Speaking on the proposed fare increase, Commissioner Byrne asked whether staff considered increasing the cash fares, since OC Transpo is encouraging people to use tickets. The Director, Planning and Development, Dr. Helen Gault, advised that, because so many people now use tickets, increasing cash rates would not have a great impact. She added that a .05 cent increase on tickets will provide $870,000 in extra revenue; cash fares would have had to be increased by .25 cents to get $835,000 in additional revenues. Dr. Gault pointed out this would result in a cash fare as high as $3.75 for Express buses.

Commissioner Byrne asked how much needs to be added to get $330,000 (the adult Transpass) and then $530,000. Dr. Gault replied the cash fare would become quite awkward, noting the current regular drop fare is $2.25 (at least two coins): increasing it to $2.40 (at least four coins) would generate increased revenues of approximately $400,000.

Responding to questions from Commissioner Byrne on the Para Transpo report, Pat Larkin, Director of Para Transpo services, clarified the $150,000 includes purchase of service from Laidlaw, ($85,000), which will generate 4,250 trips and the taxi pilot project ($65,000) which will generate 4,250 trips. He explained that the taxi project is for ambulatory clients and it will use all available cabs (including accessible taxis). This will reduce the demand on accessible vehicles and be more cost effective, since it is approximately 43% cheaper to provide a trip by taxi than by specialized transit, based on an hourly contract.

Commissioner Byrne said she felt increasing trips by 8,500 was merely a stop-gap measure. The number of trip refusals will only increase with the growing population of seniors and the situation should be addressed before it gets out of control. Mr. Larkin indicated staff expect productivity improvements that will match the 8,500 new trips.

He noted that productivity levels have now risen to the same level that existed prior to the introduction of the new system. Mr. Larkin thought the new cancellation policy would also help deal with the problem.

Commissioner Holmes asked if any discussions have been held with the taxi companies. Mr. Larkin said a lot of work has been undertaken since the last report to the Commission on this matter in 1994. Approval in principle will allow staff to continue gathering more information. Mr. Larkin informed the Committee that the cost of an average 10 kilometer trip will be approximately 25% less by taxi, i.e., $15 as compared to $20 on Para Transpo. Commissioner Holmes asked whether only taxi companies would be eligible to provide the service. Mr. Larkin said staff will seek additional information on this before making a final determination. Responding to questions from Councillor Holmes about the eligibility criteria review, Mr. Larkin indicated that interviews could be held with clients. He added that, to his knowledge, medical professionals were not involved in the interviews in other municipalities, however the municipalities of Peel and Kingston consulted with occupational therapists.

Commissioner Legendre asked whether the current contract with Laidlaw prevents OC Transpo from dealing with another supplier. Mr. Larkin replied that OC Transpo can go elsewhere to conduct the taxi pilot project. Commissioner Legendre expressed his support, noting he has been a long-time proponent of expanding the spectrum of Para Transpo services.

Commissioner Legendre asked whether consideration was given to a ride-sharing promotion/coordination bureau for Ottawa-Carleton. Dr. Gault indicated that the Transportation Demand Management Program which involves OC Transpo, the Environment and Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Approvals Department is looking into these kinds of activities.

Commissioner Legendre said he was pleased to see references about the Global Positioning System (GPS) and "Smart Card" applications in the future, and he urged that consideration be given to linking these systems together. Commenting on suggestions for reduced transit rates for low income individuals and families, Commissioner Legendre pointed out the public transit system represents a low-cost way to circulate. He spoke about an even greater inequity, the fact that people living in rental accommodation pay over 130% more in taxes, and he called this discrimination at the source.

Commissioner Doucet asked how much money is needed to eliminate the 35,000 trip refusal backlog. The General Manager, G. Diamond, replied this depends on the mix of use; using taxis would be cheaper and using the current contractor will require $700,000. Commissioner Doucet said he felt the Commission has to begin to address this and reinvest in Para Transpo. He expressed the view there are times when debt is a reasonable alternative to address a difficult situation and he asked whether he was being unreasonable in this assumption.

The Regional Finance Commissioner, Jack LeBelle, said the staff forecast is that, at the end of the year 2000, there will be just under $500 million of total debt. He spoke about Council’s debt management strategy which has been in place since the early 80s, indicating that Council is losing ground in this area. Everyone is aware of the impact of debt on future years’ operating budgets. Mr. LeBelle said he would not recommend that the debt be increased.

Commissioner Bellemare asked whether staff could confirm the desirability of lowering the average life-span of buses from the current 14 years to 9 years. The Director, Equipment Division, Art Phelan, clarified that the KPMG Report has recommended the maximum life of buses be 12 years without a re-build. In staff’s experience, buses need a re-build between 8 and 10 years to deal with corrosion. This is the rationale for staff’s proposal for a 16 year total life with a rebuild in the 8^th or 9^th year. Mr. Phelan indicated that re-builds currently cost between $60,000.00 and $100,000.00 depending on the extent of work to be done: the cost to re-build an engine is $20,000.

Commissioner Bellemare wanted to know why taxis need to be accessible if they are meant for ambulatory clients and whether shifting these clients to taxis will free-up space on the service provided by Laidlaw. Pat Larkin indicated that service would be freed up. He pointed out that 70% of ridership is ambulatory and 30% use either wheelchairs or scooters; between 10,000 and 12,000 people are registered for service. Commissioner Bellemare inquired whether a percentage decrease in the cost of service would equate to the same percentage increase in the number of trips provided. Mr. Larkin clarified that, in the industry, it is on average 40 to 45% cheaper to provide a trip by taxi. Based on summary analysis, Para Transpo staff estimate the number will be in the 25% range but there will be cost advantages; handling trips by taxi will allow for improved productivity on wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

Commissioner M. McGoldrick-Larsen asked whether there was any information about what percentage of the million dollars approved by the Community Services Committee for the Task Force on Poverty includes funding for transportation initiatives. In addition, is there information available about whether Purchase of Service agencies will be able to provide transportation assistance for the clients they serve.

Chair Loney responded that one of the problems with bringing the budget process forward is that a lot of information is not yet available. The final report of the Task Force on Poverty is not ready, and the material considered by the CSC represents only regional staff’s estimation of what are likely to be priority areas. Chair Loney said it was his understanding that $350,000 of the million dollars would be used for the further subsidy of transit tickets or passes, to be handled through the Social Services Department. Commissioner McGoldrick-Larsen emphasized the importance of having as much information as possible to be able to respond, in a knowledgeable manner, to all the Corporation’s requirements.

Commissioner Davis asked whether staff have looked into removing some of the impediments such as required qualifications and the bidding process to ensure lower costs are achieved. Mr. Phelan described the bonds required, a bid bond to protect the Commission in the advent of failure on the part of the re-builder, and a surety bond to ensure the value of the buses; there is also a 100% holdback provision payable on delivery of the vehicle. Commissioner Davis asked for a comment on the contention that OC Transpo is paying double the price because of the contracting process. Mr. Phelan said that, while there are some additional costs associated with both the bid and surety bonds, he did not believe this doubled the cost of the contract.

Commissioner Davis inquired about the total amount spent on contracting out re-builds. Art Phelan replied this amount is $4.5 million per year. Commissioner Davis said this was a considerable amount, and she offered to meet with staff to see whether there are other firms that could provide more competitive rates. Chair Loney asked that staff prepare a brief report back to Committee on how re-builds are done and any outstanding matters could be considered at that time.

Responding to a question from Commissioner Byrne, Mr. Jim English, Director, Financial Services, indicated that the Para Transpo operating reserve fund will open in 2000 with a balance of $1.3 million. accommodate

At this point, Chair Loney read a Motion from Commissioner Doucet, requesting that $240,000 be added to the Para Transpo budget estimates instead of $150,000 to begin reducing the number of un-accommodated trips. Responding to a query from Chair Loney, Pat Larkin confirmed this amount would translate into 13,000 trips as opposed to the 8,500 trips envisioned in the staff recommendation.

Chair Loney spoke about the need to put into perspective the number of un-accommodated trips compared to the amount of service provided in Ottawa-Carleton. He pointed out that only the City of Edmonton provides the same number of trips, per capita, and that Ottawa-Carleton provides twice as much service, per capita, as the City of Toronto. Chair Loney posited that service in those cities is limited because of the cost implications. He made reference to a document which lists the "top forty" Para Transpo users, noting the top user received 108 trips in November 1999, at a subsidy cost of $20 per trip. The number of trips taken by the top forty clients ranges from 65 to 108 one-way trips. Chair Loney said he was only presenting this data to make sure Commissioners are aware of the cost implications. He added that more than half the top ten users in November were refused trips on top of those they received and this indicates that their demands are also not being met.

Chair Loney referred to the comment about people having a "democratic right to receive as much service as they want". He posited this argument could apply to regular and Para Transpo service for residents of Ottawa-Carleton who live outside the Urban Transit Area, who do not currently receive service. Chair Loney recalled that the recent seniors’ pass "top up" requirement resulted in many clients reverting to regular service, with apparently little or no impact to themselves. He expressed the view that both the Transit Services Committee and the Commission have avoided reviewing the eligibility criteria for a long time and now is the time to act. Chair Loney pointed out that the Accessible Transit Advisory Committee has, for a number of years, asked that more service be provided to those who really need. The Commission must accede to ATAC’s request. He put forward the view there is a limit to what the property tax base can sustain and practical limits must be established. Chair Loney urged the Committee to approve additional service as recommended by staff and to commit to moving forward on the eligibility criteria review.

Commissioner Davis asked whether staff could indicate how many trips the top person in the "top 40" list had requested. Mr. Larkin said he would provide the information. He added that some individuals received 20% more and cancelled trips.

In reply to a further question from Commissioner Davis, Mr. Larkin indicated that the rate of same-day cancellations was 15% prior to June 1^st; it decreased to 11% with the introduction of the seniors’ pass "top-up". He posited that, with the cancellation policy in place, the numbers will continue to decrease throughout 2000. Commissioner Davis wanted to know what kinds of checks and balances are in place to ascertain the need for trips. Mr. Larkin replied that staff have looked at the trip pattern of the top five persons on the "top 40" list and have ascertained these trips were for workshop-type operations, and/or for post-secondary education purposes. A high percentage of the trips taken by the top person (108) was for recreational purposes. Mr. Larkin added that, at this stage, very few municipalities in Ontario operate specialized transit service based on trip purpose.

Commissioner Davis asked for information on the routes to be made accessible and how this will be determined. Chair Loney directed staff to provide a copy of the list to Committee members as soon as possible so that it can be reviewed prior to final consideration of the budget.

Commissioner Byrne said she agreed with Chair Loney’s comments about the definition of necessity, however she felt that recreational activities are crucial to a person’s mental and emotional health. She stated that, even with the strategies proposed, the 35,000 refusals will not be eliminated. The Motion put forward by Commissioner Doucet represents a small step in the right direction and will only cost $90,000 more than the original proposal.

Commissioner Davis expressed concern that many in the Region, particularly seniors, are missing medical appointments because of trip refusals. She noted this ends up costing the community more because it must then pick up ambulances and hospital costs. She said people need access to regular medical attention and as the population ages, the demand will increase. The Commissioner agreed there is some abuse of the system but this will be addressed through the eligibility criteria review.

The following Motion was then considered:

Moved by C. Doucet

Chair Loney read a Motion from Commissioner Holmes, calling for the use of any further social services caseload reductions to provide bus passes for persons living in poverty. Commissioner Holmes asked for the Committee’s support, noting any such measures will help these individuals get to job interviews, access health services and meet their other needs. She said staff could recommend whether the funds should be disbursed through the Social Services Department or through community partners such as the community health and resource centres.

Commissioner Davis said the Commission must find a way for persons on social assistance to access buses at a much reduced rate, primarily during off-peak hours, so they can keep medical appointments or look for work. She felt this approach would need to be handled with sensitivity in order not to "mark" these clients, but it could be a way to get people moving across Ottawa-Carleton/

Moved by D. Holmes

CARRIED, as amended

Commissioner Kreling moved the staff recommendation relative to the 2000 Draft Estimates, the proposed rate increase and the 2000 Draft Capital Estimates. The Commissioner said he didn’t relish the thought of increasing fares in the year 2000, but given the financial difficulties described by staff, it is important to find a balance in what the taxpayer is expected to pick up. He noted the Commission is trying to improve the service, make it more reliable and expand it through the new corporate culture emerging at OC Transpo, with the cooperation of employees across the organization. Commissioner Kreling said a number of issues under discussion for the past several years are now coming to fruition, and a slight fare increase may be timely to help the overall bottom line.

Chair Loney asked the Finance Commissioner to comment on the need for further expenditures in the Capital program, over and above what is being recommended by staff. Mr. LeBelle confirmed that, in order to meet emerging needs, OC Transpo would need more than the capital funding requested. In reply to a further question from Chair Loney, Mr. LeBelle indicated that the Capital budget does give OC Transpo authority to order buses in 2000 for delivery in 2001. He reminded Committee members that the corporate debt management objective is to arrive at the end of year 2000 with a debt no higher than it was at the beginning of the present term of Council. Mr. LeBelle pointed out staff have managed to achieve this, and are forecasting a debt of $441.7 million at the end of the term from $442.3 million at the beginning of the term. If the Committee wish to order vehicles in the year 2000, authority will need to be brought forward in 2000, thereby increasing the debt at the end of the year 2000.

Chair Loney expressed the view this will need to be done, given the likelihood that the soon-to-be-appointed Transition Team may set the 2001 budget, and OC Transpo may find itself in the position of having to wait another four years before it can order more buses (order time is 18 months to 2 years).

Chair Loney posited that, by 2001, some federal infrastructure money will be available, and this will have a downward impact on the amount of the debt having to be placed on the books. He reminded Committee members about staff’s presentation on coping with old buses and the cost of refurbishing these vehicles. Chair Loney said this will continue to be the case unless additional funding is provided for this purpose at this time. Mr. LeBelle indicated that the amount required would be $21.6 million.

Commissioner Holmes asked for a comparison of the 1997 budget to that of 2000. Mr. LeBelle indicated that the budget increased by approximately $300 million during this period of time. Commissioner Holmes wanted to know whether the Finance Commissioner was advocating retaining the debt at the same level, in light of the growth. He replied that, in order for Council to live up to its longstanding objective of debt management, and as a result of recent local service realignments, strategic decisions were made during the last two budget cycles that have increased the debt. Mr. LeBelle added that the 2000 budget, at this point, provides Council with a debt no higher than it was three years ago.

Moved by D. Holmes