Report for City Council December 9, 2002 meeting.
ATTACHMENT 1
2003
BUDGET
RESPONSES TO
COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
[pic]
Index of Questions
Page
Councillor R. Hayter 1
Councillor M. Phair 2
Councillor B. Anderson 12
Councillor A. Bolstad 15
Mayor B. Smith 18
Councillor K. Leibovici 23
Councillor D. Thiele 58
Councillor S. Mandel 66
ATTACHMENTS 84
CITY OF EDMONTON
2003 BUDGET
Written Questions from Mayor and Councillors to November 21, 2002
|Councillor R. Hayter: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |What is the exact number of new civic staff hired in 2002 and what has been the financial impact, in dollar terms, of |Finance |
| |this increase, including salaries and benefits? Why couldn’t these individuals have been hired on a casual or contract | |
| |basis to avoid the extra costs involved in giving them committed civic positions? | |
| |The need for new staff is largely driven by the rapid growth of the Edmonton area over the last several years and the | |
| |resultant increase in demands for services to the increasing population. In 2002, a total of 201 new FTEs were hired, | |
| |at an annualized cost of $10.2 million including salaries and benefits. The majority of these positions were hired on a| |
| |permanent basis. Casual or contract positions are used where appropriate depending on the workload (e.g. to meet | |
| |seasonal peaks), type of position (e.g. articling law student) and if it is cost justified (i.e. less expensive than | |
| |hiring permanent). In several cases, such as police officers, DATS operators, transit operators, paramedics and | |
| |firefighters, the positions can only be filled on a permanent basis due to contract requirements. In several instances,| |
| |the use of contract staff would in fact be more costly than in-house staff, such as systems analysts. It is important | |
| |to note also that in a competitive marketplace for staff, such as exists in Alberta, potential employees are seeking | |
| |jobs that offer security and reasonable benefits. There is also an issue around staff knowledge and expertise which can| |
| |only be gained through experience and is critical to efficiently and effectively deliver services to citizens. (See | |
| |Table Attachment for a listing of positions hired.) | |
| |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? | |
| |A breakdown of the resource distribution is provided in Volume 1, pages 51 to 53, covering tax-supported operations as | |
| |well as municipal enterprises and utility operations. A summary for tax-supported operations is at the top of page 53. | |
| |The percentage of benefits to full time employee remuneration varys depending on the type of position and individual | |
| |employee attributes (e.g. married versus single). On a global basis, for all tax-supported operations, benefits are | |
| |approximately 18% of full time employee remuneration. | |
| |What is the total impact of the proposed budget on an individual homeowner, in dollar and percentage terms taking into |Finance |
| |consideration property taxes, user fees, debt changes and other levies? | |
| |A summary table of the impact on the homeowner is found on page 13 of Volume 1. | |
| |Would EDE provide statistics on how much other large cities are spending on tourism promotion such as Calgary, Winnipeg,|EDE |
| |Vancouver, etc.? | |
| |Montreal: 16.6 Ottawa: 3.7 | |
| |Vancouver: 11.0 L'Outaouais (Hull): 3.3 | |
| |Quebec City: 9.9 Victoria: 2.5 | |
| |Toronto: 8.0 Winnipeg: 1.9 | |
| |Calgary: 6.2 Banff: 1.4 | |
| |Whistler: 6.0 Edmonton: 1.4 | |
| |Niagara: 4.0 Regina & Saskatoon: 1.1 | |
|Councillor M. Phair: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |Over the past five or six years, what has the contribution from the City been to the Library operating base budget? In |Library |
| |reviewing the operating budget, how much or what percentage goes to materials and goods as opposed to wages? In | |
| |relation to other departments/authorities/programs, is this high? | |
| |The contribution (tax levy) from the City to the Library operating budget has been as follows: | |
| |(000’s) | |
| |1998 - $15,304 | |
| |1999 - $16,280 | |
| |2000 - $17,420 (opening of Riverbend Branch) | |
| |2001 - $18,560 | |
| |2002 - $19,590 | |
| |In 2002, 62.8% of the Library's expenditures has been allocated to salaries, wages and benefits. Materials, goods and | |
| |supplies constitute 21.5% of the Library's expenditures. The Library's percentage in this category is the highest of | |
| |all tax-supported programs. However, included in this total is $3.7 million for library materials, which constitutes | |
| |over 73% of the materials, goods and supplies category. | |
| |The police have identified significant expenditure savings in 2002 as part of the closing the gap program. Please |Police |
| |briefly outline these savings. | |
| |Incorporated into the 2003 Recommended Budget is $1.818 million of Expenditure and Revenue Review savings consisting of:| |
| | | |
| |$600,000 - Savings from the reduction in vacation liability as a result of management action to reduce excess vacation | |
| |balance. | |
| |$132,000 - Reduction of one superintendent position by streamlining functions through an internal Core Services Review. | |
| |$500,000 – Salary savings from the secondment of personnel to external partners and agencies, such as UN peacekeeping | |
| |missions. | |
| |$190,000 – Reduction of temporary staff budgets in various areas of the Service. | |
| |$396,000 – Volume increases in revenues from security clearance fees and Police Seized Vehicle Tow Lot operations. | |
| |Transportation has identified a $430,000 savings due to the ‘fuel sense’ program. Please indicate where those savings |Transportation |
| |have been achieved, are they sustainable and will additional savings take place in 2003. | |
| |The Fuel Sense program is only a portion of the $430K efficiency identified for the 2003 Recommended Budget. Included | |
| |in this efficiency is $200K achieved through Fuel Sense program, $200K achieved through more fuel efficient engines and | |
| |$30K achieved through a revised idling policy in warmer weather. | |
| |If the fuel sense training program is successful, these savings will be sustainable. The savings for efficient engines | |
| |are achieved on the 2003 base. Further savings may be realized in future years and would be identified in the Budget | |
| |Planning Process. | |
| |EDE’s budget proposal for 2003 requests $750,000 for its competitive strategy. I would like information on the |EDE |
| |$1,000,000 in 2002, as to how it was spent, and outcomes achieved and what the focus and outcomes will be for the | |
| |$750,000 in 2003. | |
| |EDE is planning to outline both the 2002 and 2003 competitive strategy work plan and outcomes at the Quarterly | |
| |Shareholders Meeting on Friday, November 29th, 2002 at 8:00 a.m. | |
| |To the City Administration, what would be the impact of not re-building EDE’s reserve? Would there be a significant |EDE / Finance |
| |impact if the reserve was replenished over four years beginning in 2004. | |
| |The impact of not rebuilding the two reserve funds would be as follows: | |
| |The Events Legacy Fund ($750,000) – if this were not rebuilt, it would restrict EDE’s ability to fund the preparation of| |
| |bids for attracting future sporting and cultural events to the City. | |
| |The Shaw Conference Centre Fund – if this were not rebuilt, the Conference Centre would have to operate without the | |
| |ability to draw on a fund in the event of unusual circumstances in any particular year, either to cover special or | |
| |extraordinary costs or loss of business. | |
| |Both funds could be rebuilt over several years but it could create cash flow management problems for EDE as the reserve | |
| |funds are used as a source of day-to-day working capital. | |
| |If the Police Services did not operate the helicopter, what would happen to the officers who now operate it? |Police |
| |If the EPS did not operate the helicopter, officers currently assigned to the Unit would return to patrol or other | |
| |functions (as they were before Air-1s implementation), depending on organizational need. | |
| |It was reported that there is an increase in crime in Edmonton. I would like to know if the increase is the same, more,|Police |
| |or less than the population increase in the city. Earlier in 2002, Police reported that crimes were down except for | |
| |theft and other criminal code offenses. Has there been a significant change and if so any suggestions as to why the | |
| |change has taken place over the past few months? | |
| |Based on population statistics provided by the City of Edmonton Planning Department, Edmonton has experienced a 6.46% | |
| |increase while the Edmonton CMA has grown by 8.72% since 1998. | |
| |Over the past five years, the total number of Criminal Code offences investigated by police have increased by 11 per | |
| |cent (Note: this is not the same as the crime rate). | |
| |In general terms, the following trends have emerged over the past five years: | |
| |Youth crime offences have plateaued | |
| |Violent crime offences have decreased | |
| |Property crime offences have increased | |
| |All other Criminal Code offences have increased – however, increases in this category often reflect increased police | |
| |activity: the more we do, the more criminal offences are discovered and reported. Also, in some cases, offences that | |
| |were once deemed non-criminal by Statistics Canada are now deemed criminal, and these changes have an effect on the | |
| |number of offences reported. | |
| |In the graph showing a comparison of municipal taxes for major Canadian cities, Edmonton was ranked sixth lowest. If |Finance |
| |Edmonton raised its taxes by 10%, where would it rate? | |
| |Assuming the other municipalities did not raise their taxes and Edmonton raised taxes by 10%, Edmonton would move one | |
| |spot higher in the comparison, i.e. it would rank 7th lowest instead of 6th lowest. | |
| |Currently what is the City’s payment for 2002 tax related debt? If we do not borrow, what will it be in 2003? What |Finance |
| |percentage of the City’s expenditure is this payment for debt? | |
| |The City's 2002 debt service payment totals $18.4 million which is composed of $15.3 in principal and $3.1 million in | |
| |interest. Excluding any new borrowings, the tax-supported debt service payment for 2003 will be $18.4 million comprised | |
| |of $16.7 million in principal and $1.7 million in interest. | |
| |The 2003 tax-supported debt service payment is approximately 1.75% of the total operating budget ($1,046 million). | |
| |For 2003, what was the amount of funds available corporately for the City departments and agencies? What is the proposed|Finance |
| |division of dollars (not percentage) that goes to each department and agency? | |
| |The total amount of funding available for allocation to authorities, civic programs and corporate programs is | |
| |$25,889,000. This is made up of $24,697,000 from the rate and growth increase in tax revenue, plus the $1,192,000 that | |
| |is freed up from 2002 one-time items. | |
| |The table attached provides the dollar amount each entity received as well as the proportion of the total $25,889,000. | |
| |The removal of Storm Drainage from the tax levy is a base adjustment which ultimately is netted against the increase in | |
| |tax revenues, thus causing a net increase to taxes of only $12,697,000. However, this does not affect the allocation | |
| |amount of $25,889,000 to the authorities, civic programs and corporate programs. | |
| |The City has grown by about 10,000 people in the past year – which is comparable to adding a ‘Camrose.’ What is the |Finance |
| |annual budget of Camrose, or similar size city? | |
| |The 2002 Operating Budget for the City of Camrose is as follows: | |
| | | |
| |Expenditure = $24,290,290 | |
| |Revenue = $14,612,990 | |
| |Tax Levy = $9,677,300 | |
| |Under Administration’s proposed budget, how many additional police officers would be added to the service? |Police |
| |At the 2003 budget level proposed by the City, no additional police officers would be added to the Service. Instead, 36 | |
| |of the estimated 47 police positions vacated by attrition throughout 2003, would not be funded. However, three positions| |
| |have been added from the Closing the Gap – Revenue and Expenditure Review. For further details on position changes, | |
| |please refer to table attachment to Councilor Leibovici’s question #161. | |
| |The proposed budget listed four capital projects for borrowing. If any of these were rejected by Council, does |Finance |
| |Administration have another two or three ‘recommended’ projects? | |
| |If City Council chooses not to proceed with any of the four recommended tax-supported debt projects they could consider | |
| |any of the following projects for the 2003 Budget: | |
| |[pic] | |
| | | |
| |The above noted projects are those that can be started in 2003 and are listed in order of dollar magnitude. Refer to | |
| |page 62 of the 2003 Budget (Volume 1) for a complete list of projects. The Convention Centre Hall D development project | |
| |is not listed above since it is pending partnership funding from the Federal and Provincial governments. A report will | |
| |be brought forward once funding has been secured. Also refer to the response to question #60. | |
| |On page 54 of Volume 1, Full-time Equivalents, the total column at the bottom shows figures of 39.5, 105.2 and (15.2). |Finance |
| |How was a final figure of FTE’s arrived at for 2003? | |
| |Full-time equivalents (Ftes) increase by a total of 129.5 in the 2003 Budget. The 39.5 Ftes that result from | |
| |annualization are funded from corporate sources, e.g., additional tax revenue. The 105.2 ftes which result from service| |
| |changes are funded for the most part from the results of the Expenditure and Revenue Review process. In some cases, for| |
| |example, the opening of the expanded Londonderry Leisure Centre, there are new ftes funded from additional revenue. | |
| |There is a net reduction of 15.2 ftes resulting from other changes in the 2003 Budget. In the case of the Police | |
| |Service and the Public Library, fte reductions were made in order to fund other activities. In the case of civic | |
| |programs, basically, fte changes relate to ongoing activities. In some cases activity has increased, while in other | |
| |cases, activity has decreased. | |
| |FTE’s | |
| |39.5 Annualization - | |
| |2003 Services – | |
| |Other changes | |
| |129.5 Total | |
| |In reviewing all the changes to fees on pages 56/57 in Volume 1, would it be accurate to estimate that the amount of |Finance |
| |revenue from fees for 2003 will increase by 3%? | |
| |The amount of revenue from fees will increase by 4.8% in total. Rate increases contribute 2.1%, volume increases | |
| |contribute 1.6% and revenue generated by the Expenditure and Revenue Review will contribute 1.1%. | |
| |Page 70 of Volume 1 describes incremented general financing available for capital projects and allocation to capital |Finance |
| |projects. What is the $2.9M debt program? Are both the $14.1M and the allocations under 2 in Administration’s | |
| |recommended budget? | |
| |Part 1 | |
| |As part of the 2003 Budget Guidelines, a 1% tax increase was included in the recommended budget to address new debt | |
| |service costs (principal and interest) associated with a $50 million borrowing. Since the timing of the borrowing is | |
| |planned to occur over the next three years, a part of the 1% tax increase will not be used for debt service costs in | |
| |2003 (see below). | |
| | | |
| |1% Tax increase for 2003 $ 4.5 million | |
| |Estimated Debt service costs for 2003 $(1.6) million | |
| |Funding Added to 2003 General | |
| |Financing Pool $ 2.9 million | |
| | | |
| |As a result, $2.9 million in funding will be added to the 2003 General Financing pool for allocation to priority capital| |
| |projects as outlined on page 70 of the 2003 Budget Summary (Volume 1). Some funding flexibility has also been retained | |
| |to permit the staged implementation of Hall D. | |
| |This approach is consistent with what was presented to City Council in the 2003-12 Long Range Financial Plan and the | |
| |Debt Management Fiscal Policy. | |
| |Part 2 | |
| |The $14.1 million in incremental General Financing and allocations to capital projects are incorporated in the 2003 | |
| |recommended budget. | |
| |In 2003 Unfunded Service Needs (so items below the line), please explain Industrial Statutory Plans and if this item |Planning & Dev. |
| |relates to the industrial strategy implementation that Council recently approved. | |
| |Yes, the Industrial Land Strategy includes an initiative for the implementation of a planning program for Edmonton’s | |
| |industrial areas involving the preparation of “integrated plans for land use, infrastructure and services, with | |
| |associated funding provisions.” The preparation of Industrial Statutory Plans for individual industrial areas will be | |
| |the planning mechanism to achieve the objectives of this initiative. The first plan in this regard will be an | |
| |Industrial Statutory Plan for Pylypow Industrial located west of 50 Street and north of Whitemud Drive. The preparation| |
| |of this Plan has been initiated and will be completed in early 2003. Plans for other industrial areas will follow | |
| |depending upon funding. | |
| |In 2003 Unfunded Service Needs, under Transportation and Streets, there are 4 unfunded DATS items. Do these 4 items |Transportation |
| |relate to Council’s recent decisions regarding the reorganization of the DATS service? | |
| |Of the four 2003 unfunded DATS packages, three packages contain funding requirements related to City Council’s approval | |
| |of the DATS Review – Policy Considerations on July 2, 2002, and the DATS Business Model on October 1/2, 2002. The “DATS| |
| |Review – Policy Considerations” contains an unfunded $826K (4.0 FTE) of the Council approved recommendations. “DATS | |
| |Service and Support Improvements and Same Day (Demand) trip Bookings and Optimization” includes further elements of the | |
| |Policy Considerations and Business Model recommendations related to driver supervision, service provision to customers, | |
| |and taxi coupon program – total estimated tax levy for these three components is $655K (9.0 FTE). | |
| |In the 2003 Unfunded Service Needs, under Police Services, are the FTE costs related to Resources for Front Line |Police Service |
| |Policing, South Division Transition Plan, Resources for Investigation, and Resources for Organizational Capacity only | |
| |for 6 months? What would be the annualized cost of these items? | |
| |See tables attachment. | |
| |Yes, the FTE costs related to the 2003 Unfunded Service Needs for the EPS are only for six months. It is the City of | |
| |Edmonton’s accepted budgeting practice to incorporate the time lag that will normally occur before positions are filled.| |
| |If funding were provided for an entire year in the first year for a new position, the total budget would be overstated. | |
| |On page 113 of Volume 2 (Community Services), the operating budget shows a reduction of $495,000. Please explain this |Community Services |
| |reduction. | |
| |The $495,000 reduction is the financial reduction target for the Greater Edmonton Foundation (GEF) approved by City | |
| |Council July 21, 2001. The reduction is the amount by which the City contribution to the GEF will be reduced from $3.7 | |
| |million in 2002 to $3.2 million in 2003. | |
| |On page 117 of Volume 2 (Community Services), the capital budget points out that not funding $26,168,000 over the next |Community Services |
| |five years results in lost opportunities for housing. Please explain what these opportunities are. | |
| |$25.668 million of the $26.168 million is to partner with the Canada-Alberta Affordable Housing Program (Unfunded | |
| |Project XX-21-5519 Page 199 Vol. 4). The remainder is for Skateboard Parks. | |
| | | |
| |The 2003 capital budget submission includes a funded project (XX-21-5520 Page 194 | |
| |Vol. 4) for $13.332 million (2004-2007) to build 268 affordable housing units. The overall reduced level of funding | |
| |(2003-2007) means that 512 units (unfunded) of new affordable housing will not be available. This shortfall in new | |
| |affordable housing units is the lost opportunities for housing. | |
| |For 2003 are any funds recommended for skateboard parks? Without additional money from the City what are the |Community Services |
| |expectations for both temporary and permanent skateboard parks for 2003? Are there community groups with money waiting | |
| |for City funds to proceed with skateboard parks in 2003? | |
| |The Community Services Department has identified Skateboard Parks as a priority unfunded item. There are two projects | |
| |waiting 2003 funding: Castledowns Skatepark (NW) and Kaskitayo Skatepark (SW). These community groups will need City | |
| |funds to proceed with development in 2003. The only other Skateboard Park project that has entered the early planning | |
| |stages is in Southeast Edmonton (2004 at the earliest). | |
| | | |
| |The Temporary Skateboard Park Program will not be impacted by these 2003 funds as this community co-sponsorship | |
| |opportunity is part of the Summer Program budget. | |
| |The 2003 Planning and Development Department budget includes 9 FTEs as temporary staff and is covered by increased |Planning & Dev. |
| |revenues. If the increased demand remains and revenues increase, will the Department consider extending these positions| |
| |for a second year? | |
| |The 2003 budget proposal to include 9 temporary positions within Development Compliance Branch recognizes a business | |
| |volume forecast that is higher than longer term trends. Consequently the budget proposal recommends temporary staff. | |
| |The 2004 budget proposal will be based on a new forecast and it may justify proposing some of the temporary positions as| |
| |permanent positions, continuing them as temporary, or adjusting back to core levels. | |
| |When was the Queen Mary Park Neighbourhood Improvement Plan completed? What are the major components of this plan? |Planning & Dev. |
| |What was the timeline for this project? Was it considered for borrowing? | |
| |The original Queen Mary Park Area Redevelopment Plan was prepared in 1985. In 1997, “Central McDougall/Queen Mary Park | |
| |Area Redevelopment Plan” was prepared, which replaced both the 1982 Plan for Central McDougall and the 1985 Plan for | |
| |Queen Mary Park. | |
| | | |
| |The major components of the 1997 Plan as it relates to Queen Mary Park neighbourhood are: | |
| |Construct new family-oriented housing on the Prince of Wales Armoury site; | |
| |Support opportunities for new medium density housing in the industrial area in Queen Mary Park; | |
| |Acquire two small parks south of 107 Avenue; | |
| |Revitalize the 107 Avenue commercial strip; and | |
| |a number of recommendations regarding crime and safety, community development, transportation and other infrastructure | |
| |improvements. | |
| |A Capital Budget Project, Queen Mary Park Neighbourhood Infrastructure Program is submitted in the Capital Budget | |
| |(Project # 03-17-0328 on Page 383, Volume 4). The proposed time line for this project is for design in 2003/04 and | |
| |construction in 2005/06. This project was reviewed and considered for borrowing but was rejected and remains unfunded. | |
| |For 2003 what downtown improvement projects are recommended for funding and which are below the line? |Planning & Dev. |
| |Project #97-17-0313 – Capital City Downtown Plan, is currently funded ($447K) for parkland acquisition in the downtown | |
| |area. There are three other capital projects recommended for funding in 2003: Project #00-17-0313 - Capital City | |
| |Downtown Plan multi-use corridor land acquisition ($150K), project #00-17-0319 - Rice Howard Way Extension ($130K), and | |
| |project #01-17-0324 - Artists Work / Live Housing ($173K). | |
| |The following two capital projects are unfunded, 03-17-0332 - Downtown East Pedway Connection ($200K), and 01-17-1313 - | |
| |Capital City Downtown Plan Capital Budget ($3,980K). | |
| |The following downtown-related operating budget service packages fall below the line in 2003: Capital City Downtown | |
| |Plan Operating Budget ($375K), Downtown Plan Initiatives Program ($1,500K). In regard to a street level façade | |
| |improvement program for small businesses, at the City Council meeting on November 26, 2002, City Council recommended: | |
| |“That Administration bring forward projects up to $250,000 for consideration in the budget process.” | |
| |A list of projects cannot be provided because the City cannot execute agreements under this policy until a budget has | |
| |been approved. However, in the context in which the recommendation was made, some indication was given that, as a pilot| |
| |project, $250,000 would be an appropriate budget amount to allocate for this program given the level of interest shown | |
| |within the business community. Further study by the Planning and Development Department suggests that the budget amount| |
| |is appropriate given the number of facades in the targeted area and the projected value of possible projects. If the | |
| |budget is approved, applications under the policy would be accepted and projects would be approved by the Administration| |
| |on a first come first serve basis (as per the approved Policy) until the budgeted funds are exhausted. | |
| |On page 225 of Volume 2, Emergency Response indicates that $2.3 Million service issues cannot be met. How is this $2.3 |Emergency Response |
| |Million divided between fire and ambulance? How many FTEs is this for each of the branches? How many FTEs does fire | |
| |need to eliminate over time? | |
| |The $2.3 million is divided between fire and ambulance as shown in this table: | |
| |Area $’s FTEs | |
| |Emergency Medical Services $1,067,000 11 | |
| |Fire Rescue Services $1,185,000 14 | |
| |Fire Rescue Services needs 8 of the 14 noted FTEs to bring overtime expenditure down to budgeted levels. These 8 FTEs | |
| |represent the last phase in the three-year program designed to bring overtime down to budgeted levels. When the | |
| |three-year program was initiated, overtime was costing Fire Rescue $2.3 million. Overtime cannot be eliminated, as | |
| |overtime availability is required in order to ensure full staffing of every shift on every platoon irrespective of | |
| |unforeseen absences of scheduled staff. If the 8 FTEs were made available, then, upon completion of this overtime | |
| |reduction program, overtime expenditures will be reduced to the budget amount of $835,000 required for the flexibility | |
| |to maintain service levels. | |
| |It appears that one additional ambulance and staff is unfunded. Why is this needed and what is the impact of not having|Emergency Response |
| |this additional service? | |
| |The additional ambulance and staff is required in order to maintain current service levels. EMS anticipates an increase| |
| |in demand for its services from an estimated 53,895 trips in 2002 to a projected 56,253 trips in 2003 - an anticipated | |
| |increase of 4.375%. Without the additional support provided by this ambulance and staff, EMS projects to experience a | |
| |deterioration of response times in the order of 3% to 5% from current levels. | |
| |Is the Office of Emergency Preparedness receiving any federal or provincial dollars for staffing costs? |Emergency Response |
| |The Office of Emergency Preparedness is not receiving any Federal or Provincial Government funding for staffing costs. | |
| |Approximately $600,000 is being provided from the Federal and Provincial Governments in 2003 to purchase Chemical, | |
| |Biological, Radiological and Nuclear response related equipment for Fire Rescue Services, EMS and Edmonton Police | |
| |Service. | |
| |On page 376 (Transportation), it is stated that winter roads program is not fully funded. What is the recommended |Transportation |
| |funding for 2003? How much is the gap? What were the expenditures for 2002 and 2001? | |
| |The winter road program has been over expended every year since 1989 except for 2000 and 2001 due to abnormally warm | |
| |weather and reduced snowfall. A fully funded snow budget for a normal winter was estimated to be approximately $22.04 | |
| |million in 2001. In 1999 the Corporate Long Range Financial Plan identified a $1.0 million per year increase over five | |
| |years to bring this program to a fully funded level. Proposed funding for 2003 is $20.304 million leaving a gap of | |
| |$1.736 million; the $0.5 million identified in the 2003-2005 service package was deferred. In a year with unusual | |
| |weather conditions, a budget shortfall could be met by year end positive variances from within the department or | |
| |corporately, or by drawing from the Financial Stabilization Reserve. The separate snow reserve of $7.6 million will be| |
| |amalgamated into the Financial Stabilization Reserve as at December 31, 2002. | |
| |Winter Road Program | |
| |(in thousands of dollars) | |
| |Year Budget Actual | |
| |1994 15,658 25,942 | |
| |1995 15,631 16,975 | |
| |1996 14,252 23,221 | |
| |1997 14,334 16,452 | |
| |1998 15,565 15,852 | |
| |1999 16,067 24,587 | |
| |2000 17,300 16,355 | |
| |2001 18,617 15,088 | |
| |2002 20,158 14,510 Year to Date (Oct 31) | |
| |Page 377 shows $200,000 efficiency in snow removal. Please describe what was done to achieve this saving. |Transportation |
| |In an effort to reduce snow clearing costs, the effect and related efficiency of utilizing our own city multi functional| |
| |sander plows in certain plowing circumstances will delay the utilization of hired graders, therefore saving the costs | |
| |associated with this external resource. This is achieved by productivity of trucks vs. graders. | |
| |Can Transit briefly explain the difference between the post-secondary and restricted school monthly passes? |Transportation |
| |Post Secondary Passes are Adult Passes sold to students attending a post secondary institute at a discounted rate. | |
| |These are sold through a limited number of outlets at the price set by ETS. | |
| | | |
| |Restricted School monthly passes are sold to the School Boards, who in turn subsidize the price to the student with a | |
| |grant they receive from the Province. The subsidized passes are only sold through the schools. These passes currently | |
| |are valid only on weekdays. | |
| |In general, Transit is not being extended to new suburban areas. What would the top five to seven areas be if service |Transportation |
| |were extended? | |
| |Top priorities for new service (areas with no service or service in limited time periods) are: | |
| |Peaks - Haddow, Silverberry, Southeast Industrial (50 Street), Hudson, North Mayliewan/Ozerna, Mistatim Industrial | |
| |Weekday, Saturday or Sunday Midday - Terwillegar Town, Burnewood, Meadows, Lewis Estates, Grange, Elsinore | |
| |Nights - Clareview (50 Street), Southgate to West Edmonton Mall, Evergreen | |
| |If additional service hours are available, the level of development and ridership levels in other time periods (for | |
| |offpeak service) would be reviewed in early 2003 and the final decision on which areas would receive service would be | |
| |made in June 2003. | |
| |There is only a slight increase to service hours. If we were providing increased transit service hours, what would be |Transportation |
| |the top four or five priorities? | |
| |General priorities for increased transit service hours are: | |
| |Address capacity and schedule adherence problems | |
| |Implement new service in developing residential neighbourhoods and industrial areas | |
| |Edmonton Transit places a priority on maintaining a reliable transit system. In terms of capacity problems, these are | |
| |caused primarily by in-fill in neighbourhoods that have transit service, and changes in travel patterns created by | |
| |external factors such as in the past year where increased post-secondary enrollment and grade school programs of choice | |
| |have had a significant influence on available capacity. | |
| |With respect to schedule adherence and the reliability of connections, these operational problems are created mainly by | |
| |increased vehicular traffic and the resulting congestion, and by more boarding/alighting activity on a route as demand | |
| |increases. | |
| |Edmonton Transit has a preliminary list of existing service issues that will need to be addressed as well as new peak | |
| |and offpeak services (as per service guidelines) for introduction in 2003. Because of higher then expected ridership | |
| |levels being experienced this fall, the number of additional service hours identified in the funded packages may not be | |
| |sufficient to address capacity and operational issues within the existing network of routes. | |
| |While the list will not be finalized until Spring 2003, at this time the top priorities are expected to be additional | |
| |peak hour trips in corridors serving post-secondary institutions, trips operating between developing residential areas | |
| |and junior/senior high schools and service hours to address emerging schedule adherence problems. | |
| |In Vol. 4, what is the difference between Program 01-21-5390 (Page 226) and XX-21-5390 (Page 228)? Does one of those |Community Services |
| |programs provide dollars for the natural and sensitive areas reserve that Council established? | |
| |These profiles are for the same project. Page 226 is last year’s profile included only to show the funding source has | |
| |been revised. Page 228 is the five-year composite project for future natural area acquisition and base level | |
| |development. | |
| |In Vol. 4, unfunded program XX-21-5690 indicates that the separate school board has declared one site surplus. Which |Community Services |
| |site is this and what is the suggested cost? | |
| |The site is St. Sophia Elementary School in the Abbottsfield Neighbourhood located at 119 Street and Abbottsfield Road. | |
| |Only the school building site (~1.2 ha (3.0 acres) of land) is under consideration. This is a building originally | |
| |designed to act as a temporary structure. The sports fields are municipal reserve land, therefore will revert to the | |
| |City for $1. | |
| |The City is considering one of three alternatives. These include: | |
| |a) Not acquire the building site. ($0) | |
| |b) Purchase the building site and demolish the building. (~$150,000) | |
| |c) Purchase the building site and retain the existing building. This requires various building code upgrades and site | |
| |rehabilitation. (~$245,000) | |
|Councillor B. Anderson: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |Is there not a way to commit to the full amount of borrowing for the southeast Police station and 34 Street interchange |Finance |
| |and only borrow the amount needed in 2003 – reducing the repayment tax increase downwards from 1% for the 2003 budget. | |
| |For the recommended 2003 budget, a 1% tax increase is recommended to fund debt service costs associated with a $50 | |
| |million borrowing. This would result in a funding approach that promotes one decision point for expenditures and | |
| |financing obligations. In addition, it encourages simplicity in concept and application. City Council could choose to | |
| |reduce the tax increase and implement a staged approach that matches annual debt service requirements to a tax increase.| |
| |However, this reduces the City's financial flexibility and may result in a more complex process of implementing tax | |
| |increases for new borrowings on projects already approved and begun. The following provides an overview of the | |
| |advantages and disadvantages of both approaches: | |
| | | |
| |Approve Tax Increase at the same time as the Commitment to Borrowing (Recommended) | |
| |Advantages: | |
| |Tax increase for debt service costs is committed at the same time as borrowing decision and project selection. | |
| |Provides some interim funding to deal with priority pay-as-you-go projects. | |
| |Simpler concept for public to understand since we are not asking for a tax increase in the future for a commitment made | |
| |in a prior year. | |
| |Consistent with the approach presented previously to City Council. | |
| | | |
| |Approve Tax Increase to match the Debt Service Cost requirements: | |
| |Advantage: | |
| |Matches tax increase to annual debt servicing cost requirements. | |
| |Disadvantages: | |
| |Requires a tax increase in the future for a commitment already made in a previous year. This may be confusing to public.| |
| |Does not provide interim funding relief to deal with the City's infrastructure gap. | |
| |Deviation in approach from what was presented to City Council as part of the 2003-12 Long-Range Financial Plan and Debt | |
| |Management Fiscal Policy review. | |
| | | |
| |Ultimately, a 1% tax increase ($4.5 million) is required to fully fund the annual debt service costs (principal and | |
| |interest) associated with a $50 million debt. If a decrease is made to the 2003 tax increase, currently recommended | |
| |pay-as-you-go projects will need to fall below the funding line (refer to page 70 of the 2003 Budget Summary for | |
| |pay-as-you-go projects that may be impacted). | |
| |Could you please breakdown the $374 million property tax revenue into single family, multi-family and non-residential? |Finance |
| |Single family $188 million | |
| |Other residential 28 million | |
| |Non-residential 158 million | |
| |Total $374 million | |
| |Could you give me some cost benefit on the city maintaining a research park along side of the Alberta Research Park. Is|EDE |
| |there any business case for releasing the land and buildings to private enterprise and/or development. | |
| |EDE is currently reevaluating its strategy with respect to the Edmonton Research Park, particularly in light of a | |
| |possible development of the Alberta Research Council technopark concept on their adjacent lands. All alternatives will | |
| |be evaluated to determine the best alternative for maximizing the benefits from the Research Park. | |
| |Could you give me an update on the absorption rate of the “clean” industrial and east of Gateway Blvd. and west of |AM&PW |
| |Summerside. Have you any comments about whether this is an efficient use of this land and any suggestions about getting| |
| |production and/or revenue out of this area in a more timely fashion. | |
| |The land between Gateway Boulevard and Summerside is owned and being developed by Carma Developers Ltd. The first stage| |
| |of development (10 acres) commenced in 2001, with roads completed in early 2002. Two parcels have been sold with the | |
| |eight remaining parcels being actively marketed. Additional servicing will depend upon market demand from industrial | |
| |businesses and property managers.. Discussions have been taking place in this regard but no firm commitments have been | |
| |made. Carma had anticipated a quicker absorption but is still optimistic as to the future of the area. | |
| |The Ellerslie Industrial Area is well suited to its industrial designation with superior access to Highway #2, future | |
| |access to Anthony Henday Drive, and proximity to Edmonton International Airport. Industrial development in the area is | |
| |expected to accelerate because of the good location, the availability and selection of land in the area, and a strong | |
| |market for industrial properties. The scheduled completion of the Parson’s Road extension into the area and the ongoing| |
| |development of Anthony Henday Drive will be further incentives that attract industries to the area. | |
| |What is our commitment to: |Finance |
| |a) The renovation of Sir Winston Churchill Square? | |
| |b) Hall D at the Shaw Conference Centre? | |
| |c) Phase II of Louise McKinney Park? | |
| |If previous motions have committed the City financially, what process could happen if postponing, or cancelling one or | |
| |more of these projects was deemed necessary? | |
| |a) Renovation of Sir Winston Churchill Square (Refer to page of the 2003 Budget document Capital Profiles - Volume 4) | |
| |This project is currently funded in the 2003-2007 Capital Plan under the project name "Edmonton 2004 Legacy Project". | |
| |The capital plan incorporates a total project cost of $12 million ($4 million City funding and $8M from other orders of | |
| |Government and Private funding). Subsequent to the document development, on October 15, 2002, City Council was provided | |
| |with a report outlining revised costs of $12.6 million. Currently, the City is committed to $ 750,000 in design costs | |
| |which will have been spent by the end of 2002. With an additional $3.45 million of City funding planned for future | |
| |expenditures. However, this will need to be brought back to City Council for budget approval (i.e. approval to spend). | |
| |In addition, City Council will need to consider changes to the project cost estimates and funding source as part of the | |
| |2003 budget. | |
| |If a decision were made to cancel the Sir Winston Churchill Square renovation project, City funding could be reallocated| |
| |to other projects. Deferral would result in timing differences overall in the plan period, which could be used to | |
| |advance other funded projects within the plan. | |
| |b) Shaw Conference Centre Hall D Development (Refer to page of the 2003 Budget document Capital Profiles - Volume 4) | |
| |This project is currently not funded in the 2003-7 capital plan and therefore does not have any City funding commitments| |
| |approved. On June 26, 2001 City Council concurred in principle with the expansion of the Shaw Conference Centre on the | |
| |condition that the project costs are shared among three levels of government. Currently, EDE is working with the Federal| |
| |and Provincial Governments in seeking funding for this initiative. Once Partnership funding has been secured, | |
| |Administration will provide options for funding the City's share of costs. | |
| |c) Phase II of Louise McKinney Park (Refer to page 213 of the 2003 Budget document Capital Profiles - Volume 4) | |
| |There is no City financial commitment to Phase II of Louise McKinney Riverfront Park. All of the funding which is | |
| |identified in the CPP is from outside sources. Should a partner come forward with funding for a project, the Community | |
| |Services Department would facilitate the Planning, Design and Construction Services for the project. | |
| |What conflict or compliment exists in terms of the trade show/convention business, and the existing facilities and |EDE |
| |proposed expansion plans for both Northlands and the Shaw Conference Centre? | |
| |Edmonton's trade show and convention conveners have always been resistant to the attempted use of both SCC and the | |
| |Agricom for the same events. The Canadian Cardiovascular Congress used both facilities in October 2002, but this is | |
| |extremely rare. CCC took one social event to Edmonton Northlands but because of the lack of hotel rooms and meeting | |
| |space in that part of the city it is unlikely that conveners would want to place other parts of their program so far | |
| |from downtown. Delegates are very reluctant to travel between venues, they much prefer to have meeting space, food and| |
| |beverage and trade show components all under the same roof. Conventions that are too big for the expanded SCC and | |
| |trade show events that are too big for the Agricom are very unlikely to spread their programs between two relatively | |
| |remote locations. Experience shows that they will always choose a city with larger facilities. A recent example of | |
| |using both venues was the Alberta Gift Show. Delegates were offered a free bus service in addition to the regular LRT | |
| |option. The organizers reported very disappointing results and quickly discontinued the attempted use of both | |
| |locations. | |
|Councillor A. Bolstad: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |Whatever happened to our 2002 budget surplus? Please describe. |Finance |
| |The 2002 year-end position was last reported to City Council at its November 26th meeting. Given the reduction | |
| |experienced in the projected Ed Tel Endowment Fund dividend, a surplus is not expected for 2002. | |
| |Why would we project a $1.3 million decrease in traffic tag and fine revenue in 2003? (Vol. 1 page 27) |Finance |
| |The decrease relates to a decision from the Community Services Committee to reduce service hours and the new parking | |
| |meter fine cancellation policy approved by Council. Details for this change are indicated in Volume 2, page 155 (4th | |
| |paragraph). | |
| |According to our budget documents (Vol. 1, Pages 47, 49, 54) police service revenue will increase by $6.4 million in |Police Service |
| |2003 (including another $5.4 million in taxes) and the number of FTE’s grows by 16. In light of this, I do not | |
| |understand how the service will still be losing 36 police officers, as suggested during our budget presentation. Please| |
| |explain. | |
| |See tables attachment. | |
| |The revenue increase of $6.4 million consists of three components: | |
| |$000 | |
| |Fines Revenue 642 | |
| |Expenditure & Revenue Review 396 | |
| |Tax Levy 5,429 | |
| |Total Increase $6,467 | |
| |The fines revenue increase of $642,000 has an associated expenditure of $520,000. The remaining $122,000 ($642,000 less | |
| |$520,000) of the increase was used to offset cost impacts. | |
| |The $396,000 increase is a part of the $1.8 million savings identified through the Expenditure and Revenue Review. The | |
| |total $1.8 million savings have been applied to meet commitments undertaken in 2002 to deal with priority issues facing | |
| |the EPS. The majority of these issues relate to gaps in infrastructure that provides professional and technical support | |
| |to police members. The reallocation of savings to these key areas will help the EPS achieve a strategic advantage in | |
| |facing challenges of changing demographics and growth. | |
| |In accordance with the Expenditure and Revenue Review Project process guidelines, the EPS identified efficiencies, | |
| |expenditure reductions and non-tax revenue gains that could be used to offset program growth and other funding | |
| |requirements. The net increase of 16 FTE’s was fully funded by savings identified through the Expenditure and Revenue | |
| |Review. | |
| |The tax levy increase of $5.4 million was the EPS’s share of available tax levy, as determined by the Senior Management | |
| |Team. | |
| |The EPS is short $1.4 million to cover cost impacts. In order to meet the Recommended Budget guideline, 36 of the 47 | |
| |positions expected to be vacated through attrition in 2003 would not be filled. These 36 positions are equivalent to 15 | |
| |FTE’s. | |
| |It does not look like there are any plans to upgrade 142 Avenue, between 127 Street and 121 Street, in the 2003 budget. |Transportation |
| |Is that correct? If so, why would that be? | |
| |142 Avenue, between 123 and 127 Street was constructed by the City as a rural collector roadway to provide access to | |
| |Castledowns, given that the Baranow area was not developing and there was uncertainty as to timing of construction by | |
| |developers in the area. Two concerns regarding this roadway have been raised: lack of sidewalks and condition of the | |
| |roadway. As the Baranow area continues to develop very slowly, most of the developments adjacent to 142 Avenue have | |
| |been constructed in a way that avoids a need to take access from 142 Avenue, and, therefore, no requirement to | |
| |reconstruct the roadway can be placed on developers. The roadway is an unfunded location within Transportation and | |
| |Streets Department Program XX-66-1195 (Collector roadway reconstruction) on page 539 in budget volume 4. The | |
| |Transportation and Streets Department is currently working with Community Services to review the potential to develop | |
| |permanent roadway and sidewalk infrastructure in conjunction with planned development of the Baranow park site, which | |
| |fronts onto 142 Avenue (identified as a candidate project for future years debt funding in Community Services Program | |
| |XX-21-5210 on page 242 of Budget volume 4). | |
| |Could someone please explain what the plan is for 167 Avenue, west of 112 Street? It appears in the budget document |Transportation |
| |(vol. 4, page 489) that it will be upgraded to two lanes sometime after 2007. It is already two lanes? Please | |
| |elaborate. | |
| |167 Avenue, between 112 Street and 127 Street was upgraded by the City over 10 years ago to provide a paved surface on | |
| |top of the existing road base, resulting in a roadway that alleviated problems with dust, but was not capable of | |
| |accommodating traffic loads expected with the development of the area. At the time of this upgrading, no development | |
| |existed north of 167 Avenue in this area, a situation which has changed over the last five years. As part of the | |
| |Arterial Roadway Assessment Program for the area, reconstruction and upgrading of this roadway to a two lane, permanent,| |
| |urban arterial roadway with sidewalks and storm sewers is to be cost shared 50/50 between developers in the area and the| |
| |city. The initial obligation for this work was undertaken in 2002, with developers reconstructing the roadway between | |
| |112 and west of 115 Street. The project identified on page 489 of budget volume 4 would fund the completion of the City| |
| |obligation for reconstruction of the existing roadway to a permanent two lane urban arterial standard. This work is | |
| |proposed to be constructed in 2008, in conjunction with expected timing of development in the area east of 127 Street. | |
| |It says in the introduction in Volume 1 that the DATS reorganization program cannot be “fully implemented” within this |Transportation |
| |budget. Could you please elaborate? | |
| |Council has directed the Administration to pursue implementation of the recommended model from the DATS service review. | |
| |Currently, there is one funded DATS service package for $318K, this service package represents only a portion of the | |
| |funding required to implement the policy recommendations approved earlier this year. Package #12 ($826K) represents the| |
| |rest of the policy only recommendations. A recommendation from the City Auditor to assess a taxi coupon program is | |
| |unfunded in package #20. All discussions on implementation and costs of the recommended Business Model have been and | |
| |should continue to be held in camera as negotiations with the union are ongoing. | |
| |It is also stated that there will be no bus service to new areas. Would any of these areas qualify for new service, |Transportation |
| |according to the ridership standards set by Edmonton Transit? If so, please detail what it might cost to extend bus | |
| |service to these areas. | |
| |The tax levy identified in the 2003 Unfunded Service Needs for warranted bus | |
| |Services to new areas, starting in September 2003, is: | |
| |Peak Service - $104,000 | |
| |Offpeak Service - $116,000 | |
| |These figures are included in Transportation and Streets Department Unfunded | |
| |Packages (ref. P.177, P.178). | |
| |The tax levy requirements noted were based on projections developed earlier | |
| |This year during the preparation of the Long Range Service Plan approved by City Council on June 18, 2002. Based on | |
| |present trends, a review of development, ridership levels and greater than anticipated growth in the city, the tax levy | |
| |identified in the 2003 Unfunded Service Needs may not be sufficient to accommodate all new warranted service. | |
| |Development levels and service requirements are reviewed on an on-going basis. | |
| |Please describe how you see transit revenue unfolding this year, for both our bus and LRT system. I would also like to |Transportation |
| |know the percentage of operating costs that will be covered through the fare box for each system. | |
| |In 2002, transit farebox revenue is anticipated to exceed operating budget forecasts by $1.5 million, primarily due to | |
| |growth-related demand. In the 2003 Recommended Budget, farebox revenues are projected to be $52,940,000 with operating | |
| |expenditures of $123,400,000, for an overall recovery rate of 42.9% from the farebox. Since the bus and LRT operations | |
| |are fully integrated in terms of fare transferability, cost recovery is determined on a system basis as opposed to by | |
| |the separate bus and LRT components. | |
| |Did EDE spend all of the $1million allocated for the competitiveness strategy in 2002? Are there any funds that can be |EDE |
| |brought over to 2003? | |
| |EDE spent all the $1 Million allocated for the Competitiveness Strategy in 2002. | |
| |I am wondering what is planned for the two Ward 2 parks highlighted in Vol. 1, page 38. It appears from the map that |Community Services |
| |they are located in Griesbach and Elsinore. | |
| |Elsinore – Base level development is proposed – grade, level, seed, trees and signage. This area is the neighbourhood | |
| |school/park site. | |
| |Griesbach – Base level development is proposed – grade, level, seed, trees and signage. | |
| |This is the area around the existing school site. | |
| |I see that the Poplar Lake development plan is slated for 2004 but not funded. Will this not compromise residential |Community Services |
| |development in the area? | |
| |The City does not currently own the buffer area around the lake. When ownership of the area is transferred, the City | |
| |will address funding of development. In the meantime, residential development can continue. | |
|Mayor B. Smith: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |Pages 312-340 of the Edmonton Police Services Budget identify vital policing activities that require additional |Police Service |
| |municipal funding over and above the base level recommended in the budget document. The clear and serious implication | |
| |of this information is that Edmonton Police Services is under-funded and public safety will suffer unless this funding | |
| |is provided. | |
| | | |
| |In order to better understand the inadequacy of police service funding in Edmonton, I would like to begin with a high | |
| |level survey of police service funding in cities across Canada, as per the following categories of information. | |
|STATISTICS |Edmonton |Calgary |Toronto |Winnipeg |Ottawa |Cdn. |U.S. | |
| | | | | | |City |City | |
| | | | | | |Average |Average | |
|Population | | | | | |na |Na | |
|$ Operating Budget – 2001 | | | | | | | | |
|$ Operating Budget / Capita | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|Police Officer & Support Staff | | | | | |na |na | |
|Uniformed Officers FTE | | | | | | | | |
|Civilians (FTE) | | | | | | | | |
|Other (FTE) | | | | | | | | |
|# Officers & Staff / Capita | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|# Violent Crimes – 2001 | | | | | | | | |
|# Violent Crimes / Capita | | | | | | | | |
|# Violent Crimes / Staff | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|# Property Crimes – 2001 | | | | | | | | |
|# Property Crimes / Capita | | | | | | | | |
|# Property Crimes / Staff | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|# Crimes: Total Crim. Code | | | | | | | | |
|# Total Crimes / Capita | | | | | | | | |
|# Total Crimes / Staff | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
|$ Transfer payments from other orders| | | | | | | | |
|of government to support municipal | | | | | | | | |
|police operations | | | | | | | | |
| |Please include any other comparative statistics and benchmarks that would help to gauge the extent to which Edmonton | |
| |Police Services is under-funded. | |
| |Comparisons between cities based upon the statistics requested provide only a small part of the total picture. If | |
| |interpreted incorrectly or out of context, at best, they are misleading – at worst, they are erroneous. | |
| | | |
| |There are many differences in the ways police services collect and report criminal information and police operations. | |
| |Categories of criminal activity sometimes do not contain the same types of offences, and the number of crimes actually | |
| |reported to police does not give the full picture of all crime occurring in a city. The numbers often do not take into | |
| |account regional differences, regionalization, differing crime patterns, demographics, and workload differences. Budget | |
| |figures are also arrived at differently in each city (some police services include computer services, bylaw services, | |
| |etc., in their budgets and some do not). Each police service also deploys and counts its membership differently, | |
| |depending on operational philosophies. | |
| | | |
| |While comparing measurable performance indicators within an individual police service over time might prove useful, such| |
| |comparisons between different police services can be dangerously misleading. | |
| | | |
| |See Table attachment. | |
| |Page 395 of the Capital Budget Profiles identifies two capital projects that are being requested by Edmonton Police |Police Service |
| |Services: | |
| | | |
| |02-60-1893 Officer Safety Training Centre $1,550,000 | |
| |02-60-1894 Shooting Range Construction Phase II $2,050,000 | |
| | | |
| |According to the budget description, the Officer Training Centre incorporates an Arrest & Control Training Facility and | |
| |an Officers Safety Training Centre. I would like to know how and where this training is currently carried out. | |
| | | |
| |The Shooting Range is intended for shooting of rifles and shotguns from a fixed positions. Descriptions in the budget | |
| |document further state, “As patrol rifles are a reality within the EPS, a training venue becomes critical.” | |
| | | |
| |I would like further information on the statement, “… patrol rifles are a reality within the EPS ….” In particular: | |
| | | |
| |Are patrol units equipped with rifles? | |
| |Are patrol units equipped with shotguns? | |
| |Are all patrol officers trained in the use of rifles? | |
| |Are all patrol officers trained in the use of shotguns? | |
| |What methods and facilities are currently used to train officers in the use of these weapons? | |
| |What difficulties exist with current methods and facilities? | |
| |How does our strategy (i.e., patrol rifles are a reality within the EPS”) compare with Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, | |
| |Ottawa and Toronto? i.e., Is it common for Police Services to train patrol personnel to use “rifles?”. | |
| |Vacant buildings and facilities throughout the city have been used for this training over the past number of years. | |
| |Spring Training for 2002 was conducted at the Edmonton Waste Management Centre in the vehicle wash bays. Scenario | |
| |Training, Rapid Deployment and Building Search Training has been conducted at the Charles Camsell Hospital building, | |
| |however we have been denied access recently due to asbestos contamination. Once that facility was lost, the Federal | |
| |Building located at 98 Avenue and 107 Street was secured. The fall training and training of Recruit Class 100 is being | |
| |held in this facility, however it too will soon be unavailable to us due to asbestos contamination. | |
| |There have been numerous injuries sustained by members while training in these temporary facilities. If the EPS receives| |
| |funding for additional officers, these temporary arrangements will be strained even further. | |
| |The Shooting Range is intended for shooting rifles and shotguns from a fixed position. Descriptions in the budget | |
| |document further state: “As patrol rifles are a reality within the EPS, a training venue becomes critical.” | |
| |Additional Information: | |
| |The EPS has 28 rifles available for Patrol Unit use. 96 patrol constables and 48 sergeants are trained and qualified to | |
| |use the rifle. Prior to being qualified, members must successfully complete a three-day training course and must | |
| |re-qualify once a year. These members shoot as often as possible to remain sharp on the skills required to use the | |
| |rifle. Rapid Deployment Training is also offered and required once a year. The training utilizes the deployment of | |
| |patrol rifles and shotguns in a realistic scenario. | |
| |In total, there are 48 shotguns available for Patrol Unit use. Shotgun training is provided to recruits through a | |
| |one-day Shotgun Level II Course. To maintain qualification to use the shotgun, yearly re-qualifications are mandatory. | |
| |There are approximately 200 patrol members qualified in the handling and use of the shotgun. The EPS has used shotguns | |
| |for more than 20 years. | |
| | | |
| |Training Procedures | |
| |For a thorough explanation of current EPS rifle training procedures, refer to the EPS report on Phase II of the Officers| |
| |Training Facility. Additional copies available on request. | |
| | | |
| |Difficulties with current training facilities | |
| |Edmonton Garrison Range (Military) (Not used by the EPS) | |
| |Does not allow for target shooting from closer than the 100-metre position due to the absence of protective berms from | |
| |90 metres and in. The basic requirement for a police officer with the rifles is their ability to shoot from not only our| |
| |maximum deployment distance of 100 metres, but also at closer distances of up to 10 meters. This is not possible at | |
| |this range without officer safety being compromised. | |
| |Drop-in access is not permitted. All visits must be pre-booked. Military personnel cannot provide the flexibility for | |
| |EPS officers to attend the range as the calls-for-service situation permits. | |
| |On-duty officers will not be allowed access unless there is a minimum of two present, thus taking more officers off the | |
| |street at any given time. | |
| |Cannot accommodate our multi-month mandatory training required for maintaining qualification standards. | |
| |EPS access, even if booked in advance, can be canceled with little notice due to the needs of the military from across | |
| |Canada. Federal mandates for training take precedence and have increased over the past year due to the changing world of| |
| |terrorism. | |
| |Cost: $20 per officer per visit. | |
| |Spruce Grove Range (Currently used by the EPS) | |
| |Due to being well outside the city limits, the length of time on-duty officers are unable to respond to calls for | |
| |service increases as they add travel time to their training time. | |
| |Offers only non-moving stationary targets, which do not meet the training standards set for rifles. The reason for | |
| |training officers to use a rifle is to be able to pinpoint a moving target from a greater distance. This range is not | |
| |built to provide this type of simulated, judgement-based training. | |
| |It is a public range with no special security for police equipment or officer safety tactics. | |
| |Officer safety at risk due to no running water for washing the lead off hands after cleaning weapons. | |
| |Cost: $100 annual membership for each officer to access this range. | |
| | | |
| |Response to Rapid Deployment is a significant factor in the issue and use of rifles and shotguns. Since the recent | |
| |shootings in schools throughout North America, the National Tactical Officers Association has responded with training | |
| |strategies. These strategies are effective and address an active shooter situation. The patrol rifle and shotgun are | |
| |effective weapons in many situations, which include an active shooter in a populated area. Other Canadian cities and | |
| |municipalities have responded to the training needs and have adopted the rifle as an effective weapon system. Those | |
| |Canadian cities include Ottawa, Carlton, Quebec City, Medicine Hat, Edmonton, and within the next year, Calgary will | |
| |have members trained and will utilize the rifle in a patrol capacity.. | |
| |The expansion of the Shaw Conference Centre to include Hall D is described on page 329 of the Capital Budget Profiles. |EDE |
| |This unfunded project is estimated to cost $24 million. Approximately $10 million of this cost would be financed | |
| |through tax supported debt with the balance ($14 million) coming from the Federal and Provincial Governments. | |
| |Question: “What is the current status of negotiations with the Federal and | |
| |Provincial governments? What is the expected timeframe for their funding decision? | |
| |We are expecting final approval of the project by December 31, 2002. | |
| |Question: What is the likely source of the City’s capital funding in 2003 |Finance |
| |should Federal and Provincial funding be secured? (See also Q. 59) | |
| |Ultimately, it's recommended that the City portion of this project be funded through tax-supported debt. | |
| |Should an announcement of grant funding be made for the Convention Centre Hall D Expansion in the near future, the city | |
| |would fund it's share of costs as follows: | |
| |In 2003, the City's share of design costs ($500,000) could potentially be funded through financial flexibility built | |
| |into the debt service cost estimates for new tax-supported debt. Alternatively, the City could use 2003 working capital | |
| |on an interim basis and replace this funding in 2004 with tax-supported debt. | |
| |The 2004 & 2005 construction costs would be funded through tax-supported debt. | |
| |The redesign and redevelopment of Churchill Square (as part of our 2004 Legacy Project) is describe on page 88 of the |Corporate Services/ |
| |Capital Budget Profiles document. The $12 million cost will be financed through General Financing ($4 million), |AM&PW |
| |Developer Financing ($4 million) and a Legacy Grant ($4 million) | |
| | | |
| |Question: What is the current status of Developer Financing and the Legacy Grant? Has Provincial funding been secured | |
| |The current budget for the Sir Winston Churchill Square Legacy Project is $12.6 million. The Edmonton 2004 Celebration | |
| |Committee is actively seeking funding from a combination of sources to match the City of Edmonton’s commitment of $4.2 | |
| |million. The 2004 Funding Strategy, which comes before Council on December 12, identifies $5.2 million in Federal and | |
| |Provincial Government partnerships. It also identifies $3.2 million in private sector contributions. | |
| |The project has received support from the Provincial Edmonton Caucus and the Provincial Budget Oversight Committee. It | |
| |currently awaits Treasury approval. The Edmonton 2004 Celebration Committee has been actively lobbying the Province to | |
| |make their funding decision by December 12, 2002. The Federal government has been approached and the Committee is very | |
| |confident that they will be a major partner once the City and Province are fully committed. | |
| |The 2004 Fundraising Sub-committee has been actively engaging major corporations in the project. However, until Council | |
| |approves the 2004 Fundraising Strategy they are unable to accept any donation or finalize major partnerships (over | |
| |$250,000). The project has received significant financial commitments from the private sector and the Committee should | |
| |reach its goal of 1/3 ($1 million) of this campaign accounted for by the December 12 Council meeting. | |
|Councillor Leibovici: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |According to Edmonton Sun Article, October 12, 2002, Edmonton spends three times the amount on festivals compared to |Arts Council |
| |Calgary, is this correct? | |
| |While the City of Edmonton does fund $893,000 versus $237,750 for festivals, we fund much less ($892,000 versus | |
| |$2,016,450) for total grants to Arts organizations. The City places a large emphasis on festivals, however, the total | |
| |budget to Arts groups is less than half of what Calgary provides. | |
| |EAC - 2002 | |
| |City Total Grants to Arts Total Grants to the Total Grants | |
| |Organizations Four Largest Arts to | |
| |2002 Organizations 2002 Festival 2002 | |
| |Edmonton $892,000 $483,050 $896,000 | |
| |88 groups 27 groups | |
| |Calgary $2,016,450 $1,045,000 $237,750 | |
| |90 groups 13 groups | |
| |Winnipeg $1,456,200 $941,900 $337,000 | |
| |47 groups 11 groups | |
| |As part of the negotiations between the City and Alberta Environment on the Approval to operate the Wastewater Treatment|AM&PW |
| |and collection systems is there an opportunity to recover costs from users who contribute to the loading limits? (Page | |
| |6) | |
| |Yes, under the Sanitary Sewers Use bylaw overstrength sewage surcharges are levied to customers who have increased | |
| |loading on the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 2003 rates represent 90% of full cost recovery with 100% full cost | |
| |recovery to occur by 2005. | |
| |Similarly are there any efforts to recover costs from jurisdictions/users who contribute to pollution of the North |AM&PW |
| |Saskatchewan River and increase our costs for Tertiary Treatment? (Page 6) | |
| |Alberta Environment maintains jurisdiction over those who discharge directly into the North Saskatchewan River. The City| |
| |of Edmonton has jurisdiction over only those who discharge into the City’s sewage and drainage facilities. The City | |
| |issues fines to industries in non-compliance with the Sewers-Use Bylaw for discharging pollutants to the sewer system. | |
| |As of November 2002, 58 warnings have been issued. The overstrength surcharges address the recovery of costs for City of| |
| |Edmonton customer only. Costs can not be identified for areas outside the City of Edmonton’s jurisdiction. | |
| |How is the determination made as to which areas would benefit most from both sewer and roadway rehab? If the projects |AM&PW |
| |suggested to be funded by debt financing are approved has the impact to sewer rehab been factored into this budget? If | |
| |yes what is the dollar amount? (Page 6) | |
| |An interdepartmental review of all areas of infrastructure for upgrading is undertaken annually. Roadway rehabilitation | |
| |projects identified by the Transportation Department to be funded from debt have been identified by Drainage Services | |
| |for the sewer component. The Sewer Rehabilitation budget (XX-23-9503) has been increased by $767,000 partially to | |
| |support this initiative. | |
| |In implementing our industrial land strategy would not the costs of storm servicing for industrial areas be incorporated|AM&PW |
| |as part of the revenues expected from the sale of these lands and therefore not be an additional cost to the City? | |
| |(Page 6) | |
| |On-site storm servicing is a cost to the developer of industrial lands and therefore is not a cost to the City. | |
| |Off-site storm servicing requirements are a cost shared between the developer and the City. | |
| |Why would only 72% of Capital Programs be implemented? (Page 9) |AM&PW |
| |The need for Local Improvements was less than anticipated due to reduced customer requirement. Delays caused by changes| |
| |in project requirements and better pricing than initially estimated also contributed to the reduced implementation | |
| |percentage. | |
| |The need for Local Improvements was less than anticipated due to reduced customer requirement. Delays caused by changes| |
| |in project requirements and better pricing than initially estimated also contributed to the reduced implementation | |
| |percentage. | |
| |Is Asset Management working with Planning to effect policy changes re: the responsibility of developers to provide |AM&PW |
| |recreational facilities or police/fire/ambulance buildings? (Page 11) | |
| |There are currently no initiatives being undertaken by AM&PW and Planning and Development with the Urban Development | |
| |Institute (UDI) to pursue such a policy change. The Municipal Government Act does not provide the City with legislative | |
| |authority to compel private developers to fund the provision of recreation facilities and municipal buildings, such as | |
| |fire stations. The UDI may be open to innovative financing approaches whereby the developer would front-end the cost of | |
| |facilities through a build-lease arrangement. However, the UDI ultimately regards the provision of such facilities to be| |
| |the City's responsibility, to be paid for from the tax base and funding from the Provincial and Federal governments. | |
| |If there is increased outsourcing why would we need new space? (Page 11) |AM&PW |
| |Outsourcing of service delivery would not generate a need for new space but could result in a demand for changes to | |
| |existing space to accommodate other civic uses, as generally discussed on page 11 of the Land & Buildings Branch | |
| |overview. | |
| |As industrial land is serviced will there be adequate transit and roadway systems available to handle the transportation|Transportation |
| |needs? (Page 13) | |
| |The Industrial Land Strategy identifies a number of key roadway linkages required over the next 5 years. The following | |
| |projects identified in the strategy are funded: | |
| |Yellowhead Trail – 184 Street interchange | |
| |Yellowhead Trail – 156 Street interchange | |
| |Roper Road extension across Mill Creek | |
| |Parsons Road extension from South Edmonton Common to Ellerslie Road | |
| |Whitemud Drive – 34 Street interchange (debt funded) | |
| |The following projects are identified but not currently funded: | |
| |23 Ave – Gateway Blvd interchange (candidate for future debt funding) | |
| |Whitemud Drive – 17 Street interchange (candidate for future debt funding) | |
| |It is noted that all roadways within Industrial areas are funded through developer contributions, including the future | |
| |construction of the first two lanes of required arterial roadways. | |
| |Transit services are currently provided to a number of industrial areas. At present, some areas are provided with peak | |
| |hour only service with demands for expansion to all day service. These requests are monitored and prioritized along | |
| |with other service requests for new areas. | |
| | | |
| |In the preparation of the 2003 Recommended Operating Budget, the provision of new peak service to the Mistatim | |
| |Industrial Area and the Southeast Industrial Area (50 Street) were identified. These are included in new service | |
| |strategies that are unfunded in the Recommended Budget. | |
| |While using AAA, APEGGA and PMI fee schedules provides a guideline for proposal calls, is this the most appropriate |AM&PW |
| |method of ensuring best value? (Page 16) | |
| |The above referenced fee schedules are used for comparative benchmarking for fees for City projects. The City uses a | |
| |competitive bid process and other industry “best practices” such as value engineering and quantity surveying to ensure | |
| |best value depending on the scale and complexity of capital projects. | |
| |What % increase of facilities and equipment is anticipated? (Page 17) |AM&PW |
| |The forecast increase due to the addition of new facilities and new equipment in existing facilities equates to a 3% | |
| |increase in the overall maintenance budget. | |
| |Are we providing repair services to outside public and private enterprises and if so is the requirement to expand the |AM&PW |
| |Kennedale repair facility due to the increased number of outside contracts? (Page 19) | |
| |The Kennedale Repair Facility does not provide services to external customers. Expansion of the facility is required to | |
| |match growth and relocation of Waste, Drainage and Transportation fleets as a result of the City’s growth and it’s | |
| |impact on City fleets. | |
| |What plans does the Edmonton Waste Management Centre have for marketing its expertise and what are the projections for |AM&PW |
| |self-funding. As success in realizing the economic potential of the Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence | |
| |“will depend on available resources to pursue opportunities” (Pg. 28) what resources are being requested to realize the | |
| |economic potential of the Waste Management Centre? (Page 24) | |
| |Edmonton’s sustainable approach to integrated waste management, including the Edmonton Waste Management Centre (EWMC) | |
| |and its facilities, provides the basis for our marketing efforts. These efforts are focused on attracting waste related | |
| |businesses, facilitating technical and non-technical visitors (eco-tourism), obtaining grants, building partnerships, | |
| |and promoting local consultants and our expertise. Specific efforts include: | |
| | | |
| |association with Alberta Economic Development’s Showcase Alberta; | |
| |linkage to the Project Germany initiative; | |
| |establishment of the Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence (EWMCE) Non-profit Corporation with the specific | |
| |focus of training and research; | |
| |interacting with Western Diversification and Canadian Embassies in the East; | |
| |interacting with international lending agencies such as the World Bank; | |
| |facilitating tours of the Edmonton Waste Management Centre for visiting delegations; | |
| |publications; | |
| |promotion through memberships in trade associations; and | |
| |presentations at national and international conferences when budgets allow. | |
| | | |
| |The City’s efforts to date have resulted in the siting of the GEKO metals recycler building, a $15 million facility at | |
| |the EWMC. We will incorporate other capital needs as they arise in the Capital Priorities Process. | |
| | | |
| |The Branch’s marketing efforts will be complemented by development of the business plan to promote practitioner | |
| |training, research, demonstration and consulting capabilities of the EWMCE. Development of this plan will start upon | |
| |its incorporation. Meanwhile, considerable marketing effort takes place via the individual efforts of the partners | |
| |(networking, speaking engagements, etc.) and through the web page. While it is expected that the marketing of the EWMCE | |
| |will eventually be funded through income from grants and paid research, the efforts specific to the Branch needs will | |
| |require consideration for funding in coming years. | |
| |Please explain increases in operating Budget for Planning, Program Management and Customer Support and Financial. (Page|AM&PW |
| |35) | |
| |FTE increases are in the following programs: | |
| |Planning: The increase in FTEs consists of 1.0 FTE for a Utility Administrator for the Land Drainage Utility and 2.3 | |
| |FTEs for the Sanitary Utility to support development activity and economic growth. | |
| |Program Management and Customer Support: The increase is due to higher EPCOR Customer Billing costs and the addition of | |
| |FTEs. The FTEs include 2.0 FTEs for the Office of Infrastructure for clerical support and an engineering technologist | |
| |position. The Office of Infrastructure is responsible for implementing the Corporate Infrastructure Strategy for the $18| |
| |billion corporate infrastructure. 1.0 FTE has been requested in Customer Services to support the area of private | |
| |development. | |
| |Financial: The increase in the Financial program is attributed to an increase in depreciation on existing capital | |
| |assets and interest charges on the debt for the Land Drainage and Sanitary Utilities. (see page 34 - Cost Increases on | |
| |2002 Services). | |
| |If there is a downturn in projects projected for Edmonton area in 2003 is a 16.5% increase in contracted and general |AM&PW |
| |services reasonable? (Page 35) | |
| |The major increase in contracted and general services is due to EPCOR Customer Billing charges associated with growth in| |
| |the residential, commercial/industrial billing base. The costs from EPCOR are determined by our customer base, which | |
| |will not be affected by a projected downturn in projects in 2003. The general services level costs would likely not | |
| |decrease unless there was a sustained reduction in development over a number of years where Drainage Services could then| |
| |request less administrative support. | |
| |Is the sewer system in the West End designated for rehabilitation? If yes can it sustain increased loads from an |AM&PW |
| |expansion to both the proposed Enoch development and West Edmonton Mall what are the costs of providing additional | |
| |service to sewer lines? (Page 39) | |
| |A west Edmonton sanitary sewer is proposed to service the growth in west Edmonton. The growth strategy is that this | |
| |sewer will be constructed as required. There is sufficient capacity in the existing sewers to service both the West | |
| |Edmonton Mall and the proposed Enoch Cree development. | |
| |What service growth needs and changes in service delivery would require a 50% of 2003 growth in leased space for 2004 |AM&PW |
| |and 2005? (Page 47) | |
| |The requirement for an additional 10,000 sq. ft. of leased space in 2004/2005 is based on an anticipated increase in | |
| |City staff in response to City population growth and economic development, the impact of succession planning and | |
| |increased resources for developing and implementing various corporate strategies (e.g. Infrastructure Strategy, | |
| |Enterprise Resource Planning) and space to accommodate project based inter/intradepartmental teams. | |
| |If the 2004 Legacy Project for Sir Winston Churchill Square is not approved which other projects would be submitted for |Finance |
| |approval? (Page 52) | |
| |If the 2004 Legacy Project is not approved for any additional funding beyond 2002, it would release $3.25 million in | |
| |funding for 2003. The following provides a listing of capital projects in priority order for potential consideration: | |
| |[pic] | |
| |Will the $850,000 provide increased accessibility for Commonwealth Stadium? (Page 52) |AM&PW |
| |Yes. Accessibility improvements include: a new drop-off zone and elevator, better approach ramps, more seating and | |
| |improved site lines, and an increased number of accessible washrooms. | |
| |Are there any financial benefits that accrue to the City for Contaminated Properties Reclamation? (Page 52) |AM&PW |
| |Remediation of contaminated properties is generally carried out in conjunction with a sale of a property, where the sale| |
| |proceeds will generate a net revenue after deducting the costs of preparing the land for sale, inclusive of clean up | |
| |costs. Either the City will carry out the remediation (if the sale is unconditional and the costs will be recovered) or| |
| |the purchaser can carry out the remediation with the selling price being discounted to reflect the actual costs incurred| |
| |for the cleanup. In those instances where the clean up costs exceed the value of the land, the clean up will be | |
| |undertaken only if it represents an “active” contamination (one that may lead to further contamination) or if a Clean Up| |
| |Order is received. | |
| |The administration has reviewed brownfields programs in other Canadian cities, in particular the Hamilton Environmental | |
| |Remediation and Site Enhancement (ERASE) program, which provide incentive for contaminated sites cleanup. Based upon | |
| |this approach, the Administration is developing a “Brownfields Pilot” program which is anticipated to be ready for T&PW | |
| |consideration in late spring 2003. | |
| |How many on-board computers has the City acquired? (Page 52) |AM&PW |
| |There are 20 units being evaluated; 6 with Community Services for contractor management, 6 with Roadways for managing | |
| |winter operations and 8 with Drainage operations. | |
| |Can any increase in expenditures be attributed to the advanced on-board vehicle computers? Or have the projected |AM&PW |
| |efficiency savings been reached? If yes, please quantify? (Page 63) | |
| |Operating costs for the 12 Community Services and Roadways units have increased by approximately $137 a month per unit | |
| |(which includes $50 per month for cell air time and $87 per month for service subscription). The Drainage Operations | |
| |units are currently inactive. These projects are in early evaluations. A detailed status report outlining costs and | |
| |benefits was provided to committee in August 2002. | |
| |Are there additional Bylaw Animal Control holding vehicles requested as a result of changes to our Animal Control Bylaw?|P&D/AM&PW |
| |(Page 69) | |
| |Capital project 03-25-5980 is a project to purchase 2 animal control vehicles. It is unfunded for the amount of | |
| |$128,000. The vehicles are being requested as a result of a growing amount of fieldwork, and are not related to bylaw | |
| |changes. | |
| |At any given time there are many police cars parked at Police Stations. Are all these cars required? What is the ratio|Police Service |
| |of number of cars to number of officers? Is this ratio provided based on one officer per car? (Page 69) | |
| |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. Here are some | |
| |reasons why we have the number of vehicles we do: | |
| |There needs to be adequate number of vehicles to address the staggered shift deployment overlap. | |
| |While a vehicle may appear unused while parked outside a police station, it is there because members often return | |
| |throughout their shifts for numerous reasons such as prearranged interviews, preparing reports, lunch breaks, relief for| |
| |division staff, hard-line phone follow up, arrests, attendance at court, and collision reports. | |
| |There needs to be an adequate number of vehicles available when the largest number of members are working, which is | |
| |Tuesday to Saturday. | |
| |The ratio of officers to cars is three to one. West Division has 36 marked cars, North Division has 40, South Division | |
| |has 47, and Downtown Division has 34. There are also two marked pool cars in each division. The full complement of cars| |
| |is always short due to maintenance (servicing every 6,000 km) and cars "out of service" due to collisions. | |
| |Each patrol car is fully equipped with computer, radio, lights, siren, and other emergency equipment, which means we | |
| |cannot go and rent one from an outside vendor should one of them be out of service. | |
| |Is the $2.6m increase in Drainage Systems and $4,410 for Centre of Excellence and $1,437 for Waste Management |AM&PW |
| |Infrastructure and $3,052 for Waste Management Centre Infrastructure in Waste Management as a result of the construction| |
| |of the Solid Waste Research facility? (Page 38 & 81) | |
| |Drainage - Due to high tender prices the project was delayed from 2002 to 2003. The $2.6 million represents a change in | |
| |cash flow for Drainage Services. | |
| |Waste Management - The $4,440 for the Waste Management Centre of Excellence is for construction of the research | |
| |facility and is funded by the ICAP infrastructure grant program. The Waste Management Centre Infrastructure project | |
| |(2003 budget $1,437 and 2004-2007 budget $3,052) is for other infrastructure development and upkeep on the site - | |
| |roadways, utility services, ongoing landfill reclamation, etc. This infrastructure expenditure would be required | |
| |regardless of the construction of the research facility. | |
| |How many FTE’s will be reduced if there is a 0% tax increase? |Finance |
| |The number of FTE's to be reduced if there is a 0% tax increase, given strategies identified in the table following page| |
| |33 of the 2003 Budget Summary - Volume 1, would be 165.5 in total. | |
| |How inaccurate are our power billings? (Vol. 2, p. 9) |AM&PW |
| |Power bills for 2001 and 2002 contain much more information than bills for 1999 and before. Input to the bills comes | |
| |from many more sources than in the past, with the result that there are more opportunities for errors. EPCOR's billing | |
| |system has had difficulty accommodating the added data and calculations (the various contract or regulated rates for | |
| |energy, separate Wires charges, the various rebates & deferral riders, plus numerous adjustments often made in error). | |
| |At times these are compounded by new errors related to faulty input data and flawed calculations. | |
| |The Office of Energy Management is working with EPCOR to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the billings. | |
| |Appendix VII – LRFP indicates that storm drainage and sanitary drainage unfunded by $298M and $12.9M respectively at end|AM&PW/ |
| |of 2012. How is this possible if these utilities are self sustaining? |Finance |
| |The strategy for both utilities is to minimize the rate impact on the citizen while providing adequate funding for | |
| |system rehabilitation and replacement, growth and economic development, and environmental protection. Both Utilities are| |
| |self-sustaining however, Land Drainage will begin operating as a utility effective January 1, 2003 and is starting with| |
| |$29.8 million in unfunded capital. The $12.9 million is the Sanitary Sewers unfunded portion of projects that would be | |
| |done concurrently with Land Drainage. The long-term strategy is to have the unfunded gap reduced, but at the same time | |
| |minimizing the rate impact on the citizen. | |
| |What work is currently being done on protecting Edmonton watershed? Is there information available re: neighbouring |AM&PW |
| |communities and their impacts on the North Saskatchewan River Watershed? | |
| |Drainage Services is a member of the North Saskatchewan River Watershed Alliance which was created to preserve the | |
| |sustainable integrity of the river's watershed. Members represent industry, provincial government, agriculture, | |
| |research and educational institutions, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, and health and environmental | |
| |organizations. | |
| |Due to the drought the levels of mowing approximated 1997 levels of mowing. Should similar conditions exist this |Community Services |
| |summer there should be no impact to reducing $141 in turf mowing and trimming. Please comment. | |
| |There would be a very definite impact from this reduction, as there would be no budget savings to offset increased | |
| |requirements in other activities. Although mowing and trimming activities were reduced, the drought caused increased | |
| |requirements in watering, pruning, turf repairs, and shrub and tree replacements. In addition, the brushing program was| |
| |increased due to fire hazards and increased beaver control was required due to reduced stream habitats. | |
| |Has a program such as Donate-A-Tree been reviewed to aid in the replacement of City trees? (Page 127) |Community Services |
| |No, to date a "Donate-A-Tree" program has not been reviewed by Community Services. Two programs, the Tree Donation | |
| |Program and the Commemorative Tree Program are currently available. Both programs will be incorporated into our drought| |
| |replacement strategy. Their impact may be limited, however, as only up to 50 trees annually are transplanted or | |
| |purchased under these programs. | |
| |Commonwealth Stadium Facility upgrades are $1,266 and in Land and Buildings (pg. 54) Commonwealth Stadium-W.Concessions |Community Services/ |
| |$1,600 is listed. Which department is responsible for infrastructure of Commonwealth Stadium? (Page 141) |AM&PW |
| |The two departments have complementary responsibilities: | |
| |Land & Buildings provides project management for all City initiated or funded infrastructure improvements to | |
| |Commonwealth Stadium. The branch has budget responsibility for maintenance and repair of the Commonwealth Stadium | |
| |building and improvements. | |
| |Community Services manages the budget " program" related upgrades. Examples of these would be fitness centre | |
| |improvements and concession equipment upgrades. | |
| |Will the Department give priority for funding for community partnerships for those Senior Centers who are ready to |Community Services |
| |proceed with consolidation and upgrading? [Much like the process approved for the funding of skateboard park.] (Page | |
| |146) | |
| |In addition to a community partner being financially ready, we must deal (in this case) with the very real issue of an | |
| |old building, Central Lions Senior Citizen Centre. Therefore, in this case, partner readiness is not the only criteria,| |
| |though a number of organizations (e.g. Society for Retired and Semi-Retired) have expressed interest in partnering to | |
| |consolidate uses for Central Lions and Airway Park. | |
| |Is the $233 broken down into $200 for funding of the Edmonton Eskimo License Agreement and $33 for facility upgrades? |Community Services |
| |[Page (146) (X-ref.: Vol. 4, p. 263)] | |
| |No. The total amount relates to funding upgrades at the Stadium to facilitate business opportunities. | |
| |Can you provide information as to the composition of the City’s Task Force on Affordable Housing? (Page 86) |Community Services |
| |The Task Force on Affordable Housing is composed of the following individuals: | |
| |Mayor Bill Smith (Chair) | |
| |Government Members | |
| |Joyce Tustian, General Manager, Community Services Department | |
| |Terry Chugg, Assistant Deputy Minister Alberta Seniors | |
| |Elizabeth Huculak, General Manager or Pam Liyanage | |
| |Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) | |
| |Private Sector | |
| |Lindsay Kelly, Executive Director | |
| |Urban Development Institute (UDI) | |
| |Greg Christenson, President | |
| |Canadian Home Builders Association | |
| |Ron Holland, Executive Director | |
| |Edmonton Apartment Association | |
| |Not-For-Profit Sector | |
| |Kent Fletcher, Chair of the Board | |
| |Edmonton Joint Planning Committee on Housing (EJPCOH) | |
| |Tom Forgrave, Chair of the Board | |
| |Edmonton Housing Trust Fund (EHTF) | |
| |Doug McNally, Executive Director | |
| |Edmonton Community Foundation | |
| |What private sector partnerships are being considered to leverage provincial/federal funding? (Page 86) |Community Services |
| |The Community Services Department has identified over $58 million in potential partner/grant funding in the 2003-2007 | |
| |Capital Priorities Plan. Some specific projects include: | |
| |Affordable Housing - Project XX215520 Vol. 4 P194 | |
| |Low Income Housing Capital Assistance Program - Project XX215500 Vol. 4 P193 | |
| |Louise McKinney Riverfront Park - Project 03214147 Vol. 4 P213 | |
| |In addition the City provides over $1m annually to the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund for disbursement to specific projects| |
| |according to the priority needs identified in the Edmonton Community Plan on Homelessness. | |
| |As the City’s ability to deal with diversity is limited, what actions are being proposed in this budget to “capitalize” |Community Services |
| |on our diversity (pg. 97)? (Page 94) | |
| |No new funding is being requested in this budget. The Community Services Department has initiated a Diversity | |
| |Leadership Team that will support Community Services staff on issues of equity and accessibility for persons with | |
| |disabilities, multicultural and Aboriginal populations. The Diversity Leadership team will review service barriers and | |
| |provide sensitivity awareness training to ensure programs, facilities and attractions are accessible for the three | |
| |targeted groups. The purpose of the team is to support staff, provide ongoing training and resource information and to | |
| |act as a unified department resource for persons with disabilities, multicultural and Aboriginal communities. | |
| |In addition to their other responsibilities, diversity is part of the ongoing work of the Multicultural Community | |
| |Recreation Co-ordinator, the Aboriginal Community Development Co-ordinator and the Special Needs Recreation | |
| |Co-ordinator. | |
| |Has Community Services identified with Planning the areas suitable for Community Hubs? (Page 99) |Community Services |
| |No. The 2003-2005 Department Business Plan identifies 2004 as the year in which this project will be initiated. | |
| |How much is the land drainage utility fee? (Page 111) |AM&PW |
| |See Bylaw 13233 schedule E part 1B. The basic rate or fee ($0.012323) will be the same for all citizens. The cost to | |
| |individual citizens will vary based on their property area, intensity of development and runoff coefficient based on | |
| |zoning. | |
| |Why is an additional $310 new project request required for Computer Application/Hardware Replacement (pg. 116) and $310 |Community Services |
| |for future projects 2004-7 required? (Page 117) | |
| |This is a multi-year project, with a portion to be spent in each year. The amount requested for 2003 is $310. The | |
| |figure on page 117, Vol. 1 Point IV for 2004-2007 should be $1,477. | |
| |The funds in 2003 are required to replace existing computer applications and system hardware that have become obsolete. | |
| |Examples of obsolete system hardware & applications include the Cemetery information system and the Out of School Care | |
| |system. Replacements are required to maintain existing service levels to citizens. These obsolete systems reduce | |
| |productivity and are subject to greater risk of failure. | |
| |Re: future projects in 2004-2007 as low income housing is in short supply how can we justify $1,477 for computer |Community Services |
| |application/hardware replacement and only $1,524 for low income housing capital assistance? (Page 119) | |
| |The $1,524 is seed money and is intended to leverage funds from public/private partnerships. Both the computer | |
| |application/hardware replacement and low income housing capital assistance requests are important to meeting the needs | |
| |of our community and should be considered on their own merit. | |
| |Is a Council decision required to close the Klondike Valley Campground? (Page 122) |Community Services |
| |No. The Community Services Department made the decision to close the campground and submitted an information report to | |
| |the Community Services Committee on June 4, 2001 outlining the business case for making this decision. | |
| |Is there a fee charged to developers or a charge back from Planning to Community Services for resources required to |Planning & Dev. |
| |review developer initiated subdivisions, engineering drawings, landscape inspections? Are these services provided on a | |
| |cost recovery basis? (Page 123) | |
| |Reviews of development proposals by various civic departments including Transportation and Community Services are a | |
| |corporate function to ensure that all Corporate policies and needs are met. An inspection fee of $2,862/ hectare of | |
| |assessable area is charged to developers for review of subdivision plans. Planning and Development collect this fee and | |
| |applicable portions are distributed to other City departments. The fee is based on cost recovery. | |
| |As the revised Parks Bylaw is a compilation of the current Bylaw why would there be additional FTE’s required for |Community Services |
| |implementation. If increased staff is required would this not be the responsibility of Planning? (Page 123) | |
| |There are two Bylaws – Parks Bylaw and Unauthorized Use Bylaw (which deals with encroachments). The increase in FTE’s | |
| |is for the implementation and on going support for the new Bylaw 12308, Unauthorized Use. Responsibility for the | |
| |implementation and maintenance of the Unauthorized Use Bylaw is the responsibility of Community Services. | |
| |Is Community Services participating in the Alberta Parks and Recreation Association submission to the provincial |Community Services |
| |government regarding re-installments of the Urban Parks Program? If yes, what would the City’s share be? | |
| |Yes, Community Services supports the Alberta Recreation and Parks Association submission regarding re-installment of the| |
| |Urban Parks Program. This reaffirms the commitment made by City Council in 2001 supporting a similar AUMA Resolution. | |
| |There is no financial commitment to Council in putting forward this support. The City of Edmonton’s potential funding | |
| |has been identified at $21 million. | |
| |Please explain why Edmonton was ranked 7th in access to Park Space in the National Post’s analysis of Canada’s Healthy |Community Services |
| |Cities? | |
| |The National Post miscalculated the amount of park space in Edmonton in its analysis of Canada's Healthy Cities. | |
| |Instead of using the total 6,060 hectares of green space, which would have placed Edmonton 3rd according to their survey| |
| |(9.1 hectares per 1,000 people), they only used the natural areas number (3.76 hectares per 1,000), placing Edmonton 9th| |
| |for park space. After bringing this to the Post’s attention, a correction was published on October 19. | |
| |Is it not possible to use school gyms for soccer practices and games? |Community Services |
| |School gyms are used extensively for youth soccer practices throughout the City. However, gyms are not suitable for | |
| |soccer games or adult practices. | |
| | | |
| |The use of school gyms by community groups is regulated by the Joint Use Agreement between the City, the Edmonton Public| |
| |and Catholic School Boards. This agreement seeks to share resources and facilities in order to maximize benefits to | |
| |Edmontonians. | |
| | | |
| |Some school principals have concerns about damage to gyms associated with soccer use. There is a process in place to | |
| |address such issues. The City and School Boards are working to address this issue through the Joint Use Agreement | |
| |committees. These committees are also working with Edmonton Minor Soccer Association to resolve this issue. | |
| |Which Branch is responsible for Reserve Funds? (Page 148) |Finance |
| |The City of Edmonton has a number of reserves which are managed corporately through the Finance Branch. The reserves | |
| |referred to on page 148, namely the Storm Redevelopment Reserve and the AMFC Surplus Reserve are two such reserves. The| |
| |City also has a number of reserves which are managed by the related operating areas. A report on the City's reserves | |
| |was provided and reviewed by City Council in their meeting of October 29, 2002. | |
| |Is the proposed program for small businesses within the downtown commercial core accounted for as an unfunded Budget |Planning & Dev. |
| |item? (Page 157) | |
| |Yes, the Façade and Storefront Improvement Program is accounted for as an unfunded budget item, the Downtown Plan | |
| |Initiatives Program. The Downtown Plan Initiatives Program identifies a budget of $1.5 million ($500,000 per year for 3| |
| |years). | |
| | | |
| |However, in regards to a street level façade improvement program for small businesses, at the City Council meeting held | |
| |on November 26, 2002, City Council recommended: | |
| |“That Administration bring forward projects up to $250,000 for consideration during the budget process.” | |
| |What training does the department have in place for users of advanced technology and computers? (Page 174) |Corporate Services |
| |Training in advanced software applications for the Office 97 suite of packages is managed through Corporate Services - | |
| |Human Resources. This training is offered on an on-going basis at a City of Edmonton site and is available to any City | |
| |of Edmonton employee requiring the training (budget permitting). | |
| |More specialized and advanced training that would be limited to certain occupations is scheduled on demand, ie. Excel | |
| |Spreadsheet Analysis, Publisher 98, Access Macros. | |
| |Software training on applications specific to City of Edmonton operations (PeopleSoft, SAP, GeoMedia, SLIM, Gamma to | |
| |name a few) is provided by teams of internal specialists. This training is typically done during system upgrades, but in| |
| |some instances in available on an on-going basis through "self-paced tutorials" which are available to any employee | |
| |through citynet. | |
| |Training of a technical nature for IT systems analysts, technicians, etc. is coordinated through the Corporate Services | |
| |- IT Branch. This would include training specific to networks, new platforms, etc. and is contracted out through | |
| |external vendors. | |
| |What role is Human Resources taking to ensure that the recognition of diversity is part of our hiring practices? (Page |Corporate Services |
| |168) | |
| |The City of Edmonton is an Equal Opportunity Employer, ensuring all employees and prospective employees will have equal | |
| |access to employment with the City of Edmonton. | |
| |From the perspective of minority populations, the Corporate Services - Human Resources Branch sends representatives to | |
| |Career Fairs in areas with a high percentage of minority participants in order to promote the City of Edmonton as an | |
| |employer of choice. As well, the City Police have been aggressively promoting efforts to attract recruits from minority | |
| |areas into their ranks. | |
| |In regard to accommodating employees or prospective employees with a disability, the City regularly makes job postings | |
| |available in several formats - electronic, paper, Dial-a-Job - and alternate formats (i.e. Braille) can also be provided| |
| |as requested. This is noted on the City’s external website and on the job board at City Hall. Accommodations for | |
| |interviews (i.e. an interpreter) have also been provided in the past. | |
| |Phrasing on job postings has been reviewed to make positions requiring transportation more accessible to those with a | |
| |disability who can provide transportation, but who may not drive. | |
| |Human Resources Consultants have attended presentations from the Special Needs Advisory Committee on accommodating | |
| |employees in the workplace in order to build awareness of the programs available. | |
| |Please provide an update on the City’s Copy Centre? (Page 172) |Corporate Services |
| |Corporate Services is assessing the options with regard to the future role of the Digital Print Centre as part of a more| |
| |general review of printing in the corporation. The review is scheduled for completion by mid 2003, with implementation | |
| |of the recommendations being completed by January 1, 2004. | |
| |What is meant by a number of “alternative” communication providers that have cropped up across the Corporation? (Page |Corporate Services |
| |176) | |
| |Some marketing, public education, graphic design and public information positions reside in operating departments with | |
| |no formal reporting relationship to Corporate Services - Communications Branch. This area of concern will be brought | |
| |forward to Senior Management Team in 2003 for consideration along with a proposal to develop a comprehensive | |
| |communication strategy for the corporation. | |
| |Drainage Services (pg. 9) had 11 Lost Time Accidents in 2001, (pg. 23) Staff Transit Fleet had 4 and Corporate Services |Corporate Services |
| |had 8 WCB claims and 2 lost Time Accidents. Please explain why given the work performed by Corporate Services, the | |
| |reasons for the level of LTA’s and WCB claims? (Page 185) | |
| |The work in Corporate Services varies greatly from typical office work to physical labour for example in part stores, | |
| |etc. It is important to note that absences due to non-ergonomic friendly office equipment and set ups are on the rise | |
| |throughout industries. | |
| |All claims in Corporate Services are of a minor nature and generally for less than five days, unlike other areas in the | |
| |City where the severity of claims is greater. | |
| |Why would we hire an additional position to perform a function which EDE performs? (reference to the additional |Corporate Services |
| |Communications Officer. (Page 191) | |
| |As detailed in Volume 3, page 54, the primary focus of this position will be to raise the profile and improve the image | |
| |of the corporation locally and across Canada and to monitor how Edmontonians perceive their local government. The | |
| |creation of this position will also provide Administration with the opportunity to begin to address the issue of | |
| |succession planning in the branch. | |
| |Was the reduction in overtime funding a result of the Revenue and Expenditure Revenue and the savings utilized to fund |Corporate Services |
| |the requested activities on page 50 of Vol. 3? (Vol. 3, p. 69) | |
| |This package is a Reduction Package to Achieve 0% Tax Increase. The amounts are not part of the Revenue and Expenditure| |
| |Review and therefore not utilized for service needs. There are significant impacts on services to departments and | |
| |citizens if this reduction were implemented as outlined on page 69 of Vol. 3. | |
| |What implication is there for the City to raise funds for capital programs through issuance of bonds? |Finance |
| |The City currently uses bonds to raise capital either for our utilities or tax-supported borrowing. The bonds we issue | |
| |are in the name of the Alberta Municipal Financing Corp (AMFC) rather than the City's name. The reason for this is that| |
| |AMFC can issue debt (bonds) at interest rates that are determined based on the Province's credit rating (AAA). They can| |
| |also issue bonds with a bigger issue size which provides liquidity to investors and also helps them issue at a lower | |
| |rate than we could under the City's name. | |
| |User fees in States differentiate between residents and non residents. Have there ever been consideration to implement |Finance |
| |such a program? | |
| |Currently some user fees (library and licensing fees) do include a non-resident fee, however a corporate type of program| |
| |has not been implemented. Application of such an approach needs to consider enforceability and impact on the individual| |
| |service. In addition, the amount of the fee cannot be so excessive as to be prohibitory. Creation of a non-resident | |
| |fee therefore should be reviewed on a case by case basis. | |
| |As increased public participation is a corporate goal in 2003, what dollars and what process is recommended for this |Corporate Services |
| |approach (pg. 12 – 2003-2005 Corporate Business Plan)? | |
| |The 2003 – 2005 Corporate Business Plan identifies that the expected result for 2003 for the public involvement project | |
| |is Council approval of the principles and approach to public involvement. Administration will develop in 2003 a project| |
| |charter that outlines the process to complete this project, including the expected costs. | |
| |In the Corporate Business Plan it states that our goal is to exceed the provincial City average for assessment share for|Planning & Dev. |
| |residential/commercial properties. What percentage share are we aiming for? | |
| |The City of Edmonton is aiming to exceed 26% for the non-residential share, which is the Provincial average for cities. | |
| |What strategy and funding is required to ensure that we maintain our geographical advantage of being the hub for |EDE |
| |Northern Cities like Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie. | |
| |Written response is not available at time of printing. Question can be addressed during budget deliberations. | |
| |What would be the impact of the City extending its period of paying off the current debt as opposed to entering into |Finance |
| |debt? | |
| |Debt repayments are fixed through the terms of the Debentures at the time of issue, and cannot be changed without the | |
| |permission of the Lender, in this case AMFC. The Lender could expect to be compensated for any loss as a result of any | |
| |requested change. Further, any deferral in payment would add to the associated interest incurred on the outstanding | |
| |debentures. | |
| |Has consideration been given to implementing a suggestion program re: cost savings, or to initiate a hiring freeze? |Finance |
| |In a sense the City has gone beyond a suggestion program with the Expenditure and Revenue Review program. Specific | |
| |targets were set for programs for the 2002 and 2003 Budgets to achieve a total amount of $20 million in expenditure | |
| |savings and non-tax revenue increases. Innovative ideas, both small and large, have been garnered from across the | |
| |organization. As you are aware, in 2002, a total of $10.8 million in initiatives were identified and the 2003 Budget | |
| |contains a further $10.8 million in initiatives. Prior to this, the City '97 initiative also sought broad input to | |
| |achieve savings and improve civic operations. These are two formal strategies undertaken recently, but certainly, input| |
| |and ideas are welcome any time from staff members. | |
| |With respect to a hiring freeze, consideration has not been given to initiate one at this time given the rapid growth of| |
| |the Edmonton area. New staff are required to help expand services to new residents. As well, in order to maintain | |
| |existing services, it is important to be able to fill vacancies as they arise due to retirements or individuals moving | |
| |on to careers elsewhere. | |
| |Has there been a definition of what constitutes our “core” service |Corporate Services |
| |There is no current identification or classification of “core” civic services. At the Special Council Meeting on | |
| |February 20, 2002, Council considered a report from the Administration on “Closing the Gap – Status Report”, November 5,| |
| |2001. This report outlined a process for undertaking the program and service level review. One attachment to the | |
| |report had a template for describing service information, while another attachment provided a list of forty-three civic | |
| |services for which this service information could be provided. If the templates were completed and reviewed, the | |
| |results would have constituted a core service review. | |
| |At the Special Council Meeting on February 20, 2002 Council considered the process for undertaking the program and | |
| |service level review and decided not to proceed with completing the templates and reviewing civic services. | |
| |Please provide the last 3 years revenue (user fees)? (Page 200) |EDE |
| |2002 2001 2000 | |
| |User Fees 9,273 10,361 8,462 | |
| |Please specify the Federal and Provincial funding that is available to EDE? (Page 200) |EDE |
| |Provincial Funding $500,000 | |
| |Federal Funding $850,000 | |
| |Does the $207 K personnel cost changes include an increase to next year’s wages of unionized staff? [this can be |EDE |
| |responded to in-camera if required.] (Page 201) | |
| |In Camera. | |
| |What is the strategy for increasing revenues from the Research Park? (Page 201) |EDE |
| |The $15,000 increase in revenues at the Research Park represents increase in tenants’ rents. | |
| |Is a decrease in operating revenues at EDE as a result of the strike? (Page 201) |EDE |
| |No, the decrease in revenues at EDE is not as a result of the strike. | |
| |What is the job description of the position being requested to be added to Corporate EDE? (Page 201) |EDE |
| |The position is Vice President, Human Resources. | |
| |Please provide a breakdown of the activities and funding required for the 58 action plans resulting from the Greater |EDE |
| |Edmonton Competitiveness Strategy (Vol. 2, p. 76) | |
| |The funding required for the Competitiveness Strategy for 2003: | |
| |Federal Funding $850,000 | |
| |Tax Levy Funding $750,000 | |
| |Please detail the expenditure request of $880 more in rehabilation and replacement over the next 5 years? (Page 203) |EDE |
| |This has not been considered as an option to date. The assumption has always been that it was a public sector project | |
| |financed by the three levels of government. A business case for private sector participation would have to be developed| |
| |that would show a rate of return on the private investment. | |
| |Why would EDE not consider private sector partnerships for funding for its capital plan? (Page 203) |EDE |
| |This has not been considered as an option to date. The assumption has always been that it was a public sector project | |
| |financed by the three levels of government. A business case for private sector participation would have to be developed| |
| |that would show a rate of return on the private investment. | |
| |What strategies does EDE have in place to reduce reliance on the tax levy? (Page 203) |EDE |
| |Over time, EDE should probably have more private sector support. Strategies will be developed along this line. | |
| |Relatively larger amounts of private sector support might mean changes in governance as well. | |
| |Is the request for furniture funding for the Convention Centre of $165 as a result of depletion of the Furniture, |EDE/Finance |
| |Fixtures and Equipment Reserve? (Page 203) | |
| |No, the equipment reserve is funded through EDE’s operating budget and withdrawals from the reserve are used to replace | |
| |furniture and equipment at the Convention Centre. | |
| |City Council approved that up to $800,000 funds from the Convention Centre Furniture and Fixture Reserve be used to | |
| |cover additional expenditures within EDE in the current year. After reflecting that projected draw and given City | |
| |Council decisions made relating to reserves on October 29, 2002, reserve funding is available in 2003 to fund $315,000 | |
| |of equipment replacement at the Convention Centre as shown on page 204 of Volume II. This relates to projects | |
| |XX-99-5001 - Food and Beverage Equipment - Convention Centre ($150,000) and XX-99-5002 - Public Space Furn/Equipment - | |
| |Convention Centre ($165,000). There would be limited funds available for future years equipment purchases through the | |
| |reserve. The reserve is to be eliminated by the end of 2004. | |
| |Will any of the increased provincial tourism funding be dedicated to the Big Cities? (Vol. 2, p. 77) |EDE |
| |Yes, we believe some of the increased provincial tourism funding will be allocated to the big city tourist regions. | |
| |Why is EDE not able to quantify economic spin-offs from events, conferences, etc? Could models such as those used in |EDE |
| |Calgary be utilized to assist EDE in determining these spinoffs? (Vol. 2, p. 314) | |
| |We are able to quantify economic spin-offs from events, conferences, etc. | |
| |What is the impact to the revenues of the Shaw Conference Centre as a result of cancelled bookings, i.e. 100th |EDE |
| |Anniversary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners? (Vol. 2, p. 314) | |
| |The impact of cancelled bookings is relatively small. | |
| |What is the Intergovernmental Business Link office? What is its budget area? What is its deliverables? |EDE |
| |Today, EDE is not involved with The Business Link. | |
| |Why is the Public Library supporting the Investor Information Centre and not EDE? |Public Library/EDE |
| |In 2000, the Library was approached by the Investor Learning Centre of Canada to establish an Investment Education | |
| |kiosk. The Library signed a 3-year contract (which expires in September 2003) with the Investor Learning Centre of | |
| |Canada to provide space, electronic resources and a business reference area on the second floor of the Milner Library. | |
| |The Learning Centre paid for all costs associated with establishing the service, including the television, computers, | |
| |related software subscriptions and workstations. The Library receives $1,300 per month from the Learning Centre to host| |
| |this service. This includes the Internet access and technical support for the computer network, and staff time to | |
| |supervise and maintain the space. No library operating funds are used for this service as it is entirely funded by the | |
| |Investor Learning Centre of Canada. | |
| |What initiatives has EDE undertaken to encourage investment, research, re-location of business to Edmonton as a result |EDE |
| |of the Canadian Institute of Nanotechnology being at the U of A? | |
| |EDE is helping to organize the Nanotech industry cluster which will: | |
| |Improve the awareness of Edmonton’s nanotech capabilities on the world stage. | |
| |Assist with recruiting key researches to Edmonton. | |
| |Help secure a 2004 world nanotech conference for Edmonton. | |
| |Over a 5 year period (actual to Oct. 2003) and projected to Dec. 31, 2003 – No. of events at Shaw Conference Centre and |EDE |
| |No. of attendees at Shaw Conference Centre. | |
| |January 1998 to October 2002 - actual - Events 4,235, Attendees 1,942,987. | |
| |January 1998 to December 2002 - projected - Events 4,353, Attendees 2,048,487. | |
| |Number of cancelled bookings in 2002. |EDE |
| |Number of cancelled bookings in 2002 - due to the labour dispute - 32. | |
| |Is EDE working in collaboration with Inno-Centre Alberta (ICA) (Alberta Science & Research Centre Authority/Alberta |EDE |
| |Research Council)? What overlaps if any are there between FCA and EDE’s new biotechnology strategy which includes | |
| |hiring a biotech coordinator. | |
| |EDE is working with all of the other innovation, science and research authorities. We are conscious of the need to | |
| |eliminate overlapping or duplicate programs. | |
| |Who is charged the Standby Fee? (Vol. 1, p. 56) |Emergency Response |
| |The ambulance Standby Fee is charged to clients who contract for EMS service at sports events, concerts, or movie sets, | |
| |or when wait times are excessive e.g. in connection with Air Ambulance response. | |
| |How many additional firefighter positions are left unfunded in 2003? Will any current positions be left vacant? (Vol. |Emergency Response |
| |2) | |
| |In 2003, with the funded budget as submitted Fire Rescue Services will still have 69 positions that are required but are| |
| |unfunded. These are required as part of a ten-year Fire Rescue Service Staffing Strategy (reported to the Community | |
| |Services Committee earlier this year). No current positions are left vacant, as under this Staffing Strategy Fire | |
| |Rescue Services recruits to fill all vacancies. | |
| | | |
| |Unfunded Corporately Ranked | |
| |FTE’S | |
| |8 Firefighters per Staff Maintenance Factor $ 656,000 | |
| |4 Fire Training Instructures $ 379,000 | |
| |2 Fire Inspectors $ 150,000 | |
| |14 $1,185,000 | |
| |Unfunded Not corporately Ranked | |
| |8 Fire Training Squad $ 641,000 | |
| |27 Firefighters for Aerials & Stations $2,006,000 | |
| |(NFPA Standards) | |
| |20 Dangerous Goods Response Capacity $2,159,000 | |
| |(Capital Region Emergency Preparedness | |
| |Partnership) | |
| |55 $4,806,000 | |
| |69 $5,991,000 | |
| |Has the department given consideration to charging a standby fee to the Capital Health Authority for ambulance |Emergency Response |
| |downtimes? (It is being considered in Calgary). | |
| |Wait times in hospital emergency wards are not considered excessive in comparison to other large emergency medical | |
| |systems across Canada, and no standby fee is charged. Edmonton wait times have been decreasing over the past five | |
| |years. | |
| |In-Hospital Times - Last 5 Years (Decreasing) | |
| |Year Minutes | |
| |1998 55.25 | |
| |1999 49.21 | |
| |2000 46.04 | |
| |46.44 | |
| |2002 (to date) 45.45 | |
| |What is the Department’s role in developing a strategy regarding Bownfields? (Page 288) |Planning & Development |
| |The Transportation & Public Works Committee directed the Office of the Environment to co-ordinate the development of a | |
| |Brownfields pilot program in consultation with City departments. The Planning and Development Department has | |
| |representatives on the interdepartmental working group responsible for program development. A proposed Brownfields pilot| |
| |program is scheduled to be considered by the Transportation & Public Works Committee in mid-2003. | |
| |Is it the Department’s plan to undertake yearly Corporate Customer Satisfaction Surveys? (Page 293) |Planning & Development |
| |No, the Corporate Services Department conducts customer satisfaction surveys on behalf of all City of Edmonton | |
| |departments. The Planning and Development Department occasionally conducts customer satisfaction surveys related to | |
| |certain projects and services provided by the 3 Branches. | |
| |As part of training, will the Department provide opportunities for Planners to receive training in CPTED principles? |Planning & Development |
| |(Page 293) | |
| |Yes, the Planning & Development Department’s Urban Design Group prepared Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design | |
| |(CPTED) guidelines contained in Design Guide for Safer cities. Training was provided to all current city planners and | |
| |development officers and will be provided to all new staff as well. | |
| |What are the department’s plans to deal with the doubling of the Abandonment Rate in Phone calls – Customer Info Centre?|Planning & Development |
| |(Page 298) | |
| |Overall abandonment rates at our call centre have improved dramatically since the early summer. Some of this is | |
| |attributable to improvements in the centre and enhanced Internet capabilities, but much of the improvement is due to | |
| |reduced volumes in the late fall. The budget proposal includes 9 temporary staff, several of which will be used in the | |
| |call centre during next year’s peak season. | |
| |Is it possible to track the Web site hits? (Page 298) |Planning & Development |
| |It was not possible to get the number of web site hits for the year 2001, however the Corporate Services’ Information | |
| |Technology Branch is working with Planning and Development to track the hits for 2002. | |
| |Please explain the decrease in bylaw investigations? Was there a decrease in staff or a decrease in demand? (Page 299)|Planning & Development |
| |The number of investigations is directly related to the number of complaints received and both complaints and | |
| |investigations were down about 7% in 2001 from 2000. Figures to the end of September 2002 show over 14,000 complaints, | |
| |and when this is projected to the end of the year it suggests a total for 2002 of over 19,000. This is higher than | |
| |2000. A five-year average of approximately 18,500 suggests that 2001 was a bit of an anomaly. The Department is not | |
| |seeking new staff in this area. | |
| |What is involved in the Rice Howard Way Extension ($200)? (Page 309) |Planning & Development |
| |The Rice Howard Way Extension - #00-17-0319 is a Streetscape Project. It will be built from the east/west lane south of | |
| |Jasper Avenue to Macdonald Drive. | |
| |Will proposed Animal Control Facility ($3,800) duplicate services provided by SPCA? (Page 309) |Planning & Development |
| |New Animal Control facility is needed to undertake the City of Edmonton’s responsibility to care for stray dogs and | |
| |cats. This mandate is part of the settlement reached with the SPCA in 2000. In 2000 the City of Edmonton had a choice | |
| |at contracting the care of stray dogs and cats with the SPCA or doing the job ourselves. Reports of the time indicate | |
| |that it was less expensive to the City for the City to undertake this service. This has not changed. The Development | |
| |Compliance Branch works closely with the SPCA to ensure that we share a vision but focus on our individual mandates. | |
| |Please explain the 42% increase in overtime given the additional 9 FTE’s (pg. 132) and 43.5% increase in contract work|Planning & Dev. |
| |(Vol. 2, p. 144) | |
| |The 42% increase to the P & D overtime budget will put the 2003 number at $515K. The department’s actual year-to-date | |
| |expenditures (Oct. 31/02) for overtime are $728K which is a $427K unfavourable variance due to exceptionally high | |
| |customer demands, particularly in the Development Compliance Branch. The additional 9.0 temporary FTEs being requested | |
| |in the Development Compliance Branch will assist in the reduction of overtime requirements. | |
| |The 43.5% increase in contract work is not related to the overtime issue. This increase is required for the Parking | |
| |Enforcement Contract (commissionaires) which was transferred to Planning & Development with Bylaw Services. This area | |
| |has historically been under budgeted. | |
| |Is the Integrated Service Team Approach part of the Business Model being considered for areas other than Whyte Avenue, |Community Services |
| |i.e. Stony Plain Road? | |
| |Not at this time. The Old Strathcona Integrated Service Team (OSIST) is considered a pilot approach to municipal | |
| |service integration. This approach has been implemented with some success in Vancouver and some other cities. During | |
| |2003 OSIST will be monitored closely and evaluated against success criteria that are currently in development. If deemed| |
| |successful, the approach may be implemented in other communities where there is evidence of need. Stony Plain Road may | |
| |be one such area. | |
| |Please provide information of the pilot Jasper Place Food Co-op and whether this will be provided elsewhere |Community Services |
| |The Jasper Place Food Co-op is a community development project started in August 2001. It assists families on fixed or | |
| |low incomes in purchasing high quality, low-cost fresh fruits and vegetables through bulk purchasing. Co-op members | |
| |learn new skills through their participation in ordering, organizing, and distributing the produce. Members also gain | |
| |through the social support and networking opportunities in this co-op. There are no plans to duplicate this initiative | |
| |in other areas of the City, where food security and poverty issues are addressed through existing community food co-ops,| |
| |collective kitchens, food banks and other means. | |
| |Are we maximizing the dollars provided to the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund and other housing programs. Are there other |Community Services |
| |models or proposals that might expand the use of dollars for housing | |
| |Since its inception three years ago, the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund has facilitated over $36 million in housing | |
| |projects in Edmonton. While the funding could be used to leverage larger contributions by the building owners, in many | |
| |instances this is not feasible because the organization does not have the funds and the project does not generate any | |
| |revenue (e.g. an emergency shelter). | |
| |Currently, the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund encourages proponents to contribute a portion of the project costs, but it is| |
| |not a requirement. However, over the past three years, the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund has contributed about 40% of the| |
| |total cost of the projects it has funded. While there are other models or proposals that have been effective, the | |
| |community and all three orders of government have chosen to support the Edmonton Housing Trust Fund as the entity for | |
| |housing in Edmonton. | |
| |What is the actual reduction of police positions (FTE’s) to meet the recommended level? (Page 334) |Police Service |
| |Add 12 FTE’s from Annualization of 24 positions. | |
| |Reduce 15 FTE’s to fund 2003 cost impact. | |
| |Add 4 police positions [+2 FTE’s ?] to eliminate file backlogs. | |
| |Add 16 FTE’s in various key technical and professional positions [are these police or civilian positions.] | |
| |See Tables Attachment. | |
| |To meet the 2003 budget proposed by the City, the EPS will not fill 36 police vacancies resulting from attrition. Based | |
| |on past experience, 36 police members retiring at various times throughout 2003 is equivalent to 15 FTEs. Approximately | |
| |47 police members are projected to retire in 2003. | |
| |Civilian personnel will increase by 16 FTEs at the 2003 budget proposed by the City level, mainly to support identified | |
| |strategic initiatives and increased organizational capacity in key areas such as human resources, information | |
| |technology, and analysts for Intelligence-led Policing. All of these positions have been fully funded by savings | |
| |identified through the Expenditure and Revenue Review and reallocation of existing resources. | |
| |How many complaints about noise from the helicopter were received by the Citizen’s Action Centre? |Corporate Services |
| |The Citizen Action Centre has received 24 complaints about the noise from the helicopter from July to present date Nov. | |
| |26th/02. | |
| |Were any other lower cost alternatives explored as indicated in the Toronto Helicopter evaluation report, i.e. shared |Police Service |
| |costs with RCMP or other municipalities? | |
| |The report, “The Evaluation of the Air Support Unit Pilot Project – Toronto Police Service,” at page 71 refers to “lower| |
| |cost alternatives.” These include: | |
| |A different helicopter. This alternative is not applicable to Edmonton, as the helicopter was selected and purchased by | |
| |private donations, due to its cost and quiet operation. | |
| |Sharing within the Greater Toronto Area. Edmonton is already doing this as a result of an understanding with the RCMP, | |
| |who are responsible for the surrounding municipalities. Air-1 assisted the RCMP (and other City departments) a total of | |
| |52 times in its first year of operation. | |
| |Using fixed-wing aircraft instead of a helicopter. The EPS already operates a fixed-wing aircraft, but it is not | |
| |suitable for the mission profile flown by Air-1, which includes rapid response, equipment compatibility/flexibility | |
| |issues, and high visibility. | |
| |At the initiation of the project, due to a number of issues specifically relating to the internal operations of the | |
| |RCMP, they were not in a position to share their helicopter. These issues specifically related to noise, availability, | |
| |and liability. | |
| |The Helicopter Project Business Plan indicated that the helicopter is a resource multiplier which is “the operational |Police Service |
| |equivalent of adding an extra 15 patrol cars on the street.”, does the Edmonton Police Service still maintain that this | |
| |is the case? How many officers are needed to operate 15 patrol cars 7/24? Is the cost estimate of 15 extra patrol cars| |
| |still $10M? | |
| |The KPMG report indicated they were not able to quantify the “resource multiplier” figure that had earlier been stated. | |
| |The EPS is no longer using this, or any other number, to indicate a relationship between patrol cars on the street and | |
| |the helicopter, as one complements the other and the relationship is complex and intertwined. | |
| |Please provide the breakdown of numbers of donors by following categories: |Police Service |
| |# of donations | |
| |Under $100 79,017 | |
| |$101 - $500 2,605 | |
| |$501 - $1,000 1,551 | |
| |$1,001 - $5,000 285 | |
| |$5,001 - $10,000 7 | |
| |over $10,000 9 | |
| |Total 83,474 | |
| |SOS Lottery 43,500 | |
| | | |
| |Total number of donations 126,974 | |
| |On the one hand, the department says that increasing manpower alone is not necessarily an effective approach and that |Police Service |
| |using proven technology effectively provides a synergistic solution. Has increased technology usage been factored into | |
| |the department’s demand for increased human resources? | |
| |Yes. The police helicopter is a good example. Its purpose is to complement and often increase resources and makes them | |
| |more effective. Take high-speed pursuits for example. The helicopter is capable of monitoring a fleeing vehicle without | |
| |endangering people or property on the ground. Once the vehicle stops, the helicopter can direct ground personnel to the | |
| |suspect(s), saving time and greatly increasing the likelihood of arrest. This same process is evident in crowd control | |
| |activities, missing person searches, foot pursuits, and especially, any kind of policing activity at night, because of | |
| |the helicopter’s advanced spotlight and infrared camera technology. | |
| |There are other examples of police using technology effectively: | |
| |The Project Archimedes initiative (using computer and data analysis to find patterns in intelligence and get that | |
| |information to members on the street who can act upon it) | |
| |The taser program (reduces the need for the use of lethal force in subduing violent suspects) | |
| |Photo radar and red-light cameras (reduces speeding in high-risk locations through consistent, unbiased enforcement) | |
| |The U of T 1999 study recommended that more than one helicopter be owned by Canadian police services, what is EPS’ long |Police Service |
| |range plans? | |
| |At this point, the EPS has no plans, either short term or long term, to have more than one helicopter. | |
| |Can the helicopter support the Fire Department with water drops as is done in Calgary? |ERD / |
| |The Edmonton Police Service helicopter could support the Fire Rescue Services with a water drop capability. However, |Police Service |
| |the helicopter would require retrofitting, pilots would require additional training in helicopter fire fighting tactics,| |
| |and job assignment priorities would need to be established. Discussions relating to training and equipment purchases to| |
| |support these types of missions are currently ongoing between the ERD and the EPS. | |
| |Can the department qualify any savings re: investigative costs, overtime, court time as a result of the helicopter. |Police Service |
| |No. There are many factors that influence these costs, including defense counsel, type of occurrence, type of offender, | |
| |and others. In addition, the 147 arrests directly attributable to Air-1 assistance resulted in savings since no follow | |
| |up work was required after the initial event to identify, locate, and arrest suspects. | |
| |How did the Department determine that arrests would not have been made without the presence of the police helicopter, as|Police Service |
| |the Toronto evaluation indicates that “Police helicopters do not make arrests.” | |
| |It is true helicopters, on their own, do not make arrests. However, their ability to respond rapidly, use technological | |
| |aids (such as the FLIR and NightSun), and effectively relay information to ground units are significant contributing | |
| |factors to on-scene arrests. | |
| |The determination that an “arrest would not likely have been made without the presence of the helicopter” (KPMG report, | |
| |page 37) is made by the Flight Crew, in consultation with the ground units involved. Several factors, such as the use of| |
| |the FLIR to track suspects that were not known to ground units and relay information to these ground units, safely | |
| |handling pursuits that would have been terminated without the presence of Air-1, and other factors are taken into | |
| |account before making this determination. We believe the number cited (147 arrests) to be a conservative figure. | |
| |Does the operating cost of approximately $600,000 include the cost of personnel and training? What are the cost savings|Police Service |
| |to leasing the helicopter vs. owning? (original cost of year long lease and operating costs was $681,440). | |
| |The budget request of $578,000 for the helicopter operating costs include $39,000 for training and licensing | |
| |requirements, however, personnel costs are not included. These positions have been reallocated from within the Service; | |
| |therefore, no additional costs will be incurred. | |
| |Purchase of the helicopter has saved approximately $250,000 in annual lease costs. | |
| |What performance indicators and annual reporting of these indicators to the Police Commission have been approved re: the|Police Service |
| |helicopter? | |
| |The EPS plans to continue monitoring the same performance indicators that were reported beginning on page 22 of the KPMG| |
| |report, with minor revisions, now that baseline data exists. | |
| |What is Edmonton Police Service’s plan for integration of helicopter into other police operations |Police Service |
| |Integration has largely occurred with respect to investigative, operational, and other support functions (such as crime | |
| |scene photos, special event activities, VIP security, and search management). | |
| |The EPS continues to educate patrol members about the effective use of the helicopter through fly-alongs, attendance at | |
| |shift briefings, and internal communication (Fast Facts - an internal EPS publication). In addition, specific | |
| |Memorandums of Understanding are being developed with partner agencies, such as ERD and the RCMP, to address areas of | |
| |mutual concern. | |
| |Toronto indicates that the cost of the helicopter unit is equivalent to having 25 extra officers. What is our |Police Service |
| |equivalent? | |
| |The KPMG report indicated they were not able to quantify the “resource multiplier” figure that had earlier been stated. | |
| |The EPS is no longer using this, or any other number to indicate a relationship between patrol cars on the street and | |
| |the helicopter, as one complements the other and the relationship is complex and intertwined. | |
| |With respect to the cost issue only (not the resource multiplier issue), the actual operating cost (excluding personnel)| |
| |of Air-1 is equivalent to approximately six (6) front line constables. When the existing complement of members assigned | |
| |to the unit is included, the total costs equate to approximately 11 police officers. | |
| |To put this in perspective, if all of this funding was reallocated to front line policing, as some have suggested, less | |
| |than three officers would be assigned to each patrol division. Given the realities of our 24/7 operations, this equates| |
| |to less than one person per division per shift (accounting for vacation, training, court, etc.). | |
| |What is the Noise Management Policy that EPS has instituted? |Police Service |
| |The EPS reduces noise in a number of different ways. Normal flight profiles are conducted at least 1,200 feet above | |
| |ground level. Air-1 does not fly below 800 feet at night, unless taking off or landing. Hovering in one spot (arguably | |
| |the loudest profile for a helicopter) is operationally discouraged – in fact – since the inception of the program, this | |
| |maneuver has seldom been performed. Overall intrusiveness is reduced by procedures requiring the helicopter to leave an | |
| |area immediately at the conclusion of an event. | |
| |Finally, by choosing one of the quietest helicopters on the market, the EPS has demonstrated concern for noise issues | |
| |and its commitment to reducing disturbance due to noise. | |
| |What reserves is the EPS suggesting to replace the helicopter? |Police Service |
| |The helicopter has an expected life cycle of 30 years. The EPS has an obligation to ensure the on-going maintenance will| |
| |enable the equipment to remain in top condition. | |
| |Replacement of the helicopter has not been contemplated at this time. City funds are not anticipated to be used for any | |
| |replacement of this citizen sponsored initiative. Partnership and other funding sources will be explored when this | |
| |becomes a necessity. | |
| |What percentage of total high priority calls received by EPS were responded to by helicopter? |Police Service |
| |Air-1 does not respond just to high priority calls (the priority level of each call was not captured). Air-1 is used in | |
| |a patrol function – that is – it responds to high-priority incidents as well as events that are particularly suited to | |
| |its capabilities (such as pursuits, suspicious persons or vehicles, break and enters, thefts, missing people, and | |
| |disturbances). | |
| |As our Crime Rates per 100,000 people for major North American cities is extremely low/and there is little evidence that|Police Service |
| |a helicopter prevents or deters crime why is this a priority as opposed to more officers on the street (pg 7 Toronto | |
| |evaluation report | |
| |The EPS position is no SPECIFIC crime deterrence factor can be attributed solely to Air-1. As Professor Whitehead stated| |
| |in the London, Ontario helicopter study (and is quoted in the Toronto report): | |
| |“Results from the London Police Service Helicopter Research Project do not support the hypothesis that police helicopter| |
| |patrols have a suppression effect on rates of crime. Helicopter patrols do not displace crime to other areas and neither| |
| |do they have a spillover effect to nearby areas.” | |
| |“The operational benefits of helicopter policing stem directly from the unique dimensions that it provides: aerial | |
| |perspective, speed, mobility and the ability to light an area. It facilitates many types of searches, saves time, adds | |
| |to citizen and officer safety and increases apprehensions.” | |
| |In addition, the benefits of public and officer safety, improved pursuit management, and the ability to quickly and | |
| |effectively assess situations and relay vital information to ground units support our assertion that, for Edmonton, the | |
| |continued operation of Air-1 will complement front line resources, not replace them. The KPMG report concluded the use | |
| |of a police helicopter in Edmonton was “an efficient and effective use of resources.” | |
| |Recently Ottawa – Carlston has purchased a fixed-wing aircraft which will be used to undertake “80% of helicopter |Police Service |
| |missions at 30% of cost.” Does EPS have any figures or comparative costs to a helicopter and why did EPS not consider | |
| |this option? | |
| |The mission profile of Air-1 includes rapid response to emergent situations such as pursuits and crimes in progress, | |
| |high visibility, and the flexibility to carry specialized equipment and perform a variety of operational police | |
| |missions. | |
| |In investigating a fixed-wing option, the EPS determined (based on our experience of having a fixed wing aircraft since | |
| |1980) the capabilities, flexibility and operational advantages (including being able to launch from the ground in less | |
| |than two minutes) of a helicopter were demonstrably superior. | |
| |Will on-going evaluation of effectiveness of helicopter include: |Police Service |
| |No. of hours saved in rescue and search activity | |
| |No. of hours saved in other types of calls | |
| |No. of arrests attributable to the helicopter | |
| |Standard set for response time | |
| |Effectiveness rate, no. of calls where direct impact resulted from helicopter divided by total no. of calls attended | |
| |Attributing any “savings” in terms of hours related to specific types of calls is difficult to determine. By way of | |
| |example, how does one quantify the amount of time saved when there is no way of determining how much time would have | |
| |been required? For example, some searches end in ½ hour, while others go on for days. The same issues arise out of an | |
| |arbitrary “effectiveness” ratio. | |
| |We plan to continue to capture the number of arrests attributable to the helicopter and response times. | |
| |A response rate for 34 officers is very low to indicate that there is support from EPS members for the helicopter. |Police Service |
| |Please explain how that conclusion was reached? | |
| |This issue was discussed extensively with KPMG during the compilation of the report. In their opinion, as the authors | |
| |of the report, the number of responses is indicative of a high level of support within the EPS. The EPS agrees with this| |
| |opinion, as evidenced by the high level of support demonstrated in the “fly-along” program. | |
| |The low number of responses was primarily due to the time of year the request was made (mid-summer – many officers were | |
| |on vacation) and that responses were NOT compulsory – voluntary submissions were requested via e-mail. KPMG also | |
| |observed positive responses from members in informal settings, outside of the formal responses requested. | |
| |Did Edmonton use the same comparators as the Toronto report. If not, why not? |Police Service |
| |For the most part, yes. However, some of the terminology is different and the specific objectives of each study were | |
| |tailored to the groups requesting the work be done. In Edmonton’s case, the Edmonton Police Commission contracted | |
| |directly with KPMG and set the objectives and measurement criteria. | |
| |The report seems to indicate that a reserve of $210,000 is required for replacing parts and maintenance. Does EPS have |Police Service |
| |this reserve? (pg 53) | |
| |Contribution to the repair reserve was required under the lease agreement and was funded through Project S.O.S. These | |
| |funds were held by the lease company until the purchase was completed. It has now been forwarded to the EPS as part of | |
| |the purchase agreement and will be held for major part replacements as required. | |
| |In order to ensure there are sufficient funds for major part replacements on an annual basis, the EPS has included a | |
| |budget line item for the repair reserve to supplement the existing fund. Major parts replacements are expected to be | |
| |between $150,000 and $375,000 annually. | |
| |Please confirm that only 1/3 of time of Flight Operation Unit is spent in the air. That is; that is an average 2.4 |Police Service |
| |hours per night for 5 days/nights of the week | |
| |Air-1 is deployed during peak workload periods. The table on Page 24 of the KPMG report indeed indicates that “on | |
| |average” Air-1 was airborne 2.4 hours per shift. However, since Air-1 is only on “stand-by” on the afternoon shift (and | |
| |not specifically required to be airborne unless requested), this “average” is skewed somewhat. On the primary airborne | |
| |shift, nights, 3.9 hours per shift was in the air on average. | |
| |Ideally, the EPS would have preferred Air-1 to be airborne for much longer time periods, but was constrained by 1,000 | |
| |hours of flight time in the budget for the first year of operation (amounting to 19.25 hours per week or 3.85 hours per | |
| |24-hour period). | |
| |What is the breakdown of calls to the helicopter unit by season (pg 24) (178 calls for 1 year) |Police Service |
| |The average number of calls per month is 178. The specific breakdown of the number of calls by month is included on page| |
| |27 of the report. | |
| |Is it true that if % of dispatched calls increases that there will be less opportunity for active patrol? Is this |Police Service |
| |perceived as a positive? | |
| |Yes, Air-1 only has a limited amount of flying hours available in a year, so an increase in one type of activity would | |
| |result in a decrease in the other. | |
| |It is difficult to say whether this is positive or negative. The EPS sees a role for Air-1 in both dispatched calls and | |
| |active patrol. Operational deployment will depend on the need for the helicopter in both roles at any given time. | |
| |As Air-1 was only requested in 2% of traffic or subject stops how can the claim be made that it is effective in |Police Service |
| |increasing officer safety. Does this suggest that officers feel Air-1 is not effective in providing for safety or does | |
| |this mean that the officers are not aware of the benefits of Air-1? | |
| |The vast majority of traffic stops conducted by EPS members are low risk and “routine,” not necessarily requiring the | |
| |services of Air-1. | |
| |However, as the organization becomes more aware of the capabilities of the helicopter, requests for airborne cover are | |
| |increasing. The artificially low number cited in the report is primarily due to the delay in installing the NightSun. | |
| |Once installed, requests began to increase significantly and continue to do so, depending on time of day and the | |
| |circumstances unique to each traffic stop. | |
| |As Air-1 flew less in 1st half of evaluation period and more in 2nd half and as there were large decreases in break and |Police Service |
| |enters in 1st half and large increases in 2nd half, can we summarize that Air-1 has no ability to deter crime. | |
| |The EPS position is no SPECIFIC crime deterrence factor can be attributed to Air-1. As Professor Whitehead stated in the| |
| |London, Ontario helicopter study (and is quoted in the Toronto report): | |
| |“Results from the London Police Service Helicopter Research Project do not support the hypothesis that police helicopter| |
| |patrols have a suppression effect on rates of crime. Helicopter patrols do not displace crime to other areas and neither| |
| |do they have a spillover effect to nearby areas.” | |
| |“The operational benefits of helicopter policing stem directly from the unique dimensions that it provides: aerial | |
| |perspective, speed, mobility and the ability to light an area. It facilitates many types of searches, saves time, adds | |
| |to citizen and officer safety and increases apprehensions”. | |
| |Further, after only one year of operation, it is too early to make any conclusions on the overall impact of Air-1 on | |
| |specific crime types in Edmonton, as a number of other factors come into play, such as socio-economic conditions, other | |
| |police tactics, etc. | |
| |What is breakdown of over-expenditure of equipment costs of $103,494 highlighted on pg 54? What will insurance costs |Police Service |
| |be? Are there long term plans for a new facility | |
| |The breakdown of the equipment costs is as follows: | |
| |NightSun (and related equipment not included in the lease costs) $51,468 | |
| |Helicopter Dolly (used to move the helicopter on the ground) $ 6,159 | |
| |Flight Suits, Helmets and Uniforms $14,725 | |
| |Operating Equipment Maintenance (radios, systems, etc.) $ 8,170 | |
| |Reflective Numbering on Patrol Car roofs $ 4,525 | |
| |Other miscellaneous expenses $18,447 | |
| |$103,494 | |
| |These costs were not predicted in the original budget submission of $10,000 for equipment purchases. | |
| |With respect to insurance, we have received confirmation that due to the events of 2001 September 11, costs will rise | |
| |significantly, perhaps as high as 60%. | |
| |With respect to a new facility for the helicopter, no plans are being made at this time. The EPS Flight Operations Unit| |
| |enjoys a tremendous working relationship with the RCMP Air Services Unit, allowing us to use their hangar at the City | |
| |Centre Airport, at a nominal cost of $1.00 per year. | |
| |What was the question asked of public re: effectiveness of helicopter (pg 59) |Police Service |
| |The specific question is listed in Appendix B “Criterion Research Corp. Edmonton Police Service Helicopter Evaluation” –| |
| |of the KPMG Report at Page 26. It states: | |
| |“Next, I would like you to rate the effectiveness of the Police Helicopter, overall, and on a number of aspects. In | |
| |answering these questions, use the seven-point scale where ONE is NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE, FOUR is EFFECTIVE and SEVEN is | |
| |VERY EFFECTIVE. How effective do you think the helicopter is: | |
| |overall; | |
| |in terms of increasing the number of arrests made by the police; | |
| |in terms of reducing the number of pursuits handled by the police; | |
| |in terms of reducing the time taken by the police to respond to emergencies; | |
| |in terms of increasing public safety. | |
| |What is process for registering complaints? Are complaints received from Citizen Action Centre, Councillors, etc. taken|Police Service |
| |into account (pg 60) | |
| |The process is the same as with any other complaint about the police. Complaints received from the Citizen Action | |
| |Centre, Councillors, EPS Communications, or by any other source are documented on an “Information to the Chief of | |
| |Police” form. | |
| |These complaints are then investigated and resolved as any other complaint with respect to the nature of police service.| |
| |As a final quality control check, the Inspector in charge of Support Branch contacts complainants to ensure the specific| |
| |issue raised has been addressed. | |
| |What is the policy re: photo radar? Are cameras placed at ‘high risk’ locations such as school and playground zones? |Police Service |
| |Yes. Following provincial guidelines, the EPS has identified 34 photo radar sites that are classified as School Areas. | |
| |These sites are set up along the major arteries leading in and out of areas that have a high concentration of schools in| |
| |a small area. These sites are in addition to the three School Zones that are currently in effect in Edmonton. Photo | |
| |Radar operators are required to work at least one of these areas each day. | |
| |As the South Division has more community stations, wouldn’t it be logical that there would be more files generated (pg. |Police Service |
| |16 – South Division Report) | |
| |The report indicates the workload at South Division community stations is at least twice as great as in any other | |
| |division. This greater workload is not just the result of having more community stations, rather, it is a result of how | |
| |busy these community stations are in relation to the community stations in other divisions. | |
| |In terms of investigative workload, the Millwoods Community Station is by far the busiest community station in the city.| |
| |In addition, the Old Strathcona Station and the Ottewell Community Station are also in the top five in workload. | |
| |What is the life cycle of all stations? And what is officer capacity for each station? Which facilities need |Police Service |
| |replacement within the next 5 years? Could these buildings be sold or used for other municipal purposes? | |
| |See Tables Attachment. | |
| |Any EPS facilities declared surplus to the needs of the EPS are returned to Asset Management and Public Works, to be | |
| |used for other municipal purposes or to be sold as dictated by the Corporate Land Management Policy. | |
| |The chart on page 15 of South Division Transition Project seems to indicate that North and Downtown Divisions had the |Police Service |
| |highest number of consumed time by Division. Please explain comment that South Division was ‘seen as the highest’ | |
| |number of consumed time? | |
| |The reference in the text does not accurately reflect the chart, which is provided on that page. South Division did not | |
| |rank as #1 every year. However, in those years where South Division ranked second in consumed time, it was very close | |
| |behind the top ranked division. | |
| |In terms of a year to year ranking, South Division consumed time (according to the chart) would be ranked as follows | |
| |among the four response divisions: | |
| |Year South | |
| |1991 # 2 (North Division was the highest) | |
| |1992 # 2 (North Division was the highest) | |
| |1993 # 2 (North Division was the highest) | |
| |1994 # 2 (North Division was the highest) | |
| |# 1* | |
| |# 1 | |
| |# 1 | |
| |# 2 (Downtown Division was the highest) | |
| |# 1 | |
| |* Effective January 1, 1995, the EPS redefined divisional boundaries. North Division decreased in size and Downtown | |
| |increased in geographical size. | |
| | | |
| |To be more accurate, the reference should have indicated that South Division's consumed time was consistently seen as | |
| |being among the highest in the city. | |
| |Do community stations include mall stations? |Police Service |
| |Yes, the Summerlea/WEM Community station is located in the West Edmonton Mall shopping complex. The remaining ten | |
| |community stations and a few beat offices are located in small strip malls or office complexes. | |
| |The Edmonton Police Service currently operates twelve community stations. All of these facilities are leased, with the | |
| |exception of the Eastwood Community station, which resides in a corporate-owned facility. | |
| |Please explain the discrepancy between actual satisfaction rate of 48% of citizens being satisfied with public |Transportation |
| |transportation and 94% of riders satisfied in Branch research results? (Page 371) | |
| |The Corporate customer satisfaction survey includes all citizens of Edmonton; in the case of the Branch customer | |
| |satisfaction survey only transit users were interviewed. | |
| |What does the 2004 Celebrations Project have to do with Parking Meter decrease? (Page 375) |Transportation |
| |The 2004 Celebrations Project is the re-design of Churchill Square. The options presented for redesign include the | |
| |expansion of Churchill Square which requires removal of some of the parking on the roads surrounding the Square. | |
| |Removal of this parking results in a decrease of 10 to 20 on-street meters and, in-turn, a decrease in parking meter | |
| |revenue. | |
| |As street lights burn out will they be replaced at intersections and crosswalks with lights that have brighter |Transportation |
| |illumination? (page 375) | |
| |No, we do not have a program in place for upgrading burnt out street lights at unsignalized intersections. Street Light | |
| |lumination is higher at intersections with traffic control devices. This upgrading program started in early 80's in | |
| |conjunction with the Community Safe Streets Program and has continued to date. This program is approximately 75% | |
| |completed and is ongoing. | |
| |What are the new federal and provincial rules affecting winter road clearing? (Page 376) |Transportation |
| |On November 30, 2001, the Ministers of the Environment and Health recommended that road salts be declared toxic and | |
| |added to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Schedule 1. The requirement under CEPA is for Environment | |
| |Canada to develop and publish proposed instruments for better management of road salts by November 2003 with the final | |
| |instruments to be ready by spring 2005. It is expected that the key instrument will be a code of practice for the use | |
| |of winter roadway maintenance compounds. The actual addition of a substance to Schedule 1 is done at the discretion of | |
| |the Government, and has not yet occurred for road salts. Department staff are actively involved in the work of | |
| |Environment Canada and Transportation Association of Canada. | |
| |Are the new traffic controls funded by Developer revenue? (Page 376) |Transportation |
| |For the 2003 budget, 100% of the traffic control inventory will be maintained. For developer built and funded new | |
| |signals, street lights, signing and markings; they will pay the cost of maintenance for the first 2 years. Developers | |
| |fund less then 3% of the total new traffic control inventory in 2003. | |
| |Does reduction in street light energy consumption mean that the intensity of the light is lessened? (Page 377) |Transportation |
| |The reduction of energy consumption will not lower the intensity of street lighting. The energy savings identified in | |
| |the revenue and expenditure review is primarily related to the more accurate estimation of energy usage under the UML | |
| |(Un-metered Load System implemented in 2002) with EPCOR D&T. The UML system is a model that calculates the energy usage| |
| |of the streetlighting system. | |
| |As crosswalk flashers are not funded, will the Department reconsider its policy of marked but not signalized crosswalks?|Transportation |
| |What cost savings would be achieved if the City discontinued its policy of marking crosswalks? (Page 383) | |
| |Two types of unsignalised marked crosswalks exist in the City of Edmonton: marked crosswalks at intersections, and | |
| |"zebra" marked crosswalks at mid-block locations. The Transportation and Streets Department must continue to mark and | |
| |maintain mid-block crosswalks, as these locations would not be considered "legal" crossing points for pedestrians unless| |
| |appropriately marked and signed. | |
| |Marked crosswalks at intersections are installed when appropriate in accordance with Department guidelines for | |
| |pedestrian and vehicle activity. While intersection locations are legally considered "crosswalks", even if unmarked and| |
| |unless otherwise signed, the marking of crosswalks is undertaken to guide pedestrians to the most appropriate and safest| |
| |crossing points (on the approaches to schools, for example). | |
| |The City of Edmonton currently has 753 marked crosswalks at intersection locations, with an additional 24 intersection | |
| |crosswalks permanently installed in 2002 at a cost of $20,600. In 2002, 389 intersection crosswalks were repainted or | |
| |rehabilitated (often in conjunction with other roadworks, primarily in the Capital budget), at a total cost of $247,300.| |
| |Should the City discontinue providing marked crosswalks at unsignalised intersections, an annual savings of | |
| |approximately $20,000 would be anticipated, based on the information for new crosswalks in 2002, and an additional | |
| |$250,000 in savings might be anticipated if existing intersection marked crosswalks are no longer maintained. | |
| |It is noted that the Department reviews whether existing crosswalk locations should be retained when roadways are | |
| |rehabilitated, and has removed a number of locations on arterial roadways when signalized crossings are available within| |
| |a reasonable walking distance. Many of the existing marked crosswalks are on collector roadways near schools or | |
| |playgrounds, where upgraded protection is not warranted, but it is desirable to clearly identify a recommended crossing | |
| |location. | |
| |How will a new market planner position alleviate concern with DATS service and operations? (Vol. 3, p. 165) |Transportation |
| |The City has invested significantly in creating a more accessible transportation system (e.g. low floor buses, LRT | |
| |ramps, accessible shelters, curb ramps on sidewalks, etc.). This position would ensure that current and prospective | |
| |DATS registrants are fully informed and if appropriate, trained on how to use conventional public transit. Through a | |
| |Lottery Board grant, ETS was able to update the Mobility Choices travel training program. This modular program is an | |
| |audiovisual aid to teach persons with disabilities how to use public transit. Training persons with disabilities to use| |
| |the conventional transit has been demonstrated to be effective in other cities (e.g. Victoria, Seattle) in shifting | |
| |trips from specialized services like DATS to low floor buses. | |
| |How much will the public education program cost? (Vol. 3, p. 165) |Transportation |
| |In 2001, ETS received a $30K grant from the Lottery Board to update the Mobility Choices Travel Training program. The | |
| |updated Mobility Choices program will be completed by early 2003. In order to deliver this program to persons with | |
| |disabilities, ongoing resources are required. $43K is budgeted in 2003 to fund a position, commencing in June 2003, | |
| |materials, promotional campaigns and communication, and costs associated with delivering the Mobility Choices Travel | |
| |training program. This would require annualization in 2004 to sustain the program. | |
| |What is “toxic road dust”? (Vol. 3, p. 190) |Transportation |
| |Particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) has been declared a Toxic Substance under the Canadian | |
| |Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Inventories of sources of PM10 in urban areas generally show that road dust from | |
| |paved roads is a significant contributing source. For example, a 2000 Greater Vancouver study found that road dust from | |
| |paved roads made up 34% of total PM10 emissions in that region. (No comparable data is currently available for the | |
| |Edmonton urban area). | |
| |What is the cost of the Noise Attenuation Program Review? (Vol. 3, p. 202) |Transportation |
| |The Noise Attenuation Program Policy review, currently underway, is being completed primarily as an in house exercise, | |
| |with estimated costs of under $50,000 for work additional to in house. The $50,000 includes costs associated with | |
| |updated measurement of noise at locations that were tested in the early 1990’s and a number of other requested high | |
| |volume locations, independent expert review of the updated noise policy and preparation of materials for public | |
| |information. The operating package described on page 202 of volume 3 outlines a proposed position to be added in 2004 | |
| |to address a number of program areas within the Transportation Planning Branch, including Transportation Demand | |
| |Management (TDM) measures, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) planning, and development of detailed plans and | |
| |community consultation associated with implementation of noise attenuation retrofit measures, which are funded for | |
| |construction, beginning in 2006 (program XX-66-1950 on page 514 of budget volume 4). | |
| |As same day (demand) bookings for DATS was a priority for DATS users why would this not be considered a priority and |Transportation |
| |funded rather than, for example, Renaming DATS and funding the Market Planner position? (Vol. 3, p. 206) | |
| |The DATS Review recommendations approved by City Council did not contain specific direction regarding same day (demand) | |
| |trip bookings. Renaming DATS (DATS Review Recommendation 6.6.1) is not contained in the funded portion of the budget. | |
| |The market planner position will provide a dedicated resource to work with the community to optimize use of the | |
| |accessible ETS services, including seasonal use (DATS Review Recommendations 6.1.6 and OCA 4). ETS services offer a | |
| |higher level of travel flexibility and spontaneity at a lower unit cost to the City than DATS service. Same day | |
| |(demand) trip bookings are an important travel need for users, however, limited budget resources and other competing | |
| |Department priorities resulted in this program being unfunded. | |
| |As there is a subsidy for low income Edmontonians for transit fares, could the City provide a subsidy to AISH |Transportation |
| |recipients? What would be the cost of a $10, $20 or $30 per month subsidy? What other options could the City provide? | |
| |The Transportation and Public Works Committee of Council addressed the matter of transit fare assistance for low income | |
| |residents at its November 7, 2001 meeting. The following recommendation was approved: That City Council establish a | |
| |Transit Fare Assistance Program that distributes transit tickets (the number to be equivalent to six per cent of the | |
| |Edmonton population) annually to community agencies that serve Edmontonians living on low-income and that the cost of | |
| |this program be brought forward in the 2002 budget. | |
| |The rationale for the decision was that delivering transit assistance through a network of community agencies is | |
| |consistent with the City’s role of supporting community well being through the provision of preventive social services. | |
| |It is aligned with the principles approved by Council in the ETS Fare Strategy and the policy directions of the | |
| |Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Similar strategies are employed in Calgary and Regina. Income support programs are | |
| |the responsibility of the Province. | |
| |The estimated revenue loss at $10, $20, and $30 per month subsidies to the adult pass would be $210,000, $425,000 and | |
| |$610,000 respectively. Additional to these revenue losses would be the cost of administrative and audit controls to | |
| |discourage misuse of the passes. | |
| |Would “traffic management measures” be a cost-effective way to deal with traffic congestion, i.e. car pooling |Transportation |
| |incentives, dedicated bus or car lanes? Which measures could the Department propose? | |
| |As part of the Transportation Master Plan technical work, a Transportation Demand Management Study was undertaken, which| |
| |documented opportunities to explore implementation of TDM measures in Edmonton by attempting to influence travel | |
| |behaviour through measures that address one or more of the following: | |
| |Reduce the need for travel; | |
| |Divert trips from the automobile to alternative modes of travel (transit, bicycle, walk); | |
| |Reduce the number of single occupant (SOV) trips by increasing vehicle occupancies; | |
| |Divert trips to alternative and potentially more appropriate routes; and | |
| |Shift the time of travel away from peak hours. | |
| |In preparing the Transportation Master Plan, surveys tested residents responsiveness to measures that discourage travel | |
| |by private automobile, with the response that the public strongly supported the provision of alternative modes of | |
| |travel, but strongly objected to punitive measures against the auto. The TDM study identified the most promising | |
| |options for Edmonton would involve land use planning (encouragement of a more compact land use – currently being | |
| |developed as the Urban Intensification Project by Planning and Development), parking supply management, and parking | |
| |pricing. When targeting parking policies, the two areas of most promise are the Downtown (where parking supply is | |
| |anticipated to decline and prices rise as redevelopment of vacant lands occurs), and the University area (where parking | |
| |demand exceeds supply and pricing can be set by one owner/operator). It is noted that the City cannot play a major role| |
| |in influencing parking policy in the downtown as the City controls only a small share of parking supply. | |
| |As many successful TDM strategies involve employer based programs, the City has been requested to work with the | |
| |University as they undertake a TDM study (identified as a high priority as part of the Long Range Development Plan). | |
| |Other key measures that the City is involved with involve provision of alternative modes of travel (walking, cycling, | |
| |transit) and maximizing system capacity through use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) (examples include | |
| |bus/bile lanes. Bike only lanes and bike racks on buses). Car pool lanes (HOV lanes) will be considered on a case by | |
| |case basis, but, in general, have not been identified as having a significant opportunity to address congestion, and are| |
| |therefore not a high priority for TDM. | |
| |What is the cost to the City to participating in the ACRA “Coordinated Municipal Transit Review” and the cost of the |Transportation |
| |proposed trial period of integrated bus service? What are the benefits to the City of Edmonton and will there be any | |
| |adverse impact on Edmontonian’s service? As there are identified BRT/LRT corridors in the report (pg. 61), is it | |
| |necessary to proceed with the study on BRT/LRT routes to the West End/Millwoods, etc., or can we proceed to the next | |
| |step of the process which is community consultations. As there are existing and abandoned rail lines linking City | |
| |Centre to 107 Avenue and 124 Street, could not these lines be utilized to establish a BRT/LRT link to the West End and | |
| |Northwest Edmonton along 127th Avenue? | |
| |The ACRA “Coordinated Municipal Transit Review” was prepared by the consultants Transportation Management & Design Inc. | |
| |and Stantec Consulting. Funding for the consultants was provided through a grant from the Province. City staff provided | |
| |information to support the study. The report concluded that service from Stony Plain/Spruce Grove, Fort Saskatchewan, | |
| |and Leduc, and Beaumont would be viable given their populations at an average return fare of about $8.00. A trial with | |
| |service and fare integration would require further development for consideration. | |
| | | |
| |The ACRA Coordinated Municipal Transit Review identifies potential corridors for consideration as high speed transit | |
| |routes from the Region into Edmonton, but does not undertake any analytical analysis of the justification of these | |
| |routes, or a review of either the appropriateness of the route or feasibility/cost effectiveness of proposed technology | |
| |(the ACRA study proposes LRT). It is also noted that the level of transit demand from the Region into the city is very | |
| |low relative to the existing transit demand within the City of Edmonton. The High Speed Transit Study, recently | |
| |directed by City Council will focus on the following key issues: | |
| |Review the most appropriate high speed “corridors” to accommodate growth in travel demand from suburban areas in the | |
| |west, southeast and north/northwest in Edmonton to key transit destinations in the centre of the city (downtown, | |
| |University, other); | |
| |Review the most appropriate technology for corridors based on anticipated demand and opportunities to stage improvements| |
| |from today (bus lane, busway, LRT, park and ride); and | |
| |Outline broad community issues to be addressed in future detailed route planning. | |
| |It is noted that the High Speed Transit Study will not consider specific routes, but, rather corridors (for example from| |
| |downtown to the west via a northerly approach, or via a southerly approach from the University). It is considered | |
| |premature to protect rights of way on specific routes in the absence of technical analysis to address corridors. | |
| |It is noted that the presence of a route opportunity (such as abandoned rail lines) is a consideration from a cost | |
| |perspective, but such route opportunities would only receive serious consideration if they would meet the objective of | |
| |accommodating demands via the most direct (high speed) routes. The most appropriate corridors will only be known once | |
| |the High Speed Transit Study is concluded. | |
| |Please provide an update of the Multi-Use Corridor Study. |Transportation |
| |The Multi-use Trail Corridor Study was approved by City Council on March 5, 2002. The two key measures being | |
| |implemented are the formation of the Advisory Committee on Trails, and the planning and implementation of the multi-use | |
| |trail corridor network. The following actions are currently underway: | |
| |A draft terms of reference is currently being finalized for an Administrative Advisory Committee on Trails. The | |
| |Transportation and Public Works Committee has requested that this terms of reference be provided to them for information| |
| |(currently scheduled for January 7, 2003), with the objective of advertising for membership in January and having the | |
| |group having their first meeting at the start of February, 2003). | |
| |Implementation of the multi-use trail corridor network. The following measures were implemented in 2002 as are proposed| |
| |in 2003 to 2007: | |
| |widen multi-use trail adjacent to River Valley Road (completed, 2002); | |
| |implement initial stage of Northeast multi-use trail adjacent to LRT (97 to 95 Street) and southeast multi-use trail | |
| |adjacent to 91 Street (66 to 58 Avenue) (completed, 2002); | |
| |implement Ribbon of Steel corridor in 2003 (project 02-66-1431 on page 487 of budget volume 4); | |
| |implement second stage on Northeast and Southeast trails in 2003 (project XX-66-1430 on page 485 of budget volume 4); | |
| |and | |
| |over the next five years, complete key stages of the multi-use trail corridor plan through a mixture of city and | |
| |developer funding, and, where possible, integrated with completion of other capital projects. | |
| |Has a decision been made to focus on non-ambulatory clients? |Transportation |
| |Work has commenced in the development of the new registration process, detailed application form, a point scoring system| |
| |for determining eligibility, the personal interview process and criteria, and terms of reference for the external | |
| |appeals panel (DAT Review Recommendations 6.1.1 – 6.1.5 and 6.1.8). Stakeholder consultations are being held, and the | |
| |project is scheduled for completion by May 31, 2003. Implementation of the recertification process will commence after | |
| |that time. | |
| |The eligibility review did not contain any specific recommendations excluding ambulatory customers from DATS service. | |
| |The process outlined above will enable the City to more thoroughly scrutinize applicants, and to verify the eligibility | |
| |of current registrants. In combination with other initiatives, such as public education, it is anticipated a greater | |
| |proportion of non-ambulatory trips will be carried on DATS services over time. | |
| |Will there be a cap or service provided by contractors – will service be costed on an hourly or on a per ride basis? |Transportation |
| |Current DATS contracted service is based on a per trip payment structure with varying rates for different trip types | |
| |(e.g. ambulatory, non-ambulatory, group, etc.). The actual number of trips provided by contracted services is derived | |
| |from the approved budget funding and the mix of trip types over the year. Future contract tenders will consider hourly | |
| |and per trip payment options, as well as any other payment method proposed by bidders. The City will award contracts to| |
| |qualified bidders giving due consideration to the cost effectiveness of their payment proposal. | |
| |Has the Department considered the impact of oversized trucks on our roadways? Is it a provincial mandate to reduce the |Transportation |
| |length or weight of trucks | |
| |The trucking industry continues to provide pressure on the road authorities to increase the loading limit, and the | |
| |volume of trucks on the road system continues to climb. Allowable load limits in Edmonton are consistent with approved | |
| |loading established by the Province (Alberta Transportation). For the North-South Trade Highway, the Province is making | |
| |provision for longer trucks (WB36). Oversized trucks (height, width, or loading) are accommodated within the City | |
| |through the use of special permits (Permit-to-Move), whereby the department restricts the route, the time of travel, the| |
| |travel speed, the axle loading, and any traffic control or police escort requirements. | |
| |The current permissible axle-loading limit of 17,000kg was increased from 16,000kg in the late 1980s. Over a 20-year | |
| |period, this increased loading results in about a 2-yr loss-of-life for a typical truck route. Through the permit | |
| |restrictions imposed on oversized trucks, the impacts on roadways are minimized. | |
| |For new projects and rehabilitation work on the truck-route arterial network, pavement designs make provision for | |
| |current truck loading limits and projected traffic volumes. Pavement designs are based on a 20-year life for new | |
| |projects, and a 10-year period for rehabilitation projects, using current and available information. Pavement designs | |
| |allow for a 5% overload on heavy vehicles. | |
| |New developments in pavement materials and pavement technologies continue to be applied to arterial roads to improve | |
| |their life and strength. Recent pavements have included use of polymer-modified asphalt (PMA), stone matrix asphalt | |
| |(SMA), concrete inlays (white topping), full-depth recycling, and roller-compacted concrete (RCC). | |
| |What is the budget for the Community Based Social Service Information System and what are the deliverables? |Community Services |
| |The Community Based Social Services (CBSS) Information System was designed and implemented in the early 1990's as a | |
| |mechanism for recording information on the assigned work of social work staff. It is a hold over system to which no | |
| |budget is allocated, pending identification of a system that will better meet business needs. The deliverables of the | |
| |CBSS system are reports on service volume, type and geographic distribution, as well as reports on the characteristics | |
| |of the client caseload. This information is used by professional social work and management staff for service planning | |
| |and decision-making purposes. Routine reports are generated for staff and management, and custom reports are produced | |
| |as required. | |
|Councillor D. Thiele: | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |What does funding to maintain corporate relationships mean? |City Clerk |
| |Corporate Relationships covers: | |
| | | |
| |Corporate Promotion and Events: | |
| |Military Events (e.g. - Freedom of the City, Edmonton Salutes activities) | |
| |Recognition of Professional Sports Teams ( e.g. - Oilers, Eskimos, Olympians etc) | |
| |Dignitary Visits (e.g. - Archbishop Desmond Tutu) | |
| |Sponsorships (e.g. - Labatt Brier, 2002 Ringette Championship, International Winter Construction Symposium and Expo, | |
| |Grey Cup etc. ) | |
| |Marigold Pin Give-aways (pin give-away program for Edmontonians) | |
| |Small Event Hosting (one-time hosting under $500 e.g.Random Act of Kindness Kick off) | |
| |Presentation Items (proclamations and certificates) | |
| | | |
| |Corporate Memberships (e.g. - AUMA, FCM, Yellowhead Highway) | |
| |Twinning Activities (e.g. - Nashville, Harbin, Hull-Gatineau ???) | |
| |Board Member Recruitment (recruitment relating to Civic Agencies, Board and Committees) | |
| |AUMA (conference sponsorship) | |
| |FCM (Promotion of 2004 Conference in Edmonton) | |
| | | |
| |Corporate Relationships budget 2002 2003 | |
| |Corporate Promo and Events 151,110 189,888 | |
| |Corporate Memberships 214,615 220,052 | |
| |Twinning Cities 25,350 25,984 | |
| |Board Member Recruitment 144,750 148,369 | |
| |AUMA 46,575 47,739 | |
| |FCM 75,000 | |
| |What is the potential of borrowing money from our own funds for the 1% borrowing, i.e. $50 Million at competitive rates |Finance |
| |(in essence the cost of borrowing would be recouped back to ourselves)? | |
| |The City could borrow from its own investment funds, however, Administration is not recommending this approach since | |
| |there is no net benefit to the City. Currently, the investments that the City makes over the long run generate returns | |
| |on investment higher than the current borrowing rates. For example, the EdTel Endowment Fund generated an 8.2% return on| |
| |investment over the last four years and is expected to return approximately 7% going into the future. This compares to | |
| |the current prevailing borrowing rates (20-year borrowing is at 5.75%). Therefore, if we borrow from our own investments| |
| |in the current environment, we will forego higher investment earnings to the City. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |What is the condition of City of Edmonton facilities and buildings? |AM&PW |
| |The condition of City buildings and facilities (as reported in the 2002 Infrastructure Strategy) is: | |
| |Building Category Very Good/Good Fair Poor/Critical | |
| |Civic Buildings 58% 32% 10% | |
| |(ERD, Police, Libraries, Offices | |
| |Public Works, Operations) | |
| |LRT/Transit Facilities 74% 15% 11% | |
| |Recreation Facilities 41% 49% 10% | |
| |(Pools/Arenas, Seniors Centers, | |
| |Stadium & Fitness Centers, Attractions | |
| |Outdoor Amenity Buildings) | |
| |How much City land is available for industrial and residential development? What happens when we run out of land? Is |AM&PW |
| |the amount of land available sufficient for us to be a player in the market into the future? | |
| |The City has 210 gross hectares of future industrial development land. The holdings are located in Ellerslie, Pylypow, | |
| |Rampart, and Maple Ridge. The City has 178 hectares of future residential land. The future residential holdings are | |
| |located in Brintnell, Schonsee, Oxford, Leger, and the Meadows. Our Long Range Forecast anticipates that both the | |
| |industrial and residential land supply will last through the year 2010. This forecast assumes a development program of | |
| |25 hectares of industrial land per year, and 150 - 200 residential lots per year during the forecast period. | |
| |In accordance with the Industrial Land Strategy, industrial land inventories will be closely monitored so as to ensure | |
| |an adequate supply of land in the City. Additional land purchases will be brought forward for Council’s consideration | |
| |if the administration believes that such purchases would be in the City’s best interest. | |
| |The administration has not pursued the acquisition of more land to extend the City’s residential development program | |
| |beyond our existing raw land supply. This position should be revisited within the next 5 years so as to consider the | |
| |cost / benefit of this activity relative to the ongoing revenue stream and the opportunity to support other Corporate | |
| |objectives. | |
| |How many Provincial or Federal laws/requirements have affected the Drainage department recently and how will these |AM&PW |
| |laws/requirements affect the future | |
| |The primary Acts regulating Drainage Services are: the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the | |
| |Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the (Canadian) Fisheries Act. More stringent regulations are currently being | |
| |contemplated by the Federal and Provincial governments under all of these Acts. | |
| |How will the review of the drainage utility financially affect both the Public and Separate School Boards in 2003 and in|AM&PW |
| |the future? | |
| |The Edmonton Public Schools are expected to pay about $237,000 per year for Land Drainage charges starting in 2003. | |
| |This represents approximately 2% of the School Boards annual utility budget and .04% of total budget. | |
| |The Edmonton Catholic Schools are expected to pay about $81,000 per year for Land Drainage charges starting in 2003. No | |
| |budget information was available for Catholic Schools. | |
| |This charge is forecasted to increase at the rate of inflation in future years. | |
| |Generally what is being done to address our aging workforce i.e. incentives, apprenticeships, training, fire and police |Corporate Services |
| |retirements, and staffing plans in various other departments as retirements loom | |
| |Workforce Planning: | |
| |Demographic and occupational profiles have been created for each department as part of the City Leadership Development | |
| |Program with the University of Alberta. | |
| |February and March of 2003 dates have been booked with each department to do detailed analysis and develop targeted | |
| |strategies. Each department will then have a detailed 'staffing plan' and strategies to address issues. | |
| |Succession Planning: | |
| |All departments have completed succession planning reviews of Branch Managers and Directors. A need has been identified| |
| |to move this process to the next levels in targeted areas during 2003. | |
| |Individual development training programs are being developed for each Branch Manager and Director for 2003. | |
| |Workforce planning will be fully integrated in future Department Business Plans. | |
| |Some occupational categories have instituted special training programs in anticipation of shortages - example Inspectors| |
| |in Planning and Development. | |
| |Training: | |
| |Currently offer corporate programs for leadership and front line supervisory staff (in partnership with the U of A) for | |
| |Branch Managers, Directors, supervisors and foremen. SMT has approved development of a program in 2003 for senior | |
| |professionals and entry level managers based on required managerial competencies. | |
| |Departments manage their specific training needs and budgets. | |
| |Apprenticeships: | |
| |Currently exploring opportunities to work with an external organization (Careers) to pilot a program that would bring | |
| |high school students into apprenticeship positions (note: numbers to be negotiated with appropriate unions). | |
| |Attraction Activities: | |
| |Attendance at job fairs, and educational institutions to promote career opportunities with the City of Edmonton. | |
| |Partnering with educational institutions for work experience programs - example: University of Alberta Engineering | |
| |faculty for Co-op students. | |
| |Fire Retirements: | |
| |In ERD, there was a lot of analysis done as part of Fire Vision 2000 to determine their turnover for the next decade. | |
| |As a result, the firefighter recruitment process was improved (e.g. major recruitment every 18 - 24 months, eligibility | |
| |list created, etc.). | |
| |ERD is confident a smooth transition will occur. | |
| |Police Retirements: | |
| |EPS has looked at making the force more flexible for women, in order to attract and retain them as senior officers | |
| |retire. A Letter of Understanding on Job Sharing for Police Officers has been negotiated for this purpose. | |
| |What would the percentage tax increase be if all operational program were funded for police, library and City |Finance |
| |departments (Yellow portion of large sheet)? | |
| |In order to fund the corporately ranked civic department service packages in the yellow portion of the large sheet ($6.2| |
| |million), taxes would increase by an additional 1.4% over the recommended 3.5% or 4.9% in total. | |
| |Funding the civic department service packages in the white area of the large sheet, in addition, ($21.1 million, plus | |
| |the $6.2 million above or $27.3 million in total) would increase taxes by 6.1% over the recommended 3.5 % or 9.6% in | |
| |total. | |
| |When the Authorities requirements of $15.0 million are added in, the total requirement of $42.3 million would increase | |
| |taxes by 9.4% over the recommended 3.5% or 12.9% in total. Within this, Police packages would require 1.96% and Library| |
| |0.1%. | |
| |Transit is a desirable means of future mass transportation giving us major benefits from things like emission reductions|Transportation |
| |and reduced road repairs. What means, other than increased user fees (fares), could we use to subsidize Transit | |
| |Federal Government support for public transit in Canada has historically been very small and focused on capital projects| |
| |or research initiatives. The Canada/Provincial Infrastructure Program provided some funding (about $9 million) towards | |
| |the extension of Edmonton’s light rail extension to the University Health Sciences Centre. However they have not | |
| |indicated any interest in funding operating costs of public transit. | |
| |The Provincial Government has also focused support on capital funding. Edmonton and Calgary receive 5 cent per litre | |
| |from the province for fuel sold within the cities. Other cities receive a per capita capital grant. | |
| |The City’s ability to significantly raise funding for transit, other than through fare increases are currently limited | |
| |to increased ridership or greater municipal tax support. In Quebec and British Columbia the Province has granted | |
| |authority to regional agencies (AMT in Quebec, TransLink in B.C ) to raise funds through fuel surcharges, vehicle | |
| |registrations, and parking surcharges. In Alberta these measures would require provincial support. | |
| |I have often heard that the ratio of civilian employees to sworn police officiers has increased over the past 10 years. |Police Service |
| |What is that ratio now and has this proven to be a savings? | |
| |The EPS is committed to placing the right person in the right position. Civilian support staff brings expertise in areas| |
| |that the EPS would have to spend considerable training dollars to develop in-house. From that perspective, the hiring of| |
| |civilian employees has generated savings. | |
| |Productivity savings from the use of civilian staff result from freeing sworn members to work on the core mandate of the| |
| |EPS – and these gains are difficult to quantify. | |
| |However, civilian staffing reduces operational flexibility (e.g., if there is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, | |
| |civilians cannot be transferred to operational duties). | |
| |The ratio of civilian employees to sworn officers was 26% in 1992 and 29% in 2002. | |
| |Is there a capital funding opportunity to utilize the new southeast police station for ERD – Fire and Ambulance? |Police Service/ |
| |The proposed capital budget for the Southeast Police Station does not include funding for either Fire or Ambulance |AM&PW |
| |facilities. There is an existing Fire Station nearby at 66 Street and 28 Avenue. The benefits of delivering ambulance | |
| |service from this location relative to other sites in Mill Woods is currently being evaluated and a decision will be | |
| |made prior to finalizing building design. The site is large enough to accommodate an ambulance facility and the police | |
| |station could be designed to allow the ambulance facility to be added at a later stage. | |
| | | |
| |During the initial planning stages for the new southeast Police Station, the Emergency Response Department (ERD) was | |
| |consulted on co-location opportunities. This review determined limited opportunities for co-locating largely due to the | |
| |close proximity of the existing ERD station to the future police station site. In the future, to ensure these types of| |
| |opportunities are fully explored, ERD and Police and other civic agencies are committed to reviewing co-location | |
| |opportunities. (i.e. in 2003, ERD will be conducting a feasibility study with Police, Transit and other departments for | |
| |a joint training facility). | |
| |Could we shift all the revenue from police fines to general coffers? How would that work? What are the drawbacks and |Police Service/ |
| |the advantages? |Finance |
| |In a report to City Council on May 19, 1998, the EPS made a recommendation to transfer the budgeting and recording of | |
| |all fine revenues from the EPS to corporate general revenues. The Edmonton Police Commission also supported this | |
| |recommendation. | |
| |Justification for the transfer included allaying citizens concerns of any ulterior motives for such enforcement and | |
| |other public perceptions. Council of the day did not support this approach. The motion carried by Council stated “that | |
| |the existing practice pertaining to revenues and fines related to specific provincial acts and City Bylaws continue to | |
| |be recorded as part of the Edmonton Police Service budget”. | |
| |A budget adjustment would be required to replace fine revenues with tax levy in the EPS budget. | |
| |Advantage: | |
| |This approach would allow the revenue aspect of the fines to be managed by Corporate Services Department, while the EPS | |
| |focuses on enforcement appropriate to ensure public safety. | |
| |Disadvantage: | |
| |The City corporate programs assume the financial risk of falling revenues from volume, rate or legislative changes. | |
| |Public perception that revenues would fund municipal services as opposed to Police services. | |
| |Indirect link between where revenues budgeted and accountability. | |
| |Can the Edmonton Police Service live the recommended budget, and if not, why not? |Police Service |
| |The 2003 recommended budget means we won’t be able to cover $1.44 million of cost impacts (expenditures that were | |
| |committed to before 2003 even begins, like wage step increases, budgeted amounts for collective agreements, inflation | |
| |for gas, power, and maintenance, etc.). | |
| |This reduction cannot be made unless we reduce our service levels in some manner. The recommended budget would force us | |
| |to leave authorized positions vacant once again (36 positions by year end), after finally getting enough people to fill | |
| |all our authorized positions in 2002. | |
| |Funding at the recommended level would put us back to a staffing situation similar to what we faced in the late 1990s, | |
| |where we constantly had to scramble to fill patrol shifts to cover vacations and disability leaves of absence. We would | |
| |be undoing all the personnel investment that Council, the Commission, and the police service have made over the past two| |
| |years. | |
| |Simply put, funding at the recommended budget level will mean less effective policing in 2003 than in 2002. | |
| |Why the urgency to add so many new members now, when citizen satisfaction surveys and general observation indicate that |Police Service |
| |police are doing a good job in dealing with criminal activity in the City? | |
| |New police officers do not materialize instantly. They must be recruited, trained, equipped, and allowed to gain | |
| |experience in the field. This process takes time – identification, selection, hiring and basic training of a recruit | |
| |takes 18 months to complete, and experience obtained through patrol work takes years to acquire. | |
| |As such, the EPS must plan – and receive funding – for its personnel several years ahead in order to have qualified and | |
| |experienced people in place when they are required. | |
| |In terms of being ready for future demand, the EPS is already behind. In addition to attrition through retirement that | |
| |is claiming many of our most experienced officers, the changing nature of crime, workloads, and the pace of economic and| |
| |social growth in Edmonton requires that the EPS grow beyond current staffing levels to meet demands for service. | |
| |If citizen satisfaction with policing services is to be maintained, investment that addresses these concerns is | |
| |necessary. | |
| |What are the consequences of not receiving funding for the rifle range? |Police Service |
| |Long-range rifles are recognized by police agencies across North America as being a necessary and proven tool for | |
| |dealing with active-shooter situations. | |
| |The Edmonton Chief of Police and the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police have agreed. The EPS has taken steps to | |
| |ensure these appropriate police tools are available to regular patrol officers to allow them to address this kind of | |
| |situation in our city. | |
| |Without proper training, and a suitable rifle range available to police members to practice and qualify to use the | |
| |rifles, the patrol rifle program cannot proceed. | |
| |If the EPS does not receive funding for the rifle range in the 2003 budget, or if funding is delayed another year: | |
| |Sub-standard training for officers in the use of rifles presents safety and liability concerns for police, the City of | |
| |Edmonton, and the general public. | |
| |Significant delays and increased costs in the development and construction of the remainder of the Officer Training | |
| |Facility if the range is cancelled permanently (a portion for Officer Safety Training space is included in the 2003 | |
| |budget request). | |
| |Significant delays and increased costs in the construction of the range if it is postponed for another year. | |
| |Many people talk about the good old days when taxes paid for more services than today. What has changed in the last 10 |Finance |
| |years to bring about this perception? | |
| |Perceptions such as these likely reflect some of the major pressures City finances have faced over the past decade. | |
| |During the mid-1990's when the Provincial Government was balancing its budget, it cut operating grants to the City | |
| |substantially. In 1992, the City budget included $55 million in operating grants. By 2002, that number had fallen to | |
| |$20 million. In 1997, as a result of a major decrease in the assessed value of downtown properties, the City also had | |
| |to deal with a $27 million drop in tax revenues. Tax increases in 1997 and 1998 were needed to just restore tax | |
| |revenues to 1996 levels. Moreover, from 1993 to 1996, City Council did not approve any tax increases. All of these | |
| |funding declines meant that savings had to be found in civic operations. In some cases, it meant that lower priority | |
| |civic services had to be reduced. In more recent years the dramatic growth in the Edmonton economy has placed | |
| |tremendous demands on civic services. City financial documents such as the Long Range Financial Plan have likely raised| |
| |public awareness of the substantial funding "gaps" that exist today to meet these demands. Moreover, at a broader | |
| |level, there has been increased media attention on the plight of Canada's cities, which are increasingly being | |
| |recognized as the "engines" of Canada's economy, but yet receive little support financially from either the provincial | |
| |or federal orders of government to deal with economic growth or fix basic infrastructure. | |
| |In view of the fact that the soccer community is essentially paying the complete cost of the existing indoor soccer |Community Services |
| |facility, thinking outside of the box, are there ways of advancing the Roper Road indoor soccer centre i.e. different | |
| |financing replacement /maintenance funds, other organizations, etc.? | |
| |The revised funding proposal for the Southeast Soccer Centre contemplates a $3,070,000 cash gift plus land and | |
| |guaranteeing a repayable loan of $4,300,000 to the Edmonton Soccer Association. The Edmonton Soccer Association has | |
| |indicated that it is able to provide $230,000 in partner financing. | |
| |This project has been reviewed extensively by the Edmonton Soccer Association and the administration around various | |
| |funding opportunities. In addition the administration along with the Edmonton Soccer Association have approached the | |
| |Provincial Government as to possible funding sources. | |
| |Working with other organizations has been a key to advancing facilities within Edmonton, i.e. Kinsmen, YMCA/YWCA, |Community Services |
| |Community Leagues, soccer community, etc. Working with our neighbouring communities, such as Beaumont, Leduc, County of| |
| |Leduc, Strathcona, Parkland, Sturgeon, and St. Albert, to name a few, could we not advance our unfunded multi-use | |
| |facility by co-operating with these neighbours to lever funds from the Province, and others, so as to accomplish | |
| |something like the facility in the County of Parkland which I believe has financing from the County, Stony Plain, Spruce| |
| |Grove and the Province? What would it take to get the ball rolling on this concept? | |
| |A preliminary analysis of the current potential to partner with adjacent municipalities suggests the following: | |
| |to the west: Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and County of Parkland have completed a major new facility; | |
| |the northwest quadrant of Edmonton: not a priority for new development (e.g., pool, arena) because of existing | |
| |facilities and greater unmet demands in other areas of the City. | |
| |the northeast: Fort Saskatchewan recently committed to construction of a major new facility. | |
| |to the southeast: County of Strathcona has completed a major new facility; Beaumont has a relatively small tax base. | |
| |In addition to geographical alignment of recreation needs, it would be expected that any partner municipality be both | |
| |able and willing to contribute to capital and operating costs of a shared facility. | |
| |Another challenge would be the cancellation of some major Provincial funding programs, which provided some of the | |
| |funding for other recent facilities. | |
| |The Facility Master Plan will include a more detailed study of community needs for new facilities and the opportunities | |
| |for partnerships. | |
|Councillor S. Mandel | |
|Questions and Answers |Directed To |
| |What is the cost of new FTE’s once annualized for 2004? |Finance |
| |An estimated average cost to the corporation for each FTE in the 2003 Budget, can be calculated by taking the entire | |
| |2003 wage and salary budget and the entire benefits budget for all the tax-supported programs, mobile equipment services| |
| |and drainage services, and applying this total against the proposed total of FTEs for 2003. The average cost is | |
| |approximately $60,000. These costs take into account all positions, from the clerical/labourer level, both full time | |
| |and part time, right through to the top management level and are an estimated average dollar amount. | |
| |The 129.5 new FTEs (including 2002 annualized FTEs and new FTEs) that are added in 2003 will cost approximately $7.8 | |
| |million, based on the average calculated cost. Full year costs have been budgeted for most of the new 2003 positions. | |
| |However, an additional expenditure amount of $0.5 million has been identified for 2004 due to annualization of new | |
| |positions added in Corporate Services and Transit in the 2003 budget. | |
| |Over the past few years the City has used Pay As You Go funding. How did you amass those funds – was it through service|Finance |
| |reduction? Was it a result of increased taxes? Was it the result of not having to reduce as much debt? Or other? | |
| |The following provides a history of how the pay-as-you-go funding pool was developed over time: | |
| |[pic]2003-2007 available pay-as-you-go has been committed to capital projects as part of the Capital Planning Process. | |
| |What is the incremental cost of each of the four? (Page 120) |Community Services |
| |Incremental Cost | |
| |Maintain 104 additional hectares of turf $ 108,000 | |
| |Maintain 33,357 additional square meters of shrub beds 59,000 | |
| |Maintain 4,700 additional trees 12,000 | |
| |Maintain 1 additional playground 3,000 | |
| | | |
| |Total Incremental Cost $ 182,000 | |
| |What is the cost of the Pesticide changes as proposed by the Pesticide Advisory Committee? (pg 121). |Community Services |
| |We are not expecting specific recommendations from the Pesticide Advisory Committee until March 2003. Therefore we are | |
| |not able to provide costs at this time. | |
| |When was the last major recreation project built by the City? Could you compare this to our ACRA neighbours – St. |Community Services |
| |Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc & Spruce Grove? | |
| |The last recreation facility fully funded by the City was Clareview Twin Arena in 1991. The last aquatic facility, the | |
| |Mill Wood Recreation Centre was completed in 1981. Facilities like the Indoor Soccer Centres and the Kinsmen Twin | |
| |Arena have been developed in partnership with community groups but included significant contributions from the City. | |
| | | |
| |Regional Multi-Purpose Recreation Facilities – new and planned | |
| |Millennium Place, Strathcona County Sherwood Park - $27 million | |
| |opened early 2001 | |
| |TransAlta Tri Leisure Facility, Spruce Grove/Stony Plain/Parkland County - $28 million | |
| |opened summer 2002 | |
| |Centennial Activities Centre, Fort Saskatchewan – estimate $15 million cost | |
| |anticipate opening spring 2004 | |
| |The Beaumont Regional Activities Centre - Expanded in 2000 to add an additional sheet of ice and other program amenities| |
| |St. Albert Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility (proposed) | |
| |currently conducting detailed economic analysis of a multi-purpose recreation facility; research to be completed in | |
| |January 2003 | |
| |possible site is Campbell Arena lands and Campbell Business Park to meet short-term needs | |
| |The City of Leduc – Black Gold Centre (proposed expansion) | |
| |Additional hockey surface, leisure / figure skating surface, pool, indoor soccer | |
| |Are we receiving an increase in tax revenue of $12, 697 m in 2003 over 2002? How does the reduction of 12.5 million for|Finance |
| |the drainage impact those dollars? | |
| |Tax revenues are projected to increase by a gross amount of $24.7 million, including $8.9 million from assessment growth| |
| |and $15.8 million from the 3.5% rate increase (2.5% inflation plus 1% for capital financing). With the creation of the | |
| |Land Drainage Utility, effective January 1, 2003, taxes will be reduced by $12 million and Land Drainage will be finded | |
| |through utility fees instead. The net increase in taxes for 2003 is therefore $12.7 million. (page 27, volume 1). The| |
| |$12 million figure is the 2002 amount for Storm Drainage. The 2003 amount for Storm Drainage would have been $12.5 | |
| |million. | |
| |Does the expenditure summary include or exclude the $12.5 million for the drainage utility? Are expenditures (if it is |Finance |
| |not included) $19,787 + 12.5 = $32,287 million? | |
| |The Expenditure Summary on page 48 of Volume 1 includes 2002 expenditure amounts for Storm Drainage, the tax-supported | |
| |program. Under Asset Management and Public Works, the 2002 amount of $7.144 million is shown. The Corporate Program | |
| |called Capital Project Financing includes a 2002 amount of $5.13 million for Storm Drainage. Both amounts are removed | |
| |from the tax-supported expenditures, as of 2003. | |
| |Tax-supported expenditures are projected to increase by a gross amount of $32.074 million. With Storm Drainage | |
| |expenditures being removed, tax-supported expenditures increase by a net amount of $19.787 million. | |
| |The 2003 expenditures for Drainage Services are shown on page 50 of Volume 1 on the table called Utility Operations. | |
| |What would be the impact if City eliminated user fee subsidy on Waste Mgmt? |AM&PW |
| |If the City eliminated the Waste Management user fee, this funding would have to come from the tax levy, and would | |
| |require a 7.5% increase in taxes. | |
| |The waste management user fees are projected to provide $28 million in funding of branch operations in 2003, and a | |
| |transfer from the Waste Management Stabilization Reserve will provide an additional $5.5 million in funding. If this | |
| |total of $33.5 million in funding were to be provided from the tax levy, an increase in taxes of about 7.5% would be | |
| |required. | |
| |Is there a policy change necessary to have private companies bid on facilities & lease back rather than build through |AM&PW |
| |capital expenses? | |
| |A policy change is not required to use the build-lease option to develop new facilities. A recent business case | |
| |comparison of this option relative to capital construction by the City for the proposed new Southeast Police Station | |
| |indicated that costs for the build-lease option are significantly greater than capital construction by the City. | |
| |What is the capital and operating cost to our taxpayers for utilities: |AM&PW |
| |Sewer | |
| |Land Drainage and the amounts allocated through the five-year capital plan? | |
| |Sanitary Sewer Utility – The rates charged to the Sanitary Sewer customer covers both the operating and capital program | |
| |costs. For 2003 there is no rate increase for the sanitary sewer. The cost to the average residential customer will be | |
| |the same as 2002, $22.06 per month. The operating and capital program expenditures for the next five years are based | |
| |on rate increases being held at the level of inflation. | |
| |Land Drainage Utility – The rates charged to the Land Drainage customer covers both the operating and capital program | |
| |costs. Effective January 1, 2003 the land drainage fee will appear on the utility bill. The impact on a median sized | |
| |home for 2003 will be a monthly charge of $3.65 for land drainage and the removal of $2.67 per month in taxes. The | |
| |operating and capital program expenditures for the next five years are based on rate increase being held at the level of| |
| |inflation. | |
| |What is the current surplus/deficit in the Sewer Utility? How will that be used? |AM&PW |
| |The Sanitary Sewer Utility does not have any surplus. The 2003 net income budget for the Sanitary Utility is $28.4 | |
| |million. $18.2 million will be used to pay the principal payment on outstanding debt, $2.6 million to the Sanitary | |
| |Sewer Strategy fund to finance major trunk sewer lines and $7.6 million to retained earnings to fund capital programs. | |
| |What amount is funded for communications in the Capital Services branch? What is its mandate? |Corporate Services |
| |1. Communications Branch recommended budget is $2,996,000. | |
| |2. The Branch mission is: | |
| |"To provide communication services to the corporation and its departments so citizens and employees are aware of, | |
| |understand, and get the best use of City programs and services." | |
| |Services of the Branch include: | |
| |public information on civic programs and services | |
| |advertising and printing services | |
| |employee communications | |
| |special event organization | |
| |Citizen Action Centre | |
| |media relations, Internet/intranet, services to Council, corporate image and City Hall programming. | |
| |The capital dollars for 2003 are $130,000 to establish a Rossdale Aboriginal Memorial. This has to do with preserving | |
| |and restoring the cemetery and burial ground on the north bank of the river at the west end of the EPCOR power plant. | |
| |It was once a cemetery and aboriginal burial ground. This is described further on page 304 of | |
| |Volume 4. | |
| | | |
| |Council has approved in principle the establishment of a memorial. Communications mandate to work with the community to| |
| |create the memorial came from the City Manager and the Mayor's Office. | |
| |Why can you not increase the service level for bylaws & rezoning complaints – can these not be handled through increase |Planning & Dev. |
| |in fines & fees? | |
| |The bylaw enforcement fines are reviewed periodically to determine their effectiveness in achieving compliance. Fine | |
| |increases are only recommended by the Administration in those instances where it is anticipated that a fine adjustment | |
| |will result in an improvement in the level of public compliance with municipal requirements. However, rezoning | |
| |complaints or objections to a rezoning proposal are heard at council public hearing meetings, and the public has the | |
| |right to object pursuant to the MGA. | |
| |Why are you not looking at alternative ways to handle the expansion needs? i.e. working with ACRA for a transit tax via|Transportation/ |
| |an increase in fuel tax? |Corp. Services-Law |
| |(see #225 and #253) | |
| |Industrial land strategy does “what” to make the City more competitive within our region in tax, land prices, level of |Planning & Dev. |
| |services etc as well as in our country? | |
| |Edmonton’s Industrial Land Strategy is a nine-point strategy supported by an implementation program that will be | |
| |updated. Effective implementation of the strategy will provide for a good selection of serviced industrial land in | |
| |Edmonton. Companies that want to locate or expand in Edmonton will find suitable properties that can meet their | |
| |business needs. | |
| | | |
| |Active land planning programs will ensure that land will continue to be available in planned industrial areas in the | |
| |future. Attention to maintaining land supply will avoid shortages of suitable properties and price escalation due to | |
| |scarcity. Infrastructure planning, financing and building programs will provide infrastructure where and when it is | |
| |needed. Program administrators will pay attention to the service needs of industrial areas. | |
| | | |
| |Changes and adaptations to methods used for financing land development will remove some financial obstacles to | |
| |industrial land development. Changes to land development processes will provide opportunities for consultation between | |
| |developers/ builders and City staff to resolve issues in a manner similar to the more “personalized” approach used in | |
| |competing municipalities. | |
| |Participation by the City in the industrial land development business will lever private sector investments and | |
| |guarantee land supply. A capability to use land as a direct incentive to economic development is also maintained when | |
| |Council wishes to use it. | |
| |City land development and marketing activities will raise the profile of Edmonton as an industrial centre in competition| |
| |with cities in Canada and other countries. Using the City of Edmonton’s e-Business, Geographic Information System and | |
| |Internet capabilities to market City and private sector industrial properties will showcase Edmonton’s technology as | |
| |well as its land. | |
| |When you service Plypow & Ellerslie industrial areas is there not a profit or more aptly a cash surplus? |AM&PW |
| |The business case analysis prepared for the City's raw landholdings in the Pylypow and Ellerslie Industrial Parks | |
| |indicate that development and sale of these lands as serviced industrial parcels will generate potential profits that | |
| |will be allocated to the Land Enterprise retained earnings. These funds have been used to finance future land servicing | |
| |costs and to write off market value losses of approximately $60 million since 1998. | |
| |Will not the planning & development staff not be at least cost neutral as a result of fees? |Planning & Dev. |
| |Yes, the Planning and Development staff costs will be at least cost neutral as a result of fees. The 2003 Revenue | |
| |Budget is $18.306M and the total personnel budget (excluding the Assessment and Taxation Branch) is $17.186M. The | |
| |reason Assessment and Taxation personnel ($9.449M) is excluded is that all taxation revenues collected by this branch | |
| |are considered corporate rather than departmental revenues. | |
| |What is the City’s policy on overtime: |Corporate Services |
| |Do we allow it within a specific framework? | |
| |Can dept. re-allocate funds from different areas to overtime? | |
| |Policies regarding the payment of overtime are included in all collective agreements with the City of Edmonton. In | |
| |addition, management guidelines regarding compensation are outlined in City Policy A1114B: Management/Professional | |
| |Employees’ Compensation. | |
| |As far as the use of overtime, it varies from department to department. Generally, overtime is used in emergency | |
| |situations or in situations where services to the public would be adversely affected if the work were not completed | |
| |within certain timelines. | |
| |Managers are responsible for maintaining services to the citizens and managing their own staff. In some cases, if | |
| |overtime is required, funds can be reallocated providing it is within their own budget. | |
| |Can the City place charges on: |Corporate Services - |
| |Licence Plates - for roads/transit? |Law |
| |The Highway Traffic Act prohibits a municipality from requiring motor vehicle owners to obtain any fees, licenses or | |
| |permits for use of a highway; it further prohibits any municipal legislation that affects the registration or numbering | |
| |of motor vehicles. A comparable section exists under the Traffic Safety Act (the future legislation). Any power to levy| |
| |fees or taxes for the purposes of servicing roads would require an amendment to provincial legislation. | |
| | | |
| |Drivers Licenses - for roads/transit? | |
| | | |
| |See above | |
| | | |
| |Increase Business Licenses for gambling facilities to meet needs of the police? | |
| | | |
| |Yes. The present business license bylaw provides for a category of businesses called "gaming establishments". This | |
| |category can have higher business license fees than other businesses. As long as all businesses within the category | |
| |were subject to the same fee (i.e. no intra-class discrimination) and as long as the amount of the fee was not so | |
| |excessive as to be prohibitory, it would be permissible. | |
| | | |
| |Can we place a fee on liquor sales? | |
| | | |
| |No. A fee to the consumer would be tantamount to a sales tax that is not presently permissible under the Municipal | |
| |Government Act. However, establishments that sell liquor under the business licensing bylaw could have their business | |
| |license fee increased. Once again the amount of the fee cannot be so excessive as to be prohibitory, and the fee could | |
| |not be reflective of the amount of liquor sold. | |
| | | |
| |Can we charge fees to bars/nightclubs to cover some police costs and for ERD? | |
| | | |
| |Yes. Fees for a business license for bars and nightclubs could be increased. There would have to be an increase for | |
| |all bars and nightclubs, otherwise allegations of intra-class discrimination would result. In addition, the amount of | |
| |the fee must not be so excessive as to be prohibitory. | |
| | | |
| |Can the City in conjunction with ACRA member look at a 1-cent/litre tax to be allocated for LRT? | |
| | | |
| |If ACRA would like to pursue this, an amendment to the Municipal Government Act would be required. The legislative | |
| |authority for a sales tax on gasoline does not presently exist for a municipality. | |
| | | |
| |What other sources of resource can the City access in order to meet our needs? | |
| | | |
| |Within the Municipal Government Act, there are special tax provisions that are not presently being fully utilized | |
| |(section 382). Some of the categories of special taxes are: | |
| |waterworks, | |
| |sewer, | |
| |boulevard, | |
| |dust treatment, | |
| |paving, | |
| |repair and maintenance of roads, boulevards, sewer facilities, and water facilities, | |
| |ambulance service, | |
| |fire protection area, | |
| |drainage ditch, | |
| |a recreational services tax | |
| | | |
| |Special taxes can be levied to a specific area within a municipality and the revenue raised must be applied directly to | |
| |the service taxed. In addition to the special taxation power, there is a broad power to charge fees for any general | |
| |system of licenses, permits or approvals for matters under municipal jurisdiction: | |
| | | |
| |Safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property | |
| |People, activities and things in on or near a public place | |
| |Nuisances | |
| |Transport and transportation systems | |
| |Businesses | |
| |Services provided by a municipality | |
| |Public utilities | |
| | | |
| |In addition to fees and taxes, public-private partnerships may be permissible for projects of a larger scale. | |
| |Within the following departments are there programs that are being implemented that are not mandated in the M.G.A.? |AM&PW, |
| |Asset Mgmt? |Comm. Serv. |
| |Community Services? |P&D, |
| |Transit/Transportation? |ERD |
| |Corporate Services? |Transportation |
| |Planning & Development? | |
| |ERD | |
| |The current Municipal Government Act (MGA) provides a very broad purpose for municipalities, leaving much to the | |
| |discretion of council. Part 1, section 3 of the Act indicates: | |
| |"The purposes of a municipality are | |
| |(a) to provide good government, | |
| |(b) to provide services, facilities or other things that, in the opinion of council, are necessary or desirable for all | |
| |or a part of the municipality, and | |
| |(c) to develop and maintain safe and viable communities." | |
| | | |
| |Section 7 of Part 2 (Bylaws), further describes the general jurisdiction of council in passing bylaws as: | |
| |"A council may pass bylaws for municipal purposes respecting the following matters: | |
| |(a) the safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property; | |
| |(b) people, activities and things in, on or near a public place or place that is open to the public; | |
| |(c) nuisances, including unsightly property; | |
| |(d) transport and transportation systems; | |
| |(e) businesses, business activities and persons engaged in business; | |
| |(f) services provided by or on behalf of the municipality; | |
| |(g) public utilities; | |
| |(h) wild and domestic animal and activities in relation to them; | |
| |(i) the enforcement of bylaws made under this or any other enactment..." | |
| |Programs within the departments identified are consistent with the broad purpose and powers of municipalities as set out| |
| |in the Act. Within the bounds of the municipal purpose, however, City Council is able to influence the services and | |
| |service levels to be applied. Only certain functions within the City operations are specifically required by the MGA. | |
| |There is, however, other Provincial legislation which mandates municipalities to provide certain programs and services | |
| |(e.g.: Fire Inspection, Emergency Preparedness). Also, under Provincial legislation, once a municipality offers | |
| |programs such as Emergency Medical Services or Fire Rescue Services, there is then other legislation that comes into | |
| |force to dictate the scope and practice of the respective programs provided. Such legislation includes, for example, | |
| |the Safety Codes Act, the Control Drug and Substances Act and the Alberta Ambulance Services Act. | |
| |Public transportation operated by or on behalf of the municipality is defined as a “Public Utility” in the MGA. | |
| |Provision of this service is not mandated. | |
| |Four programs provided by the Community Services Department may be viewed as the responsibility of the Provincial or | |
| |Federal government: | |
| |Landlord and Tenant Advisory Services ($0.439M tax levy) | |
| |Out-of-School Care ($2.8M tax levy of total program cost of $7.1M) | |
| |Seniors and Social Housing ($3.8M tax levy) | |
| |Homelessness ($1.3M tax levy) | |
| |79% to public services - could you clarify that? |Library |
| |The Library allocated 79% of its total 2002 operating budget to Public Services. This includes all the expenses to | |
| |staff and operate the 16 branch libraries throughout the City. The major component of this $18.7 million budget | |
| |consists of personnel costs for $12.5 million and Library materials for $3.7 million. Leases, maintenance and utilities| |
| |account for $2 million and other related costs (i.e. programming, furniture and equipment, stationery) add up to | |
| |$500,000. | |
| |In our Sewer Utility and our Land Drainage utility what was (in the case of the former) the four-year rate schedule? Is|AM&PW |
| |this to meet the increase in capital or operations? What is the percentage increase in each over the past 4 years? | |
| |What is the current surplus in the sewer account | |
| |Rate increases for the Sanitary Sewer Utility for the last four years have been: | |
| |2003 0 % | |
| |2002 2.0% | |
| |2001 2.0% | |
| |2000 2.5% | |
| | | |
| |The capital programs of the Sanitary Utility have been the major contributors towards the need for rate increases | |
| |How much does this budget process cost in terms of manpower and materials? |Finance |
| |A detailed costing of the budget process has not been completed. It is one significant aspect of the City’s overall | |
| |planning process and involves resources from across the corporation. | |
| |When you talk about drainage services does that include both utilities? |AM&PW |
| |Yes. | |
| |On page 5 you list Corporate Infrastructure Strategy as part of drainage services. The office on infrastructure is that|AM&PW |
| |for all departments? | |
| |The Office of Infrastructure is responsible for developing and implementing strategies to address the City of Edmonton’s| |
| |infrastructure gap, and for preparing a biannual update of the infrastructure inventory and investment needs for | |
| |Council. The office is administratively housed in Drainage Services. | |
| |What will the new loading limits cost when the current approval to operate expires in 2005? |AM&PW |
| |The City continues to negotiate with Alberta Environment to ensure future loading restrictions have as low a cost as | |
| |possible to Edmontonians. The future costs are unknown at present. | |
| |With the new regulations what costs will the citizens pay as a result of proposed or new proposals on environment & |AM&PW |
| |public health from the Fed & Prov governments? (An estimate is fine) | |
| |It is unknown at present the cost impact of future proposed regulations. However, any increased requirement and | |
| |associated costs not accompanied by grants from the other orders of government would be borne by the respective utility | |
| |customer. | |
| |The storm funding for new industrial areas is to come from what source? |AM&PW |
| |Industrial development pays for storm services as a part of the costs of development. | |
| |Under Financial Structure (page 6) would these costs not be paid for by the user not the tax base? |AM&PW |
| |Yes, the financial structure being referred to and worked on is for Drainage Services. This will be funded by the | |
| |utility customer and not from taxes. | |
| |Advances in Trenchless Technology – How will they save or will they cost more money? |AM&PW |
| |Trenchless technology has been widely recognized as the construction method that is least disruptive to communities, | |
| |businesses, traffics, and the environment. This technology offers faster installation and minimum disruptions, and is | |
| |1.5 to 3 times cheaper than the direct cost of construction using the cut and cover method. Drainage Services uses the | |
| |trenchless construction technology whenever there is a potential for cost savings. | |
| |In your performance measures (page 9) how do you set the standard? How much does it save or cost? |AM&PW |
| |The performance measurement standards are set by regulatory requirements, environmental objectives, national | |
| |benchmarking comparisons, ISO quality assurance processes, and corporate requirements. Performance measurement neither | |
| |costs nor saves money, but provides an indication of how efficiently the organization is operating. | |
| |Under new facilities. The new Terwillegar station houses police, fire & ambulance. Is this cost efficient? Can this |Police Service/ERD/ |
| |be done in the Millwoods police station? |AM&PW |
| |The Terwillegar Station, which combined a beat patrol space for Police with a joint Fire/Ambulance facility, achieved | |
| |cost efficiencies in the areas of land, utility infrastructure, mechanical systems and construction. In contrast, the | |
| |Mill Woods Police station is planned to be a Division deployment facility similar to the function of the new North | |
| |Division station. As discussed, under the response to Question #227, a review had indicated that there was limited | |
| |opportunity to develop an ambulance facility in conjunction with the Southeast Police Station. | |
| |Under facility growth pressures what partnerships have you developed? |AM&PW |
| |Over the past 10 years, Community Services has developed partnerships with the YMCA, the Kinsmen Club and the Edmonton | |
| |Soccer Association to develop three new multi-use community centers, a twin ice arena and two indoor soccer centers to | |
| |serve growth needs. Where practical, joint facilities providing accommodation for several civic departments have been | |
| |developed to serve suburban growth areas (e.g. Terwillegar emergency response facility housing fire, ambulance and | |
| |police services). | |
| |City growth is causing pressures on all departments. Can you outline the costs the City will would insure for those |ERD/Police/ |
| |developments west of 199 St. & south of 87 Ave re: Lewis Estates and the Hamptons? |T&S/AM&PW |
| |# of fires? | |
| |# of police calls? | |
| |Ambulance delivery? | |
| |Bus service? | |
| |Sewer & water installation? | |
| |Road costs? | |
| |Costs of garbage/sewer? | |
| |Respecting Fire Rescue Services, In 2001 Fire Rescue Services responded to 318 events in this part of the City. To the | |
| |end of October In 2002, Fire Rescue responded to 425 calls. The corresponding number for the same ten-month period in | |
| |2001 was 258, compared to this 425. This call volume growth is a result of an increase in structural fires and wildland| |
| |urban interface fire. | |
| |Responding to growth pressures, Fire Rescue Services has recommended increasing the staffing for single-apparatus | |
| |stations, from four to five firefighters. This translates into five (5) new firefighter positions for the west-end | |
| |Station #19. These positions are currently unfunded and are not corporately ranked in the 2003 Budget. | |
| |The EPS is not able to provide a cost estimate for these neighbourhoods at this time. | |
| |The Edmonton Police Service has a geo-coding system that groups address data according to police division, district and | |
| |neighborhood. The majority of new addresses are coded under “unknown” neighborhood (unknown addresses also include | |
| |addresses that cannot be properly geo-coded into a neighborhood - for example, some of the locations deemed to have | |
| |unknown addresses include Wayne Gretzky Drive and Southgate Mall). In 2002, these “unknown” addresses accounted for 10% | |
| |of the data in our system. | |
| |The EPS does not have the resources necessary at this time to manually geo-code the addresses in these neighborhoods to | |
| |provide an accurate count of calls for service, or estimates of future call patterns, in response to this question. | |
| |However, we will be re-coding the affected addresses in the future, as resources permit. | |
| |Respecting EMS, in 2001 EMS responded to 419 events in this part of the City. The ten-month figure for 2002 is 398, | |
| |corresponding to 345 for the same ten months in 2001, an increase of 15%. As the City expands additional EMS resources | |
| |will be required. These resourcing requirements will be brought forward in future budget cycles. | |
| |By September 2003, both Lewis Estates and The Grange are expected to warrant weekday and Saturday midday transit | |
| |service. The tax levy required to provide this service would be $25,000 for each neighborhood for the September to | |
| |December period. The tax levy required to provide this service for each neighbourhood for a full year would be $77,000.| |
| |Drainage Services will incur no additional costs for new development. All infrastructure is contributed by the | |
| |developer. | |
| |The total inventory of roads and lanes in these two new areas is 19.17 km. The estimated budget impact to maintain these| |
| |roads is $150,000 per year when considered from the life cycle maintenance context of the entire roadway inventory. | |
| |The construction of new residences in the Lewis Estates and Hamptons developments will add to the overall Branch budget | |
| |for providing waste and recycling collection services. However the average costs for providing the service to these | |
| |areas would be equivalent to the existing average costs for servicing new residential properties in other areas of the | |
| |City. | |
| |For single family homes, costs would average $170 to $180 per year for refuse and recycling. | |
| |Is the 10 to 15% part of 85 to 90%? (Vol. 2, Page 16-17) |AM&PW |
| |Yes, the expected variance of 10% to 15% effects the percentage of projects completed within cost estimates. | |
| |What would be the private sector charges for the same projects? |AM&PW |
| |Private sector charges (operating costs) for offices comparable to Chancery Hall and Century Place were 6% higher than | |
| |City costs for 2001. | |
| |Important to stress that the City’s operating costs is well below benchmarks i.e. $2.09 for city? |AM&PW |
| |The $2.09 refers to the City’s 2005 target for building maintenance and repair expenditures per square ft. | |
| |The City’s maintenance expenditures compare favourably to the International Facilities Management Association reported | |
| |benchmarks. The 2001 results showed a City cost of $1.86/ sq ft, compared to the benchmark of $2.01/ sq ft. | |
| |You list the number of work orders, but what does that mean in dollars (page 17)? |AM&PW |
| |For the year 2001, the 12,128 planned work orders represents $6,979,000 worth of work, and the 19,263 repair and demand | |
| |work orders represents $8,952,000 worth of work, (total of $15,926,000). | |
| |Under training – would you give it the same level of 95% after reviewing the city auditor’s report on training |AM&PW |
| |expenditures? | |
| |Land & Buildings will review the target of 95% utilization as 2002 training expenditures will be well below that target.| |
| |Training expenditures have been less than forecast due to the substantial amount of training associated with corporate | |
| |business and leadership initiatives that is funded corporately, deferment of planned training due to extended timeframes| |
| |for planned Branch implementation of Main Link and Composse, as well as for the reasons outlined in the Auditor’s | |
| |report. | |
| |What is the success of the multi-family recycling? How many are on it? How many who qualify are not? |AM&PW |
| |The multi family recycling program started this spring. Response to year-end is expected to be consistent with the | |
| |mid-year projection of 39,000 units. This is approximately 40% of the units that will be served. Implementation of this | |
| |service to the remaining 60% of the units will be complete by the end of 2003. | |
| |One page 31 – what are the incremental costs of each increase lot grading, utility customers etc? |AM&PW |
| |The lot-grading inspection program is administered on the basis of being self-sustaining. A separate fee is charged for| |
| |this service. As an example the residential fee is set at $105.00. Most of the increased inspection activity budgeted | |
| |for in 2003 will be done by existing staff outside the lot grading unit trained to deal with the increased work load. | |
| |This activity has no impact on the utility customer. | |
| |The lack drainage capacity to industrial areas you list as an issue. What will it cost the new utility? How will it be|AM&PW |
| |paid back? | |
| |At present the lack of drainage capacity in the industrial areas is restricting development. The City and the developer | |
| |through contributions will contribute towards capacity relief. The mechanism for recovering contributions is on the | |
| |basis of a lot levies charged to all developers. There is not cost to the new Land Drainage Utility. | |
| |Is the sanitary utility dollars used for drainage? If so how much will the charges be reduced once the drainage utility|AM&PW |
| |begins. | |
| |No, the Sanitary Utility dollars are not used for Land Drainage operations. The internal accounting structures are set | |
| |up to track all costs and revenues associated with each utility. Rates are developed for each based on the charging | |
| |structures unique to each utility. Doing other wise would increase the possibility of Drainage Services being challenged| |
| |in front of the AEUB (Alberta Energy and Utility Board). | |
| |Do you set up an account to carry the depreciation for the utility? |AM&PW |
| |Yes, both the Sanitary Sewer Utility and the Land Drainage Utility have an account set up to reflect the annual | |
| |depreciation of assets. | |
| |The program mgmt costs for the new drainage utility is that a one time charge? |AM&PW |
| |The annual fee from EPCOR for billing is estimated to be in the range of $300,000. | |
| |What will the cost be to your and other departments for the new land drainage? (Page 46) |AM&PW |
| |The approximate annual charge for the Land Drainage Utility to the various City departments is: | |
| |Edmonton Police Service $4,000 | |
| |Edmonton Public Library $1,300 | |
| |Emergency Response $7,000 | |
| |Community Services $435,000 | |
| |AMPW (rental properties) $700 | |
| |AMPW (Bldg. Mtc.) $600 | |
| |Tax Collection $500 | |
| |Transportation (Transit) $100 | |
| |Drainage Services $24,000 | |
| |All department budgets have been adjusted to accommodate this charge. | |
| |You state that the cost increases are partially offset from the sale of leased premises. Do we not have a policy on the|AM&PW |
| |use of sale of leased premises? Do we not have a policy on the use of sale proceeds for the use of operating costs? | |
| |(Page 46) | |
| |A recent strategy to dispose of surplus leased properties has been developed and has been received by City Council. | |
| |Essentially, all leased properties which realize a better financial return from a sale versus a lease will be placed on | |
| |the market on a timely basis. The sale proceeds are not used for operating costs; such proceeds are credited to the | |
| |Land Enterprise with the exception of properties acquired for park development, which are credited to the Parkland | |
| |Purchase Reserve Account. | |
| |You list under quick facts 4 items with increased usage. What is the increment of cost for each? (Page 120) |Community Services |
| | | |
| |Incremental Cost | |
| |Maintain 104 additional hectares of turf $ 108,000 | |
| |Maintain 33,357 additional square meters of shrub beds 59,000 | |
| |Maintain 4,700 additional trees 12,000 | |
| |Maintain 1 additional playground 3,000 | |
| |Total Incremental Cost $ 182,000 | |
| |Under Contracted Services – why are these up by 12.1% (Page 124) |Community Services |
| |The majority of this increase (10.1%) is the result of increased MES charges associated with: equipment and vehicle | |
| |replacements; inflation; and inability to realize crew shift changes to reduce equipment and vehicle requirements. The | |
| |balance is increased contract work (1.1%) and general services costs (1.1%) resulting from inflation and parkland | |
| |inventory growth partially off set by expenditure review savings. | |
| |Under the unfunded – what would be the cost for the new pesticides as put forth by the Pesticide Advisory Board? |Community Services |
| |We are not expecting specific recommendations from the Pesticide Advisory Committee until March 2003. Therefore we are | |
| |not able to provide costs at this time. However, for the purpose of the LRFP an assumption was made that one | |
| |recommendation coming forward for approval would involve increased mowing. | |
| |The costs identified in the unfunded package were to cut broadleaf weeds two additional times in May and June, when they| |
| |have their most obvious impact, rather than use pesticides. | |
| |What are the new costs for the Land Drainage Utility for all of Community Services department? |Community Services/ |
| |The total cost to the community Services Department of the Land Drainage fee is $434,000. This is broken down as |AM&PW |
| |follows: | |
| |Recreation and Cultural Facilities $385,000 | |
| |Parks 4,000 | |
| |Social, Recreation and Cultural Services 45,000 (1) | |
| | | |
| |(1) These costs all relate to the Community Leagues | |
| |What are the non-financial and non-construction costing the capital financing operating budget? |Finance |
| |The Capital Project Financing Program is presented on page 150 of the 2003 Budget document Volume 2 (budget by Program).| |
| |All revenues and expenditures identified in this program are strictly financial in nature. They represent strictly | |
| |corporate financial charges used for capital expenditures. There are no non-financial or non-construction costs included| |
| |in this program. | |
| |What are the major corporate initiatives and what do they cost? How are they funded (Page 151) |Finance |
| |The City Manager has a tax levy funded proposed budget of $600,000 for 2003 which is used for unforeseen strategic | |
| |reviews or initiatives in the Administration, that arise during the budget year. The projects proposed for 2003 so far | |
| |are: (a) a possible review of the City's communications strategies and (b) the use of the fund to contribute to | |
| |"Careers", a co-op program to familiarize high school students on City operations. A complete listing of 2002 projects | |
| |is available, if required, of which a few of them are as follows: Peoplesoft Upgrade ($250,000); Strategic Sourcing | |
| |Project ($140,000); Accessible Taxi Service Demand Validation and Workable Solution ($35,000); Alberta Future Summit | |
| |($16,000); ERD Sponsorship Program ($14,300) and the City Managers Performance Evaluation Review ($20,000). | |
| |In 2002 capital spending was $338 million and in 2003 proposed is $332 million. Why the decrease? Does the Capital |Finance |
| |costs include drainage & sanitary utility spending? Does it include the proposed $50 million borrowing? | |
| |The following highlights the major changes from the Council approved 2002 capital budget ($338) to the 2003 capital | |
| |budget ($332): | |
| |[pic] | |
| |The capital budgets above include all program capital expenditures including Sanitary and Land Drainage utilities. | |
| |Projects recommended for tax-supported debt are included in 2003. | |
| |Could you explain the increase in tax levy of 19.2% and the expenditures are up 35.4%? |Finance |
| |The major reason for the increase in the expenditures is that two new activities have been added to this program: one | |
| |being the need to set aside funds to address contribution rate increases in pensions effective January 1, 2003 and the | |
| |other to fund preparations for the 2005 World Masters Games. Together they make up approximately 88% of the increase. | |
| |The Tax Levy budget increase is lower than the expenditure budget increase as the Tax Levy takes into consideration both| |
| |revenues and expenditures. This program assumes funding contributions will be received from both the provincial and | |
| |federal governments for the 2005 World Masters Games, thereby reducing the need to draw on taxpayer contributions. | |
| |Why are you allocating $1.5 million extra for the financial strategies budget? Was 3.108 million 2002 not enough (Page |Finance |
| |155)? | |
| |The Financial Strategies budget is a financial cushion that has been established to deal with outstanding or emerging | |
| |funding pressures, such as increases in WCB or Alberta Health Care premiums. Each budget year, financial staff assess | |
| |the potential requirements for funding against the funds available. For 2003, it has been estimated that a contingency | |
| |of $4.6 million is required. | |
| |Why are you budgeting all of the $2.137 for the World Masters Games in 2003 when 2005 is when they occur (Page 153)? |Corporate Services |
| |The 2003 amount of $2.137 million is only a portion of the complete $14.7 million budget for the World Masters Games. | |
| |Costs have already commenced for Communications and the International Masters Games Association (IGMA) board expenses. | |
| |The expenditures will involve staffing, office accommodation, marketing, IMGA board expenses, Technical Delegate visits,| |
| |merchandise, hosting and protocol functions. | |
| |What are the $2.1 million wages there were on 2002? |Finance |
| |These funds are in the Corporate Expenditures Program in 2003 to deal with increased LAPP pension contributions | |
| |announced in October 2002, effective January 2003. Due to the timing of the announcement, this appears within the | |
| |Corporate programs rather than being included in operating program budgets. | |
| |You list the Downtown Retail Complex program as a cost to the taxes? Is it? I thought that the City would only agree |P&D/Finance |
| |to not collect the sum that was an increase as a result of increased assessment up to a certain value? | |
| |The program is expenditure neutral – the City never gives out more funding than increased taxes it takes in up to a | |
| |maximum of $1,500,000 over the course of the five program years. Due to restrictions within the Municipal Government | |
| |Act, the City cannot directly abate the taxes collected on the subject property. A mechanism is in place whereby the | |
| |City collects the taxes annually and shortly thereafter returns an amount equal to the increase in taxes to the | |
| |applicant in the form of a program grant. | |
| | | |
| |Although it appears as though the program is a cost to tax payers, it is not. In fact, the appearance is a result of | |
| |the mechanism required to provide program funding within the legal parameters of the MGA. Revenues and expenses are | |
| |identified as separate line items in separate programs. Revenues fall within a program called Property/Business Taxes | |
| |and expenses (defined as any expenditure against revenue) fall within a program called Taxation. | |
| |Is there an evaluation process under which you decide what areas to expand city services into? IE – E-Business, |Corporate Services |
| |improved expanded I.T. Nine more systems will be consolidated over the next two years – at what cost? At what savings?| |
| |Evaluation Process | |
| |Evaluation processes have been applied in the decision making for major corporate initiatives such as e-Business and | |
| |Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). | |
| |The e-Business initiative started as a result of a web site diagnostic in 2002 that identified a number of key issues | |
| |with the City’s current web site. As well in 2003, the current version of software to manage the web site will no | |
| |longer be supported by the vendor, creating issues for upgrading and virus protection. To deal with these issues, an | |
| |e-business strategy and business case for each proposed improvement were developed. The strategy and business cases | |
| |were then brought forward to Senior Management Team (SMT) for their endorsement in May 2002. Based on this endorsement,| |
| |a capital project profile was developed. The Capital Priorities Plan Working Committee evaluated the proposed | |
| |e-business project against all proposed capital projects to determine its ranking. The execution and evaluation of the | |
| |e-business strategy will be managed through a General Manager as the executive sponsor and a steering committee. | |
| | | |
| |The ERP maintenance management initiative was undertaken in response to the need to replace current systems where vendor| |
| |support would no longer be available. Options to address this issue were considered and the ERP solution through SAP | |
| |maintenance management was selected. The ERP evaluation process was brought forward and endorsed by SMT in April, 2001.| |
| |The process entails ownership, governance, guiding principles, and outlines supporting roles and responsibilities. Each| |
| |ERP initiative is approved on it own merits and is supported by business case that outlines the costs/benefits. | |
| |Currently a three-year roadmap was developed in August 2002 and brought forward outlining developments within SAP. | |
| |A formal IT Governance structure was approved by SMT in November 2002. Within this structure a business council was | |
| |identified. One of the responsibilities of the business council is to prioritize CPP budget requests for IT | |
| |applications. This structure will further strengthen the evaluation process for business applications. | |
| |ERP Costs/Savings | |
| | | |
| |Capital project XX-18-0200 identifies 2003 capital costs of $4.4 million for the ERP maintenance management project and | |
| |there is an associated annual license maintenance fee of $350,000. These funds will complete the implementation for the| |
| |initial six business areas, pay license fees and implement the maintenance solution for land and buildings and the Gold | |
| |Bar Waste Water facility. | |
| | | |
| |Savings are expected for the department business activities. However, these line business area cost avoidance/savings | |
| |were not identified at the time of the strategy development, as a major change initiative was required to standardize | |
| |business processes. A key deliverable incorporated into the Main-Link Project charter for maintenance management was | |
| |the identification and realization of the individual business area benefits. This deliverable will be used as one of | |
| |the critical success factors in evaluating the project. | |
| | | |
| |The business case developed for the strategy also identified a number of other operational benefits from | |
| |applying maintenance management across the organization: | |
| |Standardized process for like functions. | |
| |A standardized process corporately helps develops flexibility in workforce assignments. | |
| |Adoption of best practices or renewing the way we do business. | |
| |Integrated data captured as close to the source as possible. This reduces duplication of data capture and increases the | |
| |quality of the data. | |
| |Standardized and timely reporting. Getting the right information to the right person when it is required. | |
| |Advances the City’s ability to manage by performance measures. | |
| |Allows for the best utilization of the limited resources to meet the ever-changing needs of our customers. | |
| |Develop an integrated back office allowing for externally focused e-initiatives. | |
| |Reduced costs per transaction resulting from single data capture. | |
| |Long-term technology sustainment for vendor supported software. (Volatility of the software industry). | |
| |You have on page 184 a number outlining and measuring success, but what does it mean i.e. what client - the City or the |Corporate Services |
| |citizen. Also absenteeism of 33.72 is that good or bad? What is its costs in forms of real dollars. | |
| |The Corporate Services Department has conducted an annual Client Satisfaction Survey for the last two years. Our main | |
| |clients are City Council, Senior Management Team, and the management and staff of the other civic departments. | |
| |Our survey results indicate satisfaction with respect to the manner and quality of the service we provide and that the | |
| |level of satisfaction has been improving over time (Overall client satisfaction 2000 - 63%, 2001- 69%). Corporate | |
| |Services Management Team have established a long-term target of >75% with a commitment to continuos improvement. | |
| |With respect to absenteeism, 33.72 hours per employee is the lowest of all departments in the City and the goal is to be| |
| |reasonable given the characteristics of the workforce. The total cost of Short Term Disability benefits paid to | |
| |Corporate Services Department in 2001 can be defined in the following terms: | |
| |Number of staff: 735 | |
| |Total number of “absent” hours: 24,784. | |
| |Total benefit cost: $584,359 | |
| |Average absenteeism cost per employee: $791.00/year. | |
| |“Reduction in Benefit applied rate will save $249. What does this mean? (Page 190) |Corporate Services |
| |This is a reduction of the estimated labour benefit rate that is used to estimate the costs to the Department for | |
| |employee labour benefits such as Canada Pension, Employment Insurance, WCB, Dental, Major Medical, etc. | |
| |A benefits analysis was performed to determine the appropriate rate for 2003. The budgeted benefit rate is an estimate | |
| |of the benefit costs based on several assumptions that can vary throughout the year. This analysis determined that we | |
| |could use a lower rate and save $249 in 2003 as a result of an improvement in experience and budgeting. | |
| |What is the reclassification of revenue of $481,000. (Page 190) |Corporate Services |
| |Revenues should be amounts that are received from parties external to the City. This $481 is received from internal | |
| |departments therefore should be classified as interdepartmental recoveries. The resulting reduction in revenues is | |
| |offset by a reduction in expenditures (no tax levy impact). | |
| |$91 - will these be eliminated once automation is completed. (Page 191) |Corporate Services |
| |Most of the automation is not anticipated for several years. These positions may be eliminated when the automation is | |
| |complete or could be reallocated to handle growth. | |
| |$35 enhanced corporate communications this is delivery. Do we not have enough for what we are now doing? (Page 191) |Corporate Services |
| |(Refer to Question #116). | |
| |$350, $150 are these projects necessary in 2003? (Page 191) |Corporate Services |
| |The $350,000 is the 17% annual maintenance license fee for the new SAP licenses required as part of the Main-Link | |
| |maintenance management project. Deferral of this funding will create the inability for the staff to use the maintenance| |
| |management solution. This would create unanticipated cost overruns for the project as alternative solutions would be | |
| |required. | |
| |The $150,000 is the annual maintenance fee for the software licenses required to implement the new web site technology. | |
| |The City requires maintenance on its web software to ensure that we are able to obtain technical support and software | |
| |upgrades that may be required to protect us against computer viruses and other security threats. Deferral or | |
| |eliminating software maintenance funding will limit our ability to operate the City web site safely and efficiently. | |
| |What was your staff level in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000? (Page 192) |Corporate Services |
| |1997 – 971.5 1998 – 889.4 1999 – 830.5 2000 – 787.0 | |
| |These are the full time equivalent (FTE) employees in Corporate Services. The basis for these numbers is the adjusted | |
| |budget modified to account for the numerous organizational changes that affected the FTE count. | |
| |Why are your capital requirements increasing over the previously proposed 5 year capital plan? Why have a plan if you |Corporate Services |
| |on an annual basis increase it by 11%? (14,445 proposed which continues an increase of $1,714)? (Page 193) | |
| |A major proportion of the increase in the capital funding is required to fund the e-business and ERP initiatives. | |
| | | |
| |The e-business project resulted from a diagnostic assessment of the City’s current web site in March 2002. This | |
| |diagnostic concluded that the web-site had significant gaps in its design, content, navigation and usability. The | |
| |diagnostic provided detailed, prioritized recommendations for improvements to the web-site. Based on these | |
| |recommendations, a web site strategy was developed, including a business case for each proposed improvement in May 2002.| |
| |The funding requests associated with the improvements were incorporated into the CPP process for evaluation. | |
| | | |
| |The ERP has a multi-year plan development plan, but has been funded with a variety of one-time funding sources. There | |
| |is a desire to minimize the use of tax levy funding for this program, requiring other one-time funding sources that | |
| |cannot be identified in advance. This year to year funding approach has limited the ability to present a fully funded, | |
| |multi-year plan. | |
Question 23
|2003 Unfunded Service Packages |No. of Positions |2003 – Half Year Costs |2004 – Full Year Costs|
|Resources for Front Line Policing |55 |$ 3.7 |$ 4.5 |
|South Division Transition Plan |12 |$ 0.8 |$ 1.0 |
|Resources for Investigation |23 |$ 1.6 |$ 1.9 |
|Resources for Organizational Capacity |11 |$ 0.7 |$ 0.9 |
|Total |101 |$ 6.8 |$ 8.3 |
Question 48
| | |Expenditure |Revenue |Tax Levy |
|2002 Budget | | $ 151,575 | $ 25,150 | $ 126,425 |
|Cost Increases| | 6,994 | - | 6,994 |
|on 2002 | | | | |
|Services | | | | |
|Revenue (Rate | | 520 | 642 | (122) |
|& Volume | | | | |
|Changes) | | | | |
|Expenditure & | | (1,422) | 396 | (1,818) |
|Revenue Review| | | | |
|Svgs | | | | |
|Services | | 1,819 | - | 1,819 |
|Funded by E&RR| | | | |
|Savings | | | | |
|Reduction to | | (1,444) | | (1,444) |
|Meet Target | | | | |
|Net Change | | 6,467 | 1,038 | 5,429 |
|Recommended | | $ 158,042 | $ 26,188 | $ 131,854 |
|2003 Budget | | | | |
Question 57
| |Edmonton Police|Calgary Police |Toronto Police |Winnipeg Police |Ottawa-Carleton |Canadian City |U.S. City|
| |Service |Service |Service |Service |Regional |Avg.3 |Avg.4 |
|Population policed1 |666,104 |899,285 |2,562,235 |631,675 |800,525 |706,797 |na |
|Gross operating expenditures 20012 |$142,386,000 |$169,112,000 |$603,372,378 |$116,723,929 |$130,647,000 |$124,120,560 | |
|Operating $ per capita |$214 |$188 |$235 |$185 |$163 |$176 | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Tax Levy Expenditures 2001 |$114,470,337 |$135,173,637 |$578,700,000 |$103,910,326 |$123,458,000 |na | |
| (Net Operating Expenditures) | | | | | | | |
|Tax Levy $ per capita |$172 |$150 |$226 |$165 |$154 |na | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Uniformed Officers FTE1 |1,152 |1,303 |5,155 |1,127 |1,046 |na |na |
|Civilians & Other FTE1 |331 |578 |2,125 |317 |427 |na |na |
| | | | | | | | |
|Population per uniformed officer |578 |690 |497 |560 |765 |683 | |
|Population per total staff |449 |478 |352 |437 |543 |505 | |
| | | | | | | | |
|# Violent crimes 20011 |7,393 |8,124 |29,868 |8,759 |6,146 |6,308 | |
|# Violent crimes per 1000 population |11.1 |9.0 |11.7 |13.9 |7.7 |8.9 | |
|# Violent crimes per officer |6.4 |6.2 |5.8 |7.8 |5.9 |6.1 | |
|# Violent crimes per staff |5.0 |4.3 |4.1 |6.1 |4.2 |4.5 | |
| | | | | | | | |
|# Property crimes 20011 |38,995 |40,945 |87,055 |39,869 |27,755 |34,761 | |
|# Property crimes per 1000 population |58.5 |45.5 |34.0 |63.1 |34.7 |49.1 | |
|# Property crimes per officer |33.8 |31.4 |16.9 |35.4 |26.5 |33.5 | |
|# Property crimes per staff |26.3 |21.8 |12.0 |27.6 |18.8 |24.8 | |
| | | | | | | | |
|# Crimes: Total Criminal Code1 |69,501 |65,681 |164,353 |72,951 |48,389 |52,756 | |
|# Total crimes per 1000 population |104.3 |73.0 |64.1 |115.5 |60.4 |74.5 | |
|# Total crimes per officer |60.3 |50.4 |31.9 |64.7 |46.3 |50.9 | |
|# Total crimes per staff |46.9 |34.9 |22.6 |50.5 |32.9 |37.6 | |
| | | | | | | | |
|2001 $ Transfer payments from other |$0 |$0 |$7,100,000 |$2,000,000 |$700,000 |in progress | |
|levels of government to support | | | | | | | |
|municipal police operations5 | | | | | | | |
Notes:
1. Population, Police Resources, and Crime Data
This is preliminary data from Statistics Canada's Police Administration Annual Survey for 2001. The data will be officially released in publication format on December 20, 2002. Please note that the population figures reflect 'population policed' by each police service. 'Population policed' is not necessarily equal to the actual 2001 census counts for the cities (i.e. Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Vancouver) and regions (Ottawa-Carleton, Durham, Peel, York) in which the police services reside. Source: Ron Logan, Senior Analyst, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada.
Question 57, continued
2. Operating Expenditures
Police operating expenditures should not be compared without a detailed item by item review to determine comparable items. As stated by Statistics Canada: "The contents of these budgets tend to differ considerably from city to city. For example, some costs (e.g. accommodation, by-law enforcement, and court security) and some services (e.g. computing, personnel, and financial services) may be included within the police service's operating budget for some municipalities, but in other municipalities they may be paid for by other departments or through the service's capital budget, which is not included". Source: Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-225-XIE, page 6.
3. Canadian City Averages
Based on data from police services serving a population of between 500,000 and 1 million. The following nine police services are included: Edmonton (666,104) Calgary (899,285), Winnipeg (631,675), Ottawa-Carleton Regional (800,525), Durham Regional (523,013), Hamilton (490,268), Peel Regional (999,146), Vancouver (573,154) and York Regional (778,000).
4. U.S. City Averages
U.S figures are not readily comparable with Canadian figures because of different reporting and recording practices between the two countries. There are only eight "index" offences in the American UCR survey, compared with over 100 in the Canadian UCR survey. Seven of the eight offences are comparable: homicide, attempted murder/aggravated assault, robbery, breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft, other theft and arson. However, only homicide is directly comparable. The remaining offences require modifications for one or both countries (not feasible within the given timeframe). Source: Statistics Canada: Feasibility Study on Crime Comparisons between Canada and the United States, 2001, page 4.
5. Transfer Payments
This data was collected by telephone conversations with Finance Section personnel.
Question 161
Positions * FTEs **
| |Police |Support | |Police |Support |
|2002 Approved Budget |1,173 |339 | |1,153 |362 |
|Add: | | | | | |
|Annualization of 24 positions approved in 2002 | | | | 12 | |
|Positions/FTEs funded through E&R Review | 3 | 16 | | 3 | 16 |
|Positions/FTEs as of 2002 December 31 |1,176 |355 | |1,168 |378 |
|Less: Reduction to meet guideline | | | | -15 *** | |
|Positions/FTEs at Recommended Budget |1,176 |355 | |1,153 |378 |
* Number of positions which are considered permanent, excluding temporary staff
** Full time equivalents, including temporary staff, which are utilized in various areas within the Service including Communications and Human Resources.
*** 36 positions vacated through attrition in 2003 is equivalent to 15 FTEs
Question 194
|Facility |Year Constructed |Life Cycle* |Capacity |Planned Replacement within 5 |
| | | | |years |
| | | | | |
|OWNED FACILITIES | | | | |
|Police Headquarters |1981 |30 Years |750 |No** |
|West Division |1994 |30 years |220 |No |
|South Division |1975 |25 years |165 |Yes |
|North Division (old) |1976 |25 years |165 |No |
|North Division (new) |2002 |30 years |212 |No |
|LEASED FACILITIES | | | | |
|Old Strathcona CPS | | | |No |
|Beverly CPS | | | |No |
|Ottewell CPS | | | |No |
|Norwood CPS | | | |No |
|Summerlea/WEM CPS | | | |No |
|Fairway Drive CPS | | | |Yes |
|McDougall CPS | | | |No |
|Calder CPS | | | |No |
|Namao Centre CPS | | | |No |
|Millwoods CPS | | | |Yes |
|Westmount CPS | | | |No |
|OTHER MAJOR FACILITIES | | | | |
|Eastwood CPS |1950 approx | | |No |
|Police Seized Vehicle Lot |1995 | | |No |
|Vallevand Kennels |1996 |25 Years |15 |No |
|PROPOSED NEW FACILITIES | | | | |
|South East Division Stn |2004 | |220 | |
|Vehicle & Equipment Storage |2007 | | | |
|South West Division Stn |2009 | |220 | |
* Before major additions or replacements, dependant upon feasibility and cost benefit of each alternative
** Conceptual Plans for expansion of Police Headquarters are scheduled to go forward within this time period
Any EPS facilities that are declared surplus to the needs of the EPS are returned to Asset Management and Public Works, to be used for other municipal purposes or to be sold as dictated by the Corporate Land Management Policy.
-----------------------
[pic]
Refer to Attachment for a completed table.
Question 1
($ Millions)
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Question 1, continued
Question 1, continued
Question 1, continued
Question 1, continued
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- city council finance
- city council chairs
- purpose of city council committees
- city council peoria il
- peoria il city council members
- peoria city council az
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- baltimore city council district lookup
- worthington city council candidates
- worthington city council results 2019
- peoria il city council meeting
- east peoria city council meeting