A8
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 24, 1996
Dept. File No. SA
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Finance
SUBJECT: 1997-99 Capital Plan Process - CityPlan,
Staff Review Group, and Public Information Program
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council approve the establishment of a Capital Plan
staff review group, including the proposed membership, as
further described in this report, and that the staff review
group be instructed to report back to Council in early July
with a short-list of recommended projects to be included in
the City's 1997-99 Capital Plan.
B. THAT Council approve the proposed Public Information Program
as further described in this report, and the Director of
Finance be instructed to report back to Council with further
details and a suggested budget for the Public Information
Program.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Corporate Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
The City's present policy is to plan for capital expenditures on a
three-year cycle. Funding for Capital expenditures comes from a mix
of borrowed funds, cost-sharing from senior levels of government
(e.g., conditional revenue sharing grants) and a contribution from the
Operating Budget (pay-as-you-go financing).
The borrowing of funds (except for borrowing for sewer and water
purposes) requires approval of the voters through a capital
plebiscite. The plebiscite usually takes place at the same time as
the civic elections.
In past plans, Council has appointed a staff group to review capital
project submissions and make recommendations to Council on the
composition of the Plan.
On June 6, 1995, City Council adopted CityPlan: Directions for
Vancouver as a "broad vision to guide policy decisions, corporate work
priorities, budgets, and capital plans."
PURPOSE
This report recommends the creation of a Staff Review Group to review
capital project submissions and make recommendations to Council on the
Plan content, describes how CityPlan directions will be addressed in
the submission and review process, and proposes a public process to
inform the public on the process and elicit their comments on Plan
priorities.
BACKGROUND
In terms of the City's 1997-99 Capital Plan, Council has already taken
the following actions:
- Agreed on a Capital Plan development schedule.
- Agreed on a three-year term for the plan.
- Agreed that the Capital Plan borrowing plebiscite would be held at
the same time as the 1996 civic elections.
- Agreed on three categories for project submissions to the plan.
- Category A - projects that maintain existing capital plant,
address safety and security concerns, and mandated environmental
improvements.
- Category B - projects that maintain existing service levels and
remedy service deficiencies.
- Category C - projects that increase service levels, provide new
services, beautification, and non-mandated environmental
improvements.
- Agreed on a financial ceiling for the 1994-96 Capital Plan of $175
million.
- Approved an allocation equal to 14% of the financial limit ($24.5
million) to the Park Board with report back in June with details of
their proposed Capital Plan.
- Approved a maximum allocation of $5 million to Supplementary
Capital budget.
- Approved a maximum allocation of $5 million for affordable housing.
- Instructed departments to use CityPlan directions to guide capital
plans.
This present report deals with the relationship of the Capital Plan
with CityPlan, the establishment of a staff review group, and a
public information program. All three will set the stage for the next
phase in the process of developing the final content of the 1997-99
Capital Plan.
DISCUSSION
1. Relationship of CityPlan to the Capital Plan
City Council approved CityPlan in June 1995 and instructed departments
to use CityPlan directions to guide policy decisions, corporate work
priorities, budgets and capital plans. A major theme of the CityPlan
direction on Financial Accountability is that the City should
re-direct rather than increase spending to achieve CityPlan
directions.
The 1997-99 Capital Plan process is the first opportunity for the City
to consider capital expenditures within the CityPlan framework. For
many staff who are preparing or reviewing Capital Plan submissions
this will also be their first encounter with CityPlan directions "in
action". For all of us it will be a challenge to go through a fairly
familiar process with a new road map.
In each step of the Capital Plan process, from the formulation and
submission of project ideas to establishing priorities to
communicating with the public to the decision on what goes into the
final plan, CityPlan directions will be considered.
2. Establishment of a Staff Review Group
As a matter of policy and practice, City Council has relied on the
recommendations of staff review groups to assist its decisions on the
content of past Capital Plans. In terms of the City's 1997-1999
Capital Plan, we are proposing that a staff review group again be
established for that purpose.
The terms of reference for this group will be to review capital
project submissions in the three categories previously approved by
Council and make recommendations on a short-list of projects for
inclusion in the Plan. In the past, the staff review group has been
comprised of representatives of the major departments directly
involved with Capital Works, and with Finance in an advise and guide
role.
The proposed membership of the staff review group is set out below.
The department heads of the participating departments will be
responsible for assigning a staff member to the review group.
Financial Services staff will also provide financial analyses and
historical research services to assist the review group.
- City Manager - Deputy City Manager
- Engineering Services - General Manager
- Corporate Services - Director of Finance
- Public Safety - Chief Constable
- Community Services - Manager of Non-Market Housing
- Park Board - General Manager
- CityPlan - Director of CityPlans
It is expected that the staff review group will commence its meetings
in mid-May and conclude its deliberations with a short-list of
recommended capital projects by mid-June, for Council consideration
and community review in early July.
3. Proposed Public Process
As in the previous 1994-96 Capital Plan process, there will be a
public information and consultation program. In the CityPlan section
on Financial Accountability, it states that there should more
opportunities for citizens to participate in setting City budget
priorities and selecting projects for Capital Plan consideration and
more information provided on the nature and location of City spending.
Staff will be exploring a variety of options for providing public
information about the Plan and input to the Capital Planning process.
These include the use of newspaper advertising, the Internet, and
community television. The objective would be to provide the public
with information about the financial limitations in the Plan, the
kinds of projects that are proposed, and the difficult decisions that
are required in developing a final plan.
In this process, the public will have opportunities to ask questions,
discuss proposed projects and provide comments to Council through a
public opinion survey, public meetings, the Internet, and mail and
fax-in questionnaires. Council will consider this input prior to
finalizing the Plan in September. Once the Plan has been finalized the
content will be communicated to the public through a pre-election
information process involving print and electronic media.
Further details on the public process and a budget will be presented
to Council in early July when the Staff Review Group reports back on
the submissions to the Plan and their recommended Plan.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The 1997-99 Capital Plan will be guided by the CityPlan directions
which encompass a range of social considerations. While CityPlan says
that spending should be re-directed rather than increased, there is
also a clear message from people that they supported spending on
services such as subsidized housing, parks, crime prevention and
improved transit. Staff will be commenting how the various project
submissions relate to CityPlan.
CONCLUSION
This report comments on the relationship between CityPlan and the
Capital Plan, recommends that a Capital Plan staff review group be
created to review submissions and make recommendations to Council on
the content of the City's 1997-99 Capital Plan. The report also
proposes a public information program.
* * * * *