Circulated : A "DRAFT Budget Process Update to April 6, (pending Confirmation of Minutes)"
Headings on the Draft:
Agenda, Budget Amendments, Parking Lot Items, Items Referred to Staff to Report back during Budget Process, and Items Referred to Staff to Report back - Referred to Committees - Post-Budget.

CHANGES TO AGENDA : Circulation of an additional memorandum today which is a status update to this point on the budget.

Mayor : I know that Mr. Rinaldo is going to circulate the BTR reports.

Rinaldo : Understand they're coming.

Mayor : We won't be able to deal with that today, you need to read it first then we'll deal with it the next time we meet on budgets.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 8: Carried

Mayor : Public Works Dept. Budget, item 4.2.7 There are a number of reports connected to that budget and there are a number of reports that we need to deal with that have to do with overtime.Let's give this particular budget it's due consideration this afternoon, and then deal with those reports when we meet again on Thursday..The first item under A is the Operations and Maintenance Div..Mr. Crockett

Crockett : .in terms of the reports themselves, report #1 on the Municipal Act (MA) implications, report #5 which is on Work Accommodation (WA). If you recall, we've tabled report #6 which tries to combine the financial synergies of those 2 programs, so report #6 needs to be dealt with from Committee and then Council perspective. The budget itself starts on p.149 of Book 2, it runs through division by division, so I don't know if you would like to walk through the Operating Budget from that standpoint. I'll leave that to committee.

Mayor : Why don't we walk through the Operating Budget, beginning on p.149 and we'll take these reports as they come up and as they have to do with the Operating Budget as well.

Jackson : .The various reports we've asked for are they now all before us so that I'm fully prepared for Thursday's meeting to discuss them?

Mayor : They're not before you now. The only one you don't have.is the BTR report, but that's coming within the ½ hour and then you will have everything so you can deal with it on Thursday. Jackson : How about the one I had asked for "in camera" about 1 ½ weeks ago? Is that one before us today as well? Rinaldo : There's going to be a number of reports, including the BTR, including the one you are referring to that will be given to you this afternoon, they are in the process of being printed. Jackson .all in front of us for Thursday's meeting. Rinaldo : yes.

Collins : I want to get an update on the issue of the MA changes. Peter ( Crockett ) said that is incorporated into the WA report as well. Crockett : If you turn to report #6, WA program, the MA downtown cleanliness and safety enhancements. .We looked at the possible synergies between those 3 programs.it allows us to reduce the requirements for WA and MA to take into account the synergies in terms of the various programs. It allows us to bring forward for basically the same dollars the downtown safety and cleanliness program and still meet our MA WA needs within the department. Collins : I'll come back to the report when you open it up for debate. My second question relates to forestry and I know we've had a lot of discussion around the tree planting program, but I don't think we've been into the issue yet of the tree grid program - the stump removal and everything related to day to day operations. I thought C. Whitehead had asked at a prior budget meeting for a report on the status of the grid program. Is that forthcoming, or has it already come and I've misplaced it? Rinaldo : .I know enhancing the Grid program from its 12 year cycle within the old City wasn't affordable as far as expanding it to all the urban areas or reducing the number of years in the cycle. Crockett : I think what you are looking for by way of a report was also some context for the 3 different enhancements that were coming forward related to forestry: 1 was for trimming, the cycle and the expansion, the other one was for planting or replacement, and the 3 rd one was for an urban forestry health program. Had we a report I think we would recommend the order of priority to you as being the health protection program first, I think that was a $250,000 program, the 2 nd being enhancement to the trimming program to extend the life of the e existing infrastructure, and then lastly from a logistics point of view, the tree planting program. I think that's something of what you were looking for in terms of what was our relative recommendation of priority. Collins : I recall that the report that was before Council, I believe it was the last term, .I don't have those number before me.if we're looking to implement one or all of the iniatives that Brian ( McHattie ) spoke of. Are the numbers in that report still valid today? Crockett : Yes, they are. I believe it was $250,000 for the health program, $1.3 million for the tree planting, and $6.8 million for the tree trimming program. Collins : Will staff be distributing that report over the next day or so? I know it's already been completed so it doesn't require a lot of work. Mayor : The enhancement forms which are the details for each of the programs were included in the report that came out through Joe ( Rinaldo ).. It was part of the list of all the enhancements that were either affordable or unaffordable, the 3 programs relative to forestry and the costing were included in that report. Collins :.that report that came to us last year with all the written explanation in addition to the budget amounts that Peter ( Crockett ) is referencing.I was just asking that be forwarded to Council for review and consideration, prior to the passing of the budget. Crockett .Yes. Mayor : Great, thank you.

Mayor : The division by division budgets are here and staff.will be ready to take us through those. Can I ask you Peter to give us an overview of that and see what questions there are? .and then I think I would like us to focus on recommendations that move us along. Crockett : I'm not sure what you are looking for me to do. I can - the first part of the budget is on p.151 is the summary of the overall dept. Did you want to walk through div. by div. ? Mayor : .that would be helpful.as a quick overview and then we'll see what questions there are and we'll deal with some recommendations around those budgets. Crockett : On p.153, bk. 2, is the Public Works Dept. job administration, which is basically my office and my financial support section, so it provides overall administration of the dept. and is the financial wing.of the dept. Mayor : .any questions..? C. Merulla : .when are the reports coming, regarding BTR and all that? Mayor : Thursday morning. Merulla : .Isn't it a little premature then, unless we know we have additional monies available, which I believe we do, to deal with these particular reports, would help a great deal in moving forward in knowing what we can cut or replace or ???(interrupted by Mayor ) Mayor : Sure, the problem is the report on the BTR is being printed as we speak and so we can't deal with something we haven't had a chance to read. I'm suggesting that we move ahead with these budgets and make whatever changes or confirmations that are necessary subject to having a look at those, and then we can go back (interrupted by Merulla ). Merulla : Fair enough.

C. Collins : Just looking at the office budget here, p.152 and 153. In the General Admin. line in 152 is $172,000 that's a requested '04 budget, but when I look at 153, and I take that to be the same area of the organization, there's cost allocation for the GM's office. Can I understand how that works and who's included in the employee related costs? Crockett : in terms of the employees related myself, my administrative assistant. For HR related staff and 2 communications related staff and 1 finance administration related staff, all of which both the communication and the F & A staff are all distributed.to the divisions including in terms of my offices, all of the cost allocations that are corporate through my dept. and they're distributed out to the various programs. My office then, does a cost allocation out to the various programs including water, wastewater, waste, whatever the case may be, in terms of utilization of those services. The gross budget is different than the net budget I guess is what you're looking at and that's the reason why. For example Risk Management will assess Public Works from an insurance standpoint. That will get distributed out to various programs as opposed to City Admin. It's part of the cost of doing business. Collins : I'd like to know where the 41 finance staff are allocated to? Crockett : There are. Collins : Maybe before Peter goes into that. If I was to look at the first chart p.150, where it gives all the divisions, could you give a guestimate into how many are in each division? Crockett : I can tell you that there is 1 manager that reports indirectly to me and directly to Tony Tollis(?). There are 8 BA's (Business Administrator).each of them reporting, in one case, one reports to Dave (?) directly and deals with finances with a more general perspective within the dept. There is one reporting to Fleet and Facilities, one reporting to Roads, one reporting to Parks which includes forestry and cemeteries, one reporting to Waste Management, one reporting to Transit, and one reporting to Red Hill, oh sorry, Capital Planning and Implementation and Red Hill at the same time, and another one reporting to (discussion on what has been left out).the main programs that are delivered, the capital side, Capital Planning and Implementation and the Red Hill, Waste Management, Roads and Traffic, Parks, Waste, Wastewater, and Fleet and Facilities each have a Business Administrator and varying, depending on the complexity of the divisions program, a number of either FA 1's or FA 2's to help with the overall transactions related to the department. Collins : So there would be 8 BA's, plus a manager, and about 30 FA 1's and 2's, roughly? Crockett : Roughly, yes. Collins : Is that part of the discussion we're having later. Mayor : Yes, that will be covered under the report that was referred to.

Bruckler : I'm not sure we want to look at the full budget for Public Works because on p.151 some of the figures sort of jump out at me. I guess they could be explained by the individual departments.The one I'm looking at right now is the contractual and there's an enhancement which is the road improvement or the one that's legislated by the province for $809,000. Is the difference then over and above that which is almost another $4 million, is that escalating costs of existing contracts? Crockett : It's largely winter I believe is the main driver. If you see in the column, again we're on p.151 of book 2, under 2004 Program Reductions the $4.41 million that's in brackets, .that is the part of the reduction as going from $83 million to $65 million which is a reduction in the winter control budget, largely on the contractual services side. What we did in terms of the 2004 budget we looked at the expenditures over the last couple years in terms of winter control. That took our number out to about $20 million, give or take, .to get from $83 million down to $65million we took $4.41 million out of it, so it ended up with, I believe it is $16.8 million for winter control. That's largely the key driver in that area. Bruckler :.Can the other one on the financial, which is another substantial increase on p.151, about $2 ½ million increase. Crockett : That's the capital financing so, but Joe can add to this, but that's basically the debt financing of previous capital programs.

Mayor : .We're just going to take some general questions just on the information, then we'll go through the reports.

Horwath : Not specific to this budget that is before us, but some questions had been asked to Joe about receiving some samples of the breakdown sheets of the financials for staff costs, for representation for some of the different departments as well as corporate. I don't see them here - I wonder if we're getting them. Rinaldo : Yes, we're in the process of developing them. We should have them out later today or tomorrow morning.

Mitchell : Maybe my questions are more about Public Works, but it was on snow clearing and the management of that and how we could save some more money there with call outs and so on.and I think staff are going in that direction, like they're learning every year.

Mayor : That's an operational issue.this is the budget that supports the divisions. .suggest we go back to the reports that are before you and I'll take them in order even though Peter suggested that #1 and #6 have a lot to do with each other. .and will deal with specific questions on those divisions and those budgets. So report #1, which is the Operations and Maintenance Div., as it relates to the MA, this is just information for us and there you have the recommendation before you. May I have a motion on that recommendation? Horwath : I'm prepared to receive the report, but I do have a question first. Mayor : Please. Horwath : .about the report talking about the new requirements of the MA. It's not clear in the report to what extent municipalities across the province are ramping up 100% compliance right away. This is the debate we always have about social services and various other programs in regards to whether .100% compliance is what we're aiming for or whether we have to throw it all in the budget at once or whether MA requires us to eventually get there through a planning process, similar to safe drinking water, there were time frames to put in place for municipalities to obtain compliance and I'm wondering first of all is there a time frame for compliance to be expected and second of all what's happening in other municipalities in regards to 100% compliance or perhaps less. Rinaldo : .The issue in terms of compliance is really a liability from our legal perspective. MA sets out minimum performance standards. What we're trying to do here is add in what we don't do now that's required under the MA. In some cases, and I'll use the conflict monitor checks that are now required under the MA, they weren't previously. A number of municipalities were doing those, so they're not ramping up because they have already achieved that or were achieving that in advance of the MA. The biggest area that municipalities are dealing with is the need for counts and the need for controls. I know, in talking with my counterparts, they're all tormented about the need for patrols but nobody .has said they were not going to comply with the MA. I don't know that for a fact, but nobody's told me that they aren't. In terms of counts the expectation is that as we do the counts we need to get up to compliance we can then start to scale them off because it says in the MA .you need to do a certain number of counts or have the methodology available to you to be able to predict with some level of accuracy the volumes on all of our roads on an annual basis. Once we've got some history from a count perspective we expect to taper off the financial implications of those because we will have some history and know that volumes aren't changing dramatically so we might be able to, as an example, go to one every 2 or 3 or 4 year cycle. The problem is we don't have any of those counts on any of our streets now and that's causing the big surge at the beginning of the program. Horwath : There are a number of municipalities that have already set their budgets. Would we not be able to determine whether these counts and programs are already incorporated in those budgets? Rinaldo : .Mississauga and Toronto both have complied with the legislation and increased their staff in order to deal with particularly on the count side and patrol side. Horwath : .There is no existing data we can use from the last, well, since I've been here, there are always requests for various things, stop signs, stop lights, crossing guards. Counts are done at that time. Is there no existing data that we can use to reduce the cost of doing the count on every single road? Crockett : We are using whatever data we can.and have incorporated that into it. The problem is we'll do a stop sign count for 2 or 3 hours and that's not long enough to predict an ADT from which is what we need from an HTA (?) standpoint . But wherever we got enough data we are utilizing that data if it's current enough. Horwath : I recall when we were dealing with some of our consultants.re public works issues, there were talking about some kind of monitoring system that we should have in place, I believe it was around weather related issues though. Is it a similar system or different altogether? Crockett : I believe they were talking about weather related systems that we use primarily from a winter control standpoint. We have access to those and are trying to get into partnerships with NTO and so on.to get better information from that standpoint, but the 2 aren't related. Horwath : The cost here is $809,000 for the compliance and Peter said that's to ramp up for the first year. What would we expect it to go down to - $120,000 for 2005 and beyond, is that right, so we'll see $600,000 savings in next year's budget? Crockett : It won't go down that much because patrol requirements won't change over time. What might change is some aspect of the count program and I wouldn't suspect that that's not much more than 1/3 of the total cost. Mayor : The report.on p.2 of 2 indicates the annual cost comes down to $120,000. (voice in background) Mayor : Yea, for traffic counting, but it's now at 264.(interrupted by Peter Crockett ) Crockett : I'm sorry, it goes from 264 down to 120 not from 809 to 120. Mayor : OK, yes.

Collins : Out of all the items that have made their way to the table here in having positive recommendations attached to them, this one causes me the most discomfort.When you look at this it looks like it's a program where we could incorporate this into a current work program and divvy it up between different areas between Public Works and so I can appreciate why C. Horwath has asked the questions she has and I know it did get a lot of attention when it went to Public Works originally. .there are other municipalities that are incorporating it into their current work schedules without increasing the budget to account for this. If we were looking at such a scenario how would that unfold, understanding that it's not been recommended but what would the implications be, assuming that the current complement of staff that we have on the street right now within Public Works? Scott Stewart : .A second WA report essentially speaks to that principal in terms of bringing back work accommodating people to work accommodating program to provide the particularly our patrol service which is 4 of the5 FTE's identified. So if we're successful in integrating the WA program, uh enhance program with this budget item then we would in fact be using our existing staff complement, by and large. Collins : Yea, but there's a budget increase to that item? Correct? It's still an enhancement component to it. Crockett : Yes, .but I'm not trying to complicate things, but if you look at report #6 supercedes 1 & 5 in terms of the overall dollars and what report #6 says is if you bring forward the downtown safety and cleanliness enhancements the MA and the WA consider them all together, taking into account where there are opportunities to synergize and that's not forcing synergy so that we don't have people doing things that we don't expect them to be able to do, particularly within the cleanliness and safety issues in the downtown. It saves $766,000 which comes off the WA requirements in that we utilize WA staff where we can to do things, whether it's road patrol, traffic counting and/or litter cleanup and so on to best utilize those resources so the WA becomes funded but it allows us to implement those programs. Collins : Report 1 was to cost us $800,000.for enhanced operating measures for the MA? Crockett : $809,000 yes. Collins : And then report 5, WA, that was 1.2 I think. Crockett : 1.157, yes. Collins : .from that $2 million, report 6 will cost us as an enhancement - Crockett : that's a total of 1.966 in that it . the total cost of all those programs when you include WA, MA and downtown cleanliness is $2.7 million taking into account the synergies we can get the net cost down to $1.9 million, which is on p.3 of report 6. Collins : There's still an increase there and I guess that's my concern. .We get something for it with the downtown cleanliness program which I would be willing to support on its own as an aside. It being tied to WA and the other enhancement, I'm just trying to figure out a way - how do I support that if I don't want to vote against that? Mayor : heh, heh, heh, I guess you vote against it, but can I suggest that maybe we need to deal with 1, 5 & 6, because they seem to be so linked and maybe 6 should have been #1.in answer to C. Collins question maybe you can explain to us, and part of the problem is it's 3 different people, or is it 3 different people that have prepared these reports. Collins : I just want to commend Peter and Scott for going away and looking at the WA because they've come back and have tried to make some allowances for some of the bodies that were originally built into the enhancement but I still think that item 1.that money could be better spent elsewhere. Mayor : .we're going to deal with 1, 5 & 6 but we need to present it as 3 separate reports.I'll take questions on them.

Bruckler : .the traffic counting in recognizing that subsequent years that dollar value will come down, if we were to split that over 2 years at this point in time, so that instead of 264 we might be spending 130 or something, is that a possibility? What impact might that then have on that program? Crockett : Yes, you can do that. Essentially, what it means is that the count aspect would be phased in so that we would automatically start counting, I'm assuming if we cut it in half, you would automatically start counting every 2 years. So we wouldn't be in compliance the first year, we might be in compliance the 2 nd year and probably for sure by the 3 rd year is essentially what it would mean. Bruckler : . I would assume from staff's perspective we would be looking at the ones that might be more critical than the others and the higher ones, so I think I could go with something like that. Mayor : I'll take a recommendation at the appropriate time.

Braden : Report #1 .talks about the MA saying that these things are required. 2 nd page it says Council may, as an alternative, not enhance these levels, so it sounds to me that the requirement has a different meaning than I thought. The very bottom of that page it says 'This recommendation is in keeping with the city's goal to spend wisely and comply with statutory requirements and minimize exposure to liability risks.' If we took out of this equation the fact that the province is being what I might call heavy handed and we said simply 'do these enhancements make sense'? Can I get a response from staff to say whether or not they think this is a good investment.I gotta think that if we weren't doing that before cause money's been tight, it hasn't been what we thought of as an absolute priority. So is this something we should be doing but we can't afford? Is this something we're being told to do because big brother is telling us to do it? . Crockett : .no we didn't do it before but no we didn't legally have to do it before. The MA changed effective January 1, 2004 and it stipulates minimum requirements for road operating authorities aka municipalities. The reason the report says 'may' is that Council could decide not to comply with the legislation. There is a risk however that goes along with that and what the risk is.in the event of .a liability claim, the first question that'll get asked by a judge.will be whether or not we can show that we complied with the minimum requirements set out in the MA. If we can show that our defense of due diligence in the eyes of this management from a corporate standpoint is much stronger and we're held to a different standard of care, so to speak. If we can't show due diligence relative to the minimum requirements of the MA the suggestion from this management is we could be more likely to be held liable for something. The critical ones from my perspective within the MA, are the signal monitor, the conflict monitor checks, the road patrol side of life, the count aspects to it. I think it is rather heavy handed but it does stipulate it in the legislation that we're to count, or be able to have some sort of a system to project accurately the traffic volumes on all of our roads on an annual basis. We don't have the database to do that at this point. We can build that over time, it's probably prudent to build it over time as opposed to do it tomorrow. But you need to know we're not in compliance with the MA if we don't do it in the first year. Braden : .so it sounds to me like road patrols makes some sense. If that's 400 grand that makes some sense and that might reduce our exposure in terms of a legal case. .traffic counting we're not going to get cheap, cause we don't know how many cars go down the road, right? .it's going to be pretty far-fetched for somebody to sue us because we don't know how many cars are there. That right? Crockett : The rationale for the province to include traffic volumes in the MA the way they have is that traffic volumes and posted speed are two of the criteria used to decide what level of, for example winter control a facility needs. .their intent is to try to put an onus on the municipalities rather than guessing what the volume is on all their roads, being able to ascertain exactly what it is, so they then have to hold to the winter control standard, for example under that volume and that speed for that particular roadway. Braden : I understand that we don't need to do counting, that 265,000, I'm prepared to get rid of most of that at the appropriate time. Mayor .motion coming forward.

Kelly : .there's no penalty if we don't comply.the province won't come forward to us .and simply say you're in non compliance, ergo you're in for such and such punitive action. Crockett : No the province won't come after us, the issue is the liability risk of not complying. .there is no penalty. Kelly : .the concern I've got in a circumstance like this is ok, fine, if we decide to go down this road.and we decide that we're going to be in compliance, the concern I've got is the next step in this situation is alright if we've got the statistics that indicate there's a certain situation here, vis a vis the traffic control and the number of cars, etc., are we not bound to start to enforce in a situation like this?.the next step is ok we're going to have to increase compliance by police actions or by-law officers, or whatever else.is this the thin edge of the wedge where we're going to have to start compliance vis a vis somebody's going to say ok you guys knew that this is a problem area but you did nothing about it. You simply compiled the statistical information. Is the next stage of compliance is we're going to have to hire more officers, more by-law officers, whatever the case might be.Is that where we're leading to? Crockett : .I don't think it's got anything to do with police officers, by-law officers, and so on, but without question, if we have data that we don't do something with we won't be able to show due diligence in terms of the intent of the legislation so and I'll use an example. If we have volume and speed data that we or volume and we know the posted speed of the road such that we don't change the winter control classification of that facility, yea, it would create a liability issue for us so we would have to utilize that information without question. Kelly : .I understand what the province is going for. They're going to say the more information you have the better decisions you can make .that makes all kinds of sense but the onus is still going to be on the municipality whether it's us or Toronto or .to do something about it once we compile the information. And the province is not simply saying well, we're going to help you with this. They're simply saying you guys are going to have to do this and invariably it's going to cost us more in the long run because if I'm a complainant in a situation like this, or a lawyer. the first thing I'm going to be looking for is Well, what did you guys do about it, you knew the information and now all of a sudden enforcement becomes an issue so I'm very concerned about precedent setting from a provincial standpoint . I can see where staff is coming from and I can see where if we're in a situation of non-compliance it does expose us from a liability standpoint, although from my experience from the last 7 years here on Council, even when we're right we're wrong, we end up paying anyway. .I've very concerned about what this is going to lead to. In other words this looks to me like a first step and we're going to have a number of issues come up over the next little while. I regretfully may have to support this simply because it's a provincial regulation and I don't like the idea of being in non-compliance and the exposure it gives us, but I'm very concerned about some of the ongoing operational expenses this may lead to. Mayor : . Whitehead : To staff, I'm trying to understand this as a new Councillor, because of the legislation are you suggesting that we become more liable if we don't do it now as a result of legislation, as opposed .to what we were before the legislation.? Crockett : We're more liable by not doing it than we are if we do do it. Whitehead : So what standards do we have to merit relative to making the decisions on road classifications, etc. What information do we use to make those kinds of determinations? Crockett : Predominately posted speed and winter control, by the way, is just one example but posted speed and assumed volume so they look at a local road and make assumptions on what kind of volume it would have on it. We have volume data for our major arterial roads, so that wasn't an issue. Really the difference is .the extra conflict monitor checks which I think are necessary but from a traffic volume perspective we have to count every road section within the city. So to phase those in over a couple of years, it's not unrealistic from many perspectives. Mayor : .phasing in - it's not a question of compliance or not, it's compliance but phasing in. Whitehead :.that's something we should be doing. I'm just concerned that.big brother has come down and passed legislation.incorporating things like traffic counting within the legislation, by no means, federal and provincial governments are not impervious to passing bad legislation. .we're talking about the $264,000 cost for counting alone.to be in compliance. .I can't see how a piece of legislation that says this is what you need to be doing as a municipality, why that would make us any more liable when I think that staff would do anything it can to protect us from liability previous to legislation. I would think they would continue doing the same post legislation..

Mayor : Are you ready for recommendation on this? Collins : .Is public safety jeopardized by not going forward with this seeing it's a risk management issue? Crockett : If we're talking about the traffic counting we would phase in the counting such that we minimize any public safety issues. The counting.is not necessarily a public safety issue as much as it's a minimum operating standard. The signal conflict monitor is a public safety issue as the roads patrol and the winter patrol. Mayor .Let's go to recommendation, that might generate some more questions or hopefully a decision. Bruckler: I'd like to move that $140,000 be removed from the traffic engineering for traffic counting for this year for on a "phase in" basis. Mayor : Just to be clear, that would leave in the budget $124,000? .Do you have a seconder? C. Ferguson . Ok. Collins : I was going to ask that we take the entire budget amount out and let staff come back with a plan that incorporates it into the current work schedule. Mayor : All right. I just accepted this one now, so we have to deal with this. Collins : I would support taking that money out and then I would subsequently put a motion to take the remainder out. Mayor : Let's see how we deal with this. Any other questions/comments? It's been moved and seconded that we go down to $124,000 in this particular item traffic counting. CARRIED. Now your motion. Collins : I'd take the remainder out - Mayor : so we take another $124,000 out Collins : The motion would be not to do the work, it would be to incorporate it into the current work schedule and have staff come back with the implications. Mayor : All right, so a seconder for that? C. Morelli . Questions or comments? McHattie : .In Peter's discussion he talked about a phase in period. It sounds like we're not considering that now. It sounds like the most logical way to go is to phase in over 3 years. It's 809,000 so I don't know whether in equal amounts make sense or whether we need to front end load it. The motion we just passed took out part of that, it sort of phased in part of that, but it was a very small amount . (to Peter) Does it make sense if we are going to phase it in, a recommendation from you on how to do that, is it simply a matter of 809,000 divided by 3 or - Crockett : I wouldn't phase in the other 3 components, it was basically the traffic counting that we thought we could phase in. The others - the patrols and the conflict monitor checks you either have them or you don't and the liability associated with them is fairly significant. Mayor : So we're dealing with now the remainder of that $124,000 . Moved and seconded. All in favour of bringing that down to 0. CARRIED. And the direction was that it be incorporated and that staff come back with how that's going to be done. Now, I need a recommendation. C. Horwath was going to move it, she's not here. I need someone to move this report as amended. C. Merulla , seconded by C. Kelly . CARRIED.

Mayor : Let's go down to #5.is the WA program city wide, prepared by Scott Stewart...questions on this.

Merulla : .My understanding is this issue has become more of an issue today than it was in the past. The reason behind the WA program - why is it costing us more today than it did 5 years ago? Crockett : There's a variety of things. .The flexibility in our budget is less than it was 5 years ago, where there was more ability to have someone doing light duty or not doing their job and be able to accommodate it within the budget and still get their work done. Now, over the last 5 years and actually it goes back further than that, over a number of years the budgets are, quite frankly, so tight that we simply don't have the flexibility to have people not in their positions and as a result the 17 people that have been identified in here are in non ?complement? positions because they can't do what their home job is. Merulla : In the past, there was the understanding that people could move within the Public Works, if injured in Waste Management they would be moved over to another department, and someone from Waste Management or another dept. could be moved in, from Forestry, into Waste Management as an example. It was an understanding among all the depts. Public Works to help each other out and offset whatever deficiencies there might be. Now...we're not doing it any longer, so if there are any deficiencies we're hiring out or what are we doing at this point? And if someone does get injured in Waste Management, how do we replace that individual now? Crockett : We replace them with utility workers at the moment. Just to clarify on that one issue, we can still send them to a different dept. if there is work for them to do and if it is within their (a) skill set but also their functional restrictions. The issue is under the current WA program if it's a Waste employee for example, Waste continues to pay for that employee and that's the problem that we've got. .looking at report #5, I've got 22 people in Public Works that could work all over the City but Public Works continue to pay for them in non funded complement. That's the fundamental problem that we've got. If you go to report #6 .we are pretty confident that we're going to find that 8 of those 22 employees are going to end up in permanent positions elsewhere in the corp. or the dept. depending on the individual. So we are starting to get some successes. Those have taken us 24 months.That's the issue that we've got that is causing us a variance of over $1 million because we don't have positions to put the individuals in. Cathy (staff) of HR is doing a complete revamp of the WA program .and we hope to get through that process a lot quicker. But.we have got a substantial unfavourable variance because of WA. Merulla : If we were to.transfer an employee from one dept. to another, why can't we transfer the expenditures of that employee to that dept., to free up that money? Rinaldo : Providing that dept. has a budget for that, that would be fine, if that dept. does not have a budget .then that dept. has no money to absorb that accommodation. Mayor : .If we move this budget for this particular dept. does that limit flexibility of accommodating worker in another dept.? within an available position? Cathy (staff): If there is existing work that is a complement position and a funded position, and someone who requires WA and someone is placed in that position the budget that attaches to that position will pay for the placement in the fullness of time. There is some provision that the originating dept. covers the cost for a period of time and that's an area of policy that we're looking at. It's been a long-standing practice .to have the originating dept. continue to pay on an open-ended basis if accommodation is being done and if work is being done, over and above the funded complement. And that's the issue for cost. There used to be sufficient flexibility in budgets to provide for that. Now it's driving a negative variance in Public Works who has some of the highest experience in terms of, unfortunately, work related injuries and the associated requirements to accommodate. Where there is an existing position and it's funded and that work is available and is consistent with an employee's restriction, if the restrictions are permanent, our effort would be to permanently place the person into that position and that is how the position is filled, and it's budgeted for so there's no issue. The difficulty is we do have open-ended placements whether people are doing work, and so we're getting some work done, as opposed to having them sit at home and receive WSIB payments which is a cost to the city.but we don't have an opportunity to absorb staff because there's no budget attached to the position or the work. Crockett : So the answer is yes, there is flexibility moving people across. Merulla : The actual cost could actually be less, depending on how many available positions we can place somebody in. .if they go on WSIB the cost associated to the corp. is an annual fee so can you explain how that would be an ongoing cost to us per employee? Cathy : We are a Schedule 2 employer for the purposes of WSIB, which means that we pay all of our costs associated with WSIB, and an administration charge.about 30%. It's hugely expensive to keep people on Workers Comp. beyond the point where we have work available consistent with their restrictions. Merulla : So it's more cost effective to create a position or move them over. All right, fair enough. Crockett : Just to clarify, report #6 takes the cost of WA down to $390,000 and actually with the changes in the MA I suspect that it goes up to 443, it add $53,000, but it's not the full $1.2 million that was talked about in report #5. Whitehead : I used to be on a committee with WSIB .and I know one of the reasons the private sector, and I don't think the public sector is any different when it comes to WSIB, goes to these programs, with a combination of programs, is in fact because it reduces the cost to the city and eventually as I understood it and everything is relative to frequency etc. and then you get different rates based on the amount of individuals that have claims within the corporation. Is that true? Cathy : That would be a Schedule 1 employer where it operates as an insurance scheme. We're Schedule 2, so if we are able to reduce our costs it means we're paying less but we don't have an experience rating which is what you are talking about. If we're able to reduce our costs it comes right off what we're paying, because we're paying 130% of our costs directly. Jackson : .item 5 then we'll just be receiving for information, we're dealing with the $ figure in item 6. Is that exactly what Peter is saying then? Crockett : Yup. Jackson : Then we're just going to be receiving report #5, instead of approving this $1.1 million in report #5. Mayor : Let's just make sure of that. The $1.15 million is imbedded in report #6, is that what we're saying? Crockett : Yes Mayor : as was the now amended previous report also - right? Crockett : Yes. Jackson : Can you explain that to me Mr. Mayor as one politician to another please. Mayor : Well, I do find it confusing that we got 2 reports imbedded in a 3 rd report. It seems to me that all of this could have been brought under 1 report but we're dealing with what's here and we'll do the best we can. Jackson : Can you just explain that to me Mr. Mayor , yourself. Mayor : . Jackson : .I'm trying to understand then, report #5, we're not dealing with 22 bodies, we're not dealing with $1.1 million, we're dealing with $390,000 in report #6. Is that correct? Crockett : Yes it is. .the reason it's in 3 reports was first of all, the first 2 reports - the WA report #5 and report #1 on the MA were tabled in January . Since then, and we knew that the downtown cleanliness was unaffordable, .we took a look at the typical physical requirements on restrictions on work accommodated individuals and we looked for synergies across the downtown cleanliness, the MA, to see whether or not there was a work reduction available to us in terms of the WA. As a result that's a combination of report #6 which says that we can reduce the WA requirements for 2 reasons: 1. since we table the budget back in the fall we believe we've been successful with 8 individuals on WA getting them into permanent positions, so they're no longer on WA, that's issue #1. And issue #2, keep in mind that we're going back to when the budget was prepared, that was October, November, December, as well, since January we've done some work on those synergies and we feel we can reduce it by another 8 FT's that work accommodating individuals typically based on the functional restrictions that they'll have knowing the ones we've got on our WA list right now, will be able to help us out in the downtown cleanliness to the total of 4 FT's, and 4 of them will be able to help us out in terms of municipal park locations. As a result we can bring forward the downtown cleanliness program for $766,000. We can meet the requirements of the MA for 809 but reduce our still unfunded WA (WA) complement down to the $390,000. And that's what report #6 is trying to do. Jackson : So, is the original $1.1 million from WA now spread out over 3 areas, including MA and downtown? Crockett : Yes it is. Jackson : OK In essence we're still dealing with $1.1 million but now spread out over 3 categories. Crockett : When we started out we had 22 individuals on WA that were in unfunded positions.and unfunded complements. What we then tried to do is look at, based on the complement and the funding, we knew we would have, within the downtown cleanliness and safety and the MA where we could utilize some of those unfunded complements into those programs and reduce our complements within the MA. So.there are 6 unfunded complements within WA that we can't put in either downtown cleanliness and/or the MA programs. Jackson : OK .so Item 5 in the $1.1 million still that allotment of money still applies then to report #6, or has the $1.1 million in itself been reduced to $390,000? Has the total amount been reduced from $1.1 million to $390,000? Crockett : It has been reduced as long as the MA gets approved and the downtown cleanliness gets approved. Jackson : OK We're still dealing with $1.1 million as a total $ amount because Peter is now spreading that over the MA and the downtown cleanliness programs.further maintaining the status quo as one option says, the option maintain the past practices is not recommended as budgets will continue to be overspent if the problem is not addressed corporately. So I'd like to ask Peter or the acting City Manager, does that line there on p. 2 report #5, 2/3 of the way down, maintaining status quo course of action, does that translate then into reduced and lesser overtime? . Crockett : I'm not sure I understand the question. Jackson : It says here 'the option of maintaining the past practices.overspent" so if we go the way of what you're recommending wanting us to do does that mean because we're not staying with the status quo will overtime and overspent $amounts be reduced or eliminated? Crockett : No, the 2 are not necessarily related at all. The issue about WA individual is that they can't physically do the job that might be being backfilled from an overtime perspective, so, we'll continue to pay the individual for their regular salary and where necessary backfill with overtime salary because they physically can't do the job they're being paid to do. Jackson : So we have . funding WA with no funds at all? Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Mayor , I'm having some real difficulty, and part of my dilemma is this interaction with ?CNT? as various like this are coming forward and we're just hearing about, you know, in terms of overtime. We've heard that OT money is spent when money wasn't there. It was spent. This is why I'm having a lot of difficulty.on April 13, with buying overall with the budget package. Collins : I want to take up where C. Merulla left off, that was historical practices and I appreciate the fact that Peter and Scott and Brian and Mark ? met with me to discuss WA. I guess the concern that I have is that when I ask the question in regards to where have we transferred one employee from one div. to another div. over the last 2-3 years, primarily since amalgamation was a former practice before, and I think C. Merulla was alluding to is that if someone couldn't throw garbage they could possibly sit on a tractor and cut grass, and the individual who is now cutting grass could go over and throw garbage and those inter-dept. transfers took place all the time. Garbage was one that sort of took the fore because it was the most important service that we delivered on a day to day basis, and that was given priority in the old Public Works. .those inter-department transfers haven't taken place, in fact we looked at filled vacancies in some instances and I know the Utility pool recently to try to solve the problem. But as C. Jackson 's getting at, we no longer have the shared cooperation I think we enjoyed at one point in time. I don't think it has anything to do with funding complement or the level or number of employees you have in the division. It really boils down to a management issue and it means trying to divvy up the resources between different depts. And so along those lines are there opportunities with the existing complement to start doing those types of, you know, if there was ever a time for Mitchell to bring up his multi-tasking debate, this would be the time. I think it makes a lot of sense where you start looking at the transfer of employees in Public Works. Can I ask are there opportunities in this area to do that along the former guidelines that were utilized by the dept.? Mayor : .What prevents us from engaging that cross corp. mix and match of individuals into appropriate positions given whether it be health status or anything else that might effect where they are best employed. Crockett : Cathy can elaborate on this in that Corporate Health does the assessment in terms of what functionally the individuals can do. I will tell you that one of the big issues we've got within a number of divisions in Public works is the productivity side. .an example...within my sign shop area I've got almost 50% of my staff on WA or light duty of some sort. So I've got huge productivity issues when a substantial number of my staff are on light duty, when their jobs are a heavy duty type of employ. As a result the ability to take another healthy body from an operation like that and put it over and bring in another body with some sort of functional restrictions, at some point, and quite frankly it's at that point, operations and maintenance in general has a substantial number that they deal within their own division. As a result they're starting to worry about, they are worried about their productivity and whether or not they can continue to deliver their service level. Mayor : But there's nothing preventing us, is there, from, it makes sense.from taking someone from this position and placing them in a more appropriate position for whatever good reason there might be, temporarily or otherwise, or is there? Cathy : That's exactly what we attempt to do. When there is someone who requires WA, our first effort is to identify a vacant position appropriate to their restrictions and we can effect that placement w/o going through the posting process. I can't speak to past practice, but in terms of doing an exchange if you're moving staff across classifications you're obligation is to post the position. You can't compel employee 'a' who owns work to move into a different classification that's compensated differently and has different aspects to it. What we would attempt to do in any of these sets of circumstances, assuming accommodation is required, ant that's not always the case. Someone may require accommodation only temporarily so we don't effect a permanent placement when the person doesn't require that. But in the event of a permanent placement we do attempt to place someone into a vacancy and the position they are vacating is posted and filled. So you would effectively have those sorts of exchanges .(interrupted by Collins ) Collins : Here's an example I want to give. When I met with staff they noted.there's an employee who cannot lift more than 50 lbs. or a certain weight. They cannot perform the duties in Waste Management. My question is why haven't we pulled somebody from Roads, from Parks, to do that work and have the individual who cannot lift undertake other duties.those transfers haven't taken place once. I asked for examples. There was nothing on file to suggest that has happened. .I want to make this clear, I want to know this afternoon,.is there something that prevents us from doing that. Mayor : (to Cathy ) Did you hear the question? Cathy : I apologize, I was trying to get some context in terms of past practice. Collins : (repeats question) Cathy : Does the question relate to a temporary accommodation.? Collins : Yes. Cathy : The only impediment would be around identifying the employee because of the ownership of the job issues. If you're moving people across classification, there are collective agreements impediments to doing that, even on a temporary basis. If it's within a single classification there would not be a particular impediment to doing that. Collins : I'm hearing that there's nothing to prevent this? Mayor :. Collins : I think we're getting beyond the whole budget issue. I want to deal with this in committee because I think that this - we can make some inroads in regards to finances and regards to operational efficiencies. .We've missed the mark on what we've done in the past. We've abandoned prior practices .because they were the old way of doing things.I'm not comfortable - along the same lines as C. Jackson we have these artificial numbers built into the budget. Mayor : .This really belongs to Corporate Admin. .what might be initiated and who's cooperation we need. Collins : The last one and most important question is can we find some savings for this budget. Mayor :.if we have some operational issues that are coming to the fore and they're best addressed in that committee setting. We also have an issue.that staff is putting before us of adequately funding .the WA portions of our budget but also trying to do it in a way to reduce the budget and deal with some enhancements specifically around downtown cleanliness that couldn't be handled in some other way other than increasing the levy. .that's why the reports are somewhat confusing. I take your explanation that they were developed at different times responding to different requests by council from January to now. .. Whitehead : . Mayor : If there are not more questions on 5, I'll take a recommendation. Collins : We did pass the motion on #1 which, there's a domino effect there for the other recommendations. Can I just have staff note that, whenever we pass something from this time forward it will reflect the motion that was made in #1? Mayor : Yea, and I was going to suggest as amended when we get to #6, 'cause the 800,000 is embedded in that. Can I have a motion. Whitehead , seconded by Kelly . .CARRIED Let's get to 6. Whitehead : .I would like to move the report. Collins : I want to clarify - we cut #1 out of the budget completely which is $800,000. Mayor : .I don't think we did. Collins : Yea we did, remember? I made a motion . and we voted on it and it passed.to bring it to 0. Mayor . all of #1 went down to 0? Collins : Yes. That's what I'm saying - I want those other recommendation amended. Mayor : No, no .let's see if different people felt they were voting on different things. .I first took a motion to reduce 264 to 124. That was the Bruckler motion. That passed. I took a motion from you C. Collins , and I thought you were going to reduce that 124 to 0. Collins : No. The higher. Mayor : You meant the higher? Collins : yes. Mayor : ( Clerk concurs that that's what they did) Mayor : It's not something I can support.I supported the one item, but let's see what happens because all the money is imbedded in report #6, and it either stands or can be modified. Horwath : .If 809 is out how does that affect the downtown cleanliness piece?. Crockett : Based on what you do with report 1, that means report #3 the MA portion 809 is out and the WA piece for 390,880 is there and the downtown cleanliness for 766,490 for a total of 1,155,370. Horwath : Downtown cleanliness is still in there. Thanks. Whitehead : .(referring to downtown cleanliness), I need to understand what and how these bodies will be used. Crockett : asked for question to be repeated. Whitehead : The question - the downtown cleanliness - we have 390,880 that's budgeted for that. . I need an understanding of how.we're utilizing 8 (of 22) of those bodies with downtown cleanliness. What's the nature of the work? Crockett : We're using 4 WA individuals which was primarily the litter pickup component.The downtown cleanliness was a series of recommendations made by a task force that included some aspects within Leann's (?) budget, some aspects within mine, and some...within police.the Public Works component was all around litter and litter containers and enhancing the cleanliness of the downtown core. Whitehead : .Do I understand there's 8 altogether that's been budgeted for? Crockett : .there were 4 we were going to use in the downtown cleanliness, yes. Whitehead : The others will be part of a current complement within the current budgets of the depts.? Crockett : Leann can correct me, but there were a couple complement within her budget within the enhancement program that were complement within funding and development as well. Whitehead : The balance is enhancement towards the downtown cleanliness. We're not utilizing what we have? Crockett : No. Whitehead : thank you. Crockett : I should point out.the elimination of the MA means that there are (interrupted by Mayor ) Mayor : .The Clerk just came up to me and C. Collins and it is the Clerk 's understanding of what we passed was what I articulated. That is that we didn't vote on eliminating all of the 809,000, we voted on eliminating the 264,000 in 2 motions - 124 first, then the balance. .( Collins voice in background), yea, we understood differently so all I'm suggesting ( Collins voice in background) .ok so we'll wait until you come back just to give you a fair shot, but in all fairness there's obvious miscommunication. ( Collins speaks with no mic) we'll fix it before we leave, we'll get you a fair chance (speaker with no mic), we'll see, alright.

Mayor : On #6 - C. Bruckler. Bruckler: .If we remove that program (MA) what happens to those 4 people that would have been assigned WA? Crockett : They are on WA now, this was finding them a funding complement to do a job. .If the MA component gets eliminated completely, there will be 4 individuals who are on WA in unfunded positions. It takes the WA component back to 736,000. . Scott Stewart: It's roughly 53,700 per body, multiply that by 4 to get the MA, then add that to p.3 table, you would add that number to 398,880, that's the new number. .It's 53,700 x 4 - roughly 200,000 to the 398,880. That takes it to $604,800.

McCarthy : The winter control component. If we take that $71,280 out how does that effect the winter control component if we're going back to revisit this issue? Crockett : What the winter control component in the MA aspects you're talking about? That introduces some technology AVL, Automatic Vehicle Location, so that we can reduce our patrols.to show where a significant amount of our contract equipment is, for example, it allows us to test out the technology, but it also potentially allows us to wean off our patrols. McCarthy : (to Staff) This is.an opportunity for a revenue generator.at least save quite a bit of money, isn't it?. Crockett : Yes it has potential to save us a fair bit of money. McCarthy : I'm not sure that's the smartest thing to do at this time. Winter control has.gone up expedentially in terms of service delivery to the community through the hard work and dedication of the staff and really I think this is a tool that is going to save us quite a bit. I don't know if that's something that we really want to get rid of, so I'd like to save at least that component to this budget and if C. Collins goes ahead with this motion, or if there's an interpretation of the motion, I'd like to at least save that. Mayor .(to Collins ) apologizes for misunderstanding your motion .your motion did receive substantial support last time. Am I the only one who misunderstood it?.I'll ask you to put your motion forward. Collins : I move that we remove the 809,000 out of the budget as an enhancement and incorporate those functions within the current work schedules of the depts. So it's not removing the work, it's removing the money. Mayor : It's no longer 809, it's 809 minus the one (interrupted) Collins : Whatever it is. Mayor (continuing): minus the 144, whatever was taken out. So whatever the number is, you want it to come down to 0. Moved by Collins , seconded by Morelli ..questions or comments? McHattie : .Is it possible to incorporate that all into existing staff activities or are we affecting the overtime costs which we also been talking about .report we have now suggests there is nothing we can do about that either. Are we continuing just to talk about this stuff and in reality haven't saved any money or. Crockett : If we could do it for less money we wouldn't have brought the enhancement forward at the level what we've done. .from an enhancement standpoint, that's the money that it's going to cost. To absorb it with existing staff it probably means it won't get done. McHattie : I think the motion should read to get rid of it altogether, not to give it to staff to do with existing money, because it's not going to happen. Mayor : Except that's not the motion, and so we'll have to deal with that and then if that fails, we'll go there as well. Collins : The discussion we had earlier was that other municipalities are doing this and incorporating it into their work schedules. If it means we're living without something that's exactly why I'm asking staff to come back with how it's incorporated. It will mean that there's probably an impact on some area of the org. in regards to service, but.I don't believe we should be doing something that probably 90 or 95% of the others are not doing. Mayor : It's been moved and seconded that the balance of the MA report be taken out of this budget. CARRIED. So it's gone, and the direction is that staff come back with how you're going to do that. Now, balance of the report - I need a recommendation as amended. Moved by Whitehead , seconded by Pearson , .All in favour of that. Bruckler: .question asked of Peter earlier. Having removed the MA 1, is there an impact on the $390 as a result of having removed those 4 accommodation positions away from that program? When approving this report, we should know what the $ and cents are within that. Crockett : The result of the MA not being there, those synergies were 4 complement, so that means the WA goes from $390,880 to $604,800. Mayor : .other questions.on #6. As amended then, moved by Whitehead , seconded by Pearson . CARRIED.

Going back now to report #2 which is the budget update Waste Diversion, WDO funding - questions or comments Moved by Braden , seconded by Kelly .CARRIED.

#3 Transit Fare Increase. Merulla : On this particular issue . now that we've found some significant savings, potentially even more with respect to the BTR.and potentially consultants, overtime issues, and the bonusing issue, I'm going to put forward a motion that we maintain the status quo with respect to our HSR as it presently is cause I don't think we're in a position to actually increase fares with decreased ridership, which only is going to burden some of the most vulnerable in our community. Unlike Toronto, Hamilton's public transit users are not generally a demographic or income bracket that you will find in other major metropolitan areas such as Toronto. In Hamilton, people who access public transit, not as a matter of luxury as you would in downton Toronto, but as a matter of necessity with no other means of transportation. And to impact this marginalized group is unconscionable and I think we've found enough savings in other areas that could absorb this particular issue. I'll move that, seconded by Collins that we maintain the status quo. ... Mayor : I will accept that motion.questions/comments - but just to staff, to maintain the status quo you esentially have to vote down recommendation A and recommendation B - am I right about that? Rinaldo : Yes, actually you just choose to table the report or eliminate the report - however you want to do it. Then we would have no fare increase. Mayor : OK How does recommendation C impact the status quo request? Crockett : Just to clarify, within the budget book, within the $865 million, there was a 5 cent transit fare increase incorporated into the base budget. What this report tried to do was get to deal with distribution of the different fares better, and as a result, generate an additional result over and above that. So I'm not exactly sure.if council chooses not to have a fare increase you need to defeat this report or move against this report but you would also need to deal with it within the base budget as well. Rinaldo : All you'd have to do is when you passed the budget for Public Works is amend it accordingly, and we'll pick up the note if that's the intent of Council. Merulla : Keep in mind Mr. Mayor , we just saved a significant amount of money - Mayor : I want to understand what's the dollar impact of simply receiving this report? Crockett : $650,000. Rinaldo (I think) $362,310. (talk amongst staff) Mayor : so it's not $650,000? Can you point out to us where it is in that report? (???) Other revenue, p. 306. So it's well within the savings that were found. So C. Merulla I'll accept your motion to receive this report, not table it .which means no action. Merulla : That's perfect. Mayor : moved by C. Merulla , seconded by C. Collins . Powers : If there's not a desire to move ahead with that, or if it's actually defeated, are we considering, if we go back to the discussions, is option 2 the one that would be considered by the committee if indeed there's not a desire to move ahead on that motion? Or are we looking at the recommended option, which is the very first column on that page 5 of 6, in report #3. Crockett : Choice will be up to committee, report #3 gives you an overall revenue of $650,000. What's already embedded in the budget, which is option 2 on the report on p. 5 of 6 is the 362,000. So if either of those could be approved by Council or not. Crockett : 2's already been budgeted for and our 3 options are status quo, or the recommend option which we would take as option 1 or option 3. Mayor : And so receiving the report, which is the motion we've got keepts things as they are, not option 2, not option 3. (discussion - no mic) No, in the budget document now, they have accounted for a $362,000 revenue intake as a result of option 2. This motion negates that which means that we have to find the money elsewhere. C. Merulla has pointed out that we've already found it. So, motion to receive the report, CARRIED.

Report #4, Winter Control Program. Moved by McCarthy , seconded by Whitehead . .CARRIED. We've dealt with 5, we've dealt with 6, report #7. Roads and Storm Sewers Capital Programs . Crockett :.already dealt with this report. Mayor : Madam Clerk , do we need another motion? We've dealt with this, so that's gone. #8, Storm Water Operating Budget. Crockett : This was just a report to give you an idea of the budget variance over the last 3 years and why it's viable to do the cut on the storm side that is embedded in the budget. Mayor : .motion to receive, seconded by Pearson .CARRIED. #9 User Fees Collins : just we go on to 9, the DARTS eligibility issue was before committee and I thought it was referred to the budget process. I don't see the report here. Is that coming before us.to deal with that issue from a funding perspective? Crockett : It will have to come forward. Because of some recent events in a human rights claim we're actually going to have to come and bring both the ATS eligibility and Human Rights complaint settlement direction that it's headed. We're trying to pull those 2 together because they are very intertwined, so we'll have to bring those back. We don't know that they'll have a 2004 budget implication. We're trying to sort through that right now. Collins : In the absence of that having been settled, what happens to the report that was tabled at Public Works? Is that just sitting in the wings.waiting to come back in camera? Crockett : .Yes. Horwath : .talking about alternative transit. I'm thinking about the taxi script program, and whether there has been any opportunity for discussion about the expansion of the taxi script program, in regards to this budget by committee or otherwise? Crockett : The only change in the taxi script program contemplated would be through the recommendations including the eligibility and registration review.It would provide a soft landing for those current clients of DARTS that would be presumably displaced from the DARTS program onto the taxi script program. Horwath : So that would come up in the context of that discussion at Public Works Com.? Crockett : Correct. Horwath : So would there be opportunity to discuss whether this will .negatively impact existing book purchasers of taxi script or if there might be some pressure put on that system because as you know there is already great pressure to provide opportunities for people to buy more books and the issue becomes.every time the fares go up, and the fares have gone up, and this is for taxi fares, the purchasing power of the books is reduced. There's been no COLA type of program put in place to ensure that the buying power of taxi script is maintained as .fares increase. I would .like to make sure that we, while we're looking at the whole program that we include some type of mechanism that immediately on any kind of taxi fare increase to the base amount, will then kick into a related increase of the value of the taxi script because the value of the taxi script has been eroding is the point over time and .there are a number of people who are concerned about that as an issue as well as the availability of more books for those that need it so I would hope.that at the appropriate time when the committee is going to be debating this, that we all get the notice .so that we can attend and make those issues come to light. Mayor : We'll do that. Whitehead : . since we're talking about DARTS .I understood.that there's $400,000 that was put in GIC's, sort of surplus revenue, and I have the report that was put in front of us, and with further investigation, .it is my understanding now that $400,000 has been absorbed within HSR. .if that is the case, then would that not increase or give a surplus to HSR? Staff ( Brian ?): (gives an explanation re the bookkeeping of the $400,000 - never really existed, strictly a balance sheet entry, the $400,000 doesn't exist - cash flow entry. Rinaldo then adds to the explanation and agrees it's just a balance sheet entry, they haven't been overpaid.) Whitehead : $400,000 was invested in GIC. That is an actual value.correct? And you're saying that doesn't really exist. Rinaldo : It does exist.but is an advance payment towards 2004 for their monthly payments which we contribute to them. Whitehead : Does that mean they're running $400,000 below budget? Rinaldo : No.we've overpaid them for 2003. Whitehead : How do we reconcile that? Rinaldo : Reconciled for year end. Whitehead : If it's coming back, where's that money? Rinaldo : It's a cash flow, it's not a budgetary issue. Whitehead : Thank you.

Mayor : Report #9 User Fees. Jackson : Book 1, various user fees. On p.206 of book 1, Roadway Tree Removal for Hamilton Hydro, it has various fees from $2003, same fees recommended for 2004, why not a recommended increase on that?.I'm just curious with regards to Hydro, why wouldn't we want to recommend a possible increase in this area to remove trees for Hydro. Brian ?Sheinhall?: I'm looking for the updated submission, the original one did not include an adjustment to the Hydro rates. A late submission in that line item proposed an increase of 25%. Jackson : Oh! So there's a revised p. 206.? Crockett : In report #9 the appendix .operation maintenance parks you'll see roadway tree trimming for Hydro - Jackson : I see it Peter, thank you.Secondly, traffic island sponsorship, Brian , .someone give me an idea of how the traffic island sponsorship is going?. Brian : The status of the conversions if you will is updated in our memo issued.last Wednesday or Thursday .It confirms which beds have been converted and which remain to be converted over 2004-5. On the sponsorship side.last year we issued an RFP for consulting services to initiate a sponsorship renewal campaign. Unfortunately we did not receive an acceptable response RFP. Subsequent to that is appropriate some staff resources within our ??? plan .to provide that sort of expertise.so we can solicit greater sponsorship of that program. Presently we're operating on a $35,000 level of sponsorship support and we hope to increase that to minimize the number of islands that are converted to the remainder of the conversion program this year and next. Jackson : You are comfortable Brian , .you want to stay the course right now and hope to bring more sponsors and corporate supporters on board? Brian : Yes.we would like to carry on with that plan. Mayor : May I have a motion on the recommendations. C. Powers , seconded by C. Whitehead . Powers : Could I go to book 1, p. 219, are the tippage fees for the transfer stations included in the ??? My question is about the minimum tipping fees at Kenora, the Mountain, and Dundas from the 7.50 to the $8. Just a couple years ago it went from $5 to 7.50 .would you just record me as opposed to that. We took a major hit a couple years ago and I think we need a little bit of breather. Mayor : We'll do that and C. Mitchell wants to be recorded as opposed as well. Whitehead : I agree.with C. Powers and Mitchell . When we deal with waste management we're dealing with cost. My concern is that every time we increase the transfer rates, we're going to incur costs at the other end. .I think the whole thing should be looked at ( 3 bag limit) as a package, and that means from household to the transfer station and understand each of these policies can inter-relate. .I'd rather see the policy develop in a holistic way.so for those reasons will not be supporting an increase. Braden : top of p. 3 ??? charge for a municipal consent permit. Are these like land divisions consents or is that some other consent permit? Crockett : Municipal consent . it's the road cut permits, those sort of things where we allow a utility to cut into our road, they pay a fee, a municipal consent fee. Braden :. Crockett : There's a fee with putting in a driveway. Braden : That's a separate fee, that's not a consent one, right? Crockett : Correct. Braden : For the record, I want to get that garbage program to work too in the big picture. It's really difficult to figure out where the line is where you encourage people to recycle and conserve, and where you sting 'em. More and more I'm hearing disenchantment at those lands like in Dundas. .I want the people who have 3 bags of garbage to be paying $5 a week to have 'em picked up. Horwath : .here we are talking about increasing user fees to our transfer stations. I want to be recorded as opposed to that.we need to have a whole new look at that. (Mentions the Solid Waste Management Plan and doesn't think the sticks work very well, incentives work better.) We need to review it in greater detail.it costs our community in terms of image.want to be recorded as opposed to increase in transfer station fees. Mitchell : We've been arguing about this back in regional government and I opposed it then because there was a $5 fee at that time.the fee was to go into building roads so that people could drop their stuff off easier. Once it was paid for, the $5 fee was to be waived, but it's still there..Allow the initial 3 or 4 bags to be delivered on site at no charge, would help people clean up this city. So I put that motion on, however I wouldn't mind a report that would briefly summarize how do we offer a certain amount free to everybody to clean up the city and yet recover that revenue that has been there for the last 4 or 5 years. Because there's going to be a strong indirect benefit.having the city cleaned up that way. And not necessarily lose a lot of money. Could I ask for that report rather than have a separate motion and lose in this component right now? Mayor : Yes. Powers : ??? Mayor : Thank you councillor, C. Pearson . Pearson: ( states that she opposes the tipping charges, is concerned about illegal dumping, especially in rural areas and areas with open spaces, and has seen an increase over the last years. Would like to see a balance somehow so that people can take their garbage to transfer stations without being "hit" there.) Mayor : A lot of people said they want to waive the increase in user fees there. I'll take a motion if someone wants to make that motion. C. Merulla . (voice in background without mic on) Mayor :.status quo, right? Kelly : Yea. That is just a point of clarification. If the motion is to maintain the status quo, that's the $7.50, but I've heard some discussions, some people are talking about waiving the whole fee. That's not the motion is here is it? Mayor : No, not until now. Kelly : . ?? Mayor : The motion as it stands is to remain status quo. Merulla says have staff investigate to bring the cost to 0. Mayor : Let's deal with one step at a time. The status quo is first, and if that passes, and if somebody wants to ask for a report on what the implications are of removing it all together. Merulla says we should be paying people to do our job for us. Mayor : . Powers : Just a clarification on that. No matter what the rate is I'll also be supporting the status quo at 7.50. Recyclables and leaf and yard waste if that's the only commodity you're allowed in, continue to be allowed in free. Mayor : So we have a motion moved by Merulla , seconded by Pearson .that we maintain status quo on the tipping fee for the transfer stations. Mayor : What does that do to the budget? Crockett : I assume you are just talking about the residential, not the commercial. And it's worth about $83,000. Mayor : Alright. . CARRIED

Mayor : I need a recommendation on the balance of the report please. As amended, moved by Kelly , seconded by McHattie , as amended A all in favour, B all in favour, C all in favour. That's report #9 as amended. It's been carried.

Mayor : There are some items of communication. Madam Clerk , these are part of the Public Works.may I have a motion to receive the 4 items of communication related to the issues we just dealt with. McHattie , seconded by C. Powers , all in favour CARRIED. #6 Public Works Operating Budget book 2 as amended. May I have a motion. Collins : I want to talk about the issue C. Horwath raised. Was that not on the agenda last time and we held it off till Public Works? Mayor : Remind me. Horwath : That was the DA's position. Mayor : We're dealing with that report on Thursday (talking in background) .was it the intention to deal with it this afternoon? Rinaldo : Actually I thought you were dealing with it on Thursday, so I asked staff not to be here. Mayor : .to be dealt with on Thursday, and then we can go back and make whatever amendments coming out of this. Horwath : And we're also going to have those detail sheets before Thursday, as well? Mayor : Yup. (background talking) No you can keep it, they've been circulating these. #6 Merulla : point of clarification. This issue regarding the BA's related to ????(several people talking at once) Mayor : Can we go back to the agenda. I think we're almost to the end here for today. I'm asking that we vote on the Public Works Operating Budget, which is book 2, apx. 2-5, p.150 which is agenda item 4.2.7 C as amended Moved by Kelly , seconded by Horwath . CARRIED

Public Works User Fees, book 1 Apx. 1-16, p. 201-228 agenda item 4.2.7 D as amended. Again Kelly , Jackson - CARRIED. What is the will of Council. We're at 4 o'clock . You have the HR, the Legislative Police Services Boards and Agencies Budgets and then approval of tax levy. We can forge ahead or we can begin Thursday with the HR budget, and the other reports we've been talking about. Thursday - alright. C. Ferguson , then I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. Ferguson : Joe can prepare ??? .status to date of where we are. Rinaldo : Yes, Thursday morning before you start, I'll give you an update on where you're at today, and as well a presentation of the BTR options. Ferguson : as well as education CDA and all the other stuff? Rinaldo : Yes Mayor : .Buckler: There were a couple of reports that were circulated by staff in response to I guess earlier meetings and one of them relates to Capital Projects. .could we be reviewing that as well at next meeting. Rinaldo : All those reports are scheduled to be reviewed at next meeting. Horwath : Is there $19 million in the bank yet? Mayor : I'll talk about that in a second. McHattie : .since we're in the Public Works area and we just talked about HSR. The province is still looking at the 1 cent gas tax this year, maybe another 1 cent following. .because of our strong interest in transit in this community, I would suggest put forth a motion that says that when that money comes to Hamilton that that money should go for public transit, not for transportation in general or whatever else we might put forward. So I'd like to put forth a motion, seconded by C. Horwath that the monies when they come to the city of Hamilton from the provincial gas tax, be allocated to Public Transit. Mayor : Can I suggest that .that we put that aside until we see what's coming, and what parameters might indicate around that money? A motion with all the information is better to inform us on what to do with that money than a motion apart from any information, and I would support that, by the way. It may be just a little premature. McHattie : I think it's important.for the policy around this.COW today to put forth the fact that we think that public transit is where that money should be going. You're right, you and I did attend that Transit Summit, which was all about that. The province may make various comments on their own but. ..it's important for Hamilton to show leadership, to say this is what we think should happen with that money. It's a priority for us and perhaps I would go so far as to say that motion, if passed today, should actually make it's way into a letter that goes to the provinces and says that by the way this is what we think the money should go to - we know you're thinking about a province - what should happen here, but this is our direction, this is our pro-active direction on it. So I would want to retain the motion. Mayor : I will certainly recognize it. Kelly : (states he doesn't think anyone around the table would disagree with the concept of it, but we should wait because the premier may attach some parameters to that that have to deal with public transit and rider ship and other things of that nature. The way fare hike was handled shows we are committed to public transit, but he thinks we should wait until we get the cheque in our hands before we make any commitment, although he likes the concept.) Merulla : I strongly agree with McHattie 's motion .I think.I believe it will be a conditional grant.parameters will be set. As a council we need to in principle, state clearly that public transit is a priority and these monies should be allocated to public transit. .Far too often in all levels of government when that's not stated clearly and unconditional monies are forwarded far too often those monies just go to a general pot and not specifically dedicated to where they belong. I truly believe. .. that these monies belong in public transit so in principal as a council we should be enforcing that. Whitehead : I support the principal. .What is the downside if we move that now? Mayor : Well, I don't think there is a downside. .more money, that's all an upside. I think we need to achieve maximum flexibility in how we use that money towards public transit..how we use and divide that money is a really complicated issue. Does the money go towards rehabilitating the fleet that we've got, does it go towards growth in areas where there isn't public transit, does it go towards the infrastructure that supports public transit as well as the fleet that you might have. I just think that you need to weigh all of those issues before you cement yourself in a position. I think it's going to be a foregone conclusion that the money is to be used for public transit because the province is going to attach that money to that use. But how we may wish to disperse it needs a much fuller discussion as a council and some staff and ?Don's? not here right now (oh her is here) along with some staff input into that as well. . talking in background.No I'm told we can actually deal with it now. ..talking and big laugh in background. Whitehead : What I'm hearing is a very generic general . motion to apply the 1% to public transportation. But does it talk about Capital Operating, etc. and those are issues that you have identified that we can certainly consult with staff.I know we don't have all the information, but it sounds to me like the province is talking about putting the 1% towards transit. I think the motion is talking about entrenching that at least from a policy perspective into public transit, but no one's identifying the different areas it might go into.that can take place in a further discussion if indeed the money does flow. Pearson : .we should have all the cards on the table before we make decisions cause we might come up at the end and find there is something we really desperately should put money to.my concern is that we're allocating now when we don't really have a clear picture. Horwath : .now is the time to make a firm commitment in regards to this issue.if that money's coming .we need to make a clear statement .to where that money should be allocated.I don't disagree that the province is going to put parameters.we also have to make policy for this community and for too long the policy for this community has been to subjugate transit to all kinds of cuts and service reductions to feed other parts of our budget - road projects and other things, non public transit, individual car transit. Now we have an opportunity to do the right thing.our own vision 2020. .the bottom line is the council shouldn't take any loopholes. We should make a commitment, we should make it now.so that our community and our stall will know that we are serious .about more sustainable modes of transportation. Powers : I will not be supporting the motion as it's worded for just straight transit..the dialogues in those meetings (referring to meetings the Mayor has attended with other Mayor s, etc.) has been the money needs to be reinvested in the transportation infrastructure. .

(Change of tapes - some discussion missing)

Collins : .it's not just public transportation, so I'd hate to remove some items that should be under the umbrella of what could be possibly be funded with these funds and so if the mover of the motion could include infrastructure and transportation related issues, then .I could support that. .I just feel uncomfortable putting all our eggs in one basket. . so if the mover of the motion would accept transportation and/or infrastructure as an amendment, then I think probably get buy-in from the entire council. McHattie : I'm afraid I can't (laughter) Transportation means expressways and all kinds of fun stuff so this is about sustainability, it's about doing things in a different way than we have in the past, it's a chance to redress some of the missteps .we have made in the past with .not supporting transit so I might support alternative transportation .but just transportation and that sort of thing - if this Council doesn't want to support transit, then that's fine. Kelly : .clearly we want to support transit, but let me put it this way,.I've seen us shoot ourselves in the head .because we make a commitment to something based on speculation. We don't even know that we're going to get the money.parameters from the province.I'm all for putting this money towards transit in someway, shape, or form, but I'm not going to make a commitment to it until I know what kind of strings the province puts on it.worse case scenario.If we put restrictions on it and say this is what we're going to do, the province may come out.and say hey we don't qualify now, so we lose the money.I would rather wait for the provincial announcement about here's the money .here is the parameters we put into it and I would GLADLY support a motion at that time to commit it to what C. McHattie 's talking about.it's premature to make a commitment to it right now. Mayor : C. McHattie , will you agree to table the motion? (talking in background) McHattie : I might as well call the question .(several people talking in background) Mayor : Whatever happens we can come back to this anyway. All in favour of the motion. Standing recorded vote. . and against.and so that FAILS. Before I ask for adjournment, I was asked about the $19.5 million - is it in the bank. Let me just say that we are in regular contact with provincial authorities and I'm going to stop there. Whitehead : (tape not working). .. Moved by Powers , seconded by Whitehead . All in favour - that's CARRIED. Thank you very much.