Report for City Council December 1, 2003 meeting.



Questions received from Mayor and Councillors. Report 2003COF112 ATTACHMENT 1

|Mayor B. Smith: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |Re: Item G.1.b.: Update on South LRT | |

| | | |

| |This report outlined two options for financing LRT to the Neil Crawford Centre. The first option explains that over the| |

| |period 2004-2008, $51.5 million would be allocated to LRT from the fuel tax, leaving approximately $40.5 million to be | |

| |reallocated from other major transportation projects. The second option proposed that the construction cost of $100 | |

| |million could be financed immediately with debt and that fuel tax from future years would pay back the cost of financing| |

| |this earlier construction (which again would translate into the deferral/postponement of other future transportation | |

| |projects). Both options would require a $30 million in LRT vehicle costs, although the report points out that the most | |

| |cost effective scenario for ordering the vehicles would be through a large order for more than one section of LRT. | |

| | | |

| |The Administration submitted this report for information and did not offer any opinion on whether it supported this | |

| |segment-by-segment approach to LRT construction, and if so which of the two options it preferred. Does the | |

| |Administration support a plan that would see construction of LRT to Neil Crawford Centre in the absence of funding that | |

| |would ensure timely construction to Southgate or Heritage malls? Do they believe the benefits of LRT to Neil Crawford | |

| |would outweigh the costs associated with delaying/postponing other transportation projects that would generate the | |

| |necessary funding? Is this a practical strategy from a transportation system-wide perspective? | |

| |Traditionally, implementation of major transportation projects (e.g. LRT, development of Anthony Henday Drive, Whitemud | |

| |Drive and Yellowhead Trail) has been staged due to difficulty in securing long term certainty of funding. | |

| | | |

| |The Transportation and Streets Department has prepared a series of reports in response to questions regarding funding | |

| |strategies for South LRT. The following issues are noted with respect to funding of South LRT: | |

| | | |

| |funding of the extension in an incremental fashion (i.e. Health Sciences to Neil Crawford, followed by Neil Crawford to | |

| |Southgate, then Southgate to Heritage) is not efficient from a project management standpoint, and would not be | |

| |recommended if funding were in place to proceed with the project as a whole | |

| |given that the Federal government has not yet announced its planned future funding strategies and whether any long term | |

| |Federal funding sources are available, it is not known whether implementation of the South LRT project can be made as a | |

| |complete project decision. | |

| |from a cost/benefit perspective, the preferred course of action would be to proceed with the implementation of the | |

| |complete project. If, however, insufficient funding is in place to proceed beyond Neil Crawford, the benefits of this | |

| |stage of the project (Health Sciences to Neil Crawford) still outweigh the costs and implementation in a staged basis | |

| |would be recommended in preference to not proceeding at all with the project. Benefit/cost for the project improves as | |

| |the extension proceeds beyond Neil Crawford to Southgate. | |

| | | |

| |the 2004 – 2008 CPP includes a number of major transportation projects (e.g. interchanges at Yellowhead – 156 Street, 23| |

| |Avenue – Gateway Blvd., South LRT from University to Health Sciences). | |

| | | |

| |The Transportation and Streets Department has not recommended the deferral of any other major transportation projects | |

| |from the 2004 to 2008 CPP to fund the continuation of South LRT, but would place the continued implementation of the | |

| |South LRT as a high priority in any future major transportation project lists. It is noted that a portion of | |

| |preliminary design and property acquisition are funded as part of the existing approved project from Health Sciences to | |

| |Neil Crawford Station in order to position this project to move ahead to detailed design and construction in 2007/2008. | |

| |Commencing implementation in this time would also maintain an ongoing balance of investment between major roadway and | |

| |high speed transit projects, and would match the anticipated schedule for development of the South Campus. | |

| |Paul Martin has gone on record saying: “A new deal is on the way for cities.” Based on other comments he has made, it |Transp. & Streets |

| |would seem that federal fuel tax will be part of this new deal. Can you provide an indication of the revenue that would| |

| |be generated from a portion of the fuel tax … ranging from $.01/litre - $.05/litre. Theoretically, what would these | |

| |different levels of tax allow the City of Edmonton to accomplish within our public transportation system or overall | |

| |transportation system? | |

| |The present agreement with Alberta Transportation for a rebate of 5 cents per litre is generating approximately $72 | |

| |million to $75 million per year in funding for transportation projects in the City of Edmonton. If funding were | |

| |calculated on the basis of fuel sales within Edmonton, it is likely that a similar amount would be generated by 5 cents | |

| |per litre of the Federal fuel tax rebated to the City of Edmonton (each 1 cent per litre generates approximately $15 | |

| |million). If, however, fuel rebate is based on either a per capita formula, or some splitting of funding between the | |

| |Province and the cities, then the funding received would be somewhat less than this value. | |

| | | |

| |At this level of funding, up to $75 million per year in new transportation funding would be added to the Transportation | |

| |and Streets Department Capital budget, allowing the implementation of a project such as the South LRT extension from | |

| |Health Sciences to Heritage over a 5 year period, and ongoing implementation of High Speed Transit. The key factor in | |

| |this funding is an ongoing and secure commitment of funding to allow the implementation of large transportation | |

| |projects. | |

| |The Administration has done a good job quantifying our operating and infrastructure gaps. Given these unfunded needs, |Finance |

| |we repeatedly have been calling for a new fiscal deal from the federal and provincial governments. Would the | |

| |Administration please go one step further and quantify (approximately) the total amount of additional revenue that we | |

| |require annually as part of the new fiscal deal. (i.e., How many additional millions of dollars does the City of | |

| |Edmonton require annually in order to be fiscally sustainable based on its current service mandate?) | |

| |The City of Edmonton would be able to fully fund existing service and address all growth and new service demands in 2004| |

| |with a $34 million revenue increase. Based upon the 2004-2013 Long Range Financial Plan (assuming taxes are increased | |

| |annually by an inflationary amount, plus real growth in the assessment base), the net additional requirement will grow | |

| |incrementally each year thereafter by approximately $20 million. The 2004-2013 LRFP also identified a total $3.5 | |

| |billion infrastructure gap over ten years. This equates to an average requirement of $350 million per year to address | |

| |the infrastructure gap. For both operating and capital together therefore, the new revenue requirement would be $384 | |

| |million in 2004, with annual increases of $20 million thereafter. | |

| |“A growing number of the City’s buildings and facilities are nearing, or are at the end of their useful life.” (Volume |AM & PW-Land & Bldgs. |

| |II, p. 31). Going forward, what strategy will we adopt with respect to the ownership/leasing of buildings? Is the | |

| |Administration actively investigating the use of P3 strategies to deliver the operating facilities we require? | |

| |Our strategic direction for civic office space and operating facilities over the next 3-5 years will be to meet basic | |

| |office needs through leasing, which continues to be cost effective, and to continue with City capital construction and | |

| |ownership for operating facilities where the City intends to maintain its long term service delivery role ( e.g. | |

| |transit, police, roadway maintenance). The City is not currently pursuing the use of P-3 strategies for these types of | |

| |facilities. In 2002, the Administration undertook a business case comparison of a public-private build-lease option | |

| |relative to City capital construction for the new Southeast Police Station. The business case indicated that the | |

| |build-lease option was significantly more expensive than City capital construction. Notwithstanding this particular | |

| |business case, the City’s Office of Infrastructure will continue to monitor the P-3 strategies used by other municipal | |

| |and senior government agencies to achieve their facility needs to identify strategies that may be cost effective for the| |

| |City to pursue. | |

| |The City has made extensive use of public-private partnerships to develop new pools , arenas and soccer centers and the | |

| |use of such partnerships will continue to be the primary means for developing future recreation facilities. See Question| |

| |#66. | |

| |Re: Project 04-75-5176 (Fire Stations, Old and New) |AM & PW-Land & |

| | |Bldgs./ERD |

| |This project involves: | |

| | | |

| |construction of a new Fire Station to serve the Lake District, and | |

| | | |

| |construction of stations to replace Fire Station #10 (101 Street and 128 Avenue) and Station #5 (101 Street and 112 | |

| |Avenue). | |

| | | |

| |I would like to receive a one-page cost benefit analysis for each of these new stations, detailing (a) response time | |

| |improvements that are forecasted in each of the service areas, (b) other service level improvements associated with the | |

| |new stations, and (c) whether there are any operating savings associated with the replacement of Stations #5 and #10. | |

| |Please provide more detail on the impact of continued operation of stations #10 and #5. | |

| | | |

| |According to the budget, a capital cost of $6 million will be incurred in 2004 and $3 million in 2006. Would you please| |

| |break these costs out according to station? | |

| |The construction of a new station to serve the Lake District area and the replacements for stations #5 and #10 is a | |

| |strategic priority for ERD in the provision of Emergency Response Services. These premises are needed for differing | |

| |reasons. | |

| | | |

| |Lake District Station | |

| | | |

| |The Lake District Station is a proposed new facility in the Lake District Region in the North of the City. This area of| |

| |the city is anticipated to experience strong growth over the next 25 years. Planning and Development forecast that 14% | |

| |of Edmonton’s projected growth in the next 25 years will come from the Lake District area of the city. This will lead | |

| |to an increasing demand for Fire Rescue Services in that area. | |

| | | |

| |Currently ERD can meet the target response time in mature neighbourhoods of the city 81% of the time. In the suburbs we| |

| |can only meet our response time targets 39% of the time. Establishing new stations in the suburbs will allow ERD to | |

| |provide citizens with better service coverage and will dramatically improve response times in these growth areas. | |

| | | |

| |Stations #5 and #10 | |

| | | |

| |Replacement of these stations is not anticipated to lead to improved response times, as the new premises will be | |

| |constructed close to the existing stations. However, by constructing these new stations while existing stations are | |

| |still operational, ERD will ensure that there is no degradation of response times in their coverage areas. | |

| | | |

| |Both these stations are ageing (37 and 46 years old respectively) with their physical condition being classed as fair to| |

| |poor. Investment in infrastructure now will reduce or avoid costly interim repairs that will be needed to keep these | |

| |facilities operational. Repair costs to these two stations are currently estimated at $2.6M ($1.6M for station #5 and | |

| |$1.0M for station #10). | |

| | | |

| |Both facilities are at risk of mechanical and electrical system failure. There is insufficient physical space in | |

| |station #10 to accommodate replacement vehicle apparatus. In addition these stations do not meet employee accommodation | |

| |standards. | |

| | | |

| |Construction of new premises will address these issues and ensure that there is capacity for future service needs. All | |

| |new stations are being designed with three (3) vehicle bays suitable in size to accommodate replacement fire apparatus. | |

| | | |

| |Capital Costs for these stations are broken down as follows: | |

| |2004 $6.0M for Lake District station and station #10 | |

| |2006 $3.0M for station #5 | |

| |Please provide quantitative details on the trends involving user fees over the past 10 years. What portion of our |Finance |

| |revenues (citywide) are in the form of user fees and how have they increased/decreased over time. Please provide trends| |

| |and dollar amounts according to user-fee type. While Volume I, page 40 shows Edmonton’s ranking relative to municipal | |

| |property tax, does Edmonton ranking change when user fees are taken into account? | |

| |Department revenues as opposed to corporate revenues are grouped into a category called user fees, fines, permits, etc. | |

| |This category formed 17.6% of the City’s total revenue in the tax-supported operations in 1994. It rose to 22.0% in | |

| |2000 and has held steady at that level. Following are some notable trends within the department revenues. | |

| | | |

| |In 1994 Transit fare revenue generated $40.1million or $1.05 per ride, revenue contributed 42.7% to the cost of | |

| |operations. In 2004 Transit fare revenue is expected to generate $57.1 million or $1.23 per ride, revenue is expected | |

| |to contribute 42.9% to the cost of operations. | |

| |The hourly parking meter rate and the number of parking meters in operation has not changed significantly over the past | |

| |10 years. In 1994 parking meters contributed $3.3 million in revenues to the City, 2004 revenue is expected to be $3.4 | |

| |million. | |

| | | |

| |Emergency Response has two main user fees, ambulance billings in Emergency Medical Services and dangerous goods billings| |

| |in Fire /Rescue. Over the last 10 years ERD has gone through major reorganizations, which make comparisons beyond 2000 | |

| |difficult. However, trend analysis of the last 4 years shows that in 2000, dangerous goods billings generated $180k and | |

| |ambulance billings $9.3 million in revenue. Under the proposed ' The City of Edmonton Emergency Response Fees and | |

| |Charges Bylaw ' for 2004, $12 million of ambulance billings and $1 million of Fire/Rescue billings will be generated. | |

| |These revenues are anticipated to fund 11% of ERD budgeted expenses. For the most part this is not an increase in user | |

| |fees but growth in demand and also a change in billing practices. | |

| | | |

| |Police Service revenues account for approximately 17% of total departmental funding in 2004. The key components consist | |

| |of fine revenues, tow lot operations, security clearance and special duty policing revenues. Over the last three years | |

| |revenues have not grown (2002 $27.9 million versus $27.1 million in 2004 proposed budget). With recent changes in the | |

| |Provincial Traffic Safety Act, fine revenues are not expected to grow in the future due to increased fine rates and | |

| |changes in driver behavior. | |

| | | |

| |Waste management fees were introduced in 1995. Single family fees were $5.00 per month, while multi-family fees were | |

| |$3.25 per month. Waste management fees stayed at that level until 2000 when single family became $8.00 per month and | |

| |multi-family became $5.20 per month. These fees were increased in 2002 and 2003. The 2004 proposed budget would see | |

| |the waste management fees increase to $11.95 for single family and $7.77 for multi-family. In 1995, waste management | |

| |fees produced revenues of $6.3 million. In the proposed 2004 Budget they are estimated to produce revenue of $32.7 | |

| |million. | |

| | | |

| |User fees for Community Services recreation facilities have been influenced by the following trends over the past | |

| |decade: | |

| |Municipal financial constraints driven, in part, by reduced funding to municipalities by other orders of government | |

| |Principles set out in the City’s Long Range Financial Plan starting in 1998, which directed movement towards revenue | |

| |diversification and increased emphasis on user fees for certain types of municipal services | |

| |Need to address cost impacts on service delivery, such as the volatile increases to natural gas and electricity over the| |

| |past decade | |

| |Rising user expectations related to services, standards and amenities. | |

| |Recreation facility user fees are established to: | |

| |recover the cost of providing goods, services and/or programs; | |

| |encourage commitment by the user; | |

| |reduce the burden on the tax levy; and | |

| |regulate use of public services. | |

| |User fees are considered only in situations where the following conditions exist: | |

| |an identifiable set of individuals and/or groups directly benefit from the provision of the good, service and/or | |

| |program; | |

| |it is possible to exclude individuals from acquiring the good, service and/or program if the fee is not paid; | |

| |individuals and/or groups have the ability to choose whether or not to consume the good, service and/or program. | |

| |User fees are recommended at levels that reflect the purpose, value and quality of the goods, services and/or programs | |

| |provided, in keeping with the mandate and financial management strategies of the Corporation and Department. Pricing | |

| |takes the following considerations into account: | |

| |Capacity (e.g., distribute usage over peak and non-peak times, and encourage efficient and responsible use) | |

| |public good, | |

| |costs of the service, | |

| |market planning (e.g., competitiveness, value and quality of service) | |

| |market analysis (e.g., market trends, benchmarks, consumer responses, optimum price point research). | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |The City does not have information that ranks Edmonton relative to other cities when user fees are taken into account. | |

| |However, there is another survey that shows where Edmonton ranks when municipal taxes and utility fees are combined. On| |

| |the national survey Edmonton ranks 13th lowest out of 26 cities. On the regional survey Edmonton ranks second lowest | |

| |out of 11 cities and counties. The entire survey is available on the Planning and Development department web site. | |

| |“Bus service to new areas will not be provided.” (Volume I, P.37). |Transp. & |

| | |Streets-Transit |

| |I would like to have a better sense of the problem this delay in introducing service is creating for new neighbourhoods.| |

| | | |

| |What is the City of Edmonton standard for introducing bus service to new residential areas? (i.e., at what point in a | |

| |neighbourhoods development is it our goal to introduce transit service?) | |

| |Please indicate, by new neighbourhood, the length of time citizens have been waiting for transit service? | |

| |The Administration’s assessment of the unmet demand that exists in these neighbourhoods; and | |

| |An overview of the feedback you are receiving from residents of these neighbourhoods. | |

| |The standards for introducing bus service into residential areas are: | |

| | | |

| |Minimum ridership levels are expected to be achieved. For weekday peak and midday service, the minimum ridership | |

| |expectation is 30 passengers per hour. For other time periods, the minimum ridership expectation is 15 passengers per | |

| |hour. For residential neighbourhoods, we expect these standards to be achieved at population levels of approximately | |

| |900 for peak period service and approximately 2,000 for other time periods. For offpeak service implementation, | |

| |ridership levels in peak periods (which is implemented first) are also reviewed as an indicator of what offpeak | |

| |ridership levels will be. | |

| | | |

| |Additional requirements prior to commencing service include: | |

| | | |

| |Additional funding is provided in the operating budget in order to subsidize the new service. | |

| |The collector road system is built to a point where buses can access a neighbourhood. | |

| |For peak period service, ETS has enough buses to expand the system. | |

| | | |

| |How is Edmonton transit faring relative to this standard? | |

| |As of the end of 2003, weekday peak period service was available in all neighbourhoods where the population thresholds | |

| |were met, with the exception of the northern portion of Ozerna and Hudson/Cumberland, where suitable collector roadways | |

| |were not available. | |

| |In the 2004 Operating Budget, a number of service packages have been proposed which would provide for new service to | |

| |residential and industrial areas or address capacity and schedule adherence issues. | |

| | | |

| |NOTE - The list of recommended service additions and enhancements is based on population and employment projections | |

| |developed in Spring 2003 and Fall 2002 system performance (ridership counts). The service strategies are preliminary, | |

| |and would be updated and finalized in Spring 2004 based on up-to-date projections and monitoring results. | |

| | | |

| |Service to New Areas – Peak ($514,000 service package on Page 104, vol III) | |

| |Terwillegar Town/Terwillegar Gardens | |

| |MacEwan | |

| |South Edmonton Common - extend to south portion | |

| |Donsdale | |

| |Terra Losa Commercial Area | |

| |White Industrial | |

| |Canossa | |

| |Carlton | |

| |North Mayliewan, North Ozerna (if collector roads are complete) | |

| |Miller/Hollick Kenyon | |

| | | |

| |Service to New Areas - Offpeak (includes proposed service to communities that was not funded in 2003) ($380,000 service| |

| |package on Page 109, vol III) | |

| |Route 2 - extend along 50 Street to Clareview on Saturday early evening | |

| |Route 33 - extend weekday late night service between West Edmonton Mall and Southgate | |

| |Terwillegar Town/Terwillegar Gardens - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Blackmud Creek/Rutherford - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Burnewood/Meadows - improve and expand Sunday service | |

| |Silverberry - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |South Edmonton Common - extend to south portion and provide Saturday and Sunday morning service | |

| |Lewis Estates - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Grange - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Castle Downs - extend Route 128 from the University on Sundays | |

| |Skyview/Oxford - Sunday midday | |

| |Elsinore - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Klarvatten - Weekday and Saturday midday | |

| |Evergreen - Saturday morning and early evening | |

| | | |

| |Existing Infrastructure Maintenance – Peaks/Offpeaks (Peak and offpeak capacity and schedule adherence problems) | |

| |($390,000 and $288,000 service packages, on Page 103 and Page 108 respectively, vol III) | |

| |Strategies subject to Fall 2003 passenger counts and system performance. Examples of strategies under consideration | |

| |include: | |

| |Increase frequency on routes serving post-secondary institutions to accommodate growing ridership levels. | |

| |Increase peak frequency on Route 100 between West Edmonton Mall and Downtown to accommodate growing ridership levels. | |

| |Extra trips on peak hour routes to address overload situations (Route 119 – Grange; Route 160 – Oxford/Skyview; Route | |

| |180 – Belle Rive; Route 70 – 99 Street Industrial area) | |

| |Increase offpeak frequency on mainline routes (Route 8 – Late night; Route 9 – Sunday night) | |

| |Add round trip time to routes experiencing delays and transfer connection problems. | |

| | | |

| |In terms of impacts on customers of not having service in their neighbourhood, Edmonton Transit has received a total | |

| |of 146 requests for service since the beginning of 2001 through the Commendations and Concerns (2001 – 31; 2002 – 55; | |

| |2003 (Ytd October) – 60). Further, there have been numerous direct contacts with Edmonton Transit service planners | |

| |that have not been recorded. | |

| |Volume II, p. 344. Budget documentation makes reference to “underfunded deteriorating neighbourhood road network and |Transp. & Streets-Roads|

| |deterioration of oiled and gravel roads.” | |

| | | |

| |I would like the administration to provide more analytical information on the state of strategic roads, arterial roads, | |

| |collectors, local roads, alleys and oil roads. What is the condition rating (score) for each of these categories of | |

| |roads? What is the City of Edmonton standard/expectation for each of these categories? How has this condition rating | |

| |changed over the past 10 years? | |

| |Current condition information (based on 2002 data, since 2003 data is presently being processed and is not available at | |

| |this time) and standard/expectations for each category are provided in the justification portion of all rehabilitation | |

| |project profiles. The information is summarized as follows: | |

| | | |

| |Pavements in critical, poor, fair, good and very good condition have Pavement Quality (PQI) ratings of F(0-2), D(2-4), | |

| |C(4-6), B(6-8) and A(8-10) respectively. | |

| | | |

| |In order to meet industry standards and optimize maintenance, it is recommended that PQI (Pavement Quality Index) | |

| |physical condition rating for the arterial roadway system be in the 6.0-6.5 range. For primary highways, it should be in| |

| |the 6.5-7.0 range given that these roadways accommodate the highest volumes of traffic and trucks, including dangerous | |

| |goods movement. For collectors, it should be in the 6.0-6.5 range. For locals and alleys it should be in the lower end | |

| |of the 6.0-6.5 range. | |

| | | |

| |Primary Highways – 2002 PQI = 6.6 (good) with 2% poor-critical | |

| |Arterial Roads – 2002 PQI = 5.7 (fair) with 19% poor-critical | |

| |Collector Bus Routes – 2002 PQI = 4.7 (fair) with 37% poor-critical | |

| |Collector Non-Bus Routes – 2002 PQI = 5.3 (fair) with 26% poor-critical | |

| |Mature Neighbourhoods – 2002 PQI = 5.1 (fair) with 28% poor-critical | |

| |Suburban Neighbourhoods – 2002 PQI = 6.2 (good) with 11% poor-critical | |

| |Alleys – 2002 PQI = 3.4 (poor) with 56% poor-critical | |

| |Oiled and Gravel Roads – no condition rating currently available as there is no industry system available for rating | |

| |oiled and gravel roads. The current condition rating system is only applicable to paved roads. | |

| | | |

| |The categories of roads have undergone some changes over the past ten years. | |

| | | |

| |Examples: | |

| |- Provincial designation for Primary Highways was changed when Anthony Henday Drive was constructed and put into | |

| |service. It became part of the Primary Highway network and 170 Street from Whitemud Drive to Stony Plain Road was | |

| |removed from the Primary Highway network. | |

| | | |

| |- Collector roads are now split between bus route and non-bus route due to limited funding availability for | |

| |collectors, resulting in a policy of focusing on collector bus routes over the next five years. | |

| | | |

| |- Residential roads are now split between mature and suburban neighbourhoods due to limited funding available for | |

| |local roads, resulting in a policy of focusing on mature neighbourhoods over the next five years. | |

| | | |

| |Ten years ago the categories of roads were; Freeways, Arterials, Collectors, Locals and alleys. Today the categories of | |

| |roads include; Primary Highways, Arterials, Collector Bus Routes, Collector Non-bus Routes, Mature Neighbourhoods, | |

| |Suburban Neighbourhoods, and Alleys. | |

| |As a result, some of the current categories have to be grouped together in order to show how the condition ratings have | |

| |changed over the past ten years. Between 1992 and 2002 the pavement conditions have changed as follows: | |

| | | |

| |Arterial Roads (including Primary Highways) – The blended PQI for all arterials (including Primary Highways) has | |

| |increased from 5.5 in 1992 to 5.9 in 2002. | |

| |Collector roads (including bus route and non-bus route) – The blended PQI for all collectors (including bus route and | |

| |non-bus route) has decreased from 5.5 in 1992 to 5.1 in 2002. | |

| |Local roads (including mature and suburban neighbourhoods) – The current condition of mature neighbourhoods is PQI = | |

| |5.1, and suburban neighbourhoods is PQI = 6.2. The blended current condition of all neighbourhoods is PQI = 5.6. The | |

| |significant increase in new residential construction activity in recent years has impacted the current blended condition| |

| |of all neighbourhoods (i.e. significant growth in the inventory has increased the blended condition). The blended PQI | |

| |for local roads has increased from 5.4 in 1992 to 5.6 in 2002. | |

| |Alleys – PQI has decreased from 4.3 in 1992 to 3.4 in 2002. It should be noted that the 1992 rating only reflects one | |

| |quarter of the city inventory as condition ratings for alleys were only started in 1992 and the entire city was not | |

| |surveyed at that time due to time/resource constraints. | |

|Councillor R. Hayter: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |Total number of sworn officers in 2002 and currently in 2003. |Police Service |

| |The following provides the number of authorized sworn positions or FTE’s for the EPS: | |

| |2002 – 1,173 | |

| |2003 – 1,232 | |

| |2004 – 1,237 (pending budget approval) | |

| |Total number of sworn officers in administrative and executive positions in 2002 and currently in 2003. |Police Service |

| |The Edmonton Police Service has 34 police officers in the senior sworn ranks for 2003 and 2004. Comparing 2003 to 2002,| |

| |we had two less senior officers. The following provides a comparison by rank: | |

| |[pic] | |

| |Total number of police officers designated as “community” or “beat” officers in 2002 and currently in 2003. |Police Service |

| |The following provides a breakdown of authorized constable positions for community issues, beat patrol and primary | |

| |responders to calls for service: | |

| |[pic] | |

| |Please provide overtime costs for 2003, in comparison with the same period last year and indicate steps taken to control|Police Service |

| |overtime. | |

| |Overtime costs for 2003 are projected to be $4.2 million compared to actual costs in 2002 of $4.3 million. To date, in | |

| |2003, 90% of overtime occurrences are events outside of EPS control: | |

| |Operational call outs and investigative requirements (i.e. violent gang issues, gun calls, homicides, sexual assaults, | |

| |spousal violence) 67% | |

| |Staff shortages (i.e. minimum levels of staffing in patrol/investigative | |

| |divisions) 23% | |

| |90% | |

| |The remaining 10% account for situations, which are somewhat controllable by the EPS, such as requiring employees to be | |

| |on-call status and department training requirements. | |

| |The 2004 overtime budget will remain at a similar level as 2003, adjusted primarily for cost of living increases (2003 | |

| |Budget $2.2 million, 2004 budget 2.3 million). | |

| | | |

| |It is expected the addition of new police officers (55 recruits in training from 2003) will assist in reducing overtime | |

| |related to minimum staffing issues. The EPS will continue to work at minimizing overtime for controllable events as | |

| |much as possible through managing resource deployment. However, due to the nature of emergencies and the resource | |

| |intensive procedures for investigations, overtime costs will always occur in the policing environment. | |

| |As part of the November 6, 2003 Budget presentation to Council, the Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) identified areas | |

| |where comprehensive audits would be performed in 2004. One key area is overtime practices and procedures. EPS will be | |

| |working with EPC in reviewing these practices. | |

| |I continue to receive complaints about City of Edmonton vehicles being seen in surrounding communities outside city |AM & PW-MES |

| |boundaries, such as Calmar, Morinville, Leduc, etc. Who approves this practice and does the city pay the costs of such | |

| |vehicles operating outside Edmonton? How can the city justify allowing this practice and how does it police it? | |

| |There are 11 vehicles authorized to be taken out of town. They are used by staff on 24- hour emergency call out. | |

| |A commitment was made during the last budget discussions to get control of the “overtime” problem. What has been |ERD |

| |accomplished in dealing with this matter? Please provide financial documentation, with comparisons to past years. | |

| |Fire Rescue Services has been successful in monitoring overtime costs in recent years. The following 5 years trend | |

| |showed a general reduction in overtime costs: | |

| | | |

| |1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 | |

| |$1,544k $1,823k $1,583k $1,284k $1,400k (est.) | |

| | | |

| |In 2003, overtime costs increased slightly mainly due to: | |

| | | |

| |A number of larger 3rd and 4th alarm fires (e.g. Whyte Avenue fire, 105 street apartment fire) requiring additional | |

| |firefighters resulting in an increase in overtime call-in. | |

| | | |

| |An increase in sick time and WCB claims from 2002 to 2003 requiring overtime call-in to maintain shift levels in part | |

| |due to injuries associated with responding to more complex fires (e.g. the 105th street fire). | |

| | | |

| |$50k overtime to provide support to the Kelowna fire in British Columbia. This $50k will be recovered from the province | |

| |of British Columbia. | |

| |Please provide statistics on absenteeism within your department, showing a comparison with 2002. |ERD |

| |The following Short Term Disability statistics are provided. | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Total Sick Hours 2002 (Q3) 2003 (Q3) | |

| | | |

| |EMS 16,834 21,245 | |

| | | |

| |ERD (not including EMS) 43,759 57,938 | |

| |Has the Parks Department considered allowing non-profit organizations to operate and maintain public golf courses rather|Community Services |

| |than using city staff? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of such a change? | |

| |Community Services Department has considered and explored alternative service delivery approaches for the municipal golf| |

| |courses. In 1993 contracting out was tested in the marketplace, which led to the conclusion that the optimal | |

| |arrangement was to have contractors provide cashiering, retailing, cart rental, food services, lessons etc., under a | |

| |revenue-sharing, risk-sharing agreement with the City (which is the current situation). In 1997, a range of operational| |

| |models was considered. As a result of City '97, the golf courses were placed within the Enterprise Portfolio in order | |

| |to gain synergies and economies of scale. Golf course revenues currently recover 120% to 130% of their operating costs.| |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Mill Woods Golf Course is operated by a non-profit organization (MCARFA) under an arrangement with the City dating back | |

| |to its development as a golf course around 1989. The Kinsmen Club has permission to operate the Kinsmen Pitch & Putt in| |

| |part of Kinsmen Park (the City of Edmonton provides the washrooms). | |

| | | |

| |Advantages and disadvantages of municipal golf course operation by Non-Profit-Organizations would require study. Some | |

| |considerations include: wage and benefit costs; use of staff and equipment during off-season; capacity, expertise and | |

| |interest among Non-Profit Organizations. There are no indications to date that such an arrangement for the municipal | |

| |golf courses would be financially advantageous. | |

| |Please provide comparative figures for overtime paid to civic employees in 2003 in comparison with the previous year, |Finance |

| |with an estimate for 2004. Is overtime generated as a result of staff working compressed day schedules? | |

| |( in thousands of $) 2002 2003 2004 | |

| |Actual Forecast Budget | |

| | | |

| |AMPW * $ 3,170 $ 2,996 $ 2,428 | |

| |Community Services 482 613 418 | |

| |Corporate Services 924 572 725 | |

| |ERD 1,980 2,159 1,283 | |

| |Planning 922 770 483 | |

| |Police 4,330 4,200 2,288 | |

| |Transportation & Streets 4,574 5,745 3,816 | |

| | | |

| |Total City $ 16,382 $ 17,055 $ 11,441 | |

| | | |

| |* Amounts include utility and enterprise operations | |

| | | |

| |Overtime is not generated from compressed day schedules. The various hours of work programs negotiated between civic | |

| |unions/associations and the City were developed on a "cost neutral" basis. "Cost neutral" has been taken to mean: no | |

| |increased staff expenditures, no increased wage-related expenditures and no decrease in output. In some situations, the| |

| |extended workday allows additional daily work to be completed without the payment of overtime. | |

| |Please provide absenteeism figures for civic employees in comparison with the previous budget year, including the number|Corporate Services |

| |of employees involved and the cost to the City. What is being done to reduce the problem? | |

| |2002 2003 YTD* | |

| |Number City Employees 7,440 7,636 | |

| |Total Sick hours 436,935 351,776 | |

| |Avg. Hrs/Employee 57.93 45.95 | |

| |Total Annual Cost 10,836,470 8,444,078 | |

| |Cost/Employee 1,370 1,103 | |

| |Factors influencing the escalating cost include increased number of employees, negotiated cost of living increases, and | |

| |greater focus on reporting all incidents. | |

| |Initiatives being undertaken to reduce the problem include: | |

| |greater emphasis on proper Absent Report Form submissions by employees | |

| |greater emphasis on continued connection with Supervisor and absent employees | |

| |increased Disability Management Consultant profile and direct presence at the work site. | |

| |more consistent adjudication of claims | |

| |increased focus on getting employees back to work | |

| |more clearly communicated expectation for employees | |

| | | |

| |* Information to September 30, 2003. | |

| |What is the exact number of new civic staff hired in 2003 and what has been the financial impact in dollar terms, of |Finance |

| |this increase, including salaries and benefits? Please provide comparative figures for the number of civic staff for | |

| |each of the past five years. How many persons were hired on a contract basis to avoid extra costs in creating new civic| |

| |positions? | |

| |The table below provides an analysis of the incremental FTE change approved in the 2003 Budget, compared to the previous| |

| |five budget approvals. FTE changes are categorized by type of adjustment. The FTE changes do not include the filling | |

| |of position vacancies related to retirements or resignations as these do not result in an increase to the City's | |

| |workforce. The table below also indicates the estimated dollar value of the total FTE changes for each budget year, | |

| |based on the average personnel cost per FTE in each year. | |

| |Annual FTE Change (Budget) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 | |

| |City '97 & Other Savings -218.3 -88.4 -56.5 | |

| |Expenditure & Revenue Review -17.9 | |

| |Service Needs, Annualization & Other 79.4 124.2 164.9 120.6 232.1 220.5 | |

| |Service Reductions -98.5 -4.3 -6.3 | |

| |Employee Status Change* 30.0 102.8 | |

| |Total FTE Change -138.9 -32.7 206.9 96.4 232.1 220.5 | |

| |$ (Mil) for FTE Change -$7.3 -$1.7 $11.3 $5.6 $14.1 $14.0 | |

| |Number of Approved FTEs 8,868.9 8,836.2 9,043.1 9,139.5 9,371.6 9,592.1 | |

| |* Reclassification of honorariums in Community Services and DATS contracts to employee status. | |

| |Fee for service contracts are used where specific expertise is required for a project or short term requirement and the | |

| |City does not have staff with that expertise or sufficient numbers of qualified staff to meet the demand workload. Data | |

| |on numbers of persons involved in fee for service contracts is not readily available. For further information on the | |

| |use of contracts for delivering City services, see the response to question 340. | |

| |Civic salaries account for what percentage of the total operating budget, including benefits. Benefits amount to what |Finance |

| |percentage of full time employee’s remuneration? | |

| |Salaries, wages and benefits account for 56.8% of tax-supported expenditures (page 75 of the 2004 Budget Summary). | |

| |Individual department benefit rates as a percentage of remuneration vary depending on the mix of collective agreements. | |

| |Departments that have predominantly protective services staff have the highest rates, which are around 23%, while | |

| |departments that are predominantly administrative have the lowest rates of around 18%. Other departments have varying | |

| |rates in between. | |

| |Please provide a list of all users fees which a homeowner will be required to pay under the proposed budget, including |Finance |

| |those on one's utility bill, with a comparison in number and cost in 2003. | |

| |The table on page 39 of Volume 1 provides the total municipal property tax, waste management fee and drainage utility | |

| |charges a typical homeowner would pay in 2004. | |

| | | |

| |2003 change 2004 | |

| |Municipal Property Tax 1,004 50 1,054 | |

| |Sanitary Waste Management Fee 125 18 143 | |

| |Sanitary Sewer Utility 265 none 265 | |

| |Land Drainage Utility 44 1 45 | |

| |Total 1,438 69 (4.8%) 1,507 | |

| | | |

| |Not included in these totals is the impact of the proposed Business Model Review initiative to charge the cost of the | |

| |hydrant contract to water utility customers. With City Council endorsement of the initiative as proposed, a flat fee of| |

| |$1.97 per water meter, per month, would be levied on utility bills. Including this impact would result in a $93 annual | |

| |increase (6.4%) for the average household. | |

| |Please provide statistics showing how much compost was produced in 2003; how much was sold; gross income from sales, |AM & PW |

| |with comparative figures for 2002. | |

| |2002 2003 (to end Sept) | |

| |Tonnes Produced 68,615 35,000 | |

| |Tonnes Sold 21,000 6,600 | |

| |Gross Income from sales $88,000 $26,000 | |

| | | |

| |The branch has not pursued compost marketing aggressively this year. We have been working on a partnership agreement | |

| |with a private sector company that covers the last three years (2004 to 2006) of the five-year compost market | |

| |development period. The agreement will be finalized within a few weeks and marketing of significant volumes of compost | |

| |is planned for next spring. We will also investigate possible value-added opportunities (pelletizing, greenhouse, etc.) | |

| |identified by the Auditor, pending budget approval. | |

| |Production of compost in 2003 will be below 2002 reflecting a planned slow down for a complete eight-week cleaning of | |

| |all plant components, a preventative maintenance procedure in keeping with industry best practices. | |

|Councillor B. Anderson: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |What would the longest functional time be that the $4M YMCA request could be spread over? Would the current year amount|Finance |

| |be drawn from the current budget or would the total amount be applied to the current budget? Are there any reserve | |

| |amounts that could function as a source of funding? | |

| |Past discussions around funding for the downtown YMCA have suggested a time frame between five and ten years, the ten | |

| |years being the length of the YMCA proposed Capital Development Plan. The latest YMCA proposal has indicated a funding | |

| |request over five years (2004-2008). The amount and source of funding applied to any one year would depend on the | |

| |decision of City Council. | |

| | | |

| |There are no reserve funds that have been established for this purpose. A report presented to the July 7, 2003 | |

| |Community Services Committee discussed various funding alternatives. A subsequent report to the September 2, 2003 | |

| |Community Services Committee identified excess earnings in the Sinking Fund as a possible financing source. A further | |

| |report on the YMCA proposal has been directed to the December 3, 2003 Community Services Committee. | |

| | | |

| |During the 2004-08 CPP & Budget priority review, the $4M contribution to the downtown YMCA was considered over the | |

| |five-year period as an annual draw of $800,000 on the proposed $6.0M allocation of excess sinking funds added to the | |

| |general financing pool. Other needs were seen to have a higher priority, based upon the ranking criteria. The proposed | |

| |2004 budget does not include funding of the YMCA project. If City Council should choose to provide $4 million in | |

| |funding over five years to accommodate the YMCA project, general finance from the following projects could be considered| |

| |for reallocation within the plan. | |

| |[pic] | |

| |What contribution to transportation projects surrounding West Edmonton Mall, has WEM been required to make? Could you |Transp. & Streets |

| |indicate a) project; b) amount; and 3) justification for WEM share of the project. | |

| |Over the course of the last 25 years, West Edmonton Mall has been required to implement a number of improvements | |

| |totaling $9 Million as part of the development of access for the mall. In general, it can be stated that the | |

| |improvements that the Mall was required to pay, included the following: | |

| | | |

| |all turning lanes required for development of site accesses along 87 Avenue and 178 Street | |

| |entry and exit ramp systems on and off of 170 Street | |

| |pedestrian overpass over 170 Street south of 90 Avenue | |

| |construction of 90 Avenue between 172 and 178 Street (which is the collector roadway serving the north side of the mall | |

| |and the adjoining overflow parking lot) | |

| |traffic signal costs related to the mall (where the signals serve more than the mall, the costs attributed to the mall | |

| |reflect the share serving their access) | |

| |When the most recent rezoning of West Edmonton Mall was approved by City Council in late 2002, the conditions of | |

| |approval again required the construction by the mall of improvements estimated to total $2.8 Million directly tied to | |

| |their accesses and increased traffic: | |

| | | |

| |conversion of turn lane on 178 Street at 90 Avenue and 170 Street at 87 Avenue from single to double left turns | |

| |east/west channelization improvements on 87 Avenue at 170 Street | |

| |50% of the cost of additional through lane on 170 Street southbound between 90 Avenue and 87 Avenue (required due to | |

| |increased turns on and off the site) | |

| |It can be seen in the above that only improvements directly giving access to West Edmonton Mall or directly serving the | |

| |site are funded by the Mall, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act section 650 which | |

| |stipulates that a Council may require a developer of land to: | |

| |“a) construct or pay for the construction of a road required to give access to the development | |

| |construct or pay for the construction of a pedestrian walkway system to serve the development” | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that the City of Edmonton has also funded significant arterial roadway development in this area (170 Street,| |

| |178 Street, 95 Avenue, Whitemud Drive). For the future, City of Edmonton costs for network improvements to these | |

| |arterial roads have been estimated at approximately $12 million. | |

| |Is there any legal opportunity for a portion of the 23rd Avenue interchange or the 19th Ave. underpass to be assigned to|Transp. & Streets |

| |South Edmonton Common tenants on a per square foot, or some other equitable basis? Are local improvement charges a | |

| |possibility? | |

| |In accordance with Municipal Government Act requirements, the municipality may require that the developer construct a | |

| |roadway required to give access to the site. This provision was utilized to require the developer of South Edmonton | |

| |Common to construct a variety of improvements (all internal roadways, channelization along 23 Avenue and Gateway | |

| |Boulevard, and extension of Parsons Road south to the 13 Avenue intersection, 13 Avenue rail underpass). It is not | |

| |possible to require any further payment from developers for the majority of lands in South Edmonton Common where zoning | |

| |approvals exist. It is possible to use the MGA provision for access to any additional lands yet to require zoning | |

| |approval through City Council. As development of these additional lands would generate traffic that would create only | |

| |a minor increase in volumes on 23 Avenue or 19 Avenue it is unlikely that it could be argued that these improvements | |

| |(interchanges) are required to provide access to the remaining lands for which zoning approvals are being sought. | |

| | | |

| |Local Improvement may be utilized as a method of funding improvements to benefiting owners, but this funding method can | |

| |be used successfully only for directly benefiting owners (i.e. Local Improvement funding for a signal at 19 Avenue – | |

| |99 Street is proposed with funding to be split amongst the four parcels directly abutting this intersection). For local| |

| |improvement to be used successfully, a majority of property owners must be willing to fund the project, and it must be | |

| |proven that the project is of benefit only to those owners (as opposed to the overall benefit of the transportation | |

| |network). It is noted that the upgrading of Gateway Boulevard to a freeway standard between Anthony Henday Drive and 23| |

| |Avenue is identified as a required network improvement in the Transportation Master plan. | |

| |One final funding mechanism that is available for the funding of improvements beyond those that would be undertaken by | |

| |the City would be the use of a Business Revitalization Zone. This method was used to raise approximately $1 million | |

| |towards the cost of a rail overpass on 184 Street (which had not been included in the initial plans put forward by the | |

| |City). The BRZ may be an appropriate method to deal with any additional improvements on public roadways within South | |

| |Edmonton Common, and/or channelization improvements to improve site access on intersections along 23 Avenue or Parsons | |

| |Road, but would not be used to generate funds needed for network improvements such as the interchanges on Gateway Blvd | |

| |at 19 Avenue or 23 Avenue. | |

| |Are the costs of land required for 23rd Ave. currently included in the funded portion of the 2004 proposed budget? |Transp. & Streets |

| |Total costs for property acquisition for the 23 Ave – Gateway Blvd interchange are between $4 and $5 million. | |

| |Application has been made to the Province of Alberta for the utilization of ICAP funding interest (approximately $2.2 | |

| |million) for the 23 Avenue – Gateway Blvd interchange. The Transportation and Streets Department has prepared a revised| |

| |project profile identifying these costs and new funding source with the intention that this would allow property | |

| |acquisition to proceed. It would be intended that the balance of the land costs would be funded through the debt | |

| |borrowing profile in a future year. | |

| |There are certain segments of our community that will benefit more than others from the expansion of the Shaw Conference|EDE |

| |Centre Could you identify any possible surcharges or other methods of revenue collection that could be used to provide | |

| |all, or a portion of, the city funding required for the construction of Hall D? | |

| |A variety of visitor services are the first to benefit from convention delegate spending. For example, car rentals, | |

| |service stations, parking, taxis, retail, sporting events and recreation, museums, sightseeing/tours, food and beverage | |

| |with the largest single portion, at slightly less than 50%, going to lodgings. Subsequent rounds of spending disperse | |

| |these new revenues throughout the local economy. | |

| | | |

| |The overwhelming consensus in North America is that the travelling public, through consumer based taxes, should pay for | |

| |ongoing tourism marketing programs and needed infrastructure developments. These taxes are most often levied on hotel | |

| |rooms and car | |

| |rentals. Many American cities also raise funds by issuing municipal bonds which are eventually paid for from the tax | |

| |base. In an increasing number of cases, American cities are attracting private sector partners to develop and operate | |

| |hotels and convention | |

| |centres by fronting the initial investment with revenue bonds. These are paid for from municipal share of enterprise's | |

| |revenues and are not a burden on the local tax base. | |

| | | |

| |The picture is a little different in Canada. British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia have legislation enabling | |

| |municipalities to levy hotel taxes should they wish to do so. Ontario is currently looking at similar legislation. | |

| |The expansion of the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is based in part on a plan - currently under discussion - to | |

| |use hotel tax revenues for a $90 million contribution to the $495 million capital cost. Tourism Vancouver receives | |

| |many millions of dollars every year from the hotel tax. The province collects the tax and remits it to the city. | |

|Councillor A. Bolstad: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |Please explain what the $100,000 shortfall in the greenhouse gas program will do to our FCM/Kyoto commitment and our |AM&PW |

| |greenhouse gas reduction strategy in general. | |

| |The $100,000 shortfall in funding for the CO2RE Initiative will have a negative impact on the program and our ability to| |

| |meet FCM/Kyoto commitments. | |

| | | |

| |As identified in the 2003 CO2RE Annual report that was provided to Transportation and Public Works Committee on November| |

| |18th, without this City funding a limited number of activities would be undertaken in 2004. This reduced level of | |

| |activity will hamper efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | |

| |Without continued City funding, it will be difficult to access potential new matching grant funding. Up to $92,000 in | |

| |confirmed grants could be at risk because of the $100,000 shortfall. See also Question #361. | |

| |On page 20 of Volume II, you talk about providing “uniform” waste management services to outlying parts of the city. |AM&PW |

| |Please describe the current inequity. Would it be appropriate to bring a report to T+PW on this in order to review it | |

| |in more detail? | |

| |There are 2 distinct levels of residential collection service within our corporate boundaries based on residential | |

| |population density: | |

| | | |

| |Densely populated residential areas and contiguous residential developments in the outer areas such as Lewis Estates and| |

| |Palisades (the greater majority of Edmonton’s residents) receive curbside collection of residential refuse. | |

| | | |

| |Less populated outer areas do not receive consistent curbside collection of residential refuse as outlined below: | |

| | | |

| |Some receive a comparable service to Item 1 above for historical (annexation) reasons or because of proximity to | |

| |established collection routes, which make provision of the service possible within approved budgets. An example of the | |

| |former is Windermere Estates in southwest Edmonton and an example of the latter is Horsehills in northeast Edmonton. | |

| |A small number (15) purchase a $60 City permit that allows them to dispose of household waste at either the Edmonton | |

| |Waste Management Centre or the West Edmonton Landfill. | |

| | | |

| |Some enter into a Trade Waste Agreement with the City, as per the Solid Waste Bylaw, that allows for direct billing of | |

| |the cost to provide the collection service to the residence. An example is Riverside in southwest Edmonton. | |

| | | |

| |All residents not receiving a collection service for recyclables can deliver these materials to Recycle Depots or Eco | |

| |Stations. | |

| |What will be left of our brownfield initiative if the $70,000 item in the budget is left below the line? |AM&PW |

| |The $70,000 in funding was identified to develop a comprehensive inventory of contaminated sites, including brownfield | |

| |sites, which are defined as sites that have a potential for redevelopment. This cannot be accomplished without this | |

| |funding. | |

| | | |

| |While developing this inventory will provide benefits for a potential brownfields initiative, it will more importantly | |

| |help to reduce the overall risk that contaminated sites pose for City planning and operational activities. | |

| | | |

| |With respect to the brownfields pilot program that was provided to Transportation and Public Works Committee earlier in | |

| |2003, the Administration is currently looking for partnership funding. The total recommended pilot project funding was | |

| |$500,000 and to date the Administration has not been successful in securing any partnership funding. | |

| |Why is the waste management fee increasing so much (15%)? |AM&PW |

| |An increase in monthly user fees of $1.50 for single family and 97 cents for multi-family is recommended for 2004. | |

| | | |

| |The recommended increase takes us through year nine of the Branch’s 10-year funding strategy that was approved in 1994. | |

| |The plan fixed fees at a relatively low value with no increases in the first five years and with increases above | |

| |inflation in the last five years to bring the fees to a sustainable level. As planned, the rate stabilization reserve, | |

| |designed to phase-in the required increases over the 10 years, will be substantially depleted in 2004. After 2005, the | |

| |user fees will increase with inflation. | |

| |Has money from a new gas deal with ATCO been built into this budget? If so, how much? Will a report on this be coming |Finance |

| |to T+PW? | |

| |The proposed budget does include an amount anticipated to be achieved through renegotiation of the ATCO franchise fee. | |

| |The amount is included within the $7.3 million outlined within the business model changes in Volume I, page 99. Given | |

| |the ongoing negotiations, administration provided an in-camera briefing to Executive Committee on November 19th, and | |

| |plans to meet with City Council in mid-December. | |

| |How many trees were we moving in the tree donation program? How much would we have to charge for this service? Are |Community Services |

| |there any federal green funds available to help cover the cost of this program? | |

| |During the 2003-planting season, 121 trees were moved/transplanted using the tree donation program, which is higher than| |

| |typical volume. By cost sharing with Community Leagues, the department was able to optimize trees donated in this | |

| |year’s program. Normally it costs approximately $450.00 to transplant and service each donated tree. To the best of | |

| |our knowledge, Green Tree Canada funds are only available for new plantings (seedlings) on undeveloped sites. | |

| |What are the implications of cancelling the community partnership program that is listed at $166,000? |Community Services |

| |The $166,000 Community Partnerships growth service package, which sits below the budget line in the Community Services | |

| |submission, is a composite of five growth items that involve partner organizations. Approval of the City budget at the | |

| |recommended level will not necessarily result in cancellation of the existing partnerships. However, impacts to these | |

| |partnerships are significant. They range from limiting the extent of public appreciation conveyed during the City's | |

| |2004 centennial year celebrations and thereafter (Archives Historical Board Recognition) to not meeting growth-related | |

| |service needs (Free and Low Cost Neighbourhood Recreation Programs) to limiting growth of a major youth project | |

| |(Expecting Respect) to limiting the potentials of key strategic initiatives (Corporate Aboriginal Strategy, Coordinated | |

| |Response to Family Violence). | |

| |Where are we at with our skateboard park program? Will funds for the Castle Downs and Kaskitayo Parks be brought |Community Services |

| |forward to 2004? Are we attempting to fund any others in 2004? | |

| |A request will be made to carry forward the capital funding for Castledowns and Kaskitayo Skate Parks to 2004. The South| |

| |East Community League Association (SECLA) has expressed an interest to build a Skate Park in 2004, however new Skate | |

| |Park Development is presently unfunded in the proposed 2004 Capital Budget. | |

| |Are we planning to rebuild fire hall #10 at 128 Avenue and 101 Street? If so, why do we need to do this? |Emergency Response |

| |Replacement of station #10 is a strategic priority for ERD in the provision of Emergency Response Services. | |

| | | |

| |Station #10 is currently 46 years old with its physical condition being classed as fair to poor. The facility is at | |

| |risk of mechanical and electrical system failure. The bays in Station #10 are undersized for replacement vehicle | |

| |apparatus. In addition the station does not meet employee accommodation standards. | |

| | | |

| |Investment in infrastructure now will reduce or avoid costly interim repairs that will be needed to keep these | |

| |facilities operational. Repair costs to this station is currently estimated at $1.0m. | |

| | | |

| |Construction of new premises will address these issues and ensure that there is capacity for future service needs. | |

| | | |

| |Construction of the new station will occur while the current station is still operational. This will ensure that there | |

| |is no degradation of response times in the coverage area during the construction phase. | |

| |How are we coming with our wildland fire response strategy? Are there any funds set aside in 2004 to move this project |Emergency Response |

| |along? | |

| |All active operational firefighters in the City have been provided with specialized wildland urban interface fire | |

| |training and have been provided with personal protection equipment specifically designed for wildland fires. In | |

| |addition, we have recently purchased specialized wildland firefighting equipment and tools, including lightweight small | |

| |diameter hose and appliances. Our river valley and ravine mapping systems are being updated to include water supply | |

| |access points and the trails have been coded to provide information such as global positioning and trail widths. We | |

| |have made contacts with aircraft operators and have identified potential fire location and water pickup and drop | |

| |locations. | |

| |We are also working with the University of Alberta on a University funded study to determine the level of fire awareness| |

| |and safety for those residents who live adjacent to urban wildland areas. It is anticipated that the study will be | |

| |completed towards the end of 2003. | |

| |In 2004, Fire Rescue will prepare a brochure for the public based on the information received from the awareness study | |

| |to help residents better understand the risks involved and the steps they can take to mitigate those risks. Funding for| |

| |this brochure will come from proposed operational funding with no additional funding request. | |

| |All specialized equipment has now been purchased. On-going maintenance and repair of this equipment will be funded | |

| |through the proposed operational budget with no additional funding request. | |

| |What rationale can we give people for adding a fire hydrant charge to their water bill? How is it a user fee, as opposed|Emergency Response |

| |to a service the city provides to everyone through the tax base? | |

| |Three billing models are being used to fund hydrant service costs across Canada: | |

| |1. Tax levy supported and / or subsidized | |

| |2. Blended into the water rates | |

| |3. User fees (an extra charge on the utility bill) | |

| |These models represent a combination of tax levy, utility rates and fee based funding sources to pay for the cost of | |

| |hydrants. The report brought forward to the Executive Committee on Wednesday November 19, 2003 recommended a new fee be| |

| |added to the water utility bill to fund hydrant costs. The rationale for this approach was to: | |

| |Reduce the tax levy draw for Emergency Response Department purposes in 2004, and increase City Council’s ability to fund| |

| |other corporate priorities. | |

| |In so doing: | |

| |This will bring us in line with the way other Canadian municipalities fund hydrant costs (Victoria, Vancouver, | |

| |Strathcona County, Regina, Municipality of Peel, Halifax) | |

| |This is a simple approach that is easy to administer and is modeled after the recently approved 9-1-1 additional service| |

| |fee. | |

| |Further to the direction provided at the Executive Committee meeting, the administration intends to bring forward | |

| |additional information, and develop different scenarios and costing models for the Committee to review. This additional | |

| |information will also consider inclusion of these hydrant costs in the water rate base as well as the proposed user fee | |

| |model. A rescheduled meeting of the Executive Committee on Friday, December 5, 2003 will consider these options. | |

| |What is the impact of dropping $135,000 from the Smart Choices/Intensification Program? What will be left of this |Planning and |

| |initiative in 2004? |Development |

| |The Smart Choices/Intensification Program will be implemented through 2004 upon Council approval of upcoming | |

| |recommendations for developing smart choice implementation strategies. This will demand the leadership and | |

| |participation of department staff on implementation teams through 2004. Dropping $135,000 from the program will mean | |

| |that staff will not be able to act on all the recommendations that may be made by Council although staff will move | |

| |forward as best they can. | |

| |What is included in the regional/intermunicipal issues package, which is estimated to cost $103,000? Where will this |Planning and |

| |reduction leave us? |Development |

| |This package is intended to provide support on an as and where needed basis for all but the last of the Leadership, | |

| |Regional Cooperation and Planning Corporate and Departmental Initiatives identified on pages 291 through 293 of Volume | |

| |II. This funding provides the flexibility to respond in a timely way to demands related to intermunicipal planning that| |

| |may be originated by one or more of Edmonton’s Intermunicipal Planning Partners, such as development adjacent to city | |

| |boundaries and annexation. The actual projects could be very diverse: environmental conservation; conflict resolution; | |

| |growth interfaces with a neighbouring municipality; heavy industrial risk assessment; regional information systems; etc.| |

| | | |

| |Not having access to this package will hamper the City in participating fully in intermunicipal and regional issues as | |

| |they emerge. | |

| |How much do we intend to charge people for residential parking passes? How much revenue will this generate? |Transportation and |

| |Parking passes and visitor-parking passes are presently provided at no charge within areas where local parking studies |Streets |

| |have resulted in restrictions. These passes are provided to residents in the area to insure that they have priority for| |

| |local parking. As a potential new revenue initiative it is suggested in the budget that a fee be established for these | |

| |passes. Presently approximately 7,000 passes are provided each year. Since this is a new fee it is proposed that it | |

| |would be a relatively low fee of $10.00 for each pass. This would project revenue of $70,000 per year. However the | |

| |Department is anticipating a fairly significant push back from citizens regarding this fee. Citizens might well argue | |

| |that it was not their fault that parking became congested on their streets and why should they have to pay for street | |

| |parking when no one else does. As a result the Department is preparing to spend some funds on communication strategies | |

| |and to deal with citizen concerns. This will significantly reduce the overall cost benefit of this revenue stream at | |

| |least in the short term. See also Question 364. | |

| |What will be lost if council does not provide the additional $2.1 million that was requested? |Police Service |

| |The Edmonton Police Commission in their presentation to City Council in May 2003 and again in their 2004 budget | |

| |submission made note of the fact that the Commission would require an increase of 6.3% in the 2004 budget over that | |

| |which was granted in 2003. It was pointed out to Council that this increase would only cover cost impacts – it would | |

| |not allow for any growth in the policing program. The Commission has reviewed its budget following the Council meeting | |

| |of November 6, 2003 and maintains its original position; that is, an increase of 6.3% will be required to cover the cost| |

| |impacts for 2004. It would be a source of concern to the Commission if funds were not allocated to cover the increased | |

| |costs. | |

| | | |

| |The suggestion that the Commission might not be allotted the increase required creates added concern because of the very| |

| |significant and potentially far-reaching initiatives currently being planned by the Commission. Most specifically in | |

| |this is the Commission’s intention to formally adopt Community Policing as the philosophy that will define the policing | |

| |program in Edmonton. This will be followed immediately with the development of an operational plan to advance the | |

| |concept of Community Policing in a highly specific and substantive manner. While the project, currently entitled, | |

| |Policing with the Community, is only at the conceptual stage the Commission believes that it will not only improve the | |

| |policing program in Edmonton, but that it will also result in marked efficiency in regard to budget expenditures. | |

| | | |

| |If the Commission is granted less than the 6.3% increase requested it will make the implementation of the project, | |

| |Policing with the Community, significantly more difficult to operationalize. This, in part, because there will be costs| |

| |associated with making the transition from one paradigm to another; that is, there will be costs associated with the | |

| |planning, piloting, and implementation of the project. These funds will be allocated from within the budget requested | |

| |by the Commission for 2004. | |

| | | |

| |In addition to the foregoing, the ongoing policing program would experience a negative impact if the Commission budget | |

| |request was not granted. However, it is much too early in the process to determine what and where those impacts would | |

| |be most acutely felt. These could only be determined as the budget year unfolded and as the Commission monitored the | |

| |policing program needs as these evolved. | |

| | | |

| |The Edmonton Police Commission can assure Council that it has and will continue to exercise due diligence over the | |

| |Commission budget. We will continue to explore alternatives in the way policing is done in Edmonton in order to ensure | |

| |that the available funds are utilized in the most effective and efficient manner possible. We will continue to ensure | |

| |that the Edmonton Police Service remains an outstanding organization. Finally, we do assure Council that the 2004 | |

| |budget request with its 6.3% increase is necessary and legitimate. | |

| | | |

| |If Council so wishes the Commission could provide additional information on some of the initiatives planned for 2004. | |

| |Which communities qualify for peak bus service under the $514,000 package that is below the line? |Transportation |

| |Please see response to question #7. | |

| |Which communities qualify for off-peak service under the $380,000 package that is below the line? |Transportation |

| |Please see response to question #7. | |

| |How much additional revenue would be generated if we added another $1 to the cost of the adult monthly bus pass; to the |Transportation |

| |DATS monthly bus pass; to the student monthly bus pass and the post-secondary monthly bus pass? Could all of these | |

| |changes be implemented on January 1? | |

| |One dollar fare increases would generate the following revenues: | |

| |Adult Monthly Pass - $143,000 | |

| |Post-Secondary Discounted Monthly Pass - $77,000 | |

| |School Pass (effective September 2004) - $57,000 | |

| |DATS Monthly Pass – $16,000 | |

| | | |

| |Changes to the prices of monthly passes cannot be made in January. Given the limited amount of time between Council | |

| |approval of the rate changes and January 1, there is insufficient time to adequately prepare sales outlets and | |

| |communicate the changes to the public. Specific problems that would be encountered include: | |

| | | |

| |many print/production shops shut down over the holidays or charge premiums for work over the holiday season | |

| |requires staff to work overtime to meet short deadlines | |

| |many customers travel out of town for the holidays and would miss any communication messages that might be put out | |

| |outlets typically order pass/ticket inventory a month in advance. They would lose the opportunity to adjust quantities | |

| |if there were significant rate changes to the products they carry | |

| |With the exception of the school passes, the changes are implemented February 1st of each year. | |

| |What is the impact of dropping $111,000 from the neighborhood traffic program? |Transportation |

| |The impacts of dropping $111,000 from the neighbourhood traffic program as outlined on page 127 of volume 3 would be as | |

| |follows: | |

| | | |

| |the number of neighbourhood traffic planning studies would be reduced by 50% from 2 per year to one per year | |

| |traffic data collection programs (e.g. volumes, speeds and shortcutting surveys) in support of neighbourhood traffic | |

| |plans and general traffic inquiries regarding traffic concerns in neighbourhoods would be reduced by 50% | |

| |post project follow up (i.e. requests for follow up work or additional data collection) on neighbourhood traffic plans | |

| |would be reduced | |

| | | |

| |At the present time there are 2 neighbourhood traffic planning studies in progress (Garneau and West Meadowlark) and 5 | |

| |or 6 neighbourhoods or collector roadways meeting or likely to meet the criteria for plan development (e.g. Strathearn, | |

| |116 Street in Prince Rupert and Queen Mary Park). With a reduction of $111,000 in funding, no new neighbourhood traffic| |

| |plans would commence until 2005, and timelines for completion of the West Meadowlark Plan would be extended. One | |

| |implication of delays in traffic calming studies may be a deferral of collector roadway rehabilitation works proposed to| |

| |be implemented at the same time as traffic calming. | |

| |What is the impact of eliminating the $59,000 from land use planning and transportation support, and $51,000 from |Community Leagues |

| |governance and operation support? | |

| |Land use planning and transportation support: This is EFCL’s first priority this year and will reluctantly accept a | |

| |reduction in the community league operating grant of an equivalent amount to see this position funded. If not funded | |

| |EFCL will cease offering this valuable service to our members, the planning and development committee, and the various | |

| |City of Edmonton consultation processes. Prior to hiring a Planner, EFCL’s Executive Director could provide some | |

| |assistance because of her years of experience in this area. In 2004 this will not be an option. | |

| |Governance and operation support: EFCL will continue to provide admittedly sporadic workshops and occasionally update | |

| |resource materials as staff time permits and will continue to respond to emergency situations only. EFCL will delay or | |

| |extend any proactive assistance. We note an increase in the number of leagues coming to the brink of closure as a result| |

| |of poor practices and volunteer shortages, which would ultimately leave the City of Edmonton with a number of aging | |

| |facilities. | |

| |How much do we spend on corporate sponsorships? Which departments have funds for these initiatives and how much do they|Corporate Services / |

| |have? |Community Services |

| |Corporate Sponsorship reflects the City’s contribution to local organizers seeking support for national and | |

| |international conferences and events coming to Edmonton. | |

| |In 2003 the corporation budgeted $81,000 on corporate sponsorships which will be fully expended. A similar amount is in | |

| |the 2004 Proposed City Clerk’s budget. | |

| |Funds are held in a single account and are distributed by the Communications Branch of Corporate Services Department. | |

| |The sponsorship funding covers one-time events or conferences. All applications for these funds are evaluated and must | |

| |score a certain number of points before funding in considered. | |

| | | |

| |There is an unfunded service need requesting increased funding of $44,000 which would enable the City to meet some | |

| |larger sponsorship requests of $20,000 to $25,000 without impacting on smaller requests. | |

| |The Community Services Department becomes involved as corporate sponsors of events such as the 2001 World Championships,| |

| |ITU Triathlon events and Corporate Challenge. Other than Corporate Challenge these sponsorships are usually part of a | |

| |corporate initiative. The budget for Community Services involvement is included in the corporate information provided to| |

| |Council for approval on an individual case basis. | |

| | | |

| |The Community Services Department is also involved with smaller community based events or activities. Normally this | |

| |sponsorship involves access to facilities or spaces for an event or activity and does not involve incremental costs to | |

| |the Department’s normal operation. The Department generally receives recognition in promotional materials for the event.| |

| |Why are salaries going up by 34%? |City Manager |

| |This number is found on Page 76 of Volume 1, 2004-06 Corporate Business Plan & 2004 Budget Summary. | |

| | | |

| |The Office of the City Clerk, which is part of the Office of the City Manager, is budgeting for the 2004 General | |

| |Municipal Election. More details of this one time funding can be found commencing on Page 266 of Volume II. Neither | |

| |the Office of the City Manager or the Office of the City Clerk are budgeting any additional permanent staff increases | |

| |beyond those required for wage settlements and benefit increases. | |

|Councillor Leibovici: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |Can Business Model Changes be effective without a comprehensive review of the services we deliver as well as a |City Manager |

| |determination of which businesses we should not be in? | |

| |City Council has previously decided not to undertake a comprehensive review of City services. The Administration does | |

| |review City services annually as a part of the budget process and recommends service changes through the service package| |

| |reviews. | |

| |The Business Model changes is generally not a service review but a new way to provide or fund current services. | |

| |Do we know the City’s cost of new development and are we re-couping the true costs of new development from the |Planning & Dev. |

| |development industry | |

| |The developer is responsible for the costs of developing a new neighbourhood including local roads, basic two-lane | |

| |arterials roads, and storm and sanitary sewers. The developer also provides municipal reserve for school and park | |

| |purposes. The City is responsible for costs incurred beyond the neighbourhood level but that may be required as a | |

| |result of new development such as district parks, transit centres, and additional arterial road improvements. | |

| |Costs of development that the City is responsible for are included in the annual Capital Priorities Plan. In January of| |

| |2001 the Planning and Development Department prepared a report for Executive Committee on Partially Built Neighbourhoods| |

| |that provided estimates of city costs for proposed city facilities in neighbourhoods approved since 1981. This report | |

| |is currently being updated to reflect current costs and proposed facilities. | |

| |As our operating gap is growing is it time to levy a surcharge on new developments? |Planning & Dev. |

| |To date the fees charged for development proposals have been used as a revenue tool to off set the costs of services and| |

| |not as a policy tool to discourage or encourage particular types of development. If Council were to consider such a | |

| |change there would need to be some considerable work done around growth priorities to set the framework for a new way of| |

| |calculating fees. | |

| |Council is already looking at this issue in terms of various discussions around the cost of new development and who | |

| |should pay, including responding to Councillor Leibovici’s inquiry. These discussions must proceed further before the | |

| |fees issue could be reasonably considered as a policy instrument. | |

| |What will be the cost of implementing “Smart Choices” and what are the benefits? |Planning & Dev. |

| |The financial costs of implementing “Smart Choices” will depend on Council’s direction for further action. Action on the| |

| |ideas Council recommends will have individual project and administration costs, specific to each idea. | |

| | | |

| |The primary benefits of fully implementing “Smart Choices” are: | |

| |More efficient utilization of existing services, infrastructure, and land resources. | |

| | | |

| |Increased tax and transit fare revenue. | |

| | | |

| |The maintenance or enhancement of the quality of life offered in Edmonton’s inner city and mature suburbs. | |

| |How do we ensure that strategic servicing of city purchases saves us money –for example to replace chairs through the |Corporate Services |

| |City’s supplier the cost is $350. If I were to go to an office supply store the costs range from $150. to $250. | |

| |In the strategic sourcing for office chairs three distinct evaluation criteria categories ensure the City is saving | |

| |money and receiving value for the expenditures. First, the manufacturer/supplier was evaluated based on open request | |

| |for proposal process that evaluated both mandatory and desirable requirements. Second, the City established performance| |

| |specifications for the chairs that the manufacturers had to meet and reflect the demands placed on the chairs. Key | |

| |performance specifications included well-defined ergonomics and construction standards. The third criteria category is | |

| |the cost comparison of the product relative to competitors that participated in the RFP process. In summary a composite| |

| |evaluation that included vendor capabilities, product quality and cost was used to determine the best value decision for| |

| |the City. | |

| |“As Capital Budgets can be approved for more than one year to accommodate projects with multi-year construction” (pg. |Finance |

| |63, Vol. 1) why is it necessary to re – approve long term capital projects on a yearly basis once a Council decision has| |

| |been made? | |

| |The City's process requires a capital project to be brought back for Council approval in the cases of: | |

| | | |

| |1. Major changes in the scope of project that involve timing and public expectations, overall changes in objectives or | |

| |terms of reference, and any changes in the recommended approach which impact the overall project. | |

| |2. Change in expenditure cash flows to reflect changes in scope. | |

| |3. Any major additions to project not previously identified as part of original approval. | |

| |4. Previously approved projects with permanent decreases that release funding for other projects. | |

| |Will quarterly updates on the Business Model Review be provided to Council? |Finance |

| |For business model changes incorporated into the 2004 budget approved by City Council, reporting will be included as | |

| |part of the ongoing quarterly performance reporting process. For those initiatives identified for further | |

| |consideration, which require Council approval, additional reports will be brought forward in 2004 for City Council | |

| |consideration. | |

| |Is the Library the only area in the City Corporation that has experienced a decrease in expenditures relative to tax |Finance |

| |levy? (pg. 167 – Vol. III) | |

| |The graph being referred to shows that expenditures for the library have increased at a lower rate than the increase in | |

| |the tax levy over the years 1993 through 2004. This indicates an increased reliance on the tax levy and corporate | |

| |revenues, such as EPCOR dividends to fund expenditures, rather than a reduction to expenditures. Information broken down| |

| |by program is not available on a consistent basis for the period being referred to. However, the following table lists | |

| |the Authorities and Civic Departments that show this trend for the period from 2000 to 2004. | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |What is the rationale for increasing children’s admission to leisure centre 100% from $1.00 to $2.00? |Community Services |

| |The Child Swim Fee was reduced in 1998 from $1.75 to $1 with the objective of encouraging children's basic swimming | |

| |experiences. It has been frozen at that level for the past six years. Initially child attendance did increase, but the| |

| |effect has leveled off. The increased fee is proposed as an alternative to substantial reductions to public hours at | |

| |leisure centres. Had normal increases been applied to the 1997 fee, it would have been $2.11 in 2004. The proposed fee| |

| |of $2 compares favourably with fees at neighbouring municipalities' pools. | |

| | | |

| |For low-income families, the Fee Reduction Program will continue to offer admissions and programs at 25 percent of the | |

| |regular prices (i.e., 75 percent discount). A Fee Reduction price for Child Swim would be 50 cents. | |

| |As new development requests increases the City’s costs of providing services why are increases for development permits |Planning & Development |

| |and subdivision application only 4%. Why is there no increase recommended for a residential building permit? | |

| |The percentage increase of 4% was the increase directed by Council for fee increases in 2004. The Planning and | |

| |Development Department generally applies this increase evenly across all fees charged but does look at fee increases | |

| |from the perspectives of cost recovery and competitiveness with other municipalities and makes specific adjustments. | |

| |For example the single family residential fees were increased in the 2003 budget year to reflect the competitiveness | |

| |aspect and the most significant fee increases proposed in 2004 are in the area of multifamily development and commercial| |

| |projects again reflecting the principals of recovery and competitiveness. | |

| |It should be noted that the general fee increase is not used as a policy tool to encourage or discourage particular | |

| |types of development. It is simply a revenue element in the budget. | |

| |Were the increases to Youth (6-17) and Senior Citizen’s/tickets/monthly pass approved by TPW and/or Council? |Transp. & |

| |Rate increases are approved by City Council as part of the budget package. Policy changes (e.g. changes to fare |Streets-Transit |

| |categories or eligibility criteria) are submitted to TPW and City Council for consideration outside of the budget | |

| |process. The policy changes from Child (6-15) to Youth (6-17) and the introduction of the senior monthly pass have been | |

| |previously approved by TPW and City Council. The rate increases proposed in the 2004 Recommended Budget have not yet | |

| |been approved through TPW or City Council. These increases are required in order for Edmonton Transit to achieve farebox| |

| |revenue targets outlined in the budget guidelines. | |

| |Why is there a disproportionate increase to some fares and no increase to Special Events Adult fares? |Transp. & |

| |The fare structure in the 2004 recommended budget reflects a desire to spread the impacts across most user groups while |Streets-Transit |

| |still promoting convenience and the use of prepaid fare media. The special event cash fare and the regular adult cash | |

| |fare has not been changed given the convenience of a $2.00 fare (single coin) and recent rate increases to this category| |

| |(1999- $1.60; 2000-$1.65; 2001 $1.75; 2002 $2.00). | |

| |Youth/Senior tickets and the student and senior passes, despite the rate increases, still provide attractive payment | |

| |alternatives relative to cash fares. | |

| |What % of the additional resources required to sustain growth in development activity is paid for by the development |AM&PW |

| |industry? Please identify what additional resources are required and the cost of those resources (pg. 42). Please | |

| |verify that these costs are funded by taxpayers through the Sanitary and Land Drainage Utilities. | |

| |The initial cost of sewer infrastructure development is borne by the Developer. These assets can include lateral and | |

| |trunk sewers, pumpstations, and stormwater management facilities. The Sanitary and Land Drainage Utilities must provide | |

| |funding for the maintenance and replacement of these assets in subsequent years. For 2004 the additional resource | |

| |requirement is $581,000 or 0.076% of the total expense. | |

| |Does Waste Management review developer’s plans for ability of waste collection trucks to enter a subdivision? If not, |AM&PW |

| |when and why did this practice change? | |

| |Yes. Waste Management does review draft subdivision layout drawings circulated by the Planning Department. The | |

| |feedback provided to Planning focuses primarily on safety concerns where dead end streets, narrow roadways, or unusually| |

| |small cul-de-sacs have been incorporated into the developer’s subdivision plan. The developer can discuss specific | |

| |waste storage and collection arrangements directly with Waste Management, however, this is not the norm. | |

| | | |

| |For the large majority of sites developed, the waste arrangements prove to be safe and satisfactory for all parties. | |

| |In a very small number of cases some difficulty is experienced by Waste Management during finalization of a site’s waste| |

| |handling arrangements when residents are not made aware, by the developer, of the collection service that will be | |

| |provided. | |

| | | |

| |In addition, difficulties have arisen where a subdivision roadway plan did not allow for safe curbside collection and | |

| |Waste Management has rejected the proposed waste setout location(s) as impractical or unsafe. Difficulties have also | |

| |arisen where residents have rejected waste arrangements previously accepted in good faith by the developer. | |

| | | |

| |With the current rapid pace of development and the trend towards increasingly compact subdivisions it has become | |

| |apparent that the current review and feedback method may not go far enough towards achieving satisfactory waste service | |

| |related results. | |

| | | |

| |Waste Management and Planning will meet in the near future to generate options on how effective waste service | |

| |information can be provided to developers as early as possible in the planning and review process, and to determine how | |

| |the collection service to be provided can best be conveyed at the time of purchase. | |

| |On several projects the statement is made that “the project will not generate any additional financial impact on |AM&PW |

| |operations”. (i.e. 25, 26) If the City’s inventory of drainage facilities continues to grow is there not a requirement | |

| |to hire extra staff or in the long range to provide for rehabilitation or replacement of these facilities? | |

| |The cost associated with this program represents the cost of reviewing and inspecting developer built sewer facilities | |

| |which subsequently are turned over to the City of Edmonton. These costs are shared 50-50 between Drainage Services and | |

| |the Developers. Any additional cost incurred in subsequent years is offset by new revenue collected from the new | |

| |developed areas through the utility bill, resulting in no impact to the Utility. | |

| |Is the Queen Mary Park Sewer rehabilitation included in the funded program XX-31-9504 (pg. 39) – Sewer Infrastructure |AM&PW |

| |Rehabilitation? If not, why not? | |

| |Project XX-31-9504 is for the rehabilitation of deteriorated sewers on a priority basis across the City. The next | |

| |priority neighbourhood is Queen Mary Park. This project is unfunded as the Transportation and Streets component of this | |

| |project is unfunded. See Question #347. | |

| |What steps are being taken to pursue “alternative sources of funding, including partnerships and borrowing strategies” |AM&PW |

| |(pg. 31). | |

| |Tax-supported debt borrowing has been used to fund the new Southeast Police Station currently under construction and has| |

| |been recommended as the 2004 funding source for a new Fire Station to serve the Lake District and to fund replacement of| |

| |Fire Station #10, which is 46 years old. In July, 2003 the Administration initiated a collaborative use study to | |

| |identify potential benefits of an operations and training facility partnership involving EMS, NAIT and STARS. The | |

| |allocation of future Provincial Fuel Tax revenues to provide partial funding for a new transit garage is being | |

| |considered by Transportation & Streets. The Administration will continue to pursue facility partnership and alternative| |

| |funding opportunities, including monitoring of successful facility partnership strategies developed by other government | |

| |agencies and advocating for federal and provincial infrastructure funding. See Question #4. | |

| |Provide an overview of the progress made and further requirements ($2.4 million) needed to ensure accessibility at |AM&PW |

| |Commonwealth Stadium (pg. 61). | |

| |Improvements completed to date include an elevator to the second level, additional wheelchair accessible seats and | |

| |accessibility improvements to existing washrooms. | |

| |The $2.4 million in funding for 2004 (Profile 04-75-4693) will be used to expand the width of the north concourse to | |

| |improve pedestrian traffic flows and to provide additional, fully accessible washrooms. | |

| | | |

| |Future capital projects at the Stadium will take accessibility needs into consideration. | |

| | | |

| |When large events are held at the Stadium there are crowding and pedestrian circulation problems on the north concourse | |

| |during large events. These facility deficiencies create health and safety issues should there be an emergency situation | |

| |during large events. | |

| |Why is the City involved in residential land development? As neighbourhood rehabilitation is a top priority would not |AM&PW |

| |the funds expended on development of City owned lots be better spent on neighbourhood rehabilitation? (pg. 91 – 94) | |

| |The current role of the City in residential development is outlined in the Land Development and the Land Sales | |

| |Guidelines adopted by City Council in April, 1992, following an extensive Public Hearing into the land development | |

| |activities of the City. The City’s residential development program has assisted in providing land for schools and | |

| |parks, and for other facilities such as fire and police stations. It provides small builders and the public with an | |

| |opportunity to purchase lots for independent (non-builder) housing development. By developing its land, the City also | |

| |generates a financial return that is greater than if it sold the land “as is”. This is important because the majority | |

| |of the City’s remaining residential lands were acquired at the peak of the market in the early 1980’s and if the City | |

| |were to sell them “as is” it would not be able to recover its initial investment. The funds expended on City land | |

| |development are financed from short term borrowing that is repaid through future land sales revenues. Therefore, there | |

| |are no cash funds that can be used for neighbourhood rehabilitation. | |

| |Where is the sales revenue from the residential land development allocated? |AM&PW |

| |Sales revenue is a cash inflow to the Land Enterprise. This revenues is applied against expenditures for land servicing| |

| |and development capital expenditures, debt repayment and associated land sales expenses. | |

| |Do City owned residential lots follow the principles set out in plans such as Plan Edmonton, and TMP? Are developments |AM&PW |

| |transit oriented (and is bus services provided) and are there bike paths and walk ways? | |

| |The City’s development plans for its large residential holdings adhere to the design principles of Plan Edmonton, the | |

| |Transportation Master Plan and other statutory plan requirements approved by City Council. This includes the provision | |

| |of walkways and bike paths such as those developed on pipeline and power rights-of-ways within the City’s Miller and | |

| |Belle Rive Neighbourhoods. As well, top-of-bank roadways and walkways are provided when ravine lands exist within or | |

| |adjacent to City development lands such as the Jackson Heights Neigbhourhood in Mill Woods. The design of collector | |

| |roadways within the City ‘s neighbourhoods provide for efficient transit routes. School and park sites, and multiple | |

| |family and apartment developments are located adjacent to or in close proximity to transit routes. Transit service is | |

| |provided by the Transportation and Streets Department as the neighbourhoods build out and the resulting demand warrants | |

| |such service. | |

| |What were the 2001, 2002 and 2003 costs of leasing sites for driver training? (pg. 129) |AM&PW |

| |The leasing costs are $13,800, $20,600 and $17,600 respectively for 2001, 2002 and 2003. Approximately 75% of the costs | |

| |were for facilities leased by Edmonton Police Services. Both EPS and ERD have indicated that these costs are completely | |

| |unrepresentative of their vehicle use training needs. The relatively small costs reflect the difficulty of obtaining | |

| |facilities on a planned schedule basis that supports their recruitment and training cycles, as well as providing the | |

| |full scope of training needs. This is particularly true for Fire Services, where there is as need for a large | |

| |maneuvering area for aerial and pumping apparatus integrated with a circulation track and other training props for | |

| |vehicle extraction scenarios, simulated accidents requiring a tri-service response and multiple use of pump and aerial | |

| |vehicles. ERD has estimated that if appropriate sites were available for lease to match its training needs the annual | |

| |costs would approach $100,000. The training needs for both ERD and EPS will be intensified over the next five years due | |

| |to the large number of retirements. | |

| |What has been the growth in our waste collection fleet (pg. 147)? What portion of waste collection is contracted out? |AM&PW |

| |Over the past twenty years Waste Management’s fleet has been reduced in number while the average truck size and weight | |

| |capacity has increased. | |

| |In 1981, Waste Management’s fleet consisted of 108 small capacity collection units, stationed at three separate sites | |

| |throughout the City, and was used to provide 75% of the City’s refuse collection service. In 2004, Waste Management | |

| |will use 58 collection vehicles stationed at a single yard (Kennedale) to provide refuse collection service plus Blue | |

| |Bag and Blue Bin recycling service for 50% of the City. Service to the remaining 50% is contracted out. | |

| |Could cost savings be achieved if the proposed stand alone DATS garage (pg. 155) is integrated into the proposed new |AM&PW |

| |transit garage at the Davies Yard? (pg. 151) | |

| |The Administration believes there are limited opportunities for savings by co- housing DATS operations with a regular | |

| |transit garage due to significant differences in the vehicle fleets and dissimilar operational characteristics ( | |

| |scheduling, dispatch functions, fare collection, etc.) that minimize economies of scale. In addition, the land | |

| |available for a new transit garage at Davies Yard adjacent to the existing Ferrier Garage is too small to accommodate | |

| |both DATS’ facility requirements and the new transit garage. The City is currently exploring the option of acquiring an| |

| |existing facility in the Davies area, which could potentially be purchased and renovated for about 2/3’s the cost of | |

| |constructing a new facility on City land. This option would still offer benefits associated with close proximity to | |

| |City fueling, wash bays and vehicle maintenance facilities at the Davies Yard. | |

| |With the projected Enoch development and the proposed agreement to provide fire services and the growth in the Grange, |AM&PW |

| |Parkland and Lewis Estates should the design work as well as construction for the Lewis Estates/Big Lake Fire Station | |

| |occur prior to 2008? (pg. 163) | |

| |ERD would support design and construction of a new northwest Fire Station being brought forward earlier than 2008. | |

| |However, earlier construction of this station must not change the following priority schedule of new and replacement | |

| |stations currently identified in the Capital Priorities Plan: Station #10, Lake District, Station #5, Northwest Station | |

| |(Lewis Estates). | |

| |Provide an explanation of the City’s residential development program (Britnell) (pg.67) and rationale for continuation |AM&PW |

| |of this program given the strong private sector residential development market. | |

| |The City’s 49 ha land holding in Brintnell will be developed primarily for single family lots, with 1.8 ha of multiple | |

| |family residential, a 3.9 ha school/park site and a 3.9 ha storm water lake. Continuation of this development program | |

| |will provide small builders and the public with an opportunity to purchase single family lots for independent | |

| |(non-builder) housing development, which is an option not generally offered by private sector development companies. | |

| |The development program will also provide a financial return to the City that is greater than the return of selling the | |

| |land “as is”. | |

| |Provide an explanation of Cost and Revenue Impacts for all categories and other charges (pg. 69). |AM&PW |

| |Land sales revenue – The increase in revenue of $3190 was estimated based on actual sales revenue received the past two | |

| |years. | |

| |Other revenue – Increased interest on payments for land purchases, as well as permanent area recoveries. | |

| |Land sales costs – Increase in cost of sales related to increase in sales revenue. The parcels of land expected to be | |

| |sold have a higher cost of servicing. | |

| |Land acquisition costs – Land acquired for all other City departments. | |

| |Land acquisition recoveries – Payment by other City departments for land acquisitions. | |

| |What is the purpose of maintaining the Land Enterprise Fund in a surplus position of $47m when net income is $8m? (pg. |AM&PW |

| |172 – Vol. III) | |

| |The $47m represents retained earnings which is not surplus and is not cash. Retained earnings is a part of the | |

| |financing for land inventory. Long term debt and short-term borrowing would make up the other parts of financing. The | |

| |net income of $8m would be added to retained earnings, thereby reducing short term borrowing. | |

| |Please provide an overview of the 2003 impact of the Fuel Sense program. |AM&PW |

| |Municipal Fleet: Fuel Sense is a four-hour training program on fuel efficiency practices that combines practical and | |

| |classroom training to realize fuel efficiency gains. To date 700 municipal operators have been trained in Fuel Sense | |

| |with the group averaging a 12% efficiency gain. These savings have been reflected in the 2004 fuel budget in lower fuel | |

| |costs for departments. | |

| |Transit Fleet: Edmonton Transit is on board with the Fuel Sense program. In the spring of 2004 they conducted a hundred | |

| |operator pilot over the course of several weeks that provided a return of approximately 12%. Transit has combined Fuel | |

| |Sense and DDC into a provincially approved course and is actively engaged in training the rest of the operators. This | |

| |award-winning program has been adopted by the Federal Government and is being introduced to Transit Properties across | |

| |Canada. | |

| |Please provide an update of progress made in 2003 re: the on board computer program and benefits realized. |AM&PW |

| |On-board computers can enhance efficiencies through dispatching work to crews while they are in the field, improving | |

| |crew supervision, recording time card and work progress electronically, monitoring a vehicle’s mechanical systems so | |

| |that maintenance can be performed precisely when needed, and monitoring driver practices to boost fuel efficiencies. | |

| |In 2004, approximately $200,000 will be spent on computer acquisitions. Gains in productivity, maintenance management | |

| |and driver management have been realized, equating to an annual projected savings of almost $150,000 on the initial | |

| |investment. See Question #86. | |

| |What is the break down of the 9 FTE’s required for the new Dats Fleet Services? What is the industry standard for |AM&PW |

| |number of mechanics, service repair staff for repair of trucks, cars and how does it compare to the City’s ratio? What | |

| |lead time is required to hire staff for the new Dats Fleet of lift vans? Will City staff be inspecting/repairing | |

| |contracted Dats vehicles to ensure a consistent standard of service? Will the costs of inspection be from Asset | |

| |Management or Transit’s budget? (pg. 72). What is the expected life cycle of the lift vans and what is their projected | |

| |replacement costs? Are they included in the 2005 – 2008 capital plan? And if so where? (pg. 75 & Pg. 79) | |

| |The 9 FTE’s for DATS fleet services include 3 mechanics, 3 service persons and 3 cleaners. | |

| |There is no industry standard for number of mechanics per vehicle. It depends on the age, type of attachments, the duty | |

| |cycle, the kilometres driven, the number of spares, and the service level expectations of the customer. The 3 mechanics | |

| |requested are based on MES’ experience from when they last provided maintenance support for DATS vehicles. The number of| |

| |FTE’s requested for 2004 takes into account that we may be purchasing some older owner-operated units from our employees| |

| |as part of the transition to the new business model. The transition will take two years to complete, and additional | |

| |FTE’s will be requested in 2005 to support the second half of the vehicle acquisition project. At the end, the ratios of| |

| |buses to maintenance staff will be 15 buses per mechanic, 18 buses per service person and 22.5 buses per cleaner. For | |

| |comparison, the ratios for Transit 40 foot bus maintenance are 12 buses per mechanic, 13 buses per service person and 23| |

| |buses per cleaner. | |

| |It takes approximately 6 weeks to hire staff from the time a request is made to Human Resources Branch to the time the | |

| |employees are on-board, and another 4 weeks for new employee orientation and training. Hiring will be timed to coincide | |

| |with the delivery of new buses. | |

| |City staff do not inspect or repair owner operated or contracted vehicles other than to ensure they are properly | |

| |equipped to secure patron’s wheel chairs and scooters. It is the owner’s/contractor’s responsibility to maintain the | |

| |vehicle and to provide proof of government required safety inspections (CVIP) to the City semi-annually. The City may | |

| |purchase some of the owner operated vehicles as part of the implementation of the new DATS business model, at which time| |

| |they will become City property and will be inspected and maintained by City staff. Inspection and maintenance costs for | |

| |City owned vehicles are budgeted in both AM&PW’s and Transit’s budgets. The source of funds for AM&PW’s budgeted | |

| |expenditures is through an interdepartmental charge to Transit. | |

| |The expected life cycle of the lift vans is 8 years. New lift equipped vans cost $90,000 each in 2004 dollars. The | |

| |procurement costs for the lift vans are included in the 2004 - 2008 CPP in Transit's unfunded plan in project | |

| |XX-66-1782. This program includes purchase of new lift vans as well as purchase of some owner operated vans and | |

| |subsequent replacement of those vans in succeeding years. | |

| |What is the impact of a one-year delay for bus replacement? How many more buses are required to serve the growth areas |AM&PW |

| |of the City and what is their cost? Could the $15M (pg. 78) not spent on bus replacement (or portion there of) be | |

| |utilized for new buses? (Please refer these questions to Transit as well to ensure a complete answer to these | |

| |questions). | |

| |Delay of the purchase of replacement buses for a year will require additional maintenance budget to continue to operate | |

| |the vehicles in revenue service and meet reliability requirements. The GMC buses being retired are 25 or more years old| |

| |and the engines, transmissions and body parts are obsolete. There is also an environmental impact in that the older | |

| |diesel engines emit 72% more pollutants than the new diesel engines. The move to make the Transit fleet fully | |

| |accessible by 2012 will also be delayed by a year. | |

| |In the unfunded 2004-8 CPP Project XX-66-1780, an additional 21 Low Floor buses and 2 Community Service buses are | |

| |required to provide service for growth. The estimated cost of these vehicles is $9.7 . | |

| |The $15M is intended to purchase new buses to replace obslete GMC buses. These replacement vehicles are needed to renew | |

| |the existing bus fleet to meet existing service demand, safety and reliability needs. Extending the life of the old GMC | |

| |buses targeted for retirement can be done, but will require additional refurbishment budget of some $40-50,000 per | |

| |vehicle, will not meet environmental, reliability or accessibility objectives, and will widen the infrastructure gap. | |

| |With the potential transfer of EMS services to Capital Health/Province what is the rationale for the City to provide |AM&PW |

| |Ambulance Fleet replacement or growth ($830,000) (pg. 78)? | |

| |Since the transfer of EMS services to Capital Health/Province is not definite, this budget is based on continuing to | |

| |provide EMS services using City resources. The replacement project is required to ensure reliability, safety and low | |

| |operating cost. The additional ambulance project is to address City growth. | |

| |How is the “end of their economic life” measured in order to determine when to replace vehicles and equipment? (pg. 171,|AM&PW |

| |172) | |

| |Replacement of vehicles and equipment is based on the criteria of most economical cycle, or in other terms, at the point| |

| |of lowest life cycle cost. The method chosen is called the Annual Equivalent Cost (AEC) method. | |

| |AEC as a method for determining when to replace vehicles or equipment is well recognized. The choice of AEC is supported| |

| |by the American Public Works Association. This analysis has been well supported in literature and in research leasing | |

| |fleet units and is an approach used in commercial fleet management. The costs associated with this model can be | |

| |described in two principal components; decline in value, and rise in operating costs. Value declines and operating | |

| |costs rise over the life of a vehicle. Conceptually, the point at which the sum of the costs is a minimum is the | |

| |economic life. | |

| |The management of the MES fleet has been favourably compared to that of the most cost effectively managed commercial | |

| |fleets. In addition, during the last audit of MES by the Office of the City Auditor, the method was reviewed and | |

| |determined to be an effective and comprehensive system. | |

| |Will any of refurbished GM buses be used to provide enhanced service or new service to new developments? (pg. 173) |AM&PW |

| |Refurbished buses would be used to provide more service. | |

| |In order to provide for all peak service identified in the Service to New Areas – Peaks and Existing Infrastructure | |

| |Maintenance – Peaks service packages, Edmonton Transit requires approximately 25 to 30 full sized buses over the peak | |

| |hour “bookout”. Edmonton Transit would be able to meet this requirement as a result of the following: | |

| |15 older buses would be refurbished in 2004 using funding included in the Service to New Areas – Peaks service package | |

| |(5 buses) and CPP Project 03-25-5926 (10 buses). Refurbished rather than new buses are being used in this case because | |

| |they can be retired in 2008 when SLRT reaches Southgate and bus service to Southgate is reduced. | |

| |Reduction in a.m. peak hour bus requirements obtained in September 2003, primarily as a result of the initiative to | |

| |encourage major schools to start classes at 9:00 a.m. | |

| |Will the Department put Ambulance purchases on hold until we are informed about the province’s decision on Ambulance |AM&PW |

| |Service? | |

| |Vehicles are purchased on an annual cycle based on the chassis manufacturers model year tooling. If a timeline for | |

| |Capital Health Authority to take over the provision of ambulance services were known, delaying ambulance purchases would| |

| |be feasible. Given the uncertainty, the requested ambulance purchases are required to maintain reliability and service | |

| |level commitments. Eventually, the disposition of the City ambulance fleet will still have to be negotiated with Capital| |

| |Health. | |

| |Have acquisitions for the On-Board Computer Project been completed? (pg. 166) |AM&PW |

| |The on-board computer program is on-going. Working agreements with the technology and support vendors are progressing | |

| |carefully to ensure that the engineered fleet solutions continue to align with corporate direction and operating | |

| |functional needs. Positive test and pilot program results will promote more areas of the fleet and their respective | |

| |units to employ the on-board technology with allocated funding. See Question #79. | |

| |Why is Edmonton Transit not considering the use of more smaller buses? What are the costs of buying smaller buses as |AM&PW |

| |compared to the larger GM buses? (pg. 173) | |

| |In 2004, there is no provision for increasing the size of the small bus fleet or the amount of service provided with | |

| |small buses. To accommodate the volume of passengers carried by Edmonton Transit in peak hours, full sized buses are | |

| |required. Two or three small buses would be needed to provide the same capacity as one big bus. Higher operating costs| |

| |would result where more than one small bus is used. | |

| |The cost to purchase a small bus is $205,000, compared to $390,000 for a full sized bus. Small buses have an economic | |

| |life of 8 years compared to 18 years for big buses. The annual cost of ownership is thus $25,625 for a small bus | |

| |compared to $21,667 for a big bus. The lower cost of fuel for a small bus is offset by the higher cost of maintenance | |

| |resulting in similar operating costs for both. | |

| |There are routes where small buses could replace full sized buses in low demand off-peak periods. Additional small | |

| |buses could also be used on an expanded network of “Community Bus” routes. Small bus purchases for the purpose of | |

| |increasing the size of the small bus fleet are identified in CPP funded project XX-66-1680 (2 buses per year in 2006, | |

| |2007, 2008), and in the unfunded CPP project XX-66-1780. | |

| |Will the increase in waste management user fees provide the same level of service to all residents in Edmonton? (pg. 15,|AM&PW |

| |Pg. 20) | |

| |See Question #31 re reasons for the rate increase. The increase in user fees is not meant to address the inequity in | |

| |level of service experienced between densely populated and outer areas within City boundaries. See Question #29 re | |

| |service inequity. | |

| |What is the additional cost to provide collection service to the growth areas of the City? (pg. 21) |AM&PW |

| |The additional cost to provide collection and processing of waste and recyclables from the growth areas of the City is | |

| |$514,000. | |

| |What % of the cost of waste collection is covered by user fees? Provide a breakdown of expenditures/revenues of waste |AM&PW |

| |collection in single family and multi-family sectors. | |

| |Collection of waste and recyclables is funded through tax levy while processing and disposal is funded through user | |

| |fees. Waste Management expenditures for 2004 are funded as follows: Tax Levy – 32% ; Operational Revenues – 11% ; User | |

| |Fees – 57% | |

| |The 2004 recommended budget for refuse collection service is $8.4million to single family customers and $2.8 million to | |

| |multi-family customers. The budget for recycling services is $3.9 million to the single-family customers and $1.6 | |

| |million to multi-family customers. | |

| |The revenues generated from residential refuse collection are estimated at $450,000 and arise from Trade Waste | |

| |Collection Agreements for extra service to Multi-Family and Small Business customers. | |

| |In order to provide increased service at the Eco Stations as well as value added opportunities at the Edmonton |AM&PW |

| |Composting Facility would the total increase to user fees be 27¢ single-family units, 17¢ multi-family? What is the | |

| |increase to the City’s cost of these services? | |

| |Yes. The total increase would be 27¢ single-family units, 17¢ multi-family. These increases are cost-recovery only. | |

| |Eco Station: To fund increased hours of operation at the Eco Stations, $253,000 is required. Impact on User Fees is an | |

| |additional 10 cents per month for the single family sector and 6 cents per month for the multi-family sector. | |

| |Composter Enhancements: To develop the City Auditor’s recommendations, $450,000 is required. Impact on User Fees is an | |

| |additional 17 cents per month for the single family sector and 11 cents for the multi-family sector. | |

| |Do waste collection fees include costs of processing and disposal or only of collection and customer service? (pg. 84) |AM&PW |

| |Collection of waste and recyclables is funded through tax levy while processing and disposal is funded through user | |

| |fees. | |

| |Provide an accounting of progress made in verifying utility billing and usage monitoring and compare to 2002 and 2003 |AM&PW |

| |budgets. (pg. 81) | |

| |The Office of Energy Management has focused its limited resources on verification of power bills in light of | |

| |deregulation of the electrical industry. For reasons beyond control of the City, verification of power bills is a | |

| |lengthy process. The last year for which bills were settled was 2001 and resulted in a credit to the City in the order | |

| |of $ I million. The verification of 2002 power bills commenced in January, 2003, and is ongoing with conclusion not | |

| |expected before early 2004. Verification of 2003 power bills will commence thereafter. Possible outcomes of the 2002 and| |

| |2003 verification processes cannot be projected at this time. | |

| |Could the FCM’s Green Fund be utilized for Brownfield identification? (pg. 82) |AM&PW |

| |The FCM Green Fund cannot be used solely for purposes of developing a contaminated sites inventory or more specifically | |

| |an identification of brownfields. | |

| |Initial indications are that some contaminated inventory work and brownfields identification could be done under a more | |

| |encompassing Green Fund project that would include the assessment of a Brownfields Pilot program. This would require: | |

| |$500,000 in funding for a Brownfields Pilot program as per the answer to Question 30 is secured; and | |

| |matching funding is also available for the Green Funds project to perform the assessment and inventory work. | |

| |LED traffic signal conversion (2.5m) is allocated to which category of Tax Supported Debt? (pg. 204) How can the $5m |Finance |

| |for building/process facilities improvement be justified under the terms of the Tax Supported Debt Policy? (pg. 204) | |

| |LED traffic signal conversion ($2.5M) is technically funded through tax-supported debt, as the payments for the debt | |

| |charges will be financed through savings in utility costs generated from the implementation of the energy efficiency | |

| |programs. The same applies to the building or process facilities ($5.0M) programs. Tax-supported debt in this | |

| |particular situation refers to operations that are funded from the tax base. However the funding source is from savings| |

| |as opposed to being part of the initiative funded by an additional 1% in tax levy. | |

| |Explain the following increases in Performance Measures and impact on City costs of providing services (if any) |Community Services |

| |number files free and low cost social services? (pg. 115 – 1923 cases to 2667 cases) | |

| |The increase in social service client files opened results from increased community awareness of the Assessment and | |

| |Short-term Counselling Service and increased service demand. 2003 service demand is not projected to exceed 2002 | |

| |demand. In both years demand has been managed without increasing allocated staff resources. | |

| | | |

| |number of department volunteer hours (pg. 115 – 138,840 – 167,234 hours) | |

| |The increase in the volunteer hours is due primarily to the increase in volunteerism at Leisure Centres in the | |

| |Recreation Facilities Branch. To date, the increase in volunteer hours has not had an impact on the cost of providing | |

| |service. Improved integrated record keeping also impacts the figures. | |

| |Explain Historical Activity Statistics and provide 2003 stats: (pg. 126) |Community Services |

| | | |

| |Hectares of turf moved | |

| |Hectares treated for mosquitoes | |

| |CFEP Grants | |

| |Paid Attendance - Attraction Facilities * | |

| |Paid Attendance – Kinsmen * | |

| |Sport Field Bookings. | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |CFEP – Community Facility Enhancement Program | |

| | | |

| |The Community Facility Enhancement Program (CFEP) "provides financial assistance to build, purchase, repair, renovate, | |

| |upgrade or otherwise improve sports, recreational, cultural or other related family and community wellness facilities". | |

| |CFEP funding is approved on a matched-grant basis, meaning the organization must contribute an amount equaling or | |

| |exceeding the grant awarded. Any one facility can be funded to a maximum of $125,000 per fiscal year. The City's funding| |

| |request to CFEP varies each year depending on the number of projects and costs prioritized for that funding cycle. | |

| | | |

| |Attendance - Attraction Facilities | |

| | | |

| |In the Recreation Facilities Branch there are five facilities designated as Attraction Facilities, which include: Fort | |

| |Edmonton Park, John Walter Museum, Valley Zoo, John Janzen Nature Centre, and the Muttart Conservatory. | |

| | | |

| |The annual attendance statistics listed in Appendix 3 of the Community Services Business Plan includes the total number | |

| |of people (adults, seniors, youths, and children) who have attended the facilities during the year. The attendance | |

| |amounts include all of the people who are involved in facility programs, drop in users (gate), room rentals and bookings| |

| |(birthday parties, special events/functions, etc.). These statistics vary yearly due to the impacts of weather, | |

| |variations in venue bookings and successes with programs offered. | |

| | | |

| |2003 attendance at Attraction Facilities is projected to be approximately the same as the 2002 attendance (571,000). A | |

| |survey of various other attractions and venues in the Edmonton region showed that the many have experienced declines in | |

| |attendance while City of Edmonton facilities have been able to maintain their market share. | |

| | | |

| |Attendance - Kinsmen Sports Centre | |

| | | |

| |Attendance at the Kinsmen Sports Centre is mainly through, drop-in admissions (passholders, etc.), facility rentals and | |

| |programs (fitness, wellness, etc.) and involves all age categories of participants. Facility attendance varies yearly | |

| |based largely on the events and programs hosted by the facility. | |

| | | |

| |There has been some volatility in the annual attendance statistics for the Kinsmen Sports Centre, as listed in Appendix | |

| |3 of the Community Services Business Plan. Over the last five years (1998 to 2002) attendance has ranged from 790,000 | |

| |in 2000 to 680,000 in 2002, or a 16% range in activity. Millennium celebrations and year 2000 events helped to boost | |

| |attendance in 2000 while the 2001 world games resulted in lower attendance for that year due to Festival of the Worlds | |

| |in Kinsmen Park. There are two primary reasons for the downward trend in attendance at the Kinsmen Sports Centre: (1) | |

| |more competition from the private sector and other municipalities (Millennium Place, Tri County), and (2) changes in how| |

| |event attendance is quantified and reported. These trends continue; 2003 attendance is projected to be approximately | |

| |650,000 | |

| | | |

| |Sport Field Bookings | |

| | | |

| |Sport Field Bookings is the actual number of hours booked yearly through Community Services Facility Booking & | |

| |Information Section by individual users and groups, for City of Edmonton sportsfields. The number of hours booked for | |

| |2003 (to date) is 91,320. | |

| | | |

| |The bookings for 1998-2001 included all internal maintenance closure hours (drought repair, construction) and bookings | |

| |that were rained out. The 2002 data only includes actual hours booked and weather eligible by sportsfield user groups. | |

| |What strategies are being employed to increase attendance at city owned facilities? |Community Services |

| |Strategies include: | |

| |Partnerships with various media and effective use of free and cost-effective publicity; | |

| |Creation of value-added products and services, such as children's Splash 'n' Ride passes, opportunities for businesses | |

| |to set up employee fitness programs; | |

| |Increased publicity for facility bookings through market channels (e.g., bridal trade shows); | |

| |Linkages to tour operators, partnering with tourism organizations and other regional and northern Alberta attractions to| |

| |draw tourism to the region; | |

| |Promotion of structured program offerings to teachers, agencies (e.g., Brownies, Scouts, etc.) and others. | |

| |Advertising campaigns and web-based promotion of day-camps and other seasonal programs. | |

| |Publicity made available at public libraries, health clinics and on the web-site. | |

| |Indicate the correlation between key result areas (pg. 99) and Budget Breakdown (pg. 132), i.e. City wide support at 49%|Community Services |

| |of Budget expenditure encompasses which key result areas? | |

| |Each of the Activities in the budget document (P. 132) equate to the key result areas in the Business Plan (P. 99). The| |

| |exception to this is Neighbourhood Social and Recreation Services, which is made up of two key result areas: | |

| |social recreation and cultural programs, and | |

| |community building | |

| | | |

| |City-wide support is the key result area which includes support to advisory boards, out of school care, facility | |

| |bookings, and grants administration. The expenditures include flow through grants such as $13.2 million in FCSS grants.| |

| |How are the above-noted key result areas outcomes measured? Is it possible to identify which of the performance |Community Services |

| |measures noted on pgs. 114 – 116 are applicable to the key result areas? | |

| |To effectively report on outcomes to City Council and the community, the | |

| |department has developed an integrated model (P. 111). To varying degrees, each key result area in the department | |

| |contribute towards the following outcomes: | |

| |personal and community safety | |

| |human dignity | |

| |personal wellness and health | |

| |environmental integrity | |

| |social justice | |

| |an attractive city | |

| |quality experiences | |

| | | |

| |This approach to performance measures is ‘cascaded’ into each key result area where data is collected. The performance | |

| |measurement data presented in the business plan, is the ‘rolled-up’ or aggregated information. | |

| |Explain the departmental system which will “support the development of a departmental application of outcome based |Community Services |

| |performance measures” and if this system is applicable to other departments? (pg. 134) | |

| | | |

| |In 2003 the Community Services Department developed an enhanced performance measurement framework which focuses on | |

| |outcome measures. As the initiative moves into a data collection and reporting phase, an information system is needed | |

| |to facilitate the roll-up of department measures. The data will provide information on which to base departmental | |

| |decision in the future, and help ensure that desired outcomes are reached. | |

| | | |

| |Other Corporate departments have existing systems to report on measures and have yet to employ outcome based performance| |

| |measures. To date, Community Services has shared its experience with outcome based performance measures with some City| |

| |departments. | |

| |Explain the planning support provided to developers and number of FTE’s currently involved and to be added (pg. 139). |Community Services |

| |Does this support include inspections of developer projects? Are costs of those services recovered by direct charges to| |

| |developers receivable by Community Services. | |

| |Within Parks Planning the planners, landscape architects and architectural technician currently provide support to | |

| |developers through direct input to the development review process and site inspections. This includes services to | |

| |review developer initiated Area Structure Plan's, Neighbourhood Structure Plan’s, subdivision plans and engineering | |

| |drawings. The number of Parks Planning staff to support these functions is approximately equal to 6 FTE’s, one of which| |

| |is direct support for site inspections and drawing circulation. Increased volumes of circulation submissions and site | |

| |inspections have proven challenging to deal with during the past two years. | |

| | | |

| |As part of Servicing Agreements entered into with developers, there are inspection fees that are collected by the | |

| |Planning Department at a rate of $2,862.00 per hectare based on the assessable area of the subdivision. This inspection| |

| |fee is for City inspection of infrastructure constructed by developers. Community Services component of this is $166.00| |

| |per hectare, which partially offsets the cost of providing these services. | |

| | | |

| |The funding requested is to retain 4 temporary FTE’s (3 in Parks Planning and 1 in Forestry) to assist in drawing review| |

| |and site inspections. | |

| |Does the Landscape Inspection include review of the quality of trees, bushes planted; especially re: unhealthy or |Community Services |

| |diseased plants? (Vol. 3 – pg. 23) | |

| |Yes, all plant material is inspected for health (free of disease), vigor, correct species, size and appropriate | |

| |installation. The standards by which each of these is measured is contained in the individual construction drawings and| |

| |in the City of Edmonton Design and Construction Standards manual. Any plant material, which does not meet the required | |

| |standards, is removed and replaced at the contractor’s expense as part of the inspection process. | |

| |What is the membership of the Central Lions Seniors Centre? |Community Services |

| |Membership of the Central Lions Seniors Association is 1700. | |

| |As part of the Municipal Cemeteries Improvement (pg. 157) will there be historical recognition provided for the Founders|Community Services |

| |of Edmonton and surrounding region at Little Mountain Cemetery? | |

| |Yes. A revised plan will be developed, in consultation with affected stakeholders, including improvements that will | |

| |celebrate and highlight the historic nature of the cemetery. Plans also include fencing of the new revised configuration| |

| |of the cemetery. | |

| |Explain the developer/partner roles at Central Lions Seniors Centre, Enterprise Facilities, Queen Elizabeth Pool, |Community Services |

| |Multi-use Rec. Facility and Whitemud Equine Centre. | |

| |Central Lions Seniors Centre | |

| |Partner roles on this project include input into the planning / design process, fundraising to support 50% of the | |

| |capital costs and upon completion the partners may become tenants providing services in the facility. | |

| |Enterprise Facilities | |

| |Under the Enterprise Fiscal Policy, funding for the capital development and maintenance of physical assets built after | |

| |January 1, 1998 is the responsibility of the Enterprise and its partners. Partners are working to help establish new | |

| |development priorities and fund the capital construction costs. For example, the Fort Edmonton Historical Foundation | |

| |secured the capital funding for construction of Blatchford Hangar (1999) and Selkirk Hotel (2002) within Fort Edmonton | |

| |Park. Current projects include the Edmonton Exhibition and Midway, Rocky Shores and Phase two of the John Janzen Nature| |

| |Centre Master Plan. | |

| |Queen Elizabeth Pool | |

| |A project for the redevelopment of this outdoor pool was included in the CPP on the basis that the Friends of QEP | |

| |Society (a non-profit organization) would be responsible for securing all of the funding for the capital costs of | |

| |replacement. | |

| | | |

| |City Council directed that (1) the Queen Elizabeth Pool be operated with no further capital investment until the end of | |

| |its useful life; (2) in the event of and at the time of major system failure of/at the Queen Elizabeth Pool, the future | |

| |of the facility be evaluated at that time within the context of the overall needs; (3) That the City remain open to | |

| |consideration of any feasible proposal from the community or private operators for extension of the useful life of the | |

| |Queen Elizabeth Pool. | |

| |Multipurpose Recreation Centre | |

| |Partner funding will be required for $8.040 million of the estimated $38 million in capital development costs. Details | |

| |about specific partner involvement have not been confirmed. It is anticipated that partners, including the local | |

| |community, will be involved in the planning and design process. | |

| |Whitemud Equine Centre | |

| |Under the terms of a lease agreement, the Whitemud Equine Centre Association (WECA). WECA is responsible for the | |

| |day-to-day management of the facility. The City also has a 20-year Agreement (ending December 2012) with the Friends | |

| |of Whitemud Equine Centre (FWECA). FWECA is responsible for raising the necessary capital to implement the | |

| |Council-approved (June 1995) Master Plan for the Renewal of the Whitemud Equine Centre. WECA has no operational | |

| |responsibilities. The site redevelopment initiative is 100% partner funded. | |

| |Is the CLASS system proving cost effective? |Community Services |

| |The e-Business Steering Committee has recognized that the CLASS system is a cost-effective component of service | |

| |delivery to the public in facility admissions, bookings and program registration. It automaties routine processes and | |

| |managing information that supports customer service, participation rates, and the revenue base. CLASS system modules | |

| |(Point of Sale, Membership Management, Facility Bookings and Program Registration) have become the industry standard in | |

| |North America for administering recreation and recreation facility based business processes. | |

| | | |

| |CLASS is also necessary for providing online program registration and payment for users. Public surveys indicate that | |

| |online access to these services is a top priority for citizens. It would not be cost-effective for the City to develop | |

| |its own system to do so. | |

| | | |

| |An online registration and payment option for recreational programs enables residents to access information and | |

| |registration services for all City-run programs. Previously, customers could register only over the phone or in person | |

| |at specific facilities. This can be inconvenient, frustrating, and time consuming for both customers and staff. Expected| |

| |benefits include increased user satisfaction and higher program participation rates. Other cities in Canada have seen | |

| |30% to 50% of registrations move on-line due to its convenience for many users. | |

| |Has Health Canada funding for defibrillators been requested? (pg. 152) |Community Services |

| |Health Canada has not been contacted regarding funding for the defibrillators. Through participating in a North | |

| |America-wide "Public Access Defribrillator Study", City leisure centres have received a number of defibrillators, but | |

| |not enough for all of the facilities that potentially would be suitable locations for this public service. | |

| |Decisions on how many facilities (and which ones) will be based on the results of the study; however, these results will| |

| |not be available until sometime in later 2004. For this reason, the potential need for additional equipment was | |

| |identified in the budget process but unfunded pending future information from the study. At that time, the Community | |

| |Services Department will explore funding options, such as Health Canada. | |

| |As clarification why are there increased costs of $211K for Celebration 2004? Are City owned facilities anticipated to |Community Services |

| |be opened longer hours or is there a requirement for increased staffing? (pg. 154) Why would Golf Courses and | |

| |Commonwealth Stadium be included in this category? (Vol. 3 – pg. 22) Are Fort Edmonton Park, and City Archives the | |

| |only facilities that would not normally be opened on this weekend? If there was not a City Council direction to provide| |

| |“no-charge” access would a cost for this facility have been brought forward as an extra cost for Celebration 2004 rather| |

| |than a cost of “no-charge access to recreation facilities”? Confirm that the anticipated revenue lost of “no-charge | |

| |access” is $62,000? Can you separate regular operating costs for these 3 days from Edmonton 2004 costs? | |

| |Recreation Facility Services was asked to identify the costs and impacts of keeping recreation facilities open with free| |

| |admission for Edmontonians during the Homecoming weekend to reflect Edmonton's birthday present. Some facilities would | |

| |not normally be open on those days and some will have additional costs due to expanded festive program and | |

| |participation. | |

| |Increased costs include: 3 days of full public operations at Fort Edmonton Park during the off-season; extra public | |

| |hours at John Walter Museum; additional lifeguards to deal with the higher pool attendance that free admission is | |

| |expected to generate; an additional "themed" show at Muttart Conservatory, and a number of initiatives for the festive | |

| |theme. The Monday being a statutory holiday has an impact on costs. | |

| |Commonwealth Stadium Recreation Centre is included in this package because its planned open house will displace fitness | |

| |centre revenues; however, it will absorb any incremental costs of the event. Municipal Golf Courses would, weather | |

| |permitting, provide no-charge access that weekend the same as the other City-owned facilities. | |

| |City Archives and Fort Edmonton Park would not normally be open on the weekend in question. John Walter Museum would not| |

| |normally be open on the Saturday or Monday. | |

| |Lost revenue of $62K includes: loss of paid admissions for facilities that would normally be open; and loss of program | |

| |and bookings revenues for facilities where the festive activities preclude the usual use for booked events (e.g., | |

| |Blatchford Hangar) or programming (e.g., birthday party, registered programs, etc.). | |

| |The requested funding does not include regular operating costs, only the incremental costs of the special activities | |

| |suggested by the Edmonton 2004 Celebration Committee. | |

| |Are there any skateboard parks planned that could benefit from funding in 2004? |Community Services |

| |The South East Community League Association (SECLA) has expressed an interest to build a Skate Park in 2004. This group | |

| |would likely benefit from municipal finding if it were available. See also Question 35. | |

| |Does program XX-21-5370 (pg. 24) provide for maintenance/redevelopment of informal access trails? |Community Services |

| |The department assumes that informal access trails means unimproved trails as defined in the New Parks Bylaw 2202. | |

| |Typically the department does not use this program for maintenance and redevelopment of unimproved trails. In | |

| |circumstances where there are safety and/or slumpage issues (i.e. Keilor Road area slumpage) with unimproved trails, the| |

| |department will use funds from this program to fix the problem. | |

| |Will the new Parks Bylaw result in more costs to maintain the trail system? | |

| |No the new Parks Bylaw will not result in more costs to maintain the trail system. | |

| |What would be the cost for developing a concept and design plan for Terwilligar Park? |Community Services |

| |The planning and design costs to prepare site development plans for public review are estimated to cost $200,000. | |

| |Planning and design for the one proposed footbridge is not included in this estimate. | |

| |What is the proposed location of the major footbridge and what role does the bridge plan in the Ribbon of Green Concept | |

| |Plan? | |

| |There are two pedestrian bridges proposed in the Ribbon of Green Plan to connect Terwillegar Park. At the east end a | |

| |bridge connects north to the Centennial Valley lands, and at the west end another connects at the Wedgewood Ravine. | |

| |Will the bridge connect those areas that currently cannot access the river valley? | |

| |Yes | |

| |What work was done in Project 98-21-4123 Terra Losa School Park/ Municipal Development? (pg. 220) |Community Services |

| |This project was postponed until 2004 at the request of the Community Association. In 2003 the Association was involved| |

| |in major negotiations with ESAU regarding the lease of the Community building and did not want to take on another major | |

| |project. The negotiations have been successfully completed and the Community started to work on a needs assessment and | |

| |program statement in the spring of 2003. It is expected that the program will be finalized and approved in the early | |

| |part of 2004. A design will then be completed and construction will be scheduled for the spring/summer of 2004. | |

| |Why can’t the City Entrance Landscaping (unfunded program 181,000 pg. 254) (trees, shrubs) be incorporated as part of |Community Services |

| |the City’s tree planting program? As well is there a consistent corridor landscape requirement from developers adjacent| |

| |to major access routes? If not, why not? | |

| |City Entrance landscaping has a broader scope than is defined in any other tree-planting program. The City Entrance | |

| |Landscaping program is also used to construct and install city entrance signs as well as provide funding for necessary | |

| |grading, supply and installation of topsoil and seeding or sodding. The planting could be separated out but that would | |

| |fragment a single project into several different capital budget programs. | |

| |No, there is not a consistent standard required, if the developer is required to build the arterial roadway, there is a | |

| |standard for boulevard landscaping which must be provided. If the arterial roadway is already constructed we would | |

| |request or negotiate with the developer to provide boulevard landscaping. | |

| |As usage in the river valley increases the need for amenities, i.e. washrooms, also increases. Could the $293 unfunded |Community Services |

| |in 2004 (pg. 264) for amenities be incorporated into the requested $1,377 for repair/refurbishment to City owned parks | |

| |and amenities? | |

| |No. The CPP XX-21-5330 request (page 264) is for new river valley pavilions washrooms and boat launches that will add | |

| |growth to the parkland inventory. CPP XX-21-5280 is for repair and refurbishment of existing inventory to extend the | |

| |life of existing capital assets. | |

| |Has there been any funding acquired for Louise McKinney Park |Community Services |

| |A number of grants have been received over the past 3 – 4 years for Louise McKinney Riverfront Park. Approximately | |

| |$600,000 in provincial funding remains to be expended as matching funds are secured. $4,000 in donations was received | |

| |from the Riverview Rotary Club for the Louise McKinney Riverfront Park Rose Garden in 2003. The Chinese Garden Society | |

| |intends to begin construction of the Chinese Garden in 2004. The completed garden will be donated to the City by the | |

| |Society. | |

| |Indicate what the attendance figures at Northgate Lions reflect, i.e. registration in programs, memberships, attendance |Community Services |

| |at social functions, other? (pg. 300) | |

| |Northgate Lions Centre recorded approximately 130,000 in attendance during 2001 and 2002. These attendance amounts | |

| |include drop-ins (attendees at seminars, dinners, dances, flu clinics, etc.), programs, (all registrants involved in | |

| |programs such as fitness, arts and crafts, ball room dancing, computer courses, etc.) and rentals (meetings, socials, | |

| |workshops, etc.). | |

| |This facility opened in 1978 and has since grown both in physical size and attendance. While the facility has doubled | |

| |in size the attendance has increased four times. The attendance at Northgate Lions Centre in 1978 was approximately | |

| |30,000, and generally involved the same types of attendance as present. Attendance has increased because more programs | |

| |are scheduled, more rooms rented and more drop in programs are available. | |

| |The 2002 attendance at Northgate was 131,700. This consists of approximately: | |

| |75,000 Attendance in seniors and older adult registered programs and activities | |

| |24,000 Attendance in special events and drop-in activities (e.g. Flu clinics, information/referral, seniors events, | |

| |cafeteria | |

| |11,000 Bookings for meetings, workshops (mostly seniors) and children's programs | |

| |22,000 Rentals by the community for workshops, meetings, socials and special events | |

| |Is the total cost for Edmonton 2004 Celebrations (excluding capital) |Corporate Services |

| |Corporate Services $348,000 includes programming, marketing | |

| |Community Services $211,000 includes all operating costs of facilities, | |

| |Programming | |

| |$ 62,000 waived entrance fees to facilities | |

| |$621,000 | |

| |Do these costs include all anticipated operating expenses for Celebration 2004? (Vol. 3 – pg. 45) | |

| |The cost of the 2004 Celebrations office and the October 9-11 weekend celebration is $437,000 ($348,000 plus base level | |

| |of $89,000). This figure includes all administrative, programming and entertainment costs. A further request of $95,000| |

| |is in the unfunded portion of the budget. This request would provide one additional employee in the 2004 office, and a | |

| |float in the K-Days parade. | |

| |In addition, the Community Services department is proposing to spend $273,000 ($211,000 plus $62,000) to run special | |

| |Celebration programs at its various recreational facilities, and to waive admission fees on the October 9 - 11 weekend. | |

| |Transportation department’s estimated share of funding would be $100K for free LRT and busing, bus rerouting and loss in| |

| |fare box revenue and $10K for Traffic road closure. | |

| |Costs are expected for Police and Emergency Response department support but estimates are not available at this time. | |

| |Explain the following (pg. 185) “smaller communication units continue to flourish. Keeping a handle on the activities |Corporate Services |

| |of these independent units continues to be a major organizational challenge”. As this was identified in the 2003 Budget| |

| |what has been done to address this issue? | |

| |To address this situation the administration has commenced preparation of a new strategic communication plan. We | |

| |anticipate this plan will provide guidance on how best to manage these independent communication units. Earlier this | |

| |year, SMT approved a new corporate printing strategy to consolidate our print-based communications in one branch. | |

| |Further, Edmonton Transit has modified some of their communication processes to better align them with corporate | |

| |approaches. | |

| |Explain why 4 Business Support Positions for SLIM/Posse will be situated outside IT? |Corporate Services |

| |These positions are not IT positions because they are focused on the business side use of the operating systems not the | |

| |architecture of the programming. | |

| |In a recent City Auditor’s report (June 19, 2003) of the Investment Process Review it was noted that “a more integrated |City Auditor |

| |and congruent approach to borrowing and investing funds is necessary in accounting for AMFC borrowings and the term | |

| |around investing of those funds”. Indicate what actions have been taken in 2003 and whether the City continues to | |

| |experience a net loss through debt repayment? | |

| |The Finance Branch has made progress in 2003 towards integrating of the City's borrowing and investing decisions. The | |

| |process change involves the implementation of joint decisions between the Corporate Accounting and Budgets Division and | |

| |the Investment Management Section in regards to the timing of borrowings. This change is expected to improve the | |

| |efficiency in terms of both the short term cost of borrowing and reduce interest costs over the entire term of the | |

| |City's borrowings. While the process has been improved, on an individual debt issue basis there may be occasions where | |

| |a borrowing is initiated earlier than funds are required to either meet the requirements of the AMFC or lock in | |

| |attractive interest rates. In these cases there may be a short term cost to investing the proceeds at a lower interest | |

| |rate, but the overall cost of financing may be reduced from a lower financing rate for the entire term of the borrowing.| |

| |Has SMT ever considered at which point in the City’s growth that the operational and infrastructure gaps become |City Manager |

| |unsupportable? | |

| |SMT has not given consideration to this occurrence. Council’s willingness to increase tax levy and sustainable funding | |

| |programs from the other Orders of Government impact the City’s ability to support the operational and infrastructure | |

| |gaps. | |

| |Has the Administration investigated the introduction of “sunset clauses” for certain projects? What would a review of |City Manager |

| |City operations to look at programs that could be “sunsetted” necessitate? | |

| |The City presently incorporates “sunset” clauses in various projects or programs. The use of “sunset” clauses is | |

| |usually restricted to funding programs. Examples would include: | |

| |The Downtown Residential Development Grant Program – 3 Years | |

| |The Storefront Façade Improvement Program – 1 Year Pilot | |

| |City Centre Redevelopment Program – 5 to 7 Years | |

| |When OCTOPUS is replaced will there be the capability to produce Hansard type documentation of Council and Committee |City Clerk |

| |Meetings? | |

| |NO. OCCTOPUS is a document management system created for the management of Council reports, agendas and minutes. The | |

| |system is a series of styles and merge instructions that allow reports created by Administration to be merged into | |

| |agendas and then information from agendas to be merged into minutes. It also allows for detailed searching within | |

| |reports, agendas and minutes. The City of Edmonton created OCCTOPUS within the current Microsoft environment. It is | |

| |anticipated that technology will change significantly that by 2008 an entire rewrite of the system will be required. | |

| | | |

| |The City of Edmonton determined some years ago that it was not necessary to create transcripts of meetings. Minutes as | |

| |produced meet the requirements of the Municipal Government Act. All meetings are taped and tapes are available for | |

| |review or purchase. Only 41 individuals have purchased tapes in 2003. | |

| | | |

| |The Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard advises that the hourly cost to create the Alberta Hansard is estimated to be | |

| |$600 per hour of meeting time. Over the last 10 years, there have been 400 hours per year of Council and Standing | |

| |Committee meetings. | |

| |What percentage of the ERD’s budget is projected to be funded by the implementation of a revised fees and charges bylaw?|Emergency Response |

| |(pg. 212) | |

| |ERD has submitted a report titled “The City of Edmonton Emergency Response Fees and Charges Bylaw” (Report 2003ERD014) | |

| |as part of the 2004 – 2006 Budget process. | |

| |The revised Fees and Charges Bylaw will generate revenues that are anticipated to fund 11% of ERD budgeted expenses. | |

| |However without these changes the Department would see this percentage decrease to 10%. The implementation of the | |

| |proposed new fees and charges will allow ERD to move forward to achieving budgeted revenue targets | |

| |Describe under what circumstances a fire truck is dispatched to a traffic accident? |Emergency Response |

| |Whenever the Emergency Response Communication Centre (ERCC) receives a call for services related to a Motor Vehicle | |

| |Incident, a fire truck is sent. More than one fire truck may be sent based on the Tri-Services agreement, or on the | |

| |following criteria: | |

| |Major Incidents (multiple vehicle accidents) | |

| |Accidents involving injuries | |

| |Accidents where victims are pinned or trapped and require extrication or rescue. | |

| |Accidents involving the spill of Dangerous Goods | |

| |Accidents involving an external hazard (e.g. a downed power line) | |

| | | |

| |A pumper truck is sent to every Motor Vehicle Incident where a call for service is received by ERCC. | |

| |An aerial or tanker truck may be sent to the incident to provide scene safety. | |

| |A rescue truck may be sent to the incident to provide extrication and rescue services. | |

| |Dangerous Goods Unit is dispatched when the spill is greater than 25Litres or involves a spill of something other than | |

| |gasoline, radiator fluid or if there are unusual circumstances (e.g. propane powered vehicle, vehicle carrying | |

| |compressed gas). | |

| |A Tri-Services review of the management of Motor Vehicle Incidents was undertaken in 2002 between Edmonton Police | |

| |Services and the Emergency Response Department to clarify the roles and responsibilities for each service in response to| |

| |a Motor Vehicle incident (refer to response to question #345) and from which Standard Operating Guidelines were | |

| |developed. | |

| |What special expertise do firefighters have to necessitate their presence at traffic accidents? If traffic control is a|Emergency Response |

| |primary function then will ERD charge back to EPS the cost of traffic control? As firefighters and fire trucks are on | |

| |duty 24/7 to respond to emergency calls what extra costs are incurred by ERD to justify a service fee for traffic | |

| |accident call outs? Does EPS charge for traffic accident call outs and if not, how does ERD justify charging for | |

| |traffic accident call outs? | |

| |A Tri-Services review of the management of Motor Vehicle Incidents was undertaken in 2002 between Edmonton Police | |

| |Services and the Emergency Response Department to clarify the roles and responsibilities for each service in response to| |

| |a Motor Vehicle incident (refer to response to question #345) and from which Standard Operating Guidelines were | |

| |developed. | |

| |Fire Rescue has a number of roles and responsibilities including but not limited to: | |

| |Providing First Responder Medical aid | |

| |Stabilizing the vehicle and extrication/rescue of victims | |

| |Preventing, controlling and/or extinguishing fires | |

| |Neutralizing any spills or leaks of dangerous goods | |

| |Scene Safety, traffic control and (environmental) clean up | |

| |Preserving the accident scene for accident re-construction and investigation teams. | |

| |ERD does not charge the costs of scene safety back to Edmonton Police Services. | |

| |Management of Motor Vehicle Incidents may involve the clean up of Dangerous Goods that requires the use of disposable | |

| |materials such as Spill Kits. These costs can be directly related to the Motor Vehicle Incident. | |

| |The Edmonton Police Service does not bill for collision service calls. | |

| |ERD has conducted a thorough review of Fees and Charges (a report titled “The City of Edmonton Emergency Response Fees | |

| |and Charges Bylaw” Report 2003ERD014 has been submitted as part of the 2004 – 2006 Budget process). Where an incident | |

| |is caused by negligence fees and charges should be levied against the negligent or ‘at fault’ party and that taxpayers | |

| |should not be required to fully fund services related to these responses. | |

| |How many of the Fire Rescue service calls are traffic accident related? What percentage of total service calls does |Emergency Response |

| |this represent? | |

| |Fire Rescue response to Motor Vehicle Incidents accounts for approximately 12 – 13% of the total number of events that | |

| |Fire Rescue Services respond to. | |

| |The following statistics are related to Fire Rescue response to Motor Vehicle Incidents. | |

| |2002 2003 ytd | |

| |Number of Motor Vehicle Incidents attended 3,875 3,255 | |

| |Total number of calls attended 29,271 26,363 | |

| |MVI as % of total 13.2% 12.3% | |

| |(Note 2003 year-to-date is to Nov 15, 2003.) | |

| |In any new fees and charges created will the department be able to justify the following: |Emergency Response |

| |actual cost of providing the service, | |

| |why the service being charged is extraneous to regular service delivery and | |

| |why it is necessary for ERD to provide the service? | |

| |ERD has submitted a report titled “The City of Edmonton Emergency Response Fees and Charges Bylaw” (Report 2003ERD014) | |

| |as part of the 2004 – 2006 Budget process. | |

| |This report and associated attachments highlight the proposed fees and charges relating to services provided by ERD. | |

| |These fees are incorporated into a proposed new City bylaw (Bylaw 13567, The City of Edmonton Emergency Response Fees | |

| |and Charges Bylaw) The report identifies: | |

| |The guiding principles used in determining where a fee should be charged | |

| |The rational for charging a specific fee for a service. | |

| |The level of cost recovery and subsidization associated with each fee or charge | |

| | | |

| |The Emergency Response 2004 – 2006 Business Plan provides an overview of the Department and the mandate for service | |

| |provision. Emergency Response personnel are provided with specialized training and equipment to respond to emergencies. | |

| |As outlined in the Chain of Survival, Emergency Response Personnel are the best-positioned, trained and equipped | |

| |personnel to provide the service (refer to page 216 & 218). | |

| |If calls to traffic accidents were not charged for in 2002, explain the increase in Fire Rescue Revenues in 2002. (pg. |Emergency Response |

| |240) | |

| |Fire Rescue Revenue was $279K in 2000, $193K in 2001 and $312K in 2002. | |

| |ERD began to charge for Dangerous Goods clean up services during the latter half of 2002. These fees contributed $65k | |

| |of revenue towards the total Fire Rescue revenue in 2002. | |

| |Has ERD considered verifying the need for a fire truck or the Emergency Goods Vehicle at a traffic accident before |Emergency Response |

| |dispatching? A similar procedure to that utilized by the Police re: False alarms could be used. | |

| |ERD dispatches fire trucks and the Dangerous Goods units using an evidence based North American standard dispatch | |

| |protocol. Emergency Response Communication Specialists evaluate 911 Traffic/transportation calls based on a system of | |

| |questions: | |

| |Are there chemicals or other hazards involved? | |

| |Is anyone pinned (trapped) in the vehicle(s)? | |

| |Was anyone thrown from the vehicle(s)? | |

| |Does everyone appear to be completely awake? | |

| |Are there obvious injuries? Is there serious bleeding? | |

| |Caller information provided through answering these questions allows the Emergency Response Communication Specialists to| |

| |evaluate the event and send the appropriate units. This response may include an ambulance unit, fire truck or Dangerous | |

| |Goods unit. | |

| |A Tri-Services review of the management of Motor Vehicle Incidents was undertaken in 2002 between Edmonton Police | |

| |Services and the Emergency Response Department. Following that review, ERD Fire Rescue now sends a minimum of one fire | |

| |truck to every motor vehicle incident where a request for service is received. (see also response to #126) | |

| |Each responding service has defined roles and responsibilities a Motor Vehicle incident (refer to response to question | |

| |#345). | |

| |When the incident commander has assessed the on-scene situation they may determine that additional resources are | |

| |required and a request to change the level of response can be made at that time. | |

| |A Dangerous Goods Unit is dispatched when the spill is greater than 25Litres or involves a spill of something other than| |

| |gasoline, radiator fluid or if there are unusual circumstances (e.g. propane powered vehicle, vehicle carrying | |

| |compressed gas). | |

| |How many computer tablets are being ordered for EMS? As EMS may be transferred to the Province what is the rationale |Emergency Response |

| |for spending dollars in this year’s budget? (pg. 340) | |

| |Note: ERD currently has no definitive indication that the Province will assume responsibility for provision of Emergency| |

| |Medical Services. | |

| |The EMS Electronic Patient Care Reporting project (E-PCR) will require 40 tablets. | |

| |This project was scheduled to be completed in 2003. A significant proportion of the software, hardware and contract | |

| |service has been ordered but will not be received until 2004. $604,000 was cash flowed forward from 2003 to 2004 to | |

| |prevent a carry forward amount. The majority of these funds are either expended or committed. | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that ERD is obligated to provide patient care information to Alberta Health. The data requirements for this| |

| |will change in 2004. The E-PCR project is incorporating those requirements in the design of the E-PCR process. | |

| |How often is the CAD system updated to provide information on new developments? (pg. 343) |Emergency Response |

| |The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is updated daily with information on new developments including new roadways | |

| |and address ranges. So far during 2003 approximately 200 km of roadways have been added. The SLIM database is used as | |

| |the primary source of roadway information. This information is also provided to responding crews in hard copy form | |

| |however updates are not timely. | |

| |Future plans are to provide this information in electronic form to Fire/Rescue and EMS crews by way of onboard and/or | |

| |tablet computers. Pilot projects to evaluate this technology are underway and the Capital Priorities Plan includes | |

| |project 05-70-0002 that identifies a request for $1.2M in 2008 to acquire this technology for the rest of the fleet (see| |

| |also question 291). | |

| |Provide examples of how Planning and Development develops “strong, effective working relationships” with major cities |Planning & Development |

| |and the province? | |

| |Examples of how P&D develops “strong, effective working relationships” with major cities and the Province. | |

| |This work is conducted in a variety of ways, among them, through: | |

| |the City Intergovernmental Affairs Office; | |

| |contacts made administratively in connection with specific projects such as Smart Choices to share information and | |

| |exchange ideas; | |

| |frequent liaison with the City of Calgary on topical and general planning issues such as intermunicipal planning, aging | |

| |infrastructure, transit and related funding issues, to property assessment, property taxation, and provincial education | |

| |tax. | |

| |frequent discussions and participation in projects with staff at Alberta Municipal Affairs and Alberta Infrastructure. | |

| | | |

| |What provincial legislative changes are being sought? (pg. 292) | |

| | | |

| |The City typically submits Proposed Resolutions to AUMA and reviews (and possibly supports) resolutions proposed by | |

| |other municipalities. These will involve changes to legislation or issues on which provincial support is being sought. | |

| |Topics that were included in the 2003 AUMA approved resolutions include: | |

| |ambulance funding and EMS as an essential service | |

| |smoking legislation and regulations | |

| |compensation claims arising from construction of public works, road closures and road access closures | |

| |transportation for persons on AISH program | |

| |income supports for low income Albertans | |

| |use of cell phones while driving | |

| |impacts of gaming on municipalities | |

| |reducing impacts of public inebriation. | |

| | | |

| |Edmonton and Calgary have provided input to amendments of Regulation AR289/99 (Matters Pertaining to Assessment and | |

| |Taxation Regulation). Discussions are also underway to address the Assessment Tribunal Process (ARB and MGB), and | |

| |opportunities to avoid duplication. | |

| |Explain the Performance Measure for Corporate Customer Satisfaction, as it appears to be low in all branches? (pg. 302)|Planning & Development |

| |What you see before you are responses to a citywide survey where many of the respondents have no direct contact with the| |

| |department. Our own internal surveys and informal surveys of our customers show a much higher level of customer | |

| |satisfaction. | |

| | | |

| |The consultant notes in its report “ it is important to note that respondent satisfaction with specific City services | |

| |may take into consideration not only their own experiences but also their perceptions or what they may have seen, heard | |

| |or read about in terms of service investigated. Respondents may or may not have had any direct experience with the City| |

| |services examined, therefore this survey not only provides a measurement of satisfaction but also the perceived “image” | |

| |of the quality of service provided by the City of Edmonton”. | |

| | | |

| |The department does however continue to strive for improved customer satisfaction under the constraints of a very heavy | |

| |workload. | |

| |Does the Animal Control Facility require Council approval in order to obtain funding? If yes, isn’t it premature to |Planning & Development |

| |include in Funding Earmarked for Future Projects 2005-2008? (pg. 312) | |

| |Yes the Animal Control Facility project does require Council budget approval in order to obtain funding. | |

| |The premise of the 5 year Capital Planning exercise is to recognize well in advance needed facilities, establish when | |

| |the actual capital funds are available and allow for needed planning work such as preliminary design packages and site | |

| |location work to proceed the availability of the construction funding. | |

| |Explain “tough books” and what the implication is if these remain unfunded as they are already leased? (Vol. 3, pg. 81) |Planning & Development |

| |Toughbooks are remote wireless computer technology, that allow staff to operate “live” (to input and to access data) on | |

| |the City’s computer systems from remote construction locations; these computer devices also replace standard desk-top | |

| |computers. | |

| |If this incremental service package is unfunded, the lease costs for these remote computer devices would be addressed | |

| |through a reduction is service level in the overall work program. | |

| |It is my understanding that the West End Corridor Study had been undertaken in the summer of 2002. Provide an update as|Planning & Development |

| |to the work completed on the West End Corridor Study. | |

| |No work was commenced on the West End Entrance Corridor Study (Stony Plain Road) as Executive Committee and Council did | |

| |not approve any funds for the study, and therefore no consultants were hired, and the work is not proceeding. | |

| |Explain why aspects of the West Edmonton Plan have not been integrated into the Department’s regular work plans as an |Transp. & Streets |

| |item of Traffic Safety and Control? (pg. 354) Are any of the Intelligent Transportation Systems earmarked for 170 | |

| |Street? (pg. 354) | |

| |The West Edmonton Transportation Plan implementation is proposed to take place over the next 5 years in several project | |

| |profiles. Overall, the objective of the plan is to focus resources on improvements to 178 St in 2004, 184 St in 2005, | |

| |and 170 Street in 2007 (following the opening of Anthony Henday Drive to Gateway Blvd). These are described as follows: | |

| | | |

| |1) Project profile XX-66-1230 (Streets Safety Improvements) (volume 4, pages 410 and 411). This project includes the | |

| |following items: | |

| | | |

| |2004 – intersection channelization Stony Plain Rd – 175 Street, Whitemud Drive – 178 Street, 87 Avenue – 178 Street and | |

| |any associated signal phase modifications | |

| |2005 – intersection channelization Stony Plain Rd – 178 Street, 99 Avenue – 172 Street | |

| |The Transportation and Streets Department is also working with West Edmonton Mall to advance the developer funding of | |

| |turn lane improvements at 90 Avenue – 178 Street. | |

| | | |

| |2) Project profile XX-66-1220 (Traffic Safety Improvements) (volume 4, pages 408 and 409). This project includes the | |

| |following items: | |

| | | |

| |New signal installation – 95 Avenue – 172 Street, signal phase modifications at 95 Avenue – 178 Street and 98 Avenue – | |

| |178 Street. These items are scheduled for implementation in 2004. | |

| | | |

| |3) Project profile 04-66-1464 (West Edmonton Transportation Study Implementation) (volume 4, pages 428 and 429). This | |

| |project includes the following items: | |

| | | |

| |2005 – implementation of traffic responsive control in the immediate vicinity of West Edmonton Mall to assist in | |

| |accommodating fluctuations in traffic demands at peak shopping times (supplemented by additional funding in base | |

| |Intelligent Transportation Systems program 1640 on page 442) | |

| | | |

| |2007 – implementation of roadway rehabilitation and all intersection channelization, lane widenings and signal phase | |

| |modifications identified in the West Edmonton Transportation Study on 170 Street/Mayfield Road from south of 95 Avenue | |

| |to north of 103 Avenue), and development of an additional westbound lane on Stony Plain Rd from 184 Street to Anthony | |

| |Henday Drive (cost shared with developers) | |

| | | |

| |4) Project profile 04-66-9542 (Improvements to Arterial Roads – proposed debt funding) (volume 4 page 462, 463). | |

| |This project includes funding in partnership with developer required construction for the completion of widening and | |

| |reconstruction of 184 Street from a 2 lane rural to 4 lane divided urban arterial roadway with sidewalks between 100 | |

| |Avenue and 105 Avenue. This is done in accordance with practice for arterial roadway construction on a boundary between| |

| |existing and planned development (typically 50/50 cost sharing). | |

| |The only work not funded within the CPP is any that is a requirement of West Edmonton Mall associated with their | |

| |expansion (specific timing cannot be determined until development applications are submitted). In addition, the West | |

| |Edmonton Study had identified the provision of an additional southbound lane on 170 Street between 90 Avenue and | |

| |Whitemud Drive (included in unfunded project profile 04-66-1564 on page 506 of volume 4). Cost share for West Edmonton | |

| |Mall are estimated at $2.8 Million while the city share of costs for 170 Street widening is estimated at $4 to $6 | |

| |Million. | |

| |Which of the listed funded projects for 2004 further the vision in the TMP of the Inner Ring Road? How much of that |Transp. & Streets |

| |“vision” has been actualized and what more needs to be done? In what year will the changes required to make the Inner | |

| |Ring Road fully functional be completed? | |

| |The Transportation Master Plan defines the Inner Ring Loop as Yellowhead Trail, 170 Street, Whitemud Drive and 75 | |

| |Street/Wayne Gretzky Drive. The Plan defines an objective to achieve a minimum standard of the Inner Ring Loop as 6 | |

| |through lanes with a posted speed of 70 km/hr, and identifies the need to reduce the number of at grade signalized | |

| |intersections and direct accesses to these facilities. The Plan also defines that Whitemud Drive is to be maintained as| |

| |a fully grade separated facility, and Yellowhead Trail is to be developed to an ultimate free flow standard through | |

| |progressively more stringent access management and replacement of at grade intersections with interchanges. The Plan | |

| |identifies the following improvements for the Inner Ring Loop within the list of 10 year priorities: | |

| | | |

| |Provision of the first stage of the Inner Ring Loop; a six lane facility with interchanges at selected intersections | |

| | | |

| |The 2004 Budget and 2004 –2008 Capital Priorities Plan include the following projects on the Inner Ring Loop: | |

| | | |

| |Yellowhead Trail – completion of widening to 6 lanes in 2004 (eastbound under 97 St underpass – project 00-66-1462 | |

| |(Yellowhead Operational Improvements on page 424 of volume 4), and construction of the Yellowhead Trail – 156 Street | |

| |interchange (project 02-66-1463 on page 426 of volume 4) | |

| |Whitemud Drive – commence implementation of Whitemud Drive widening between 149 Street and 53 Avenue in conjunction with| |

| |Quesnell Bridge rehabilitation (project 03-66-1461 on page 422 of volume 4) | |

| |170 Street – intersection improvements, access control and southbound lane extension between 103 Ave and 95 Avenue as | |

| |per West Edmonton Transportation Study (project 04-66-1464 on page 428 of volume 4) | |

| |75 Street/Wayne Gretzky Drive – development of a concept plan for the east leg of the Inner Ring Loop will be undertaken| |

| |through funding in project 1910 on page 444, but this planning work is not scheduled to commence until 2005 or later | |

| |(the roadway was rehabilitated in 2002 and any widening would not take place until the next rehabilitation cycle) | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that additional planning work for the Inner Ring Loop (for example reviewing additional enhancement to | |

| |Yellowhead Trail and 170 Street) will be undertaken within the next three years. | |

| | | |

| |The CPP also identifies unfunded work on the Inner Ring Loop in projects XX-66-1560 (page 504) and XX-66-1560 (page | |

| |506). | |

| | | |

| |In order to achieve Ten Year Priorities for the first stage implementation of the Inner Ring Loop outlined in the | |

| |Transportation Plan, the following additional projects would be necessary in addition to those in the funded 2004-2008 | |

| |CPP (no specific implementation timeline can be specified for these projects but they are identified as necessary within| |

| |10 years): | |

| | | |

| |completion of widening of Whitemud Drive to 6 lanes between 122 St and 53 Avenue (including reconstruction of the | |

| |Whitemud – Terwillegar interchange) | |

| |widening of 75 Street/Wayne Gretzky Drive to 6 lanes between Whitemud Drive and 116 Avenue | |

| |When will 87 Avenue be built in Lewis Estates? |Transp. & Streets |

| |The extension of 87 Avenue between Anthony Henday Drive and 199 Street is included within the scope of the 87 Avenue – | |

| |Anthony Henday Drive interchange project being constructed by Alberta Transportation, with proposed opening by 2006. | |

| |West of 199 Street, the construction of the first two lanes of 87 Avenue is a developer responsibility in accordance | |

| |with the Arterial Roadway Assessment, and it is anticipated that the current rates of development would result in | |

| |completion of the connection of 87 Ave from 199 Street to Lewis Estates Boulevard by 2007. It is also noted that the | |

| |Lewis Estates Transit Centre is proposed to be constructed by the City in 2007 (project XX-66-1660 on page 533 of volume| |

| |4) on 87 Avenue west of 199 Street. | |

| |Will the rehab provided on 87 Avenue between 178 Street and 189 Street include a sidewalk from 184 Street to 189 Street?|Transp. & Streets |

| |(pg. 391) If not, why not? In order to realize the goal of being a pedestrian friendly City, (as per Project | |

| |XX-66-1430 pg. 416). Will there be any boulevard tree planting, (as identified pg. 460). | |

| |A sidewalk will not be included as part of the rehabilitation along 87 Avenue between 184 Street and 189 Street. This | |

| |location is identified in our Arterial Deficiencies list for sidewalks. There is an alternative for pedestrians on the | |

| |north side of 87 Avenue. Due to limited funding, our priorities are for arterials that have no sidewalk on either side. | |

| |Based on the current list of arterials with no sidewalks, any consideration for 87 Avenue is a number of years away. | |

| | | |

| |Limited funding for boulevard tree planting is identified within project #66-1020 to allow for planting on some arterial| |

| |rehabilitation locations. Community Services provides a priority list of arterial locations for boulevard tree planting,| |

| |based on the list of arterial roadways identified for rehabilitation. This priority list of tree planting has not be | |

| |finalized at this time. It is unclear at this time if boulevard tree planting will be included as part of the | |

| |rehabilitation along 87 Avenue between 178 Street and 189 Street. | |

| |It is indicated that Project #66-1050 (pg. 397) is coordinated with Project #66-1020 (pg. 391). Clarify why there does |Transp. & Streets |

| |not seem to be coordination between these two projects for Ward 1 locations identified? | |

| |The project coordination between project #66-1020 and #66-1050 in the justification portions of the projects refers to | |

| |general coordination efforts that would take place where appropriate. As an example, this could include arterial and | |

| |collector roads within the boundary of a neighbourhood that is being rehabilitated or reconstructed. Where coordination | |

| |is being done, it would be specifically identified within the list of locations being rehabilitated. | |

| | | |

| |In the case of Ward 1 locations for 2004, There are no arterial or collector locations requiring coordination efforts | |

| |with each other. Rehabilitation of 184 Street from Yellowhead Trail to 137 Avenue is being coordinated with the | |

| |interchange project #66-1481(Yellowhead Trail / 184 Street Interchange). | |

| |As the current policy of no rehabilitation for local roadways and alley is unsustainable when will the Department be |Transp. & Streets |

| |bringing forward a proposal to rectify this situation? (pg. 401) | |

| |Since 1996, six information reports have been submitted to Transportation and Public Works Committee and one to City | |

| |Council, regarding repair/reconstruction of sidewalks in neighbourhoods. Since 2000, three information reports have been| |

| |submitted to Transportation and Public Works Committee, regarding alley rehabilitation/reconstruction. A report for | |

| |Transportation and Public Works Committee on possible solutions to improve the condition of sidewalks in local | |

| |communities is currently being worked on. The report is scheduled for the March 16, 2004 Transportation and Public Works| |

| |Committee meeting. At this time, general financing and Local Improvement (through the 50/50 cost share on sidewalk | |

| |reconstruction) are the only sources of funding available. | |

| |Which traffic management measures identified in the West Edmonton Transportation Plan will be funded by Project |Transp. & Streets |

| |XX-66-1220? (pg. 408) | |

| |Please see response to question 139. | |

| |Which communities will benefit from traffic calming measures provided by Project XX-66-1220? (pg. 408) |Transp. & Streets |

| |Funds identified in project XX-66-1220 (page 408 of volume 4) include funding for the permanent installation of safety | |

| |improvements on 106 Street near schools in accordance with the following motion approved by City Council on July 15, | |

| |2003: | |

| | | |

| |“That the trial traffic calming measures (adjacent to the three area schools in the 106 Street Traffic Plan) be retained| |

| |until permanent construction can be undertaken in 2004 (Attachment 1 of the June 12, 2003 Transportation and Streets | |

| |Department report)” | |

| | | |

| |No other funding for neighbourhood traffic calming installations is included in this program in 2004. | |

| |What are the criteria that must be met to qualify for Arterial Network Improvement – Residential? (pg. 419) Is Guardian|Transp. & Streets |

| |Road eligible based on high levels of growth and social cost-benefit analysis? As part of Street Safety Improvements | |

| |have pull-out lanes for buses been investigated for Guardian Road? | |

| |Arterial network improvements funded either through the base programs (XX-66-1440 on page 419) or through debt funding | |

| |(04-66-9542 on page 462) are evaluated based on the following key criteria: | |

| | | |

| |daily traffic volumes existing or anticipated to exceed 20,000 veh/day within 5 years for roadways to be widened from 2 | |

| |lanes to 4 lanes | |

| |widening projects required to accommodate transportation demands generated by completion of other transportation network| |

| |improvements and/or development which will result in severe network congestion without the improvements | |

| |benefit/cost assessment based on delays and reductions in collisions once the projects are completed | |

| | | |

| |Some additional widenings are also triggered in projects 1610 and 1611 by Provincial construction of Anthony Henday | |

| |Drive | |

| | | |

| |The highest priorities for widening are identified in project 1440. For 2004, 137 Avenue between 156 and 170 St is | |

| |recommended based on daily volume currently exceeding 21,000 veh/day. Over the 5 year program, widening of 137 Ave from | |

| |4 to 6 lanes between 127 Street and 156 Street, and widening of 23 Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes from 122 Street to | |

| |Terwillegar Drive is also included in this program. | |

| | | |

| |Debt project 04-66-9542 includes the following locations for widening of arterial roadways from 2 lanes to 4 lanes: | |

| | | |

| |153 Ave (50 Street to 59A Street) – completion of widening in 2004 in conjunction with approved widening from 59A St to | |

| |82 Street that was funded as part of the approved 2003 debt project list | |

| |50 St (146 Avenue to 153 Avenue) – completion of 4 lane roadway (volumes currently exceed 20,000/day) | |

| |34 St (34 Avenue to 38 Avenue) – completion of 4 lanes in 2005 to coincide with opening of Whitemud Drive – 34 Street | |

| |interchange (volumes currently exceed 20,000/day) | |

| |111 Street (Ellerslie Road to Blackburne Drive) – completion of 4 lanes in 2005 to match with Anthony Henday Drive and | |

| |developer construction in the area | |

| |184 Street (100 Avenue to 105) completion of reconstruction from 2 lane rural to 4 lane urban section in partnership | |

| |with required developer upgrading as per West Edmonton Transportation Study | |

| | | |

| |A number of other projects for arterial widening and/or upgrading are not currently funded within the CPP, and are | |

| |identified in unfunded project profile XX-66-1540 on page 499 and 500 of volume 4. Guardian Road and Lewis Estates | |

| |Boulevard are included in this list, along with 13 other locations awaiting upgrading,. It is noted that bus bays are | |

| |not utilized by the Transportation and Streets Department, except in instances where buses wait for extended times for | |

| |transfer connections or at timing points. Bus bays have been found to increase overall person delays due to difficulty | |

| |in transit trying to re-enter the traffic stream. Bus bays have not been included along Guardian Road or any other | |

| |first half of arterial roads being constructed by developers. | |

| |Is there noise attenuation being contemplated for Whitemud Drive widening from north side of Quesnell Bridge to 149 |Transp. & Streets |

| |Street? (pg. 422) | |

| |Noise attenuation adjacent to Whitemud Drive between Quesnell Bridge and 149 Street is included within the approved | |

| |concept plan for this facility, and would be included within the planned 2009 construction program for this project, in | |

| |conjunction with the widening of Whitemud Drive between Quesnell Bridge and 149 Street. | |

| |Why are no improvements contemplated in 2004 and 2006 to West End traffic problems? What is the daily volume of traffic|Transp. & Streets |

| |on 170 Street, what are the projections for growth in the West End and what are the accident patterns on 170 Street | |

| |intersections? As 170 Street is part of the Inner Ring Road and Stony Plain Road is a major highway connector what are | |

| |the economic impacts of not proceeding with improvements sooner? Has a social cost benefit analysis been conducted? | |

| |The response to question 139 outlines the planned implementation of the West Edmonton Transportation study over the 2004| |

| |to 2008 time period, including improvements to 178 Street, 170 Street and Stony Plain Road. These measures are | |

| |justified on a cost/benefit basis, and are being implemented in accordance with the following motion approved by City | |

| |Council on April 15, 2003: | |

| |“That detailed planning, review of access changes and implementation of the improvements be staged in conjunction with | |

| |development and available funding in the Capital Priorities Plan” | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that one of the factors affecting implementation of improvements is the staging of additional development at| |

| |West Edmonton Mall. The West Edmonton Transportation study outlined anticipated growth patterns in West Edmonton over | |

| |the next 10 years. Daily traffic volumes on 170 St, south of 95 Ave have increased from 57,000 veh/day in 1997 to 61,600| |

| |veh/day in 2003, which is a slower growth rate than some other sections of the Inner Ring Loop such as Yellowhead Trail | |

| |and Whitemud Drive. Based on the most recent collision data (12 months ending Sept 30, 2003), two locations on 170 | |

| |Street appear in the top twenty by number of collisions (95 Avenue – 170 Street and 87 Avenue – 170 Street). | |

| | | |

| |Although it is desirable to implement improvements on 170 Street as soon as possible, the priority for this project must| |

| |be reviewed relative to other major project priorities, schedules for planned roadway rehabilitation, coordination with | |

| |developer work and ensuring that traffic disruption during construction is minimized, particularly near a major tourist | |

| |destination such as West Edmonton Mall. On this basis, improvements to 170 Street were scheduled for construction in | |

| |2007 (following both the World Masters Games and the opening of Anthony Henday Drive to Gateway Blvd, and in accordance | |

| |with timing for planned roadway rehabilitation). | |

| |What is the cost of the traffic signal controls (ITS) proposed for both West Edmonton Mall and South Edmonton Commons? |Transp. & Streets |

| |(pg. 442) What are the benefits realized by implementation of this project? | |

| |South Edmonton Common | |

| | | |

| |$50K has been budgeted for South Edmonton Common in 2004. This funding is for expansion and implementation of Traffic | |

| |Responsive and signal control. | |

| |23 Avenue and 99 Street - connect to central signal control computer | |

| |23 Avenue and Parsons Road - connect to central signal control computer | |

| |21 Avenue and 99 Street - connect to central signal control computer | |

| |23 Avenue west of Parsons Road – vehicle detection sensors | |

| |Parsons Road south of 21 Avenue – vehicle detection sensors | |

| | | |

| |West Edmonton Mall Area | |

| | | |

| |Implementing traffic responsive signal control in the West Edmonton Mall area in 2005 is expected to cost in the order | |

| |of $270K ( $50K from ITS program 1640 and $220K from program 1464) and include: | |

| |Approximately 25 existing traffic signals covering 170 Street, 178 Street, 90 Avenue and 87 Avenue surrounding the mall | |

| |Addition of CCTV vehicle detection /data collection sites to track traffic flow. | |

| |As high speed transit corridors are a priority what funds are earmarked for this activity in Project XX-66-1910? (pg. |Transp. & Streets |

| |444) | |

| |The High Speed Transit strategic study, currently underway, will be result in recommendations being brought forward to | |

| |City Council early in 2004 regarding the staged development of High Speed Transit corridors and priorities for more | |

| |detailed planning studies that will address both corridor concept plans and initial stage network development. At this | |

| |time it is not possible to identify a specific dollar value for the additional planning work to be included in the 2004 | |

| |work program, but anticipating the outcome of the HST study, $400,000 to $500,000 has been allocated from transportation| |

| |planning studies program 1910 on page 444 of volume 4, to initiate follow up HST studies. | |

| |At one time an overpass on Stony Plain Road and 170 Street was contemplated to provide enhancements to movement on the |Transp. & Streets |

| |Inner Ring Road and linkages to the Provincial Highway System. What has happened to this project? | |

| |An overpass of Stony Plain Road over 170 Street was demolished over 10 years ago when the at grade one way couplet | |

| |system (170 St NBD/SBD) and 100 Avenue/Stony Plain Road was implemented. There are no plans to reinstate this overpass.| |

| |Explain the rationale for going underground at 19th Avenue and Gateway Blvd. (Calgary Trail)? Which project funds this |Transp. & Streets |

| |intersection? | |

| |The 19 Ave underpass under Gateway Blvd is a component of the 23 Avenue – Gateway Blvd interchange project 03-66-9580 | |

| |(page 465 volume 4). The interchange configuration was approved as part of the concept plan approved by City Council | |

| |for the 23 Avenue – Gateway Blvd project. During the planning stages of the project, both overpass and underpass | |

| |options were considered, with the conclusion that 19 Avenue underpass cost was virtually the same as an overpass. The | |

| |underpass configuration was recommended given that the overpass would have resulted in higher noise levels and greater | |

| |impacts on the adjoining neighbourhood, as well as obstruction of sight lines to South Edmonton Common. | |

| |Can a specific business levy be applied to South Edmonton Common to pay for improvements related to South Edmonton |Transp. & Streets |

| |Common generated traffic? Was a traffic analysis conducted regarding the traffic specifically generated by South | |

| |Edmonton Common? In the past has the City requested other commercial/retail developments to pay for improvements and | |

| |operational enhancements to roadways? If yes, provide some examples. | |

| |When City Council approved the Area Structure Plan amendment for the Research Park that allowed the development of South| |

| |Edmonton Common, Traffic Impact Assessments were prepared in support of the development that outlined the impacts of | |

| |development related traffic as well as growth in background traffic on the network. Based on this assessment and | |

| |subsequent traffic impact assessments based on development stages and/or zoning changes, South Edmonton Common | |

| |developers have been required to undertake the construction of all roadway network measures that are required directly | |

| |to support the development (including all internal roadways, all intersection channelization along boundary roads on 23 | |

| |Avenue and Gateway Blvd – 19 Avenue, extension of Parsons Road and the 13 Avenue rail underpass). It is not legally | |

| |possible to require existing development to contribute additional funding towards transportation improvements. | |

| | | |

| |Should the owners of properties within South Edmonton Common wish to undertake additional improvements beyond those that| |

| |have already been undertaken or required through existing zoning approvals, the opportunity exists to form a Business | |

| |Revitalization Zone and use the BRZ as a mechanism to generate funds for transportation improvements. | |

| | | |

| |A similar mechanism was utilized by businesses in the vicinity of 184 Street who wished to fund a rail overpass over the| |

| |CNR (which was an enhancement to the basic Yellowhead Trail – 184 Street interchange project that the City had | |

| |recommended). The BRZ has funded approximately $1 million of the $13 million cost of the CNR rail overpass. | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that all major developments are required to pay for improvements that are necessary to provide access to | |

| |development in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. Please refer to the response to question 24 which outlines| |

| |how West Edmonton Mall was assessed the cost of transportation improvements. | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that the Transportation Master Plan identifies the upgrading of Gateway Boulevard from Anthony Henday Drive | |

| |to 23 Avenue to a freeway standard as a required network improvement. | |

| |Is the Department considering the impact of the increase in usage on 231 Street as a result of the proposed Enoch |Transp. & Streets |

| |development? (pg. 476) | |

| |The unfunded project profile for project XX-66-1130 (Oiled and Graveled Road Rehabilitation) on page 476 outlines | |

| |locations to be reconstructed from existing oiled and graveled surface to a hot mix asphalt. Locations identified | |

| |represent either existing truck routes or locations where truck route designations are proposed to change. In the case | |

| |of 231 Street, this location is included in order to ensure that the roadway is upgraded to a truck route standard | |

| |before the designated truck route can be relocated from 215 Street to 231 Street (as outlined in the Lewis Estates Area | |

| |Structure Plan). Development of Enoch was not a consideration when this upgrading was identified, but the future | |

| |priority for locations for the oiled and graveled road program is affected by both truck activity and the timing of | |

| |development in the area. It is not expected that Enoch development will result in any significant change in traffic | |

| |volumes on this roadway. | |

| |Are industrial neighbourhoods given the same priority for rehabilitation of alleys, roads, and sidewalks as residential |Transp. & Streets |

| |neighbourhoods? (pg. 481 – map pg. 483, pg. 488 – map pg. 490) | |

| |Yes. At this time industrial neighbourhoods are considered and assessed under the same conditions as residential | |

| |neighbourhoods on the city-wide priority lists for neighbourhood rehabilitation/reconstruction. | |

| |Has the West Meadowlark Community Traffic Management Plan been finalized? If yes, what are the recommendations and |Transp. & Streets |

| |costs? (pg. 493) | |

| |The West Meadowlark Community Traffic Management Plan is one of two studies currently being worked on by the | |

| |Transportation and Streets Department (the other study being Garneau). Current resources permit two studies at a time to| |

| |be undertaken, and, due to the extended time period for work on the 106 Street study, the start of the West Meadowlark | |

| |Study was delayed. At this stage, the work completed involves issue identification and background data collection, with | |

| |plans to work on plan development in 2004. | |

| | | |

| |It is noted that, if the 2004 operating budget is approved as recommended, a reduction of $111,000 in funding and | |

| |resources for community traffic management plans will take place, resulting in sufficient resources to allow only one | |

| |study to proceed at a time. This will result in an extension of the timelines for plan development in West Meadowlark, | |

| |as well as a delay in implementation of any trial measures from 2004 to 2005. | |

| |With the expected increased demand on Winterburn Road due to the proposed Enoch Entertainment Resort, has consideration |Transp. & Streets |

| |been given to advance the date of construction to a four-lane arterial to coincide with the opening of the Resort? Has | |

| |the province responded to our request for funding of this roadway? (pg. 499) | |

| |The Transportation and Streets Department capital budget program 00-66-1610 (page 437 of volume 4) includes funding for | |

| |the widening of Whitemud Drive to 4 lanes between Anthony Drive and Guardian Rd/Lewis Estates Blvd in 2004. The Enoch | |

| |development agreement would require that the developer reconstruct Whitemud Drive between Lewis Estates Blvd and 215 | |

| |Street to a 2 lane paved roadway in conjunction with their development schedule. Two other roadways may potentially be | |

| |used for access to Enoch, Whitemud Drive west of 215 Street and Winterburn Road north of Whitemud Drive. | |

| | | |

| |Reconstruction of Whitemud Drive, west of 215 Street, as well as widening of Whitemud Drive between Lewis Estates Blvd | |

| |and 215 Street would require property acquisition, which is included within unfunded project profile XX-66-1580 (page | |

| |508 of volume 4). This project is considered to be a low priority until such time as the Province proceeds with the | |

| |reconstruction of secondary highway 628 between the Edmonton boundary and Highway 60. | |

| | | |

| |Construction of the first 2 lanes of Winterburn Road between Whitemud Drive and Stony Plain Road is a developer | |

| |responsibility and is included within the arterial roadway assessment for Lewis Estates. Widening to 4 lanes can only | |

| |occur when road right of way is available from lands west of 215 Street, which are unlikely to develop over the next 5 | |

| |years. Traffic volumes on Winterburn Road, even with full commercial development of Enoch, would not be at a level that| |

| |would justify expansion to 4 lanes. | |

| | | |

| |As yet, no response has been received from the Province to our request for funding of either of these projects. | |

| |If funded, would both design and construction of Guardian road widening occur in 2005? (pg. 500) |Transp. & Streets |

| |The project profile for unfunded project XX-66-1540 on page 500 indicates “Guardian Road/Lewis Estates Blvd (north/south| |

| |of Whitemud Drive):widen to four lanes with design and construction in 2005”. | |

| |Is the widening of 184 Street from 100 Avenue to 105 Avenue a result of the retail/commercial development in Place La |Transp. & Streets |

| |Rue? (pg. 506) | |

| |The widening and reconstruction to 4 lane urban standard of 184 Street between 100 Avenue and 105 Avenue is required due| |

| |to the combination of development generated traffic in Place La Rue and Sunwapta, and overall traffic growth due to | |

| |general development in the area. For this reason, costs for this roadway are shared between adjoining development and | |

| |the city in accordance with practice of cost sharing for arterial roadways on a boundary between existing and proposed | |

| |development. This project appears within debt funded project profile 03-66-9540 on page 460. If debt funding is not | |

| |approved, the project would be unfunded as noted in project profile 04-66-1564 on page 506. | |

| |What is the cost of providing bus service both peak and off peak to new areas or expanding existing service? Provide a |Transp. & Streets |

| |list of those new neighbourhoods who do not have bus service as well as those neighbourhoods requiring expansion of | |

| |services? (pg. 358). How is it determined which neighbourhoods are eligible for expanded service? | |

| |Please see response to #7. | |

| |“Transit Growth Initiatives” of $82,000 (pg. 363) will provide what type of service? |Transp. & Streets |

| | | |

| |NOTE: The actual dollar amount should be $102,494K. | |

| |The transit 2004-2008 Capital plan and budget includes $102,494K for Capital projects supporting growth of the system. | |

| |This includes bus purchases to meet growth and capacity, a Park N Ride Facility and Terminal at Lewis Estates, | |

| |additional terminal facilities near Northgate, improvements to existing terminals, completion of the University to | |

| |Health Sciences LRT Station, land acquisition and design for the Health Sciences to Neil Crawford LRT extension and land| |

| |acquisition for a new transit garage. | |

| |Provide information as to the Council direction required to ensure that all new developments have developer funded |Transp. & Streets |

| |transit service. (as per the example of Summerside, Hamptons where service is provided in partnership with developers) | |

| |(pg. 318). How many new partnerships between the City and developers to provide transit service in new area have been | |

| |achieved in 2002 and 2003? How many more are planned for 2004 and 2005? What has been the cost to developers of | |

| |providing transit service to a new development? | |

| |Advice from the Law Branch with respect to developer funded service, under existing provincial legislation, is that a | |

| |municipality does not have the authority to compel a developer to provide transit service. | |

| | | |

| |Over the past few years, Edmonton Transit has entered into agreements with developers to provide limited weekday peak | |

| |period service for a two-year period. As a result, the following areas received service: | |

| | | |

| |The Grange – September 1999 to August 2001 (annual cost of $50,000) | |

| |Southbrook/Rutherford – September 2001 to August 2003 (annual cost of $57,000) | |

| |Ellerslie Crossing/Summerside – January 2003 to December 2004 (annual cost of $60,000) | |

| |Hamptons – September 2003 to August 2005 (annual cost of $68,000) | |

| | | |

| |At the present time, there are no additional partnerships being negotiated. | |

| |Are the 22.5 FTE’s requested in the DATS Hybrid Business Model (Vol. 3, pg. 96) all drivers? If not, what positions |Transp. & Streets |

| |will be filled? Which “technological tools” will be required and what is the cost? What would be the impact? | |

| |The 22.5 FTE’s is comprised of the following: | |

| |14.0 fte for relief pool drivers | |

| |6.0 fte drivers (4th quarter recruitment of 22 drivers for continued expansion of DATS fleet and drivers as per | |

| |Council-approved business model; 16.0 fte to be annualized in 2005) | |

| |1.0 fte for technician to oversee fare dump, vehicle book-out, and other associated duties with DATS fleet coordination.| |

| |1.5 fte annualization of 2003 budget approval of additional support resources associated with business model (i.e. | |

| |operations analyst, transit shift design analyst, service technician, and dispatch/scheduling). | |

| |The new DATS vehicles will include communication systems which allow voice and data messaging. This will improve the | |

| |productivity of the operators and reliability for customers. Costs included in the operating service package are for | |

| |data lines, maintenance and software support. | |

| | | |

| |Total project cost is $2,175K (includes project management fees, and software and hardware). System implementation is | |

| |targeted for the 4th quarter of 2004. On-going data/circuit line and system maintenance charges are estimated at $50K | |

| |in 2004, and 2005 annualization of $178K. | |

| |What would be the impact of implementing ITS on 23rd Avenue and Calgary Trail. Would the impact be significant enough so|Transp. & Streets |

| |that an overpass could be delayed pending the build out of Anthony Henday and LRT to Heritage? | |

| |Application of ITS technology for the intersections around South Edmonton Common would use “traffic responsive” controls| |

| |that would allow the choice of optimal timing plans based on measured traffic volumes and would choose from pre-designed| |

| |plans. This would allow, for example, the use of an afternoon peak timing plan for a weekend situation if the volumes | |

| |matched typical weekday afternoon traffic patterns. This would allow for the more efficient handling of traffic when | |

| |patterns vary from typical day of week operation. ITS technology could, for example, assist in handling long weekend | |

| |peaks in highway traffic or peak flows exiting the movie theatres. ITS would include travel information (use of CCTV | |

| |cameras to view existing traffic conditions). As this intersection is already fully congested on both weekday afternoon| |

| |peaks and Saturday shopping times, minimal decreases in congestion would occur during these time periods. On this | |

| |basis, implementation of ITS would not result in any ability to delay the construction of interchanges. Design volumes | |

| |for the 23 Avenue – Gateway Boulevard interchange concept plan were based on completion of the southwest and southeast | |

| |quadrants of Anthony Henday Drive. | |

| |How may trips has DATS provide to date (2003)? |Transp. & Streets |

| |October YTD trips total 709,000 versus 698,750 the same time 2002. Year-end projections are an estimated 843,500 trips | |

| |carried/provided versus the 829,239 in 2002. | |

| |Can current bus life be extended to increase the number of buses in the fleet, and some of the new buses scheduled for |Transp. & Streets |

| |replacement be used for new or enhanced service delivery? | |

| |Extending the life of the existing GMC buses can be done, however this will require additional refurbishment budget of | |

| |$40-50,000 per bus to ensure the safety and reliability of the bus in regular service. The buses use obsolete engines, | |

| |transmissions and body parts, which are becoming more difficult to find to support extended operation. The new engines | |

| |emit some 72% less pollutant than the older engines in the GMC buses. There would also be an impact on meeting | |

| |Transit’s target to have the bus fleet fully accessible by 2012. Demand for fully accessible service is increasing. | |

| |New buses purchased as replacement units are used to provide base service throughout the bus system, which would include| |

| |any new service provided for growth. The older buses are primarily used to provide peak service and additional service | |

| |to deal with capacity issues. | |

| |Has Committee or Council approval been received to acquire DATS computer Software replacement in 2007? What is the cost|Transp. & Streets |

| |of this replacement and what assurances do we have that it will perform better than the current system, which doesn’t | |

| |work? Why does a stand alone scheduling system need to be developed for 91 lift vans? (pg. 531) | |

| |Project Number XX-66-1420 (page 531 of volume 4) DATS Computer System Replacement is in the 2004 – 2008 CPP Funded | |

| |category (for 2007). The estimated capital cost for computer system replacement is $2,500K and budget approval would be| |

| |requested in 2005 or 2006. The current DATS computer system contains modules for client registration, driver and | |

| |vehicle records, driver payments, complaint/commendation administration, trip booking and dispatching. This program was| |

| |developed in-house by IT in the early-1990’s and is scheduled for upgrade or replacement in accordance with the 10-year | |

| |cycle recommended by IT. This computer program has worked effectively over this time period. However, it is being more| |

| |difficult to sustain this program over time due to the number of programming changes to address on-going business | |

| |requirements, and this will only be compounded with the new DATS business model. | |

| | | |

| |Administration’s report presented to TPW on March 18, 2003 regarding the DATS scheduling system indicated the City would| |

| |be pursuing an integrated computer program in the future including the scheduling function. Until that time, DATS will | |

| |continue to manually schedule the over one-million annual trips. DATS is the only system of its size to manually | |

| |schedule service. The volume of trips and complexity of designing service on a daily basis to meet customer trip | |

| |requests warrants a computerized scheduling program. | |

| | | |

| |Continued high levels of driver employee absences and vehicle outages confront the DATS system. Driver employee absence| |

| |levels are 12-15%, excluding day-to-day absences and vehicle outages and general traffic conditions. The new business | |

| |model is intended to address this problem through the establishment of a fleet of City-owned and operated lift-equipped | |

| |vans, and contracted sedan and passenger van services. DATS administration will be establishing a relief pool of City | |

| |lift vans and drivers by April 2004, and continues to work with Human Resources on employee issues. At this time there | |

| |is no funding dedicated for the capital costs to establish the full City fleet of lift vans, nor the associated | |

| |operating costs to fully implement the Council approved business model. | |

| |Have the West End Communities been consulted as to the best location for the proposed Park and Ride as well as the best |Transp. & Streets |

| |routes to access the LRT at Neil Crawford? (pg. 533) | |

| |The High Speed Transit strategic plan, currently underway, is looking at a variety of corridor options and the potential| |

| |to implement park and ride in conjunction with these corridors, but is not reviewing specific locations. The Terms of | |

| |Reference for this study, as identified to City Council, focuses on very high level stakeholder input on the overall | |

| |concept and principles used in assessing high speed transit corridors. Reviewing the details of corridor configurations| |

| |and potential sites for park and ride would be part of the concept planning stage which would follow a strategic plan. | |

| |For this reason, individual community stakeholders in any part of the city have not been engaged at the strategic level | |

| |as the types of impacts at a community level would only be addressed at a concept plan level. The strategic plan has | |

| |included high level stakeholder involvement with invited participants representing broad perspectives (including the | |

| |Federation of Community Leagues). | |

| |Have the administrative and operational efficiencies of a common transit building to accommodate both buses and DATS |Transp. & Streets |

| |vehicles been considered? (pg. 533) | |

| |Yes. Please refer to response from Question 73. | |

| |Though a dedicated busway from Neil Crawford Station to Fox Drive is a good first step to provide improved bus service |Transp. & Streets |

| |to the West End it will do little to alleviate the access issues from the West End to Fox Drive. What proposals are | |

| |within the South LRT plan to ensure that the 10-year priority of improved bus access from the West End to LRT and the | |

| |goals of the TMP are achieved? (pg. 557) | |

| |The South LRT extension to Neil Crawford includes the development of a busway access from Fox Drive to Neil Crawford | |

| |Station. As well, the Whitemud Drive/Terwillegar Drive concept plan identified potential bus priority measures for | |

| |access onto Quesnell Bridge. The Neil Crawford to West Edmonton Mall Corridor is one of a number of corridor options to | |

| |serve the west end being considered in the High Speed Transit Corridor strategic plan. Details of particular corridor | |

| |configurations would be undertaken as part of the concept planning stage which follows the strategic plan consideration | |

| |by City Council in early 2004. | |

| |When will the long-range business plan to address the strategic direction of the Shaw Conference Centre be finalized? |EDE |

| |(Vol. 3, pg. 135) | |

| |This business plan should be complete by the summer of 2004. | |

| |With regards to Special Event Policing, did the Commission consider a different rate for small-not-for profit |Police Service |

| |organizations? | |

| |Special Event Policing is an activity carried out by EPS that is above core service activities. The cost of providing | |

| |this service is recovered through rates charged to users. Consideration has not been given to providing different rates| |

| |to small or non-profit organizations. Subsidized rates for non-profit organizations will divert scarce tax levy funding | |

| |for this non-core activity. | |

| |Can you reconcile the different budget allocations outlined on pages 387 and 392? As an example: |Police Service |

| |Patrol - $68 m (pg. 387) | |

| |Patrol $90m (pg. 392) | |

| |The following provides a reconciliation between pages 387 and 392: | |

| | | |

| |[pic] | |

| |Why would the Police Commission list administrative support to police officers ($2.1 m unfunded, pg. 140) as a higher |Police Service |

| |priority than providing additional police ($1.5m unfunded, Vol. 3, pg. 141) | |

| |Pages 140 and 141 Volume 3 of the 2004 Budget document provides unfunded service package information. Two service issues| |

| |have been identified for the Edmonton Police Service in 2004: | |

| |1. Funding to cover 2004 Cost Impacts ($2.1 million); and, | |

| |2. Resources for Front Line Policing ($1.5 million). | |

| |The first priority for Edmonton Police Service is to maintain the current (2003) level of resourcing before requesting | |

| |funding for new or growth initiatives. As a result, funding to maintain 2003 resources is being requested before adding | |

| |additional Front-line Policing. | |

| |As more calls to EPS are for service which is “non-offence” or non-criminal and does not potentially require a police |Police Service |

| |officer, what other presonnel options is the Commission investigating? (Vol. 3, pg. 141) | |

| |The Edmonton Police Commission is “investigating” (considering) the issue raised by Councillors Leibovici [Q 176] and | |

| |Mandel [Q 303] vis a vis personnel options under two significant initiatives. The first of these is the request to the | |

| |City Auditor to conduct a Comprehensive Audit on Civilianization. The general question being addressed in the audit is | |

| |whether or not alternative personnel practices could be introduced (expanded) which would free up sworn officers to | |

| |concentrate on “policing matters”. | |

| | | |

| |The second initiative involves the Commission’s consideration of a concept that would see a significant amount of the | |

| |responsibility and decision making decentralized to [initially] one of the four divisions. If and when this were to | |

| |occur, decisions as to how best to free up sworn officers to work [ more ] exclusively on policing matters by assigning | |

| |non policing tasks to civilian staff could be made at the local level. | |

| |Is the cost for scanners to read Alberta’s new driver’s licenses incorporated into the budget? If yes, what is the |Police Service |

| |cost? | |

| |There are no costs for scanners in the EPS 2004 Budget. Further work is required by the Provincial Government in | |

| |developing the type of information they would like to capture through the barcode. There may be no requirements for | |

| |scanners for several years. | |

| |Is the ERD/EPS Training Center (pg. 589) similar to the Officer Safety Training Centre provided on page 608? |Police Service |

| |While both are intended for training purposes, each centre has a different focus. | |

| | | |

| |Officer Safety Training Centre (02-60-1893) | |

| |Officer safety police training, including Arrest & Control and basic firearm qualifications, are incorporated in this | |

| |capital project. These facilities are specific to police needs and represent the immediate infrastructure requirements | |

| |needed to meet the existing training standards for police officers. | |

| | | |

| |ERD/EPS Training Centre (07-60-1361) | |

| |The intent of the ERD/EPS Training Center project is to identify the infrastructure needs for the potential construction| |

| |of a Provincial Training Facility. This project is contingent on changes being made to the Police Act and the | |

| |establishment of a standardized provincial training program which is not expected to occur in the near future. This | |

| |project is longer term in focus and is intended to identify the potential infrastructure requirements. As part of | |

| |looking at this initiative, EPS considered the opportunities or synergies of a joint training facility with City | |

| |Departments (Emergency Response Department) and other agencies. The facility would replace and augment existing | |

| |facilities for recruit, mandatory and developmental training as required by provincial standards. The project identified| |

| |in the 2004 Budget Volume IV provides for $100,000 in 2006 to investigate the feasibility of this project including an | |

| |assessment potential financing strategies. Related construction costs of $15.5 million are not currently funded and are| |

| |captured separately in the 2004 Budget Volume IV, project 05-60-1352, page 611. | |

| | | |

| |Also refer to the response in question 179. | |

| |Is it premature to advance to Phase II/III of the Training Centre (formerly the Shooting Range/Long Distance Rifle |Police Service |

| |Range) until alternate funding services and a provincial training academy is explored? (as noted on pg. 589) | |

| |The Officer Safety Training Centre Phases II and III represent urgent infrastructure requirements to meet the current | |

| |needs of training police officers. Delaying this project would impact EPS’s ability to meet required training standards,| |

| |increase risk exposure to the City and result in increased costs to meet training needs. | |

| | | |

| |The ERD/EPS Training Center project is contingent on Police Act and the establishment of a standardized training program| |

| |which are not expected to occur in the near future. It identifies EPS’s commitment to reviewing longer-term strategies | |

| |in augmenting existing facilities to train police officers and possibly emergency response personnel. | |

| | | |

| |The Officer Safety Training Centre should proceed independently of the ERD/EPS Training Centre project. Feasibility | |

| |studies and alternative financing strategies for the ERD / EPS Training Centre should also proceed to assess and | |

| |position the Edmonton Police Service in responding to this potential opportunity. | |

| | | |

| |Also refer to the response in Question 178. | |

| |Clarify whether the proposed renovations for the downtown facility incorporates training areas and classrooms as a space|Police Service |

| |requirement? (pg. 615) | |

| |The EPS is in the process of having a pre-conceptual study completed in conjunction with Asset Management & Public Works| |

| |to define the scope of the project and present options for the Rehabilitation/Upgrade of the Downtown Facility. | |

| |Training rooms/classrooms are not likely to be included as they are covered in the ERD/EPS Training Centre and the | |

| |Officer Training Centre projects. | |

| |Could the proposed Southwest Station be modified to incorporate the audio/video monitored interview rooms and Special |Police Service |

| |Project Offices? (pg. 615) | |

| |The current conceptual plans for Southwest Division Station incorporates audio/visual interview rooms and special | |

| |project rooms similar to other Division Stations. In the future, a more detailed facilities needs assessment will be | |

| |done as part of the detailed design phase of this project. | |

| |What is the anticipated increase of officers in the downtown station that necessitates a $24m expansion? What are the |Police Service |

| |“industry” standards that can’t be met and how do the standards compare to RCMP standards and City of Edmonton space | |

| |allocation standards? (pg. 615) | |

| |The Rehabilitation/Upgrade of EPS's Downtown Facility is being driven by current space shortages. The pre-conceptual | |

| |study currently underway will present options that will accommodate additional space requirements. | |

| | | |

| |To clarify, the phrase "industry standards" was intended to mean space standards. These standards, followed by the EPS,| |

| |are derived from RCMP standards and are very similar to those followed by the City of Edmonton. Currently, the amount | |

| |of staff workspace is being reduced to accommodate increased space required for information technology, ergonomic | |

| |furniture and building systems. | |

| |What is the cost of each portable radio? How many are available now? (pg. 618) Are these 2-way radios? |Police Service |

| |Currently, each encrypted portable 2-way radio has a cost of $4,500. There are currently 678 portable radios (both | |

| |unencrypted & encrypted) that are currently used by the EPS. | |

| |Explain whether the grant received by the Provincial government (pg. 144, Vol. 3) is an on-going grant? |Library |

| |The grant of $245,000 from the Provincial Government returns the Library to 1994 provincial funding levels and is | |

| |on-going. | |

| |Is there also a one time provincial grant being provided in 2004? |Library |

| |On October 20, at the Opening Ceremonies of Alberta Library Week, the Hon. Gene Zwozdesky announced a one-time grant of | |

| |$250,000 for the Edmonton Public Library. This money has been earmarked for the renovation of Sprucewood Library as | |

| |tenders came in at $227,000 over the estimates. | |

| |Rather than close a library (with a reduction of 57 hours a week) why would the Library Board not consider reducing all |Library |

| |Libraries operating hours by approximately ½ hour each day? On what basis will the decision be made as to which medium | |

| |sized Library will be closed? How can the Library Board justify closing a Library with the loss of benefits outlined on| |

| |page 401 rather than dealing with a “public relations problem” that would be encountered by changing hours of | |

| |operation? (pg. 400) | |

| |Reduced hours of service would need to be significant enough to constitute a barrier to citizen access to Library | |

| |services on a city-wide basis. Experience has proven that even when branches are totally shut down for extended | |

| |periods, approximately half of all customers will travel farther to make use of other, more distant Library branches on | |

| |a regular basis. Consequently, it is anticipated that if hours of operation are reduced by a half hour to an hour | |

| |daily, citizens will make relatively minor adjustments in their schedules and continue using the Library. In other | |

| |words, the same volume of work will be compressed into a slightly shorter day. To actually eliminate work as opposed to| |

| |merely compressing or postponing it, a branch would have to be closed. | |

| |Factors that will be considered for deciding which medium-sized branch to close will include: | |

| |Whether a facility is owned or leased and how much time is remaining on the lease. | |

| |Proximity to other branches. | |

| |Life span remaining on owned facility. | |

| |Statistical data on visits, circulation and number of citizens served. | |

| |Operating costs of the facility. | |

| |The Library’s concern is not the degree of “public relations” work involved in dealing with outcomes of cuts to | |

| |services. It is, however, gravely concerned that a swath of cuts across a series of city-wide library services will | |

| |leave all citizens with a lower level of service and reduced access to information, as well as result in high levels of | |

| |citizen dissatisfaction. | |

| |Is there space available in the vacinity of the Jamie Platz YMCA and Callingwood Mall for the Lessard Library |Library |

| |re-location? | |

| |It is estimated that 1.5 acres of land is required to build the proposed 25,000 sq.ft. District Branch. Preliminary | |

| |information from Asset Management and Public Works confirms that there are several possible sites on the land | |

| |surrounding the Jamie Platz YMCA location. However, no further discussions have taken place at this point with the | |

| |owners (City of Edmonton: Community Services and Edmonton Public Schools). | |

| |Is there available land to develop a 30-stall parking lot for the Jasper Place Library? |Library |

| |The Jasper Place Branch renovation described in Volume IV, pg. 645 would see the development of the landscaped area on | |

| |the west side of the Jasper Place Library as a parking lot, with a minimum of 30 stalls. | |

| |What is the purpose of the subsidy EFCL provides to the City’s skateboard/playground programs? |Edmonton Federation of |

| |The EFCL does not provide the subsidy, the member leagues do. The Department, responding to budget cuts and service |Community Leagues |

| |reductions, developed a ranking program based on a variety of criteria for playground locations. The result is shared | |

| |with the league and a selection of eight funding support options to staff the site is presented. The Administration then| |

| |takes its’ budgeted amount, divides it in $1000 increments and may or may not “top up” the program the league ‘selects’,| |

| |which is paid at the end of the season. | |

| |What steps has EFCL taken to deal with increased insurance costs? Has EFCL discussed with the City the options at its |Edmonton Federation of |

| |disposal regarding insurance coverage? |Community Leagues |

| |The EFCL has a seven-point approach to address the insurance problems. The strategy consists of three focus areas. The | |

| |first includes working with all three levels of government to either change regulations or find new operating money. | |

| |Secondly, EFCL is working with leagues and the insurer on risk reduction programs. Finally, the membership struck a Task| |

| |Force to examine a variety of options with the City of Edmonton Risk Management Department, AUMA, other sources and the | |

| |insurance industry. Details are available on request. | |

| |What proportion of the budget is dedicated to providing services to school groups from Edmonton, the region and the |Space and Science |

| |province? |Centre |

| |Proportion of 2004 Operating Budget dedicated to providing services to: | |

| | | |

| |City of Edmonton school groups = 9% ($453K) | |

| |Greater Edmonton Region school groups = 3% ($151K) | |

| |School Groups from other parts of Alberta = 4% ($190K) | |

| |What is the increased fee being proposed to schools for the school program? (pg. 426) |Space and Science |

| |2004 school programs fees for IMAX programs, Interpretive programs, Science Demonstration programs and Exhibit programs |Centre |

| |are being increased by $.25 per student; equivalent to an increase of between 5% and 11%. The 10% discount for multiple | |

| |school program bookings provided in 2003 is also being eliminated in 2004. | |

| |What revenue generating partnerships have been attempted with School Boards or the Department of Learning? |Space and Science |

| |For approximately 98% of all students participating in Odyssium on-site school programs, School Boards pay program fees |Centre |

| |on a per student basis; this will generate $490k in 2004. The remaining students (approximately 2%) participating in | |

| |Odyssium on-site school programs have their program fees sponsored by either a local Service Club or corporation; this | |

| |will generate $32k in 2004. School Program fees cover 67% of the total costs of development and delivery of school | |

| |programs and we have met with the Deputy Minister of Alberta Learning and proposed they provide funding to cover the | |

| |remaining 33%, the response received to date has been negative; we continue to pursue funding from the Provincial | |

| |Government. | |

| |Indicate the revenue received from other levels of government in 2003 and any anticipated grants in 2004? (pg. 426) |Space and Science |

| |Government Grants received in 2003: $18,129 from the Government of Canada; $3,743 from the Government of Alberta. |Centre |

| | | |

| |Government Grants anticipated in 2004: $21,000 from the Government of Canada; $150,000 from the Government of Alberta. | |

| |Does the LTAB work in conjunction with the Edmonton Centre for Equal Justice, which is a project of Edmonton Social |Landlord & Tenant |

| |Planning Council? | |

| |LTAB provides information and mediation services to citizens of Edmonton however they do not provide legal advice. In | |

| |those cases where a referral to a lawyer is appropriate, and the client indicates they are unable to afford a lawyer, | |

| |the client will be referred to an organization that provides free or low cost legal services. The referral list includes| |

| |places such as the Edmonton Centre for Equal Justice and Student Legal Services at the University of Alberta. | |

| |Are there any indications that a revised Residential Tenancies Act will provide for dispute resolution provincially? |Landlord & Tenant |

| |There is every indication that the revised Residential Tenancies Act will enable the provision of a provincial | |

| |residential tenancies dispute resolution service. Meetings are currently taking place with representatives from the | |

| |provincial government to discuss this issue and any possible service delivery implications there may be. The final | |

| |decision on this must be approved by the Legislature when the Act is introduced in the Spring session. | |

|Councillor S. Mandel | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |What is the retained earnings of the two utilities? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Retained earnings are the cumulative balance of net income retained for reinvestment in the utility. It will continue to| |

| |be used for capital investment. Total retained earnings balance for the Sanitary Utility as of December 31, 2002 is | |

| |$190.9 million. The Land Drainage Utility started with no retained earnings but is expected to be in a positive | |

| |position at the end of 2003 and thus the start of a retained earnings balance. | |

| |What is the debt of the two utilities? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |The outstanding long term debt of the Sanitary Utility as of December 31, 2002 is $154.7 million and $5.8 million for | |

| |Land Drainage. | |

| |What is the rate of return for the utility? What is a standard rate of return for other utilities? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Both the Sanitary and Land Drainage Utility are guided by the recently approved Utility Fiscal Policy which states the | |

| |Sanitary Utility will earn a return at the rate of 6% and the Land Drainage at 9%. The rate of return varies between | |

| |different type Utilities. A return between 6% to 15% is not uncommon. Privately non-regulated utilities will usually | |

| |have a higher rate of return then ones that are regulated or Publicly owned. An average rate of return for publicly | |

| |owned type utility is 11.5 to 12 percent. | |

| |How do you differentiate between capital expenditures i.e. page 51 vs financial, planning design and construction? Page|AM & PW - Drainage |

| |45, which are listed as expenditures? What purpose are they separated? | |

| |Capital expenditures represent costs to construct or acquire assets that have a serviceable or useful life beyond the | |

| |existing accounting period. For Drainage Services assets this can range from 5 to 75 years service life. Expenditures | |

| |indicated on page 45 are operating and maintenance costs, financing costs and net Design and Construction expenditures | |

| |associated with the current year of operation. | |

| |Why is land drainage revenue up 15.1% (pg 45) |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |The majority of the increase, 13.1% is attributed to the increase in the customer base and billable area due to the | |

| |positive economical growth in the City of Edmonton. The balance of 2% is the planned rate increase. | |

| |Are the Capital expenditures on pg 50 within budget and are only listed because they are incomplete? What was the |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |previous 3 years of budget vs completed in same & next year? | |

| |The list on page 50 represents projects which have been previously approved by Council, are not complete, and have had a| |

| |change made to them due to the addition of 2008 or a cash flow change. The approved capital budgets for 2001, 2002, and| |

| |2003 are $57.3 million, $50.4 million, $46.1 million respectively. Drainage Services actual completion has averaged out| |

| |to approximately 80% per year on controllable projects. The percentage goes down to 70% when uncontrollable projects | |

| |are included – i.e. local improvement funded projects. | |

| |Is there a contribution to the systems through: |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |levies | |

| |Provincial govt. | |

| |Federal govt. | |

| |Drainage Services capital programs are all funded by either the Sanitary or Land Drainage Utilities rates and do not | |

| |impact on the tax levy. The Federal and Provincial Governments are contributing to a number of projects as part of ICAP| |

| |funding – i.e. Centre of Excellence $1.1 million each, CSO Primary Treatment $6.6 million each, and Mill Creek Pond $2.1| |

| |million each). | |

| |What are the mandated programs and costs associated with our drainage branch from the Province? Could you comment if |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |the same standards & funding exists in the regional system? | |

| |The City of Edmonton is issued an Approval to Operate License for the following activities from the Province of Alberta:| |

| |“Planning, Design, Construction, and Operation of a drainage system to include: A Class IV wastewater (sanitary sewage) | |

| |treatment plant, a Class IV wastewater (sanitary sewage) collection system, and stormwater drainage system”. The | |

| |Drainage Services budget is built around delivering the requirements of meeting this approval. Specific projects to | |

| |enhance environmental protection that have been mandated by the province and their 2004-2008 budget are: XX-23-0600 | |

| |Environmental Improvements $3.8 million; 92-23-3118 Tertiary Treatment $10.8 million; 02-23-3300 CSO Enhance Primary | |

| |Treatment – FIP $19.9 million; 02-23-3310 CSO Enhance Primary Treatment $36.3 million; XX-23-9704 CSO Control Strategy | |

| |$17.3 million. | |

| |The Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission is issued an approval to operate the following activities from the | |

| |Province of Alberta. “Operation of a Class III wastewater treatment plant and wastewater transmission system for the | |

| |Capital Region Sewage Commission.” The regional treatment requirements are similar to the City’s with the same | |

| |requirements to implement tertiary treatment by 2006. The region funds the entire operation and expansion of the | |

| |wastewater systems through utility rates to each member community. Because the region is a commission and not a | |

| |municipality, they are not directly eligible for provincial and federal grants except as forwarded from their members. | |

| |However the regional system was original established based on a 90% funding formula from the Province. | |

| |How do you calculate your charges for leasing and property management? Could you supply an operating statement if you |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |have one? | |

| |City departments are not charged leasing and property management overheads for their space. The practice of billings | |

| |between municipal operations was discontinued as an efficiency measure through the City ’97 exercise. The lease rates | |

| |for City commercial or residential properties leased to the private sector are based on prevailing market rents. | |

| |An operating statement is not prepared specifically for the leasing and property management activity. See Question #217.| |

| |You show a land sales cost in 2004 of $16,964. Could you supply the highlights of this cost? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |The 2004 Land Sales Cost includes cost of land sold (acquisition and servicing) of$14,500, commissions and marketing | |

| |expenses $1,556 and debenture interest charges $908. | |

| |Could you relate the reason for the “in/out” for the land acquisition costs of $10,260m? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |This represents the land purchases for other City departments that will be paid through departmental capital projects | |

| |and will become a recovery for Land Enterprise. In prior years, land acquisitions for other departments’ capital | |

| |requirements were not included in the Enterprise budget since they were a “flow-through” transaction. Starting in 2004,| |

| |the budgeted cost of land acquisitions as well as recoveries have been included to minimize the month-to-month variance | |

| |in financial reporting. See Question #327. | |

| |What are the contracted and general services of $8,719m? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |Contracted and general services of $(8,719) includes commissions and marketing expenses of $1,541, and the recoveries | |

| |from City departments for land required for capital projects $(10,260). See Question # 327. | |

| |Why are there no wage costs on the land enterprise budget? Do they appear in another number? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |City staff involved in land activities are budgeted in the Land and Buildings program. The Land Enterprise is charged by| |

| |for City staff time spent on land activities through an inter-program charge. The costs therefore do not appear in the | |

| |personnel cost series. Private sector forces carry out design, engineering and construction activities, with contract | |

| |administration provided by Land and Buildings staff. | |

| |Why do you show land sales costs in two categories: |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |a) Land sales | |

| |b) Land sales costs | |

| |What is the difference? | |

| |Land costs are not in two categories. Land sales refer to the revenue received from sales. Land sales costs refer to | |

| |the cost of land sold including commissions and marketing expenses. | |

| |What is the interaction between Land & Buildings and Land Enterprise? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |Land & Buildings is the operating branch responsible for the overall development and implementation of Land Enterprise | |

| |policies, programs and projects. The primary activities of the Land Enterprise are the provision of City land or | |

| |acquisition of private lands for civic programs and projects, and the servicing and disposal of the City’s development | |

| |lands and surplus properties. The Land & Buildings Branch provides the real estate, land use planning, project | |

| |management and technical and administrative services required to support the Land Enterprise. | |

| |What is the ISO/4001? What does it mean to the City? At what cost? |AM & PW – Land & Bldgs |

| |ISO 14001 is the accepted international standard for an environmental management system. | |

| |An environmental management system is a tool consisting of policies, procedures and actions that is used to manage the | |

| |short and long-term environmental impact of activities, products and services. | |

| |Environmental management systems are employed by public and private organizations and are recognized by Environment | |

| |Canada and Alberta Environment. In particular, following an environmental offence, Calgary was required by Alberta to | |

| |implement a corporate environmental management system. Calgary is now ISO 14001 certified. | |

| |Of importance to Edmonton is the acceptance of environmental management systems, by Canadian Courts and regulatory | |

| |agencies, as an important part of a due diligence defense regarding any environmental infractions. Other benefits to | |

| |Edmonton of an environmental management system include: | |

| |improved environmental performance | |

| |ability to measure environmental performance | |

| |improved compliance leading to reduced liability | |

| |fewer environmental incidents | |

| |efficient allocation of resources | |

| |safer workplace | |

| |improved public image and trust | |

| |The Office of the Environment is currently preparing a report titled ‘City of Edmonton Environmental Management System -| |

| |An implementation Framework’. This will outline a strategy for developing and formalizing an environmental management | |

| |system including associated costs. Costs to the City for a corporate-wide system is unknown at this time. | |

| |For specific business reasons two operating areas in the City, the Drainage and Waste Management Branches, are currently| |

| |working towards ISO 14001 certification. | |

| |What is the makeup of the 6.0m in outside revenue? |AM & PW – MES |

| |Outside revenues include proceeds from the disposal of surplus vehicles and equipment, vehicle maintenance and fueling | |

| |for EPCOR’s power division, and vehicle leasing to EPCOR’s water division and vehicle and equipment services provided to| |

| |outside clients, primarily EPCOR. | |

| |Do we have a long-term contract for fuel? If so at what rate? If not what has been our fuel cost over the last 3 years|AM & PW – MES |

| |and what do we project for 04? | |

| |There is a long-term contract for fuel based on a monthly price of a barrel of crude. Refining costs are fixed and | |

| |added to the price. The price for unleaded fuel for September was $0.5033 per litre. Inflation is estimated at 3% for | |

| |2004. | |

| |Who controls the purchasing of new vehicles? Is there a protocol (Yes or No)? |AM & PW – MES |

| |Yes. User Departments provide requirements on usage and duty cycle. Specifications are prepared by MES and Materials | |

| |Management conducts a public tender. | |

| |Can (if a department wants) outsource their repairs? |AM & PW – MES |

| |Determination and management of outsourced repairs for the corporation rests with MES. Typical criteria used to select | |

| |outsourced work includes local product support, specialty shops (glass, exhaust, accident repairs) peak demand periods, | |

| |unique tools and facilities. Life cycle management balances the optimum mix of asset expenses of acquisition, | |

| |depreciation, internal and external repairs and downtime. Outsourced work (contracted services) is part of overall | |

| |fleet management strategy, just as it is in many business operations. | |

| |What does land & buildings charge EMS for their building? Who does the maintenance re MES or another department? |AM & PW – MES |

| |We assume EMS in fact refers to MES. Because MES is an enterprise operation it is charged for the space it occupies. The| |

| |Buildings and Maintenance section of the Land & Buildings branch, on a cost recovery basis would perform maintenance. | |

| |See Question #205. | |

| |I am surprised to see the financial costs have doubled, could you give a breakdown? |AM & PW – MES |

| |The budget for financial costs has increased due to a change in the way bus replacements are financed. Starting in 2004,| |

| |bus replacements will be financed from reserves rather than from the tax base. This is a change in accounting | |

| |presentation. The funding of replacement vehicles through the reserve rather than the tax levy is a best practice we | |

| |will continue to implement. See Question #352. | |

| |You have budgeted for 95 million for vehicle replacement in 04 from previous budgets but want an additional 10.5m for |AM & PW – MES |

| |04. Why so much? | |

| |On page 75 of Volume 2, a graph showed approximately $95 million being funded for various City Vehicles over a five-year| |

| |period from 2004-2008. Of this total, $10.5 million will be spent on Municipal Vehicles in 2004. | |

| |I have driven by the police station and see a lot of cars, but you have budgeted for 500 for growth fund, why? What is |Police Services |

| |the growth fund? | |

| |It was the intention of the EPS to increase the current fleet by 10 marked cars in 2004 to support the 55 new positions | |

| |received in 2003. These vehicles are leased from Mobile Equipment Services (MES). The $500 item referred to for growth| |

| |is intended for the original purchase of the vehicles by MES. MES funds the purchase of vehicles through the capital | |

| |budget using pay-as-you-go funding. MES costs of operating, maintenance and depreciation are recovered through the | |

| |monthly fixed and variable rates paid by departments. | |

| | | |

| |While it may sometimes appear there is an excess of police vehicles, this is not the case. In fact, there are many times| |

| |when members must wait for a vehicle to be returned by another member before they can go on patrol. We attempt to | |

| |maintain a ratio of officers to cars of three to one. Vehicles may be parked at a particular station due to the | |

| |following reasons: | |

| |To address the staggered shift deployment overlap. | |

| |Patrol officers have returned through their shifts for prearranged interviews, preparing reports, lunch breaks, relief | |

| |for division staff, telephone follow up, arrests, attendance at court, and collision reports among other reasons. | |

| |To maintain an adequate number of vehicles available when the largest number of members are working, which is Tuesday to| |

| |Saturday. | |

| |In ambulance growth and replacement we recently lost the CHA contract. Why would we need more ambulances? |ERD |

| |Life Support Operations and Transfer Operations have operated as separate entities. | |

| |The need for more ambulances for Life Support Operations is an on-going replacement program required to rotate older | |

| |units out of service. This is in response to the regular wear and tear of the ambulances running 24 hours a day, 7 days| |

| |a week, 365 days a year. | |

| |There was no provision to replace Transfer Operation ambulances in the 2004 budget, all replacements identified are for | |

| |Life Support Operations. | |

| |I assume that part of the department budget is paying for the vehicles. How do you calculate it? Can we not stretch |AM & PW – MES |

| |out so as to decrease the annual impact i.e. $10,500 on new +5m for existing on municipal vehicle replacement is 3% | |

| |points on the taxes. A longer amortization would allow a smaller tax impact. If it could be reduced by 1/3 we could | |

| |save 1% on taxes! What would be the impact? | |

| |MES already drives its maintenance costs down and extends the life of its fleet through its maintenance practices. | |

| |Extending replacement cycles further will result in a widening of the infrastructure gap and a reduction in reliability | |

| |of the vehicles used by City forces to carry out services to the public. | |

| |What is the estimated new revenue from the additional single & multi family projects? |AM & PW – Waste Mgmt. |

| |Revenue from new single family and multi-family residences receiving waste service is estimated at $800,000. The revenue| |

| |is from the monthly user fee charged on the utility bill. | |

| |If we went to 100% recovery what would the monthly cost of collection be? |AM & PW – Waste Mgmt. |

| |Converting Waste Management fully to user fees would require the recovery of the $18.4 million tax levy allocation to | |

| |Waste Management from User Fees. The recommended 2004 user fee would need to be increased from $11.95 to $18.75 per | |

| |month for single family, and from $7.77 to $12.19 per month for multi-family. This assumes that the Corporate Offices of| |

| |Energy Management and Environment would continue to be funded through tax levy. | |

| |Compost plant enhancement: |AM & PW – Waste Mgmt. |

| |What are the cost savings? | |

| |Anticipated cost savings are in the order of $520,000 per year, or about $250,000 per year net of debt repayment costs. | |

| |This benefit is the result of reduced O&M costs and better performance of the new equipment. | |

| |Was this amount identified in the original purchase as a cost of the sale? | |

| |A required investment of approximately $6.5M was identified in the analysis as a result of the engineering review during| |

| |acquisition. This was factored into the purchase price and into the plant’s overall budget over the first five years of| |

| |ownership. | |

| |What was the past 2 years and planned maintenance for the composter. | |

| |Maintenance expense in 2002 and 2003 to date has been $2.2M and $1.6M respectively. This does not include the repair of| |

| |the drums, a major unexpected expense resulting from a defect for which the City is seeking damages from TransAlta and | |

| |others. These figures, though decreasing, are trending higher than expected, necessitating advancement of the schedule | |

| |for the enhancement project. | |

| |XX33-1933 is this for the landfill or buildings? | |

| |Project XX33-1933, Waste Management Centre Infrastructure, is not for buildings, but covers all other infrastructure at | |

| |the site, including roadways, signage, utilities and the landfill itself. The majority of the expense is for the | |

| |ongoing earthworks to prepare new areas for landfilling, and the final capping and revegetation of completed areas. | |

| |Project 99-33-1829 will produce what additional revenue when it is completed? | |

| |Project 99-33-1829, Compost Marketing provides the infrastructure necessary to effectively market compost. This | |

| |includes preparation of a pad area to pile, screen and load compost, necessary loading ramps and hoppers and similar | |

| |related infrastructure. Without this expense, the marketing program would be less efficient, reducing net revenue from | |

| |sales. | |

| |f) Project XX-33-1999 is for what actual waste management function? What do you mean by a generic project? | |

| |Project XX-33-1999, Waste Management Centre – Research, is to provide the funding necessary to secure matching grant | |

| |funding for research specific to improving waste management operations. One half of the total budget amount is grant | |

| |funding. The other half would be funded through user fees, not tax levy. In 2004, a matching grant of $50,000 will be | |

| |sought for research related to the composting operation. Conducting the research under the umbrella of a capital project| |

| |provides an audit trail for grant funders similar to that for ICAP Projects. | |

| |Could be break down the costs of the summer road maintenance into arterial and neighbourhood? |T & S - Roads |

| |The Proposed Budget for 2004 is $23,448K. | |

| | | |

| |Arterial includes all arterials, collector I, rural roads and industrial roads =1,218.4 km | |

| | | |

| |Neighbourhood includes all lanes, residential and collector II residential bus runs =3,232 km | |

| |Neighbourhood Arterial | |

| |Concrete 80% 20% | |

| |Paving 10% 90% | |

| |Gravel & Oil 10% 90% | |

| |Bridges 0 100% | |

| |Street Cleaning 10% 90% | |

| |Railway 0 100% | |

| |Safety Barriers 0 100% | |

| | | |

| |Arterial maintenance costs total 76% or $17,820 K | |

| | | |

| |Neighborhood maintenance costs total 24% or $5,628 K. | |

| |In winter maintenance could you breakdown the costs into: |T & S - Roads |

| |a) Snow removal | |

| |b) Potholes | |

| |c) Other (may list larger items) | |

| | | |

| |2004 Proposed Winter Road Budget = $22,615,245 | |

| | | |

| |Snow and Ice Base Service $11,290,911 | |

| |Snow and Ice Storm $7,732,542 | |

| |Spring Clean-Up $3,591,792 | |

| |$22,615,245 | |

| | | |

| |Winter Potholes - $552,338 (not included in winter budget but work performed by winter staff on shift 24/7; this | |

| |represents 25% of annual pothole budget). | |

| | | |

| |Proposed Budget Funding Level | |

| |Sanding $6,850 K 100% | |

| |Plowing $6,665 K 90% | |

| |Sidewalks $2,342 K 100% | |

| |Removal $3,166 K 58% | |

| |Spring Clean-Up $3,592 K 100% | |

| |$22,615 K | |

| | | |

| |Based on 2003 Approved Budget the Winter Road Maintenance was $1.9 underfunded not including hired equipment rates (MES | |

| |rates less than Roadbuilder rates for loaders, end dumps trucks and hired graders totaling $1,604 K) residential plowing| |

| |program, environmental monitoring, reporting and compliance. | |

| |What will the city spend in 2004 in neighbourhood rehabilitation? |T & S - Roads |

| |As part of the approved 2003 Tax Supported Debt financing, $3 million dollars has been identified in project #66-9155 to| |

| |be spent in 2004 for mature neighbourhood infrastructure (reconstruction in the Youngstown area of the | |

| |Britannia/Youngstown neighbourhood). The proposed 2004 – 2008 CPP shows no funding available in project #66-1055 for | |

| |neighbourhood rehabilitation/reconstruction in 2004. | |

| | | |

| |Should the 2004 proposed Tax Supported Debt financing be approved, $5 million dollars would be provided in project | |

| |#66-9157 for mature neighbourhood rehabilitation. | |

| |Is design, construction and project management related to capital projects or general maintenance? |T & S - Roads |

| |Primarily capital projects. General maintenance involves only day to day up-keep and rarely requires the undertaking of| |

| |full design and project management. | |

| |Traffic operations what have you allocate for the upgrading of traffic signals to better move traffic? |T & S - Roads |

| |Traffic Operations has three capital programs, which allocate funds for the upgrading of traffic signals within the City| |

| |to improve traffic movement. | |

| | | |

| |In capital program 1220 - Traffic Safety Improvements includes ($1,165K) traffic signals, crosswalk flashers, pedestrian| |

| |signals and phase changes are scheduled for installation in 2004. This program is intended to meet the growing needs of | |

| |traffic and to address safety issues. | |

| | | |

| |In capital program 1210 – Traffic Control Rehabilitation includes ($416K) 18 traffic signal controllers are scheduled | |

| |for replacement in 2004. This program provides funding for the replacement of traffic signal equipment that has exceeded| |

| |its life cycle and thereby ensures a safe and efficient operation. This program will enhance the capability of the | |

| |central traffic control system to modify signal phases and timing plan to meet traffic flows. | |

| | | |

| |In capital program 1640 – Intelligent Transportation Systems ($450K), in anticipation of future traffic growth and to | |

| |ensure that safety issues are addressed. Traffic responsive systems will be expanded, additional traffic cameras will be| |

| |added to the network and existing dynamic message signs will be upgraded. Traffic Operations Branch has a continuous | |

| |four-year retime program in place to retime the entire city signals (in-house project). | |

| |When will 184 St. be finished and what relationship to budgeted cost? |T & S - Roads |

| |Yellowhead Trail - 184 Street interchange would be fully opened to traffic by October 2004, with some remaining | |

| |landscaping to be completed in 2005. Total project cost is expected to be within budget at $55 million. | |

| |What is the list of neighbourhood rehabilitation priorities? |T & S - Roads |

| |A map showing priority rehabilitation/reconstruction neighbourhoods is provided as part of the project profiles for | |

| |XX-66-1155 (pg. 483 of Volume IV) and XX-66-1196 (pg. 490 of Volume IV). | |

| |You show a reduction in summer service of 709,000, but an increase of 1.8%. Why do you list the 709,000? |T & S - Roads |

| |The $709K is part of the service reductions to meet budget guidelines. This reduction will eliminate the asphalt | |

| |channel sidewalk resurfacing program (inventory is 200 km). We would still undertake repairs at specific locations to | |

| |deal with trip hazards. | |

| | | |

| |The actual increase in the Summer Road Maintenance Program is 4.64%. This increase includes inflation and some growth. | |

| |With the $709K reduction the increase is reduced to 1.8%. | |

| | | |

| |The summer road maintenance program is not fully funded. | |

| | | |

| |2003 Adjusted Tax Levy Budget $23,752 K | |

| | | |

| |Inflation and Wage Adjustments $1,030 K | |

| |Total $24,782K 4.64 % | |

| |Reduction (709)K | |

| |Growth 99K | |

| |$24,172K 1.8% | |

| |If 184 St. is finished sooner, will you start 156 sooner? What is the status of the 156 St. overpass now? |T & S - Roads |

| |No. Early completion of 184 Street cannot guarantee the early start of 156 Street. The construction of the proposed | |

| |grade separation of Yellowhead Trail - 156 Street is dependent on the availability of funding as well as the ability to | |

| |acquire the necessary properties to undertake the project. The current budget has the construction starting in 2005 and| |

| |completed by 2007. To start one year earlier, an additional $18 million is required in year 2004. Even with the | |

| |additional budget, the earlier start date is only possible if the City is able to acquire all necessary properties by | |

| |Summer 2004. | |

| |What is the estimate for 2004 diesel fuel? How does it relate to 03? Do we buy long-term contracts? |T & S - Transit |

| |The Transit diesel fuel budget is estimated to be $10.424M for 2004. The inflationary cost of fuel is projected to | |

| |increase by 12% in 2004 over 2003 (as per Budget Office inflation guidelines). The city awarded a fuel contract to | |

| |Federated Co-op in June 2004 for up to ten years, renewed on an annual basis. The price is adjusted monthly based on | |

| |the average Edmonton crude oil price. | |

| |Has the ratio of tax levy to revenue changed over the past 5 years? |T & S - Transit |

| |Operating Cost Recovery Ratios Budgeted for Edmonton Transit (% of farebox revenue to net expenses) is as follows: | |

| | | |

| |2000 – 44.4% | |

| |2001 – 42.6% | |

| |2002 – 42.8% | |

| |2003 – 43.1% | |

| |2004 – 42.9% (Recommended) | |

| |Ridership for the past 5 years: |T & S - Transit |

| |a) Students | |

| |b) Seniors | |

| |c) LRT | |

| |Bus passes not student and seniors | |

| |Has industrial areas seen an increase in ridership? | |

| |Ridership Comparisons since 1998 | |

| | | |

| |Students (based on Restricted School Monthly Pass sales) | |

| |1998 – 10,084,000 | |

| |1999 – 10,526,000 | |

| |2000 – 9,867,000 | |

| |2001 – 10,235,000 | |

| |2002 – 10,172,000 (Teachers Strike in February 2002, reduced ridership by approximately 500,000) | |

| | | |

| |Seniors (based on Senior Citizen Annual Pass sales) | |

| |1998 – 4,582,000 | |

| |1999 – 4,539,000 | |

| |2000 – 4,520,000 | |

| |2001 – 4,557,000 | |

| |2002 – 3,992,000 | |

| | | |

| |Bus Passes not student and Senior (based on Adult Monthly and Post-Secondary Discounted Monthly Pass sales) | |

| |1998 – 15,281,000 | |

| |1999 – 15,451,000 | |

| |2000 – 15,633,000 | |

| |2001 – 15,801,000 | |

| |2002 – 16,083,000 | |

| | | |

| |LRT Ridership (Weekday boardings from annual LRT passenger counts) | |

| |1998 – 35,960 | |

| |1999 – 36,810 | |

| |2000 – 37,630 | |

| |2001 – 38,350 | |

| |2002 – 39,550 | |

| |2003 – 41,750 | |

| | | |

| |Industrial Areas (based on weekday passenger boardings on selected industrial routes | |

| |South/Southeast Industrial (totals for Routes 80, 83 and 321) | |

| |1998 – 1,529 | |

| |1999 – 1,632 | |

| |2000 – 1,526 | |

| |2001 – 1,682 | |

| |2002 – 1,738 | |

| | | |

| |Northwest Industrial (totals for Routes 121, 122 and 123) | |

| |1998 – 1,252 | |

| |1999 – 1,150 | |

| |2000 – 1,517 | |

| |2001 – 1,648 | |

| |2002 – 1,717 | |

| |What is the projected additional revenue & costs plus related cost savings to the transit if LRT is extended to Neil |T & S - Transit |

| |Crawford? | |

| |A review of cost impacts of South LRT extension was undertaken earlier in 2003 in response to an inquiry at the | |

| |Transportation and Public Works Committee. This information estimated the following revenue and cost impacts: | |

| | | |

| |Bus Operating Cost Savings associated with LRT extension from Health Sciences to Neil Crawford - $1.7 million/yr | |

| |LRT Operating Cost Increase associated with extension of LRT from Health Sciences to Neil Crawford - $1.8 million/yr | |

| |Additional annual revenue resulting from additional transit ridership associated with South LRT extension to Neil | |

| |Crawford - $0.4 million/yr (This value has the potential to increase as University development of South Campus proceeds)| |

| | | |

| |It is estimated that extension of the LRT to Neil Crawford Station would lead to a reduction in bus purchases, leading | |

| |to a saving of 18 buses and $7.8 million in capital costs. | |

| |Do you have a ridership level on a daily basis i.e. morning pear, 9 to 12, 12 to 3 etc? If you do could you provide it?|T & S - Transit |

| |Bus Passenger boardings on a Fall Weekday (From October 2002 Cumulative Boarding Count) | |

| |60 Minute Interval | |

| |Interval start Total Boarding Percentage Interval Start Total Boarding Percentage | |

| |400 2 0.0% 2100 4,772 1.9% | |

| |500 1,436 0.6% 2200 2,713 1.1% | |

| |600 8,920 3.5% 2300 1,789 0.7% | |

| |700 32,707 12.7% 2400 795 0.3% | |

| |800 27,200 10.6% 2500 129 0.1% | |

| |900 11,001 4.3% | |

| |1000 9,927 3.9% | |

| |1100 10,535 4.1% | |

| |1200 12,302 4.8% | |

| |1300 12,010 4.7% | |

| |1400 15,587 6.1% | |

| |1500 40,285 15.7% | |

| |1600 26,003 10.1% | |

| |1700 19,114 7.4% | |

| |1800 9,560 3.7% | |

| |1900 5,432 2.1% | |

| |2000 4,543 1.8% | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Citywide support is 20,301m. Could you give a brief description? What amount is contributed by the Feds and Prov. Is |Community Services |

| |it the 14,622? | |

| |City Wide Support responds to population and social issues impacting the community and includes Family and Community | |

| |Support Services, Children’s Services, Public Education, Community Investment Grants and Information and Bookings | |

| |Services. The amount contributed by the Provincial Government primarily through flow-through grant funding to the FCSS | |

| |and Out-Of-School-Care programs totals $13,234. | |

| |Remaining funds relate to the Housing component ($1,318) of which $732 is contributed by the Federal Government and $586| |

| |by the Province. Balance of grant funding to total $14,622 is Provincial funding ($70) to Neighbourhood Social & | |

| |Recreation Services and City Wide Support activity areas. | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |The housing component of 4,432 is for operating expenses for the city facilities or something else? |Community Services |

| |Approximately $1,719 of the total expenditures of $4,432 is for operating expenses and debt retirement for the 1,030 | |

| |units of municipally owned community housing. The balance includes a grant to the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund ($1,179) | |

| |to address homelessness and the operating expenses for the Landlord Tenant Advisory Board ($541) and Housing Services | |

| |Section ($993: RRAP, Safe Housing, Derelict Housing etc.). | |

| |What makes up the Strategic and Business Applications 7.491m? |Community Services |

| |Strategic & Business Applications includes the following seven programs ($000): | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |By implementing “CLASS” what is you savings estimate? |Community Services |

| |The use of this software is less about quantifiable dollar savings and more about streamlining business processes, | |

| |automating routine functions, improving customer service capability, and future cost avoidance. It allows for | |

| |standardized training, more flexibility in staffing across facilities, and more consistent service to users. It enables | |

| |customer relationship staff to spend less time on routine transactions and more time providing value-added service to | |

| |users and citizens. | |

| | | |

| |The e-Business Steering Committee has recognized that the CLASS system is a cost-effective component of service | |

| |delivery to the public in facility admissions, bookings and program registration. CLASS system modules (Point of Sale, | |

| |Membership Management, Facility Bookings and Program Registration) have become the industry standard in North America | |

| |for administering recreation and recreation facility based business processes. | |

| | | |

| |CLASS is also necessary for providing online program registration and payment for users. Public surveys indicate that | |

| |online access to these services is a top priority for citizens. It would not be cost-effective for the City to develop | |

| |its own system to do so. | |

| | | |

| |An online registration and payment option for recreational programs enables residents to access information and | |

| |registration services for all City-run programs. Previously, customers could register only over the phone or in person | |

| |at specific facilities. This can be inconvenient, frustrating, and time consuming for both customers and staff. Expected| |

| |benefits include increased user satisfaction and higher program participation rates. Other cities in Canada have seen | |

| |30% to 50% of registrations move on-line due to its convenience for many users. | |

| |The province has cut back 720, but the province will pay the operating subsidy directly? Why would it then impact our |Community Services |

| |department? Is it not like the 911 reallocation? You already had it, do not need it, so why show it as a loss? | |

| |The $720 represents the Provincial payment to the City for the operating subsidy or 90% of the total cost. This has an | |

| |impact to the department since the City was responsible for paying 100% of the subsidy directly to the provider (Capital| |

| |Region Housing Corporation – CRHC) and recovering 90% of the cost from the Province. This is not the same as the 911 | |

| |reallocation since under the new agreement, the Province will now pay the operating subsidy directly and invoice the | |

| |City for its 10% share. The net change is zero to the tax levy. In each case, the City share would remain at 10% of | |

| |the operating subsidy. | |

| |I need a clearer explanation under Revenue (rate & volume changes Pg 130 do a table of In & Out. |Community Services |

| |The net change in Revenue for the Social, Recreation and Cultural Services budget is as indicated in the table below: | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |1) The $720 reduction in Provincial funding for Housing represents a change in the funding agreement. Instead of the | |

| |province passing the operating subsidy to the City who would in turn pass this on to Capital Region Housing Corporation | |

| |(CRHC), under the new agreement the Province will pass the subsidy directly to the CRHC. Thus we have a reduction in | |

| |revenue of $720 and also a reduction of expenditures of $720. | |

| |2) The $49 represent a small increase in FCSS funding we will receive from the Province. | |

| |3) $18 is the anticipated increase in surplus sales, marketing and street vending revenue | |

| |4) $54 represents a historical adjustment for Community Information & Bookings and RRAP (Residential Rehabilitation | |

| |Assistance Program) revenue we have been receiving. This revenue increase is offset by an expenditure increase of $54 | |

| |to recognize the costs we have been funding. | |

| |The ($617) reduction shown in the table on page 130 is made up of the following: | |

| |- Decrease in Provincial Funding (Housing Agreement) (720) | |

| |- Increase in Provincial FCSS Funding 49 | |

| |- Operations Historical Revenue Adjustment 54 | |

| |Total (617) | |

| |Why has the life cycle of equipment been reduced? Is it inferior quality or misuse? |Community Services |

| |The Community Services Department, together with Asset Management and Public Works, evaluates equipment life cycling on | |

| |a yearly basis. If the life cycle of equipment from our past experiences and review have been calculated too long, | |

| |increased repair bills and more frequent breakdowns occur. This leads to increased downtime that negatively affects | |

| |productivity. | |

| | | |

| |By constantly reviewing our experiences with particular equipment types the Community Services Department can achieve | |

| |more accurate life cycling, reduce operating costs and improve on the reliability of the equipment. | |

| |When the developer makes a payment to P & D does the Parks/Community Services get a piece? If so how much? This |Community Services |

| |relates to the costs of processing planning approvals. It can apply to all dept responding to applications? | |

| |All fees required for Development Applications are paid to the Planning and Development Department. There are a number | |

| |of City Departments who review development proposals including Transportation and Streets, Asset Management and Public | |

| |Works and Community Services. Community Services receives $166.66/hectare of these fees which partially covers the | |

| |processing of engineering drawings and inspections at Construction Completion Certificate and Final Acceptance | |

| |Certificate. | |

| |Why do we need to have inspections on parks? Why not consolidate in one dept? |Community Services |

| |Each civic department inspects the new infrastructure that they are required to maintain. This ensures that the | |

| |infrastructure is inspected and accepted by the city staff that are the most knowledgeable in that specific area. | |

| |Community Services employs landscape technicians for this purpose as they have been specifically educated and trained to| |

| |inspect landscape elements. | |

| |Need to get a better breakdown of Winston Churchil 218? What do we get for this? How will it impact City? Will we |Community Services |

| |charge more for use of facility to the festivals compare the amount to some other operating costs of facilities and | |

| |usage i.e. Commonwealth both stadium and exercise, Kinsman, Millwoods recreation in relation to cost recovery? | |

| |The estimated cost breakdown for Sir Winston Churchill Square service package of $218 includes the following: | |

| | | |

| |Utilities $ 40 | |

| |Custodial 20 | |

| |Security 43.5 | |

| |Hard surface cleaning 14.5 (after festival events) | |

| |$118 | |

| |Programming and | |

| |Management 100 ($75-personnel, $25-programming/marketing) | |

| |$218 | |

| | | |

| |Cost recoveries and impacts to the City are premature at this time in that City Council has directed the Community | |

| |Services Department to initiate a Churchill Square Program Advisory Committee. The primary purpose of this committee is | |

| |to develop a model for the future programming, operations, and marketing of the square. As such, the rental/service | |

| |fees for users have not yet been determined. | |

| |Could you breakdown the revenue into the various enterprise facilities and a related operating cost? |Community Services |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |What is the revenue and expenses under community facilities? Just use the following categories: Is there a % of costs |Community Services |

| |that we try to recover? | |

| |a) Single rink facilities | |

| |b) Twin rinks | |

| |c) Outdoor pools | |

| |d) Indoor pools | |

| |e) Other | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |The mandate for community facilities is to maintain or improve the overall cost recovery, while remaining affordable and| |

| |accessible. Cost-recovery for Outdoor Pools is not available because, under the existing contract, the operator retains | |

| |all revenues and pays all operating costs except for a portion of the utilities costs (which appear as City | |

| |expenditures). | |

| |Could you outline why the City will pay 6.9m for the Central Lions facility upgrade? |Community Services |

| |The existing building is owned and operated by the City of Edmonton. It is 35 years old and requires improvements to | |

| |maintain the existing infrastructure. Improvements and expansion are required to meet program needs for this growing | |

| |population. Without improvements there is a very real possibility that building systems will fail and the facility will| |

| |need to be shut down, eliminating these important programs and services for seniors. | |

| |The demand for social and recreation programs and services at the Central Lions Senior Centre is currently very strong | |

| |and will increase significantly with the changing demographics, specifically the significant increase in the number of | |

| |senior citizens. | |

| |The total value of the Central Lions project is $13.8 million. In addition to the proposed City funding, partners would| |

| |provide $6.9 million (for the expansion and additional programming areas in the facility). | |

| |When you list developer/partner, as part of Capital projects. Could you list the facilities built in Edmonton since |Community Services |

| |1985 under this partnership. Please include rinks, YMCA, soccer facilities. | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Could you give an update to the status of the projects proposed in 2003? Please include completion dates? |Finance |

| |An update on the status of the tax-supported debt projects approved with the 2003 budget was presented to Council on | |

| |November 12, 2003. The following summarizes the status for each project: | |

| | | |

| |South East Division Police Station - 25% complete to date, work proceeding in 2004 with anticipated completion and | |

| |opening in 2005 | |

| |Improvements to Arterial Roads - 23 Avenue (Millwoods Road East - 50 Street) complete other than landscaping which will | |

| |be done in 2004; 153 Avenue (59A St. to 82 St) to be completed in 2004 | |

| |Mature Neighbourhood Rehabilitation Roads/Parks - Rideau Park completed in 2003; Britannia Youngstown, preliminary | |

| |design done in 2003 with construction to take place in 2004 | |

| |Whitemud Drive - 34 Street Interchange - preliminary design and construction of detour road in 2003, tender in 2004 and | |

| |commencement of construction, with completion planned for fall of 2005 | |

| |Have you included the tax income from the debt for 2004? If so, what will be the debt expenses? |Finance |

| |The 1% tax increase has been incorporated into the 2004 budget tax revenue. Debt charges related to the tax-supported | |

| |debt approved in 2003 and proposed for 2004, in the amount of $6.8 million are included as shown in Volume II, page 164.| |

| |A further $2.5 million of the 1% tax increase has been applied within the proposed 2004 - 2008 Capital Priorities Plan | |

| |to finance capital expenditures (refer to Volume I, page 97). | |

| |This does not include the utility projects financing? |Finance |

| |The 1% tax increase for capital does not fund any amounts for utility projects. | |

| |In 03 we eliminated as you state 6.2m of annualized debt. Does that now go into operating? How else could it be |Finance |

| |treated? | |

| |Funds no longer needed for servicing of tax-supported debt, released as a result of debt retirement, have been | |

| |reallocated to pay-as-you-go financing. This is consistent with the model used over many years in order to build up the| |

| |existing pay-as-you-go financing pool. Alternative uses could be to reallocate to an alternate need or to reduce taxes.| |

| |How did we absorb a cost of debt in 2003 of 5.2m when we did not borrow all of the money? What were the actual |Finance |

| |payments? | |

| |Tax Supported debt charges are reported in the 2004 Budget documents in Volume ll, page 164 as follows: | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Tax Supported - New refers to the debt charges for the $50 million debt approved in 2003 and the proposed additional $50| |

| |million in 2004. The debt charges are funded by a corresponding 1% annual tax increase (or a total of 2% in 2004). The| |

| |second Tax Supported line refers to debt charges for prior years’ borrowings that will be retired by 2004. | |

| | | |

| |Tax-Supported – New. The 2003 budget for new tax supported debt charges was $1.5 million. The $5.2 million change | |

| |referred to in the question is the increase reflected in the budget for a total of $6.8 million estimated for 2004. The| |

| |2004 amount relates to servicing both the new debt approved in 2003 and that proposed for 2004. | |

| | | |

| |The new tax-supported debt program is structured so that the total project approval (requiring $50 million in new | |

| |borrowings), is approved at the same time as the 1% tax increase to cover the total debt servicing charges. The actual | |

| |borrowings will be made as the funding is required resulting in an increase in debt servicing costs over a period of | |

| |years. As noted above, the 2003 debt serving costs budgeted were $1.5 million. The 2003 tax increase generated $4.5 | |

| |million in revenues resulting in $2.9 million of one-time pay-as-you-go funding available and allocated in the 2003 | |

| |Budget. This will also occur with the proposed additional $50 million debt and 1% tax increase for 2004. Actual debt | |

| |charges for the tax-supported debt approved in 2003 will be approximately $0.5 million, or $1.0 million lower than | |

| |planned. The savings resulted from differences in interest rates and timing of borrowing and will be available to | |

| |support future debt servicing or other capital needs. As part of the finalization of the amended 2004 tax-supported debt| |

| |project schedule, the $6.8 million in estimated debt charges can be reduced by $3.5 million. Correspondingly, one-time | |

| |pay-as-you-go funds are proposed for allocation to the Fort Road Redevelopment Project land purchases. | |

| | | |

| |Tax Supported. As noted previously, the second line refers to debt servicing for prior years tax-supported debt. As | |

| |this debt is retired, the tax levy freed up has been allocated as pay-as-you-go funding to the Capital Budget. There | |

| |are no sinking funds set up for tax supported borrowings. | |

| |Why would you show the 6.5m in the same category as the 5.2m. The former has been paid out of our sinking funds while |Finance |

| |the latter is an addition to the tax base of 1%? The rebate should be 6.5m, this is not transparent. | |

| |Please refer to the response to question 258. | |

| |Do you have a spread sheet of the balance owing and the rates excluding the recent debt 50m? |Finance |

| |Administration maintains a detailed program, by debenture, which tracks the borrowings, the principal repayments and | |

| |associated debt servicing charges by year. Such detail is maintained for all tax-supported and self-liquidating debt. | |

| |Under Tax Supported Debt new is that the 50m? |Finance |

| |'Tax-supported debt - new' refers to any borrowings that commence within the 2003 - 2007 tax-supported debt initiative. | |

| |Please refer to response to Question 258. | |

| |Tax Supported Debt declining from 18,652 to 11,109 (pg 164) is a result of what? Is this the same debt charges |Finance |

| |reduction on page 163 of 6.2m? | |

| |The decline in the 'old' tax-supported debt servicing charges, from $17,282 to $11,109 arises as the debt is retired. | |

| |This difference is the $6.2 million referred to on page 163, Volume II. The $18,652 is the actual expenditure incurred | |

| |in 2002, which is provided for comparative purposes. | |

| |Management initiatives (pg 165) what kind of corporate initiatives do you fund other than the two listed? |City Manager |

| |The Management Initiatives Fund consists of two components that relate to the City as a whole. The larger component | |

| |($600) consists of Corporate Initiatives that arise during the year. Examples include: Canada West; Corporate | |

| |Communications Strategy; Ministers Council on Role and Responsibilities; Downtown Development Organizational Review. | |

| |The smaller component ($175) funds general Finance expenditures such as foreign exchange and printing of annual reports.| |

| |Are you taking the $.9 for the World Masters from general revenue? Why not from our reserve fund as we will be getting |Finance |

| |reimbursed when from other orders? | |

| |The increased expenditures are not covered by general revenue. Funding sources include revenues from other orders of | |

| |government, sponsorships, merchandise sales and registration fees. | |

| |What is external debt recovery and why is it so high in 04? |Finance |

| |External Debt Recovery, Volume II, page 167, refers to funds received from the South East Soccer Centre and the Skyreach| |

| |Centre to reimburse for debt payments related to borrowings made on their behalf. | |

| |The financial strategies are allocation for contingency? Do departments build in some amount of contingency in their |Finance |

| |budgets? | |

| |The Financial Strategies budget is the general contingency amount for all city operations to address financial risks or | |

| |emerging impacts. Departments are not expected to build in separate contingency amounts in their budgets for these | |

| |general corporate risks. | |

| |The Northlands subsidy is that a cash amount or a deferral of rent? If it is the former do we show a corresponding |Finance |

| |income in any departments? | |

| |The City provides an annual operating subsidy payment to assist Northlands with the operations of the Rexall Place | |

| |(formerly Skyreach Centre). The associated revenue would be recognized by Northlands, not by any of the City | |

| |departments. | |

| |Why is there no cost for external debt in 2002? Why is it now 691,000? |Finance |

| |There were no External Debt charges in 2002 as debt payments did not commence until 2003 for the Skyreach Centre and in | |

| |2004 for the South East Soccer Centre. See also response to question 265. | |

| |Why in 2002 was debt charge 10,809 and 2004 20,287? Does this include our utility debt? Not! |Finance |

| |The resource distribution from page 167 of Volume II refers to financial charges of $10,869 in 2002 and $20,287 proposed| |

| |in 2004. The increase is in the areas set out in the expenditure detail, namely financial strategies, risk management, | |

| |World Masters Games, and external debt. The financial charges referred to have no amounts relating to utility | |

| |operations. | |

| |What did the Ed Tel fund earn in 2003? |Finance |

| |The Ed Tel Endowment Fund has earned a rate of return of 5.7% for the 9 months ending September 30, 2003. The 2003 | |

| |dividend is set at $26.6 million and will be withdrawn from the fund prior to December 31, 2003. | |

| | | |

| |The long term annual rate of return required for the fund to meet its dividend target and grow the fund's principal with| |

| |inflation is 7.25%. When the rate of return is above or below the required return, the annual dividends in future years| |

| |are gradually adjusted up or down. The annual dividend is adjusted using the formula contained in the Ed Tel Endowment | |

| |Fund Bylaw. The 2004 dividend will be calculated using the formula in the bylaw, once the year end market value and | |

| |2003 Consumer Price Index is available. The current forecast which is built into the 2004 budget is for a dividend of | |

| |$27.3 million. | |

| |Is the surplus allocation of $3m from 2003 the same as the financial strategies $4m in 2004? |Finance |

| |The increase referred to in the financial strategies expenditure budget of $4 million is to address contingencies in | |

| |2004 and is not related to the $3 million surplus allocation in 2003. | |

| | | |

| |Prior to the 2004 Budget, a certain amount of prior year surplus was built into annual budgets as a revenue source. No | |

| |surplus for 2003 was anticipated when the 2004 Budget was put together. Moreover, the new Reserves and Operating Equity| |

| |Policy directs that any annual government operating surplus will be placed into the Financial Stabilization Reserve | |

| |until a target balance of 7% of current general government operating expenditures is achieved. Thereafter, any balance | |

| |within the reserve which is above the target level can be applied evenly to the three subsequent years' tax-supported | |

| |operating budgets. | |

| |Have we set a “cap” on the sanitary utility which resulted in the $4.8m? What is the cap? What does it mean to |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |ratepayers? | |

| |In support of the revised Utility Fiscal Policy that was approved earlier this year, a long term financial plan was | |

| |developed for the Sanitary Utility which recommended a dividend payment to the City of Edmonton based on budgeted net | |

| |income. It was projected to be approximately $5.0 million per year to 2006 after which time the impact of our approval | |

| |to operate renewal will be reevaluated. There is no impact on the utility ratepayer as no rate increases are | |

| |anticipated in this time frame. | |

| |Does the $4.8m or $3.2m have a relationship to the $10m. If so what is it? |Finance / AM & PW - |

| |The $4.8 million dividend is based on the long range budgeted net income information presented to Council during the |Drainage |

| |Utility Fiscal Policy review and approval. The $3.2m was a one-time special dividend that the Sanitary Utility made in | |

| |2002 to the City of Edmonton due to the above normal revenue received by the Utility as a result of dry weather. The | |

| |$10 million represents EPCOR dividends and is not related to Drainage Services Utility Operations. | |

| |What is the goal of the business model review of shared services? |Corporate Services |

| |The goals of the shared services review are to determine if this model of service delivery was appropriately implemented| |

| |and how improving customer service and reducing costs can be better achieved. The business model review would confirm | |

| |if the following principles of shared services should be retained, modified or implemented in a different manner: | |

| | | |

| |Consolidating transactional/administrative activities to achieve economies of scale | |

| |efficiently processing paperwork | |

| |designing processes to meet customer needs | |

| |optimizing employee skills and capability | |

| |measuring performance to ensure continuous improvement | |

| |cost accountability | |

| |leveraging technology to achieve cost savings. | |

| | | |

| |The review will identify the required changes to ensure shared services achieves improved customer service and reduced | |

| |costs. | |

| |You have decided to reduce 471 – office support funding. This seems like a service reduction that will increase time to|Corporate Services |

| |complete jobs & create delays. Have you calculated those costs? | |

| |Yes, there will be an operational impact from the reductions identified. However, the $471k cost reduction is a means | |

| |to fund higher priority initiatives. | |

| | | |

| |The SLIM application was developed using capital funding and external resources. On going maintenance and support is | |

| |the responsibility of Corporate Services staff. Support is currently being provided by external resources, funded | |

| |directly by the departments. | |

| |Recognizing that it is difficult for the organization to approve and fund new positions, Corporate Services undertook a | |

| |review of the budget for the IT Branch to determine where funds could be reallocated to provide Slim maintenance | |

| |services on an ongoing basis. | |

| | | |

| |Although these funding reductions have an impact on service they are the minimum that can be achieved in order to fund | |

| |this higher priority requirement in 2004. | |

| |You plan to spend an additional $500 on Posse/Slim what savings in both dollars and time does that produce? Pg 47 Book |Planning & Development |

| |III. | |

| |The City of Edmonton in the 1990’s developed the Posse operating system and the Slim Operating System to more | |

| |efficiently manage work flows and job assignments. Posse resulted in an approximately 35% increase in efficiencies when| |

| |originally initiated within Planning and has added similar efficiencies within Planning and Development as the use has | |

| |been expanded. This has allowed the Department to handle continuing increase in permit applications over the last 5 | |

| |years with minimal staff increases. | |

| |Posse and Slim are also major pillars in the Corporate Enterprise Model for computer systems. | |

| |Posse use has grown by approximately 300 users a year to a total of 1358 major users in 2003 across virtually all civic | |

| |departments including the Councillor’s Offices. | |

| |Posse has also been sold to other municipalities in North America including Calgary and the Province of Alberta and is | |

| |becoming a common system across Alberta. | |

| |The Corporate Services Department has included in their portion of the budget submission the creation of a Slim/Posse | |

| |Application Sustainment office representing $500,000. This office will include 3 FTE’s directly related to Slim and 4 | |

| |FTE’s directly related to Posse. | |

| |These positions will be focused on the business side of Posse and Slim use. To make best use of the systems a | |

| |significant degree of business process review must be undertaken, project management must be provided for enhancements | |

| |and changes to the system and continued expansion of its use. These positions will also focus on training related to | |

| |changes and expansions. | |

| |Are the 7 FTE’s for Slim/Posse part of the 500,000? |Corporate Services |

| |Yes. | |

| |Is the 1 FTE for land drainage paid by the utility? |Corporate Services |

| |Yes. | |

| |You list a variety of service reductions (pg 203) why is it in the budget? For example Human Resources is up 6.7% even |Corporate Services |

| |though you show this reduction all of your depts we see as anywhere from 3% to 16.5% with an average of 6.7%? | |

| |The service reductions provide an approach to strategically apply resources to high priority projects. For example | |

| |Information Technology is reducing $471 thousand in expenditures to fund the SLIM/POSSE core application which costs | |

| |$500 thousand. With the funding limitations, Service Reductions are a necessary mechanism to fund the City’s high | |

| |priority needs. | |

| |The high % changes are due to the effect of New Service needs such as the “Edmonton 2004 Celebrations” on small base | |

| |budgets such as Communications. | |

| |Have you done a value analysis for the IT section in its expenditures on equipment/software modernization? |Corporate Services |

| |There are a number of reasons that IT infrastructure expenditures are made: | |

| | | |

| |to ensure that equipment and software are at levels supported by vendors | |

| |to handle growth in usage | |

| |to fix things that break | |

| |to replace products that are in an unacceptable condition, and have high risk of failure. | |

| |Modernization is only achieved as a byproduct of replacing obsolete equipment. In 2000, an ITB initiative commenced to | |

| |modernize IT infrastructure, with the objective of reducing the annual maintenance requirement by 1 million | |

| |dollars. That objective was met.  This has been offset by new infrastructure which has been added to support major | |

| |Capital projects, such as ERP and E-Business, and to add capacity to meet growth in computer usage.  For example, the | |

| |compound annual growth rate for data storage since 2000 is in excess of 50%, which translates into there being 3 times | |

| |as much data being stored in 2003, than was stored in 2000. | |

| |Currently you employ the primary Human Resources dept. Other depts list it as a cost? Is this a flow through? Have |Corporate Services |

| |you looked at the relationship between and among the various H.R. dept? | |

| |As part of City 97 shared services implementation, all HR services and staff were consolidated within the Human | |

| |Resources Branch and funded through tax levy or interdepartmental transfers, except for Police, Library, and the Boards | |

| |and Authorities which have independent Human Resources units and are budgeted separately by them. For example, EDE | |

| |shows $160 thousand has been budgeted for their Human Resources. | |

| |If the equipment cost of (pg 175) how much of that is a lease cost? What do we own? |Corporate Services |

| |No answer provided as Administration was unable to verify the reference in this question. | |

| |Why are you doing so much central work ($3.785) in 04 than in other years? (pg 55 book III) |Corporate Services |

| |This does not represent an additional cost in 2004. | |

| |It is due to a different accounting treatment of our Investment recoveries in the amount of $3.66 million. In 2003 | |

| |these were classified under “Contract Work” and are now classified as “Interdepartmental” recoveries. | |

| |Pg 306 307 Vol IV - talk about the need to replace and upgrade existing IT infrastructure. Have we done a cost/benefit |Corporate Services |

| |analysis to the changes required? Are the upgrades needed as rapidly as shown? | |

| |Whenever possible, equipment is upgraded rather than replaced. | |

| | | |

| |The budget request is based upon industry standard life-cycle replacement guidelines.  However, Corporate Services does | |

| |not automatically replace equipment in accordance with these guidelines, and instead attempts to use equipment for as | |

| |long as possible, subject to it being able to meet business needs and assuming it can be technically supported.  In | |

| |some instances however the cost of delaying the replacement puts the business operation at risk as equipment experiences| |

| |more frequent outages and repair times become longer (if repair is in fact possible). | |

| | | |

| |In 2003, Corporate Services has assessed the condition of all IT infrastructure, using guidelines developed by the | |

| |Office of Infrastructure for City infrastructure.  The guidelines consider physical condition, capacity and operating | |

| |problems, and ability to meet service delivery needs. | |

| |Page 312 – says this is the end? Will you be able to show the financial benefits of this project? |Corporate Services |

| |The major portion of the recommended funded work for 2004 for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Project XX-18-0200) is| |

| |the implementation of MainLink maintenance management application for Mobile Equipment Services (MES). As well, work | |

| |will begin on the next module, “Sales and Distribution” and will focus on the accounts receivable/billing solution. | |

| |Benefits from this project occur first from the IT replacement savings and then secondly through business benefits. | |

| |Initial efforts have focussed on the IT replacement savings from common hardware and software. | |

| |The inclusion of MES in 2004 into the MainLink maintenance management solution is critical. The positive payback for | |

| |the overall MainLink project is dependent, to a large extent, on the retirement of the MESIS+ application used by MES. | |

| |The MainLink payback analysis, based on IT replacement only, provided to Executive Committee on October 1, 2003, | |

| |projected a positive financial payback for MainLink of 8 to 12 years with MESIS+ retired. Without MESIS+ being retired,| |

| |there will be no positive return on the IT replacement costs from the MainLink investment. MESIS+ alone offers a | |

| |payback within one year through avoiding the cost of replacing and continuing to support MESIS+. | |

| |By completing MES through project XX-18-0200, all plant maintenance management will be performed in a common system. | |

| |Now, the focus of efforts can turn to the formation of a corporate wide perspective on business benefits. A process of | |

| |business benefits identification and tracking is now being introduced. It is expected that the identification of | |

| |business benefits will further reduce the length of the solution payback period. To give a sense of the payback | |

| |periods, Ottawa is projecting 7.7 years for its ERP system, while Vancouver is more aggressive at 3.5 years. These are | |

| |realistic ranges for the payback period when the IT benefits are aggressively pursued and combined with the business | |

| |benefits. | |

| |You need to show the impact of the loss of the CHA contract on the EMS budget: |ERD |

| |a) equipment needs | |

| |b) allocation of wages | |

| |c) material (I would assume most of this is ambulance and not fire) | |

| |d) general services without a $5m contract why is this at the approximate same level? | |

| |The 2004 budget has been adjusted to incorporate the loss of the CHA Transfer contract. | |

| |Equipment and Material requirements used to provide Capital Health Transfer Operations will cease upon termination of | |

| |the contract in Jan 2004. There is a subsequent reduction of 51FTEs associated with this contract. | |

| |The loss of the anticipated budgeted revenue of $5.4M includes a reduction of $1.1M in associated indirect costs. This | |

| |will be addressed by expenditure reductions across ERD of $500,000 and a one time corporate wide reduction of $567,000. | |

| |In 2004 the ERD General Services account was reduced by $746k as a result of the termination of the CHA contract. | |

| |However, an increase in MES charges for Fire Rescue Services within the same account has offset this reduction. | |

| |Where do we do our training? |ERD |

| |Training within ERD may occur in various locations depending on the type of training being undertaken. | |

| |Training primarily takes place in “in-house” training facilities. For example: | |

| |ERD Corporate Training School | |

| |Training Tower | |

| |Fire Stations | |

| |Emergency Medical Services Program Development. | |

| |Emergency Response Communications Centre. | |

| |Training may also occur at various educational facilities across the city such as Grant MacEwan and NAIT. | |

| |Training may also occur at various locations across the city (for example River Rescue Training takes place on the North| |

| |Saskatchewan River). | |

| |Where necessary, training for all branches of ERD may take place outside the City and Province (for example attendance | |

| |at conferences and seminars). All training and associated travel is approved in accordance with City Policies and | |

| |Procedures. | |

| |What is the travel for? |ERD |

| |Funds budgeted for travel are combined into the ERD Travel and Training budget and is identified on page 64 of the 2004 | |

| |Emergency Response budget. An increase in this budget of $468k is proposed for 2004. This increase is due to an | |

| |approved service package of $468K that will provide recruit training classes and officer qualifying classes within Fire | |

| |Rescue. | |

| |The travel budget within ERD for 2004 incorporates an inflationary increase only (from $63k in 2002 to $65k in 2003). | |

| |Travel costs are associated with the costs of attending training meetings and training courses/conferences. | |

| |Could you divide the cost of inspections for fire from the front line people? |ERD |

| |In 2004 Fire Suppression has an operating budgeted of $68.7M, Fire Inspection has an operating budget of $3.4M. | |

| | | |

| |The City of Edmonton Quality Management Plan FIRE DISCIPLINE 2003 (QMP) was approved in July 2003 and identifies the | |

| |breakdown of Fire Inspections as follows: | |

| |Fire Suppression (front line Firefighters) will perform 6,205 inspections per year as emergency response requirements | |

| |allow. | |

| |Fire Inspection (Fire Inspectors) will perform 10,687 inspections per year. The Fire Inspection section provides a | |

| |range of services of which Fire Inspections account for approximately 45% of workload. | |

| |Note: The QMP is based on a two-year cycle. Completing all inspections identified in the QMP requires a total of 33,784| |

| |inspections in a two-year period. | |

| |Project 01-007-0001 is an upgrading tool. What will it save in terms of time. You list funding the right firefighter |ERD |

| |to cover absence where will it save? Is the $400 what part of the whole cost? As you say this is preliminary design? | |

| |What will be the cull cost? | |

| |Capital Priorities Plan 01-70-0001 – Emergency Response Scheduling / Rostering. (p333) | |

| |The project will automate the current manual process of managing day-to-day staffing assignments within Fire Rescue. | |

| |The Scheduling / Rostering system will significantly reduce the amount of time Fire Rescue District Chiefs spend | |

| |ensuring the appropriate coverage is provided to fire halls in the case of staff absences. This will allow District | |

| |Chiefs to dedicate time to other tasks such as directing and communicating with front line staff and managing and | |

| |controlling inventory. | |

| |This project was requested in 2001 and originally scheduled for completion at the end of 2003. $50,000 is expected to be| |

| |spent in 2003. A further $402,000 has been cash flowed forward from 2003 to 2004 for completion of the project. | |

| |The total cost for the project is projected at $452,000. | |

| |Project 05-70-0020 – What do you project the total cost to be at implementation stages? Are there any savings in |ERD |

| |manpower or time? | |

| |Capital Priorities Plan 05-70-0002 – Emergency Response Mobile Computing Capability (p334) | |

| |This project will provide all front line fire apparatus (e.g. pumper trucks) with an on board Mobile Data Computer | |

| |(MDC). The project is scheduled to both begin and be completed in 2008 at an estimated cost of $1.2Million. | |

| |Fire Rescue Operations are reliant on accurate and timely information. Map information is currently provided to the | |

| |crews in hard copy form however updates are not timely. | |

| |Implementing MDC capability provides crews with | |

| |Up to date map information. | |

| |Computer Based Routing. | |

| |Detailed information on buildings and property layouts (including fire protection features) | |

| |Incident information will be made available to the responding crews sooner and will provide routing information allowing| |

| |crews to get to the scene of an incident quicker and thereby reducing response times. Information available through MDC| |

| |will mean that crews are better prepared to respond to the incident when they arrive on scene. | |

| |No manpower savings are identified, however implementation will avoid future manpower costs that would be incurred in | |

| |continuing to manually provide this information. | |

| |How many new fireman will we train? You indicated 1 new class, is that to replace retirees or new? |ERD |

| |There is currently operational funding for one recruit class per year that will allow training for 25 firefighters. | |

| |In addition there is an approved service package of $468K that will provide recruit training classes and officer | |

| |qualifying classes within Fire Rescue. | |

| |These recruit firefighters will be replacements for those who are retiring from the service. | |

| |What is the actual costs of project 02-44-0832 is our share 1/2 of 250 or 250? |City Clerks |

| |Project 02-44-0832, ARB – Complaint/Outcomes Management System is a joint project with the Alberta Municipal Government | |

| |Board, Alberta Municipal Affairs and the City of Edmonton’s Assessment Review Board. The Province of Alberta will be | |

| |contributing at least $500,000 as its share of the project costs. The City of Edmonton’s share of the project costs will| |

| |be the $250,000 for the year 2003 and the $250,000 for the year 2004 in the Capital Expenditure Plan. The Request for | |

| |Proposal for this project is being tendered. | |

| |You have finished the Industrial Land Strategy. Where will you use the staff? |Planning and |

| |The Strategy did include the provision of 2 new staff positions in 2003 and these positions are now working on |Development |

| |implementing the strategy. | |

| |Resources that were used to prepare the Industrial Land Strategy are now being applied to other policy areas such as | |

| |Smart Choices. | |

| |You list a number of initiatives on page 270 & 277. Can you calculate those costs? What of those will be completed & |Planning and |

| |what will carry over at what cost? |Development |

| |Work to date on these initiatives has been accomplished within the existing budget. Any implementation of these | |

| |initiatives that requires additional funding will be included in future budget requests | |

| |In your charges for various services what % of the costs do you cover? |Planning and |

| |For the services that Council has established fees for, on average, recover 100% of costs. |Development |

| |Given the level of development in 03 why is our revenue down so much? Why then such an increase in 04? |Planning and |

| |Planning and Development revenues for 2003 are higher than budget and are now projected to be $23.6M by year-end. As a |Development |

| |result the revenue budget for 2004 has been increased by $2.9M as the high level of development activity is expected to | |

| |continue in 2004. | |

| |We are spending $5,477 on travel in all city departments. Is that a scrutinized number? Can we cut it by 10% - savings|Finance |

| |of $547.000.00? | |

| |The 2004 proposed budget for business and training related travel is $2.1 million in 2004 or a $128,000 (6.6%) increase | |

| |beyond 2003. The question refers to $5,477,000 which may consider aspects of both travel and training. The 2004 | |

| |proposed budget includes $7.8 million for all travel and training, which represents a $1.8 million increase from 2003. | |

| |This increase provides for: | |

| |$1.0 million required for hosting the 2004 celebrations and CAMA/FCM conferences in 2004 (one-time expenditures); | |

| |$0.5 million in additional fire officer and recruit training; and | |

| |$0.3 million for general inflation impacts. | |

| |These expenditures are scrutinized and are considered to be at a reasonable level given the size of the City of | |

| |Edmonton. For 2003, travel and training expenditures were curtailed to assist in achieving the year end savings | |

| |targets. | |

| |Consulting costs – non Capital - $4,329,000 – is this necessary, could we cut it by 10%? |Finance |

| |The proposed 2004 budget for consulting expenditures within tax-supported operations is $6.7 million. The budget | |

| |provides for specialized services and professional fees beyond those available internally. Any reduction to the budget | |

| |would impact the nature and amount of consulting service available. Certain consulting costs are incurred but | |

| |reimbursed from outside revenues. An example of this would be some of the expenditures incurred by EDE. | |

| |Are these all recurring from year to year? |Finance |

| |Certain consulting expenditures such as audit fees are recurring year to year. Others such as general consulting, | |

| |external legal fees, and environmental consulting fees fluctuate depending on the projects and needs of the organization| |

| |in a given year. | |

| |What are travel and consulting for 2001, 02, 03 & 04? |Finance |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |Currently the Police Commission is doing an audit of the services operations. Once that is complete then I will have |Police Service |

| |questions. | |

| |No response required. | |

| |Major concern is the ongoing increase in wages that are having an impact on the service size? In 04 you are estimating |Police Service |

| |a cost of $8.193m only for personel. What is the department looking to do to shift some of the jobs to civil side? | |

| |Please refer to the response in Question 176. | |

| |Could you elaborate on your travel budget? |Library |

| |The Library’s travel budget of $71,000 covers travel for 10 Board Trustees and 292 eligible staff members. The majority| |

| |of travel is for the provincial and national library conferences, and in order to maximize staff development | |

| |opportunities, limits have been established. For example, expenses for the provincial conference in 2003 were | |

| |approximately $1,000 (travel, lodging, meals, registration); however a limit of $750 was set and any expenditure above | |

| |that amount was the responsibility of the staff member. | |

| |What is the budget impact if you closed ½ hour either earlier or open later? Same for 1 hour? |Library |

| |Reduced hours of service would need to be significant enough to constitute a barrier to citizen access to Library | |

| |services on a city-wide basis. Experience has proven that even when branches are totally shut down for extended | |

| |periods, approximately half of all customers will travel farther to make use of other, more distant Library branches on | |

| |a regular basis. Consequently, it is anticipated that if hours of operation are reduced by a half hour to an hour | |

| |daily, citizens will make relatively minor adjustments in their schedules and continue using the Library. In other | |

| |words, the same volume of work will be compressed into a slightly shorter day. To actually eliminate work as opposed to| |

| |merely compressing or postponing it, a branch would have to be closed. | |

| |Factors that will be considered for deciding which medium-sized branch to close will include: | |

| |Whether a facility is owned or leased and how much time is remaining on the lease. | |

| |Proximity to other branches. | |

| |Life span remaining on owned facility. | |

| |Statistical data on visits, circulation and number of citizens served. | |

| |Operating costs of the facility. | |

| |The Library’s concern is not the degree of “public relations” work involved in dealing with outcomes of cuts to | |

| |services. It is, however, gravely concerned that a swath of cuts across a series of city-wide library services will | |

| |leave all citizens with a lower level of service and reduced access to information, as well as result in high levels of | |

| |citizen dissatisfaction. | |

| |What impact would you have on your budget with various increases in: |Library |

| |a) penalties Library fines are currently 25 cents per day for adult books and 10 cents per day for children’s books. | |

| |Videos are a dollar a day for adults and 40 cents for children’s material. These are currently at the Canadian public | |

| |library average. The main reason for fines is to ensure the timely return of library materials. Experience here and | |

| |elsewhere has shown that an increase in fine rates may result in a short-term decrease in revenues (or at best be | |

| |revenue neutral) as people are more careful about incurring charges. When fines were increased in 1990, revenue | |

| |decreased by $62,000 (8.8%). | |

| |b) membership The introduction of membership fees in 1994 resulted in a 10% decrease in items borrowed by adults, and a | |

| |16% decrease in library memberships, as the sharing of library cards within families became more prevalent. Experience | |

| |in other libraries has shown that fee increases result in decreases in membership and only small increases in revenue. | |

| |For example, St. Albert increased its family fee in 2003, and to date membership has dropped by 5.8% and requests for | |

| |waiving of fees are up dramatically. When the membership fee was first introduced in Edmonton, fines revenue decreased | |

| |$109,000 (14.6%). | |

| |Alberta is one of two provinces in Canada that allows public libraries to charge membership fees. In most of Canada and| |

| |throughout the United States, library cards are free to citizens. | |

| |It is the feeling of the Edmonton Public Library Board that an increase in fees would result in minimal, if any, | |

| |additional revenue, and would instead discourage library use. | |

| |Over the past 2 years 2002 to 2004 you have increased your materials, goods and supplies by 1m. Could you further break|Library |

| |down these charges? | |

| |Materials, Goods and Services (includes all 16 branches) | |

| |2002 Actual 2003 Budget 2004 Recom. | |

| |Library Materials $3,600,000* $4,115,000 $4,321,000 | |

| |Computer software/hardware & Library | |

| |Network maintenance 331,000 479,000 493,000 | |

| |Stationery 395,000 377,000 382,000 | |

| |Data Line Rentals to connect all 16 branches 162,000 227,000 234,000 | |

| |Furniture & Equipment for public use 87,000 82,000 84,000 | |

| |Furniture & Equipment for staff 74,000 63,000 64,000 | |

| |Other (postage, photocopier maintenance, etc.) 138,000 140,000 144,000 | |

| |$4,787,000 $5,483,000 $5,722,000 | |

| |In 2003 there was an additional $200,000 added to the library materials base budget. | |

| |*The actual expenditure for library materials in 2002 was $3,730,000. There was $130,000 of 2002 library materials not | |

| |paid until 2003. | |

| |Could you breakdown your information services budget of $1,712m. What do you charge for the service? |Library |

| |Information Services 2004 budget of $1,712,000 | |

| |Personnel Costs (32 FTEs) - $1,645,000 | |

| |Day to Day Operations (i.e. phones, stationery, equipment maintenance) - $67,000 | |

| |There are no charges for reference services to citizens. This is a basic service that the Library must provide under | |

| |the Alberta Library Act, in order to receive its operating grant. In addition under Part 5, Section 36(1)(f) of the | |

| |Act, the Library is prohibited from charging for basic information services. | |

| |You are spending 723,000 on community relations and corporate development. How much does the latter bring in as it is |Library |

| |not shown? Could you breakdown the two into the two areas? What is the function of community relations, I assume it | |

| |must be greater than just a info role? | |

| |Community Relations ($573,000) includes the following programs: | |

| |Communications Division is responsible for system-wide corporate identity, advertising, signage, publicity, media | |

| |relations and promotional materials such as posters, brochures and the library magazine “The Source”. It also organizes| |

| |special events such as Alberta Library Week, Freedom to Read Week and Read In, and supports many public service | |

| |initiatives. There are 2.6 FTE in this area. | |

| |Theatre and Meeting Room Facility Management staff made over 2,000 bookings and generated $42,000 in revenue in 2002. | |

| |There are 1.3 FTE. | |

| |Production Services is the print shop for the Library, supporting all 16 branches with posters, brochures, forms, | |

| |banners and all major photocopying jobs. There are 2.3 FTE. | |

| |Community Relations staff also sit on community boards and city committees and work closely with community initiatives, | |

| |requiring about 1 FTE staff time. | |

| |Corporate Development ($150,000) | |

| |This area was established in 1998. Since then, the Edmonton Public Library has raised nearly $6 million for capital | |

| |projects, library collection enrichment and other projects. | |

| |I am surprised to see that you listed as one other medium sized library to close as Lessard, but you list the Lessard |Library |

| |Branch as the highest priority for a new 95.233m branch? Where is the logic? | |

| |The Lessard Branch is a medium-sized branch. As the Library Board has not made any decisions as to which medium-sized | |

| |library would close should operating funds in 2004 be insufficient, Lessard is included on the list. The Library has | |

| |had significant problems with the Lessard landlord in terms of maintenance and condition of the facility, and the lease | |

| |on the current site expires in 2006. Those factors make the Lessard Branch a possible candidate for closure. Should | |

| |the Board decide to close Lessard or any other medium sized branch, it is unlikely that the Library would be in a | |

| |position to expand/improve services to further meet the needs of citizens. In other words, the Library would have to | |

| |forego the opportunities presented as a result of the population growth in the west and the impending expiry of the | |

| |Lessard lease. Changes to the Lessard Branch have been part of the Library’s 10-year Capital Plan which was in | |

| |existence prior to the Library’s proposed budget cut. | |

| |Where do you plan to relocate the Lessard Branch? |Library |

| |This project would see the purchase of property and construction of a 20,000 - 25,000 sq. ft. standalone library | |

| |facility intended to be a district branch serving West Edmonton. The project will involve acquiring property and | |

| |constructing a facility in the vicinity of the Jamie Platz YMCA and the Callingwood Mall. | |

| |You list funded services needs as $245 to deal with growth in public use of collections and reference services. Funded |Library |

| |by Province. Can you reallocate these funds? | |

| |These funds cannot be reallocated. With the major increases the Library is experiencing in both visits and circulation | |

| |over the past 3 years, staff resources have been stretched to the limit. Despite transforming two senior managers’ | |

| |positions into six other positions to help with growth, it has not been enough. | |

| |Our long-range financial plan called for us to submit a funding package for staff in the 2004 budget. This was later | |

| |withdrawn after the announcement was made about the increased provincial grant. If we used the grant to offset the | |

| |$375,000 shortfall, the staff-funding package would still be on the table. If it had not been approved by Council, the | |

| |Library Board may well have been forced to close a small-sized branch. | |

| |With 79% of our budget going to support public services, a cut of $375,000 is a challenge that can only be met by | |

| |eliminating work. | |

| |You present your budget as three departments. The Shaw Conference Centre will need $2.183m. What do you see the need |EDE |

| |once Hall D is finished? Can the centre operate at a breakeven? | |

| |EDE operates 5 business units, a circumstance that is unique, as far we know, in North America. These business units | |

| |are: | |

| | | |

| |Economic Development | |

| |Edmonton Research Park | |

| |Edmonton Tourism | |

| |Shaw Conference Centre | |

| |External Parnerships Programmes | |

| | | |

| |For the purposes of the budget presentation to City Council, business units 1 and 2 above have been combined into one | |

| |for presentation purposes. Business unit #5 is in the “Service Package” and is not part of the core program funding | |

| |from the City. | |

| | | |

| |The budget presentation indicated that the Shaw Conference Centre will require $2,183 to operate its business in 2004. | |

| | | |

| |In the first full year of operation, the expansion related to Hall D will result in additional economic activity in | |

| |Edmonton of about $10 million. In addition, the operation of Hall D is estimated to generate a minimum $150 (ie. $150 | |

| |thousand) of additional operational cash flow, which will help in offsetting the existing deficit. Many of our lost | |

| |convention accounts would cite the inability of SCC to accommodate their exhibits plus their plenary sessions and | |

| |wind-up banquets. Hall D will be used most often for plenary sessions and banquets and for that reason will be able to | |

| |support itself. | |

| | | |

| |EDE has always allocated a part of the tax levy funding towards the operations of the Shaw Conference Centre. Most | |

| |conference centers in North America are supported in some way by either municipal or regional governments, through | |

| |direct subsidization or consumer taxes. | |

| |In last years budget we allocated $500 for the cluster strategy. How were those funds dealt with in the 04 budget? |EDE |

| |In 2003 the City provided $500 of additional funding for the continued operation of the “Greater Edmonton | |

| |Competitiveness Strategy”. EDE has requested the same amount for 2004. This program was presented to council in prior | |

| |years, indicating that it would be a $6 million program over three years (now five), of which 50% would be funded by the| |

| |City of Edmonton and the balance split between Western Economic Diversification and the private sector community. This | |

| |program will be 2/3 complete at the end of 2004. | |

| | | |

| |This $500 has been requested through the “Service Package” in the 2004 budget documents. | |

| |Could you compare the funding of your 3 divisions with other cities: |EDE |

| |Calgary | |

| |Tourism Calgary - $1,957 in 2004 from City of Calgary | |

| |Convention Centre Calgary – Gov’t Funding of $1,765 (in year 2002) | |

| |Economic Development Calgary - pending | |

| |Winnipeg | |

| |Tourism Winnipeg – pending | |

| |Convention Centre Winnipeg – Gov’t Funding of $2,512 (in year 2002) | |

| |Economic Development Winnipeg – pending | |

| |Halifax | |

| |Tourism Halifax – City Funding: $367; Hotel Tax $1,100 | |

| |Convention Centre Halifax – pending | |

| |Economic Development Halifax - pending | |

| |Windsor | |

| |Tourism Windsor is a city department | |

| |Convention Centre Windsor – Gov’t Funding of $509 (in year 2002) | |

| |Economic Development Windsor - pending | |

| |Project XX-23-0600 – Is this a provincial mandated project due to environmental standards set by Province? Are they |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |contributing? | |

| |This project is to minimize the contamination of stormwater by sanitary sewage through interconnections between the two | |

| |systems. This is in accordance with agreements with the Province. The program receives no external funding. | |

| |Project XX-23-1370 – In what areas is this needed i.e. mature areas, inner city? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |This project is city-wide. The emphasis is on installation of floodproofing devices as a protection against basement | |

| |flooding. | |

| |Project 00-23-4609/92-23-3118/02-23-3310. Is this also mandated for region? If so, who will pay? If not why? The |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |above 2 projects will cost about $90m. Will Province contribute? | |

| |Project 00-23-9609 (Gold Bar Treatment Plant Upgrading) is to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant to ensure it | |

| |continues to meet provincial requirements. This is not mandated, but is proactive planning to ensure continuous | |

| |compliance. | |

| |Project 92-23-3118 (Tertiary Treatment) is to provide biological nutrient removal at the wastewater treatment plant. | |

| |This is mandated by the Province of Alberta and has to be completed by 2005. The initial funding for this project | |

| |included $26 million from the Federal and Provincial governments in the original infrastructure program in 1993. The | |

| |balance of the funding is through the Sanitary Utility. | |

| |Project 02-23-3310 (CSO Enhanced Primary) is to provide higher levels of wet weather treatment at the wastewater | |

| |treatment plant to meet provincial requirements. This project is funded through the sanitary utility. However, this | |

| |project is being undertaken in conjunction with 02-23-3300, which is the ICAP project. The federal and provincial | |

| |governments are contributing approximately $13 million to this project. | |

| |Using project 04-23-3400 to improve the quality of water to recycle – Is there a cost/revenue benefit? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Project 04-23-3400 (Water Recycling) is to develop a conceptual design of a recycled water distribution network from the| |

| |Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant. Initial investigation has determined that with the participation of sufficient | |

| |industrial customers, this service could be provided as a new revenue source to the Sanitary Utility. Only those | |

| |projects with a favourable cost:benefit will be pursued. | |

| |Project 04-23-5403. Is this a facility to be paid out of utility costs? Is there no other city space or leaseable |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |space available? We can not build new offices due to cost of construction, why can we not lease service space? | |

| |Yes, the cost of this facility will be paid from Drainage Services and will have no impact on tax levy. Renovating the | |

| |existing Kennedale building will allow the pumping stations maintenance staff to continue sharing other common | |

| |facilities (washrooms, locker rooms, storage facilities etc. ) and services with the remainder of Drainage Operations. | |

| |Therefore, leasing other facilities would be a more expensive alternative. | |

| |Project XX-23-6100. What kind of equipment needs to be replaced for 72.1m over 4 years? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |The total of program XX-23-6100 for 4 years is 2.1 million. Drainage Services requires the continued replacement of | |

| |worn out equipment and new equipment for it’s operating and maintenance area. Equipment such as service TV inspection | |

| |equipment, mainline TV equipment, Draeger breathing equipment, pumpstation rescue equipment, and equipment for combined | |

| |dumpsite at the Cloverbar Lagoons. | |

| |Project 04-23-9302. Is for $23,300m of that 88.5 is funded by Sanitary Services fund strategy – what is the fund and |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |who pays? The balance of $14.8 is funded through self liquidating debentures who runs this? Again where is the | |

| |Provincial aid? | |

| |Project 04-23-9302 (WESS W12) is the construction of a new sanitary sewer river crossing. This project is required to | |

| |service new development in the City’s west end and also as a key component of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control | |

| |Strategy. The Sanitary Servicing Strategy Fund contribution of $8.5 million is in support of the development need for | |

| |this sewer. The Sanitary Servicing Strategy Fund is a funding mechanism established with the development industry to | |

| |finance the construction of these large diameter sewers needed to sustain continued growth in the City. The $14.8 | |

| |million contribution from Self-Liquidating Debentures is funded through the Sanitary Utility rates charged to customers.| |

| |This is the City’s contribution towards the need for this sewer for combined sewer overflow control. There is no | |

| |provincial funding for this project. | |

| |Project XX-23-9502. We do not supply any IT service or equipment to Drainage? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |The Information Technology section of Corporate Services provides computer service to Drainage Services. The cost of | |

| |this service is charged to Drainage Service as part of the Corporate Shared services charge to the current years | |

| |operating budget. The capital program XX-23-9502 in Drainage Services is used to fund the replacement of high end | |

| |computer aided drafting/graphic equipment used to support mapping and recording of as built drawings. | |

| |Project 02-23-9606/XX-31-9608/XX-23-9608. Do we not charge for the installation of sewer service connections? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Customer Services: Yes, Drainage Services charges customers for the installation of sewer service connections. This is | |

| |done by developing a fee schedule each year, which reflects the size and cost of services. These schedules are based on| |

| |historical information and inflationary pricing including department overheads. | |

| |Developer Services: Yes, Drainage Services charges customers for the installation of local improvements requested by the| |

| |benefiting property owners. All costs applicable to the local improvement including the design, engineering and | |

| |construction are recovered in the costs assessed to the applicable property owners. | |

| |03-75-1083. Shaw Hall D $24,000 postpone? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |When the City accepted ICAP Funding for this project, the City agreed to meet the ICAP requirement of completing the |Buildings |

| |construction by March, 2006. Postponing the project would result in substantial construction delays and the | |

| |construction of Hall D would not be complete by March, 2006. The City would then be in a position of losing the funding | |

| |since the deadline was not met. The City would also lose the funding if an application was made to ICAP to transfer the| |

| |funding to another project since Hall D was nominated by the Federal Government for the remaining ICAP funding. Federal| |

| |Government ICAP representatives have indicated they would not accept an application to transfer the funding to another | |

| |project. | |

| |00-75-2001. What will be the return to the city upon sale of assets? Funding is from retained earnings of the Land |AM & PW – Land and |

| |Enterprise or from where? |Buildings |

| |The overall financial return realized by the City for development of its 62 ha holding in Belle Rive is confidential | |

| |information that is available to share with Council pursuant to Section 25 (1) ( c ) of the freedom of Information and | |

| |Protection of Privacy Act. The rate of return would reflect the acquisition price the City paid for this holding in | |

| |1981 and the provision of 17 ha of land for a district level school/park site and a 4 ha storm water lake. Funds | |

| |expended on City land development are financed from short-term borrowing that is repaid through future land sales | |

| |revenues. See Question #329. | |

| |00-75-2003/2004/2005. These are paid from retained earnings. The same as above, but what happens to these dollars and |AM & PW – Land and |

| |where do they go? |Buildings |

| |Funds expended on City land development are financed from short-term borrowing that is repaid through future land sales | |

| |revenues. In the year that the lots are sold, the cost of land, including acquisition, servicing and development costs | |

| |are expensed through the operating program. See Question #329. | |

| |Project 04-75-2100. Is now postponed. I assume it is now out? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |This project, which provides funding for the residential and commercial redevelopment components of the Fort Road |Buildings |

| |Implementation Plan has not been postponed, and the budget request for 2004 is required to fund land acquisition for | |

| |medium and high density residential development and to undertake detailed development and design studies. | |

| |Could you give me an analysis of the land fund retained earnings makeup? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |The retained earnings is made up of the accumulated operating gains and losses that have occurred through the years. It|Buildings |

| |represents equity in the investment of land inventory. It is not cash. See Question #327. | |

| |Project 04-75-3299. Will be raising our monthly charges in 04? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |Monthly parking rates in City owned parkade facilities will not be increased in 2004. Monthly parking rates were |Buildings |

| |increased in January 2003 from $150 per month to $160 per month. Based on a recent market survey of other comparable | |

| |underground heated parkade facilities in the downtown area, the current rate reflects the middle to upper range of | |

| |current market conditions. | |

| |However, based on the same survey, the half hour parking will be increased January 1, 2004 from $1.25 to $1.50. This | |

| |increase is projected to generate an additional $195,000 in annual parking revenue. See Question #348. | |

| |XX-75-3511. You have an estimate of + or – 50% for a cost of $635. What has been the cost for the other floors? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |The most recent costs of renovating a floor at Century Place including asbestos removal and complete interior renovation|Buildings |

| |is $693,750. This breaks down into $172,500 for asbestos removal and $521,250 for the renovations. | |

| |XX-75-3604. The rationale is the increased emphasis on business process re-engineering and used technology – to achieve|AM & PW – Land and |

| |cost savings. What are the cost savings? |Buildings |

| |The cost savings referred to are related to the business operations of the department seeking the accommodation | |

| |improvements. The department requesting the accommodation changes is responsible for the cost justification. Land & | |

| |Buildings does not audit the justification, although the work will be prioritized against other requests. | |

| |04-75-3804. If the project is unfunded why are you doing the engineering? What is the construction cost? Is this for |AM & PW – Land and |

| |storage only or for repairs? When you say design is this working drawings or concept? |Buildings |

| |There is a critical need for a new transit garage to be operational in 2007 to accommodate funded increases in the bus | |

| |fleet to meet growing transit service demands. Schematic design and other engineering analysis must be done in advance | |

| |(2004) to refine the construction estimate, examine the feasibility of staged construction and to meet the project | |

| |completion schedule for 2007 in anticipation that construction funding will be approved in 2005/06. The preliminary | |

| |construction cost estimate is $30.0 million with a cost accuracy of +/-30%. | |

| |Project 07-75-5164. $3m in 07 is this a process to approve it or does it need more scrutiny? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |There is no budget approval request for this project in 2004. It has been included in the Funded portion of the Capital|Buildings |

| |Priorities Plan for 2007 and a budget approval request will be brought forward accordingly and scrutinized at that time.| |

| |Project 04-75-4694. Can we put a surcharge on a ticket to help cover the ongoing repair costs? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |The City presently has in place the Admission Surcharge Bylaw No. 10841, which provides for primary and supplementary |Buildings |

| |surcharges on tickets for events at Rexall Place. Pursuant to various agreements the City has with Northlands and | |

| |Hockey Corp, these surcharges are collected and retained by Northlands and Hockey Corp. Any additional surcharges | |

| |imposed by the City and to be retained by the City would need to be negotiated with Northlands. | |

| |04-75-5176. Fire station tax supported debt is $6m cost estimate is $9m, where is the balance? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |The $6.0 million is the tax-supported debt budget request for 2004. The remaining $3.0 million is also to be funded |Buildings |

| |from tax-supported debt in 05/06 as in identified in Project 04-75-5176. | |

| |05-75-5177. Is there a performance which justifies the costs with a rate of return? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |The development costs for the planned servicing of this project in 2006 are conceptual and have been based on the City’s|Buildings |

| |previous residential development experience. A business case analysis, including rate of return will be undertaken in | |

| |2005 to justify the City developing these lands, including the implications of preserving the existing wetland and | |

| |associated natural area which occupies about 2/3 of the City’s holding. | |

| |05-75-5186. Why are you doing this if we have not approved the single start station? |AM & PW – Land and |

| |This project was included for funding approval in 2004 in anticipation that funding for the Single Start Station would |Buildings / ERD |

| |also be approved by Council in 2004. In addition, Station #28 is 43 years old and has a number of physical and | |

| |operational deficiencies that require that this station be replaced within the next two years. If the City does not | |

| |proceed with the Single Start Station in 2005, it is recommended that an additional $250,000 be allocated to this | |

| |project in 2005 so that a new “shift start” station can be built at this location to provide effective ambulance | |

| |service. | |

|Councillor J. Batty: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |The civic salaries in each department account for what percentage of the departments overall total operating budget: |Finance |

| |a) Without benefits; | |

| |b) Including benefits; | |

| |c) How does this compare to Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa; | |

| |d) How does this percentage compare with the private business sector? | |

| | | |

| |a) | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |b) Salaries plus benefits as a percentage of total expenditures, is provided in the 2004 Budget Summary on pages 75 to | |

| |77, the consolidated Resource Distribution. The row called Salaries, wages and benefits includes all personnel costs, | |

| |that is, salaries, wages, overtime, benefits and allowances. | |

| | | |

| |c) A review of December 31, 2002 statistics published along with the financial statements provides the following | |

| |corporate comparison for salaries, wages and employee benefits as a percentage of expenditures: | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| |A department by department breakdown is not readily available and would require further research. Departments are not | |

| |necessarily set up consistently across municipalities. | |

| | | |

| |d) There is no benchmark readily available that would compare the private sector to the City with respect to salaries | |

| |and benefits as a percentage of expenditures. | |

| |What are the margins of savings acquired through contracting out services? |Corporate Services |

| |Contracting out of services can be undertaken for a variety of reasons. Cost savings may be one factor, but | |

| |considerations such as skill availability, workload management, attitudes toward partnerships, and managing competition | |

| |may also drive a decision to provide services in a different manner. The variety of factors involved in determining the| |

| |appropriate service delivery approach do not allow for a single figure to be provided on potential savings from | |

| |contracting out. A business case is required to confirm savings, if any, and other significant service and delivery | |

| |impacts. A University of Victoria study of over 300 Canadian municipalities indicated that more cost savings were | |

| |achieved through the use of a mixed-workforce (part municipal workers and part contracts) as compared to total | |

| |contracting of waste collection services. It is interesting to note that savings were even higher for a 100% municipal | |

| |workforce as compared to a mixed workforce strategy. | |

| | | |

| |In order to ensure the City receives value for expenditures on the use of external professional services, a new City | |

| |framework will provide a tool for business areas in determining the best way to obtain professional services. Business | |

| |units will have to undertake a “make/buy” analysis, with “make” meaning undertake the work with City staff and “buy” | |

| |meaning purchase the service from external providers or as a form of outsourcing. Cost is one factor, but issues such as| |

| |the need for independence, availability of internal expertise, frequency of need and project timelines all need to be | |

| |considered. | |

| |The Planning and Development Department had a number of PTE’s during the past year who became FTE after one year of |Planning and |

| |employment as per the Union contract. |Development |

| |a) Is this a standard clause in union contracts; and | |

| |what other departments are impacted by this clause? | |

| |The present contract provides that a term of temporary employment cannot exceed 1 year, which is why temporary positions| |

| |are generally posted for up to 11 months. The present economic condition suggests that temporary employees are needed | |

| |to deal with increased workloads. In the 2003 budget Council granted the Department authority to hire these positions | |

| |against the higher than normal revenues. In the 2004 budget the Department is proposing to do essentially the same | |

| |thing except keep the temporary employees who have been trained and therefore working at a high efficiency level by | |

| |making them permanent. These positions are still charged against “unsustainable higher” revenues and when these | |

| |revenues decrease the staff will be laid off. | |

| |Recommendation # 94 of the Alberta Learning Commission Final Report states “allow school boards to requisition their |Planning and |

| |local residents for up to 10% of the amount raised through provincial education property tax.” Does the City of |Development |

| |Edmonton have any information on: | |

| |a) Whether the province will act on this recommendation; | |

| |The Province’s proposed 2004/2005 school mill rate? | |

| |a) The cities of Edmonton and Calgary by letter jointly requested Premier Klein to reconsider the implications of this | |

| |Recommendation on local governments, and that it be dismissed completely. Learning Minister Oberg has publicly | |

| |indicated that there is resistance to this Recommendation. It is our expectation that the Province will not act on the | |

| |Recommendation. This would also require legislative changes prior to any implementation. | |

| | | |

| |b) The information from the Province, as provided in the Province’s budget documents in Spring 2003, was that the 2004 | |

| |provincial education tax would increase by 6% over 2003. This would place the 2004 education tax for Edmonton at $246M | |

| |($14M increase). A further 6% increase would occur for 2005. | |

| |Are there any programs in place to assist residents on fixed incomes with: |Planning and |

| |a) municipal property tax; |Development |

| |provincial education tax? | |

| |The City does not offer any programs to assist residents on fixed incomes, in terms of municipal property tax nor the | |

| |provincial education tax. | |

| |Financial institutions, however, offer property owners the service of reverse mortgages to assist with their payment of | |

| |taxes. | |

| |How much money from the sinking fund is being contributed to the 2004 budget? |Finance |

| |For the 2004 Capital Budget, a total of $6.9 million is funding applied from excess earnings in the Sinking Fund. Of | |

| |that amount, $5.7 million was previously approved from the 2002 excess earnings balance. A further $1.2 million has | |

| |been included from a proposed $6.0 million allocation to be applied evenly over a five year term (2004-2008). | |

| |Please explain, once again, why we send manpower from the Police department, the Fire Department and the Emergency |ERD / Police Services |

| |Response Department to the same accident; | |

| |What are the efficiencies in sending all departments to respond to the same accident? | |

| |A Tri-Services review of the management of Motor Vehicle Incidents was undertaken in 2002 between Edmonton Police | |

| |Services and the Emergency Response Department to clarify the roles and responsibilities for each service in response to| |

| |a Motor Vehicle incident. | |

| | | |

| |The three Emergency Services (Fire Rescue, Emergency Medical Services and Edmonton Police Services) are each responsible| |

| |for providing different types of service at Motor Vehicle Incidents dependant on their specific area of expertise. | |

| | | |

| |Emergency calls are evaluated and assessed on an individual call basis prior to the dispatch of resources. Not all | |

| |emergency calls require the same level of response so not all services are necessarily dispatched to every call. | |

| | | |

| |The following services may be provided: | |

| | | |

| |Fire Rescue Services: | |

| |Provide First Responder Medical aid | |

| |Stabilize the vehicle and extricate/rescue of victims | |

| |Prevent, control and/or extinguish fires | |

| |Provide Dangerous Goods containment and clean up | |

| |Provide Scene Safety for emergency personnel and citizens and perform (environmental) clean up | |

| |Provide traffic control | |

| |Preserve the accident scene for accident reconstruction and investigation teams. | |

| | | |

| |Emergency Medical Services: | |

| |Evaluate patients and provide emergency medical care including Advanced Life Support | |

| |Assess patient needs and provide (or arrange) patient transport to Emergency Medical Facility | |

| | | |

| |Edmonton Police Services: | |

| |Provide Scene safety for emergency, citizens and evidence. | |

| |Collect evidence and undertake accident reconstruction and investigation for violations to the Traffic Safety Act. | |

| | | |

| |Throughout the incident the three services communicate and co-ordinate their activities and where necessary extra | |

| |resources may be requested or resources may be cancelled. | |

| |Under Drainage Service Operating Budget – Detail, expenditures by Activity, please explain what is included in the |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Financial of 26,335,000? | |

| |Components are interest expense $10.1 million, depreciation $9.0 million, and franchise fees $7.2 million. The franchise| |

| |fees are contributed to the City’s General Revenue. | |

| |Drainage Services – Capital Budget, Outstanding Capital Challenges, Infrastructure Gap. The second priority unfunded |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |project is Systems Rehabilitation, which is in coordination and dependant upon Transportation and Streets funding their | |

| |project. | |

| |a) what is the project; and | |

| |b) What are the ramifications to the Capital Budget of Drainage if the Transportation and Streets project is brought | |

| |funded from debt financing? | |

| |Project XX-23-8154 (Systems Rehabilitation Unfunded) is to rehabilitate deteriorated sewers on a neighbourhood basis and| |

| |in a coordinated, timely and cost effective manner with roadways surface work and other utility upgrading. The next | |

| |priority neighbourhood is Queen Mary Park. This project is unfunded as the Transportation and Streets component of this| |

| |project is unfunded. See Question #65. | |

| |Land and Buildings revenue from City owned Parkades: |AM & PW – Land and |

| |a) Are the rates charged competitive with privately owned parkades within the city; |Buildings |

| |b) Are the rates comparable to rates in other cities with similar lack of parking space? | |

| |Yes, hourly and monthly parking rates in City owned parking facilities are established based on market surveys of other | |

| |underground heated parkade facilities in the downtown area. The proposed increase in half hour parking rates reflects | |

| |the middle to upper range of current market conditions. | |

| |Parking rates in cities are typically established based on the demand for parking and the availability of parking | |

| |stalls, primarily affecting the downtown area. It is the view of the Land & Buildings Branch, along with the Downtown | |

| |Business Association (DBA),that Edmonton compares favourably with other cities based on the availability and | |

| |affordability of downtown parking stalls. See Question #330. | |

| |Land and Buildings previously approved projects with changes includes the Legacy project for $6.3 million. Please |AM & PW – Land and |

| |explain what are the changes? |Buildings |

| |The change in budget for this project is not $6.3 million but rather represents an increase of $600,000 based on the | |

| |final design and construction cost estimate approved by City Council in the Spring of 2003. The $6.3 million is the | |

| |budget approval request for 2004 to fund completion of the Legacy project and includes the additional $600,000. | |

| |Land Enterprise Operating Model, please explain what makes up the Other Revenue for $518,000? |AM & PW – Land |

| |Other revenue is comprised of interest on staged payments for land sales and permanent area recoveries. |Enterprise |

| |Land Enterprises Resource Distribution Other Charges of $25,683,000: |AM & PW – Land |

| |What makes up other charges; |Enterprise |

| |Why the 119.5% increase from 2003? | |

| |Other charges include the cost of land sold, debt interest charges and land acquisition costs. In prior years, land | |

| |acquisitions for other departments’ capital requirements were not included in the Enterprise budget since they were a | |

| |“flow-through” transaction. Starting in 2004, the budgeted cost of land acquisitions as well as recoveries have been | |

| |included to minimize the month-to-month variance in financial reporting. See Question #207. | |

| |MES Operation Budget – Detail: |AM & PW - MES |

| |what is included in Financial of $30,077,000 under Expenditure by activity; | |

| |Financial costs include depreciation on fleet, buildings and shop tools and equipment, as well as contributions from | |

| |departments for funding of replacement vehicles. | |

| |Resource Distribution other charges of $34,758,000, what makes up these charges; | |

| |This category includes fleet amortization, depreciation, insurance and taxes $30.5 million, and utility costs of $4.2 | |

| |million. | |

| |c) Why the 91.6 % increase from 2003? | |

| |This is due to a change in the way bus replacements are financed. Starting in 2004, bus replacements will be financed | |

| |from reserves rather than from the tax base. This is a change in accounting presentation. See Question #218. | |

| |Waste Management Operating Budget under what we can not do in the 2004 Budget: |AM & PW – Waste Mgmt. |

| |a) The business opportunities identified in the City Auditors report, what is the funding required for the technical and| |

| |business evaluation; | |

| |A number of opportunities were identified in the Auditor’s report. Some are well established technologies; others are | |

| |new leading edge technologies. The Branch has included a Service Package for Council’s consideration which would | |

| |provide funding of $450,000 in 2004 to enable the careful evaluation of these opportunities. These funds would be | |

| |expended primarily for specialty consultants and pilot scale evaluations. | |

| |b) What is the length of time before cost recovery? | |

| |The time to cost recovery is not known at this stage. One objective of the planned evaluations is to answer this | |

| |question. Assuming that one or more of the opportunities identified proves to be viable and is acted upon, recovery of | |

| |this initial expense will be factored into the business plan. Any projects found not to be viable will not be | |

| |undertaken. | |

| |What would be the impact on the Community Services Department if the funding for the Landlord and Tenant Board was |Community Services |

| |removed from the 2004 budget? | |

| |The impact on the Community Services Department would be a reduction of $487,000 in proposed tax levy funding for 2004. | |

| |The biggest component of the budget reduction would be the elimination of 8 FTE’s. The closure of the LTAB would also | |

| |result in an increased number of telephone calls to the Department and other City offices, such as the Citizen’s Action | |

| |Centre and Councilors offices. | |

| |What would be the impact to the Province if the Landlord and Tenant Board was removed from the 2004 budget? |Community Services |

| |Recent statistics show that, for the period January 1, 2003-November 12, 2003 the provincial government call centre | |

| |received a total of 45,666 calls of which 19,105 came from Calgary, which closed its Landlord and Tenant Advisory Board | |

| |at the end of 2000, as compared to 5,792 from Edmonton. The removal of the LTAB from the 2004 budget would result in a | |

| |significant increase in the number of calls received in their call centre, with no guarantee of additional staffing, and| |

| |therefore longer wait times and reduced levels of service. There could be an increase to the numbers of landlords and | |

| |tenants using the court system as well, again due to the elimination of the mediation and preventive services such as | |

| |public education that are provided. | |

| |In the 2004 budget the Edmonton Public Library is requesting and extra $250,000 for additional library materials. In |Library |

| |the 2003 budget the Edmonton Public Library requested and was funded an extra $250,000 for additional library | |

| |materials. Once funded does this service package become part of the regular budget for future years? | |

| |In the 2003 budget, the Library requested an additional $250,000 for library materials and was provided with $200,000. | |

| |This amount was added to the base. The 2004 unfunded service package is for an additional $250,000 and will be added to| |

| |the base if it is approved by Council. | |

| |In expenditure by activity the Edmonton Public Library has $3,685,000 designated for system wide and central operations.|Library |

| |Please explain what this is and will it eliminate any full or part time staff? | |

| |Systemwide and Central Operations - $3,685,000 | |

| |Milner Library - maintenance, utilities, insurance premiums $1,052,000 | |

| |IT Services for all 16 branches 1,261,000 | |

| |Plant & Transportation (i.e. drivers, movement of library materials & inter- | |

| |departmental mail between branches) 672,000 | |

| |Purchasing and Support staff 304,000 | |

| |Systemwide Charges (i.e. training, custodial, book bins, fax & cash | |

| |register maintenance, insurance deductibles) 192,000 | |

| |Systemwide Postage 85,000 | |

| |Photocopier Maintenance for all 16 branches 85,000 | |

| |Library Board expenses 34,000 | |

| |With the closure of a medium-sized branch, no FTEs will be eliminated from this category. | |

| |In the same expenditure by activity $723,000 is designated for community relations and corporate development. Please |Library |

| |explain what these dollars are specifically allocated to. | |

| |Community Relations ($573,000) includes the following programs: | |

| |Communications Division is responsible for system-wide corporate identity, advertising, signage, publicity, media | |

| |relations and promotional materials such as posters, brochures and the library magazine “The Source”. It also organizes| |

| |special events such as Alberta Library Week, Freedom to Read Week and Read In, and supports many public service | |

| |initiatives. There are 2.6 FTE in this area. | |

| |Theatre and Meeting Room Facility Management staff made over 2,000 bookings and generated $42,000 in revenue in 2002. | |

| |There are 1.3 FTE. | |

| |Production Services is the print shop for the Library, supporting all 16 branches with posters, brochures, forms, | |

| |banners and all major photocopying jobs. There are 2.3 FTE. | |

| |Community Relations staff also sit on community boards and city committees and work closely with community initiatives, | |

| |requiring about 1 FTE staff time. | |

| |Corporate Development ($150,000) | |

| |This area was established in 1998. Since then, the Edmonton Public Library has raised nearly $6 million for capital | |

| |projects, library collection enrichment and other projects. | |

| |Under summary of key changes $245,000 – additional staff (6.5 FTE’s) to deal with the growth in public usage of |Library |

| |collections and reference services. This service is funded from the additional Provincial Grant. | |

| |What is the additional Provincial grant; | |

| |How much is the grant; and | |

| |Is the additional grant included in the $2,857,000 Provincial grant revenue? | |

| |The additional provincial grant was for $245,000 and it comes from the per capita increase from $4.03 to $4.29 (which | |

| |was the 1994 rate). This $245,000 is included in the $2,857,000. | |

| |In the Edmonton Public Library recommended 2004 Capital Plan, $70,000 is being allocated to the relocation design of |Library |

| |the Lessard branch and $725,000 to the Idylwylde branch renovation. Why would you include these branches for capital | |

| |funding when the media has reported the EPL as saying they will be closing the Lessard branch if extra funding is not | |

| |provide? | |

| |Both Lessard and Idylwylde are a medium-sized branches. As the Library Board has not made any decisions as to which | |

| |medium-sized library would close should operating funds in 2004 be insufficient, Lessard and Idylwylde are included on | |

| |the list. Changes to the Lessard and Idylwylde Branches have been part of the Library’s 10-year Long Range Financial | |

| |Plan which was in existence prior to the Library’s proposed budget cut. | |

|Councillor M. Phair: | |

|Questions and Answers |Directed To |

| |Regarding the 2004 proposed budget, what is the impact on the City’s CO2RE program and initiatives? |AM & PW |

| |The 2004 proposed budget does not include the $100,000 for CO2RE that was provided in 2003. This shortfall in funding | |

| |for the CO2RE Initiative will have a negative impact on the program and our ability to meet the City’s FCM/Kyoto | |

| |commitments. | |

| |As identified in the 2003 CO2RE Annual report that was provided to Transportation and Public Works Committee on November| |

| |18th, without this City funding a limited number of activities would be undertaken in 2004. This reduced level of | |

| |activity would have little impact on reducing the community-wide growth in greenhouse gas emissions. | |

| |Without continued City funding, it will be difficult to access potential new matching grant funding. Up to $92,000 in | |

| |confirmed grants could be at risk because of the $100,000 shortfall. See Question #28. | |

| |To reach the goal of a sustainable city with improved quality of life for its citizens, I would like Administration to |Corporate Services – |

| |list some of the new initiatives for 2004 that will a) increase a sense of safety; b) ensure secure and strong |Strategic Services |

| |neighbourhoods; c) improve clean air and clean water; and d) increase affordable housing. | |

| |The 2004 – 2006 Corporate Business Plan raises the challenge of how Edmonton can sustain its quality of life and | |

| |economic competitiveness in future years. Initiatives are provided in the Plan and the department business plans and | |

| |budgets to address the challenge. | |

| | | |

| |Increase Sense of Safety | |

| |provide Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Fire Rescue consistent with service level targets and available funding | |

| |replace two fire stations and build a new fire station | |

| |construction of the South East Division Police Station | |

| |provide additional analysts for the Intelligence-led Policing and Edmonton Approach Strategy | |

| |address minimum lifeguard requirements at Mill Woods Recreation Centre, address staffing requirements to meet heavy | |

| |public usage in twin arenas on weekends; provide security measures and on-going police presence in northeast facilities | |

| |on weekend evenings | |

| |continue “Building Bridges” through the Safer Cities initiative to provide co-ordinated approach to community-based | |

| |crime prevention activities | |

| |implement recommendations of the ETS Safety and Security Reviews to increase safety and security on the transit system | |

| | | |

| |Ensure secure and strong neighbourhoods | |

| |define high priority neighbourhood and optimal service delivery targets for neighbourhood social and recreation services| |

| |develop a comprehensive framework and action plan for supporting low-income Edmontonians access to recreation and | |

| |related services | |

| |design and implement a “Walkable Edmonton” strategy | |

| |define and develop a vision for Community Hubs that will add community vitality into local neighbourhoods and bring | |

| |people together, to gather or meet, and to share and exchange information | |

| | | |

| |Improve Clean Air and Clean Water | |

| |continue driver training in fuel efficient driving techniques to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions | |

| |acquire vehicles with enhance emission control with a focus on energy conservation | |

| |facilitate energy management projects/activities through the Office of Energy Management | |

| |facilitate implementation of the Environmental Strategic Plan and develop an implementation process for Edmonton’s | |

| |Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy | |

| |ensure appropriate maintenance and operation activities are undertaken to support renewal of the Approval to Operate | |

| |from Alberta Environment for the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant | |

| |undertake major capital projects including the West Edmonton Sanitary Sewer (WESS W12), CSO Control Strategy and the | |

| |Double Barrel replacement for environmental and capacity improvements | |

| |major expansions at Goldbar Wastewater Treatment Plant are in support of the Federal Infrastructure Program funded | |

| |Combined Sewer Overflow, Enhanced Primary Treatment and Tertiary Treatment | |

| | | |

| |Increase Affordable Housing | |

| |continue implementation of the City of Edmonton Low-Income and Special Needs Housing Strategy 2001 –2011 | |

| |continue the low income housing capital assistance program (LIHCAP) to housing sponsors through partnerships using | |

| |general financing funds | |

| |provide general financing funds to satisfy the Provincial requirement for municipal support for all Edmonton-based | |

| |housing projects that receive funding under the Canada-Alberta Affordable Housing Partnership Initiative (AHPI) | |

| |In the chart comparing Edmonton’s property taxes with other major Canadian cities, there seems to be a significant |Planning and |

| |difference between Calgary and Edmonton. What are the reasons for this? |Development |

| |Calgary collects a much higher portion of their property taxes from non-residential properties (61% in Calgary, compared| |

| |with 52% in Edmonton). Therefore the amount Calgary collects from residential properties is 39% of its property taxes, | |

| |compared to Edmonton at 48%. Additionally, Calgary's 2003 business taxes are at $148M, whereas Edmonton's total business| |

| |taxes are $79.8M. | |

| | | |

| |In 2003, the typical residential property tax in Calgary was $835 (market value assessment of $202,000); in Edmonton, it| |

| |was $1,004 (market value assessment of $159,500). | |

| |What is the projected fee for residential parking permits? What is the total dollars expected by this fee? How many |Transportation and |

| |residential permits are involved? Would these include permits around the baseball and football stadiums? |Streets |

| |The projected fee is $10.00 per permit | |

| |The total gross revenue is expected to be approximately $72K. | |

| |The net revenue is expected to be lower than this as a public relations campaign will be required in the first year. | |

| |There are approximately 7000 permits issued annually. Approximately 1200 of these permits are Visitor Permits. | |

| |These permits include the Stadium and Rossdale Permit Parking Program areas. | |

| |The existing Restricted Residential Parking Program Policy will have to be revised to include the charges for these | |

| |permits. This Policy requires Council approval. | |

| |The Administration is anticipating a fairly significant push back from citizens regarding this fee. Citizens might well| |

| |argue that it was not their fault that parking became congested on their streets and why should they have to pay for | |

| |street parking when no one else does. As a result the Department is preparing to spend some funds on communication | |

| |strategies and to deal with citizen concerns. | |

| |What impact on the proposed tax increase for 2004 would there be if fire hydrant charges were not added as a utility |ERD |

| |fee? What is the one-time and ongoing costs to make this change to a utility? | |

| |Not approving the Hydrant Service Fee as an added fee to the water utility bill would impact the mill rate by an | |

| |approximate 1% increase. | |

| | | |

| |The one time cost to set up the billing information would be relatively low, approximately $100K. | |

| |It appears that the Gas (ATCO) Franchise fee is increasing by $200,000 in 2004. I thought the increase was |Finance |

| |substantially higher. Please explore. | |

| |The increased gas franchise fee of $200,000 for 2004 excludes any changes that may occur as a result of renegotiations | |

| |underway with ATCO. The changes through renegotiation have been included under the Business Model Review initiatives | |

| |built into the proposed 2004 Budget, as shown in the operating tables and within the Business Model Review tab of the | |

| |2004 Budget Summary document. | |

| |Please provide information on the increase in transit service that should be added in 2004 to respond to areas of the |Transportation and |

| |city not currently served that warrant it and areas that are under-served and need additional service. Please provide |Streets |

| |the costs to add these services. | |

| |See response to #7. | |

| |In 2002 and in 2003, what has been the increase in transit ridership and in transit revenues? What are the projections |Transportation and |

| |for 2004? If service were increased as described in question 7., what increases would likely result? |Streets |

| |Transit Ridership and Farebox Revenue | |

| | | |

| |2002 Actual | |

| |Ridership – 44,445,000 | |

| |Revenue – $52,805,000 | |

| | | |

| |2003 Projected | |

| |Ridership – 46,000,000 | |

| |Revenue – $55,934,000 | |

| | | |

| |2004 Recommended Budget | |

| |Ridership – 46,131,000 | |

| |Revenue – $57,055,000 | |

| | | |

| |With the four service packages, an additional 268,000 rides and $322,000 would be expected in 2004. The additional | |

| |service would be implemented in September 2004. | |

| |In volume 1, page 67, Land and Development projects $97 million over the five-year plan for Capital. Please identify |AM & PW – Land and |

| |major items in this $97 million and the timing. |Buildings |

| |The major projects included in the $97 million 5 year Capital Program are staged development of the City’s residential | |

| |lands in the Brintnell, Oxford, Meadows and Schonsee neighbourhoods;($49M); staged development of the City’s Pylypow, | |

| |Ellerslie, Rampart and Maple Ridge industrial areas ($28M); acquisition of raw industrial land for future development | |

| |($8M) and staged implementation of the Fort Road Redevelopment Plan ($4M). All these projects are funded from the Land | |

| |Enterprise. | |

| |The recommended budget provides $145 million to the Police Service. I would like to know if additional funds were to be|Police Service |

| |allocated up to what the Police Service requested from Council, what items would be added in and list these items by | |

| |priority. | |

| |Please refer to the response in Question 42. | |

| |On page 71, volume 1, I would like the percentage increase between 2003 and 2004 for property tax and business tax and |Finance |

| |how much is due to growth due to new properties and how much is due to a tax increase. | |

| |Business taxes and property taxes are both increased by the 5% tax guideline (rate). Business and property tax revenues| |

| |increase by 3.2% and 0.7%, respectively, related to real growth. | |

| |It seems to me that under the Capital budget the City is providing $1 million for upgrades to the Skyreach Centre. What|Finance |

| |is this for and under what obligation are we providing this? | |

| |Volume IV, page 128 describes the $1.0M in upgrades to the capital upgrades at the Skyreach Centre. The Justification | |

| |component of the profile details the City’s obligation in regard to the Licensing Agreement with Northlands, and the | |

| |City’s responsibility for capital improvements to extend the life of the Skyreach Centre which is an asset of the City | |

| |of Edmonton. | |

| |If the hours of operation were extended for the City’s Eco Stations, what would the costs be and what revenue would be |AM & PW – Waste Mgmt. |

| |collected? | |

| |Eco Stations currently provide an economic way to meet our responsibility to remove hazardous materials from the waste | |

| |stream and to meet a reasonable effort of due diligence for this responsibility. | |

| |The additional cost to extend the hours of operation at the ECO Stations would be $253,000. It would be funded by a 10 | |

| |cent increase in the monthly single family user fee (6 cents per month to multi-family customers). The additional hours | |

| |are expected to generate an additional $38,000 in revenue from the sale of the recyclable material collected. | |

| |The existing hours of operation at the ECO Stations are 40 hours per week throughout the year. The proposed extension | |

| |of hours of operation at the ECO Stations would be 56 hours per week during the summer months and 40 hours per week | |

| |during the winter months. By extending the operating hours, site safety concerns and the need of residents would be | |

| |reasonably met for the short term. | |

| |What have been the achievements of Families First for 2003 and what would $175,000 in 2004 accomplish? |Community Services |

| |Families First Edmonton is an initiative of 11 partner organizations that seeks to determine the most cost-effective, | |

| |efficient use of resources to better meet the needs of low-income families. The initiative is intended to demonstrate | |

| |numerous specific outcomes that include reduction of the use of 911 and emergency services, reduction of the use of | |

| |social intervention services and accelerated family exits from social assistance. Similar comprehensive approaches | |

| |studied by Dr. Gina Browne have achieved these outcomes and have influenced program policy changes and overall cost | |

| |reductions for partner organizations. | |

| |Specific to City of Edmonton Community Services role, the $175k approved by Council during the 2003 budget process | |

| |accomplished the development and piloting of the recreation service delivery component for the 2½ year project. 305 | |

| |children and youth from low income families received skill development recreation opportunities in a wide range of | |

| |summer camps, sports (e.g. gymnastics, soccer, taekwando) and lessons (swimming, music, arts, dance). Funds also covered| |

| |the costs of addressing barriers to participation such as transportation, uniforms, equipment, instruments as well as | |

| |the staffing costs for the outreach component. More than a dozen community organizations reduced or eliminated fees for | |

| |participating children, thereby expanding the reach of the pilot project. Despite the challenges of this population, the| |

| |pilot achieved an impressive 91% retention rate for the children/youth participating in the pilot. Most families in the | |

| |pilot consider the program a success, citing range of choices, involvement of the children in the process and assistance| |

| |in overcoming barriers to recreation participation as key elements. | |

| |The additional $175k in 2004 would allow for implementation of the recreation component of the initiative with the | |

| |complete sample of 1500 children from 600 families. An additional $175k is identified for 2005 in the Three Year | |

| |Forecast. The full term of the study and service provision is 2 1/2 years at an annualized City of Edmonton expenditure | |

| |of $525k for the recreation service delivery/outreach component. This represents slightly less than 20% of overall | |

| |project costs. The total annualized cost of the initiative is projected to be $2.7 million. | |

| |The broader accomplishments of the initiative in 2003 are principally organizational in nature and set the stage for | |

| |full implementation in 2004. These include: sign-off of the Partnership Agreement by all participating organizations; | |

| |secondment of the Project Manager; approval of the research design, identification of outcome measures and commitment by| |

| |17 co-investigators including Dr. Gina Browne; initiation of the research fund raising component of the initiative | |

| |through Community University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth, and Families (CUP); agreement by the Edmonton| |

| |Community Foundation to serve as the 'banking mechanism' for the initiative without administrative fees; fundraising | |

| |approach to a major private sector funder; constitution of a Community Sounding Board with The Honourable Lois Hole, | |

| |Lieutenant Governor of Alberta as Honourary Chairperson. Government of Alberta ministries are in the process of aligning| |

| |significant 2004 resources to support delivery of their service components. | |

| |Planning and Development lists a permanent staff reduction of three FTEs and an addition of seven FTE’s for business |Planning and |

| |growth. What is happening? |Development |

| |There are actually 9 temporary positions from 2003 that are to be converted to permanent in 2004 and one additional | |

| |position. These positions are required to deal with the high level of activity and increased service demands being | |

| |experienced by the department. The reduction of 3 FTE’s is required as part of the administrations approach to meet the | |

| |guideline of a 4% tax levy increase. This results in a net increase of 7 FTE’s. | |

| |It appears that $135,000 is not funded in Planning’s budget for Smart Choices. Will this not compromise the |Planning and |

| |implementation of this initiative? Is it likely that this project will sit on the shelf and collect dust? |Development |

| |The Smart Choices/Intensification Program will be implemented through 2004 upon Council approval of upcoming | |

| |recommendations for developing smart choice implementation strategies. This will demand the leadership and | |

| |participation of department staff on implementation teams through 2004. Dropping $135,000 from the program will mean | |

| |that staff will not be able to act on all the recommendations that may be made by Council although staff will move | |

| |forward as best they can. | |

| |It also appears that both % for art and dollars for urban design principles are not funded. How will the City carry out|Planning and |

| |these two programs without this money? |Development |

| |The “1% for Art” is funded directly by individual capital construction budgets and does not require its own budget. An | |

| |annual management contract is included in Planning and Policy Services Branch operating budget. | |

| | | |

| |Urban design principles project will not proceed without funding. | |

| |Under drainage, the litres of water treated has increased from 2002 to 2003 and are projected to increase in 2004. Will|AM & PW - Drainage |

| |the cost per litre decrease in 2004? What strategies could the City adopt to reduce the litres that need to be treated?| |

| |The cost per litre will not decrease in 2004 because of the increased level of service needed to meet Alberta | |

| |Environment's Approval to Operate, scheduled to take effect June, 2005. Increases in the volume of water treated is due| |

| |to the growth of the City and the impacts of precipitation on flows to the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant. | |

| |Fluctuations in precipitation overshadow the annual increase in flows due to growth. The volume of water treated in | |

| |2002 was related to reduced annual precipitation compared to the long term average. 2003 projections are based on | |

| |projected annual averages which include growth and average precipitation values. | |

| |The long term Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Strategy will increase the overall volumes of wastewater to be treated by | |

| |the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant. Reductions in the volume of wastewater requiring treatment focus directly on | |

| |reductions in water consumption. Strategies to reduce water consumption are implemented by EPCOR Water Services in | |

| |cooperation with Drainage Services. The long term strategy is to redirect Combined Sewer Overflows to the Gold Bar | |

| |Wastewater Plant and provide a higher level of treatment through enhanced primary treatment. This will reduce the | |

| |direct discharge of untreated combined sewer overflows to the North Saskatchewan River, in accordance with directions | |

| |from Alberta Environment. | |

| |Capital Project XX-31-9604 indicates $1,143,000 for stormwater infrastructure. What does this cover? |AM & PW - Drainage |

| |Project XX-31-9604 addresses the need to upgrade the existing storm drainage system throughout the City, as well as | |

| |expand the existing system to service new development areas. Specific projects identified for the next five years are | |

| |aimed at increasing stormwater servicing capacity in the Mill Creek, Fulton Creek and Gold Bar Creek drainage basins in | |

| |support of the Industrial Land Strategy. | |

| |Capital Project XX-75-2501 - Conservation of community/recreation facilities at $15.1 million is unfunded. Could not |AM & PW / Community |

| |some/all of these items fit into the City’s energy conservation revolving fund? |Services |

| |There is a potential for some of the facility conservation needs to be funded from the City's Energy Conservation Fund. | |

| |The Administration is currently conducting a facility audit of pools and arenas to determine the scope of refurbishment | |

| |needs for these facilities that could be funded from this source, based on the requirement that the project costs must | |

| |be recoverable from energy savings within 8 years or less. | |

| |XX-75-3511 Century Place is funded in 2004 at $635,000. What is covered by this? If this was not funded, what would be|AM & PW |

| |the impacts? | |

| |These funds are required to complete the accommodation fit-up of the 7th floor of Century Place in 2004,where asbestos | |

| |removal is currently being undertaken; and in 2004 will also fund asbestos removal on the 11th floor. This work is | |

| |scheduled as part of the asbestos removal and accommodation stacking plan for this building to meet the operational | |

| |space requirements of departments housed in Century Place. If this project is not funded, the operational needs of | |

| |departments will not be met and the 7th floor cannot be used until the new mechanical and electrical systems are | |

| |installed together with the architectural fit-up for office use. | |

| |Project XX-21-5380 shows $2 million unfunded for parks redevelopment. Does this add to the City’s infrastructure gap? |Community Services |

| |What is the current gap for parks redevelopment? | |

| |Yes, this is included as part of the City’s Infrastructure Gap. Project XX-21-5380 outlines an additional need for | |

| |$5.431 million for the period of 2005 – 2008 for a total of $7.431 million. The current gap for all parks | |

| |redevelopment/rehabilitation over the five year CPP is $25.6 million. | |

| |The Enterprise Portfolio of Community Services includes a projected natural gas price increase of 30%. If there are gas|Community Services |

| |rebates, would these come to the Portfolio? What if increases are only 10%? | |

| |In the past, specific utility rebate or refund situations were addressed through a corporate decision; in some cases the| |

| |benefit went to the Portfolio and in others, the Corporation retained it. The Portfolio Fiscal Policy would be a | |

| |consideration for future decisions. | |

| |The 2004 increase to the natural gas budget is based upon 2003 actuals greatly exceeding 2003 approved budget due to the| |

| |high price levels experienced since the 2003 budget was set. Any further increases to natural gas prices in 2004 will | |

| |further compound the problem. | |

| |Under the corporate expenditure budget, financial strategies are projected to increase from $2.3 million to $6.3 |Finance |

| |million. What is driving this very large increase? | |

| |The Financial Strategies budget is the general contingency amount for all city operations. It includes funding to | |

| |offset potential risks of higher than budgeted inflation costs (e.g. insurance) and program costs (e.g. unsettled | |

| |personnel contracts). Further details can be provided to Council in-camera. | |

| |Also, under corporate expenditures, risk management is projected to increase from $4.89 million to $6.4 million. What |Corporate Services |

| |is driving this larger increase? | |

| |Risk Management expenses relate solely to the City’s insurance premiums and claims costs. At the recommendation of the | |

| |City’s insurance broker, we have projected a 20% increase in the cost of insurance premiums in 2004 (approximately | |

| |$900,000). In 2004, the City will begin to phase in budgeting for claims reserves – reasonable estimates of the final | |

| |cost of claims in future years. By setting aside these funds we smooth out the impact of future payments. In 2004 the | |

| |budget is $600,000. | |

| |On page 305/306 of volume II, I would like to know the number of non-single-family residential development that took |Planning and |

| |place in 2002 and 2003 and how much of this took place in the central core of the city? Also, what are the projections |Development |

| |for 2004? | |

| |In 2002, 708 permits were issued for 3,965 new non-single-family residential units throughout the city. Total value of | |

| |this construction was $302 million. In the Downtown, 29 permits were issued for 584 units with a construction value of | |

| |$50 million. | |

| |In the first three quarters of 2003 (January 1 – September 30), 568 permits were issued for 3,154 new non-single-family | |

| |residential units throughout the city. Total value of this construction was $205 million. In the Downtown, 18 permits | |

| |were issued for 465 units with a construction value of $32 million. | |

| |We do not produce forecasts for non-single-family residential units, however, we do expect that the number of new units | |

| |constructed will remain near current levels for 2004. | |

| |The Capital Project 105-107 Ave Downtown Edge Infrastructure Program is unfunded in Planning’s budget. Would the |Planning and |

| |completion of this program assist the City in leveraging the development and cost-sharing with developers of parks, |Development |

| |sidewalks, etc. in this area? | |

| |Yes, this project could assist the City in leveraging the development and cost sharing with developers of the provision | |

| |of badly needed parks, sidewalks and streetscapes and other amenities. | |

| |This project will facilitate private sector development and it will bring new and enhanced property tax revenue to the | |

| |City. | |

| |There are general infrastructure deficiencies in the subject area and this project will address the development | |

| |pressures from the private sector for residential and commercial developments through partnerships. This project was | |

| |first submitted to Council for approval in October 2002. To date, the Department has not received any funding for this | |

| |project. | |

| |The transit budget identifies 2.9 FTEs for increased security. What is the history of security positions in Transit |Transportation and |

| |over the past five years? Did Council reduce security persons in the past? Will these new positions cover transit |Streets - Transit |

| |centres like Northgate and Kingsway? | |

| |1999 to 2001 – no increases. | |

| | | |

| |2002 – Increase 0.7 FTE for a second night security controller to help with the volume of calls into the control centre.| |

| | | |

| |2003 – Annualized the FTE from 2002 to make it a full time position (added the 0.3). Increase 1 FTE for parking lot | |

| |patrol. Increase 1 FTE for night controller for the additional monitoring of the vaults from the divisions (24 hour | |

| |coverage in the security control centre). | |

| | | |

| |The distribution of funding allotted to security initiatives will be finalized based on the Security Review currently | |

| |underway. Changes to the cash handling procedures are included as per their initial recommendations. 2.9 FTE’s were | |

| |included in anticipation of the need for additional resources in 2004. Increased patrol requirements will be addressed| |

| |using Special Duty Constables from EPS. Changes to staffing and their assignment will be finalized following the review| |

| |of the final recommendations. | |

| |With the increase funding for DATS, what under the “modified” DATS plan is funded, what is not? What has the demand for|Transportation and |

| |rides been in 2002 and 2003? What is projected for 2004? How many rides will we deliver in 2004 and what % is that of |Streets - Transit |

| |the total request? | |

| |The submitted DATS budget includes funding for the phasing-in of the DATS hybrid model (e.g. relief pool drivers). It | |

| |does not include funding for full implementation of the DATS Review Policy Consideration recommendations (i.e. fund | |

| |raising, name change, ETS operator training), increased number of trips for customers, or full implementation of the new| |

| |business model (requires dedicated capital funding for vehicle acquisition and associated operating costs). | |

| | | |

| |DATS provided 829,239 trips in 2002 and the 2003 year end projection is 843,500 trips. The 2002 trip refusal rate was | |

| |approximately 1.0% as compared to the October 2003 YTD of 1.3%. The DATS trip refusal rates compare to the 2002 | |

| |Canadian average of 2.2% for systems operating in communities with a population greater than 150,000. In 2002, DATS | |

| |provided 83.47 trips per registrant as compared to the Canadian average of 57.16 for larger communities. | |

| | | |

| |The 2004 submitted budget proposes a budgeted trip volume of 916,000 trips or 80% of the projected demand of 1,155,000 | |

| |trips. This trip projection is based on analysis undertaken for the 1994 DATS Strategic Plan, and does not reflect new | |

| |population and demographic data, and the impact of ETS accessible service improvements and changes to DATS eligibility | |

| |process on the level of demand for DATS service. ETS administration proposes to update demand projections in 2004. | |

| |For Hall D, has the City done a recent assessment of costs and benefits? With projections of growing deficits in |EDE |

| |running the Shaw, has the City reviewed whether Hall D will increase these deficits, and if so, what are the | |

| |projections? | |

| |In the first full year of operation, the expansion related to Hall D will result in additional economic activity in | |

| |Edmonton of about $10 million. In addition, the operation of Hall D is estimated to generate a minimum $150 (ie. $150 | |

| |thousand) of additional operational cash flow, which will help in offsetting the existing deficit. Many of our lost | |

| |convention accounts would cite the inability of SCC to accommodate their exhibits plus their plenary sessions and | |

| |wind-up banquets. Hall D will be used most often for plenary sessions and banquets and for that reason will be able to| |

| |support itself. | |

| |Are there any plans in place for covering the 2003 deficit for the Shaw Conference Centre? | EDE |

| |This is subject to finalization of year-end numbers. EDE is in discussions with City Administration on this matter to | |

| |explore funding alternatives. Once these discussions are complete, in the early part of 2004, EDE and City | |

| |Administration will present to Council a joint recommendation on funding of this deficit. | |

| |What would be the impact if Council waited until mid-late 2004 to review 2004 Shaw deficits at that time? |EDE |

| |EDE has formally requested funding for the anticipated deficit for the Shaw Conference Centre for fiscal 2004 in the | |

| |“Service Package”. City Administration has recommended that this be funded through the “9-11 Funding”. | |

| | | |

| |Management of SCC needs to know whether City Council agrees with this incremental funding requirement of SCC for 2004. | |

| |The approval or non-approval, or the delay in dealing with this funding request, will drive the business plan for SCC | |

| |for 2004. Non-approval or deferment of the funding request will result in significant cutbacks to the SCC operations | |

| |until such time as the funding issue has been dealt with. Even if there is a deferment of this decision to a future | |

| |date, management of SCC must cutback expenses immediately in order to be financially responsible (for example, if | |

| |management does not cutback expenses in the hopes of being funded by mid-year, and if in fact council at that time | |

| |decides to not provide the financing, then SCC’s financial problem will be that much greater and more difficult to | |

| |resolve). The expense reductions that will be imposed on the organization, should funding not be available, will result| |

| |in immediate service delivery impairments to the customers of SCC and have negative long-term consequences in terms of | |

| |future revenue streams from customers. | |

| |What is the total amount of dollars that EDE is requesting from the City for 2004 (excluding Hall D)? What was provided|EDE |

| |for 2003 and what was the breakdown of the funds provided? In looking at administrative costs of EDE, including Shaw, | |

| |are they not quite high? | |

| |In 2003 the City provided $6,439 of tax levy funding (compared to the budget request in 2004 of $7,072). This | |

| |represents a 4% increase in base funding plus $375 for additional rental costs due to EDE relocating to the World Trade | |

| |Centre. | |

| | | |

| |In addition, in 2003 the City provided $500 of additional funding for the continued operation of the “Greater Edmonton | |

| |Competitiveness Strategy”. EDE has requested the same amount for 2004. This program was presented to council in prior | |

| |years indicating that it would be a $6 million program over three years (now five), of which 50% would be funded by the | |

| |City of Edmonton and the balance split between Western Economic Diversification and the private sector community. This | |

| |program will be 2/3 complete at the end of 2004. | |

| | | |

| |The Shaw Conference Centre has requested additional funding for 2004 in the amount of $971 to offset the deficit that is| |

| |anticipated to be incurred. There is also an unfunded deficit in 2003 in the amount of $900 which is currently being | |

| |reviewed by EDE and City Administration. | |

| | | |

| |Corporate Administrative Costs: Corporate related administrative expenses are anticipated to be about the same in 2004 | |

| |compared to 2003 except for rent in the amount of $375,000 which is a new item for EDE as a result of the relocation of | |

| |its offices to the World Trade Centre. EDE has centralized its corporate services department in 2003, which enhances | |

| |its financial management. These costs relate to accounting, information system technology, rent, telephone, | |

| |photocopying, stationary, postage, corporate communications, executive support and human resources. It is the belief of| |

| |management that these are the necessary minimum expenditures necessary to support the program operations for tourism, | |

| |economic development, Edmonton Research Park, externally funded programs and the Shaw Conference Centre. | |

| | | |

| |SCC Administrative Costs: The 2004 budget for SCC direct administrative costs are expected to be about the same as | |

| |2003. Although these costs are called administration, they include security at the Shaw Conference Centre, marketing | |

| |and sales related costs, and client support costs. These costs are directly related to operational support and are | |

| |classified as “administrative” more to isolate fixed related expenditures of the conference centre for management | |

| |planning purposes. The more traditionally related “Administrative Costs” are all captured in the “Corporate | |

| |Administrative Costs” outlined above. | |

-----------------------

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

................
................