implementation. CONCLUSIONS: As directed by Council in February 2001, the Who Does What Committee along with staff resources from municipal Finance departments facilitated the completion and review of each Business Case as identified in the Stage 1 report. Recommendations related to each Business Case study are noted above. As noted in the recommendations, the results of several Business Case studies warrant the advancement of Implementation Strategies. The attached Executive Summaries provide rationale for each Business Case recommendation. Two copies of The Stage It Review Business Case Report, in its entirety, has been forwarded to each Area Municipality. Additional copies will be made available upon request. Deloitte & Touche staff will be in attendance to present the Stage II Report. As well, Ainslie Wood, who has facilitated this second stage of the process and prepared several Business Cases on behalf of the committee, will be in attendance. Commissioner of Finance CAM1/cb ATTACHH! O26 1.0 Executive Summary This report contains the findings from the development of five business cases that relate to the rationalization of Public Works operations within the Region of Durham and the Area Municipalities. Deloitte & Touche was contracted by the Region to prepare business cases and implementation strategies based on the areas for review identified in the "Who Does What" Services Review Stage 1 Report, dated May 2000. Deloitte & Touche's expertise was complemented by the road maintenance and solid waste expertise of Integrated Maintenance Operations Inc. and Earth Tech Canada Inc. to ensure that external comparative information was considered. The purpose of the business cases is to assist with the assessment of how best to improve upon, and carry out changes to service delivery in order to provide better, more efficient an'd effective service and at less cost to the taxpayer. The five business cases covered in this report are: Roads Network Rationalization Regional Roads Maintenance Depot Rationalization Solid Waste Collection Engineering Development Approvals Implementation Strategies for approved business cases will be presented in a subsequent report. The City of Oshawa is not an active participant in this, the second stage of the project. In order t° assess the full potential impact on the Regional tax levy and the associated impact on the tax burden in each Area Municipality, proxy information was utilized for Oshawa based upon input from a number of sources. Summary of Results Roads Network Rationalization (page 3 of executive summary) Result: This business case demonstrates that the overall cost to the system for reprioritizing (excluding Oshawa) is an average one-time tax increase of 0.01% averaged over 19 years for an average residential household with current value assessment (CVA) of $200,000. This business case demonstrates further that the end cost to the taxpayer, even after road repurposing, is an additional tax increase of 0.26% per average household with CVA of $200,000. Recommendation: We believe that the rationalization of the existing road network should proceed according to the proposal put forth by the WDW Committee. Regional Roads Maintenance (page 10 of executive summary) Result: The overall result of this business case is a net increase of $10.90 on an average residential home (CVA =$ 200K) that consumes 60,000 gallons of water per year. This arises from an average water user increase of $7.14 in water and sewer rates, in addition to a net general levy average tax increase of $3.76 in the general tax levies. Recommendation: This concept should not be pursued in its current form. ATTACHMENT # ~__~._..TO REPORT #.~..;~ ~o5-o~ Depot Rationalization (page t4 of executive summary,) Result: This business case demonstrates that the overall benefit to the system is an average one- time tax decrease of 0.03% averaged over 19 years for an average residential household with current value assessment (CVA) of $200,000. This business case has shown that, on an overall basis, the taxpayer will benefit from the Depot Rationalization process. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Depot Rationalization process be undertaken as proposed. Solid Waste Collection (page 17 of executive summa,'-y) Result: The results of this business case demonstrate that overall, the Region can save costs by moving to a one-tier structure. More importantly, the Region can also enhance its current source streams and stilI operate at a lower oost under a one-tier structure than it could by maintaining its current ~o-tier structure with current source streams. Recommendatfon: We recommend that this business case be approved so that an implementation strategy can be developed, Engineering Development Approvals (page 21 of executive summary,! Result: The review identified the required process c, nanges to achieve a one-window approach with each iurisdiction required to maintain responsibility and accountability for their respective engineering decisions and associated financial contro'~. Our review indicated that all process changes would have a very minor, if any, cost impact, such that a detailed cost analysis was not deemed necessary. ,Recommendation: We recommend that this business case be approved so that an implementation strategy can be developed. .tS ATTACH M E,~F' ,; ~,~2 .1. Roads Network Rationalization Business Case Refer to page 25 for the detailed report. Background The objective of this business case is to investigate the financial impact and validate the qualitative benefits of realigning the ownership of the road network throughout Durham, to better reflect the nature of usage and interconnectivity between, and among, the Region and Area Municipalities, as proposed in the WDW Stage I Report. This proposal called for a total of 309.95 lane kilometers to be transferred from the Region to the Area Municipalities, and 46.58 lane kilometers to be transferred from Area Municipalities to the Region. Approach A methodology was developed for this business case that looked at the financial implications of the proposed transfers in terms of: · The capital costs that would now be the responsibility of the jurisdiction receiving the road segment, relative to those avoided by the jurisdiction transferring the road; and The on-going maintenance costs that would now be the responsibility of the jurisdiction receiving the road segment, relative to those avoided by the jurisdiction transferring the road. Estimates of required capital expenditures were obtained from each jurisdiction, combined with estimates of incremental maintenance costs. In developing the methodology, it became apparent that several other factors had a significant impact on the results of the business case. These included: Whether or not the City of Oshawa participated in the transfer - the Stage I report proposed 176.5 lane kilometers'be transferred from the Region to the City of Oshawa and 2.8 lane kilometers be transferred from the City of Oshawa to the Region; Whether jurisdictions receiving roads intended to change the timing or extent of capital investment (without changing the type of work to be done compared to the current owners Roads Needs estimates) due to them placing a different priority on the road compared to the jurisdiction transferring the road -we define this as "reprioritizing". Whether jurisdictions receiving roads intended to make capital investments over and above ordinary levels of maintenance in order to repurpose their use - we define this as repurposing, with the best example being the potential future redevelopment, by the Region, of Rosstand Road into a major arterial Regional route. The extent of possible funding sources for the capital costs, either from development charges or, from the transferring jurisdiction during a "funding window". The Stage I Report had considered the possibility of a funding window until 2004, during which budgeted funds might be transferred between jurisdictions. In view of these factors, a base case was developed for this business case that looked at the total tax impact of transferring and reprioritizing the roads. This was based on the assumption that roads would not be transferred to, or from, the City of Oshawa. In the base case, no funds would be transferred between jurisdictions. Over and above the base case, an incremental tax impact was calculated in the event that Oshawa does participate in the road transfer process, as well as an incremental tax impact from repurposing. 13 Financial Analysis Tax impacts have been calculated to demonstrate the one time required change in tine tax rate today, in order to meet the funding obligation of ea3h scenario over a nineteen-year period. It is important to note that these changes to the tax rate are based on averages over the period and therefore, on a year-by-year basis, actual funding obligations may vaD, significantly. The tax impacts are expressed as changes for an average residential home with a current vaiue assessment of $200,000. Refer to figures 1.1 - 1.5 on the following pages. ATTACHMENT Figure 1.1 Capital Picketing Maintenance Total Capital Ajax Maintenance Total Whitby Capital Maintenance Total Oshawa ** Capital Maintenance Total Clarington Scugog Uxbridge Capital Maintenance Total Capital I ~ Maintenance ~ Total I $7.41 Capital Maintenance Total Capital Brock Maintenance Total Reg Avg Capital Maintenance Total $7.94 $2.37 -0.41% 1.15% 0.08% $4.11 $2.27 -0.145;, 0.59% 0.08% $12.05 $4.64 -0.55% 1.74% 0.16% L $2.63 .88 $13.68 I $8.10 $1.49 $15.17 $1.54 $0.11 $1.65 $12.76 $9.79 $22.55 -0.41% 0.29% -0.10% -0.14% -0.08% -0.08% -0.55% 0.21% -0.18% -0.41% -0.14% 1.67% 0.18% 1.86% -0,55% 0.27% $7.18 $7.96 $15.14 $18.62 -0.01% 0.26% -0.41% -0.16% -0.14% -0.05% -0.55% -0.22% -0.41% 0.19% -0.14% -0.14% i 0.01% -0.55%! 0.21% -0.19% -0.41% i 1.74% -0.14% L 1.33% -0.55% 3.07% $24.19 0.25% 0.27% 0.52% -0.41% -% -0.20% -0.14% -% -0.07% -0.55% ~% -0.27% 2.04% -0.41% 0.55% $19.85 $18.01 -0.14% 1.67% 0.53% $44.04 $36.63 -0.55% 3.71% 1.08% $0.25 0.66% 0.22°/~- -0.41% $5.83 'The Changes above reflect the estimated one-time change in taxes on an Average Residential home with CVA= $ 200,000 for a 1 year net present value of cash flows for the no-way funding scenario. Note that actual year-by-year funding obligations may va%' significantly. '*Oshawa transfers were not included in this projection therefore the Oshawa local levy wih FOr cr~ange, 0.01% $0.09 -0.14% 0.00% $0.34 -0.55% 0.88% 0.01% 9 Total Tax Impact of Reprioritization (excluding Oshawa): This chad indicates the impact of work identified by the receiving jurisdiction that is not different from the type of work identified as a need by the current jurisdiction, for the base case no-funding scenario. The Regional average total tax impact of reprioritization on an average residential home with CVA =$200,000 is an increase of 0.01%. ATTACHMENT# ~___._TO REM2Kr# u ~ Capital ($12,95) $29.04 $16.09 -0.96% 2.37% 0.47% ' Mai nten once ($5.20) $22.51 $17.31 -0.39% 1.84% 0.51% Total ! ($18.15) $51.55 $33.40 -1.35% i 4.22%i 0.98% 'The '~nanges above reflect the estimated one-time ~nange ~n taxes or- a'~ A.,'erage Resicentlai ~ome with CVA= $ 200.000 for a 19 ~ear net present ~a]ue of cash flows for the no-v,a? funding scenaric. Note t~,at sczual yea~~2':-'.,ear funding obligations ma), vary sigrfific_.antiy. Tax Impact on Oshawa if included; This chart includes the impact of Oshawa's inclusion with repnoritized work based on the needs identified by Regional roads needs estimates. The average tax impact on an average residential home in Oshawa with CVA =S200,000 if Oshawa is included is 098%. Figure 1.3 : :::~incremental~TaX Impact;of Including Oshawa°nRegional;GeneraljLeVY ,*.::~-::-..:Z>;~il :- -;..:,: ..::,'.~.. '~TJ;-,~,~:,~ ~ ,: t)~: . ' Annua Chan~e $ :~- .~:~, ~,~'-~ ::,~>~-~nua :Change ' ''"' ............. ::":':'?"::~t~l. . Regona Gene~ Lew ......... ~- -.Reg~onalGenera:Lew':¢.,:-_ Capital ~ ($7.37) I -0.55% Maintenance ~ ($3.36~ -0.25% Total ~ ($10.74') -0.80% Changes above reflect the estimated one-t me change in ~xes 3~ a- c.,,erage Res;dent;a; Home ~fitn CVA= S 200.000 for a 19 net present value of ~sh flows for the n~-,',:. ,Jndlnq sC:T,:~:~ Note that azt:a~ ,/ear-3..-.ear funding obligations may s::rdf,~nt Oshawa's local general lev,/v, ll :.e ::',e oni.z io~ iec, ¢¢:a3te: 3: ~'s:~,',~ s ,-',3~:s 3~, Incremental Tax Impact. of Including Oshawa on Regional General Levy' This chart reflects rep;ioritization work with no funding transfers. Oshawa'sinclusiononi'? changes the Regional General Levy in the other jurisdictions. Tneincrem, ental impact of Oshawa's inclusion on the Reaional General Levy for arq average residential home with CVA =$200,000 is a reduction of 0.80%. lhe transfer of roads to Oshawa allows the Regional general levy to decline by $10.74 per Average Residential Home with CVA = S200,000 across the Region. The Oshawa local general levy, on the other hand, increases ~.~.' S51.55 per average Oshawa isousehoid witln CVA = $20!3,000. ATTACHMENT# Figure 1.4 Pickering Capital $0.96 Maintenance Total $9.12 $4.11 $13.23I Ajax Capital $0.96 $7.71 Maintenance Total Whitby CapitalI $0.96 Maintenance Total Oshawa ~ , Capital ($1.84) (so.ss) Maintenance TotalI $10.08 $2.27 $12.36 0.07% -0.14% -0.07% $8.67 0.07% -0.14% $6.96 $6.08 -0.07% $13.681 $14.64 0.07% $1.49 $15.17 -0.14% $14.29 -0.07% 1.32% O.59% 1.91 % 0.85% -0.08% 0.76% 1.67% 0.18% 1.86% $0.96 $0.96 0.07% -0.14% -0.07% 0.35% 0.08% 0.43% 0.28% -0.08% 0.20% 0.49% -0.01% 0.48% 0.03% -0.05% -0.03% Ciarington Capital I $0.96 $4.101 $5.06 0.07% 0.51% '~ 0.17% -0.14% 0.01% ~ -0.06% 0.53% i 0.11% .74% ($1.84) $0.11I ($1.73) $4.211 $3.33 $12.76 i -0.07% 0.47% $0.96 $13.72 0.07% ($1.84) $9.79 $7.96 -0.14% 1.33% 0.27% ($0.88) $22.55 $21.68 -0.07% 3.07% 0.74% $0.00 $0.00 $o.oo $0.96 ($0.88) $25.15 $18.01 $43,16 $8.13 0.07/° $0.96 -0.14% -0.07% 0.07% ~0.14% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% Maintenance TotalI ($1.84) ($0.88) O.00% 2.04% 1.67% 0.03% $24.19 Scugog Capital Maintenance Total Capital Maintenance Total Uxbridge Brock Capital $0.96 Maintenance ($1.84)! Total i ($0,88) $19.85 Capitalt $0.96 Maintenance ($1.84) Total ($0.88) Reg Avg $44.04 $7.17 -0.07% -0.03% 0.74% 0.53% -0.07% 3.71% 1.27% 0.81% $1.93 $0.09 -0.14% 0.22% 0.00% $9.10 $8.22 -0.07% 1.03% 0.27% 'The Changes above reflect the estimated one-time change in taxes on an Average Residential Home with OVA= $ 200.000 for a 19 year net present value of cash flows for the no-way funding scenario. Note that actual year-uy-year funding obligations ma,v va%' s~gnificantly. Total Tax Impact of Repurposing including Reprioritization (excluding Oshawa): This chart indicates the impact of the reprioritized road work and the work identified by the receiving jurisdiction that is different from the type of work identified as a need by the current jurisdiction, for the no-funding scenario. The Regional average total tax impact of alt work identified by the receiving jurisdiction on an average residential home with CVA =$200,000 is an increase of 0.27%. Al1' 3, Capital $6.54 $1.34 $7.88 0.49°/; 0.15% 0.26% Maintenance $- $- $- -% -% '% Total $6.54 $1.34 $7.88 0.49% 0.15°/;, 0.26% Regional. Average Tax:impact,o~Repurposmgmcludlng Reprmrltizatlon~_(ExCud. jng~ · -:".:'L:'.; ::~ :., :--~ .: ""~:~'.-: ~,:..~ ~:~'~';;~-~':~,~M:.~,,.q:~L'"._'~,?,~?~,?,.~::.~' capita $0,96: $7.17 ' $8.13 0.07% ' 0.81% :] 0.27% Maintenance ($1.84) $1.93 $0.09 -0,14% 0.22% 0.00% Total ($0.88) $9.10 $8.22 -0.07% , 1.03% 0.27% 'The .}hanoes above reflect tne estimated one-t me change in taxes or- an Ave"age Restoent,a, mo,ne v~'q- Ct,',&= ~ ~2~.~.'[,[. fo' a 19 ~-o'__ - 9: present value of cash f, ov,,s fo~ t~e nz-v,a,. ;Jndmg scenario. Note ,.nat actual ',ear-s,-,ea' 'sc.olnc 03', catto~:s, ms,,_..ars, s g'u~,cantl} Repurposing excluoes tne tra,'-sfe' cf rsads with Oshawa as repurccsmg intents cf Os'ca~,a are unkns,',: Incremental Regional Average Tax Impact of Repurposing (Excluding Oshawa**)' This chart isolates the impact of Repurposing from that of Repdor'tizing for the no-funding scenario. The ~ncrementat Regional average tota ~ax impact of Repurposing on an average residential home with C,'?~ =$200,000 is an increase of 0 ~6~;~ Regional Average Tax Impact of Repurposing including Reprioritization (Excluding Oshawa**)' This chart indicates the total impact of repurposing ancres, nsrit~zing the roads in the ~ ~ ,~ ~,..t~ons for the no- -eceivinajunsa~cuonsbasedontneneeasident;,fied b?'~n~receivinai .... ~.x~' :unOingscenario. The Regional average totai tax impact of a/i work icentified by the receiving unsdiction on an average residential nome with CVA =S20C:,,000 is an increase of 0.27%. The impact of repurposing results tn an incremental increase of $6.54 or-. the Regional general levy from the base case of reprioritizatior but the total impact of repurpos~ng combined witln reprioritization is still an overall reduction in the Regional levy of S0.8~ per average residential home with CVA of $200,000. The incremental impact measures the cnange from the base case of reprioritization excluding Oshawa. On an average basis, the 1coal tevv increases incrementally from the base case scenario of reprioritization by $1.34 per average resiaentia! home with CVA of $20.3,000, which is comprised of insremental increases of S1.18 in Picketing, $5.08 in A.iax and $2.56 in Clarington. Qualitative Analysis The major qualitative benefit of this business case is that direct accountability will be improved. The realignment of the road network as a result of tn:s proc. ess wil', a;iaw for improved control and responsiveness at all levels. Those roads that are tocai in nature ir- terms of purpose and usage will be transferred to Area Municipal control. Simiiari¢, the Region ~','i~, assJme control of those roads that are major inter-municipal ~'~,~. ' ,, ~ ~it~, iai roads ~n terms of purpose a'~c usage, tn both cases, the roads will now be subject to the appropriate ieve', of csntro!, clar:.f,~ng accountability. Conclusions This business case demonstrates that the overall cost to the system for reprioritizing (excluding Oshawa) is an average one-time tax increase of 0.01% averaged over 19 years for an average residential household with current value assessment (CVA) of $200,000. The Region sees a significant reduction in currently planned road expenditures as a result of transferring roads to the Area Municipalities. For Area Municipalities, the general result is an increase in the local levy but the level of increase varies considerably between Area Municipalities, and could vary over time based on short term funding requirements. There may be considerable fluctuations in funding needs over the next five years for Area Municipalities. In our opinion the overall cost to the system is justified based upon the resulting improvements in alignment and accountability, as evidenced by the number of initiatives to improve roads transportation in the Region that have arisen during the Stage 1 and Stage 2 processes. Under reprioritization and assuming that Oshawa does not participate in road transfers, Ajax, Clarington, Oshawa and Uxbridge show total tax (local levy plus general Regional levy) decreases. Whitby and Picketing show total tax increases but the impact is not as significant as Brock and Scugog. This business case demonstrates further that the end cost to the taxpayer, even after road repurposing, is an additional tax increase of 0.26% per average household with CVA of $200,000. We believe that the rationalization of the existing road network should proceed according to the proposal put forth by the WDW Committee. On that basis, it is recommended that the business case be approved so that we can proceed to develop an implementation strategy. A key element of the implementation strategy will be resolution of Oshawa's future participation, and dealing with the negative impacts on Brock and Scugog. There are a number of other outstanding issues for resolution during implementation strategy development, such as the coordinated timing of development charge bylaws at all levels, and the timing of development charge road transfers. 2,5 ATTACH H ENT # ~,_~.._d 0~-$ OOB-O,'L. 1.2. Reaional Roads Maintenance Business Case Refer to page 3g for the detaiied repo~. Background The objective of the Regionat Roa~ Maintenance business case is to investigate the financial impact and validate the qualitative aspects of performing maintenance of Regional Roads at the Area Ivlunioipal level, as proposed in the WDW Stage I Report.. Under this proposal, the Region would continue to be the owner of the Regional road neb~,ork: however, maintenance would essentially be "outsourced" to the Area Idunicipalities. The Region wouid make payments to the Area Municipalities for the maintenance services provicec on Regionai roads. Currently there are several Area Municipalities providing various Roads Maintenance sen.,[ces on select Regional roads within their jurisdiction, with costs charged back to the Region. The original premise behind this business case was that it would be more effective for sero'ice Ce/iveq/of Regional Road Maintenance to be performed b.v Area Municipalities, since those ne,,,,, responsibilities could be integrated with the existing respansibiiities of maintaining Area Municipal roads. Efficiencies were expected through improved utilization of both staff and equipment. Ho,',,ever, early in the business case development process, it became apparent that no immediate operating efficiencies would be achieved. In addition, existing synergistic efficiencies would be lost bet-., een Regional Road Maintenance and Regional Water and Sewer operations. (Water & Sewer regu;arly co-ordinates with and uses Roads staff to assist ' ~n~ repair of roaes and sidewalks after water or sewer work.) As such, the result of this ~usiness case is negative. Although the business case is negative, there are opportunities to explore other avenues for operational efficiencies and ,c::, Fi ~1' ~ . . ~nn. nc~.T~.n~s These are outlined in the Conclusions The remainder of this business case explains the approach undertaken and the assumptions ~n-~r~;nv~fl that ."~ -"~ r~su,t. ...... . ~ .x~ld~ the negative ~ ' Approach A methodology was developed for this business case that looked at the financial implications of the proposal in terms of: · -he additional operating costs that Area Municipalities would in:ur to maintain all Regional roads in their jurisdiction, relative to those saved b, the Region; · -he impact of required expenditures on incrementa~ vehicles, equipment and facilities; · -he impact of Area Municipalities bilting their service CeiiveD, costs ~o the Region. inclusive of an administrative fee; and The impact of severing the current synergies between Regiona! road maintenance and water and sewer services. For the business case the transfer of assets and emoloyees from the Region to the Area Municipalities was assumed to take place at zero cost. Ho~'vever, the practical feasibility of this assumption would need to be re-examined durinc the :ev'e~opment of an Implementation Strategy. It is likely that additional costs would be incurred tho: ,,',ouid fu~her reduce the value of the business case. The number of Regional road kilometers was calculate: ....... ,, ~n,,: eacr'~ Area Municipality,', '.,','nlcn was then used to estimate the incremen;a: ievei of resoJrces required ~n otter to perform maintenance ~r. 'V' ' ~,~tl ~t~es on those roads. In adcition to this, the Re~i.ona: Water and Se,','er group was asked to ATTACHMENT #-~TO I~i~I'#.L~__ identify resource requirements that would be required in order for them to maintain their existing levels of service. Area Municipalities were assumed to take on the responsibility for maintenance of the Regional road kilometers within their jurisdiction. In return, they received compensation from the Region for the cost of providing the required maintenance plus an estimated 8% administrative fee. It was further assumed that Regional Water & Sewer operations would need to hire staff and obtain equipment to replace the effort currently provided by the Regional road crews. Financial Analysis Figure 1.6 Pickering $6.63 ($2.07) $4.57 0.49% -0.30% 0.16% 1.90% $7.14 $11.71 Ajax $6.63 ($1.62) $5,01 0.49% -0.18% 0.16% 1.9051, $7.14 $12.15 Whitby $6.63 ($1.14) $5.49 0.49% -0,14% 0.18% 1.90% $7.14 $12.63 Oshawa $6.63 ($2.64) $3.99 0.49% -0.22% 0.12% 1.90% $7.14 $11.13 Clarington $6.63 ($4.38) $2.25 0.49% -0.55% 0.08% 1.90% $7.14! $9.40 Scugog $6.63 ($5.57) $1.06 0.49% -0.76% 0.04% 1.90% $7.14 $8.20 Uxbridge $6,63 ($5.92) $0.71 0,49% -1.01% 0.03% 1,90% $7.14 $7.86 Brock $6.63 ($12.73) ($6.10) 0.49% -1.07% -0.18% 1.90% $7.14 $1.05 Reg Avg $6.63 ($2.88) $3.76 0.49% -0.32% 0,12% 1.90% $7.14 $10.90 *The Changes above reflect the estimated one-time change in taxes on an Average Residential Home with CVA= $ 200.000 for a 19 year net present value of cash flows. Note that actual year-by-year funding obligations may vary. *' The Water Rates Impacts above reflect the estimated change for an average water and Sewer user that consumes 60,000 gallons/year. The overall result of this business case is a net increase of $10.90 on an average residential home (CVA =$ 200K) that consumes 60,000 gallons of water per year. This arises from an average water user increase of $7.14 in water and sewer rates, in addition to a net general levy average tax increase of $3.76 in the general tax levies. The Regional general levy increases by an average of $6.63, approximately two thirds of which is attributable to the 8% administrative charge that the Region pays the Area Municipalities over and above their costs of providing the service, with the remainder attributable to the net increase in resources. However, this is countered by the fact that the local general levy decreases by an average of $2.88, which is due to the fact that the Area Municipalities recover their costs plus the 8% administrative charge. ATTA,..H m Er' ..... _~ ContraG' to the Stage I Report expestations the business case is negative for this rationalization initiative. There are two primars., reasons for this result: limited efficiency gains in the planned integration of Regional road maintenance with Area Municipality roaq maintenance; and, toss of shared resources between Regional Water and Sewer and Roads and thus the need for increased staff and equipment in Water and Sewer. The limited efficiency gains in integrating Regional road maintenance with Area Municipality maintenance are a result of: · Given relati,,ely small geographic areas, the estimates for Area Idunicipal incremental resource requirements only yielded savings of parts of resources (e.g., 0.3 fuli time equivalents), rather '.nan wnoie bodies. In this instance, Area Municipalities took the consen,'ative approach and included full body complements as partial ful! time equivalents are not feasible; ,, The Region will still require a numoer of supe~dsorbf positions in order to perform sen/ice quality assurance activities. There are no savings in vehicle maintenance activities at the Regional level since vehicle transfers are spread across ali Regional depots and therefore the number of vehicles required t~ be maintained per mechanic does not pass the threshold for staff reduction. T!ne ~ncrease in water and sewer rates is attributable to the increased costs incurred by the Regional water and sewer operation that arise because the existing synergy with Regional roads maintenance will be lost if the activities are transferred to Area Municipalities. This synergy currently exists because the Region can call upon road crews and equipment to assist with water ~. o~;;,~n.~ on their own anc sewer projects on an as needec b~s~ inor~',~?tcsupptement =~'~ ~' resources. Investigation revealed that Regionai water and sewer operation requires an incremental number of eleven full time equivalents and capital equipment purchases. This need is driven onadepot-by- depot basis to have a crew of six available to peForm road-patching acti~'ities. Qualitative Analysis There are several qualitative aspects to this business case which counter, in some part, the negative financial result: · Public perception may improve as centraiizec routing within each .&rea Municipality may help to avoid perceived duplication in activities; and ,, Customer access will improve, as Area Municipalities wih have control over all maintenance activities within their geographic jurisdiction. Conclusions The primary intent of the transfer and consolidation of Road Maintenance w'as to improve efficiency and effectiveness of road maintenance within tne Region and Iosa! Area Municipalities. The foregoing analysis indicates tnat there are no savings to be oPta~nec at the maintenance operational level. Key factors behind this conclusion include: · The inability of the Region and Area Municipalities to eliminate "pans" 9: resources; and The need for the Region to maintain superviso? p~sitions to m~nito~ Area Municipal "contractor" performance (which continues to be necessary from a .Sue diligence/risk management perspective). In addition, the proposed change is also affected by inefficiencies introduced by separating pads of the Regional Water and Sewer Division from its Road Maintenance counterpart. As a result, the 3usiness case as proposed yields a negative result for the taxpayer because the lost synergies currently available between Regional Road Maintenance and Water and Sewer operations significantly outweigh the available operating efficiencies from performing ali road maintenance at the Area Municipal level. Over and above the negative result as quantified in this report, there are a number of implementation obstacles that would need to be addressed. Given the potential impact upon staff, the transfer of road maintenance activities from the Region to the local Area Municipalities would require considerable effort and resources to implement. Within the Region and Area Municipalities, there are multiple Collective Bargaining Agreements, all with their own unique features, raising a number of transition issues and challenges that would need to be overcome, in addition to this, an equitable mechanism for vehicle transfers would have to be determined, formal se.wice level agreements would have to be negotiated, and pefformanc~ measurement systems developed jointly between the Region and the Area Municipalities. All of these activities would require an investment in staff time to complete. tt is likely that resolution of these issues would increase the negative result of the business case. As suchl our recommendation is that this concept should not be pursued in its current form. However, this exercise has highlighted the need to pursue maximum operating efficiency across Area Municipal boundaries rather than solely within. A route optimization study should be investigated to provide inter-municipal opportunities for potential efficiencies. This would help to alleviate individual Area Municipalities' inability to eliminate "pads" of resources since the reduction could be performed across more than one Area Municipality. Discussions between the Region and Area Municipalities should occur to further investigate and implement efficiencies in equipment and human resources. · Currently, there are effective maintenance partnerships/collaborations that exist between the Region and Area Municipalities that may be evaluated and expanded. New partnerships between the Region and Area Municipalities may be created. · Partnerships also currently exist between Area Municipalities and may be re-evaluated and renegotiated to create additional operating efficiencies. New partnerships may also be created between Area Municipalities. D..~_pot Rationalization Business Case Refer to page 53 for the detailed report. Background The obiective of the Depot Rationalization business case is to investigate the financial impact and validate the qualitative benefits of rationalizing existing depot locations across the Region. as proposed in the ~,'DX,~,,' Stage t Repo~. Approach Der~t,t Rationalization was founded on the premise that the number of depots within the Region co.JlC be reduced from the current level of twenty-two to fifteen in the short-term. As such. a numser of individual transactions have been identified that can be undertaken to provide value and improve efficiency. The following transactions have been reviewed: For Combininq (in the near future): ,, LIo. ! (Ajax Operations Centre) & No. 20 (Region - Ajax/Picketing Depot)-.Ajax Operations (;entre operations to be located at Region's Aja×.'Pickering Depot ,, l'!o. 5 (Brock - Sunderland) & No. 18 (Region -Sunderiand)- Brock Sunderland Depot .:.,2erations to be located at Region's SunOerland D~po~ o - S,~u~og) Scugog Port. Perry Depot Ilo. 43 (Scugog Port Perry')& No. 19 (Region - -" - operations to be located at Region's Scugog Depot F~or Decommissioninc (in near future, with staffing and equipment being redeployed); ldo. 3 (Brock - Beaverton) I,Io. 4 (Brock - Cannington) lao. 6 (Clarington- Orono) I..!o. '15 (Scugog - Island) .A m~.thodology ,,,,'as developed for this business case tnat lookec at the finansial implications of the proposed transactions in terms of: The change in capital costs and associated timing that would now be the responsibility of the iurisdiction owning the depot, relative to those avoided by the jur,,sdiction that was moving; · The on-going maintenance costs that would now i:)e the responsiSiiity of the Region as the owner of the facility, relative to those avoided by the Area Municipalities; and The potential net proceeds from sale, rent or disposai of the decommissioned property. The net valuation was calculated as a percentage of the current value assessment based on an expected sale price. An 8% administration fee was aiso appiiec. In order to develop this business case, several key assumptions were required to estimate future .... s~ru~.t~on, economic rents cash flows. Assumptions included 20-year facility life spans for nev~' ~'~'"' ~' paid by individual Area Municipalities occupying Regionai faciiities, the assumption that if environmental liabilities exist, they do not represent an incremen;a', change attributabie to this business case, and the assumption that new construction costs would Se equal to construction costs avoided by individual Area Municipalities with differences ir, t~m~ng of cash flows. ATTACHMENT # a PO I'L o05-o Financial Analysis Figure 1.7 Pickering Ajax Whitby ~'§~t~f0r~D6pbt~Ri~t[0 nalizati0n?;~~iy~'~ ;- .~ 'p ~-~ L~ :;~~,, ................ ~ ....... Capital! Maintenance[ Total[ Capital i Maintenance Total[ Capital Maintenance Total 0.08% -0.09% -0.01% -0.07% -0.04% -0.11% 0.08% -0.09% -0.01% Oshawa Capital 0.07% Maintenance -0.08% -0.01% Total Clarington Capital Maintenance Total $2.37 $0.00 $2.37 0.18% 0.00% ($2.60) $0.00 ($2.60) -0.19% 0.00% ($0.24) $0.00 ($0.24) -0.02% 0.00% $2.37 ($4.44) ($2.08) 0.18% -0.49% ($2.60) $1.30 ($1.30) -0.19% 0.14% ($0.24) ($3.14) ($3.38) -0.02% -0.35% $2,37 $0.00 $2.37 0.18°/° 0.00% ($2.60) $0.00 ($2.60) -0.19% 0.00% ($0.24) $0.00 ($0.24) -0.02% 0.00% $2.37 $0.00 $2.37 0.18% 0.00% ($2.60) $0.00 ($2.60) -0,19% 0.00% ($0.24) $0.00 ($0.24) -0.02°/o 0.00% -0.04 ~o $2.37 ($0.36) $2.01 0.18°/o °' ($2.60) $0.08 ($2.52) , -0.19% 0.01% ($0.24) ($0.27) ($0.51) -0.02% -0.03% $2.37 $0.45 $2.82 0.18% 0.06% ($2.60) $0.03 ($2.57)[ -0.19% 0.00% ($0.24) $0,49 $0.25 I -0.02% 0.07% $2.37 $0.00 $2.37 0.18% 0.00% ($2.60) $0.00 ($2.60) -0.19% 0.00% ($0.24) $0.00 ($0.24) -0.02% 0.00% $2.37 ($12.18) ($9.82) I 0.18% -1.03% ($2.60) $0.10 ($2.50) -0.19% 0.01% ($0.24) ($12.08) ($12.32) ~ -0.02% ' -1.02% $2.37 ($0.98) $1.39 0.18% i -0.11% ($2,60) $0.21 ($2.39) -0.19% 0.02% ($0.24) ($0.77) ($1.01) -0.02% -0.09% CVA= $ 200,000 0.07% -0.08% -0.02% Scugog Capital 0.10% Maintenance -0.09% Total 0.01% Uxbridge Capital 0.09% Maintenance I Total Capital Maintenance Total Capital Maintenance Total Brock Reg Avg 'The Changes above reflect the estimated ,ne-time change in taxes on an Av. erage Residential Home with ',,ear net present value of cash flows. Note that actual year-by-year funding obligations may var),. -0.09% -0.01% -0.29% -0.07% -0.36% 0.05% -0.08% -0.03% for a 19 The costs for the depot analysis were broken into operating and capital components. The combined figures yield the overall impact to the Area Municipalities. At the local level, variations o:curred due to the different depot rationalization scenarios that were proposed in the Stage 1 repo~. 3]_ ATTACHHENT # ,~' TO REPORT Qualitative Analysis Depot Rationalization provides an o~so~unity for the Region and Area r¥1unicipaiities to obtain some "quick hit" economic benefits, as the Depot Rationalization process can be implemented on a case-by-case Basis. )51 Depot Rationalization enhances the efficiency of the overall depot network within the Region. The net impact of the rationalization process will be fewer facilities to maintain. As a result, associated operational costs will be eliminated or reduced. Administration of the de~ots will be enhanced, as activities will be focused on a lower number of sites. There are several instances in which works yards are located side-b,v-si~e, across the street from one another, or there are several yards in close proximity to one another. Rationalization of depots should improve this perception. Conclusions This 3usiness case has shown that, on an overali basis, the taxpayer wil! benefit from the Depot Rationalization process. It is recommended that the Depot Rationalization ~rocess be undertaken as proposed. The benefits of pursuing this initiative, include: Potential one time gains associated with faciiit? disposal, or usin.g the facility for anotner [~urpose and avoiding other capital costs; Reduction of ongoing annua! facilit.~ operating casts: Improvement in public perception relating to depots ir., c, lose proxrmit:,': aha Improved resource utilization. Ther'e are several "quick hit" opportunities within the proposed cepct framework as recommended 3~' the Stage I report. These oppo~unities are not large in magnitude: hov,,ever, they provide an opportunity to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the various Public Works functions located within Durham Region by reducing the number cf .aepots from 22 to 15. This effo~ should only be the precursor to future rationaiization initiatives icentified in the Stage ! report, as wet! as an,,,, other opportunities that emerge in tn~s area. Since this business case was performed independenti~ from the Road Network Rationalization and Road Maintenance business cases, it is possible that some of the results as presented might change. For example, if both the Road Network Rationalization and Road Maintenance business cases proceed, some Area lvlunicipaiities have indicated the potentiai need for some depots currently targeted for closure to remain open. However, final determination of requirements must await detailed operational planning during implementation. TTACHHENT # TO P, ORT 1,4. Solid Waste Collection Business Case Refer to page 63 for the detailed report. Background The objective of the Solid Waste Collection business case is to investigate the financial impact and validate the qualitative benefits of consolidating service delivery of all waste management services at the Regional level, as proposed in the WDW Stage 1 Report. Over and above the intent to demonstrate the currently available efficiencies in a single tier system, the objective is also to demonstrate that additional savings could be achieved in a one-tier system, as increased levels of diversion and source stream separation are required. The business case does not examine the standardization of other levels of service. The ability to implement standardization and the impact on Regional waste processing is' not materially different between one-tier and two-tier systems. Approach In an attempt to achieve a more effective and efficient service for Durham residents, the Solid Waste business case explores several forward-looking scenarios. The scenarios are theoretical in nature and examine the potential future impact of moving all waste management responsibilities to a one-tier structure at the Regional level, and introducing new and standardized source streams of waste management services across the Region. The scenarios do not define the sen,ice delivery model that would achieve the efficiencies. Some key assumptions used in the development of this theoretical business case include an immediate 15% saving achieved in collection costs under a one-tier structure, collection stop growth proportionate to the percentage increase in population, and the ability of the Region to attain diversion goals by 2007. The 15% reduction in collection costs leads to an average cost per stop in the Region of $37.50 which includes alt costs, including yard waste and garbage collection. In arriving at this saving, consideration was given to empirical data with respect to efficiencies in: Co-collection of waste streams - there are additional efficiencies available under a one-tier system because the Region will be able to supplement its existing collection of blue boxes with other source streams; Improved capital utilization arising from partial loads occurring less frequently; and Purchasing efficiencies arising from volume discounts as experienced in other similarly sized municipalities. ATTACHMENT # ~__~__TO REPORT#.o ~ (~ Financial Analysis Refer to Figure 1.8. The tax impacts represent the theoretical one-time savings that would be generated today from immediate adoption of the proposal. These will not be reaiized immed',ately though, due to the existence of several long-term contracts and should be re-evaluated as a precise implementation pathway is developed. The best savings that result from moving to a one-tier struc, ture are largely driven by the economies of scale achieved in the collection of waste. B'). administering two or three large coiiection contracts instead of eight individual contracts, the Region can expect cost savings througiq more efficient capital utilization, purchasing efficiencies, and co-collection of various materials such as recyclables, organics and garbage. Toe overall collection savings achieved are estimated to be approximately 15% of the current regional total. Howev~(:7 these savings are estimated to occur at the regional level, which represents the weighted average of all Municipal costs. Therefore, some Municipalities save more than others given their current contract costs for colie3tion and the impact collection costs have on tnelr local general levies. While enhancing current source streams will result in an overall cost increase to the Region. some of these costs will be offset by downstream savings. Specifically, the costs to transfer anc dispose of ~',asi. e will decrease as more garbage waste is diver~ec to the organics stream For example, excl~Jding oversead, it costs the Region approximate/).' S75 per tonne to transfer and dispose of garbage waste. Alternatively, it costs the Region approximatetyS45pertonnetocompost organics. With the introduction of food waste, this figure ~s expected to increase to approximately $65 per tonne due to the additional cost of separating the food waste from the yard waste. Ti~erefore, the Region will save roughly St0 for ever).' ~onne of garbage that is diveded from ~ransfer and disposal to compost. ATTACHMENT #'~ TO Figure 1.8 Gene~l ~ ~7Local~Gene~l~ ~To~ ~Gene~l:~,.~;~ ::Lo~l,Geneml~: ~o~1: Pickering 2.84% -5.66% -0.03% $38,30 -$39.15 -$0.85 Ajax 2.84% -3.31% 0.26% $38.30 -$30.15 $8.15 i Whitby 2.84% -4.74% -0.01% $38.30 -$38.71 -$0.40 Oshawa 2.84% -3.04% -0.29% $38.30 -$48.13 -$9.83 Clarin~ton Flat Rat~ ** N/A N/A -0.27% $40.75 -$49.00 -$8.25 Scugog 2.84% -7.49% -0.57% $38.30 -$54.93 -$16.63 Uxbridge 2.84% -6,97% -0.09% $38.30 ~ -$40.85 i -$2.55 ~ i Brock 2.84% -0.74% $38.30 -$63.59 I -$25.29 Regional Avg ~.4 % -5.36% -4.04% -0.29% $38.30 -$35.80 I -$9.06 Whitby -4.74% 0.16% $43.43 -$38.71 $4.73 Oshawa -3.94% -0.14% $43.43 -$48.13 -$4.70 N/A -0.09% $46.21 -$49.00 -$2.79 Scugog Uxbridge Brock Ajax 3.22% I 3.22% Clarington Flat Rate ** I N/A + 3.22% ~ 3.22% 3.22% -7.49% -0.39% $43.43 -$54.93 -$11.50 -6.97% 0.09% $43.43 -$40.85 $2.58 -5.36% -0.59% $43.43 -$63,59 -$20.16 Regional Avg I 3.22% -4.04% -0.12% $43.43 -$35.80 -$3.66 'The Changes above reflect the theoretical estimated one-time change in taxes on an Average Residential Home wi:h OVA= $ 200,000 for a 10 year net present value of cash flows. Note that actual year-by-year funding obligations may vary'. The savinu$ as indicated are the ultimate savings and will not be realized immediately, as contracts currently exist. ** The overall Regional tax rate is 2.84% however Clarington collects the amount levied by the Region through a flat rate basis for mainly residential properties. **' This scenario excludes the capital costs required to implement enhanced source streams 35 Q u a lita ti ve A n a lysis Several factors were identified: Movement to a one-tier model will assist tiqe Region ~n reaching its long term waste diversion goal of 50°/'o by 2007; Customer service will be enhanced as residents only have to dea~ with one level of g3vernment; and Accountability will be more clearly aefined as the realignment of the waste management network will allow for improved control of ail waste related services under one umbrella. Conclusions The results of this business case demonstrate that overaii, the Region can save costs by moving to a one-tier structure. More importantly, the Region can also enhance its current source streams and still operate at a lower cost under a one-tier structure than it could l~y maintainin~ its current two-tier structure with current source streams. Given the highly theoretical nature of this analvsis, and tne present day realities that face waste management in the Region of Durham, there are key challenges that exist with regard to the implementation of this case. Currently, Oshawa and Whitby collect waste through their Area hlun cipal operations. A one-tier model will have to develop a service delivery model that is beneficial to all parties, yet still captures the cost savings projected in this business case. Ajax and Pickering are currently under contract for waste coliecticn until 2006 and 2009 respectively. recommend that this business case be approved so that an im~iementation strateg~, can be developed to begin resolving the issues highlightec ab3ve. ATTACHMENT #._~_ T~, RE~)%,.? '~ 0P--.~ o~5 -O~ 1.5. En_.g. Lneerinq Development A_L~.Eprovals Business Case Refer to page 77 for the detailed report. Background The objective of the engineering development approvals business case is to review the engineering component of the development approvals process and investigate the concept of the Area Municipalities taking the lead for processing engineering development applications, as proposed in the Stage I Report. Approach Each Area Municipality and the Region was interviewed to determine the current process for reviewing engineering development approvals. High-level process maps were developed to describe the flow of the activities that occur throughout the review process. The City of Oshawa was not interviewed since it declined to participate in this study. To supplement the interviews, an external stakeholder workshop was conducted to identify the perceptions and issues of the development and engineering consultant community. These issues and perceptions were used to help identify opportunities for improvement in the current process. The results of the interviews and the workshop were used to perform an "As-Is' assessment to highlight key issues. The "As-Is" assessment was used to develop a "To-Be" process map from which key process changes were identified and assessed for financial impacts. As Is Process Assessment The major finding from the As Is Assessment is that developers and engineering consultants must travel to multiple locations to submit drawings and must contact multiple stakeholders to ask auestions and review project issues. In order to address the issues of multiple locations and multiple points of contact, a one-point-of-contact approach was developed with the Area Ivlunicipality as the lead. To Be Process Design The one-point-of-contact role would be filled by a project coordinator who would facilitate the review process and answer any questions that the engineering consultant may have. This would not be a new position, but rather a change in responsibilities and emphasis. The project coordinator should be a current Area Municipal employee who facilitates the submission and feedback process with the development community. Ali issues and concerns would be compiled and communicated to the project coordinator from the Region and the Area Municipal reviews. The project coordinator would communicate the issues and comments to the development community following the engineering review, and would review the submission on an on-going basis, to ensure that all concerns previously identified, have been addressed. Since the developers' building schedules are impacted by delays in the review process, a standard review cycle should occur with an established timeline (provided all required information is submitted). In a similar fashion though, the development community should adopt it's own performance standards in terms of submitting drawings early enough in the building schedule. The development community must also set and meet standards for complete inclusion of required information. This would help to smooth the impact of peaks in demand on review services. ATTACHME ~,~ TC REPORT To reduce rework and overall effort, the project coot:indict should meet with the engineering consultant to review the issues anc comments at the eh: of a submission cycle and again prior ~ ~ complete and that the the oetaite~ engineering reviev,'. This will ensure tha: sro,, ,~s,on~ are engineering drawing addresses the issues that have been identified ~.v' the Area Municipal and Regionat review. Financial Analysis The new process of reviewing engineering designs would no'. significantly affect the Area Municipality or the Region. Some Area Llunicipaiities currently use engineering consultants to review drawings submissions and .,~ouid therefore use an engineering consultant to facilitate the project coordination process, as the consultant has more knowiedge of the engineering review process. In this situation, the consultant fees are directly charged back to the developer thereby removing the financiai impact on the Area Municipality. The process change would not financially impact the Area Municipalities or the Region ~ecause in mos; cases an existing employee would facilitate the one-point-of-contact role. The project ooordinator role is simply a change in responsibiiity with some time devoted to aiding communication between the review~ng entities and the developer. Engineering plans and ~ ~.~u. ~r costs wouid not be incurred. comments would be exchanged at mee;incs so additional ~"~ The cost of travel for Regional technicians wouid be re,nor as there ,,','auld be one meeting per submission r~nuired If the Area L1ur, icipality is unable to satisfy the reso~'~ce recuirements with the currer' le~'el of staff ',h_.r=- there nav. be a need to increase staff teveis. .... in tnq case, there :.s still an opportznity '~ charge the project coordinator resource costs back ts ine developer ob' reviewing the fee structure. The-eshould be fuli cost reco', es, forthe revie'~', process based cna user sayapproacn. This is ar, issue that will need further reviev, in the implementation pian. Qualitative Analysis There are additional qualitative customer service issues that would be improved by the process changes as proposed. In keeping with the one-window approach, one-point-of-contact wou~c ensure that the deveioper's questions are answered inatimelyfasnion. The pro e:t coordinator's roie wouid be to facilitate the review process and to answer any questions that the developer may have. 'fhis v, ou[c aliow the developer to contact a single party to ask questrons and would make that party accountable for responding. The changes, as proposed, would help to promote the culture that the Region, the Area Municipalities and the development community are v, or~;~ng together ~o a~hieve a common goal. This would help to address the developers concerns that the current rev~ev,' process impedes their ability to deliver their product on time. As such, the process changes result in the deve',c, 2ment communit, r:~i. ;n~ better customer ser'vice from the Region and the Area Llun~cipaiit~es. Conclusions The review identified the required process changes to achieve a one-window approach with each iurisdiction required to maintain responsibility and accountability for their respective engineering decisions and associated financial controt. The key components to these additional s'~eps are communication between reviewing levels and communication with the development community tnrou§h a one-point-of-contact approach. Our review indicated that all process changes would have a very minor, if any, cost impact, sucl-) that a detailed cost analysis was not deemed necessary. The process change would not financially ir~pact the Area Municipalities or the Region because in most cases an e×isting employee would facilitate the one-point-of-contact role. The project coordinator rote is simply change in responsibility with time devdted to aiding communication between the reviewing entities and the develo.~rnent community. However, if it becor~es apparent duri~g~ Strategy developr~ent that some Area Municipalities might incur increrner~tal costs, these should be identified and quantified at that time. The change would r~ot be dih~icult to ir'nplernent, as there is no change to ~he current engineering r~view or fee collection methodology. However, if Area Municipalities require assistance in facilitating the new process, there is an opportunity to have engineerir~g consultants act o~ of the Are~ Mur~icipalities or the Region to facilitate the review process. 1.6 WEED CONTROL ACT ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVE St/, 5ISL'.R5 Enforcement of the \Veed Control Act is currently a Regional responsibility. During the Stage I Review it was seen by the \VDW Coirmaittee to have potential benefits if transferred to ti~e local area municipal level, therefore the concept was proposed for study during Stage II. This business case has identified the benefits of transferring Weed Control Enforcement to the ,Area Municipal level as being largely qualitative in nature. These qualitative benefits are reviewed in detail in section 5, however the main benefits can be summarized as: · the ability of the local municipality to determine and direct its own level of SCI%'ico · enhanced efficiency' through elimination of thc need for the Regional Finance Department to be invoh'ed in invoicing for cuts and processing tracking delinquent accounts for reimbursement through the property tax process. · Possible public perception and customer service enhancements. There are no significant financial benefits to ;ransferring the weed control function, inspections and mowing costs are generally recovered tkrough fees cimrged to offending property owners. Total net costs to the Region are about 520,000 annually. This is predominantly for clerical'administrative costs that are a portion of the portfolios of two existing fulltime positions. These positions would not be eliminated if weed control enforcement tra:sferred to thc .Area Municipal level. In addition, when extrapolating inspection'mowing costs and recoveries (which would transfer), the net cost savings to the Region would be $1,000, based on 2001 projections. WDW Committee Members consulted' with their respective By-Law Enforcement colleagues and all are receptive (although noi overly enthusiastic) to assuming responsibility for Weed Control Act enforcement. Those with lesser volumes of weed inquiries,'complaints indicated they would utilize existing internal resources to administer the pro,ams, while others with larger volumes of calls indicated they would contract with the existing seasonal Weed 7mspectors to investigate inquiries and resolve complaints. It should be noted that, since Oshawa has declined to participate in the Stage II Review, their position on this matter is not ko, own. Through discussion of this business case, WDW Committee Members concluded that, overall, there is no significaztt positive benefit to transferring Weed Control ATTACHMENTf~ ~,4 TOP, EPOKI'# 6E~ boG-b~;~ Act enforcement to the Area Municipal level as the program is currently working effectively and there is no material financial benefit to be gained by a change. The WDW Committee therefore recommends: THAT enforcement of the I, Veed Control Act remain the responsibilio' of the _Region of Durham to coordinate and administer. 1.7 ROAD-RELATED PEILMITS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Stage I Review, the x,\©W Committee saw possible benefits to examining a "one-window" approach to receiving and processing road-related permit applications. By this it was envisaged that an applicant could go to any municipality within the Region to complete a standardized form(s), and could also have permits that cross municipal boundaries processed at one location. The most common types of road-related permits are "Entrance" and "Road Occupancy" permits (ie for access onto a municipal road from a property owner and/or for uses such as moving over-sized loads, temporary road closures, utility installatiort/maintenance (hydro'bell/cable). and special events/filming.) Reference Schedule A for an overview of current road-related pemtits and practices. The WDW Committee has determined that the main benefit to introducing a one- window approach to road-related permit processing would be qualitative in nature -- specifically, enhanced accessibility. There would be no financial benefit. In addition, the one-window approach would be less e£ficient thm~ the present system, as permits issued and fees collected by one municipality on behalf of another would require pubiic works training coordination in oti~er municipalities' permit processes, and would also involve Finance Departments in the accounting and transfer of payments. There are, however, a number of xvavs in which customer service and public accessibility can be enhanced, with much tess time and effort than pursuing the one-window approach: · The Region could provide Area Municipalities with basic information about its road-related permits lie processing contact information and a supply of forms) in the event a local applicant needs a Regional permit, also. · Similarly, Area Municipalities could provide the Region with basic information about their road-related permits in the event an appiicant needs a local permit, too. · In the case of over-size&over-weight load moving permits, the Ontario Good Roads Association, in conjunction with MTO and the Ontario Truckers Association (OTA) is currently exploring the interest and feasibility for a computerized "one-windov,'" province-wide system, that would provide the necessary customer service/accessibility for truckers that the WDW Committee sought to provide inter-municipally. This initiative should be 4') ATTACHMENT# ~_~__TO REPOKT# 0~$ 00~-6~ supposed ~d enco~aged, ~d each m~cipality should p~icipate in the OG~ s~ey. Fo~s could be st~d~dized ~d phnting requirements jointly tendered, thus also e~cing economies of scale. Requirements could be st~d~dized (ie for en~ce pe~its, utility/o~er consents, etc.), where possible. Fees could be reviewed with a view to st~d~dization where possible/fe~ible. In summary, the WDW Committee has concluded the Business Case examining its original concept of a full-scale one-window approach to road-related permitting, as proposed during Stage I, to be more negative than beneficial, but that specific enhancements targeted to customer service and accessibility should be pursued. It therefore recommends: .~ "THAT a "one-window" approach to road-related permit processing not be pursued; THAT the ~4~D~V Committee facilitate introduction of customer service enhancements to road-related permitting, as detailed above and in the Conclusions Section (7) of this Business Case." 43 ATTACHMENT ~ ~_~TO REPORT# 1.8 VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT PURCHASING EXECUTIVE SUM~L4RY The Stage I Report recommended that "the feasibiiitv of purchasing vehicles and equipment on a co-operative tender basis be investigated further, m~d that a business case be d,,xeioped in consultation with the Durham Purchasing Co- operative (municipal purchasing agents.)" In discussion with the Durham Purchasing Co-operative, the following comments/suggestions to further the joint tendenng effort have been determined: There is benefit to having a cooperative tender. Dealers would have one comprehensive bid document outlining ali region-wide requirements (at least for those municipalities that have a desire to participate in the joint tender), and it may result m more competitive pricing and interest from a wider pool of dealers. · Share capital budgets with Co-op members as earl)' as possible, as this would allow for identification of conm~on purchases for the coming ),ear. Summarize capital budgets and forecasts as they relate to vehicles, equipment and ancillary capital purchases (similar to Schedule B. attached), as this provides an easy-reference "snapshot" for determination of common purchasing needs. Create a Committee of staff, knowledgeable about the vehictes equipment planned for purchase, to work on standardizing specifications to the extent possible/feasible. Seek pre-budget approval for vehicle equipment tenders at a common timeframe to facilitate the joint tendering process from a timing perspective and ensure sufficient icad-time and ability to secure the current model year for vehicles. In addition, the Durham Purchasing Co-operative has offered a representative to work in conjunction with the WDW Committee to further co-operative purchasing opportunities. The V~qDW Committee has concluded there is merit in pursuing joint tendering of vehicles and equipment, and appreciates the input and suggestions from the Durham Purchasing Cooperative and welcomes their assistance. To this end, the WDW Cormnittee recommends: ::i'TACHME,K~T #.~___~ TO R.E"POKT'#~ ~o6-02. "THAT the I~Z)I~' Committed facilitate the formatiot~ of a committee of public works staff to work in consultation with the Durham Purchasing Cooperative to effect the suggestions outlined in above and in Section $.3." ,15 4F ,"FA C H i"i E,r';,-~ :: _TO ~PORT#, 6E$ 605-0¢b.,~ A.~( CILLAR 17 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STA GE I REPORT 1.1 1.2 BACKGROUND & SUMMARY As part of the Stage I Report, the ~,T)W Committee made two recommendations that did not require further stud,,,'. To ensure reporting on all recommendations emanating from the Stage I Report, these two recommendations are discussed, in brief, below, and are respectfully submitted for formal consideration as part of the Stage II Review. On-going Review of Road Network and Depot Locations During Stage I and again throughout Stage II, the V,T)W Committee identified the need and merit for a mechanism to periodically review the road network and depot locations. The road network would continue to cvoh'e with ffowth throu~out the region, and there would be changes in usage and traffic patterns. As was demonstrated throughout this study, some Re~ional roads may become more "local" in use and some local roads may become more "regional" in nature in terms of interconnectivity and traffic flow across municipal boundaries. Similarly, depot facilities will require upgrade or expansion over time, or new locations may be required. Both the road network and depots are significant business programs of thc municipalities. As with any business program, there should be a mechanism for periodic review and evaluation. The WDW Committee presents a cooperative forum for this to occur. It therefore respectfully recommends: THAT the Public II'or~ Officials' It'DIt' Co,mmi;;ee be tho florum for on-going review and rationalization qf [/~e road network and de, o[ /oca;z'ons [o provide a periodic evaluation tnechanism for these ~usz'no55 ~rograms. Lead on Infrastructure Projects During the Stage I Review, the WDW Committee identified that the current practice of collaborating with one another on construction projects involving two jurisdictions could be further enhanced. Specifically, it was felt there were benefits to having one party coordinate the entire capital project. The WDW Committee a~eed that the proponent'initiator of a construction project involving another jurisdiction(s) (such as watennain repiacement or road reconstruction) should take the lead in design, construction supervision and contract administration throughout ti~e project. The benefits were seen to be reduced collective staff time and reduced timeframes for the project schedule. ATTACHHENT# ~ TO E, EPOi~T # 0~,~ ©0~ To a l~g~ extent this value-added practice h~ been implemented ~d has been ~her discussed and refined d~ng the Stage II Review. The ~W Co~ittee wishes to focalize this practice ~d respect~lly reco~ends: THAT the proponent/initiator of an infrastructure project involving more than one municipality take the lead in the design, supervision of construction and contract administration throughout the project, subject to agreement fi'om Area Municipalities. RECONIN1ENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS CONINIlTTEE DATE MOVED That Report OES 004-02. concerning Liverpool Road South Area. Detail Rexiexx. be receixed for information; and That tile remaining capital pro.iect balance of 52 9(~ 383 approxed in 2000 tbr S'tOT'rlq Sewer Improvements and Road V~'idening - Lixerpool Road from Old Orchard Road to Commerce Street Account .-,~,=0-0181, be reallocated to Phase One (Millennium Square to Wharf Street} of tile Liverpool Road South Area Detail Reviexv: and That 525.000 from this tLtnding be approved to }lire a consultan~ to prepare design details of the landscape and streetscape components for the Grea~ Lakes Nautical Village Theme: and 4 That stalTofthe City o£Pickering be authorized to uixe effect hereto PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Richard W. Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head Municipal Property & Engineering DATE February 18, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 004-02 SUBJECT: Liverpool Road South Area Detail Review City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Report OES 004-02 be received for information That the remaining capital project balance of $206,383 approved in 2000 for Storm Sexver Improvements and Road Widening - Liverpool Road from Old Orchard Road to Commerce Street - Account No. 2320-6181, be reallocated to Phase One ( Millennium Square to Wharf Street) of the Liverpool Road South Area Detail Review and That $25,000 from this funding be approved to hire a consultant to prepare design details of the landscape and streetscape components for the Great Lakes Nautical Village Theme. 4. That staff of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect hereto. Year 2000 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code RC-0001 Council Resolution #10/02 at the January 21, 2002 meeting to the Planning & Development Report PD 42-01 Liverpool Road South Detail Review AUTHORITY: Year 2000 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code RC-0001 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Balance of funding - 2000 Capital Budget- 2320-6181 Liverpool Road - Project Code - RC0001 Funding requested for Consultant - Great Lakes Nautical Theme Funding available for Phase One - Liverpool Road Millenium Square to Wharf Street to be constructed in a future year. $206,383.00 25,000.00 $181,383.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A Report to Council OES 004-02 SubJect: Liverpool Road South Detail Review City of Pickering Date' February 18, 2002 Page 2 BACKGROUND: In the 2000 Capital Budget. 5220.0t)tl ,,',as approved in account :320-6181 for storm sewer inlprovements and road reconstruction including v, idening, new granular base, concrete curbs and asphalt pavement for Liverpool Road i'~-on,l Old Orchard Avenue to Commerce Street. The project was deferred to the fblloxving >'ear due to the amount of construction activity that was anticipated in tile area. The Millennium Square project at thc bottom of Liverpool Road had just started construction in May', 2000 and ````-as expected to run ``,,ell into the Fall. The Region of Durham ````'as undertaking maintenance work to tine existing xvatennain over the course ot7 tile Summer in tile Liverpool Road area. It was also proposed that the construction of the Front Street Park be considered that ,,'ear. hoxvever, it was later deferred to another ,,'ear. In the Spring of 2000 the City of Pickering's Planning & Dcvclopnlent Department initiated the '~Livcrpool Road South Area Detail Review". This stud`` enCOlnpassed Liverpool Road fl'on,l Bayly Street southerly to the Nlillennium Square Project. Thc purpose of the study, given the strategic role of the Liverpool Road South Area in realizing thc comprehensive waterfront vision, was to complete a detail review prior to any i-i-l[~jor development occun-ing that could potentially impact upon the future use, £unction and goals of the Li`` crpool Road South Area. The Planning & Development Departn~ent has sLzbnnitted Report to Council PD 42-()1 and an Addendum to Report Number PD 42-*)1 providnng inlbnnation regarding the Liverpool Road South Detailed Review Implementation at tile ,!anL~ar'x £1. 2~02 Council meeting. Resolution ::10 02 ````'as passed adopting recommendations contained in addendmn to Report PD 42-/~1. Upon review of the Liverpool Road SoL, ti2 .-Xrca Detail Reviev: Part 1 & 2, it is being recommended by staff that the underground works and road reconstruction component of the project proceed in four phases starting at the soutt,l end. Phase One would be from the Millennium Square to Wharf Street. Phase -I'xvo x~ot~ld be t-rom Wharf Street to Commerce Street. Phase Three would be !:rom Conmlerce Street to Haller Avenue. Phase Four would be from Haller Avenue to Bayl,v Street. In order to accommodate the proposed tohasing, and utilize t'unds that have been approved I'or this area, staff recommends that the remaining funds {S,00.~,So.0/~) be reallocated to thc, Phase One area identified in the Liverpool Road South Area Detail Review. Staff also recommend that S25.000 from the realtocated funds, be used to retain a consultant with engineering expertise to work out the design details of the landscape and streetscape for the implementation of the Great Lakes Nautical Village Theme. Once the design details have been worked out for this component of the project, then a more comprehensive Engineering Estimate can be completed for the entire project including tine phasing. A balance of 5,181,383 xvill be used, in a future year, to fund construction related to Phase One I Nliltenium Square to Wharf Street). ATTACHMENTS: Council Resolution ~10'02 of Januarx' 21.2{~)(_)2 nnecting 0 Report to Council OES 004-02 Subject: Liverpool Road South Area Detail Review City of Pickering Date: February 18, 2002 Page" Prepared By: Darrell Selsky ' Supervisor, Municipal Works Approved / Endorsed By: Everett Buntsma, Director Operations & Emergency Services R.W. Holborn4 P. Eng. Division Head Municipal Property & Engineering I:'xCOUNCILX, OES 004-02.docFeb-02 Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Planning & Development Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT CLERK'S DIVISION MEMORANDL%( January 24, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Nell Carroll, Director, Planning & Development Bruce Taylor, Clerk Referrals from Council Meeting of Januau Please be advised that the Council of the City of Picketing passed Resolution #10/02, at the Council Meeting of January 21, 2002, as follows: That Council adopt the recommendations contained in Addendum to Report PD 42-01 substituting Appendices B and C of the Addendum Report for Appendices I and II of the original report PD 424)1, the effect of which deletes the A-1 residential precinct. Bruce Taylor BT:dk Copy: T.J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer 072 HCKERING RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That Report to Council CAO 02-02 concerning a new fire hall site and building on Highway 7, be received; and That Council authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal, generally as set out in Attachment No. 1 to this Report, for the hiring of a consultant to complete the required federal environmental assessment for the fire hall site, and to conclude the building design and construction program for the fire hall building. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL [:R()~I: Thomas J. Quinn I):\'I-t{: (Thief Admilnistratix c ()fficcr Ri:I)()R I Nt'NIBER: S['tLII:C"I': Now I-'irc tlall Site and Buildin: Issuance of Request Ibr Proposal File: [:D 1001) ~Xlarch 1<). 21)()2 C..\() ()_-0_ l'hat Report to Council ¢'.\()<)'-()~ c<~::ce:'init:g a ncx~ ISn't hall site and building I [ighxva.x 7 be received. .kttachmcnt No. 1 to this Rep,vt. tbr :}~c hiring of :: consultant to complete thc required Ikdcral cnxironmemat assessment for thc Ikc hall site. and to conclude thc building design and construction pro?ann for thc I5i'c hall building. ( )Itl(iiX' ('lo.%t. lI'e el' Brougham fire lnaI1 station because A[' Tt t( )RITY: 77w Mtmic'i?~d :Icl. R.S.O. 1991; FINANCIAi~ IMPI~IC.-\'I'IONS' The cost of hiring a consultant to complete thc federal cnx ironmcntal asse>sment and to conclude the building design and construction program lbr thc ncxx dfc tnall site and building will be determined through the review of submissiolaS received in response lo tile Citx's Request Ibr Proposals (RFP). Sufficient funds to co\ct thc cost of hiring a consultant have boon set aside in the 2001 Capital Budget. Account 224u-01 SI (Fire Protection ()finer Fixed Assets). EXECUTIVE SUhlNI.-\R'f: This Report requests ¢'ounciI's autlnori×ation :o tm,coed xxitin fine is>uanco ,~1' :: l<cquc~t Ibr lh'oposal (RFP) Ibr thc hiring of construction documents Ibr tine fi:'c hA1 building. 'Iht RI-}) i> included zis.Nttcichmcnt No. 1 to this Report. If Council authorizes staff to proceed, thc RFP xNoLlld be I:n'Jli/ed and issued to eight firms known to thc Citx as being capable of undertaking finis pr'oiect. .\,, well. an\ other firms that express an interest in the project will bc issued thc RI:'[>. O74 Report to Council CAO 02-02 Subject: New Fire ftalt Site and Building Date: March 19. 2002 Page 2 Consultants would be required to submit proposals before the end of April. The proposals would then be reviewed and staff would make a recommendation to Council on the hiring of a consultant. Should Council agree to proceed, the consultant would then likely commence the project in June, with a targeted completion date by the end of 2002 or earn 2003. Should the project proceed as anticipated, the City would then be in a position to issue tenders tbr the construction ora new fire hall building on Highway 7 in 2003. BACK(SROUND: Attached as Attachment No. 1 to this Report is a Request for Proposal (RFP) to complete a federal environmental assessment tbr a new fire hall site on Highxvay 7 between Brougham and Green River, and to conclude the building design and construction program tbr the fire hall building. The RFP has been prepared in accordance with the City's recently adopted Purclmsing Policy. and would be issued to the fbllowing firms (as well as any other firms that subsequently express an interest in the project): · Barrs'.Bu'an Associates Limited. Architects & Engineers. Whitbv · Gerald P. Belanger Architect Inc.. Brmnpton · Jurecka & Associates. Toronto · Mills & Associates Limited Architect. Oshawa · RAI Architects inc., Pickering · Thomas E. Brown Architect Inc.. Toronto · Toddglen Construction Ltd.. Toronto · Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, Whitby A new fire hall is needed in tine Highway 7 corridor to allow for adequate full time fire service in this part of ttne City, which includes Highway 407, as well as thc hamlets of Brougham, Whitevale, Green River and Greenwood. The new hall would replace the Brougham fire hall that was closed two years ago because of mould contamination. In addition to building a replacement fire hall station, the City has a cost-effective opportunity at this location to include in the construction program, a new headquarters/dispatch facility to replace the current facility we have in Station #5 on Bayly Street. Station #5 has been in service since the late 1960's, and was never meant to be the permanent location for the City's headquarters/dispatch. The building is small, has no ability to be expanded, and requires on- going maintenance and repairs. Station #5 is also located within the 3 km Contiguous Zone of the nuclear plant, and therefore might not be available should there be a nuclear incident that requires evacuation of the Zone. The RFP has therefbre been xvritten to allow for the inclusion of a headquarters/dispatch facility at the new location. As well, provision has been made to accommodate the relocation of tlne City's Municipal Operations Centre (MOC) from the Claremont Community Centre to tiffs new building. Three sites on the north side of Highway 7 are under consideration Ibr the new fire hall building (see map included in RFP). Each site is 8 acres in size, which provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate the required facilities (fire hall, headquarters/dispatch facility, MOC. and ancillary uses). All of the sites would allow for excellent fire response to the federal and provincial lands. and to our rural settlements areas (including Green River, Whitevale, Brougham. Grccnxvoo& Claremont and Kinsale). All locations would also allow tbr easy access to Highway 407. The construction of the new facility would also mean that the City would no longer require a response agreement with Whitchurch-Stouffville, and in fact may allow the City to enter into agreements xx'ith abutting municipalities to provide fire protection. The sites are all located on lands o~vned by the Federal Government, and theretbre a ['ederal environmental assessment must be completed beIbre the lands can be sold, leased or otlnerwise transferred to the City by the Government. The completion of a federal environmental assessment report has therefore been included in the City's RFP process. Report to Council C:\O 02-02 ,<,Ldo oct: X'exv t:ire Hall Site ai:d Buildin~ I)ate: ,Xlarch 19. 2002 Page 3 Thc sites arc all also located within the area currcntlx *uNcct. to an interim plannin-= process by thc Greater Toronto Airports .-kutlaoritv (GTAA), .kccordinsl5, thc Citx has obtained written confirmatioia /\om the GTAA that it docs not oppose a Ilrc hall on thc lands, and that it has no prclkrence lbr any of thc tlnrcc sites (zixcn that thcs arc all located on tine periphery of the/kderal oxxncrship), ttowevcr, thc (N.k.k docs adxlsc that it }nas onl} just begun its interim planning proccssandthcrclbrccannotproxidcadcfinitixcrcspon~ca~tthistimc. Nlorcinlbnnationwillbc that thc ikdcral environmental assessment can bc completed this x car. and thc buildin~ design and COlastruction documents can bo substantiallx conaplctcd before scar' end. This will allow thc City to be in a position to tender thc constructio~q of thc non i~I'C }mil building in 2003. A decision on the specific site to be selected Ibr thc t'itx'> ~7cxx Iirc hall building will be made belbrc tile consultant commences xxoi'k oi2 thc IL'doral cnx ironmcntal asscssnacnt report. .VI' I'.\('f tXIENT: Divi sion It cad. 'C4, rporatc Proj e~.~ TM Attachment Copy: Director. Operations dc t!mcr~cncx Ncrviccs Division Head, Corporate t)rdccts ,~: Polio\ t:ire Chief ,Mai:a,,cr Buildin~ Scrxicc~ (t'.B.() / l-}ecommcndcd lbr the consideration of Pickcril2~ C'itx Council T~o~Sas J. O~inn. Cgnief Adn~ AT-~CHMEN¢# I TO REPORT#~,~! q76 PICKERING Request for Proposal RFP - - 2002 Consulting Services, Fire Services Headquarters DRAFT March 12, 2002 ATTACHMENl #_j Request tbr Proposal RI:P- _()(_ Consulting Services. Fire Sm-vices Headquarters 077 INFORMATION TO BII)DERS The intent of this request for proposal is to secure inlbFmation on the services outlined m the 'I'crms ot'Rct~rence attached herein. Fine t'itv max or max not enter into a contract as a result of this request Ibr proposals. It' thc City determines 1]1',i~ iL i5 able to enter into a contract, the intent is to secure one company to pFovidc complctc scFx ices. Stl bm ission s Proposals have been requested l'rom thc I'oll~xvii~ consultat~ts' · Barrs'.Bu, an Associates limited. Architects & tmgineers. Whitbv · (}eratd P. Bclanger Architect Inc.. lh-amt>tOl~ .lurecka & Associates. Toronto Mills & Associates limited Architect. ()sha-a · RAI Architects Inc.. Picketing Thomas E. Brown Architect inc.. ]'ot'ontt, Toddglen Construction l,td., lorontt, t)roposals will be received by the Suptqy& %cFxit'cs. (oFporatc %crx'iccs Department, Picketing ('ivic ('omplex. One tile Esplanade. Picketing. ()nmrit~. I.]V 6K7 until 4:30pm Friday, April 26, 2{1t}2. '['wo copies of thc proposal arc rcquiFcd, sigl~cd by a principal of the prime consulting firm. The City of Pickering reserves the Fight to cancel the request For proposals at any time, and/or to re:ject m~v or all proposals Inquiries concerning thc 'Icrnas tit' RcI'crencc ,,r :mx point of clarillcation with regau'd to this request tbr proposal should be directed to Vera A. Felgcmacher, cPpo. c.t'.p.. CNIN11 Manager, Suppl.,,' & Services Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 (905) 420-4616 Any such clarifications so given shall not in any wax altcF the docuincnts, and the compmLv and tile City hereby agree that in no case shall oral arrangement, be considered. %hould more infommtion or claritication oFany point be required, it must be obtained prior to thc submission ora contract. ATTACHMENT# I__. TI P~O!~'- ~;/~ d Fees must include all incidental costs, and the consultant must be satisfied as to the total requirements of this request fbr proposal. Pricing is subject to Goods and Services 'Fax. Provincial Sales 'Fax is not applicable. The City shall not be liable for any cost of preparation or presentation of proposals, and all proposals and accompanying documents submitted bv the respondents become the properU,, of the City, and will not be returned. Proposals submitted shall be considered final and may not be altered bv subsequent offerings, discussions or commitments unless authorized by the City. All intbrmation relating to, but not limited to, pricing, references, records and company information will be protected ~vhere provided lbr by the Municipal Freedom o./'b?/brma~ion a~d Protection o/¥ndividua[ Privacy Act. Content of Submissions Submissions are intended to provide a framework fo]: the City to evaluate each proposal and determine which consulting team can provide services which will most closely address the City's needs. Consultants are encouraged to include anv additional information or innovative approaches not specifically indicated in the terms of reference with their proposal. The proposal must include the following: 1. Prime consultant profile 2. Sub consultant profiles 3. Prqjectteamresnmes 4. Selected recent projects 5. Client references Summary of Professional Services (a description of the services proposed, describing the methodology which will be followed to carry out the different phases of the work). Schedule (a preliminary timetable including target dates for completing the various phases of work, assuming a start date in early June, 2002, the completion and appr6val of the building design by December 31, 2002, and construction completed in 2003). Fee Structures (a detailed summary of the fees proposed, structured according to ma, jor work components. Include all percentage based fees, proposed upset amounts, per diem rates for project team members and disbursement rates. Fees for geotectmical and other site surveys, and charges levied by approval agencies, need not be included. All fees lnust be effective to the anticipated date of completion of this contract). ATTACHMENT #_.! Evaluation of l'roposals & A~¥ard of Contract It is the intention of the City to emplo5 co~a~ulta~ar~ ~ctacralIv on the ba~is of their demonstrated competence and expertise, their ability t<, complete the work timely, efficiently and effectively, their past record in pertbrming simik~r work and the cos~ el' their se~Sccs. Proposals will be evaluated on thc basis of intbrmatior~ prox ided in the submission. An evaluation team comprised off a working group from ~hc (_'itx will contact selected bidders for interviews. Further information or clarilication o~ fl~c ct,ntc~s ,,l' st~bmissions may be required. The selection of the consultant will be based tm (m cx-:flu~mon to determine which proposafl best meets the needs of thc City. 'lhc City reserves t}~c ri?at :o request additional inlbrmation from appropriate. In receiving proposals, the ('itv accepts no obli~a<ion ~,I' ~_lI~.\' kind to accept any proposal. Should the City receive only one proposal submissitm, fl~c ('ilx reserves the right to axvard the proposal to the proponent of' thc soic submissio~a, t{~ recall lbo request lbr proposals or to cancel the proposal call in its entil'etv. No liabilitx shzfll ~iccruc to thc (.'itx for its decision in this regard. :\Il lirms arc required to disclose in xxritin~ xx ith ttacir prthposafi amx potential conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest docs exist, thc City rcscrx'c5 tlqc right, att its discretion, to withhold the assignment Ii'om thc al/Doted consult:mts. .h~qx ct,~m'~tct xxith thc City based on this proposal is entered into on the part of thc ¢'itv in full Ikfitta that ~qt) member of thc ('itv Council or OflScer of the City has any interest wllatsocx cr herein. ATTACHMENT# ] TO REPORT TERMS OF REFERENCE Project Obiective The City of Picketing is a growing municipality of 90.000 on the eastern border of Toronto. consisting of an urbanized area along the lakeshore and a large rural area to the north. The City currently operates three fire stations in the urban area. mid one volunteer thcilitv in a rural hmnlet. The City requires the services of an experienced architect and consulting teana to plan, design and manage the approval and delivery, of its new Fire Services Headquarters in North Pickering. This facility will incorporate fire response, administration, commmfications, training facilities and am emergency operations centre. It is anticipated that the new faciliD~ will be located on the north side of Highway 7 on lands currently owned by the Federal Government. A Federal Environmental Assessment is required before a federal authority can sell, lease, or otherwise transfkr control or administration of land to enable a project to be carried out. The completion of the requisite environmental assessment process and other required approvals will be among the prqiect deliverables. This contract will be of interest to consultants with expertise in fire station design, laa~d use plarming, environmental assessment and project management. Scope of Services A prime consultant is required to coordinate and report on behalf of the consulting team to a working group appointed by the City to oversee the development of this prqiect. Most communications will be through the working group, however one or more presentations by the consultant to City Council or other committees may be required. The project and required scope of services has two principal components: · ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVALS · BUILD1NG DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Below is a general summary of some of the kev components of the expected services. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVALS Environmental Assessment Preliminary site locations for the Fire Services Headquarters have been identified and are currently being reviewed by the City (see attached map). The Canadian Environmental Assessmen! Act (CEAA) requires the application of the federal enviromnental assessment process to this project. The consultant will: ATTACHMENT #_ [ conduct meetings and negotiate with representatives from federal government agencies, the Greater l'oronto Ai¢o~ Authority. thc City and other approval authorities as required undertake all aspects of the ('EA_X screening process, including background inlbrmation, study reports and other requirements, as applicable, and complete the required Ct'.AA Environmental Screening Report to the satislhction of the City and tine responsible /Dcteral authority (~l'ransport (7mmda). such that the prQ}ect can proceed. Site SurYevs anti Investigations The consultant will arrange lbr and co,~rctinatc tlnc timch production of the appropriate geotecImical, topographical, h:,drological and other %itc inxcstigations as required by CEAA, other approval agencies, and as necessary for thc productitm and approval of sev,'age system and building design and construction documents. BI[II,DI~ (, DESIGN AND C()NSI'Igt:('I'I()N Buildin,, l'ro,,ram A detailed design brief lbr the new builcting has hccn completed t~v thc City. A summm*v of gross area requirements and uses is included in thc pro. icct description within ti~ese terms el'reference. Thc consultant ,,,,'ill: · reviewtlao program · conclude the progranmaing process bx rcc,~mmcndin,~ a Iinal program to thc satisthction of the Citx l)esig_~ l'he City is committed to a high standard of design in all its facilities, with particular emphasis on sensitivity to the existing and future context. It is '~mticipated that full architectural services will be required as described in the Canadian StaIldrdI'd }"Orlll oF Agreement Bctx~een Client and Architect (Doc'ument Six). including: · completion of a schematic design xxhich successl'ul]x synthesizes the program requirements, budget considerations ~d the requirements (q' approval ziuth()rities into thc most appropriate architectural fom~ · investigating the most appropriate building materials and systems · fine tuning elements of the building program where al~propriate during design devch)pment · reviewing design proposals with thc city working group · incorporating the requirements of the City's [>laiming & 1)evetopmcnt I)epanment, the Region of Durham, Transport Canada. (}rearer loronto Airport .kut}aoritv. l'oronto Region Conse~'ation Authority m2d other approval authorities. · concluding the design development by prodt~cin~ ISilal design documents to the satislhction of the City, and to the approval of Citx Council ATTACHMENT# J TO REFORT Construction Documents The consultant will: · prepare all required sewage system and building construction drawings and specifications · coordinate the work of all consultants · apply tbr and obtain the approval of all authorities baying jurisdiction over the project · apply for, provide all necessary documentation and obtain the building permit · provide the necessary completed, coordinated and approved dra~vings and specifications tbr the tendering process · conduct a tender prequalification auld prepare a list of recommended qualified contractors review the construction bids and make recommendations · make anv necessary post tender an~endments in order to maintain the project xvithin the approved budget Contract Administration The consultant will: · represent and provide advice to the Cib' during the construction phase · prepare all necessary documentation tbr thc contractor, City and other parties · review the work, monitor the contractor's performance during the progress of the work. and provide timely updates to the City with respect to achievement against the contract schedule · rccord mim~tes of site meetings and all site instructions · reviexv shop drawings, smnples and other submissions bv the contractor · coordinate the xvork of all sub consultants, including general reviews during construction · ensure that the contractor fulfils the obligations of the construction contract Cost Planning and Control Comprehensive cost planning during the preliminaw design stages, followed by effective cost control during the detailed design, construction documents and contract administration stages is a particular requirement of this contract. In order to carry, out this function the consultant will: · advise on the most cost-effective strategies in all stages of the work · prepare a Level 1 cost estimate during the predesign stage, utilizing qualified sources · prepare a Level 2 cost estimate at the completion of design development, prior to the fiual design being considered for City approval · prepare a Level 3 cost estimate at an appropriate stage prior to the completion of thc construction documents ATTACHMENT #_ / f183 l'roiect Description Site Sites of approximately eight acres on thc ~(~rth sictc of [ti~hxxay T. x~csl of Brock Rd. arc currently under review and arc gcnorall> described o~q ~he axtuchcd map. It is expected that the site in order to permit tiffs dcvdopmcnt u, proceed. Buildin Pro rainlh' hliohts · approximately 18.000 square feet. one storey · provision lbr thture expansion · 40 parking spaces separate elnergency vehicle access 360 degree building access on site water reservoir Clnergcncy apparatus, cominunicatioi~s ~tnd axlministrution functions ~ sec attached StlllllllaO') integrated municipal }hncrgcnc>'()pcratio~q5 ('entre muhi functional meeting areas X bay apparatus floor with drive-thru cupubility barrier-fi'cc access tlwoughout principal building areas separate public & staff entry Budg_~. l'hc total project budget for this dcvelopn~cnt is $.3.5 imllion, inclusive of site development, building construction, furnishings and consulting. Schedule Project Commencement: Construction l)ocumcnts' Occupancy: .lunc _0 )_ ATTACHMENT# / TO REPORT 'Functional Program Requirements for Fire Headquarters Function I ft2 per Unit I Units Required I Areas Garage 2x 3 bays I 3500 j~ ____ 1 I 3500 Communications Communications office 600 1 600 Small washroom 50 1 50~ Supervisor office 140 - - t 140 EOC I Meeting Public Enquiry Centre (EOC/FD) 500 1 500 R_adi~o~ RQ_o_m (E~OC~only) 100 1 100 Storage.__ __R°°m (EOC_ .... only) ~ 1~0.0 __ 1 100 Large_Trai~ning~R0om (EOC/FD) 1500 1 1500 Media Meeting Area (EOC/FD) , 400 1 400 Conference Room - 15 persons (EOC/FD) 300 1 300 Building Services Janitor 40 1 I 40 Generator Room 80 i 1[ __ 8(~ Mechanical Room 300 ! 1 ~ 300 Electrical Room -- 5~0 -~ 1 50 Common / Support Facilities Lobby 200 1 200 Physical Fi_t?_ess/~!rst Aid _ 400 1 400 Common ro?m2__operations ~00 1 200 Common room - administration_ ....... , 2~© ---- 1 200 Locker Room Male 15 8 120 Locker Room Female 15 6 90 Dormitory Male 100 8 800 Dormitory Female 100 6 600 Male Washrooms 450 1 450 Female Washrooms 200 1 200 Lunchroom/kitchen 400 1 400 Laundry 75 1 75 Eq uipm en_!_Stor?_ge 200 1 200 Bunker Gear Storage -- -1-0 ....... 24 - 240 'H0se Tower ........... ~,50 -- -- 1 ..... ~)- Hose Storage 200 1 200 Circulation @ 15% x 13068 ~-960~ I 1960 -- Administration (Chief 240 1 240 Deputy Chief's 200 2 Divisional Chiefs 1§0 - 2 -- -- '360--- EOC Co-coordinator 140 1 14~) HR Operations and Emergency Services 140 1 140 Training and Fire Prevention Staff 100 10 1000 Association Office 1~10 ' -- I 140 Ad ministrative Assistant 140 1 140 Photo-copy/Fax (EOC/FD) 100 1 100 Support Staff 120 4 -- 480 Fire Prevention Storage 200 1 200 Administration Storage 200 1 200 Training Storage 200 1 200 Total Gross Area Requirement i 17885 ATTACHMENT #2__TO REFOF~T ;,T',W~_ ~.'~;' - c Z PICKEI G RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That Report OES 012-02 providing information on the Region of Durham's 2002 Regional Road Capital Program and Four-Year Forecast be received. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM' Richard W. Holbein, P, Eng. DATE: March 18, 2002 Division Head, Municipal Property& Engineering REPORT NUMBER: OES 012-02 SL BJECT: 2(102 Regional Road Capital Pro,ram and Four-Year Forecast RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Report OES 012-07.' providin,5 information on tile Region Regional Road Capital Program and Four-Year Forecast be received. of Durham's 2002 ORIGIN: Report: 20 }2-J-11 ,()(), Regional Roads Sepdc~n< and Financing $tudx February ~" 2002 AUTHORITY: N'A FINANCIAL L\IPLICATIONS: The projects identified by the Region of Durham in tile 2¢)!)2 Road Program are to be financed by the Region of Durham with the exception of 575,000 Ibr thc Ahona Road Rougemount Drive intersection improvements which was approved by tine City of Picketing in tile 2001 Capital Budget 2321-6007, External Subdivision \Vorks. Traffic Signals. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Pickering recommends Rc<ional Road Construction prionties on ail annual basis to tile Region of Durham for their consideration during the budget and 20recasting process. 1'he Reg. ion's 2001 Road Proo~ram Report OES 007-01 recommending priorities for 2001 was considered bx City Council on April 17, 2001 and subsequently received as correspondence (CC ::13t)~ at thc Regional Works Committee (\VC-31-2001) on Max 9. 2001. Tho Region's £t)f)l Road Program addressed four of the eight priority projects in tho xxav of Environmental Assessment work, design and/or construction on Brock Road, Finch Avenue and Altona Road. Another priority project was completed as a canT'-ox'er oI'a 21~I)() Capital Project which was the installation of automotive signals and v,'aming gates at tile CP Rail level crossing on Altona Road. The Regional Road budget also addressed two ortner projects, namelx thc Environmental Assessment work for the Date: March 18, 2002 Report to Council OES 012-02 Subject: 2002 Regional Road Capital Program and Four-Year Forecast Page 2 Greenwood By-pass (Westney Road) and an urbanization project on Regional Road #5 (Claremont) for safety improvements in front of Claremont Public School. At the Regional Works Committee meeting of October 31, 2001, Report # 2001-W-133 was considered. This was a status report on the 2001 Regional Roads Capital Program, but specifically, the reason for the report was to advise of additional commitments (funding) required for four major projects in Oshawa and Ajax. The additional amounts total $1,209,700. The report recommended several sources for financing the additional costs, all within the planned expenditures of their 2001 Capital Road program. The adjustments required to make the funds available affected five planned projects in Picketing. Brock Road/C.P.R. Subway It was proposed that the budget amount for utility relocation in the amount of $40,000 in 2001 be deferred until 2002. Brock Road (Bavlv Street Hi,oh~vav 407) It was proposed that the budgeted amount for land acquisition in the amount of $100,000 in 2001 be deferred and re-budgeted in 2002. Brougham By-Pass It was proposed that the budgeted amount for land acquisition in the amount of $40,000 in 2001 be deferred and re-budgeted in 2002. Altona Road (highway 2 - North of Sheppard Ave) It was proposed that budget for land acquisition and utility relocation totaling $50,000 in 2001 be deferred until 2002. Greenwood By-Pass The assignment to initiate the Environmental Assessment for this project will be deferred and proposed again in 2002. The budget is $100,000. It is important to note that $330,000 of 2001 commitments for initiating projects on Brock Road and Westney Road related to Hwy #407 impacts, and the long a~vaited Altona Road project were deferred for another year. It is not known at this time how this will affect the timing of the projects reaching the construction phase. .Although the Region made a point that with only two months left in the year 2001, it was unlikely that these funds would be spent, it is due to the lack of early commitment that the funds were still available and subject to a re-allocation. The Region's 2002 Road Program Report OES 33-01 recommending priorities for 2002 was considered by City Council on December 3, 2001 and subsequently, received as correspondence (CC #009) at the Regional Works Committee (WC-8-2002) on January 30, 2002. The 2002 Regional Road Servicing & Financing Study, Report 2002-J-11 was considered at the Joint Finance & Administration and Works committee on February 27, 2002. The Region's 2002 Road Program addresses five of the eight priority projects in the way of Environmental Assessment design and/or construction on Brock Road, Finch Avenue and Altona Road. Report to Council OES 0 '~ '~ Subject: 2002 Regional Road Capital Program and Four-Year Forecast Date: March 18, 2002 Page 3 The Colloxving projects in Pickcrin~ arc proposed iI~ thc 2i)¢*2 Regional Road Program. 1. AltonaRoad Rouaeiqqotmt DrixcIntersection S 280,000 2. Brock Road CPR Sklbx~ ax 5 250,000 3. Brock RoadiBax]x Street H i~}qxxav4~)-) S 2;)q)()) 4. Brougham Bx-Pass ~Brock Road) S 1()(1 ~)~)( 5. Altona Road IHighxvay =2 to North oi'Sl~cppard) S 50 )t{ 6. Bayly Street cz Squires Beach Road Intersection S 75,000 7 Finch Avenue ~z RoseIacldRoadlnterscction 5 30~).~)<)() 9. Brock Road cz ('lcnqcnt5 Road Intersection S 90.000 TOTAl. S1.455.000 Of the 51,455,000 approved Ibr expenditure in Picketing. only SS_~,000 is construction signalization at four intersections to xx iaicta Pickering must contribute 575,000. for The Region's 2002 Road Progran~ totals 531.3NI, xxtaicta is al'l increase of approximately 50°/'o over the 2001 approved budget. Thc net Regional propomion is 52 .7\1 which is a 14% increase from the 2001 Road Program. Hox~ever, only $1.5NI or .-,t.8(!o is Cor projects in Picketing. Highway 401 related work accounts ibr 515.47M or 49.4" ~, of the gross total budget. in terms of' major projects in Picketing from 2003-2()00. tiao ibllox\'ing is forecasted by the Region. Finch Avenue (?i Spruce Hill Road S Brock Road C.P.R. Subway $2.430,000 2~ }l)~ rail diversion $0 130,000 £{~)? coiastruction Brock Road ~ Bayly Street Altona Road (Hwy #2-Noah of Sheppard Regional Road =5 (Claremont) These tbrecasts are all subject to change, as is evident x~ ith Altona Road, which is llOXV a 2004 project. In last ,,'ear's ibrecast, it v, asa 2()()3 project. This project has been in the five year forecast for more than ten years. Date: March 18, 2002 Report to Council OES 012-02 Subject: 2002 Regional Road Capital Program and Four-Year Forecast Page 4 Projects that are obvious by their absence in the four year forecast include Finch Avenue ~videning and urbanization, Brock Road widening from Bayly Street to Highway 407, the Brougham By-pass, the Greenwood by-pass, Whites Road from Highway 401 to Granite Court/Oklahoma Boulevard and any significant work on Kingston Road. ATTACHMENTS' N/A Prepared By: Approve ,dj£ndorsed Richard W. Holbom, P. Eng Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Everett Buntsma, Director Operations & Emergency Services RH :ds Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer I: CO[~NCII.',OES 012-02.docMar4)2 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~5:J. Ouign, Chi: Admin~v~: RECOSINIENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMNIITTEE DATE MOVED BS' 3 4. That the joint report o~' Operations & Emergent) Services Department and Corporate Services Department be rcceixed, and l'hat Council award Tender T-1-20{!2 to .Atlas ('orporarion m the amount of $3.400~000 plusG ST and That Council approve the t~ll pro ect cost of S4.00o.0(/0: and That Council authorize the entering into of a three party agreement with the City, Picketing Hockev Association (P H.A } and Durham \Vest Girls Hockey Association (DWGHA) for the shared cost and financing of the project: and That Council authorize tile Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer ~o request the Region of Durham to finance the project through the issuance of debt: and a) Debt financing in tile amount of S1.677,000 for a period not exceeding 20 years and $1 million fbr a term to be determined, at rates to be determined, be approved: and b) Interest and principal repayment charges in tile amount of approximately $150,000 annually' be included in the annual Current Budget for the ('itx of Picketing commencing in 2003 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid, and c) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's [)eDt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations tbr 2002 as established by the Proxince 2or municipalities in Ontario: and d) The Treasurer be authorized to rake any actions necessary in order to effect the tbregoing; and That the appropriate oflScials of the Citx ot' Picketing be given authority to ~ive effect thereto t~itq ,~ ~ PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Everett Buntsma Director. Operations & Emergency' Services Gil Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer DATE' March 15. 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 11-02 SUBJECT: Don Beer Arena - Expansion & Renovation File: CO1000 RECOMMENDATION' That the joint report of Operations & Emergency Services Department and Corporate Services Department be received; and That Council award Tender T-1-2002 to Atlas Corporation in tine amount of S3,400,000 plus G.S.T.: and 3. That Council approve the full project cost of $4,066,000; and That Council authorize the entering into of a three party, agreement xvith the City, Pickering Hockey Association (P.H.A.) and Durham West GMs Hockey Association (DWGHA) for the shared cost and financing of the project; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to request the Region of Durham to finance the project through the issuance of debt; and a) Debt financing in the amount of $1,677,000 for a period not exceeding 20 years and $1 million for a term to be determined, at rates to be determined, be approved: b) Interest and principal repayment charges in the amount of approximately $150.000 annually be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2003 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; c) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations tbr 2002 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario; d) The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 0. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. ORIGIN: Correspondence from P.H.A and DWGHA Council Resolution #99/00 Council Resolution #121/00 Council Resolution #4/01 Council Resolution #173/01 Report to Council OES 11-(t2 Subject' Don Beer Arena Expansion & Renovauon - File: CO1000 Date: .March 15, 2002 Page 2 Al THORII'5. Nlunicipal Act R.S.O. 1991). as amended. Section FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS' Project Costs Construction Allowance lbr Parking Lot Contingent> (?0) G.S.T. (net 3",,) Profcssionai Fees Furniture & hqtupment Total Cost Source of f:unds £1n}l ('apital Budget (Arena Surcharge Rcs. Supcrbuild Grant Debt (20 years) Pal'Inci' Shal-c (PHA & DWG[tA} -I oral Financing 1.1 I .6--,{)1 Il) The results of the tender and other costs indicate u. total project cost in tile alqqotInt oi' S4. 00.( { () which exceeds original estimates bx approximatcl> Sl.~uu).~u)*) and exceeds thc estimated amount outlined in our SuperBuild applicatioIn bx xpproxituatelx 52~ u ,.< u u/. The 2002 Capital Budget includes this project x~ittn certain fundii~g assumptions. Further discussions xvith the Hockey Assocmtlons has lcd to a change. The Associations arc willing to fund 50 per cent of the arena cost to a maximum oi'5:,1.5 million, less $5()0,000 of thc Superbuild Grant proceeds. The total project cost is $4.00o.()()~) and the maximum to bc ~Snanced bx the Associations is $1,500,0001ess 5500,000 of thc Supcrbuild Grant. This leaxcs S1 millioiqtobc financcdbvthe Hockey Associations. The balance of S2.5o<~uu~ will bo I~ilalqccd iii the amount of 5215,000 from a reserve, 5674,000 from the Superbuild Grant and 5].0--.tuu) bx the City in the fo~ of debt. However, the City will also be responsible tN' alTaligiIn~, tiwou?~ the Region off Durham, and for guaranteeing, the Associations net share of fine ~nanc~ng of~l million. Thc total debt to be issued fbr this project will be 52,~,--.~ u u). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: in December, 2001 Council approx cd Resolution =173 ~)1 nut}nor'i/linc staff to tender fbr the Don Beer Expansion and Renovation Pro. icct. Tender 'I-l-2~uC was i~sucd in January 2002 and closed in February 2{)~)2. Tiao submissions hxxc bccn rexlcxxcd b', thc Xlanagcr, Supply & Services and by thc Architect wino recommend uccepumcc of thc bid bx Atlas Coporation. Resolution ~173 {)1 directed that staff r-cpori buick tu C'oLmci] On Zhc results of thc tender and financing at the earliest possible date 4~7 '~ u ~' This report is intended to meet the requirements of Resolution :: I -3 ~1. Report to Council OES 11-02 Subject: Don Beer Arena E×pansion&Renovation - File: CO1000 Date: March 15, 2002 Page ' D BACKGROUND: In June 2000 the Picketing Hockey Association (P.H.A) and Durham West Girls Hockey Association (DWGHA) presented to Council a business case, needs study and feasibility study for the addition of one ice pad at the Don Beer Arena. The group presented an estimate of cost at $3,000,000. Staff reviewed the proposal and reported back to Council in September 2000 with an approximate cost estimate of $3,400,000 and a request to approve detailed design and clearer cost estimate. City Council approved the amount of $215,000 for design development and construction drawings. Subsequent to this direction Council passed Resolution #4/01 directing staff to complete a SuperBuild application for the "Don Beer Arena Addition and Renovation" project. The application was completed and submitted in April 20001. The cost estimate per the application was then $3,848,000 approximately as per information from the consultants. All partners, the City, P.H.A and DWGHA signed the aforementioned application. In December 2001 Council passed Resolution #173/01 authorizing thc Tendering of the project in advance ora response from SuperBuild and the 2002 Budget discussions. This was done to "Fast Track" the project and to achieve a more accurate cost tbr 2002 Budgets. Tenders closed on Februars,' 14, 2002. The Director, Operations & Emergency Services and the Director, Corporate Serw'ices & Treasurer recommend acceptance of the lowest qualified bid as per the recommendation of the Architect. Costs have now been fixed at S4,066,000 for the total project. The Tender is recommended to be awarded to Atlas Corporation in the amount of $3,400,000 plus G.S.T. at a total project cost of $4,066,000 (includes professional fees, contingency, parking lot). The Contractor has met all the Health & Safety requirements and reference checks have been positive. ATTACHMENTS: 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution #99/00 Resolution # 121/00 Resolution #4/01 Resolution #173/01 Recommendation from Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Correspondence from Supply & Services Report to Council OES 11-02 Subject: Don Beer Arena Expansion - File: Date: March 1~ _()0_ Page 4 t95 Prepared Approved," Endorsed Bx': Ever'crt ~t.mts~'ua Prepared Approved Endorsed By: Approved Endorsed Bx': \'era Felucmachcr EB:mld Attachnaents Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CLERK'S DIVISION MEMORANDUM June 23, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Steve Reynolds, Division Head, Culture & Recreation Bruce Taylor, Clerk Referrals from the Council Meeting of June 19, 2000 Please be advised that the Council of the City of Pickering passed Resolution #99/00, at the Counci Meeting of June 19th, 2000, as follows: That the report entitled Proposal to the City of Picketing to add a Third Ice Pad to Don Beer Arena, dated June, 2000, be received; and That this Report be referred to staff with the direction to prepare a repo~Ot with a review of the proposal to be considered by Council no later than September 11, 2000. B. Taylor BT:dk Copy: T.J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT '>~ TO REPORT INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CLERK'S DIVISION DATE: TO: FROM: September 19, 2000 Everett Buntsma. Director. Operations and Emergency Services Gil Paterson. Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer Bruce Taylor. City Clerk Please be advised that the Council of thc City of Picketing passed Resolution #121/00, Item #3 at the Council Meeting of September 18th. 2000. as follows: That Report OES #11-00 be received by Council and that: 1. Staff' be directed to proceed with design m~d construction drawings tbr an additional indoor ice surface at I)on Beer Arena: ('ouncil authorize an expenditure of up to 5215.000 tbr pro/bssional services related to the demon development and construction draxvinus: 3. Staff be directed to provide project costing and Ih~ancing at the time of the 2001 Budget deliberations: Stall' be authorized to meet with the Picketing Ice Rh~k Conmfittee to discuss project fundraising programs with $1.5 million to be raised in less than a 10 year period by the Committee: 5. The appropriate officials of the (_'it,,' of Pickering be given authority to give eflk:ct thereto. Bruce Taylor, City Clerk cc. T.J. Quinn, Chief Admimstrative Officer ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TC ~,F~T~CF~''- c.,~ -//- c Resolution #4/01 Passed on January 15~ 2001 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Johnson WH2EREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has received and considered the Governmem of Ontario SuperBuild Corporation Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships ("SCTP") initiative Round 1 Application Guidebook (the "Guidebook"); and .. WHEREAS Council has assessed its capital priorities against the SCTP initiatiVe Round 1 application requirements as set out in the Guidebook and intends to submit a letter of intent for qualifying the "Don Beer Arena addition and renovation" project (the "Project") for funding under Round 1 of the SCTP initiative; and WI-tEXAS Council confirms that the Municipality is compliant or in the process of gaining compliance with the new iW_mistry of Environment Drinking Water Protection Regulation, Ontario Regulation 459/00 made August 9, 2000 ("DWPR"); a. nd WHEREAS Council considers the Project to be its highest sport, recreational, cultural or tourism infrastructure priority for the Municipality; and WHEREAS Council confirms that the Municipality does not have any outstanding public health and safety issues or projects affecting its ex~sting sport, recreational, cultural and tourism facilities; and WHEREAS Council has made this resolution on the understanding that the recitals set out herein will be relied upon by the Ontario SuperBuild Corporation in considering the Project application for funding under Round 1 of the SCTP initiative; NOW TIKEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby resolves that the Clerk is directed to submit a letter of intent to .the Ontario SuperBuild Corporation respecting the qualification of the Project for funding under Round 1 of the SCTP initiative. CARRIED ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT CLERK'S DIVISION MEMOR~\NI)I 'XI l)ecember 18. 2001 1'O: "x,,,., t5. Buntsma. Director. Ope Em'ct Services G. Paterson, Director. Corporate Scrv/ccs ,_4 Treasurer V. Fclgemacher-Jet-frey. Nlanagcr. Supply ,N: Services FRO[~I: .-Mine ©reentree. Supc~'isor. Lc~zislative Services SUB,IISCT: Referrals from the Council Nleeting ol'[)ecember 1- 20(il ~ 'l Please be advised that the Council of' thc City of Picketing passed Resolution #173/01 at the Counc~ Nlceting oF December 17, 20()1. as I'olloxvs: That the joint report of thc Operations & l-Smcrgency 5ici~ices--Dcpa~_ent and the Cou, orate Se~'ices Department, be rcccivcd: and That Council approve tine calling of a Tender tbr thc Don Beer Expansion & RenoVation Project; and That staff report back to C'ouncil. tlwou,~h tho Finance~perations Conm~ittee, at the earliest possible date in 2{_)(}2 on the results of the Tender (RFP) and the financing of this pr~j ect; and That the appropriate staff of the City of Picketing be given authority to give effect thereto. C..&nne Green{ret (7 T.J. Quinn. Chief Administrative OFticer I engineers architects planners ATTACHMENT # ,5- TO REPORT #C¢--75- //~c ~ February 27, 2002 Everett Buntsma, Director Operations & Emergency Services Departm City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Everett: ubicki Associates Tntt^- "ILL NO.: ...... 300 Water Str ABEY. TO: FWD/COPY T~-mail: tsf ~t~ M vo. COUNC -0.A.O .... ~ CLERK OUL.& REC .... ~ FINANCE MUN. pROP.&ENG ! HUMAN RES. ~IRE SERVICES LEG~ TRANSIT CU~~ B~O. SYSTEMS Canada L1N 9J2 Fax: (905) 668 0221 ~.ca www.tsh,ca Re: Proposed Addition to Don Beer Arena TSH 22-13999 This is to confirm receipt of our copy of the bid review package prepared by the City of Pickering and dated February 6, 2002. We are also in receipt of a copy of the memo from the City of Picketing Administration Department, Human Resources Division dated February 20, 2002 which confirms acceptance of the following documents as submitted by The Atlas Corporation: · Company Safety Policy · Confined Space Entry Procedure · List of Employees Trained in Confined Space Entry Procedure · WSIB CAD 7 Report, dated September 23, 2001 · WSIB Cost & Frequency Record, dated June 14. 2001 Based on ()ur review of the above information Totten Sims Hubicki Associates would be of the opinion that the lowest qualified bidder is The Atlas Corporation. The Atlas Corporation was engaged as general contractor for the $17 million Brealey Place Student Residence, a 483 bed complex completed in September 2001. Atlas also served as general contractor for the $6 million Twin Pad Expansion to the Ajax Community Centre completed in November 1999. In both these projects time was limited and Atlas was able to meet tight overall schedule requirements. We have found them to be aggressive with respect to extras. The quality of their finishing work improved from fair to very good from the Twin Pad Expansion to the Residence. TSH provided full consulting services for both projects. Trusting the above is as you require. Yours very truly, Ted Wilson, OAA ATTACHMENT= ~ :L. ,:--~.,~' Corporate Services Department Suppl.','& Services Memorandum February 6, 2002 To: Everett Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergent? Services From: Vera A. Fel~emach Manager. Supph' & Services Subject: ~er ,bt Proposed Addition to DonB~  der No. T- 1 - 2002 Totten Sims ttubicki & Ass~iates pre-qualifi~ tbr the above project nine (9) general contractors, tbur (4) mechanical contractors and five (5) electrical contractors. These contractors were invited to participate to the tender call tbr the above project, of which eight (8) general contractors, three (3) mechanical contractors and three (3) electrical contractors picked up the tendering documents and drawings Ibr a non-refundable fee of $100.00 per set. A total ofthr~ (3) addenda were subsequently issued and distribut~ to all bidders, as well. The tender advertisement was placed in tile I)ailv Commercial News. News Advertiser Community Page and the City's website. A set of tendering documents and drawings were provided to Durham Construction Association, Hamilton Construction Association. Toronto Construction Association. Grand Valley Construction Association and Peterborough District Construction Exchange. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tendered unit prices and extensions of thc compliant tenders have been checked and corrected accordingly. Reference: Purchasing Policy' 8,: Procedure Procedure No. PUR 010-001: tendered unit prices and extensions utc oval/able,/bt checking; the unit price s/tall govern omi c.wensions will he correcled oc'cordin~zly. Company Atlas Corporation Ball Construction Inc. Peak Engineering & Construction Ltd. Melloul Blarney Construction Inc. Summar?' (PST included. GST included) Total Tendered Amount $3,638,000.00 $3.701.163.00 53.756.235.00 Unable to Bid After Calculation Check $3,638.000.00 $3,701,163.17 53.756.235.00 SeparatePrice for Flooring $25,573.00 $14,445.00 $16.585.00 ATTACHMENT Dinardo C. Company Group Inc. ~ TO REPORT # (',:~ Page 2 Tender No. T-I/2001 Comments Irregular Tender. Rejected. Bid bond not sufficient. Submitted: Bid bond in the amount of 10% and irrevocable for 60 days. Required: Bid bond in the amount of 10% and irrevocable for 90 days. Reference: Invitation letter dated 01/15/2002; Tendering Specifications, Page TS-I, Item 3, Information to Bidders Item Nos. 17, 18 (b), 19; Purchasing Policy & Procedure - Procedure No. 010-001, Item 10.04, Tendering Irregularities - Subsection 9 (d). Gerr Construction Ltd. Irregular Tender. Rejected. Bid bond not sufficient. Submitted: Bid bond in the amount of 10% and irrevocable for 60 days. Required: BM bond in the amount of lO% and irrevocable for 90 days. Reference: Invitation letter dated 01/15/2002: Tendering Specifications, Page TS-l, Item 3, Information to Bidders Item Nos. 17, 18 (b), 19; Purchasing Policy & Procedure - Procedure No. 010-001, Item 10.04, Tendering Irregularities - Subsection 9 (d). Maystar General Contractors Inc. Irregular Tender. Rejected. Bid bond not sufficient. Submitted: Bid bond in the amount of 5% and irrevocable for 90 days. Required: Bid bond in the amount of 10% and irrevocable for 90 days. Reference: Invitation letter dated 01/15/2002; Tendering Specifications, Page TS-I, Item 3, Information to Bidders Item Nos. 17, 18 (b), 19; Purchasing Policy & Procedure - Procedure No. 010-001, Item 10.04, Tendering Irregularities- Subsection 9 (d). Struct-Con Construction Ltd. Irregular Tender. Rejected. Bid bond not sufficient. Submitted: Bid bond in the amount of 5% and irrevocable 1hr 30 days. Required: Bid bond in the amount of 10°,4 and irrevocable for 90 days. Reference: Invitation letter dated 01/15/2002; Tendering Specifications, Page TS-l, Item 3, Information to Bidders Item Nos. 17, 18 (b), 19; Purchasing Policy 8: Procedure- Procedure No. 010o001, Item 10.04, Tendering Irregularities - Subsection 9 (d). Page 3 Tender No. T-I/2001 Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 21, the following documents are being requested from The Atlas Corporation for review during the evaluation stage of this tender call' a copy of the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project: a list of employees trained in the Confined Space Entry Procedure who will be working on this project a copy of the Health and Safety policy to be used on this project: and a copy of the current CAD 7 tbrm or Cost and Frequency Report issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. The Co-ordinator, Safety & Training shall review the above noted documents and shall advise you accordingly. Two copy-sets of the 3 bids are enclosed - one set for ,,'our review and one set tbr the Consultant's review. Please remember to include responses to the tbltowing queries in 3'our Report to Council: (a) (b) Icl (d) (el (f) (h) if items (a) and (b) noted above, are acceptable: any past work experience with The Atlas Corporation including work location: without past work experience, if reference in~brmation is acceptable: a work location map; the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged: the budget amount(s) assigned thereto: Treasurer's confirmation of funding: related departmental approvals: any reason(s) why the bid of The Atlas Corporation is not acceptable: and related comments specific to the prc(iect. If you require further inibrmation, please feel tkee to contact me. LV-~emacher Manager. Supply & Services /bt Copy for: Gil Paterson, Director. Corporate Services 8: Treasurer J :drive/Tenders/tender summa_D,.doc. E Z m o~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 g-§