[log in] or [register] to leave a comment for this document.
Go to: all documents
MacGregor Park Stimulus Funding 2009
( display item 6)
[home] [about] [help] [policies] [legal disclaimer]
Please see attached for the SGR for MacGregor.
Attached is one of the documents for McGregor you requested. I've copied Christina so she can work with you on the other information requests. Christina, I will be out of town next week, so if you could send the info the Jutta directly, copying me for my records, that would be appreciated.
Date: Nov. 16
Please see attached for the State of Good Repair and RinC Application. My apologies for the delay but my manager was off last week and he had the copy of the application. As for the maintenance log, we do not have a copy of that in our office.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009
To: Christina Basan
CC: Councillor Adam Giambrone , Chris Gallop , ANNA GALATI , Rohan Walters , Andrew Cash , Jim Kroesen , Stephen McCammon , "Marra, Anne"
Thank you for sending me the second piece of our request, i.e. the stimulus funds application for MacGregor. It`s very helpful.
After the on-site discussions and walkabouts by neighbours yesterday, more concerns and possible solutions have been collected. The City`s work list (forwarded to me by Chris Gallop and posted here: http://celos.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=FederalStimulusFunding2009.FrontPage) does not closely fit the priorities that seem advisable in this situation. We will therefore ask Councillor Giambrone to request a Capital Projects staff re-visit, this time with representation by park users and onsite program staff who can explain the building`s usage and their concerns, and also with representation from the Councillor`s office. Collaboration will be very helpful here.
Happily, the application seems to leave plenty of room for rethinking the priorities in order to increase the useful life of the building from the 10 years estimated in the application, to at least 25 years.
After I rework the notes from the three building-visits (including yesterday`s), I`ll send them around to the park users, get their sign-off, and send them to you to forward to your colleagues as you think best.
We trust that this reworking will not increase the amounts of $11,000 budgeted for project management or the $7000 budgeted for project design. We also note that although the 2005 Accent Audit did not include a visit to the building's basement because of suspected asbestos (none is there), it did mention a number of structural issues. Interestingly, the "rehabilitation of foundation components [and] structural steel" lead the list of proposed work in the City's stimulus funds application (we agree). Despite this, those two tasks didn't make it onto the construction list forwarded by the Councillor's office. We hope they will be put back at the top after our meeting with you.
I will call 311 now to find out how we can get a copy of the maintenance log.
Date: 12/6/2009 5:53 AM
Hello Chris -- it was heartening to hear at the MacGregor site meeting that some of our concerns have been addressed. There are a few puzzles remaining:
1. we need to see the policy that Peter Leiss was referring to at the MacGregor meeting, requiring daily inspections in any heated building-- this must be fairly new, since the Dufferin Grove field house didn't have these inspections when it used to be heated in winter
2. We need to see the guidelines that would support buying new doors to replace existing ones (for example) but not putting a doorway between the two rooms. I think Christina said the guidelines have to do with enhancing a building's value, and we need to see what the list of allowable enhancements is. We also need to see the list of prohibited enhancements.
Can you help us find this information?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:14:00 -0500
Here is the answer I just received to the "scope of work" question.
Here is the response from Peter Notario regarding the extra scope:
Under the RInC-REC program, stimulus projects have been assessed and awarded funding based on the project scope identified in the original estimate/application. Changes to project scope are not allowable under the terms of the funding agreement. For additional scope to be included it would require the City to submit a new project proposal, which the Province is not receiving. See below Q and A from their website.
Q. Can applications still be submitted?
A. No. By 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2009, a large number of applications were received. As the demand significantly exceeds the amount of recreational infrastructure funding available, applications are no longer being accepted.
The scope of work on the application form does not state the addition of new doors, or removing portions of the wall , so the addition requested scope can not be done (I have attached the application form). The scope states with rehabilitation not new construction.
Let me know if you have any other questions or comments.
Date: Dec 20, 2009
Second thoughts after talking to more people - Can I see the attachment referred to below? I.e. we need the "application guidelines" link that didn't work on the copy of the completed application from we received from the City.
On the face of it, "rehabilitation" seems like a broad enough concept to justify fixing the lack of access between rooms. And the proposal of replacing good doors with other good doors may not have a stronger justification.
The anomalous lack of access within the building is a major block to the useful life of the building -- i.e. why keep the non-communicating rooms if they are not usable? One possibility would be to punch a door-sized hole in the centre, replace one of the external doors with a new one, and move that solid older door into the framed central doorway. Even simpler would be to put the new door into the hole.
Getting the application guidelines information will help move this along in the new year. The question of what happens on the ground with such funds is pretty interesting.
The statement can be found on the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program website
Hope this can answer Jutta questions. Please pass on Jutta suggestions on items to be addressed and I will take them into consideration for the project. I am meeting with the architect on Friday to further discuss the project and tender package.
1. is this federal stimulus money? yes 2. if it was an application from the City, where is the text of their application? The application was submitted by Michael Schreiner, Manager of Capital Projects, and our department has a copy on file. 3. Is Capital Projects in charge? yes 4. Is Christina Basan the lead? Yes According to 311, she's "construction coordinator" -- is that different from Peter Didiano? Yes, Peter Didiano is a acting supervisor for capital projects. 5. Have the RFPs gone out, and have contracts been signed? A consultant has been hired, but not a contractor. Construction is excepted to commence early spring. 6. Was Council involved at any point? Council approved this project as part of our budget and the 5 year state of good repair plan. Let me know if you have any other concerns or questions.
Some weeks ago I asked our City Councillor's office for a copy of the city's RFP relating to the Stimulus Funds project at MacGregor Park Field House
On Monday I sent a reminder (text below at the bottom, in red) with a couple of other details we also need. What came back from Capital Projects was this:
From capital projects supervisor Dave Nosella: Christina touched base with our Purchasing staff and confirms that requests for consulting service documents are only released to the bidders, who are considered interested parties to the call. Any information to a member of the public can only be requested through MFPPA.
Looking at the Purchasing and Materials Management website, it appears that the call documents should be routinely available (at a cost).
Here's the link: http://www.toronto.ca/calldocuments/index.htm.
I can see that a request for the companies who received the RFP would not be routinely disclosed so you could put in an FOI request for all the information you require.