Playground costs: information through Freedom of Information

Email to Corporate Access, April 17, 2014

...the table sent to me for my original 2013 request (#2012-02755) seemed to list approximate costs rather than actual costs (actual costs is what I had asked for).

And indeed the #2014-0380 response, dealing with only 20 playgrounds, was quite different. As a data quality check, it’s disturbing. For these 20 playgrounds, the difference between reported costs in the two documents is $1,153,324 (plus or minus is not important – it’s the inaccuracy that is remarkable). I've attached my comparative table to this email.

After I saw the spread between the two tables, I asked for this most recent check, on two of the 20 playgrounds. That has now yielded a third set of numbers.

(a) Edithvale playground changes were listed as costing

(1) in #2012-02755, a total of $190,000, then

(2) in #2014-0380, only $72,000, then

(3) in the third version, $272,226.95.

(b) Warden Waterplay was listed as costing

(1) $551,000 in #2012-02755, then as

(2) $283,128 in #2014-0380, then as

(3) $290,150 in the third version. I do understand that one of the Warden numbers ($300,000) was put into the first document by mistake, but then one can ask, how many other such errors are there in the long list?

If a random list of 20 playgrounds, used as a data quality check for a citywide playground replacement table, shows a cost “variance” of over a million dollars, it’s hard to trust any tally of citywide playground spending based on the original, supposedly most complete list of playground replacements that I received. But a reliable tally is what I need.

Can PFR Capital Projects staff fix the documentation for all of the completed projects listed in #2012-02755, to match the level of accuracy in the third examples that you sent yesterday? That would allow me to get more reliable answers to my original FOI question. In addition, it might lead to a more useful book-keeping document for the city internally.

Response from Corporate Access, April 17, 2014

Access & Privacy does not validate records, interpret or explain records received in response to a FOI Request. That is a divisional responsibility as the "owner" of the records. Our mandate is simply to provide access as per MFIPPA. If you feel a record is missing, it is within our mandate to locate any additional records by asking the division to preform an additional search. Please let us know if you would like us to do that and a brief explanation of what you feel is missing.

If you are truly seeking an explanation of records or you feel the record is unreliable or incorrect, again that is a divisional responsibility for Parks senior managers. You will have to contact Parks staff directly.