The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-30-00 -" ~, ~ -~.,~ THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Meeting: REPORT GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File # JJ I Date: JUNE 19,2000 Res. #GIll - )..cf1-tJ 0 Report No.: WD.30-00 Our File: R.50.16 By-Law # Subject: STAGE I REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIALS "WHO DOESWHAT"CO~E Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD-30-00 be received; 2. THAT the "Who Does What" Service Review - Stage I Report from the Public Works Officials within Durham be endorsed; 3. THAT the Public Works Officials' WDW Committee be the forum for on-going review of the roads network (rationalization) and depot locations (optimization) to provide a periodic evaluation mechanism for these business programs; 4. THAT the Public Works Officials WDW Committee draft Terms of Reference and a Request for Proposal document to solicit proposals from external resources to conduct Stage II of this Review; 5. THAT cost-sharing arrangements between the Region of Durham and Area Municipalities with respect to funding the proposed Stage II of the Review be explored; 6. THAT a further report related to Stage II issues be brought forward; and 11 31 . .~. , REPORT NO.: WD-30-00 PAGE 2 7. THAT a copy of Report WD-30-00, along with a copy of Council's response, be forwarded to the Region of Durham. REPORT 1.0 ATIACHMENTS No.1: Correspondence from P.M. Madill, Regional Municipality of Durham, dated June 2, 2000, regarding Report from the Public Works Officials "Who Does What" Committee (2000-W-59) No.2: Copy of Region of Durham Report #2oo0-W-59 from VA Silgailis, Commissioner of Works No.3: Copy of the Public Works Officials within Durham Region "Who Does What" Services Review - Stage I Report (under separate cover) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Works Committee of Durham Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on May 31, 2000, Council adopted the following recommendation of the Committee, as amended: "TIIAT Report #2000-W-59 of the Commissioner of Works and the 'Who Does What' Service Review - Stage I Report from the Public Works Officials within Durham, be received for information; and be forwarded to Regional Council and the Area Municipalities for a response back to Regional Council by June 28, 2000; and" The following recommendation of the Finance and Administration Committee was considered in conjunction with the recommendation of the Works Committee: "THAT the Finance Department, along with Public Works Officials WDW Committee request the Regional and Area Treasurers to examine the issue of 1132 REPORT NO.: WD-30-00 PAGE 3 standardizing chargebacks between and among municipalities for work carried out on the others' behalf." 2.2 In January 2000, Regional Council resolved "THAT the Region endorses the Public Works WDW review and progress to date and directs staff to continue the process with all Area Municipalities with a comprehensive decision report to be tabled at Regional Council and Area Municipal Councils by May 31, 2000." In response to this direction of Regional Council, the Public Works Officials within Durham have been meeting on a weekly basis (including sub-committees) to continue the "Who Does What" Services Review and is pleased to present its Stage I Report. 2.3 Ainsley Wood of Wood Sloan Inc., who was retained by the Public Works Officials to facilitate the process, will be in attendance to make a presentation of the study findings. 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3.1 The "Who Does What" Services Review was approached in two stages. Stage I provides a general review of services from a technical public WOIXs perspective (without benefit of financial analysis) and deals with the acceptability of concepts which evolved from the group's discussion. Ultimately, 111 services, contained in 8 service categories, were identified for review. 3.2 Stage II is proposed to provide the detailed business case (including financial analysis) and stakeholder consultation (where deemed appropriate) of those concepts endorsed by Regional and Area Municipal Councils for further study. Implementation strategies that address human resources and transition issues would also be prepared during Stage II for those concepts that a business case supports. 3.3 It should be noted that, while consensus was achieved on the majority of services reviewed, unanimity was not always possible. The Stage I Report has been reviewed and agreed to by all members of the Public Works Officials "Who Does What" Committee. For example, Clarington's representative on the Committee was strongly in support of the elimination of 1133 REPORT NO.: WD-30-00 PAGE 4 the perception of duplication, even if there were no cost savings that could be immediately identified. As a group, each recommendation was ultimately accompanied by a statement ''THAT a detailed business case and implementation strategy be prepared as part of Stage II of this Review for recommendation to Regional and Area Municipal Councils". Clarington's representative supports the overall form of the Stage I Report and the recommendation to conduct Stage II of this Review. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Section 7 of the Public Works Officials' Stage I Report summarizes the Committee's Stage I recommendations and they are repeated in the Executive Summary for ease of reference. 4.2 In order to move forward with Implementation, the following recommendations are highlighted: . THAT the Public Works Officials' WDW Committee be the forum for on-going review of the roads network (rationa1ization) and depot locations (optimization) to provide a periodic evaluation mechanism for these business programs; . THAT the Public Works Officials WDW Committee draft Terms of Reference and a Request for Proposal document to solicit proposals from external resources to conduct Stage II of this Review; . THAT cost-sharing arrangements with Area Municipalities with respect to funding the proposed Stage II of the Review be explored; and . THAT a further report on these issues be brought forward. 4.3 Financial, Human Resources, Engineering, and Project Management resources are required to complete the Review. The Committee anticipates the Stage II Review will take approximately 6 months from the award of the contract to complete. 1134 REPORT NO.: WD-30-00 PAGE 5 4.4 It is planned that Terms of Reference for Stage II, with estimated costs, will be presented for the consideration of Regional Works Committee, Regional Council and Area Municipal Councils in September of this year. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~1/~ Stephen A. Vokes, P. Eng., Director of Public Works SA V*ce 14/06/00 1135 The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department il05 Aosslane! Rd. East P.O. Box 623 WhItby. Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 (905) 6<>8- nll Fax: (905) 668-9963 P.M. Madill, .....0. T. Aegional Clerk June 2, 2000 ';<',1,,,,; Onlariosummergames 2000 \LGLJST 11I-13 'OOJUN06 Fo1 2.1""'1' " . O.~ MUlifCWftUTY Of N!:t!: ~ file ~,...,...,....., -.- .-1..j -.;-i(;f;.,:~:5 ~~,::;~;::':'_';~__=B_' !~ JUN 0 9 2000 ;.L;;-Ci;;;:,,-~~=.~.~ '::'i'_'::!~i3te & r::::::~_! Pii5L:C WOR"' r...... Tak>;; Appro~r!3i.r: ';CliCil! DEPT. Ms. P.L. Barrie ~~......_...__...-: Clerk I--=_.,"_..._---J The Municipality of Claringtontt; .......,',"t....-1 40 Temperance Street ...~".,..;.-----f Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 File Report from the Public Works Officials "Who Does What" Committee (2000-W-591 - Our Ref: 009-02 Ms. Barrie, the Works Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on May 31, 2000, Council adopted the fallowing recommendation of the Committee, as amended: ''THAT Report #2000-W-59 of the Commissioner of Works and the 'Who Does What' Service Review - Stage 1 Report from the Public Works Officials within Durham, be received for information; and be forwarded to Regional Council and the Area Municipalities for a response back to Regional Council by June 28, 2000; and The following recommendation of the Finance & Administration Committee was considered in conjunction with the recommendation of the Works Committee: THAT the Finance Department, along with Public Works Officials WOW Committee request the Regional and Area Treasurers to examine the issue of standardizing ehargebaeks between and among municipalities for work carried out on the others' behalf." Enclosed, as directed, is a copy of Report #2000-W-59 and thel'Wtl~ON. i What' Service Review - Stage 1 Report. . ,,~i~KI:f:..L~_ .__ I (); .,. PI" ~."'l ;'Il/~;J (; (J 1 i~:~~^l-' ~'"_ -. .J / tw~ . fl"~~IE3iJ: -I --1 P.M. Madill, A.M.C.T. I . f Regional Clerk PMM/cs Ene!. ,---....---t..- I !_, " ,_ l ;->~~. . .----- 1... ....----..---1..-.---1 t . i I-~" .-.,..---........,...,.......!_....___---t ~ f f-. p--,-- ..1..------t X1TACll~TNb::-r.---1. REPORT No-::,m-3lMl6 ...;: ce: VA Silgailis, Commissioner of Works * 1136 ...~~.~~.:-2.~-.:::':::!.!..'"t;"ii2:..,...-:;.. 1001l Poe1 ConIurner REVISED Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department Commissioner's Report of Works Committee Report 200O-W-59 Date May 23. 2000 , . Subiect REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIALS "WHO DOES WHAT" COMMITIEE Recommendation THAT Report #200O-W-59 of the Commissioner Of Works and the "Who Does What" Service Review Stage I Report from the Public Works Officials within Durham, be received for information; and be forwarded to Regional Council and the Area Municipalities. Reoort In response to the direction of Regional Council on January 26, 2000, the Public Works Officials within Durham have been meeting bi-weekly to continue the "Who Does What" Services Review. in order to report back to Regional Council by May 31, 2000. The Stage I report, included separately, contains the findings, conclusiQns and recommendations of the committee to date. During the course of the review, III Services contained in 8 service area citegories, were identified. It was acknowledged by the members from the outset that it would not be possible to come forward with a series of definitive recommendations, rather the committee has developed a series of service delivery concepts which it feels merit further study/consideration. SSl mp 1 \ 37 44 ATTACHMENT NO.: 2 REPORT NO.: WD-30-00 '. ~ '. ';;' Report 2000-W- 59 )} :~. ~~f Page 2 Date May 23, 2000 Reoort contd Before considering implementation of the proposed service delivery concepts, the Committee requests additional resources to assist it with Stage II of this Review. Financial. Human Resources, Engineering, and Project Management resources are required to complete the Review. The Committee anticipates the Stage II Review will take approximately 6 months from the award of contract to complete. It is planned that Terms of Reference for Stage II , with estimated costs, will be presented for the consideration of Works Committee and Council in September of this year. Ainslie Wood of Wood-Sloan Inc., who has facilitated this process, will be in attendance to present the study findings and to answer any questions related to the report. Recommended for Presentation tD Committee , ~7f .H. itt, M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer 1 i58 4!>