Council Member Inquiry/Motion Form

Demande de renseignements d’un membre du Conseil /Formulaire de motion

 

From/Exp.:

 

Councillor Leadman

Date:

 

17 September 2009

 

File/Dossier :

 

 

 

To/Dest. :

 

Steve Box, Manager, Policy Coordination & Outreach, CMO

cc:        G. Craig, Manager, DCMs Office, ICS

            C. Curry, Specialist, Strategic Projects, ICS

            J. Rupert, Specialist, ISCS Legislative Agenda

 

 

Subject/Objet :

 

Inquiry No. TTC-18-09 – Leadman –       Rapid Transit Plan – Supplementary Funding Options

 

Inquiry/Demande de renseignements :

 

From the Transit Committee meeting of 16 September:

 

1.         In the memo sent by the Deputy City Manager on 16 September 2009 in regards to a 2nd phasing scenario, it noted that a “re-grouping” and an “alternative” funding option were distributed to partner governments. While the recognition of the rationale for these decisions is understood (if not supported) the method in which these changes to the Council approved implementation strategy contained in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is troubling.

 

Please answer the following questions in regards to the official presentation of a different TMP phasing option:

 

a.         Was appropriate approval and sign off undertaken before the presentation of this 2nd phasing option?

b.         Was the TMP modified to include a 2nd implementation scenario as presented to partner levels of government? If not, how was the 2nd implementation scenario presented when it clearly did not represent the central guiding transportation planning document approved by Council that identified a strict implementation scenario?

c.         Did the presentation of this option go beyond Council direction which sought to advise partner governments that the City is seeking funding for projects in Phase 1 (e.g. to fund all phase 1) and to determine which projects may be funded through the existing funding scenarios?

 

 

 

d.         Does ascertaining which projects can be funded under the current funding parameters (approved on November 28th, 2008) pre-authorize changing of the TMP and associated funding applications to meet those funding parameters without Council approval?

e.         Was there any official indication that the 2nd phasing option was a preferred implementation scenario for a partner government?

f.          Why was this phasing scenario singled out as compared to numerous other phasing scenarios which could have been presented as permutations of Phase 1 which also could have been completed within ten years and grow ridership consistent with the City’s TMP?

g.         If City staff were aware that the approved TMP implementation scenario could not be implemented when recognition of the “very likely limited funding availability and pressure from other levels of government to begin and complete project construction” was known, why was this not clearly conveyed to Council during the approval of the TMP and why did City staff not draft and support a TMP implementation and project selection that would have suited those considerations?

 

Response/Réponse