2. ROAD
PATROL PROGRAM
PROGRAMME DE PATROUILLE
ROUTIÈRE
|
Committee recommendationS AS AMENDED
That Council
approve the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services
Department include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating and Capital Budget Estimates
for consideration the following:
1.
That the Road
Patrol Program be expanded from its current state to be aligned with the
Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation 239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 roads per Option 1 of this report and as recommended by the Auditor
General and the Rural Summit;
2.
That the 2009
estimated operating cost of $996,000 and 11 FTE’s and estimated one-time
capital costs of $430,000 for this program be provided as follows:
a)
Existing funding
within the SOP Operating Budget of $355,000 and 4 FTE’s from the current road
patrol program;
b)
That remaining
funding required to implement the Road Patrol program be added to the 2009
Operating and Capital Budget pressures estimated at an additional annual
operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and one-time capital funding of
$430,000.
3. That the Road Patrol Frequency for
the various road categories be adjusted so that:
·
All roads receive a minimum twice-a-year
examination, and that;
·
The road patrol staffing level remain at the
current level, and that;
·
Staff report, within 2 months, on the proposed
examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised
policy.
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du Comité
Que le Conseil accepte que la
Direction des opérations de surface des Services et Travaux publics prévoie
dans le projet de budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour
2009 aux fins d’examen :
1.
L’expansion
du Programme de patrouille routière afin que celui-ci réponde aux normes
d’entretien minimal (Règlement de l’Ontario 239/02) pour ce qui concerne les
routes de catégorie 1, 2, 3, 4 ou 5, conformément à l’option 1 présentée dans
le présent rapport et aux recommandations formulées par le vérificateur général
et à la suite du Sommet rural.
2.
Que
les coûts de fonctionnement estimatifs de 996 000 $ et les 11 ETP
ainsi que les coûts ponctuels estimatifs de 430 000 $ devant être
consacrés à ce programme en 2009 soient répartis de la manière suivante :
a) 355 000 $ provenant du budget
de fonctionnement de la Direction des opérations de surface et 4 ETP
actuellement consacrés au programme de patrouille routière;
b) que les autres crédits nécessaires pour
la mise en œuvre du programme de patrouille routière soient ajoutés aux
pressions sur le budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour 2009, soit
des crédits de fonctionnement supplémentaires estimatives de
641 000 $ et 7 ETP ainsi que des crédits d’immobilisation
ponctuels de 430 000 $.
3.
Que la fréquence des patrouilles routières pour les diverses catégories
de route soit ajustée de façon à ce que :
·
toutes
les routes fassent au minimum l’objet d’un examen bi-annuel;
·
le
niveau de dotation de la patrouille routière reste à son niveau actuel;
·
le
personnel fasse rapport, d’ici deux mois, sur la fréquence proposée d’examen
des routes pour les différentes catégories de routes en vertu de la politique
modifiée.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Public Works and Services dated 18 July 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0007).
2.
Transportation
Committee, Extract of Draft Minutes, 3 September 2008.
3.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 11 September 2008.
Report to/Rapport au:
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee /
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
and / et
Transportation Committee/
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
18 July 2008 / le 18 juillet 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : R.G. Hewitt,
Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Public Works and Services/Services
et Travaux publics
Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, Director / Directeur
Surface
Operations/Opérations de surface
(613)
580-2424 x21110, john.manconi@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref
N°:
ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0007
|
SUBJECT:
|
ROAD PATROL
Program
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
PROGRAMME DE PATROUILLE ROUTIÈRE
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee and Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve
the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services Department
include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating and Capital Budget Estimates for
consideration the following:
1.
That the Road Patrol Program be expanded from its
current state to be aligned with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario
Regulation 239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads per Option 1 of this report
and as recommended by the Auditor General and the Rural Summit
2.
That the 2009 estimated operating cost of $996,000 and
11 FTE’s and estimated one-time capital costs of $430,000 for this program be
provided as follows:
a.
Existing funding within the SOP Operating Budget of
$355,000 and 4 FTE’s from the current road patrol program
b.
That remaining funding required to implement the Road
Patrol program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures
estimated at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and
one-time capital funding of $430,000.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions
rurales et le Comité des transports recommandent au Conseil d’accepter que la
Direction des opérations de surface des Services et Travaux publics prévoie
dans le projet de budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour
2009 :
1.
L’expansion
du Programme de patrouille routière afin que celui-ci réponde aux normes
d’entretien minimal (Règlement de l’Ontario 239/02) pour ce qui concerne les
routes de catégorie 1, 2, 3, 4 ou 5, conformément à l’option 1 présentée dans
le présent rapport et aux recommandations formulées par le vérificateur général
et à la suite du Sommet rural.
2.
Que
les coûts de fonctionnement estimatifs de 996 000 $ et les 11 ETP
ainsi que les coûts ponctuels estimatifs de 430 000 $ devant être
consacrés à ce programme en 2009 soient répartis de la manière suivante :
a) 355 000 $
provenant du budget de fonctionnement de la Direction des opérations de surface
et 4 ETP actuellement consacrés au programme de patrouille routière;
b) que les autres crédits nécessaires pour
la mise en œuvre du programme de patrouille routière soient ajoutés aux
pressions sur le budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations pour 2009, soit
des crédits de fonctionnement supplémentaires estimatives de
641 000 $ et 7 ETP ainsi que des crédits d’immobilisation
ponctuels de 430 000 $.
BACKGROUND
Road patrolling is carried out to
inspect the roadway and adjacent right-of-way to detect defects that may
adversely affect the structure of the road and consequently, public
safety. In addition, road patrols and
associated follow-up maintenance activities help to extend the life and
investment of public infrastructure.
Ontario Regulation 239/02, which
came into force on November 1, 2002, contains what are described as the Minimum
Maintenance Standards (MMS) for roads and bridges. Included in the MMS are standards that describe road patrol
operations.
The standards describe the
frequency that roads should be patrolled for deficiencies based on the
classification of the roadways (Road classifications based on Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) and speed limit). While
the MMS are not mandatory, they offer a certain level of protection to limit
liability against claims.
If a municipality wishes to use
the MMS as a legal defence against statements of claim, the municipality must
meet the standard of care in the MMS and be able to prove it was met.
As part of the development of
Harmonized Service Standards for the new City, the Surface Operations Branch
developed its own Maintenance Quality Standards. These standards, which were approved by Council on June 11, 2003
(ACS2003-TUP-SOP-0004), included a strategy, which would provide a road patrol
program in compliance with the MMS.
Council approved the standards, however, did not approve the
accompanying recommendation to provide the additional funding necessary to
fully implement the program. Furthermore,
as part of the 2004 Universal Program Review, $1.042M associated with road
patrol on collector and residential streets was cut from the Surface Operations
Branch budget.
Currently, class 1 and 2 roads
are being patrolled and the patrollers are documenting the deficiencies on
paper records. The Auditor General identified the current road patrol practices
as insufficient in the 2006 Surface Operations Branch audit presented to
Council on May 9, 2007.
A summary of patrolling
frequencies for the MMS, the current City of Ottawa standard, and our current
process is provided in Document 1.
DISCUSSION
Key Drivers of Road Patrol
The Surface Operations Branch is
recommending that road patrols be expanded from their current state (road
patrols on class 1 and 2 only) to be aligned with the provincial MMS in
response to several key drivers:
1.
In the Auditor General’s 2006 audit of the Surface Operations
Branch, it was recommended:
a.
That branch resources be redirected so that road patrols are
reinstated in accordance with the City standards; and
b.
That the branch re-engineer its approach to planning work so
that the notification system is a complement to a systematic approach based on
routine maintenance, road patrols, and preventative maintenance.
2.
At the 2005 and 2008 Rural Summits, respectively, the
following recommendations were made:
a. Have
routine inspections of Class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to
keep ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues; and
b.
Maintenance of rural roads should remain a priority with the
City of Ottawa.
3. The
Surface Operations Branch continues to move towards more proactive and cost
effective services, including the proactive planning and programming of work
through its internal “operations planning” and “performance measurement”
initiatives.
Key Benefits of Road Patrols
There are several key benefits
that are associated with completing routine road patrols within the City of
Ottawa, including:
·
Optimized Life-Cycle / Asset Management
·
Enhanced Operations Planning
·
Improved Public Service, and
·
Risk Management.
Optimized Life-Cycle / Asset Management
One of the key findings in the
2006 audit was the need to reinstate road patrols. In the report the Auditor indicated that:
“Road
Patrols must be reinstated to at least the levels specified in provincial
Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMSMH) in order to ensure
the preservation of capital investments through both routine and preventative
maintenance, as well as the safety of municipal roads”.
The road patrol function allows the City to identify
deficiencies and conduct preventative maintenance techniques (pothole repairs,
minor asphalt repairs, shoulder work, etc.) to ensure the roads do not
deteriorate prematurely. This results
in the infrastructure lasting its “expected life” and delays the need for
capital replacement projects. It is
generally accepted that proactive maintenance work can help extend the service
life of pavement and sidewalk structures. Preventive roadway maintenance typically
addresses minor deficiencies early, before the defects become major problems
requiring large repairs or reconstruction.
Preventive maintenance is a key part of extending the life of an asset
at relatively low cost and can contribute significantly to the minimization of
overall asset lifecycle cost.
Eventually, even with preventive maintenance, roadways age and
deteriorate to a point where it becomes more cost effective to renew or
reconstruct the roadway rather than continue with many small repairs. These considerations are taken into account
in the City’s asset management program.
Enhanced Operations Planning
A second key finding in the 2006
audit was the need to become more proactive in the identification and planning
of maintenance activities. In the
report the Auditor indicated that:
“That SOP re-engineer their
approach to planning work so that the Notification system is a complement to a
systematic approach based on routine maintenance, road patrols and preventive
maintenance.”
The Surface Operations Branch is
currently in the process of implementing an improved operations planning
framework for maintenance activities that will provide the primary tool for
continuous improvement of operations.
Road patrols and other forms of inspection will be a key mechanism for
identifying deficiencies and having them planned and scheduled appropriately
for completion.
A formal road patrol program
results in the proactive identification of deficiencies in the road network.
The deficiencies that are documented during road patrols are then prioritized
and scheduled for repair according to a level-of-service standard that is based
upon the location (i.e. Class of road and its importance to the transportation
network) and the severity of the deficiency.
In this manner, the road patrol function will support the proper
management of work to ensure maintenance activities are conducted in a timely,
prioritized and cost efficient manner.
Improved Public Service
Conducting road patrols on class 1 to 5 roads will result in
an improvement in overall service due to faster remediation of
deficiencies. This was identified many
times during Rural Summit 1, and resulted in the following service
recommendation:
“Have routine inspections of
Class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep ditches clear and
address other rural road maintenance issues.”
Faster remediation of
deficiencies is particularly important in rural areas where, although traffic
volumes may be lower, risks can be greater due to higher posted speed limits,
absence of street lighting, and the common presence of roadside ditches.
By scheduling road patrols to
occur at regular frequencies, any deficiencies that are found will be
identified and scheduled for repair within a timely manner. The alternative method by which a deficiency
would be identified and repaired is through the communities’ use of the City of
Ottawa 3-1-1 number. If a member of the
public calls 3-1-1 in order to report a problem it is most likely the result of
deficiency that has been in place for an extended period of time. Road patrol would provide more proactive
inspection of such deficiencies and therefore result in remediation of the
problem before the public is motivated to call the City. The proactive approach to maintenance will
improve service levels over the long term and result in greater customer
satisfaction.
One of the purposes of
introducing the MMS was to help limit the exposure of municipalities to claims
from the public by demonstrating due diligence of its assets. Implementing road patrol and being able to
demonstrate compliance with patrolling frequencies and repair standards
provides a reduction in liability exposure.
Based on analysis of historical
information, however, road patrol cannot be financially justified on the basis
of claims mitigation alone. Based upon
figures collected by Risk Management for the years 2001-2006, the City receives
an annual average of approximately 202 claims related to deficiencies that
could be mitigated through routine road patrols. The total annual liability
exposure is approximately $60,000. A
further risk that could be mitigated is the liability associated with the
infrequent, individual claim with a large settlement amount. Quantification of that risk requires data
and expertise beyond the scope of the current analysis.
From a risk management
perspective, claims related to sidewalks are of more significance. For the same time period as the roadway
analysis above (2001-2006) the average annual claims for “trips and falls” and
“slips and falls” were approximately $199,000 and $294,000 respectively.
Sidewalk deficiencies are not
addressed by road patrols, however, the Surface Operations Branch is currently
working to research and develop improved sidewalk inspections and patrols. The Branch is also engaged with other
municipalities and the Ontario Good Roads Association who are working on
developing standards of practice for sidewalk inspection and patrol. Once greater certainty regarding the
direction of legislated sidewalk patrols becomes available, the Branch
anticipates moving forward with more formalized proactive sidewalk patrols.
Municipal Benchmarking
In an effort to determine the road patrol standards and
procedures being carried out in other jurisdictions subject to the Provincial
legislation, a survey was sent to the following municipalities and regions:
|
§
City of Toronto
§
City of Barrie
§
City of Brampton
§
City of Greater Sudbury
§
City of Mississauga
§
City of Guelph
§
City of Hamilton
§
City of London
§
Ministry of Transportation
|
§
Norfolk County
§
Durham Region
§
Halton Region
§
Peel Region
§
Waterloo Region
§
York Region
§
Niagara Region
§
Wellington County
§
District of Muskoka
|
The survey consisted of 8
questions and was focused on determining if other municipalities were following
the MMS described in Ontario Regulation 239/02 and served to gather information
about their internal processes.
Equipping staff
with the appropriate technology to support road patrol functions has many
tangible benefits, including:
·
Reduced staff time required to perform routine and
winter patrols and administrative staff time for data entry, handling and
retrieval
·
Improved consistency and accuracy in records management
·
Greater protection against liability due to improved
process consistency and records retention
·
Enables data gathering to track trends – could be used
to prioritize assets for replacement
·
Ability to determine whether the repair time service
windows are being met
·
Ability to interface with workload planning software for
repair scheduling.
The
technology industry has recognized these benefits and there are now several
software products available that allow municipalities to realize the full
benefits of the road patrol function from both risk management and workload
planning perspectives.
It is recommended
that the funds be allocated in order to purchase available road patrol software
to support implementation of the program in accordance with the MMS. Due to the size of the road network within
the City of Ottawa, implementing road patrols in accordance with the MMS
without the supporting software will not achieve the intended benefits listed
above, while increasing significantly the administrative burden on staff for
record keeping and transfer of identified deficiencies into the operations
planning system. It is estimated that
the technology solution will avoid the need for, at the least, an additional
1-2 FTEs.
Summary of Road Patrol Options
Several options for the road patrol program were
considered in the analysis from both a quantitative and qualitative
perspective. The costs of conducting
road patrol were determined for each road class. The three key options available are highlighted below of which
Option 1 is recommended.
|
Option
Description
|
Advantage
|
Disadvantage
|
|
Option 1 (Recommended)
Expand Road Patrols to Include Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Roads
|
·
Consistent with the
recommendations of the Auditor General.
·
Follows direction
provided through the Rural Summits
·
Consistent with the
Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation 239/02)
·
Enables all the road
patrol benefits (described under the heading “Key Benefits of Road Patrol” in
this report) across the entire road network.
|
·
Require additional
annual operating funds of $641,000 for the addition of 7 FTE's, 7 vehicles,
and supporting hardware and software.
·
Requires one-time
capital funding of $430,000 in 2009 for vehicles and technology.
|
|
Option
2.
Conduct Road Patrols on Class 1 and 2 Only
(Status Quo)
|
·
No additional cost.
|
·
Not consistent with
the recommendations of the Auditor General
·
Not consistent with
the direction provided through the Rural Summits
·
Does not enable
lifecycle cost benefits preventive maintenance
·
Does not enable full
operational productivity benefits from proactive operations planning
·
No improvement to
timeliness of service due to continued reliance on 311 calls to identify
work.
|
|
Option
3.
Expand Road Patrols to Include Class 1, 2,
and 3.
|
·
Fewer resources
required than for Option 1. Requires
4 additional FTE's, 4 additional
vehicles, and the supporting hardware and software.
|
·
Not consistent with
the recommendations of the Auditor General
·
Provides the
recommended road patrol program for only a portion of the road network –
primarily in the urban core area
·
Much of the rural road
network, as well as the entire residential network would continue with no
formal road patrol. For these unpatrolled areas, the same shortcomings
identified under Option 2 would apply
This
will require additional annual operating funds of $370,000 and one-time capital funding of $281,000 in 2009.
|
Pending Revision to Road Patrol Regulations
The Provincial legislation
governing road patrol (Ontario Regulation 239/02 which came into force on
November 1, 2002 and contains what are described as the Minimum Maintenance
Standards (MMS) for Municipal Highways) is currently under a mandatory 5-year
review. Some changes are being
considered, particularly to the winter patrolling component.
City of Ottawa staff are aware of
the task force’s work and do not anticipate major impacts on the direction
regarding road patrols in the City of Ottawa as presented in this report. Staff will continue to monitor the work of
the task force, assess impacts of new legislation once enacted, and report back
to Council if there are any material impacts on the City’s Road Patrol Program.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
One of the key recommendations
from the first Rural Summit held in November 2005 was to have "routine
inspections of class 3 to 5 rural roads and ensure action is taken to keep
ditches clear and address other rural road maintenance issues". Road maintenance continues to be a key area
of interest as confirmed in the recently held Rural Summit II held in April
2008.
CONSULTATION
Extensive consultation with the
rural community was undertaken through Rural Summit I and Rural Summit II. Rural road infrastructure maintenance was
one of the key items discussed during the summits. Direction from the summits has been considered and incorporated
into this report.
The Roads maintenance operations
of a number of Ontario municipalities, as listed under the “Municipal
Benchmarking” heading of this report, were consulted regarding road patrol
practices, compliance, and use of technology.
Results of this consultation are discussed in the report.
Internal City consultation by the
Surface Operations Branch has also been conducted with the following Branches:
·
Rural Affairs - The Rural Affairs Officer endorses the
recommendations of the Rural Summits and is in support of this initiative
·
Infrastructure Services Branch - Supports this
initiative as it aligns with and is part of Infrastructure Services Branch’s
Asset Management Strategy
·
Legal Services/Risk Management - Has reviewed the
report and endorses the initiative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The following are the financial
implications for the recommended enhanced service levels identified in this
report. The expanded Road Patrol Program is currently not incorporated as part
of the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures:
Option 1 - Minimum Maintenance
Standards on Class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Roads
The total annual Road Patrol
Program is estimated operating cost of $996,000 and 11 FTE’s and a one-time
capital cost of $430,000.
The 2009 Operating and Capital
requirements for this program be provided as follows:
·
Existing funding within the SOP Operating Budget of
$355,000 and 4 FTE’s for the current road patrol program
·
That remaining funding required to implement the Road
Patrol program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures
estimated at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and
one-time capital funding of $430,000.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Comparison of Road Patrol Frequencies
DISPOSITION
Upon approval of this report and
the 2009 Budget, the Public Works and Services Department, Surface Operations
Branch will commence with implementation of the program as outlined in the
report.
Document 1
Comparison of Road
Patrol Frequencies
road
patrol program
PROGRAMME
DE PATROUILLE ROUTIÈRE
ACS2008-PWS-SOP-0007 CITY
WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
The Committee received e-mailed comments dated 3
September from C. Williams, objecting to this proposal. A copy of his e-mail is held on file.
The Director of the Surface Operations Branch, John
Manconi, presented an overview of the report to the Committee. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is
held on file.
Ray Kostuch, Manager, Office of the Auditor
General (AG), who spoke to the AG’s 2006 audit of the Surface Operations Branch
and its subsequent 2007 follow-up audit.
The audits identified that current road patrol practices were
insufficient, and recommended:
1. That
road patrols be implemented by redirecting existing resources within the
Surface Operations Branch.
2. That
staff be taken from the existing 824 FTE complement.
Mr. Kostuch explained that overall, the AG’s office
had found significant progress on many of its recommendations, but that a
specific recommendation on road patrols had not been implemented, with
indications at the time that management was looking at the feasibility of
redeploying vacant FTE’s to road patrols within their existing budgets.
Derrick Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer, Rural
Affairs Office (RAO) added that this issue had been raised at the first Rural
Summit in 2005 and there was strong community support for the reinstatement of
routine inspections of Class 3 to 5 roadways, which made up the predominant
share of roads in rural areas, many of which consist of a gravel surface and
are subject to alteration by weather and traffic conditions. He explained that rural residents were frustrated
when they would see a City vehicle arrive to fix one problem, but drive past
other obvious ones, only to return later to fix those. He pointed out that prior to amalgamation,
some of the townships had road patrol programs that fixed several problems at
the same time. Mr. Moodie emphasized
that roads continue to be a source of angst for rural residents who have seen a
decline in their road conditions since amalgamation, as evidenced by continued
requests for a proactive road maintenance program.
Councillor Legendre referred to Document 1,
which illustrates the comparison of road patrol frequencies. Referring to major collectors, he noted the
disparity between the proposal for weekly visits, and the current practice, of
‘none’. He suggested that a period of
once every two months for such roads might suffice. He went on to state that in cases where it is a missing manhole
cover, for example, the community would likely let the City know of such
dangers within 24 hours. Based on a
schedule of weekly visits, he wondered how long it would take for a work order
to be processed in order to effect a repair to an identified situation. Mr. Manconi explained that the technology
currently in use has key features which included prioritization coding to schedule
work based on the immediacy of need and severity of the road condition.
Following on this response, Councillor
Legendre understood that repairs would be done in a timely fashion, and yet the
standard still has the frequency of visits being once a week. He maintained that once the work is
identified as having to be done, there would not be a need for such frequency
of visits. Mr. Manconi explained that
what the inspector would be looking for is changes to the
conditions. This will be a “Made in Ottawa”
solution and therefore the City is not aligned to the Provincial
frequencies. He clarified that these
are the provincial regulations that were formed by a multi-disciplinary team
which our legal department was a part of.
Should the Committee like the idea of road patrols and choose to move
away from those frequencies, staff could certainly do that, but it would mean
the City would not be aligned to the regulations.
When asked to comment on whether or not going
that route would expose the City to any liability, Ernest McArthur, Solicitor,
Legal Services advised that the Municipal Act says that if the City
meets certain minimum standards, it cannot be held liable. The Act does not say the municipality has
to meet them - that is a risk management decision for the Committee and
Council. The Chair asked the Solicitor
to explain what is defined as “reasonable”, etc., in terms of statutory
interpretation because what is reasonable in Ottawa in the winter, for example,
might be different for what is reasonable in Toronto. Mr. McArthur confirmed this, adding that there is no statutory
interpretation as such. What the Act
says is what is reasonable in light of all the circumstances and the nature
of the road.
The Chair asked the Solicitor to advise
Committee (or before the item rises to Council), in the last five years only,
how many lawsuits he was aware of that have been brought against the City
because it had not met a minimum standard or failed the reasonableness
test. Mr. McArthur could not provide
that information now, but was aware of some analysis that had been done about
three years ago. He agreed to update
that analysis and determine how many claims there have been.
Following some discussion with staff,
Councillor Leadman found it extraordinary that what is being recommended, i.e.,
an increase in road patrol frequencies to come in line with the regulations,
would require having to hire seven FTEs.
Mr. Manconi explained that it is actually 11 FTEs, but with the GPS
technology being brought in, staff anticipate being able to do it with
less. And, since the GPS first came in
(2002), there has actually been a reduction of three FTEs (from 14 to 11).
The councillor explained that although it is
referenced here, it is not very clear and she wondered if this will be
implemented as soon as these people start, or is it part of the package that is
now sitting in I.T. Mr. Manconi
clarified that this package is separate from the GPS in the salters; this is
more straightforward technology for which I.T. provides support to PWS. Therefore, the technology would be acquired,
but the staff would not start until the technology is here and
operational. Responding to additional
questions posed by the councillor, Mr. Manconi explained that they will stay
with their current staff and the maintenance planners will take the
information; the data will be ‘dumped’ at the end of a shift and will
automatically cut out work orders that state what has to be repaired.
To Mr. Kostuch, Councillor Leadman requested
a clarification of the resources required to address the recommended expansion
to the road patrol program. Mr. Kostuch
explained that during their follow-up audit in 2007, management in PWS was
asked what the status was of the recommendation on establishing road patrols. Their response at that time was that they
had not implemented it yet, but were looking at the feasibility of deploying
vacant FTEs to road patrols from within their existing budget. At the time, the feasibility study of
redeploying the vacant positions was not completed, so the AG’s office did not
look at the study. He was not aware
whether or not it has been completed.
When asked by the councillor whether the
vacant FTEs were being used for this, Mr. Manconi advised that that was
his statement to the AG because there were some vacancies at the time, and
operationally, staff looked at whether or not those resources could be
used. He noted however, that it was
going to affect service on the street and management decided not to use those
vacancies. He added that 10 FTEs were
reduced through the 2007 and 2008 efficiency program.
Councillor Leadman inquired whether the
vacant FTEs referred to by Mr. Kostuch previously were middle management
positions that could have been redeployed to this program. Mr. Kostuch explained it was not; they had
recommended that staff look at streamlining and reducing the management levels
within Surface Operations and that those savings (as suggested in the 2006
Audit), could be deployed to road patrols.
He reiterated the fact that at the time of their follow-up audit, that
recommendation had not been fully implemented.
When asked how many FTE cuts were made as a
result of recommendations from the AG, Mr. Manconi did not have that specific
information handy, but indicated that of the 43 recommendations, all but three
(which includes this report) have been completed. He further confirmed that the positions being requested are
full-time positions, whose duties will include a myriad of tasks related to
surface operations throughout the year.
Councillor
Leadman proposed the following Motion:
WHEREAS
There are significant capital pressures facing the City resulting from aging
and deteriorating infrastructure;
AND
WHEREAS Hundreds of millions of dollars are currently assigned to capital
projects annually in part due to the 2% capital levy;
AND
WHEREAS There are no efficiencies contained or outlined in the report on the
Road Patrol Program;
AND
WHEREAS The City must achieve $100M in efficiencies in addition to significant
budgetary pressures for 2009 and into the future;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Staff be directed to provide a complete list of
efficiencies associated with this program that includes but not limited to risk
mitigation and extension of capital assets.
THEREFORE
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A review be undertaken to determine the
cost-benefit of further expansion of this program to reduce the necessity of
expensive repaving of existing capital assets.
THEREFORE
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT No outside consultants and resources be retained to
fulfil this motion.
The councillor recognized that the role of
this program is to extend the life of the City’s assets and in so doing,
acknowledged the need to strike a balance in terms of monies that are
spent. She wondered whether or not
there had been a connection made in terms of reallocation to the department
from the capital projects to support this program. The Director agreed it is a factor in theory and anticipated that
it would extend the life of the City’s roads and is therefore the right thing
to do. He was unable to quantify that
in terms of what the payback rate of return is on investments. He added that there will be a lot of work
generated from this, especially within the first few years as the City plays
catch-up. He confirmed it would be the
investment in the long term where this will start to reap some returns.
In terms of risk management, Councillor
Leadman understood there would be a higher liability on sidewalks than on
roadways and Mr. Manconi confirmed this understanding, and noted that the City
has not received a lot of road claims.
In hearing this, the councillor explained her position that the City
should be careful not to over-react to something and to ensure a balance
between rural, urban and suburban roadways because this program would be
city-wide.
Following on the comment about risk
management, Chair McRae asked whether the 202 claims, which are received by the
City each year at a total annual liability exposure of $60,000 is the total
amount for that number of claims. Legal
staff could not respond, but Mr. Manconi confirmed that is the total, which
would be an average of $300 per claim.
The Chair suggested that when looked at on an individual basis, that is
nothing compared to what is being requested for additional resources and there
is no proof that those claims will decrease once those additional staff are
brought on. Mr. Manconi confirmed this
assessment, noting that the financial piece of risk management is not the main
driver.
Councillor Cullen appreciated staff bringing
this forward and being given an opportunity to do something here. He believed, however, this program is more
of a “nice to have” as opposed to a “need to have” and was not convinced that
Council ought to be expanding the program.
He understood it would be of benefit to the
road system, but he also recognized there are competing priorities and his
office already receives many calls from the community advising of potholes, et
cetera and these are sent over to Surface Operations that, in turn, do a very
good job of responding and so he questioned the need for patrols to do
this. He preferred that the debate on
this program be held during budget.
When asked how he proposed to move this
forward for consideration at budget, i.e., would the Committee approve the
report, with a caveat that it is only going forward to get it out to all of
Council, he explained that Recommendation 1 already refers to the fact it would
be considered during the 2009 budget.
He preferred that as opposed to recommending no further action, because
it would give the public the opportunity to comment on this proposal during the
budget process. Therefore, he was
prepared to adopt the report recommendations today, on the understanding that such
affirmation is not misinterpreted as approval at this point in time.
Councillor Bédard was seeking clarification
from staff that the road patrols would not simply be driving around and
identifying problems, but would also have the necessary expertise and equipment
to repair damage when necessary. The
Director confirmed that these patrols can do some of the minor maintenance
work, but would have to identify a missing manhole cover, for example, by a
flashing beacon or pilon until it is replaced.
Works that requires larger scale equipment or a crew would be put into
the queue.
The councillor asked Legal staff if the City
would meet all the requirements to be risk-free if it adopted this
program. Mr. McArthur confirmed this,
so long as it meets the minimum standard (provincial); if the City does not
meet that particular standard, there are other defences it can rely on to
defeat a claiim. For example: Was the City knowledgeable about the
circumstances of the roadway? Did it do
what was reasonable?.
Referring back to the comments made by the
Manager in the AG’s office, Councillor Bédard asked PWS staff if they had
carried out a review of their management levels. The Director confirmed that they had completed that review and
had subsequently reduced their management staff at all levels. When asked whether the money saved by those
reductions could be applied to this program, or whether it was applied to
elsewhere, Mr. Manconi advised that in 2007 and 2008 as part of the
Corporate Efficiency Programs, the department gave up $1M and FTEs each year.
Since there would appear to be no money left,
the councillor presumed that the AG’s recommendation that supporting the
expansion of this program should be redirected from the existing complement,
would no longer apply. Mr. Kostuch
reiterated the fact that at the time of their follow-up audit, that
recommendation had not been completed.
If management has completed it, he was not aware of that, nor was he
aware of what was done with those savings if in fact they did offer them up for
2008, because they would not have audited what they did with those
savings.
Based on remarks made by Mr. Manconi and in
response to a question posed by Councillor Bédard, Mr. Kostuch agreed
therefore, that the AG’s recommendation that it be redirected would no longer
apply.
Councillor Bloess noted that the majority of
calls from the public reporting road deficiencies are channelled through 3-1-1
and suggested that the money being recommended for this program, might be
better spent being directed to the 3-1-1 operation. He provided an example where a deficiency was pointed out and
while it was recognized and flagged for repair, the remedial work has yet to be
done. This lead him to believe that the
identification (as would be done through this program) is not the problem, but
the actual repairing that causes the delay.
In response to the suggestion to focus more on the 3-1-1 service to
identify deficiencies and then have the department take care of them, Mr.
Manconi advised that while he could not comment on the 3-1-1 service, he
explained that the focus of the report is moving from a reactionary
organization to a proactive one. He
wholly supported residents calling in to report deficiencies through the 3-1-1
system, but this report deals with the systematic approach to the regular
inspections and the planning of the work.
Councillor Bloess explained that he was not
quite convinced of the need for this program and maintained that an enhanced
3-1-1 service would provide an avenue to garner more information about problems
on the roadways, well before any inspector picks them up and he firmly believed
that is the direction the Committee should go.
He advised that he would not support the recommendations going forward
and opted to wait until budget to make a further determination.
Councillor Thompson suggested that other
operators in the City that are out and about as part of their duties (including
bus drivers) could keep an eye out for roadway deficiencies and report them
when they see them. He thought that if
the existing roads staff perhaps were at a higher level of observation, they
too might be able to advise of these while doing other repairs. He acknowledged concerns about liability,
but believed the City was well protected on that front and suggested what was
required was simply an enhancement of road staff and to continue to call on
residents to let the City know when there is a pothole, et cetera.
There was some discussion between Councillor
Leadman and the Director with regards to standards and the councillor believed
the City would be more at risk by setting a standard that is so high it cannot
even come close to it. The Director
explained that he would want to discuss the standards with legal and risk
management to determine what the implications are (if any), if the City drops
down to those standards. It has already
set the bar, with Highway 174 being the highest standard. If that is reduced, the City needs to know
what the implications would be and there are any risks associated with
that. He confirmed that approval of
this report would bring the City up to the standard.
Councillor Leadman stated that because the
staff report only deals with the costs and does not show the potential
efficiencies and cost savings that can be borne through this program, the
Motion she had submitted would be a lot more relevant if staff want to be able
to prove that this report has a beneficial impact to the City and that this
program can be done within an existing structure in terms of the Capital
projects. She asked if the Director saw
a benefit to gathering the information as outlined in her Motion. Before responding, Mr. Manconi first touched
on the issue of risk management and stated that he was not aware of any
multi-million dollar claim associated with the the road maintenance function
and therefore did not anticipate any significant swings in the numbers that are
shown in the report. Specific to the
councillor’s Motion, the Director reiterated that he did not believe he could
bring back a quantitative analysis that would be meaningful. He went on to state that it is a question of
operating and maintaining the infrastructure in a proactive fashion as the best
for the life cycle of that asset.
Based on these comments, the councillor
indicated she would withdraw her Motion.
Councillor Legendre put forward the following Motion:
WHEREAS there are currently roads that do not
receive the attention of the current staff assigned to the road patrol
function;
WHEREAS roads do not deteriorate in a manner
that is precipitous leading to unsafe conditions as might perhaps be the case
with bridges;
WHEREAS the local community
can be counted on to report exceptional physical deterioration or missing
manhole covers causing unsafe conditions and a need for a prompt response;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Road Patrol
Frequency for the various road categories be adjusted so that:
·
All roads
receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that,
·
The road
patrol staffing level remain at the current level, and that,
·
Staff
report, within 2 months, on the proposed examination frequency for the
different road categories under the revised policy.
He inquired what the frequency is of
examining bridges is in Ottawa and was advised by staff that the inspection of
bridges is regulated by the Infrastructure Management Branch. The councillor asked that information be
provided by the time this item rises to Council. Staff also agreed to provide the pavement management inspection,
which includes the inspection of all the main roads in terms of pavement
distress, et cetera.
Councillor Legendre explained that the intent
of his Motion is to allow staff to rejig the frequency of examinations, using
existing resources.
The minimum is to set a floor and there
would be some roads visited at a frequency of, presumably, much higher than
that minimum, but it would depend on the resources currently available. Legal staff recognized that as shown in
Document 1, the City is currently not meeting the standard and therefore what
is recommended in the Motion would be an improvement on that. The councillor further clarified that it
would be left to staff to determine what the minimum and frequency would be,
but presumed that the lowest class roads would have the minimum and the higher
class roads would have a higher frequency.
Councillor Thompson asked that following
working on a rural road, do the operators give a report stating whatever
failures might have been noticed through the course of their day, for
example. Mr. Manconi confirmed this is
all part of the changes that have been implemented; operators have program
sheets and they log the activities they have done and there’s also a comments
section for deficiencies in areas needing attention.
When asked by the councillor if it could be
stated that the roads staff are part of that patrol right now, Mr. Manconi
indicated that would depend on the patrol frequency; it has to be a systematic
approach, with consistent documentation for it to be useable, not only for planning
but also for litigation and so forth.
In the summary of the report, he advised that what staff is trying to
convey is that the City is not meeting the standard now and what is being
recommended will ensure that it will meet those standards.
Moved by J. Legendre
WHEREAS there are currently roads that
do not receive the attention of the current staff assigned to the road patrol
function;
WHEREAS roads do not deteriorate in a
manner that is precipitous leading to unsafe conditions as might perhaps be the
case with bridges;
WHEREAS the local community can be
counted on to report exceptional physical deterioration or missing manhole
covers causing unsafe conditions and a need for a prompt response;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Road
Patrol Frequency for the various road categories be adjusted so that:
·
All roads
receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that,
·
The road
patrol staffing level remain at the current level, and that,
·
Staff report,
within 2 months, on the proposed examination frequency for the different road
categories under the revised policy.
CARRIED
Councillor Cullen suggested that the
Committee approve the staff recommendations, with the clear proviso that in
doing so, it is simply to move the item forward to Council for consideration as
part of the 2009 budget.
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and Transportation
Committee recommend that Council approve the Surface Operations Branch of the
Public Works & Services Department include, as part of the Draft 2009 Operating
and Capital Budget Estimates for consideration, the following:
1. That the Road Patrol Program be expanded from its current
state to be aligned with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario Regulation
239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads per Option 1 of this report and as
recommended by the Auditor General and the Rural Summit.
2. That the 2009 estimated operating cost of $996,000 and 11
FTE’s and estimated one-time capital costs of $430,000 for this program be
provided as follows:
a. Existing funding within the SOP Operating Budget of $355,000
and 4 FTE’s from the current road patrol program;
b. That remaining funding required to implement the Road Patrol
program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures estimated
at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and one-time
capital funding of $430,000.
3. WHEREAS there are currently roads that do not receive the
attention of the current staff assigned to the road patrol function;
WHEREAS roads do not deteriorate in a
manner that is precipitous leading to unsafe conditions as might perhaps be the
case with bridges;
WHEREAS the local community can be
counted on to report exceptional physical deterioration or missing manhole
covers causing unsafe conditions and a need for a prompt response;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Road
Patrol Frequency for the various road categories be adjusted so that:
·
All roads
receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that,
·
The road
patrol staffing level remain at the current level, and that,
·
Staff report,
within 2 months, on the proposed examination frequency for the different road
categories under the revised policy.
CARRIED, as amended, with R. Bloess
dissenting
The Committee noted that the report
recommendations, as amended, would be considered by the Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Committee on Thursday, 11 September, following which it would rise to
Council on 24 September and subsequent discussion during budget.
WHEREAS there are
currently roads that do not receive the attention of the current staff assigned
to the road patrol function;
WHEREAS roads do not
deteriorate in a manner that is precipitous leading to unsafe conditions as
might perhaps be the case with bridges;
WHEREAS the local
community can be counted on to report exceptional physical deterioration or
missing manhole covers causing unsafe conditions and a need for a prompt
response;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the Road Patrol Frequency for the various road categories be adjusted so
that:
·
All roads
receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that,
·
The road patrol staffing level remain at the
current level, and that,
·
Staff report, within 2 months, on the proposed
examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised
policy.
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee and Transportation Committee recommend that Council approve
the Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works & Services Department
include as part of the Draft 2009 Operating and Capital Budget Estimates for
consideration the following:
1.
That the Road Patrol Program be expanded from its
current state to be aligned with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (Ontario
Regulation 239/02) on Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads per Option 1 of this report
and as recommended by the Auditor General and the Rural Summit
2. That the 2009 estimated operating cost
of $996,000 and 11 FTE’s and estimated one-time capital costs of $430,000 for
this program be provided as follows:
a. Existing
funding within the SOP Operating Budget of $355,000 and 4 FTE’s from the
current road patrol program
b.
That remaining funding required to implement the
Road Patrol program be added to the 2009 Operating and Capital Budget pressures
estimated at an additional annual operating funds of $641,000 and 7 FTE’s and
one-time capital funding of $430,000.
3. That the Road Patrol Frequency for the various road
categories be adjusted so that:
·
All roads
receive a minimum twice-a-year examination, and that;
·
The road patrol staffing level remain at the
current level, and that;
·
Staff report, within 2 months, on the proposed
examination frequency for the different road categories under the revised
policy.
