April 26, 2004 Report
Budget meeting continued

TAPE 2:

(discussion w/o mics on with Ferguson , City Clerk Kevin Christenson, and Whitehead , etc.) Ferguson (Chair): .so the impact '04 is (others talking with no mic) sorry, could you repeat again please. (someone talking with no mic) .if you're asking to decentralize then study the effect of decentralization (more talking - no mic) take out the first sentence (more talking - no mic) ok but that has no budget implications (more talking) seconder C. Collins .all in favour of the motion - everyone understand the motion (more talking - no mic) no .asking for a report for what decentralization will do for ??? correct. All in favour of the motion CARRIED. McCarthy : I'm going to move the receipt of the report. Ferguson (Chair): seconded by C. McHattie . All in favour. CARRIED.

Ferguson (Chair): Item 6 Response to Request for information - Draft 2004 Overtime Budget (CM04016) C. Collins and C. Jackson .

Collins : I had an opportunity to read the information that subsequently came back from staff. Can I get a brief description of where it sits with them.? Glen Peace: .We had a staff direction that was to remove $1.5 million from the 2004 recommended budget which .takes it back to approximately $5 million .removal of $1.5 million the reports outlines some of the impacts of doing that recognizing some of the issues that we can't plan for, such as SARS, blackouts, flooding, snows, those kinds of issues. The report suggests that there's likely $200,000 available without any service impacts, recognizing that clearly Council sets the level of service so if they want to go beyond that there would be some reporting mechanism back to Council on the impacts of the service. The second part of it was to have pre-approval, Council pre-approval before we spend overtime. I think the report speaks to that issue in that it is somewhat problematic in that the majority of our overtime are issues that are unplanned for and therefore there would be an expectation from Council that staff would respond to the snowstorms or SARS or any of those kinds of issues. Things that weren't of that emergency nature clearly we could report back to Council for some direction. You'll see an attachment really kinda outlines by dept. an estimated impact of reducing it down to 2003 budget level.

Collins : .(discussing garbage collection over holiday) Traditionally for PW we have waited until the day after the holiday to collect. We're still paying overtime in those circumstances but because it doesn't fall on the actual holiday we don't pay triple time plus a lieu day. Most recently we picked up for the first time since my time on Council, we picked up on the actual holiday, so after having gone through all this discussion with regards to overtime we find ourselves paying increased overtime costs when traditionally we haven't done so. So we're actually increasing service levels in certain areas of the dept. I briefly asked Scott (Stewart) this last week. That shows to me that there's some area and room for improvement. I know it's not a lot of money, but it probably added up to thousands and thousands of dollars. So whether it's $10,000 for the one day we paid extra to our employees in that area of the organization I think it highlights the fact there are areas within, whether it's PW or the entire corporation where we can save on overtime. I only use that as an example because it has come up during the budget period and I was a little shocked to see that so first and foremost can I get a response to that in regards to, hopefully that won't happen again this year, whatever holiday we're dealing with from now until Dec. 31 st ., and second, if we wanted to push the envelope higher and take out overtime from areas of the organization unrelated to fire or EMS, .winter maintenance, because those have peaks and valleys depending on the situations, .the weather, - I'll leave it at that. Can I first get an answer on the PW waste management issue? Peace : I'll turn it over to Scott to respond. Scott Steward : I believe the Good Friday bumps forward to the Saturday, which is a normal process. I will have to verify through Beth .Easter Monday's always been treated the same way, I don't think there was any change this year, so I'd want to say that Easter Monday last year also took place but I'd like to verify that, just so that I'm not hanging out on a limb on that one because one's a stat holiday and the other one doesn't. That's just about the only ones that give us the grief other than the week Christmas and Boxing Day when it falls during the week and you've got the double bump Saturday, Sunday. Otherwise they all follow the normal procedure, Tuesday becomes Wednesday, Wednesday becomes Thursday. Those items show up in the overtime line, but I believe the Monday version was just paid straight time. I'll verify that through Beth [Goodger].

Collins : I've asked staff and I'll let Scott come back with the answer on that. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one.The other issue is in regard to the overtime budget, is it possible.if we wanted to pick and choose from certain depts. should we leave that to you too, if we picked the dollar amount? If we were to say ½ million or a million, and give some directions and parameters of where that comes from or would you feel better without having those parameters in place coming back and illustrating to Council what areas of the organization would be the priority of corporate management team and frontline service providers. How would you like to move that today if we are in fact reducing the line related to overtime? Peace: I guess I'd be somewhat concerned that we wouldn't have an opportunity to report back and hence I'd build some false expectations and so if you gave us a direction today of what you're looking for and you are looking for some reporting back perhaps we could report back on those two options and not create.a phantom revenue or those false issues again. I don't want to get us back in there, so maybe there's a way around that process and you provide us some direction so we could do it two ways. .You could just give us some direction and I could report back by the specific impacts prior to taking place and I would expect some direction on the reporting structure as well.

Collins : Well, based on the list that's been provided, the report and the Excel spreadsheet that was provided in mid March I would look to ask staff to come back with between ½ million and 1 million. I would want to know from the people sitting around the table if there's any appetite for that and if you could come back to me at the appropriate time for a motion. Peace: .Just to be clear, we're not talking Police, that's correct. We've removed $2.5 from that so we're just talking the City depts., is that correct?

Ferguson (Chair): .business of 7 months on '04 based on annual. Collins : We have to incorporate that into the time left this year, so the budget amount that we put out or pull out will be annualized but obviously for the fiscal year 2004 would be lower. Ferguson (Chair): Just for clarity.C. Jackson .

Jackson : .I just want to pick up on C. Collins suggestion. I would strongly support taking $1 million given direction to the City Manager to take a million dollars out. I look at the unplanned emergency issues or crises, from 2003 on p. 3 of the report SARS, blackout in August, West Nile - even with West Nile I think we ah we've bumped up the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) request in past budget discussions in the last few weeks. Traffic signal repairs well I guess I find that a little ironic that that's in there. I'd just assume that would be a normal part of carrying on business with the City. That from time to time that's going to happen so um.the proposed budget my understanding was $6.5 million for 2004. And the original budgeted amount was $5 million from last year, so if we take a million off that 6.5 proposed that'd still leave ½ million dollars over and above what was budgeted for .I'm very comfortable with that. I think that we need some direction in leadership from the acting City Manager that will basically allow him the latitude and the discretion and also I'd like to see a regular reporting to Council.on overtime spent. I'd like to see a quarterly reporting, I'd like to ask the Acting City Manager if that's possible, I'd like to see a quarterly reporting on the overall overtime issue, so that we're not . blindsided once a year when we get into budgets. Peace: .We could report quarterly on the various reports including the specifics around overtime Councillor.

Jackson :.So let me just ask bluntly .Glen if we wanted to take a million off the 6.5 proposed down to 5.5, that's about ½ million over what was budgeted last year, and leave the latitude to you, how would you respond to that? Peace: .I'll take that as direction and certainly appreciate the opportunity to report back quarterly on the impacts depending what happens throughout the year. Quite frankly, Council sets a level of service and there will be opportunity for some discussions at those times as well. Jackson : OK and if I recall last year we had the April 4 ice storm which was a freakish storm as well which normally doesn't happen too, so.at the appropriate time if C. Collins is going to move it I'm going to move whatever the case is I'll second the motion take the million out.

Merulla : (to Rinaldo ) Our fiscal year, when does it start and when does it end? Calendar. Rinaldo : Jan. 1 - Dec. 31. Merulla : Provincially, our funding, .does it correspond? Rinaldo : The fiscal year for the province is March 31 but as you know, they don't give us too many funds anyway so it's academic. (laughter and comments off mic.). Merulla : Just in respect to the actual and the artificial .why are we establishing artificial numbers and then establishing this reserve for overtime. Peace: .If you're talking about artificial numbers, I think . that's not the case. .There are variables in doing business. We listed all those issues that are planned, unplanned emergency issues .I understand the direction I've been given by C. Jackson and we'll report back.I don't think we're funding artificially at all.

Merulla : ok. I'll tell you what the artificial definition is from my perspective. How much does it actually cost to do the day-to-day business of the City with the actual being actual and the artificial component would be to lower that number and then tap into overtime in order to meet the standards expected from the City. .I think overtime is a misnomer. Overtime means you're doing the day-to-day business .and then something happens.and over and above that that should become overtime. But the way it's set here, .the actual cost is the overtime cost. Peace: I think what you're seeing is historical reference to what has occurred in our past in relation to the impacts on our Operating Budget due to unknown circumstances. The number of storms, for example, .there's no way for us to predict how many storms we're gonna have in any given year.and it doesn't make sense for us to have surplus staff waiting around for that to occur. So we do use that as a tool .There are others issues that we can't predict, such as the water break . I think what you're seeing isn't so much an artificial number but is based on some historical reference.

Merulla : .When you incorporate the blackout, SARS, Locke St., and all the snow storms.how much of that represents the $10 million? Peace : .It looks to me there's nearly $4 million there if you started on pps. 3 & 4 of 8, it lists some of the issues that we've been impacted gapping issue, winter control, municipal election, blackout, health, SARS, facilities, fire and EMS, whether you want to include that or not - Merulla : Just the actual ones that have been referenced like SARS, blackout, and the Locke St., West Nile Peace : .I can report back Merulla : Would it be 20% of that - 30? Peace : I prefer not to answer, I don't really know, but I can get back to you Merulla : .What I prefer is a system where we have the actual cost of doing business, set up a reserve for the overtime, and then come to the appropriate for approval to exceed the actual budget item itself. Is that too complicated to persue that? Peace: . Rinaldo : .During the year we can do quarterly reports as you've been asking us to do now, we will do that and we'll give you an update very early in the year, see how we're making out in terms of our overtime and if in fact the dept. needs additional approval then we can come to Council and do that..I don't recall ever being in a situation where there's a reserve set up for overtime. Usually there's reserves set up for things like winter control where you got seasonal things . I guess it could be done .the issue is if there's an emergency the first reaction is for the people to actively respond and come back to Council.

Merulla : How could we persue this where for instance I've .$10 million, I believe a motions on the table to cut 1 million? So we're down to 9. Let's say we provide the $5 million for overtime, 4 we set up a reserve and then we just take it gradually. If we get to a point where the allocated amount of $5 million is in jeopardy, or you feel you are going to exceed it, then you would come to us a month or two before and say why this is going to happen, and let's deal with it. And then at least we have some understanding of why this occurs. So at the appropriate time, I'd like to add .an amendment. Are you ok with the mover? (discussion - no mic) What we are in essence doing, we're taking $5 million and the $4 million, so it can be a pilot project and let's see how it moves along and we can at least be part of the process and determine whether or not we have any controls or create a mechanism to prevent going over and above that $5 million, but still allocate. So there's no savings to this budget, but just to have this check and balance in place. Peace: I would recommend that you remove the $2.5 million from the Police, since I have no control over that.so you take the $10 million, take out the $2.5, take out C. Jackson 's recommendation, that's 3.5, that leaves you 6.5 then whatever direction you want us to report back on I'll take that as advice(?)

Merulla : ok We take the million off the 6.5, so now we're down to 5.5. Out of that 5.5 - Peace: You've double counted the million. You add 10, you take out 2.5 then you have C. Jackson 's recommendation - Merulla : I'm just trying to be an optimist - so we're down to 6.5 then - is that correct? .right, with that motion. So out of that 6.5.we provide ½ of that and then the other ½ you have to come to (discussion in background) - no, no, I've set up a reserve - alright 1.5 set up the reserve and then the rest we'll provide. So that'll be part of the amendment to the motion. Thank you.

Horwath : (to staff) Who's elegible to receive overtime payments.? Staff: All the employees are eligible for overtime, consistent with the terms and conditions with collective agreement. In the non union group there are some staff that are eligible for overtime. That flows from requirements in the Employment Standards Act (ESA). Generally those are individual contributors within the non-union groups so .an Administrative Assistant, who is non-union by virtue of his/her access to confidential labour relations information but is otherwise captured under the employment standards provision, would earn overtime. Anyone who is manager and above is ineligible for overtime. That's the ?Eday group, where 5 days of extra vacation effectively are provided to compensate for overtime work. There's no overtime pay provided.

Horwath : The Employment Standards Act .would Supervisors be part of the Employment Standards Act group? Staff: Supervisors are excluded under provisions of the ESA however, many of our supervisors are now in Local 1041 so the provisions that apply to that group flow to Supervisors within that group. It's a bit of a mix right now, as we haven't negotiated our first contract for the new Local 1041 as opposed to the old 4 persons unit, but there is some entitlement within that group. Horwath : Trying to understand if there are opportunities, where there's no language in collective agreements to provide for flex time and/or lieu time instead of overtime payments. Is that the case? Staff: Those provisions currently exist and staff are frequently encouraged or interested in taking time off when things slow down a little bit. However, if they're interested in being compensated for their time, we pretty much have an obligation to do that, if they're Employment Standards entitled. Mayor : .

Bruckler : .There are certain planned overtimes that I would like to see us continue because it's a revenue generator, so perhaps when staff are reporting back to us, they might be able to highlight those as well, because clearly I don't think that's the direction we want to go. Mayor :.

Whitehead : I think there's a motion coming forward .with overtime, deal with variances from all the depts. .I would like to have, wherever the variance is over what has been budgeted or that they would present that variance to committee. I would like to put that as a friendly amendment.

McHattie : .to Glen (Peace ) on the report, p. 7 & 8 under 2004 Alternatives. looking at the 2003 actual levels, reductions by dept., you've identified 3 of them there as examples, reduction of $209,000 to 2004 budget, then you say this rational can apply to other areas, example Police Services. In light of C. Jackson 's direction of trying to find an additional $1 million following the approach you've outlined here on p.7 what sort of reduction would you find in taking this to the nth degree.you've said this rational could apply to other areas but you've just provided one example. Is this the kind of thing that could be done to find another $100,000 perhaps or I don't know what the number might be? Peace : I suspect there may be opportunities at the boards levels but .that's something that I can't control.What I'm suggesting to you is that the 2003 actuals allowed an opportunity for us to remove $200,000 .with C. Jackson 's direction we've added another $800,000 on top of that to get to the $1 million.

McHattie : .is the $1 million realistic or $500,000 is more along the lines.or we ask for $1 million and see how we do. Trying to get as realistic as we can. My sense is that staff knows what they're doing here and they're going to provide us with real numbers.

Mayor : And staff of course have done that. I guess C. Jackson 's motion has a rider on it .if we remove the $1 million we don't want to be chasing either false revenues or false savings. Staff will come back with variance reports and they'll give us an opportunity to talk about where to get that, if there's a shortage, where to get it or if there's a service implication, can we do without the service. So it's a target but one contingent on regular reporting and some decision making yet for this Council.C. Collins , you got a motion then? C. Collins , can you repeat the motion? I move that the City Manager be directed to explore areas within the organization, with the exception of Fire, EMS, and winter maintenance, to a total of $1 million annualized overtime savings that any variance to the 2004 actuals immediately be reported to the appropriate Standing Committee and that a regular quarterly report on OT (overtime) be provided to Council. Mayor .2 nd by C. Jackson . Peace: annualized Mayor : annualized, yes, that's correct Merrula: With respect to the reserved iniative, should I include it with this or should I have it with a separate motion. Mayor : Well, let's see what happens here and then you may wish to introduce, 'cause it is separate. All in favour.CARRIED

Now Councillor, if I understood your recommendation, was to take $1.5 million of what's now budgeted, and what's budgeted is. Peace: We're at $5.5 million, excluding Police, with the $1million reduction for 2004. Mayor : And the budgeted item for 2003 was? Rinaldo : The budgeted item is . $6.8 million, but you got to deduct $2.5 million for Police cause that's not part of it.

Merulla : (interrupting) we've already deducted the 2.5. Mayor : Well, it's not deducted, it's there but it's set aside cause we don't control that directly

Merulla : (interrupting) Right. . My understanding was $1.5 million was going to be set up as a reserve, actual $5 million being allocated for overtime. That was the original number. Mayor : Mr. Rinaldo , with the $1million reduction, including the police, what's in the budget right now? For overtime? Rinaldo : There's $6.8 million in budget, including the police. Mayor : And if you were to take out 2.5 because it's the police you're left with $4.3 million. Rinaldo : Correct. Mayor : What was in the budget in 2003, I know we went over, what was the budgeted item, not the Rinaldo : It was roughly (speaker not using mic) Mayor : So, there's your target. C. Merulla , if you want to go to what we budgeted in 2003 and have that as what's in the budget and set aside in a reserve up to $4.3 Merulla : Right Mayor : You're looking at about $1.3 million. still accessible to staff but set up in a reserve account.

Merulla : Accessible only through Council decision. . So moved by myself, 2 nd by C. Collins Rinaldo : .the number that you have, excluding Police in the 2004 budget, with this amendment is $3.3 million, because the amount that's available, less Police, is $4.3, is in the budget, .you've just taken out $1 million so that brings you down to $3.3 million in the budget for overtime Merulla : (interrupting) And that's pretty well what we had in the budget for 2003, is that what you're saying? Rinaldo : Right Merulla : ??? Mayor : So there isn't - Councillor I'll accept your motion .we're essentially the same level as last year. Merulla : That's fine. Mayor : You still want to take some more out? Is that your motion?

Merulla : No, we're not taking anymore out, simply having a check and balance in place and due diligence where appropriate standing committees . Mayor : Give me a clear motion and I'll put it to the will of Council. Merulla : .It should go to standing committees for approval? Mayor : What should go.any overtime costs? Merulla : That's right, over and above what's mentioned (talking in background, no mic) Mayor : No, that was having to do with .$1 million, not all overtime costs, my understanding, that had to do with the $1 million reduction and any variance on this budget would go to the standing committee, not the whole budget.

Merulla : And I'm saying the whole budget should be there for their perusal. Mayor : Moved by Merulla , 2 nd by Collins , that any overtime, that the whole budget before any overtime allocations are made, go to standing committee for approval. Questions.C.

Ferguson : to Anne Priel, what would happen if West Nile hit the fan, if this motion passed? Priel: We do not budget for overtime so I have, you may as well say I have $0 for overtime.We spent 200 and some odd thousand dollars. We don't have a budgeted amount. Depending on how the City Manager chooses to implement the reduction, I could end up with 0 which means that every time I have an incident I would have to come and get prior approval. I don't know how I would manage cases like SARS or West Nile. I would have to maybe come before Council and get prior authorization on a number of different issues. We have to call in somebody . we have to maintain a certain staff to ?patient? ratio.I'm going to have to call people in and that might be overtime and so I'd have to get some sort of blanket support from Council in some of those areas we're legislated obligated and it's going to cost me overtime.

Ferguson : I'd suggest that West Nile was the '03 crisis, smoking was the '02 crisis, '01 was the restaurant inspection crisis. These are all crises we can see coming.I'm just wondering how this motion would affect the '04 crisis being whatever. Priel: If I don't have the money in my budget I would have to come forward and get Council approval to proceed with any of those expenditures which is extremely difficult when the situation.(interrupted by Merulla )

Merulla : I don't want to convolute this but - Priel: (continuing) The other cases where we incur overtime is in recreation things where we have special events and it just doesn't go the way we expect it to. Fireworks are late going off and I've got to have people there, so don't know how I get prior approval in most of those cases. Merulla : I have no problem with withdrawing this motion . Mayor : the motion is withdrawn.'cause it was a problem. Mayor .(voices in background with no mic)

Whitehead :.with the variances above what has been budgeted for that even if it's spent .it would be nice if they came back as opposed to document in front of us that they make a presentation why they're at where they're at so we as a Council understand the decision making process and how they got there. Whitehead states that they would like to see some accountability. Mayor : That's part of the earlier motion, that there will be regular reporting back, so I think we covered that off.

C. Ferguson : .One of the main overtime drivers is unforeseen crises, such as West Nile, SARS, smoking bylaw enforcement, restaurant inspection, winter control. All these issues happened in recent years and must be dealt with although they're not budgeted for nor could they be. I'm suggesting that we secure a line of credit for $10 million from the Future Fund (FF), secured by a Demand Note at market rate to be used with Council approval in a crisis situation. That way we can remove regular overtime from crisis overtime. The funds forwarded from the FF will be included in the subsequent budget year of the dept. which used it and paid back with interest. It must be reconciled on an annual basis so that way we'll be able to separate the crisis overtime from the regular overtime and that would have to be budgeted for in the subsequent year. I would make that a motion. Mayor : Do you have a seconder for your motion? Would you mind repeating just the motion component and then I'll recognize some speakers.

Ferguson : In the event of a crisis as identified by individual dept. the funds be forwarded from the FF ??? FF Board of Governors to that dept. offset those expenses to be secured by a Demand Note, repaid by the effected dept. in the following budget year. Mayor : I have a seconder - C. Merulla .

Merulla : This is a Public Heath issue. Can we not refer this to committee for further discussion, rather than ??? off the cuff?

Ferguson : It's Public Health but it could also be Public Works. April 4 storm last year would deal with this. Mayor : Except that it's not a budget issue per se that we're dealing with right now. We're dealing with the budget. That might be a policy issue that can be looked at quite separate from this process here. Ferguson : Except if we pass this we can take $1.5 out of the overtime for '03, Merulla : which goes back to my original motion, great - let's refer it to committee. Mayor : .We have a recommendation to refer this back to committee, C. Ferguson , are you ok with that? Ferguson : Sure. Mayor : All in favour of referring this back to committee.

Horwath : .with the staff review the proposal that C. Ferguson 's put together and come back with a report or recommendations around how that might work or not work so that it's not just coming to committee without any real look at it terms of viability from staff. Mayor : C. Ferguson , you'll share your information from staff. Braden : .What we're talking about is a contingency plan now under the guise of a crisis. Do we have something in there - budgets all used to have contingency plans and I haven't seen wm for about 4 years so what are we gonna do when we spend more money than we're taking in. Rinaldo : .We have a contingency of $1 million in our total budget.. Braden : Well, do we need 2? Rinaldo : In an ideal world you should have 5, but 1% of your ?tax?. Mayor : And this may allow us to get at that. Rinaldo : Yup. Pearson asks if it's practicable to borrow money and pay interest on it and we may never use it. Mayor : Let's have that debate at committee when staff has a chance to report on it and C. Ferguson shares his information. I have a report on the overtime budget. I need someone to move this as amended. C. Jackson , seconded by C. Whitehead .CARRIED.

Mayor : Moving down the list then, .#7 Correspondence from Rebecca Wissenz with regards to BTR. #8 & #9 all related to the same issue, may I have a recommendation to receive those 3. Moved by Horwath , seconded by Pearson .CARRIED

Mayor : Social & Public Health Services. Merulla : With respect to operational enhancement for the food premises and safety it reads here $215,000. My understanding of that was that the bulk of that was already approved - [END OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]

Horwath : .We've also had a lot increase of customer's faith in the restaurant inspection system. The restaurant system itself we feel that the food premises they are much safer and it's primarily due to an increase in accessibility to this information that we have here. I would recommend that Council again ask for ?ministry? caution on this budget, because there is evidence that it is making a difference. ???the programs. Today that's been turned down but I would ask for it again.

Bruckler : Not 100% sure of what you're doing presently as to staff and inspections, but I would assume that you're doing it relatively effectively, cause I - more recently I've not heard of any concerns or complaints with respect with this level of operations.

. Jackson : to either Dr. Richardson or Mr. Hall as to how effectively the program has been working for the last year or so ..Mr. Hall : The interim food premise disclosure system where the green signs are put in the restaurants now has been fairly effective in getting compliance. The difference between what is proposed through Council and what has been accepted with the red, yellow, and green sign is that if there is non compliance, there is no sign. It's just that you either have a green sign or no sign. We're finding that through the evaluation of the Toronto system that people in Toronto were really leery of getting the yellow sign which would be the new sign in this system. Compliance has improved, as Dr. Richardson said, with the interim disclosure system. This new system that we proposed which ran through Council last year is an enhancement upon that. Taking one more level up.

Jackson : Rob, how long have we been into this program? Since the issue.came to public light. Hall : The interim system began in the year of January, 2002. . Jackson : And Toronto's gone to the enhanced program.the 3 colours.? Rob Hall : Toronto's been involved in that for over a year and a half. They did an evaluation last year which we brought a report back to Council outlining their evaluation of their system.

Jackson :.I was supportive of this enhancement, right up until a few months ago, and .I'm not against it, but given the budgetary dilemma we're in right now, and we're struggling somewhere between .5 & 6%.I would just like to give the balance of this year to the existing program. .When it began there were a lot of people who needed to have reassurance.of course the overall number of people in the hospitality .are good corporate citizens and I think the a I think the health, the financial health of the overall hospitality industry in our community verify's that and reinforces that. I think a lot of our eateries are full many a day and many a night and weekends and um I enjoy as much as anyone going out to um to enjoy that so .initially I was all for C. Merulla 's initiatives. Umm I was all for um putting in a system that would help reestablish and restore the confidence, but.I would like to see the balance of this year continue with the interim system, give it a full 3 years.then come the 2005 budget we can revisit this enhanced amount at that time. So I will not support the enhanced amount at this time. Mayor :.

Merulla : I have some concern with respect to the short term memory of this particular issue and if I can remember back to how serious this issue was .from a perceptual standpoint once highlighted again, once people remember the issue fully. What I'm concerned about right now is you have ideal restaurateurs out there who are being lumped in with mediocre establishments and the yellow sign simply adjusts that to a more accurately reflection of establishments that are simply not fully meeting the grade. I believe from the restaurant standpoint, those that are following policy.acting in the best interests of public health, are doing so diligently, and then there are those who are just not meeting the grade who are being rewarded to the same degree. I think it's incumbent of this Council to ensure that public health particularly when eating at public restaurants is a priority, first and foremost, and anything short of that will be irresponsible of us. We need to focus in on some of our priorities and I tried the other day with a number of my Council colleagues to remove $2 million from the BTR. That was unsuccessful. But we're dealing with a cost of $200,000 in the name of public health, we spent $9 million in the name of BTR without real tangible evidence to suggest that it's helping us to any degree. And I'm a little dumbfounded why $200,000 expense with tangible benefits which was reported last year from the Toronto experience with respect to compliance is ignored yet we spend $9 million without any evidence and again that contradiction is being consistent ??? by some - ??( Mayor interrupts) Mayor : I think we know the debate and the points have been made in the debate . sometime now we have a clear recommendation to add $250,000 to the budget for this program .all in favour, DEFEATED.

Mayor : .The last item ah.(voice in background) the tobacco side. Can I have a recommendation on that or would you like to hear from Dr. Richardson first? Merulla : I'm gonna move the $51,530 to be included in the budget and now refer to Dr. Richardson .

Mayor : This enhancement was to deal with the changes that will take effect on June 1, 2004 with the tobacco bylaw. The billiard halls, the bingo halls, slot machines, gaming centres, bars and clubs will be asked to restrict smoking to ??? or eliminate smoking all together. We learned with the introduction of the bylaw 2002 that a good education campaign which meant that all of the operators as well as the public were aware of the transition, aware of why it was happening and when it was happening, really helped in that transition and made it much more smooth. It insured that we had an appropriate level enforcement out there so there was a level playing field for all of the operators. So that people would not continue to operate outside the bylaw but were brought quickly into compliance through ??? measures. It would be our recommendation to undertake ah a similar ah similar education campaign. The dollars for that are slightly reduced on this occasion compared to last year, but we feel we can do an effective campaign within that and similar from an enforcement standpoint. So that is what those dollars are there to provide. There was an interesting anecdote. Mayor .What's the dollar amount - to Sam - for your recommendation?

Merulla : It's $51,530.the bylaw went through an exhaustive process to establish, is going to be measured based on its enforcement.(interrupted by Mayor ) Mayor : We're looking at $51,000. Is that 1 FTE that we're looking at? Priel: It is funding for ½ FTE worth of staff time and the remainder is the promotional activities.

Ferguson : .to Dr. Richardson . Do you see anything in the horizon for provincial legislation coming on this? Mr. Hall: the province has been promising and promising and promising and there is actual movement towards a legislative system of having a provincial regulation for smoking. .It's one of those issues, do they have the ability to make it happen at a provincial level, .They've given the municipalities the ability through the Municipal Act to do it. Hopefully, they will get it together in time, once all municipalities are 100% smoke free anyways. Ferguson : Best guess, you're not ??? other provinces in '04? Mr. Hall: Not for '04.

Jackson : I was on this sub committee and supported the new bylaws that came forward in the last term, but I want to ask this $51,530, ½ FTE to Rob (Hall). If you don't get this half FTE, if Council decides against giving you this ½ FTE, you do no enforcement then after June 1, is that what this means? Dr. Richardson : .With that ½ FTE we are bringing forward to the standing committee because we need a clarification on this issue. So in your package for tomorrow's committee date, there's a report outlining what would happen if we were not to receive the enhancement funds. And asking for direction on terms of the impact on mandatory program compliance which indeed would see us not doing ??? tobacco control activities in favour of insuring enforcement of the bylaw or some other direction from committee and Council.

Jackson : You have currently staff in place that do tobacco control and enforcement or you don't have sufficient staff in place .we're talking about ½ FTE and just in the current budget deliberations we under a $83 million dollar difficulty and we're all in this together again, I need to reinforce that.You need this ½ FTE or else you can't do further enforcement? Dr. Richardson : The activities around the introduction of a new phase of a bylaw are different from those in terms of ongoing enforcement of that bylaw. So the increased enforcement .in order to ensure that a level playing field - in order to ensure that the people are coming in to compliance requires extra effort over and above the usual amount. That the ½ FTE I should point out is the smaller part of the enhancement. The remainder of the enhancement is in relation to the actual education campaign.

Jackson : Who's the education for - for the business owners or for the public? Dr. Richardson : Both.

Jackson says there are a handful of proprietors that may have trouble meeting the June 1 DSR designation, that the number of people using tobacco is decreasing, and since we're in a budget dilemma right now and so: ".I would once again ask staff to just do their best, make do with what they've got and then we can review this further if we need to in 2005. So I won't support it today."

Whitehead : ."We are going to another tobacco transition in June, and I believe it's incumbent on us to do everything we can to continue to educate the general public and the restaurateurs relative to this new transition that we're going through. .We have a responsibility as a Council to let .our taxpayers know of the next transition affecting the tobacco bylaw. .So I will be supporting the enhancement.

Mitchell : .to staff - it wasn't too long ago that we took in house animal control and got 45 or new animal control officers. Is it possible in this City to take one of those of two of those and transfer them to bylaw enforcement or into this area where they may be needed more for a short period of time and save the City some money?. Mayor comments about multi-tasking (laughter) "Any possibility of that - sharing some staff." Wall: In order to issue tickets under the provincial offenses act you have to be designated as TCA enforcement officers. Now we could do that through the designation of other staff. The difficulty is the training component of this bylaw. Trying to get staff in now to do the training may be a little arduous to meet the June 1 st deadline. One of the largest things we're dealing with right now, . people are making decisions now as to whether or not to install DSRs and in order to do that they have to consult with our staff, our TCA and our enforcement staff, to determine whether or not they can actually have a DSR in compliance with the bylaw. Through this point forward, that's the essence is trying to get that information to people who will be able to do that. We have staff available, public health inspectors who would be able to assist our tobacco enforcement officers in this. In order to bring over a bylaw enforcement officer from another department it would be a bit of a learning curve which I think we'll miss some really good enforcement activities right now. Mayor .

Bruckler : Some establishment owners have reported to me as well, and they want to make sure that theres , I guess, a very equal enforcement of this, of the bylaws. Just from point of fairness this is a question I have, perhaps this is a longer term. Once we hit that 100% mark, will we have a reduction of staff and would the impacts be in the future for staff?.Dr. Richardson : Just a reminder that the enhancement that we're asking for here is for one time funds, it's not for an ongoing ?piece? around that. I think what we'll need to look at an ongoing basis what happens once we're 100% smoke free, but remembering that's not coming for another 5 years and in the meantime there will this need to look at those issues.

Merulla : .The bylaw is only as good as it's being enforced. I think education and communication is essential. There are a number of proprietors out there today that were unaware of the deadline back in 2002 and it was directly related o the fact that I don't think we communicated it well.It's more of a pro active type of iniative .and I can't see why we wouldn't want to increase communications and awareness and education.but I do want a clarification.to Dr. Richardson . With respect to the rate of smoking among ???, is it not increasing rather than decreasing? Particularly among female population? Dr. Richardson : That would be correct in terms of specifically the teen girls ???. Merulla : They are the future problem and something we need to focus in on quite diligently. I'll move it, seconded by C. Collins . Mayor : We got that clear - it's $51,000 - all in favour? CARRIED. The enhancement carries, that is. .

McHattie : A moment ago you suggested we completed the street tree discussion? I just wondered if that's the case or whether we're up to discuss that today? Mayor : .the Clerk just handed me the report .there were some discussions around the tree program but not specifically this report or did the discussions address this report? . it doesn't so we need to do this report. I'm going to move for that right now. And that is the 2004 street tree program enhancements . it's a report to consider some alternative program service levels and funding strategy for 2004. Questions .

McHattie : The implications, ah, being suggested here, are really wide spread for the City. There's 3 different aspects to this report. The first one is the Urban Forest Health Program (UFHP). $250,000 is the implication financially. What's being suggested here is, is the, if we don't have a sense of the a the infestations ah and we know, we already have reports, I think the previous Council probably, about the Emerald Ash borer, which is not too far away, in western Ontario, and the Asian Long Horned Beetle in the City of Vaughn in Toronto . If we don't know when those beetles are approaching us here in Hamilton, we don't have the ability to react and I, that certainly concerns me to see a big part of what Hamilton's all about is the green you see when you're up in Sam Lawrence Park, looking down over the City of Hamilton and of course throughout the whole City of Hamilton. So I'd like to ask . just a sense, to Brian Shynal or whoever else is with Brian, how's Toronto reacted to this - and a what sort of money are they spending on a proactive urban forest health program. Just to clarify, we're not spending any money on that right now. Mayor : Brian.just highlight the report.that would be helpful. Shynal : First to the City of Toronto, I'm not sure they are dedicating significant resources there, they have been diverted particularly to deal with the Asian Long Horned Beetle situation out of their normal operations, I'm not sure what their baseline health monitoring staff allocation is but we can certainly find out. Just to confirm, we have no staff resources here in the City of Hamilton to deal with health, forest health related issues. The issue has been raised and that's why the enhancement has been brought forward for your consideration. .Summarizing the report, it essentially tries to provide some background context to the three enhancements that we brought forward and considered unaffordable, the Urban Forest Health Program, the Street Tree Trimming Program Enhancement in terms of the service level, and lastly the Street Tree Planting Program, which you've been discussing. The report tries to put that in some sort of context for priority and from the staff's perspective the priorities are as listed here, for the reasons of essentially dealing with preservation and enhancement of our existing infrastructure. First, to retain as much of it as we have and to extend the life expectancy as much as possible to get the best value out of it as a resource. 2 nd priority is the Street Tree Trimming Program to enhance the level of service to the levels that were moved last year to a 5 year tree trimming cycle from the current 12 year cycle, and the rationale there being to extend the life expectancy of our existing infrastructure, and 3 rd ly, .the notion of re-establishing a street tree replacement planting program that would at the very least balance your rate of removals annually which hover around 2000 last year, ultimately it was 2300, with the rate of replacements which presently is 0. That's a priority as well I think in relation to the other 2 iniatives - uh 3 rd priority. Just to put that in perspective, in terms of the longer term vision we have identified in the report, the industry standard, if you will, from planning point of view for forest cover within urban areas and essentially the standard that's been adopted, most commonly used, is about a 30% cover. In 1992, I think that was the last time the City was assessed, it was assessed at around 14%. It has declined since that time further, but to what level, we're not sure. The planting that we proposed would simply stop that slide.to stabilize the level of our current forest cover. If you were to attempt to achieve the 30% cover in residential areas in the urban context your target would be somewhere in the area of 80,000 trees. That's beyond the current enhancement that you're looking at for an annual replacement just to stop the slide. That's more or less the context that we're trying to provide in this report that we've submitted for information. Mayor : McHattie .follow-up?

McHattie : .Just taking it program by program, the UFHP, I'm trying to understand the implications of this program if we don't go there. My understanding is that Toronto is actually putting 10's of millions of dollars into this 'cause they're into the pests in question. The Ash Borer is there in Toronto. and the response, the potential is to devastate the entire forest in southern Ontario.and we're seeing that in parts of Toronto already. I'm trying to get a sense of the risk aspect to this, 'cause I think .that tree planting is positive from another perspective but certainly the risk aspect if we don't do it, and for environmental reasons, these pests are hit here in Hamilton, it's a real concern.What could go on here. to Brian, what happens if these pests arrive on our doorstep, Brian, we have no program in place, we haven't actually monitored to find out whether if they're on their way, we're not ready for that kind of an impact, just trying to get a sense of if we do this, we don't do that, that's possibly useful for us. .A little side question to that.cost sharing capabilities with the federal government, with the food inspection agency? Shynal : .I'll ask Rick Gadawski Manager of Forestry to give you background relative to the Toronto experience. Gadawski: The City of Toronto right now is dedicating probably ½ of their staffing resources to the elimination of the trees. Probably up to 12,000 trees in a certain area for the Asian Long Horned Beetle. All of those trees have to be cut down and then tested so it's taken quite a long time. They have to have those out by, I believe it's June of this year. Half of their resources - if I was to apply half of our resources we would probably, we would not be able to respond to anything but storm damage within the City. At present we don't do any monitoring at all, for pests we do it just on a customer call basis. The City of Toronto actually had programs with the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) where they were going out and inspecting. They had inspected this area previous to the infestation and didn't find it. That's how hard this beetle is to find. It was found by a citizen, actually, in an industrial area. The City of Toronto, I believe, the last report I've got has dedicated some $13 million this year to the program in the eradication of the beetle and a further, I believe it's $8 million for pesticide control should the chemical they've asked for, for registration, be approved by the federal government. Just to give you an idea of what's happened in Windsor with the other, the Emerald Ash Borer, the City has probably $6-8 million worth of trees left standing on the road and the CFIA is not funding any of that program.and that's up to $8 or 10 million program there. The CFIA.who is the lead governing agency over this program if funding, I believe they funded up to $8 million now in Toronto, of the $13 million cost this year, and the City of Toronto has asked them to fully fund it and I believe that's forthcoming. The difference is they believe the eradication of the beetle in Toronto is possible. They don't believe the eradication is - well actually, it's already through the City of Windsor, so they're kinda left holding the bag with the trees on their roads so that's the kinda implications we're looking at for the City of Hamilton.

McHattie : So the $250,000 you're suggesting here, that puts us in a position to be a preventative mode to try and take action before this actually - what really amounts to a natural disaster, not unlike SARS, in a different way. It's a natural disaster that affects the forests and there may be other implications if the forest is gone, for our health as human beings. This $250,000, does it put us in a preventative position, taking action before this happens especially. Ken: .Yes, it would be a more preventative measure and to mitigate any situations we find with an immediate response, rather than waiting for funding before we can respond to the problem.

McHattie :. There's 3 components to this report. I'm just wondering whether you want to treat them separately, in terms of motions. I'd like to move - (interrupted by Mayor ) Mayor : Yes, there are some components staff. I - recommendation is very strong from staff.which essentially says here are the alternatives, do what you think you need to do. .If we accepted all of the recommendations, what dollar amount are we being asked to add back to the budget, Mr. Shynal ? Shynal : .A quick add - $8 million - $6.2 for the street tree program, which is an extension - an enhancement, $1.3 for the planting, another $250,000 for the health program. Mayor : Yea - yea - that's a considerable amount of money to potentially add back into the budget. So, I will take some recommendations but before that there are some questions that people might have.then we'll hone in on recommendations.

Collins : I want to ask Mr. Shaynal, or maybe more particular Mr. Gadawski, who's here prior to amalgamation. I guess the problem we run into with forestry is that it's my understanding the baseline budget for forestry at the beginning of amalgamation was in essence the baseline budget for the old City of Hamilton. Is that correct? - or somewhere near that? Gadawski: .Yes, there was no enhancement to the baseline budget. However the inventory of trees, I would say, more than doubled through amalgamation. Collins : So in essence then there were no forestry dollars contributed from suburban budgets when all the budgets were amalgamated from, whether it was regional public works or former suburban public works allotments. Gadawski: No base dollars in terms of FTE or staff labour dollars. Most of the outlying municipalities dealt with their forestry services on a contractual basis so there were some contractual funds. They may have been added to the budget but they were not consequential in terms of enhancing our expanding inventory of certified trees.

Collins : And I think that's the dilemma that we're faced with because the dept. now has an inventory that is - it's probably well over double - what is the inventory now, compared to the former City of Hamilton? Is it double, triple, quadruple the amount that we were responsible for prior to amalgamation? Gadawski : Within the urban areas the inventory's probably gone from - I think that at one time we had estimated we had - we don't have a tree inventory per se, so we had estimated at one time that we had 70,000 street trees in the old City of Hamilton. We probably have in excess of 300,000 street trees at present. That's not including any parks or ravines or natural areas that we have to look after too. Collins : That's in the entire City.or Gadawski: That would be just in the urban areas, not the rural areas. Rural areas would be well over that number. A huge number.

Collins : So we have - here's the problem. We have . pretty much the same budget we had in 2000 of 1999 with 6, 7, 8 times the inventory of forestry issues to deal with. I think for those of us who were formerly serviced by the department we've noticed a great decrease in the amount of service provided and a great number of increase in the number of calls coming into our office 'cause those service levels have been stretched to try to accommodate for Glanbrook, Dundas, Stoney Creek and other parts of the City and really, I don't think it's the fault of the dept. They're trying to utilize the resources they've been given. The fact is those resources fall well short of what's required. Is there an opportunity to go back and find out what Stoney Creek's budget was for forestry - whether it was internal staff resources or.contractual private dollars that were allocated. Or Dundas, or Ancaster, or Glanbrook - somehow, someway, they were dealing with their forestry issues. The fact is those dollars or money were never forwarded to forestry. How do we go back and find out? Rinaldo : .I think what Mr. Shynal is saying to you though the total amount was very small amount relative to the budget that we currently have for tree planting. We can certainly try to capture that information for you. Mayor : I'd like to get into this debate so I'd love to pass the chair onto -

Collins : Mr. Mayor I still there are areas where we can cut money out of the budget, whether its in consulting or contractual , we've yet to hit that area of the organization and so I'd like to hear what the discussion is surrounding these 3 areas of forestry. One last question that I have. We provided, the year before last, $150,000 enhancement to forestry through the budget process. How many people did we hire with $150,000? Shynal : We haven't recruited any staff at this point in time. We received approval, within the last 12 months, for an additional aerial truck and I believe it's been received. We were to have performed a forestry management plan with a portion of that funding. We attempted to get some outside consulting services for that. We were unsuccessful in getting a responsive call from a qualified bidder. .We responded after that with a September report which essentially did what that management plan would do in terms of establishing the service levels. Since that time we have not recruited additional staff. Collins : So the $150 was used for - what purposes? Shynal : .I think a part of that was returning back the budget reductions in the '03 budget.

Collins : So that's what we've been faced with over the last couple years, so 2002, we enhanced the dept.'s budget by $150,000, which is really a small amount in the grand scheme of things. When we start talking about these issues, only to find out that in 2003 it was brought forward as a budget reduction. And that wasn't I don't think, around this table, it was part of the budgets reduction brought forward by staff. So I'd like to hear what others have to say but I still think there's an opportunity to cut monies out of the budget and others areas of the organization and re allocate them to the forestry area which . for all 3 of those, whether you're dealing with the proactive response to the disease control that's coming, whether we're dealing with these GRID program, or whether we're dealing with the street tree planting program, this is one area - I think winter maintenance dominated the first term after amalgamation and this one seems to be creeping up as number 2 in terms of public complaints and I really need we think to get a handle on our priority as it relates to forestry. That's going to mean somehow allocating some funds and resources to it and increasing the service levels.

Bruckler recounts that in Stoney Creek there were sufficient internal funds for replacing trees that were failing and the majority of their maintenance was contracted out, with some in-house trimming. There was no formalized cyclical program.

Whitehead states that he is receiving complaints that are from 2-3 years old to have tree maintenance done. He asks of staff, from a policy perspective "What was the base budget for the City, relative to the forestry program. What was it based on? What type of service was being provided at all levels?" He states that the service has been diluted, compared to what they've been used to. He asks if a new policy is needed. He is concerned about the deteriorating tree coverage - we're losing trees and not replacing them - and wonders what Hamilton is going to look like in 10 years. The urban health forestry division is considerably under budget, and would like to have dollars put into this program to enhance it, or it will cost more money down the road. Mayor : .Want to hone in on the recommendation and also see if we can pass the levy today. Staff tells me if we don't get something passed tomorrow night, then it starts costing us not to have a budget, and we don't want to do that. And I think, C. McHattie , just to jump off on your suggestion, he's talking to Rick right not about addressing the UFHP as a start, and then fixing some of the other problems - we won't fix them in one fell swoop - not fix them all this year, but getting some understanding of how we might approach those. So we'll give C. McHattie just a chance to try to arrive at a number and we'll put something before us and we'll see what the will of Council is. While the discussion is going on there, whatever the number is to address the UFHP I understand that we do have $400,000 in the capital budget to address the tree program already. We're going to augment that by whatever C. McHattie might come forward with now. Plus staff is reporting back on the 1% .as a result of the previous recommendation to see how that might augment also.

Merulla : Just on the issue of costing us more if we wait, I asked a question at the beginning of the meeting and I did so for a reason. I knew this was going to become an issue and clearly, they're saying that fiscally, our calendar year was from January to December, provincially it's from March 31 to April 1. So this thing's started costing us money from January 1, so in essence unless we're going to be prepared to start next year in September, or October, November, at the end of the day, we're just giving it a couple days here - (interrupted by Mayor ) Mayor : Can we just set this aside to see if we can determine this - (interrupted by Merulla )

Merulla : I don't want to have that used though to try to speed up the process when in essence it is really relevant at this point. Mayor : I'm not sure relevant - but let's talk about that process in a second. C. McHattie do you have some - a recommendation for us?

McHattie : Yes.I put forth the motion that we support the UFHP to the amount requested $250,000. It's a proactive program. We need to have something in place to address the concerns expressed in here so I would put that forth as a motion at this point. Mayor : It's the UHFP $250,000 that's being recommended.it's already been 2 nd by C. Horwath .(to McHattie ) You're alright with that recommendation then? McHattie : to City Clerk to clarify for me, this is actual an additional amount of - I didn't actually see that in the report - Mayor : 175 -.essentially it's recommendation #8 - right? McHattie : That's right. Mayor : ok That's clear then. And I have some speakers.

Merulla : I'd just like to know what the actual running tally is at this point. I remember taking a million dollars off from overtime - ( Mayor asks for a running tally in terms of levy) Rinaldo : We were currently around 5.8%, now we've reduced the budget by another ½ million dollars today, and you've added $51,000 for the smoking bylaw, . so we're roughly around 5.6%. Merulla : .We've decreased the budget by a million - Mayor : but annualized, right? Merulla : (voice in the background) a ½ a million, ok. I'm sorry, will you repeat that again. Mayor : .6% is where we are right now Merulla : And we've only increased