Public Commons

• Access Request 2010-0545 - parks and recreation partnership agreements

Part of Information and Transparency Partnerships

Re: Access Request 2010-0545 clarifications

7/14/2010 12:09 PM

I need some clarification for a few of the items:

1. The 2009 “Internal Partnership Joint Venture Inventory” table (pp.13-26) has many duplications. It lists 193 items but the actual number is 120, when duplications are taken into account. At the same time, some relationships similar to those listed seem to be missing. For instance, there are some kids’ sports programs listed but not the Swansea Hockey League program run at Rennie Rink (huge). Some commercial leases are listed as joint ventures (e.g Grenadier Group), others are not (e.g. Tuggs). What are the criteria for inclusion in this list, and why the doubles?

2. The 2009 Donations category (p.10-11) lists some city bodies as donating, e.g. Urban Design Services and the Toronto Police Services Board. However, some donations seem to be missing, e.g. the NHL Players’ Association skates/gloves/sticks/helmets etc. for a number of Toronto Rinks. This is puzzling because the last several NHLPA donation applications were written (in one case, rewritten from local Rec staff’s text) by partnership staff. What are the criteria for this list?

3. The “2009 partnership summary under $5000” table (p.28) is numbered 1 through 7, but there is no explanation of what the numbers stand for. What are the codes here?

4. The 2009 sponsorships summary (p.27) and the 2009 service manager pdf (p.26) are separate from the large joint venture inventory, but the items seem to be similar. Why are these lists separate?

5. The 2009 grants summary (p.12) lists both internal and external bodies as grantors. What are the criteria for inclusion in the “grants” as opposed to the “donations” list? I would much appreciate it if you could ask the Partnership office to clarify what was meant in these records. I also remember that a decision was to be made on July 5 about the other material I asked for.

Subject: Re: Access Request 2010-0545 clarifications

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010

I'm guessing that my July 14 2010 e-mail got misplaced by the Toronto Partnership Office, since I never did get a reply to my request for clarifications. I did receive the three letters of agreement that had to be vetted by the other parties -- thanks.

There's a bit of a puzzle here. I asked for all the agreements/contracts related to 2008/2009 PFR-connected partnerships. I received three letters of agreement. But the Toronto Office of Partnerships web page said there were 66 PFR-related partnerships for 2008 and 109 for 2009: %newwin%%l newwin%http://www.toronto.ca/top/facts.htm. Does this mean that out of their list of 66 + 109 partnerships they have only three written agreements?

Beyond that, a different FOI access request, specifically about Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (2010-0548) lists five MLSE-funded rink projects completed in 2009, in a table entitled "MLSE City of Toronto Rink and Arena Partnership Contribution Summary." A previous FOI request, 2010-0547, lists one rink project completed in 2006, one in 2007, and six in 2008. I asked for copies of the individual MLSE rink agreements. The answer was "None has been executed at this time" (May 6, 2010, 2010- 0548). As well, none of these projects are listed in the partnership office table from the 2010-0545 request. Why?

August 2010 (response retrieved after being mislaid): From Aretha Phillip Trought (who is now on secondment to the provincial government)

At the beginning each of year, Divisions are asked to report on their partnership activity from the previous year. This data is collected from all across the corporation. While the TOP office provides criteria for identification of partnership type, it is also open to the reporters interpretation and therefore could be subject to errors.

The TOP office has developed these definitions to determine the types of partnerships that the City engages in..

A. Donations

Cash or in-kind contributions, whether designated or not, which provide assistance to the City. They are given without return consideration. Qualifies for a tax receipt

B. Sponsorship

Contributions to City-run (or endorsed) events, programs and facilities. In return the donor receives a pre-determined benefit (i.e. advertising, on-site presence).

It does not qualify for charitable tax receipt. Corporate sponsorship is often done in exchange for publicity.

C. Service Manager

Where the City receives monies or goods and uses these assets for another’s benefit. The City has the responsibility to direct the funds according to the regulations or guidelines of the third party, which is often the provincial or federal government. The City may also contribute financially, as well as acting as facilitator.

D. Joint Ventures

Initiatives in which the City and one or more partners invest in a venture so that all participants contribute assets, share risks, and have mutual liability. This is not a continuing relationship between participants. Once the project is completed, the joint venture may cease to exist.

E. Grants

Financial assistance received by the City in the form of money, property or technical assistance in lieu of money from foundations, corporations, governments, small business and individuals. The process involves the City submitting a proposal to a potential funder, either on the City's own initiative or in response to a Request for Proposals from the funder. Most grants are made for a specific project and require some level of reporting.

F. Partnerships valued at $5K and under

here are the responses to the requesters questions. Most of the answers would be captured in my info above.

1. The 2009 “Internal Partnership Joint Venture Inventory” table (pp.13-26) has many duplications. It lists 193 items but the actual number is 120, when duplications are taken into account. At the same time, some relationships similar to those listed seem to be missing. For instance, there are some kids’ sports programs listed but not the Swansea Hockey League program run at Rennie Rink (huge). Some commercial leases are listed as joint ventures (e.g Grenadier Group), others are not (e.g. Tuggs). What are the criteria for inclusion in this list, and why the doubles?

It is possible that there could be errors in reporting or that there was more than one donation made to that group within the year. Rob - do you have any further insight on the Swansea Hockey League program at Rennie Rink.

2. The 2009 Donations category (p.10-11) lists some city bodies as donating, e.g. Urban Design Services and the Toronto Police Services Board. However, some donations seem to be missing, e.g. the NHL Players’ Association skates/gloves/sticks/helmets etc. for a number of Toronto Rinks. This is puzzling because the last several NHLPA donation applications were written (in one case, rewritten from local Rec staff’s text) by partnership staff. What are the criteria for this list?

The NHLPA donation was coordinated through the TOP office. This was not included in the info sent to the requester as they only wanted PFR partnerships, not TOP.

3. The “2009 partnership summary under $5000” table (p.28) is numbered 1 through 7, but there is no explanation of what the numbers stand for. What are the codes here?

There are no codes. it is just an itemization number.

4. The 2009 sponsorships summary (p.27) and the 2009 service manager pdf (p.26) are separate from the large joint venture inventory, but the items seem to be similar. Why are these lists separate?

please refer to the definitions above.

5. The 2009 grants summary (p.12) lists both internal and external bodies as grantors. What are the criteria for inclusion in the “grants” as opposed to the “donations” list?

please refer to the definitions above.