Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: January 29, 2014 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2014/Committee of the Whole - 29 Jan 2014 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
Committee of the Whole – Budget Meeting January 29, 2014 – 11 a.m. January 30, 2014, – 9 a.m. January 31, 2014, – 9 a.m. (if required) February 5, 2014 – 9 a.m. February 7, 2014 – 9 a.m. (if required) The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON
AGENDA Page
- CALL TO ORDER
- ADOPTION OF AGENDA
- DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
- DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS
- CLOSED MEETING a)
As authorized under Section 239 of the Municipal Act to consider: a) Labour Relations - as it relates to current service and staffing levels b) Employee Negotiations - as it relates to Union Contract Negotiations
- REPORTS a)
Committee Chair Briefing: Mr. Geoff Sandiford, Chair, Sustainability Advisory Committee will brief the Committee of the Whole with respect to the Sustainable Actions Priorities.
5-7
b)
2014-012 Corporate Services Sustainability Advisory Committee Sustainable Actions Priorities This report is for information only.
8-21
c)
2014-008 Corporate Services Cost Recovery for Planning Services Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Sustainability – Cost Recovery for Planning Services report for
Page 1 of 199
Page 6. REPORTS information;
AND FURTHER that Council continue with the current billing practice until the end of 2014 when more quantitative evidence will be available with regard to the time spent by the County working on Township-specific planning projects. 22-25
d)
2014-009 Corporate Services Frontenac K&P Trail Development Year-End Report Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Sustainability – Frontenac K&P Trail Development Year-End report for information.
26-38
e)
AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax reserve of a total of $191,460 to cover the additional capital cost in 2013. December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee Recommendations to County Council At the regular meeting of County Council held on Wednesday, December18, 2013 the following Recommendation was considered. The Recommendation was subsequently Deferred to budget deliberations. Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 (Tichborne to Sharbot Lake). The Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 (Tichborne to Sharbot Lake) formed part of Report 2013-176, 2013 Work Plan Update attached to the October 10, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee agenda.
39-42
f)
2014-010 Corporate Services Cost of Living Adjustment Update Report This report is for information only.
43-45
g)
2013-237 Administrative Services Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment At the regular meeting of County Council held on Wednesday, December18, 2013 the following Recommendation was considered. The
Page 2 of 199
Page 6. REPORTS
Recommendation was subsequently Deferred to budget deliberations. Motion #: 455-13 Moved By: Deputy Warden Clayton Seconded By: Councillor McDougall RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize a non-union salary increase in accordance with the Non Union Salary Adjustment Policy, effective January 1, 2014 to be applied to all steps of the non-union staff salary schedule. Motion to Amend made December 18, 2013 Motion #: 356-13 Moved By: Councillor Inglis Seconded By: Deputy Warden Clayton BE IT RESOLVED THAT the motion be amended to provide all non-union staff a specific dollar amount increase based on the average non-union salary. CARRIED 46-48
h)
49-196
i)
2014-013 Corporate Services Non Union Benefits 2014-011 Corporate Services 2014 Draft Budget Recommendation: RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Financial Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget report for discussion;
197-199
AND FINALLY THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a bylaw later in the meeting approving the 2014 Budget as amended. j) 2014-028 Corporate Services 2014 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction [Addenda]
Page 3 of 199
Page 7. RISE AND REPORT 8. COMMUNICATIONS 9. NOTICE OF MOTION 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD 12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 199
AgendaItem#6b)
REPORT 2014-012 INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Prepared by:
Anne Marie Young Manager of Economic Development
Date prepared:
January 22, 2014
Date of meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Corporate Services – Sustainability Advisory Committee Sustainable Actions Priorities Report
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Corporate Services – Sustainability Advisory Committee Sustainable Actions Priorities report for information.
Background The Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) is a committee of Council that was established in 2011. SAC adheres to the following mandate: “To provide input and suggestions regarding the implementation of Directions for Our Future, in particular to help meet the “Commitment Towards a Sustainable Future” and the “Community Input” elements. To report periodically to County Council and to produce an annual work plan for adoption by Council.”
Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Sustainable Advisory Committee Sustainable Actions Priorities Report January 29, 2014
2014-012 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 2
Page 5 of 199
AgendaItem#6b)
Comment Members of SAC reviewed the Directions for Our Future accompanying document Sustainable Actions 2013 for the purposes of assessing current and on-going projects and to identify new priorities that could be supported by Federal Gas Tax. A list has been complied and prioritized and is forwarded for County Council’s consideration in the 2014 budget deliberations. The document is attached.
Sustainability Implications Supports a number of focus areas adopted in Directions for Our Future and is directly identified in Sustainable Actions 2013.
Financial Implications Determined by pending budget deliberations for 2014. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Sustainable Advisory Committee County Staff Frontenac Residents
Information Report to Council Corporate Services – Sustainable Advisory Committee Sustainable Actions Priorities Report January 29, 2014
2014-012 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 2
Page 6 of 199
2014-012 Corporate Services
SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS 2014 DRAFT BUDGET Multi Year Projects
Gas Tax
On Going Community Improvement Plans
Levy/Offset SAC Priority Further Information
336,928
Frontenac K & P Trail
535,000
Official Plan Study NF & FI Ecotourism Projects Regional Transportation Collaborative LOLTA ‐ Fish TV
23,125 70,922 10,565
New in 2014 Population Modeling LIC / CHEERIO Pilot Regional Waste Management Collaborative
A 100,000
A
10,000
A A A A
CIP Plan adopted in 2010; Verona, Sharbot Lake, Marysville ‐ in implementation; NF ‐ in planning Implementation Plan adopted by Council ‐ in 7th year; Potential offset from TCT or EOTA Project approved in 2011; will continue through 2014 Funding for township initiatives Assistance for township collaboration Year 2 of support
11,872
A
100,000 5,000
B C
Growth and employment projections to 2036 for inclusion in Official Plan Home energy retrofit program with municipal financing Assistance for potential township collaboration
Ad hoc community driven projects Approved in 2013 but not completed / paid Support for partners e.g. FAB, LOLTA Plan to connect trails in FI, NF and other communities Initial implementation of concept plan Developing partnerships ‐ advancing opportunities Ongoing support for small community events
Subtotal
1,093,412
Smaller Scale Sustainability Projects Smaller Scale Sustainability Projects ‐ Prior Year Marketing and Promotion County‐Wide Trails‐ concept Plan
50,000 35,276 30,000
A A A A
County‐Wide Trails ‐ Implementation Economic Development Collaborative Opp’ties Small events
30,000 10,000 2,000
B B B
2014 Projects j
500 Subtotal
TOTAL PROJECTS
157,776 1,251,188
AgendaItem#6b)
Page 7 of 199
Audit Fees
10,000
AgendaItem#6c)
Report 2014-008 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO / Treasurer
Prepared by:
Joe Gallivan Manager, Sustainability Planning
Date prepared:
January 22, 2014
Date of meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Sustainability – Cost Recovery for Planning Services
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Sustainability – Cost Recovery for Planning Services report for information; AND FURTHER that Council continue with the current billing practice until the end of 2014 when more quantitative evidence will be available with regard to the time spent by the County working on Township-specific planning projects.
Background Council Motion At the October 16, 2013 Council meeting, a motion was passed by Council to endorse the County to provide professional planning services to the Township of Central Frontenac. The motion was also amended so that staff provide a report on cost recovery: Motion #2013-191: Moved by Seconded by RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac received the ‘Sustainability Planning Services Contract for the Township of Central Frontenac Report’ for information; Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 6
Page 8 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Central Frontenac Township for the County of Frontenac to provide Land Use Planning services beginning January 1, 2014; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to bring forward a Policy on Cost Recovery for Planning Services provided by the County to the 2014 budget; AND FURTHER THAT the report identify the current cost recovery CARRIED AS AMENDED Previous Council Direction The idea of the County providing land use planning services to the Townships was first raised by Council during the 2011 budget discussions. Subsequently, staff provided two reports to Council that reviewed planning services provided by other Counties in Eastern Ontario and a proposal to use a cost recovery approach to review all privately initiated applications. Two reports were prepared and submitted to County Council for their meeting on March 16, 2011, both of which are attached as Appendices “1” and “2”. At the March 16, 2011 County Council meeting, the following motion was passed by Council: Motion #82-11:
Moved by Deputy Warden Gutowski Seconded by Councillor Doyle
RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the ‘Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report’ dated March 16, 2011; AND FURTHER that the Manager of Sustainability Planning be directed to meet with each Township to make available these professional planning services as outlined in this report. As requested by Council, the Manager of Sustainability made presentations to all four Councils in 2011. Current Status Two Townships have now entered into agreements: Frontenac Islands (October 2011) and Central Frontenac (January 2014). North Frontenac Township passed a motion on November 25, 2013 to also retain the County planners for their local planning needs (note: this contract will be brought to County Council for endorsement in February or March). The purpose of this report is to:
Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 6
Page 9 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
(1) Review the basis for the current cost sharing model that is in place for both Frontenac Islands and Central Frontenac, and the rationale for charging costs only for privately-initiated applications; (2) Provide background on expected benefits that will result from this arrangement, as well as the expected impact these services will have on the existing workload of the County planners; and (3) The options for Council to consider for establishing a policy on full cost recovery.
Comment There are three general cost recovery models that Council may consider: (1) community benefit model where there are no costs for providing planning services except for privately-initiated applications (i.e., the model that is currently being used); (2) full cost recovery model where all costs related to providing services is recovered; and (3) a blended model where day to day planning costs are not charged but the Townships would pay for part of the costs of major planning initiatives (e.g., Official Plan and Zoning By-law updates). A brief overview is as follows: •
Community Benefit Model – This model is based on the premise that the County recognizes the value of public sector planning across the region so that consistent services can be provided and that all planning work that has a community-wide benefit should not be subject to cost. Under this model which was presented to Council in 2011 and which is now in use, the County provides planning services as follows: o Day to Day Planning Work – no charge to the Townships on day-today planning issues, including Township meeting attendance, consultation with the public and developers, and telephone inquiries. o Planning Applications – All privately-initiated applications are charged for the preparation of planning reports and any additional peer review work that would needed to be completed. o Land Use Policy – no charge for policy planning work for the Township such as Official Plan and Zoning By-law updates and major planning studies (e.g., growth management, agricultural assessment, municipal capital facilities by-law). These projects are considered to be in the public interest and benefit the community as a whole. o County Revenue– revenue from planning services is only from private applications. For Frontenac Islands, the past two years where the County has been working with the Township the annual revenue was $2,470 in 2012 and $940 in 2013. It is estimated that annual revenue from Central Frontenac will be $5,000. (Note: This revenue is based only on the cost of
Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 6
Page 10 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
preparing planning reports for private applications and does not include time spent on policy work, consultation meetings, meeting attendance, etc.) This model is most commonly used by other County planning departments in Eastern Ontario (more details are found in the March, 2011 staff report contained in Appendix ‘1’). It recognizes that a regional government has the ability to transcend disparities based on geography and/or tax base and tax assessment in order to provide equitable services. This is particularly relevant to Frontenac County which has a large physical area with limited fiscal and human resources in local government. It also recognizes that providing County planning to the Townships is a direct service that benefits all County residents, similar to economic development and paramedic services. •
Full Cost Recovery Model – all costs relating to the provision of planning services would be charged to the respective Township, based on billing rates of the Manager of Sustainability Planning and the Community Planner. Above the charge for development application reports included in the ‘community benefit’ model, this would include the costs of: o all meeting attendance (consultation and Council meetings); o time to respond to general planning inquiries from citizens, developers, and township staff; o and the costs of preparing any land use policy documents including Official Plan and Zoning By-law updates. Geography can be a significant source of inequity if applied under full cost recovery. Distance is an inelastic cost, much more so in a rural setting such as the Frontenacs when compared to an urban area. For example the distance to drive to the Township offices from the County office (one way) are diverse: Wolfe Island (15 km excluding ferry travel and time); Howe Island (20 km excluding ferry travel and time); Sydenham (21 km); Sharbot Lake (72 km); and Plevna (111 km). This indicates that establishing a policy on full cost recovery may act as a disincentive or penalty for pursuing a goal of a regional government, in this case providing planning services of the same quality across the region. Other organizations that deal with large rural areas, such as the Conservation Authorities and the Frontenac Lennox & Addington Health Unit, have recognized this inequity and do not charge for site visits. o County Revenue – since the County began to work with Frontenac Islands, staff have only tracked the billable hours related to working on planning reports for private applications. It is therefore difficult to quantify the expected revenue for providing full services. Based on a review of work calendars from 2013, staff has compiled an estimate of the total number of hours spent on planning issues that were not billed as per the community benefit model:
Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 4 of 6
Page 11 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
Manager of Sustainability Planning
Frontenac Islands Official Plan (January – March 2013) – working with Council and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to have the Plan receive Provincial approval, including plan revisions, meetings with MMAH and Council. • Hours (Cost) – 75 hours ( $4,125)
Council meeting attendance – attended seven Council meetings to assist with planning applications, presentations to Council, and the Official Plan review. • Hours (Cost) – 10.5 hours ($577.50)
Howe Island Transportation Study (spring-summer 2013) – drafted Terms of Reference, attended Steering Committee meetings, reviewed consultant recommendations. • Hours (Cost) – 14 hours ($770)
Miscellaneous – lighthouse purchase review, Howe Island quarry site plan agreement with MNR, various planning inquiries • Hours (Cost) – 6 hours ($330)
Total Hours (Cost) – 105.5 hours ($5,802)
Community Planner
Frontenac Islands Official Plan (January – March 2013) – working on draft revisions, meeting with MMAH. • Total Hours (Cost) – 3 hours ( $90)
Council meeting attendance – attendance at three Council meetings • Total Hours (Cost) – 7 hours ($210)
Site visits, zoning work, pre-consultation • Total Hours (Cost) – 27 hours ($810)
Total Hours (Cost) – 37 hours ($1,110)
Combined Total Hours (Cost) – 142 hours ($6,902) non-billed
It should be noted that 65 per cent of these non-billed hours was for work on policy issues, the majority of which was for work on the Township Official Plan. •
Blended Model – This model recognizes that a significant amount of time can be spent on preparing a new Official Plan, Zoning By-law, or other major policy issue. As a result of this time commitment, County Council would require that the
Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 5 of 6
Page 12 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
municipality that benefits directly from this public policy work would also share in the cost. Renfrew County uses this model, where the costs are split 70/30 (County/Township) based on a work plan approved by Township Council. Under this scenario, the County could establish a reserve fund which all four Townships could use to pay for the cost of updating their Plan or Zoning By-law. Next Steps County planning staff have now acquired project tracking software to track time spent on all planning files, both Township and County related. The time tracking includes report writing, correspondence, consultation meetings, telephone inquiries, map preparation, and time spent at Township Council meetings. By the end of 2014 staff will be able to provide Council with better evidence on how time is being allocated. It is recommended that Council consider making a policy decision on cost recovery when this data is available.
Sustainability Implications The proposal for the Frontenac County planners to provide professional planning services to the three of the Townships can result in cost savings and efficiencies for the municipal planning application process. It also supports the economic and environmental pillars of Directions for Our Future, and will more closely align economic development with land use planning across the region. It will also promote collaboration between the Townships and the County.
Financial Implications No additional costs for land use planning are expected to be incurred in the 2014 Sustainability budget. No additional staff will be required to provide planning services for North Frontenac, Central Frontenac, and Frontenac Islands Townships.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Frontenac All Townships
Attachments Appendix 1 – March 16, 2011 Report to County Council Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review Appendix 2 – March 16, 2011 Report to County Council Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review Supplementary Report
Administrative Report Sustainability Planning – Cost Recovery for Planning Services January 29, 2014
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 6 of 6
Page 13 of 199
AgendaItem#6c)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Joe Gallivan Manager, Sustainability Planning
Date prepared:
March 9, 2011
Date of meeting:
March 16, 2011
Re:
Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review
Background During discussions held by County Council at its regular meeting on February 16, 2011, the issue of the County’s ability to provide planning services to the Townships from the County Sustainability Planning office was raised. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with some options of fees for service should any of the four Townships request County planning services.
Comment It is recognized that it is the decision of each Township as to whether it would request that the County provide planning services to them. However, should there be such a request, County Council should determine whether or not there should be any fees associated with this service, and if so, a fee that would be appropriate. A review of planning services provided and fees charged was undertaken of the surrounding Counties in Eastern Ontario: Peterborough County (8 municipalities, population 56,639) o No charges for telephone inquiries or report reviews from Township staff o GIS is a free service, with the exception of special mapping projects o Fees for service for Land Division Committee reports (severances, minor variances) and for the preparation of notices of public meetings and notices of complete application based on total cost recovery (salary and benefits) o Fees for local Zoning By-law Amendments and Official Plan Amendments, as well as Ontario Municipal Board hearings o No fees charged for municipally-initiated planning applications
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 14 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
Hastings County (14 municipalities, population 38,960) o No charges to the Townships, including GIS services (note: none of the Townships have a full-time land use planner or consulting services) o County planning funded entirely through County levy Haliburton County (4 municipalities, population 16,147) o No charge to the three Townships that do not have a full-time planner (those three Townships use planning consultants for special projects) o County planning funded entirely through County levy United Counties of Leeds & Grenville (10 municipalities, population 67,784) o No County Official Plan at this time o Three of the municipalities have a full-time planner, and seven (7) retain a planning consultant o County planning funded through County levy except planning applications (i.e., consents, subdivisions) paid through application fees United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (6 municipalities, population 64,434) o One municipality has a full-time planner o County planner responsible for approvals of consent applications and plans of subdivision, as well as regional planning studies o Geographic Information Services (GIS) is a free service o Provides planning advice to local municipalities at no charge o County planning funded entirely though County levy Renfrew County (17 municipalities, population 83,615) o Three municipalities have full-time planners o County planning funded entirely by County levy, based on weighted assessment (including those three municipalities that have full-time planning staff) o Pre-consultation on all planning applications is free of charge when requested by the Townships o Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to the member municipalities’ documents are prepared at no charge, upon request o Official Plan update (5 year review) or consolidated Zoning By-law preparation – costs are split 70/30 (County/Township) for these major planning projects, based on a work plan approved by the local council In summary, other counties in Eastern Ontario offering planning services provide a majority of that service to their member municipalities at no additional charge, recognizing that the County levy already provides the financial support for the activities including the GIS mapping. There are a number of benefits of having the County provide these services:
- Unlike planning services provided by consultants, there is no profit built in to the planning fees;
- The services are exclusive to Frontenac County planning issues and can focus on developing local and cross-boundary solutions;
- With the GIS system already in place, all mapping needs for planning work can be done in-house, which again results in savings and also a very fast turn-around in delivery; and
- Planning will have a local presence and services such as planning advice and responses to planning inquiries, including face-to-face meetings in each community, will be available on demand across the Frontenacs.
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 15 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
Sustainability Implications The work being done as a result of these projects could result in more collaborative decision making across the Frontenacs which results in efficiencies and cost savings. Good land use planning services also ensure consideration of the four pillars of sustainability. Financial Implications At its regular meeting of February 16, 2011, County Council approved the contract extension of the Community Planning intern through to March 2012. Until that time, the County will have two professional planners available in-house to provide planning services. Staff recommends that 2011 be considered a trial period during which these planning services will be offered to the Townships. Subsequently during its 2012 budget deliberations, the success of the trial and whether it should be continued can be considered. On that basis, rather than introducing a detailed Tariff of Fees By-law at this stage, it is suggested that Council endorse a flat rate charge of $10,000 for each Township prepared to enter into a relationship with the County to provide planning services until early 2012 when municipal satisfaction and the financial arrangements for service can be evaluated.
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Land Use Planning –– County Planning Services Review report dated March 16, 2011 for information. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Frontenac and Townships
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 16 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Joe Gallivan Manager, Sustainability Planning
Date prepared:
March 15, 2011
Date of meeting:
March 16, 2011
Re:
Land Use Planning – Supplementary Report
County Planning
Services
Review
–
Background County and Township staff held a Clerks and Treasurers meeting in Sharbot Lake on March 11, 2011 with a varied agenda, including the upcoming report to County Council regarding the planning services review. Questions were raised by those around the table regarding this proposal and the cost model proposed. This supplementary report comes as a direct result of these discussions providing Council with additional information and also introduces a new proposal for the costs of providing these planning services. As well, this report will set out additional advantages of having Frontenac Townships’ planning work done by Frontenac planners. Comment Staff has revisited the issue of the cost of providing planning services to the Townships, should they choose to take advantage of the services being offered. The initial report prepared for Council was based on discussions with our neighbouring County planning departments and the idea that this initial year would be undertaken as a pilot project. However, having listened to the comments from Township staff and reviewing each Township’s Financial Information Returns (FIRs) from 2005 to 2009, we believe that another approach may be more cost efficient and equitable, and still allow for a very high and responsive level of service to our citizens and developers in each Township as they work through the planning process. Cost Recovery Approach Staff is now recommending a cost recovery approach for the processing of all privately initiated applications. What this means is that any planning application report that is prepared will be charged back to the Township on an hourly basis (there would be no charges for preconsultation or general planning inquiries from either Township staff or the public). The Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 5
Page 17 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
proposed fee structure is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. These hourly rates for the planners’ time is at least half of the costs billed by private consulting services based on a recent review of external fee structures recently undertaken by the County. This is a significant potential cost saving to be passed on to our development community and to the individual property owner requiring work. It represents a potential economic advantage and a potential stimulus to development activity overall in the Frontenacs. No charges for any planning applications initiated by a Township are being proposed. This represents immediate cost savings. One current example is the County’s involvement with a Central Frontenac Official Plan Amendment. Based on an initial cost estimate, doing this work municipally at the County is saving the Township at least $2,000. Another current example is the preparation of an amendment to South Frontenac’s Official Plan to implement the Community Improvement Plan. This work will also be done at no charge with municipal resources at the County. A third example could involve assistance to South Frontenac which, although it has a full-time planner, may require infrequent additional planning work done that might currently be contracted out. This would be determined very much on an as-needed basis and this model – rather than a flat fee – will provide a clear advantage to using County services. Each Township has its own planning application fees for different planning applications (see attached Appendix 1). These fees would remain in place. Staffing and Workload Questions were also asked at the Clerks and Treasurers meeting concerning the ability for the municipal planners at the County to handle the additional workload of the day-to-day planning activities of the Townships. The review undertaken reveals that most of our neighbouring Counties have two or three planners on staff to do work with their municipalities. The Frontenacs by comparison have significantly fewer Townships and less development activity. Two planners available for Township planning services should be sufficient. And unlike consulting firms which have numerous clients, our services would be focused entirely on the four Townships. Further, following Council’s strategic planning session on February 23, 2011, considerable discussion has ensued at the staff level to determine how current work, work loads and work assignments can be changed, altered, or reassigned internally to accommodate the strong direction received to introduce additional planning activities. The workload involved with this service has been estimated, after reviewing the development activity within the County, to require a maximum of 0.3 FTE (between 500 and 650 hours) to work on planning applications (OPAs, zoning by-law amendments, consents, and severances) for the three Townships that currently use private consulting services and to provide ad hoc assistance to South Frontenac if requested. Given the County administration’s strong team-approach to dealing new, unexpected and time consuming activities, significant flexibility and a willingness to work together is built into activity and project management. Staff is confident that the anticipated planning workload can be met within timelines established without negatively impacting other work. Summary As noted in the original report, there are a number of benefits of having the County provide these services: (1) Unlike planning services provided by external consultants, there is no profit built into the planning fees, and no charges for municipally-initiated planning applications. (2) The services are exclusive to Frontenac County planning issues and can focus on developing local and cross-boundary solutions. Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 5
Page 18 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
(3) With the GIS system in place, all mapping needs for planning work can be done ‘inhouse’, which again results in savings and also a very fast turn-around in delivery. (4) Planning will have a local presence and will be available on demand across the Frontenacs, and Townships can expect a quick response to planning issues and the ability to meet on very short notice. (5) Land use planning will be closely aligned with economic development planning across the Frontenacs, to encourage and help facilitate new development opportunities in the Frontenacs. As an example, the developer of the new business park in Inverary has been working with the County’s Manager of Economic Development on the creation of a master plan for the park, and this connection was made as part of the County’s approval of the subdivision plan. (6) It is possible that lower planning costs could encourage additional economic development in the Frontenacs and raise the assessment base across the County. Sustainability Implications The proposal for the Frontenac planners to provide professional planning services to one or more of the four Townships could result in cost savings and efficiencies for the municipal planning application process. It also supports the economic and environmental pillars of Directions for Our Future, and will more closely align economic development with land use planning across the region. Furthermore, this effort ties into Council’s strategic plan priorities. Financial Implications Staff recommends that Council consider 2011 as a pilot project for planning services. Later in the year, the services will be reviewed and the conclusions reached will become part of into 2012 budget discussions. Assuming the pilot project is successful and Council then decides to continue with this activity, the estimated 0.3 FTE requirement represents a cost of approximately $12,500. This is an estimate and depends to a degree on the volume of planning applications received. During the pilot, staff would be monitoring activity and will also report back to Council on the financial costs prior to the 2012 budget deliberations. Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Land Use Planning –– County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report dated March 16, 2011; AND FURTHER that the Manager of Sustainability Planning be directed to meet with each Township to make available these professional planning services as outlined in this report. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Frontenac and Townships
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 5
Page 19 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
Appendix 1
Current Planning Application Fees for Townships
Township Activity
North
Central
South
Islands
Consent
$500
$550
$600
$500
Minor Variance
$500
$500
$650
$500
ZBL Amendment
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
$1,000
OPA
$1,000
$2,200
$3,000
$1,000
Site Plan
$500
$3,200
Source: Township websites and Tariff of Fees By-laws
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 4 of 5
Page 20 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6c)
Appendix 2
Proposed Planning Fees for Services for Townships
- For all privately-initiated applications made in respect of planning matters, the fee charged shall be in accordance with the following hourly rates according to the actual time taken to process the application: a. Manager of Sustainability Planning b. Community Planner c. GIS Specialist
$55.00 $30.00 no charge
- There shall be no fees associated with the processing of a municipally-initiated planning application.
Administrative Report Land Use Planning – County Planning Services Review – Supplementary Report March 16, 2011
2014-008 Corporate Services
Page 5 of 5
Page 21 of 199
Da
AgendaItem#6d)
REPORT 2014-009 RECOMMEND REPORT TO COUNCIL To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Prepared by:
Anne Marie Young Manager of Economic Development
Date prepared:
January 20, 2014
Date of meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Corporate Services – Frontenac K&P Trail Development YearEnd Report
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Sustainability – Frontenac K&P Trail Development Year-End report for information. AND FURTHER that the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax reserve of a total of $191,460 to cover the additional capital cost in 2013.
Background The unopened portion of the K&P rail bed, acquired by the County of Frontenac in 2008, runs through the Township of South Frontenac and part of the Township of Central Frontenac. The County’s acquisition of the land was undertaken as part of its economic stimulation efforts. County Council adopted the Implementation Plan of the Frontenac K&P Trail at its October 2009 regular meeting. In 2010 a bridge was reconstructed over Millhaven Creek and in 2012 Phase 1 development work was completed on the trail from Orser Road to the Colebrooke Road near Harrowsmith. In 2013 a Trails Concept Plan application to Trans Canada Trail successfully brought a further injection of $153,000 to the anticipated $75,000 budgeted bringing the trail budget total to $503,000. After a Request for Quotation (RFQ) process was followed the Hardwood Bridge contract was awarded to Doornekamp Construction for the amount of Information Report to Council Economic Development – Frontenac K&P Trail Year-End Report January 29, 2014
2014-009 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 4
Page 22 of 199
AgendaItem#6d)
$127,129 ($124,930 plus non-refundable HST). The construction of the trail was awarded to Crains’ Construction for the total amount of $256,755 (Stage 1 for $187,152 and Stage 2 for $65,173 plus non-refundable HST).
Comment Both contracts encountered delays and extras which are reflected in the chart below (all amounts include non-refundable HST) and variances are explained as follows: Construction for the bridge at Hardwood Creek started in July and was to be completed by October 31, 2013; the actual completion date was December 17, 2013. • B1 – total cost includes a new deck which was required to improve the longevity of the bridge and the length of the guardrails was extended as a safety precaution. Quotes for both the deck and the guardrails were obtained before installation and the total was still within the allotted budget amount for the bridge. • B2 – engineering for the RFQ review and oversight of the bridge construction Construction of the trail development started in October and was to be completed November 30, 2013; the actual completion was December 19, 2014. Complications and delays due to access problems lead to the undertaking of several different parts of the trail in a random timetable in order to keep the equipment busy while the delay problems were resolved. Culverts were needed at areas that were discovered to be very low and thus the stability of the trail would otherwise be compromised. Likewise geotextile was needed in very severe cases of bog-like conditions. The final length of trail developed and /or refreshed was actually 11.4 km instead of the estimated 9.2 km which resulted in a great amount of gravel and stone dust was used. • C1 – Includes barriers, gates, fencing • C2 – Ditching required on the refresh south of Boyce Road • C3 – C5 Clearing and grubbing was understated in the RFQ due to miscalculation in volume required. Gravel granular B was understated due to unforeseen bog-like area behind Prince Charles School and in particular on the part between the north access from Boyce Road to the access to Highway 38 across from the quarry; ditching was required at the latter as well. Gravel granular A was understated because it was deemed to already be in place on the refresh part, but here it was found to be inadequate and also more was used to complete the additional 2 km of trail; likewise for the stone dust. • C6 – Culverts and geotextile were not factored in the RFQ • C7 – Includes legal fees and surveying • E1 – Mowing trail from Boyce Road to Orser Road • E2 – Trail signage • E3 – Official opening event has not taken place The Frontenac K&P Trail is now completed to north of Verona and is a safe and stable asset with a prolonged existence ensured for resident and visitors use. Cost overrun: At the end of November the Manager of Economic Development (project lead) met with the South Frontenac public works representative, who oversaw Information Report to Council Economic Development – Frontenac K&P Trail Year-End Report January 29, 2014
2014-009 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 4
Page 23 of 199
AgendaItem#6d)
the on-site work, to review the first progress certificate from Crains’ Construction for work completed to date. At that point the miscalculation for the clearing and grubbing was realized but also some of the work listed on the certificate had not been completed. It was deemed the project would likely be over but would still be within the total budget for the trail. Construction continued. As the need and requests for culverts, geotextitle, etc., came forth and with the project then reaching a crucial and controversial part of the trail; the project lead felt it vital to the timeliness of project and fearing further delays to obtain authorization for cost overruns, agreed verbally to the requests. This was undertaken outside of the requirements of the Procurement Policy. The full impact of these overruns became evident with the final invoice received in January, 2014. The certificate of completion has been scrutinized and verified with the on-site supervisor. Trans Canada Trail has been contacted to enquire about the possibility of additional funding. They are taking the matter into advisement and will let us know after their February 5th meeting.
Sustainability Implications This project supports a number of focus areas adopted in Directions for Our Future and is directly identified in Sustainable Actions 2012 under the economic pillar of sustainability as Trail Network Development. The project supports the development of a network of trails in the County facilitating recreation and transportation networks and promoting active lifestyles.
Financial Implications The total budget for the K&P Trail was estimated at $350,000 in 2013. Estimated funding from Trans Canada Trails was $75,000 and the remainder was to be funded from Federal Gas Tax. Cost were incurred related to land acquisition totalling $10,900 which will be transferred from the Land Acquisition Reserve. A donation of $5,000 was received in 2013. Additional funding was approved from Trans Canada Trail $153,000. An application has been made to Trans Canada Trails to fund the cost overrun. If not successful, it is proposed that the net cost overrun of $191,460 be transferred from the Federal Gas Tax Fund. A detailed listing of costs incurred follows.
Information Report to Council Economic Development – Frontenac K&P Trail Year-End Report January 29, 2014
2014-009 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 4
Page 24 of 199
AgendaItem#6d)
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Township of South Frontenac Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Quinte Region Conservation Authority Residents of County of Frontenac Trans Canada Trail
Information Report to Council Economic Development – Frontenac K&P Trail Year-End Report January 29, 2014
2014-009 Corporate Services
Page 4 of 4
Page 25 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Frontenac K & P Trail Implementation Plan - DRAFT Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake
Tichborne to Sharbot Lake
10/1/2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 26 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
Frontenac K & P Trail Implementation Plan - DRAFT Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake Table of Contents 1.0
Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.0
Purpose …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
3.0
Vision ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
4.0
Mission……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
5.0
History of the Kingston & Pembroke Railway Corridor ………………………………………………………… 4
5.1
Other Rail History in the Frontenacs ‐ The Wolfe Island Canal…………………………………………….. 5
5.2
Rail‐to‐Trail …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
6.0
Trail Area for Development – Phase 2 ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
7.0
Public Consultations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
8.0
Review of Improvement Needs …………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 8.1.1
Brushing ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
8.1.2
Surfacing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
8.1.3
Culverts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
8.1.4
Bridges………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
8.1.5
Fencing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
8.1.6
Intersections …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
9.0
Planned Improvements …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
9.1
Signage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
9.2
Sections of the Frontenac K&P for Phasing ………………………………………………………………………. 8
10.0
Discontinuity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
11.0
Capital Development and Cost Estimates …………………………………………………………………………… 9
12.0
Uses for the Frontenac K&P Trail ……………………………………………………………………………………… 10
13.0 Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Appendix A: Tichborne‐Sharbot Lake K&P Trail Parcel Ownership …………………………………………………… 12
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 2 of 13
Page 27 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
1.0 Background In 2007, the Council of the County of Frontenac authorized the acquisition and some remedial work of the former K&P rail bed within the Townships of South Frontenac and Central Frontenac. Funding in the amount of $289,000 was secured from the Rural Infrastructure Investment Initiative to survey and acquire the lands for a Trail and to undertake initial repair and upgrade of parts of the rail bed as required minimizing risk and liability to the County. This project, begun in 2007, represents only one step if the Frontenac K&P Trail is to become one which provides linkages with the other trails found throughout the area. The completion of the Frontenac K&P Trail through to the developed portion of the K&P which starts in the Township of Central Frontenac at Sharbot Lake, travels through the Township of North Frontenac, into Lanark Highlands and finally meeting up with Greater Madawaska south of Calabogie, will greatly enhance trail systems in the Frontenacs and recognize our rich heritage. Other projects will need to follow, championed by any number of individuals, groups or local governments, to address the gaps along the Trail. However, the development of this plan will provide guidance now and for all future projects focused on completing the Frontenac K&P Trail. In 2009 the Council of Frontenac County approved The Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan which complies with the County of Frontenac’s Trails Master Plan.
2.0 Purpose The purpose of the Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 is to prioritize projects into a phasing schedule, to identify capital costs associated with each phase and to identify the annual operating and maintenance costs and respective plans. The trail is currently opened for use upon completion of each phase and compliance to any safety issues is satisfied. The phasing plan will ensure that the terms outlined in the Trails Master Plan are carried out in a systematic and organized fashion as financial resources are available.
3.0 Vision The Frontenac K&P Trail will promote sustainable and healthy communities by encouraging residents and visitors to get active, while appreciating the natural beauty and rich heritage of Frontenac County.
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 3 of 13
Page 28 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
4.0 Mission The Kingston and Pembroke Railway (K&P) was a vital piece of infrastructure in the County of Frontenac, influencing settlement patterns and making possible the growth of local industry. The Frontenac K&P Trail will be a community asset that offers benefits that can be enjoyed by residents, communities, businesses, and tourists alike. The Trail will enhance the natural beauty of the County while conserving important green space for the abundant wildlife in the area. The Trail will encourage healthier lifestyles for area residents by providing an opportunity to pursue regular exercise while at the same time highlighting a vital part of our region’s history. The K&P Trail will be managed by a committee of representatives who are responsive to local interests. The Trail will promote the further development of Trail-based tourism in the County of Frontenac and, once registered as a portion of the Trans Canada Trail, will be affiliated with the most known Trail network in the country. As an active transportation corridor, the Trail will foster interaction, social cohesion and prosperous economies within the communities along the Trail. The Trail will offer residents and visitors alike an asset that will be enjoyed for years to come. 5.0 History of the Kingston & Pembroke Railway Corridor 1 The K&P Railway was established in 1871 through the efforts of a local group of Kingston businessmen who wanted to see the construction of a rail line north to a point in the Ottawa Valley. The railway was intended to gain access to the natural resources (logging and mining) and potential markets to the north. Surveying of the line began in 1872 with construction commencing soon after from Kingston. In June 1875 the first portion of track opened, extending 29 miles north to a place known as Iron Junction. A small branch was also constructed, spanning east from the mainline at Godfrey into a mine at Glendower. By May 1876, the project had reached Sharbot And in the fall of 1878, the railway was completed to Mississippi. With the completion of the Canada Central Railway north along the Ottawa River Valley to Mattawa in 1876, the necessity to build all the way to Pembroke became less critical. Even at that time, there was no need for the duplication of lines in the area. Accordingly, the K&P Railway was granted powers to make connections with the Canada Central at any point before Pembroke. In the interim, work continued on the rail line, opening to Lavant in 1881, Clyde Forks in 1882, and Barryvale in 1883. In 1884, the mainline was open to Calabogie, leaving only fifteen more miles to Renfrew remaining. The gap was finally joined by the end of that year, bringing the K&P the closest it would come to its namesake community, Pembroke. The next major construction initiative for the company was in 1886 when they extended their tracks south to the Kingston waterfront. Here, the company built a new station and 1
K&P Trail Group Website http://post.queensu.ca/~ab25/kandptrail/KPhistory.htm
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 4 of 13
Page 29 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
other terminal buildings. The volume of Ottawa Valley traffic originally anticipated by the railway never really materialized for the K&P Railway, forcing the company to rely primarily on local traffic. This became increasingly difficult given the sparse population of the lands the railway served, in addition to competition from motor vehicles. The main sources of revenue, however, tended to be derived from lumber and some iron ore traffic. In 1894, the company fell into receivership, a situation that existed until 1899. By this time, the Canadian Pacific Railway had expressed interest in purchasing the company, hoping to keep it out of the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway. Operation of the line was assumed in November 1901. Over time, the entire line was abandoned, first in the northernmost sections, and then eventually extending all the way south to Kingston. The final section from Tichborne to Kingston was abandoned in 1986.
5.1 Other Rail History in the Frontenacs - The Wolfe Island Canal In 1836, a rail route emerged in the form of a charter granted to the Wolfe Island Railway and Canal Company. The route was to create a shorter route between Kingston and Cape Vincent. The rail part of the project did not come to fruition and the canal part project was slow-moving but was completed in 1857. Weeds and silt slowly filled the canal until, in 1892, its use by steamboats and vessels was abandoned. In spite of its years of silt-fill and deterioration, a spokesperson for the federal government declared in 1936 that the canal was a navigable waterway. However, the provincial government replaced the wooden bridge with two culverts, making the canal non-navigable, yet groups still persist in trying to have some action taken. 2
5.2
Rail-to-Trail
The railway was non-operational for years and then acquired by Bell Canada in the late 1980s, not long after the tracks were lifted and the rails removed. Bell Canada purchased the land in order to expand its existing communications network in Southeastern Ontario. In 1990 the South-east Ontario Rails-to-Trails Association (SEORTA) was formed to promote the development of abandoned railway lines into recreational Trails. In 1998 SEORTA became the K&P Trail Group. The group initially lobbied the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) to purchase the land but was unsuccessful as the CRCA cited a lack of funds for the development and maintenance of the property. The City of Kingston began negotiations with Bell Canada in 2002 to acquire the former K&P corridor within the city limits, and subsequently began construction on the Trail. In December 2007 the Kingston portion of the K&P Trail was officially opened to the public. In 2008, the County of Frontenac acquired many of the remaining sections of the rightof-way owned by Bell Canada in order to develop these lands for a safe and accessible recreational Trail. This purchase provides the opportunity to link the Kingston portion of the K&P at Orser Road to Harrowsmith and then continue to Sharbot Lake. At 2
Establishing Transportation Links – Wolfe Island
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 5 of 13
Page 30 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
Harrowsmith, the Trail connects with the existing Cataraqui Trail, providing a much anticipated link into the Trans-Canada Trail Network. Trails are hallmarks of liveable communities and of cities that are built on a human scale. Nick-named by locals as the “Kick and Push”, the K&P right-of-way will provide recreational alternatives to residents throughout the area and link into the Frontenac’s existing Trails network.
6.0 Trail Area for Development – Phase 2 The Frontenac K&P Trail follows, as much as possible, the former K&P Railway Company line. The former rail corridor runs from Kingston to Sharbot Lake and further north into the County of Renfrew. Creating loops and linking to regional trail systems provides an opportunity trail for enthusiasts of every age and skill level to experience diverse natural and cultural landscapes 12 months of the year. The Frontenac K&P Trail begins at the Kingston city limits at Orser Road and will ultimately reach Sharbot Lake, a total distance of 58 kilometres. The first completed portion of the trail now runs from Orser Road to Hartington. The right-of-way is 4.5 metres wide (on average) throughout most of its length; in some areas the width broadens considerably where there were stations, sidings, or junctions with other rail lines.
7.0 Public Consultations Subsequent to the last implementation plan, two public meetings for adjacent landowners occurred in September 2012 in Verona and Sharbot Lake respectively. Discussion focused on work plans from Hartington to Sharbot Lake and public input was encouraged and recorded. More public forums are planned.
8.0 Review of Improvement Needs 8.1.1 Brushing A general brushing is needed along this section of Frontenac K&P route. Vegetation, such as shrubs and trees, has begun to obscure the abandoned rail line. There are also several dense pockets of vegetation where removal will be necessary; these often coincide with areas of poor drainage and will have to be addressed at the same time. 8.1.2 Surfacing Trail users generally gauge a Trail experience by the condition of the surface they traverse. It is estimated that at least half of the abandoned rail line presently has an Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 6 of 13
Page 31 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
adequate surface. Work will be needed to improve the remaining half, which is rated ‘fair’ or ‘unsatisfactory, prior to the opening of the Trail for public use. 8.1.3 Culverts The surface of the Trail depends in part on drainage along and through the route. Typical of a rail line, the majority of culverts are small, concrete boxes. Those locations where new culverts are needed generally involve washouts or excavations across the Trail, and will be needed prior to opening the Trail to the public. There also appear to be a few beaver dams affecting drainage in the vicinity of the abandoned rail line. 8.1.4 Bridges There appears to be no need for bridge reconstruction from Tichborne to Sharbot Lake. An evaluation and detailed structural assessment is needed to verify this assumption. 8.1.5 Fencing To encourage separation of activities along/beside the Trail some sort of barrier may be desirable. These may involve natural conditions such as wetlands, steep slopes, or woodlots. In other locations fencing is appropriate, especially opposite active pasture and crop fields. The costs involved in the installation or repair of fences along a right-ofway can be significant and fencing can be required for pasture and farmland registered with the Ontario Farm Business Registration. 8.1.6 Intersections The majority of intersections along the abandoned rail line with roads are perpendicular. To improve the line-of-sight and assist in maneuvering maintenance/operations equipment at some intersections, minor re-routing will be required. 9.0 Planned Improvements A significant amount of work is now in process on the more southern parts of the trail and improvements have included: • Brush clearing • New top covering/resurfacing • Installation of bollards, barriers and gates • Bridges • Signage An evaluation and detailed structural assessment is needed to determine the state of any existing improvements for the Trail from Tichborne to Sharbot Lake. Anticipated improvements will likely include: • •
A general brushing along this section of the Frontenac K&P route Further resurfacing
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 7 of 13
Page 32 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
• • • • • 9.1
X new culverts Construction of X bridges Some fencing Realignments at multiple intersections Approach to deal with discontinuity Signage
Some basic signage will be required as part of addressing basic risk management prior to opening this section of the K&P to the public. This will include ‘stop’ signs at all intersections with roads. Such signs may also be warranted for all crossings of the abandoned rail line. Historical and environmental awareness can be promoted on the Frontenac K&P Trail, strengthening pride in our community and respect for our environment. Opportunities to collaborate with other organizations and municipalities will be investigated to keep a consistent visual appearance as well as leverage and enhance marketing opportunities. 9.2
Sections of the Frontenac K&P for Phasing
The purpose of this phasing plan is to ensure that the terms outlined in the County of Frontenac’s Trails Master Plan are carried out in a systematic and organized fashion in relation to the available financial resources. Trail management has developed implementation plans and phasing schedules for the Frontenac K&P, and the final phase is indicated in the chart below. The completion of this final phase will connect the existing southern trail all the way to Sharbot Lake. Phasing Area
a. Tichborne to Sharbot Lake
Inventory Components Required Chainage (km)
Surfacing (km)
Culverts
Bridges
Fencing (km)
Intersections
40.8 to 53.6
12.8
TBD
TBD
2
16
Estimated resurfacing preparation and materials 3 Clearing and Grubbing Grading and Compaction Granular ‘A’ 3
$61,554.58 $19,235.81 $164,812.38
Costs are based on the 2012 development costs
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 8 of 13
Page 33 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A Stone Dust
$62,901.08
Work Zone Delineation and Marking
$7,000.00
Erosion and Sediment Control
$10,000.00
Work Zone, Traffic and Public Safety
$6,000.00
Disposal of Removed Material
$11,000.00
Trail‐Bridge Transition Repairs ($1,500/bridge) Barriers (16 x $6,100) Bollards (128 x $75)
N/A $97,600.00 $9,600.00
TOTAL (does not include tax)
10.0
$449,703.84
Discontinuity
There are portions of the right of way between Tichborne and Sharbot Lake, which are missing, having been sold off many years ago by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The County of Frontenac, in conjunction with the Township of Central Frontenac, will endeavour to keep the Trail continuous in order to make it more attractive to users and more identifiable as a linear Trail. Re-routing will take place where the County does not own the property and an easement agreement cannot be established with the landowner. Bell Canada had acquired 26 easements between Tichborne and Sharbot Lake in order to provide a continuous right-of-way suitable for its needs. In order to get around a single missing parcel, Bell negotiated a number of easements with different landowners either along the right-of-way or along nearby property. Thus the number of easements is considerably greater than the number of actual gaps. The County of Frontenac currently owns 1.78 kilometers of the trail in this section of the Trail. The County will take the necessary steps to secure sections of the Trail which are not currently in public ownership, either through donation, purchase or easement. See: Appendix A: Tichborne-Sharbot Lake K&P Trail Parcel Ownership 11.0
Capital Development and Cost Estimates
Accurate data for this section is dependent on the completion of an infrastructure assessment, similar to the one completed for the portion of the Trail from Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 9 of 13
Page 34 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
Kingston/Frontenac boundary at Orser Road to Tichborne. This previous inventory assessment for the Central Frontenac portion of the Trail provided overall numbers for improvements up to Tichborne, but did not provide locations for improvements in all cases. It is recommended that a more in-depth assessment of the Central Frontenac portions be completed prior to any development. Before efforts to undertake a new survey can begin, the route must be determined. This current stage will involved significant stakeholder discussion and negotiation. 12.0
Uses for the Frontenac K&P Trail
The Trail is non-motorized from the Kingston K&P to the Cataraqui Trail. North of the Cataraqui Trail, the Frontenac K&P is limited motorized to include snowmobiles only from the Cataraqui Trail to Craig Road north of Verona. Finally, from that point at Craig Road north, Tichborne to Sharbot Lake included is motorized to include snowmobiles and ATV’s only as well other non-motorized uses.
13.0
Acknowledgments
The County of Frontenac would like to thank the following individuals and organizations who make important contributions to the development of the Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan. Partners Townships of the Frontenacs Trails Advisory Committee Alan MacPhail, Committee Chair Janet Gutowski, Warden of Frontenac County Denis Doyle, County Councillor Gary Davison, Councillor John Inglis, County Councillor
Dieter Eberhardt, User Representative Derrick Spafford, User Representative Marc Moyes, Adjacent Land Owner Joan Hollywood, Adjacent Land Owner
Staff: Elizabeth Savill, CAO/ Clerk Anne Marie Young, Manager of Economic Sustainability
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 10 of 13
Page 35 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
Stakeholder Organizations and Our Citizens We are also very grateful to members of the stakeholder organizations such as Lake Associations, Snowmobile and ATV clubs, businesses, schools and citizens of the County and area who gave of their time and energy in attending public meetings and providing written and verbal input to the advisory committee.
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Page 11 of 13
Page 36 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
Appendix A: Tichborne-Sharbot Lake K&P Trail Parcel Ownership
Components Required ARN
103904006004201
Owner
Trail Length (M)
Davis Donald Wayne
232.87
Davis Donald Wayne
266.46
Gore Debra Duggan Stephen Gregory
85.14 31.87
Morsani Ugo
220.47
Morsani Ugo
1243.22
Morsani Ugo Frontenac County Frontenac County
221.71 605.76 365.61
Bell Canada Colby Barry Melvin
94.83 211.07
Frontenac County
747.53
Canadian Pacific Rail
241.72
Thompson George Howard Bell Canada Canadian Pacific Rail Climie Mary Louise Welch Joseph James Macpherson Peter Robert Vinkle Lendon/Cota
7.67
Cormia Gary Irwin Joyce Elizabeth
610.30 646.30
Barker‐Godfrey Lillian P Young John Elgin Hollywood Kenneth
43.95 56.06 128.23
Culverts
Bridg es
Fenci ng (km)
Intersectio ns
356.09 611.05 53.02 175.21 74.53 303.08
Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Surfacin g (km)
Page 12 of 13
Page 37 of 199
AgendaItem#6e)
Appendix A
103907002023601
103907002024400
Howitt Keith Allan Lee Clement
299.55 334.88
Donahue‐Perrault Elsie May C Gable Gregory Clarke
296.85
Wilby Susan Joy Walker John Angus Howes Anne Howes Anne
47.29 786.90 234.24 253.75
868.74
Canadian Pacific Rail 476.68 Total: 11,232.63m (11.23km) = Trail is partially or entirely covered, is not visible, or runs through a waterbody or wetland = Parcels are separated by a road or other type of right‐of‐way
Owner Frontenac County Morsani Ugo Canadian Pacific Rail Gable Gregory Clarke Walker John Angus Irwin Joyce Elizabeth Cormia Gary Davis Donald Wayne Howes Anne Bell Canada Lee Clement Vinkle Lendon/Cota Howitt Keith Allan Donahue‐Perrault Elsie May C Colby Barry Melvin Welch Joseph James Hollywood Kenneth Gore Debra Macpherson Peter Robert Young John Elgin Climie Mary Louise Wilby Susan Joy Barker‐Godfrey Lillian P Duggan Stephen Gregory Thompson George Howard Frontenac K&P Trail Implementation Plan – Phase 2 Tichborne – Sharbot Lake October 1, 2013
December 5, 2013 Trails Advisory Committee
Metres of Trail 1718.9 1685.4 1329.5 868.74 786.9 646.3 610.3 499.35 488.00 450.9 334.9 303.1 299.6 296.9 211.1 175.2 128.2 85.1 74.5 56.1 53.0 47.3 44.0 31.9 7.7
% of Trail 15.3 15.0 11.8 7.7 7.0 5.8 5.4 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1
Page 13 of 13
Page 38 of 199
AgendaItem#6f)
Report 2014-010 INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL To:
Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Director of Corporate Services/Treasurer
Prepared By:
Colleen Hickey, Manager of Human Resources Krista Vandewal, Human Resources Generalist
Date Prepared:
January 20, 2014
Date of Meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Corporate Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment UPDATE REPORT
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Updated Report, Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment report for information.
Background At the December 18th, 2013 County Council meeting, staff provided for Council’s consideration Report # 2013-237, Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment as per Council’s direction when the CPI fell below or above 2%. The report recommended a percentage increase based on the 2013 CPI. At that same meeting, Council passed the following amendment to the main motion which was carried: Motion #: 456-13
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Inglis Deputy Warden Clayton
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the motion be amended to provide all non-union staff a specific dollar amount increase based on the average non-union salary. CARRIED Information Report to Council Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment – Update Report January 29, 2014
2014-010 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 4
Page 39 of 199
AgendaItem#6f)
The main motion, along with the amendment to the main motion was subsequently deferred to 2014 budget deliberations.
Comment The purpose of this update report is to provide information that Council may wish to take into consideration with respect to compensation management and the effect the suggested type of formula has on the County’s non-union wage schedule. Wage schedules are an integral part of all compensation management programs and there is significant value in maintaining effective compensation practices and policies to ensure fair and consistent compensation. Doing so provides the County the ability to maintain internal and pay equity requirements and to maintain a level of market competitiveness when competing for qualified and knowledge-based applicants for positions as these become available. The development of a wage grid is a complex and scientific process which takes into consideration the job responsibilities and requirements in relation to each other position in the organization. An evaluation is undertaken to ensure that there is an appropriate band structure to ensure that work is properly compensated. The County has a responsibility to maintain the grid to ensure that current employees are appropriately provided for, as well as ensuring that, when required, the compensation schedule provides the County with a competitive market salary. It is evident through the recent review that the non-union wage grid has not been maintained in a manner that is conducive to effective compensation management. Examples of this are:
- A median has not been identified or approved by Council which would allow Human Resources to establish a market average along with the County’s ability to pay. It is common for corporations to assess comparators and provide a median of no greater than 50% of the average pay rate for each job classification; larger municipalities commonly use a 60% median. Our last compensation review conducted by Associum and Consultant completed in April of 2011, indicated the median was on average 41%. This type of practice allows corporations to compete for qualified applicants by providing a competitive salary.
- Wage schedules should have a midpoint range, meaning the midpoint of one grade should be about 15 percent higher than the midpoint of the grade below it. This is to ensure that promotions are accompanied by meaningful pay increases and the employee can commence at Step One of the new pay range and management can provide increases based on successful performance appraisals. The County’s mid point range falls below the prescribed 15% in some instances which causes concerns when promoting internal staff. For example: with the current non-union wage grid when an employee is promoted from the union ranks to non-union they are starting their new position at step three as opposed to step one. This outcome does not allow for management to review and guide employees and provide increases from the start range which gives the Information Report to Council Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment – Update Report January 29, 2014
2014-010 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 4
Page 40 of 199
AgendaItem#6f)
employee the ability to increase to the job rate within one – two years as opposed to the common four years it takes to progress through the pay scale. These two concerns have an adverse effect on the County’s compensation management in regards to providing a fair market compensation for non union positions and the compression amongst the non-union schedule and compression between the unionized and non-union wage grids. Given the above rationale the proposed recommendation from Council deviates from the current policy Council approved in 2013. This provides an across the board cost of living percentage increase being applied to an individual’s annual salary or hourly wage based on Statistics Canada’s year over year Consumer Price Index reviewed each October. This policy was proposed as an approach to assist in maintaining the salary structure without conducting a full compensation review and is the common process to maintain the integrity of a wage grid while providing employees a cost of living increase that assists with economic needs. It is appreciated that the Council recommended formula for 2014 is designed to affect the wage grid in a non-systematic manner such that the difference between the top and bottom of the grid move progressively more closely together. The proposal also affects the steps within the grid structure, thereby changing the overall rationale behind the pay structure. For example an employee’s grid step increases would be smaller as that employee moved up the grid. The proposal affects the overall integrity of the wage grid. When lump sum payments have been undertaken in this manner the future requirement to realign the wage grid is a costly exercise. In reviewing compensation, it should also be noted that management staff are not entitled to overtime compensation as each management position is compensated for extra time worked with one week of lieu time. Currently some managers work in excess of 8 -15 hours overtime per week to accomplish work of the County. Furthermore a review has been completed of non-union benefits, which is brought forward for consideration in Report 2014-013.
Sustainability Implications Fair and consistent remuneration practices are a prerequisite to achieving the County’s mission of exceptional service delivery as this ensures the County is able to attract and retain experienced and qualified staff to perform their duties and achieve overall success for the municipality. Ensuring fair compensation that prevents wage band compression between classifications, unionized groups and maintaining the County’s ability to remain competitive in attracting qualified and knowledgeable staff is a responsibility that we have to maintain. Financial Implications Based on Council’s formula the increase to each job class in the non-union wage schedule is 95 cents/hour. The cost to apply this amount is approximately $13,500 based on the County’s allocated share of departmental salary costs. This is in Information Report to Council Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment – Update Report January 29, 2014
2014-010 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 4
Page 41 of 199
AgendaItem#6f)
comparison to the current policy for COLA as noted in the December Report 2013-237 which provides a percentage increase of 2.25% with a cost of $23,000 and a 1.45% would be a cost of $16,916.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Eastern Ontario Municipal Human Resources Group Townships of Frontenac
Information Report to Council Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment – Update Report January 29, 2014
2014-010 Corporate Services
Page 4 of 4
Page 42 of 199
AgendaItem#6g)
Report 2013-237 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Treasurer
Prepared By:
Colleen Hickey Human Resources Labour Relations Specialist Krista Vandewal Human Resources Generalist/Researcher
Date Prepared:
December 3, 2013
Date of Meeting:
December 18, 2013
Re:
Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize a non-union salary increase in accordance with the Non Union Salary Adjustment Policy, effective January 1, 2014 to be applied to all steps of the non-union staff salary schedule.
Background At the County Council meeting on January 16, 2013 Council passed the Non-Union Salary Adjustment Policy with the following Motion #: 37-13 which: RESOLVED THAT Council for the County of Frontenac authorize the implementation of the Non-Union Salary Adjustment Policy that directed:
Administrative Report Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment December 18, 2013
2013-237 Administrative Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 43 of 199
AgendaItem#6g)
Annual adjustments to non-union rates will be set in accordance with the annual Ontario Consumer Price Index for October of each year based on the annual CPI rate. If the Index falls below two (2) percent, the higher of the three (3) County collective agreements wage increases should be applied to the non-union wage schedules to reflect a wage increase and maintain a margin between the unionized and nonunionized bands to curtail compression. Further, a review of the average increases of the four (4) Frontenac Townships, authorized at the time of the County budget will be brought forward for Council’s review to ensure a fair rate is applied. Should the Index exceed three (3) percent, Council direction shall be sought prior to any adjustments being made. All adjustments will be effective January 1st of each year.
Comment As per item 1 of the policy the increase is to be based on the October Ontario Consumer Price Index which is at 0.9%. As per item 2 of the policy if the Index falls below two (2) percent, the higher of the three (3) County collective agreements wage increases should be applied to the non-union wage schedules to reflect a wage increase and maintain a margin between the unionized and non-unionized bands to curtail compression. CUPE Local 109 is the only settled collective agreement for 2014 and the increase is 2.25%. As per item 3 of the policy at the time of this report the Townships have an anticipated average increase of 1.45%.
Sustainability Implications Fair and consistent remuneration is a prerequisite to achieving the County’s mission of exceptional service delivery. This type of remuneration ensures the County is able to attract and retain experienced and qualified staff to perform their duties and achieve overall success for the municipality, maintain a margin between the unionized and nonunionized bands to curtail compression; as well as stay competitive with neighbouring municipal employers.
Financial Implications The cost of a 2.25% non-union salary increase is $23,063 based on the County’s allocated share of departmental salary costs. The cost of a 1.45% non-union salary increase is $16,916 based on the County’s allocated share of departmental salary costs.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Administrative Report Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment December 18, 2013
2013-237 Administrative Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 44 of 199
AgendaItem#6g)
Eastern Ontario Municipal Human Resources Group Townships of Frontenac
Administrative Report Administrative Services – Non-Union Cost of Living Adjustment December 18, 2013
2013-237 Administrative Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 45 of 199
AgendaItem#6h)
Report 2014-013 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Treasurer
Prepared By:
Colleen Hickey Manager of Human Resources Krista Vandewal Human Resources Generalist
Date Prepared:
November 29, 2013
Date of Meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Corporate Services – Non-Union Benefits
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Corporate Services – Non-Union Benefits report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the increase of the current non-union benefits to reflect those offered to the OPSEU bargaining unit. AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize staff to review the non-union benefits yearly to ensure they are consistent and fair and adjust the nonunion benefits if needed to maintain this equity. Background The County of Frontenac provides a range of benefits to employees as part of their remuneration packages. There are four separate benefit groups with varying benefit packages. Unionized benefits are negotiated through the collective bargaining process and approved by Council and market comparisons are conducted to ensure consistency. Currently non-union benefits are matched with the unionized group with the lowest benefit entitlement. Administrative Report Corporate Services – Non-Union Benefits January 29, 2014
2014-013 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 46 of 199
AgendaItem#6h)
In 2005, the Council of the County of Frontenac confirmed its intent to continue to offer a benefits package to its non-union group-unionized staff and management staff members that is consistent with its unionized labour forces. In our effort to ensure the County provides a fair compensation package to its current non-unionized staff a comparison has been conducted to assess the value of non-union benefits to the three unionized groups. Comment By reviewing and maintaining a fair compensation package, when a vacancy occurs we are ensuring we are offering a benefit package that is fair and competitive in the job market so that we may compete for knowledgeable and qualified staff. It is also good business practice for the County to review compensation and benefit entitlements to ensure we are maintaining a fair and competitive wage and benefit program and applying consistency in our policies and processes. To this end the non-union vision benefits have been increased to $300 to reflect Council’s intent from 2005 to remain consistent with the County’s unionized labour forces. This represents the lowest vision benefit of the three unionized groups. Cost Analysis- Benefits Human Resources have undertaken a review to compare the current non-union benefit entitlement against our three unionized benefit plans. When evaluating the costs of the plans the following benefits were included: • All benefits provided through Blue Cross which include Extended Health & Dental. • Vision Wear Reimbursement (self-funded) Currently the non-union health and dental benefits are the same as CUPE 109 and vision wear reimbursement is matched with CUPE 2290 as they are respectively the lower of the two types of benefits offered. If the County was to align non union benefits to one of its unionized groups as opposed to the current practice of the lowest benefit provided, the cost is noted in the chart below depending on which union group. Unions Differential
CUPE 109 Plan $1,650.00
CUPE 2290 Plan $4,524.96
OPSEU 462 Plan $5,507.82
The differential of $1650 to move to CUPE 109’s total package reflects an increase in the vision wear reimbursement; all other benefits would remain the same. The differentials noted above to move to the CUPE 2290 or the OPSEU 462 plans would encompass both Blue Cross and vision wear reimbursement offered to each union group, if either of these options is adopted. Administrative Report Corporate Services – Non-Union Benefits January 29, 2014
2014-013 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 47 of 199
AgendaItem#6h)
Human Resources surveyed the Eastern Ontario Human Resources Group to gauge what practices other neighbouring municipalities follow to provide benefits to their nonunion workforce. Out of the survey respondents most of the municipalities matched the best benefits provided to their unionized workforce or stayed on par with an average, harmonizing benefits across the different groups. One responding municipality’s nonunion benefits are far superior to that of their unionized workforce. Sustainability Implications Fair and consistent remuneration which includes the provision of benefits is a prerequisite to achieving the County’s mission of exceptional service delivery. This type of remuneration ensures the County is able to attract and retain experienced and qualified staff to perform their duties and achieve overall success for the municipality; as well as stay competitive with neighbouring municipal employers. Financial Implications If Council were to authorize the provision of benefits to match those offered to OPSEU the financial impact would be $5,507.82 to adjust the non-union benefits. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Eastern Ontario Municipal Human Resources Group Susan Brant, Deputy Treasurer
Administrative Report Corporate Services – Non-Union Benefits January 29, 2014
2014-013 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 48 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
Report 2014-011 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
WARDEN AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO
Prepared by:
Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer Paul Charbonneau Director of Emergency and Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedics Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount
Date prepared:
January 13, 2014
Date of meeting:
January 29, 2014
Re:
Financial Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Financial Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget report for discussion; AND FINALLY THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac pass a by-law later in the meeting approving the 2014 Budget as amended.
Background Under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, CHAPTER 25, as amended, Section 289(1) states an upper-tier municipality shall in each year prepare and adopt a budget including estimates of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the upper-tier municipality. At the December 18, 2013 meeting of Council the following resolution was carried.
Motion #: 474-13
Moved By: Seconded By:
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Councillor Doyle Councillor Davison
Page 1 of 8
Page 49 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
WHEREAS at recent Council meetings Councillors made the valid point that it is not appropriate for Council to sit in meetings arguing over how much money to include in every line of the budget. AND WHEREAS it is not the leading practice to develop budgets in this manner, for example over the past few years the practice of upper levels of government was to direct staff to find a specified percentage reduction in budgets year over year, and it then becomes staff’s responsibility to propose what cuts could be taken to achieve the requested percentage decrease, and then present recommendations for political consideration. AND WHEREAS staff have been asking for direction on how to proceed with the budget and other strategic matters. Given the Strategic Plan underway will not be completed in time for the 2014 budget discussions specific direction is needed to assist in expeditiously deciding on the 2014 budget. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council directs Staff to prepare two versions of the 2014 draft budget for discussion in January: a) one that shows a 1% increase in the 2014 budget over 2013, b) and the second version of the draft budget shows a 1% reduction in expenses year over year. These budgets must find true expense savings and not be accomplished by transferring money from reserves to offset 2014 expenses. Council also directs staff to first of all find savings to offset the approximate $150,000 that was transferred from the working capital reserve in the 2013 budget. It is suggested that the KPMG SDOR report be used to help identify savings to assist in meeting the above directions. It is further suggested that particular attention be given to areas that are expected to be under budget in 2013 and that the 2014 budget for those areas be 2013 actual expense as opposed to the traditional approach of using last year’s budget, and adding some percentage to account for inflation. CARRIED Comment LEVY Historic tax levy: The County levy has consistently been reduced over the past few years. This is in part due to uploaded Social Services costs being transferred through the budget process. However in other years this reduction has been achieved by allocation of reserves to offset operating costs. In 2013 $150,000 was brought in from reserves to offset the levy. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2.94% ‐0.59% ‐4.20% ‐1.40% ‐1.91%
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 8
Page 50 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014 BUDGET CONTEXT General Economic Scope: The consensus is that world GDP growth will accelerate in 2014, but the Bank of Canada is not expected to change its overnight interest rate, currently set at 1% in the near term. The slide in the Canadian dollar is anticipated to fuel exports. Real GDP growth is projected at 2.6% in 2014, up from 1.7% 2013. OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) are not set to increase in 2014. Medical benefits are increasing 3.8% in 2014. WSIB, CPP and EI rates have not increased but the maximum contribution has increased 2.5% and the CPP maximum contribution increased by 2.8%. Ontario Hydro rates are increasing. The blended rate is increasing by 5% from 2013. Strategic Direction: The County has a strategic vision for the next 50 years as documented in its Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP), Directions for our Future, a document that has achieved Provincial recognition. Council continues to be progressive in recognizing the need to maintain and build on the momentum of this strategic exercise. This community-led initiative provides an opportunity to cooperatively build on the strengths and opportunities that abound. Council Strategic Direction: Council is responsible for setting a direction for the County over the shorter term. A strategic planning session is scheduled for January 28, 2014. Council Budget Direction: The Council resolution passed on December 18th with respect to the 2014 budget was not clear in its wording. Staff has taken the intent of Council as being to provide budget information showing a 1% levy increase and a 1% levy decrease. These scenarios were to first find, within the 2014 operating budget, the $150,000 in working capital transfer requested by Council in 2013 to offset the 2013 budget levy, an effective 1.86% levy impact in 2014. As the strategies required to bring forward budget scenarios in line with Council’s direction involve substantial policy decisions, staff has provided discussion items for consideration. The detailed document provides a 2014 budget that is in line with expenditures in 2013, anticipated changes in weighted assessment distribution of costs with the City of Kingston, reflects Council direction in areas of union negotiations, funding of external projects and provision for capital replacement. Directions for discussion will provide strategies that might be pursued by Council to move towards the 1% reduction in levy or 1% increase in levy. Some of these strategies have service delivery and staffing implications so will be presented in camera. Council direction also suggests that the KPMG SDOR report be used to help identify savings to assist in meeting the targets. In the interest of identifying the opportunities to be pursued in 2014, the SDOR Committee provided recommendations to Council as follows. THAT the Corporate Services vehicle complement be reduced to the 2 Prius vehicles, with the other vehicles to be disposed of accordingly. THAT Council seek a consultant for the work of two (2) lean6sigma process reviews for Procurement and the second to be brought forward by staff.
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 8
Page 51 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
THAT the CAO bring forward to County Council any policies of a significant nature for which there could be risks. The reduction of the number of vehicles will result in reduced vehicle operation costs, but will result in increased mileage costs and without a full assessment, the net impact of this recommendation has no net levy impact in 2014. The consultant costs related to the lean6 sigma process, has been offset by a transfer from the working fund reserve in the detailed budget presentation with no net levy impact. The policy recommendation had no direct budget impact in 2014. The SDOR report also recommended that the County develop a policy of gradual adjustments to the tax levy to avoid unforeseen spikes or drops. Assessment: 93.4% of the total County assessment, or 96.3% of taxable assessment is residential. The total taxable current value assessment is 4,900,456,730, an increase of 6.31% over 2013. The 6.31% includes a growth in assessment, primarily residential, not related to re-assessment increase which equates to a 1.48% increase in weighted assessment.
Table 1. 2013-2014 Total Assessment Change.
2013 482,864,950 2,710,722,008 791,403,268 765,528,684 4,750,518,910
Frontenac Islands South Frontenac Central Frontenac North Frontenac Total
2014 507,345,965 2,889,018,294 836,930,598 818,041,278 5,051,336,135
2013‐2014 % change 5.07% 6.58% 5.75% 6.86% 6.33%
2014 % share of total County Assessment 10.04% 57.19% 16.57% 16.19% 100.00%
Current value assessment is multiplied by the tax ratio to determine the tax rate for each class. In January Council adopted the following tax ratios, unchanged from 1998, established in consultation with the Townships. Table 2. Tax Ratios ASSESSMENT CLASS Residential & Farm Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Occupied Industrial Occupied Pipeline Farmland Managed Forests
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
TAX RATIO 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.7000 0.2500 0.2500
Page 4 of 8
Page 52 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
Although the relative share of the total budget for each Township has shifted based on changing assessment, it must be remembered that each ratepayer in the County contributes based on the same tax rate, which currently is 0.00173510 for Residential. Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Budget MUNICIPALITY
Percentage of Total Budget 2014
2013
Township of Frontenac Islands
9.82%
9.93%
Township of South Frontenac
57.76%
57.61%
Township of Central Frontenac
16.51%
16.59%
Township of North Frontenac
15.91%
15.86%
Budget Development: The budget was developed in the context of all the factors outlined above, recognizing the need to be fiscally prudent, but ensuring that the County continues to be in a position to be able to take advantage of opportunities for future sustainable development. 2014 BUDGET VARIANCE: The budget document provides detailed discussion of variance from 2013 budget and actuals. General • POA revenue is reduced by $11,000 in the 2014 budget • Council authorized $130,000 transfer from reserve in 2013 that is not included in 2014 Governance • Council member per diem costs have been increased over actuals to reflect the additional Committee of the Whole meetings ( 10 estimated for 2014). A 2% increase in 2014 is reflected • Two new committees are included, the Service Delivery and Organization Review (SDOR), anticipating 3 meetings in 2014 and the Housing Task Force, anticipating 5 meetings in 2014 • Provision for Council member attendance at conferences has been added, an increase of $5,200 over 2013. • Wardens budget includes $7,500 for a term-end Warden’s banquet Corporate • Salaries have been reduced to reflect the fact that the CAO will not be in place for the full year. The finance contract utilizing the recovery from Frontenac Islands,$12,500 is included ( no net financial impact for the latter). • Communications The licence cost for the document management system is new in 2014, about $11,000, upgraded licences $8k • Staff conference and training fees have been reduced substantially. • Council authorized $20,000 transfer from the Working fund reserve in 2013 that is not included in 2014 Land Ambulance • Eliiminate Unassigned Staffing Hours: o Unassigned staffing hours are utilized for emergency upstaffing, public relations events and unexpected staffing requirements outside of the usual Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 5 of 8
Page 53 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
staffing commitment in our Deployment Plan including Queen’s events, severe weather, etc. o FPS will eliminate the public relations events that it pays staff to attend. • Vehicle Service and Supplies Cost Reductions o Significant reduction in the internal transfer to reserves for ambulances has been achieved with the implementation of the refurbish program. o Additional savings in vehicle maintenance will be realized through the three (3) year pilot project of comparing three (3) refurbished ambulances to three (3) new ambulances. o In 2014 we will continue to realized significant savings in fuel due to the new ECORUN systems • Building Maintenance Reductions o Two initiatives o RFP for new Maintenance Contractor, The RFP reduced the hourly cost for maintenance services by 40%. o 2) PT Logistics position. The introduction of the PT Logistics will allow our logistics staff to do minor maintenance thus eliminating the need to call the maintenance contractor. The increase in budget from 2013 to 2014 reflects the addition of the new Robertsville Station Fairmount Home • Revenue - anticipate a small increase in envelope funding and the nursing revenue is based on current Case Mix Index. There is an increase in other revenue related to Outside the Box program funding from New Horizons for Seniors. The Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care has provided an increase in funding for physician on call, introduced new funding for physiotherapy and exercise classes and is providing onetime funding for direct care staff education and training. •
Expenditures have been adjusted to reflect the new funding noted above. As well, high intensity needs expenses in Raw Food and Nursing have been reduced to reflect actual funding levels. You may remember last year $5,000 was added to each area based on past usage of this fund however this was not expensed in 2013. We have also increased the legal and labour relations expenditures as we are scheduled for three arbitrations in 2014. There has also been an increase to the building maintenance expenses in relation to duct cleaning that is required every five years, an increase in the electrical budget and an allocation for wall protection for dining rooms.
BUDGET MITIGATION DISCUSSION ITEMS Council has provided direction with respect to the levy change in 2014, but in the absence of clear strategic direction, a number of items are presented for Council discussion to determine appropriate direction for the 2014 budget. •
Discussion Item 1: Eliminate new items under Governance – Council conferences,
Wardens reception Benefit: Council benefits from attendance at conferences. The Wardens reception
is an opportunity to highlight the achievements of Council over the term.
Risk: The risk is minimal.
Net Value of Direction: Council conferences $5,200; Warden`s reception $7,500
.16% saving on the levy
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 6 of 8
Page 54 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
•
Discussion Item 2: Transportation Collaborative – maintain at 2013 allocation Benefit: The Transportation Collaborative provides a valuable service to the residents of the County who have limited options for transportation. Risk: The viability of the County hinges on transportation. The current service would have to be reduced. Net Value of Direction: The Transportation Collaborative has utilized various avenues to try to manage the costs of running the system. The additional 2014 allocation is $10,000. To maintain the 2013 funding level would be a .12% savings on the levy.
•
Discussion Items 3 – 5: These options have contract implications and have been provided for discussion in-camera report 2014-017 Finance – 2014 Draft Budget Mitigation Options.
•
Discussion Item 6: Use a Working fund transfer in 2014 to mitigate the impact of recouping the full $150,000 in 2014. Benefit: Reduction of the current tax rate. Risk: The full cost of the current operation is not fully reflected on the tax rate and will have to be accounted for in future years. Net Value of Direction: $50,000 allocation from Working Fund is about .62%
RESERVE AND RESERVE FUNDS: These have been presented in the categories of Operating, Asset Management, Legally Restricted, External Agency and Strategic. An additional reserve, the Discretionary Residency Benefit Reserve has been added, under External Agency reserves in line with Council direction to reallocate funds from the Social Service budget. KPMG recommended the consideration of a 10% contingency reserve for Fairmount Home and Land Ambulance. This recommendation has not been incorporated in the current reserve presentation. Financial Implications Table 4 2014 Budget Mitigation Discussion Items
Discussion Item 1 Discussion Item 2 Discussion Items 3 ‐ 5 Discussion Item 6
$
% of levy increase
12,700 10,000 222,280 50,000
0.16% 0.12% 2.75% 0.62%
Table 5 2014 Levy Highlights Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 7 of 8
Page 55 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
General General Government Governance Corporate Sustainability Planning Economic Development Emergency Management Land Ambulance Fairmount Home Social Services Social Housing Health Unit Library Transfers to Lower Tiers and Other agencies Overall Levy increase Growth
2014
2013
diff
‐311,061 1,882,796 180,850 1,701,946 333,345 142,569 34,600 1,638,890 1,029,279 1,210,805 748,586 703,517 784,388
‐433,541 1,849,191 165,559 1,683,632 351,926 129,466 9,600 1,552,309 1,007,885 1,248,704 759,467 690,736 765,796
122,480 33,605 15,291 18,314 ‐18,581 13,103 25,000 86,581 21,394 ‐37,899 ‐10,881 12,781 18,592
150,000 8,347,712
140,000 8,071,540
10,000 309,780
% variance year over year ‐28.25% 1.82%
% impact on levy change
% impact on levy change
9.24% 1.09%
0.19% 0.23%
1.52% 0.42%
‐5.28% 10.12% 260.42% 5.58% 2.12% ‐3.04% ‐1.43% 1.85% 2.43%
‐0.23% 0.16% 0.31% 1.07% 0.27% ‐0.47% ‐0.13% 0.16% 0.23%
7.14% 3.84%
0.12% 3.42% 1.48%
Levy increase accounting for growth
% variance year over year
1.94%
Sustainability Implications Sustainability is dependent on good governance and stewardship of County resources.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Frontenac Staff Kingston Frontenac Public Library Kingston-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Public Health Unit
Financial Services - 2014 Draft Budget January 29, 2014
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 8 of 8
Page 56 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 57 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 58 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 59 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 60 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 61 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 62 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 63 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 64 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 65 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 66 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 67 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 68 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 69 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 70 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 71 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 72 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 73 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 74 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 75 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 76 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 77 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 78 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 79 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 80 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 81 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 82 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 83 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 84 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 85 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 86 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 87 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 88 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 89 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 90 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 91 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 92 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 93 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 94 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 95 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 96 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 97 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 98 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 99 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 100 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 101 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 102 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 103 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 104 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 105 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 106 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 107 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 108 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 109 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 110 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 111 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 112 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 113 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 114 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 115 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 116 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 117 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 118 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 119 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 120 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 121 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 122 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 123 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 124 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 125 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 126 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 127 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 128 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 129 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 130 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 131 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 132 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 133 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 134 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 135 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 136 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 137 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 138 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 139 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 140 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 141 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 142 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 143 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 144 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 145 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 146 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 147 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 148 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 149 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 150 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 151 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 152 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 153 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 154 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 155 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 156 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 157 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 158 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 159 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 160 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 161 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 162 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 163 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 164 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 165 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 166 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 167 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 168 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 169 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 170 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 171 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 172 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 173 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 174 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 175 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 176 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 177 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 178 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 179 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 180 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 181 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 182 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 183 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 184 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 185 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 186 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 187 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 188 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 189 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 190 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 191 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 192 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 193 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 194 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 195 of 199
AgendaItem#6i)
2014-011 Corporate Services
Page 196 of 199
AgendaItem#6j)
Report 2014-028 RECOMMEND REPORT TO COUNCIL To:
WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
From:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Treasurer
Prepared by:
Marian VanBruinessen Acting CAO/Treasurer
Date prepared:
February 6, 2014
Date of meeting:
February 7, 2014
Re:
Corporate Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Corporate Services – 2013 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction report; AND FURTHER Council acknowledge the implications related to the 2015 Budget, AND FINALY that Council direct the Treasurer to make the changes to the 2014 as outlined in this report. Background During budget discussions on February 5, 2014 staff was directed to find another $25,000 across the organization to bring the levy after growth to 1%. Comment As indicated to Council staff felt that original budget presented was reasonable. The initial budget provided for an actual operating increase of 3.42%, but when the working fund transfer from 2013 is removed the increase was 1.56% or .09% increase after growth.
Recommend Report to Council Corporate Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction February 7, 2014
2014-028 Corporate Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 197 of 199
AgendaItem#6j)
Further amendments brought the budget to an actual levy increase of 2.79% or .93% increase when the 2013 working fund transfer is removed, the amount after growth is a negative .54%. 2014 Request for Further Budget Reduction Council requested that staff find a further $25,000 to reduce the levy after growth, including the 2013 working fund transfer, to 1%. The direction was to look across all departments. Corporate: As no direction had been provided at the time of this report on the Cost of living allowance, staff have adjusted this to 1.45% for both Council and staff – County net impact $6,679. Council: The cost of the Warden’s banquet, $7,500, is new in 2014, and has been reduced by $2,500. It is suggested that the event could be downsized, or a cost recovery implemented through the sale of tickets for the event. Fairmount Home: Equipment purchases have been postponed to 2015, $12,350 – County net $3,962. Land Ambulance: Supervisory hours have been reduced by $19,000 – County net $3,962. Land Ambulance: Half of the consulting costs for the culture change project have been postponed to 2015, resulting in a longer period before results can be realized, $21,100 – County net $4,400 Land Ambulance: Reduction of legal costs as a number of arbitrations have been taken off the table. $20,000 – County net $4,170. Further reductions to the 2014 DRAFT Budget $ Council and Non-union wages at 1.45% Warden’s reception Fairmount - postpone equipment purchases FPS - staffing change FPS - change culture reduction FPS- reduce legal Total reduction
6,679 2,500 3,952 3,962 4,400 4,170 $25,663
The net budget levy increase is 2.47%, or 1% after growth. 2015 Budget Implications Council needs to be aware that the decisions made in 2014 have repercussions for the 2015 Budget.
2015 Budget implications Recommend Report to Council Corporate Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction February 7, 2014
2014-028 Corporate Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 198 of 199
AgendaItem#6j)
$ CAO full year FMT allocation to reserves County allocation to reserves Weighted assessment comparative increase Lean six sigma projects - if approved by Council ( funded from the Working fund in 2014)
72,000 71,469 20,500 38,000 30,000
$231,969
This represents a 2.8% levy increase over 2014 before providing for CPI, wage adjustments, new annual reserve allocations, etc. Most items other than the LEAN six sigma projects should not be considered discretionary in 2015.
Sustainability Implications Sustainability is dependent on good governance and stewardship of County resources. Financial Implications The 2014 budget after adjustments shows a net levy increase after growth of 1%. The 2015 budget will experience pressures that should be acknowledged by Council. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Senior Management
Recommend Report to Council Corporate Services – 2014 DRAFT Budget Further Reduction February 7, 2014
2014-028 Corporate Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 199 of 199
