Body: Council Type: Document Meeting: Regular Date: 2019 Collection: Agenda Attachments Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Item Attachments/Agenda Item/2019/March/Mr. Rob Wood, 8020 Info Inc. will take Council through each of the major strategic issues to be discussed./Frontenac Stratplan - Mar 27 County Workshop Discussion Guide-Materials - 2019-0322E.pdf)
Document Text
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 1 of 27
Frontenac County Strategic Plan
Mar.27 County Council Workshop: Discussion Guide & Materials 8:45am
Informal Mixing/Refreshments/Snacks
9:00am
Introductory Presentation / Overview of the Workshop
9:15am
Lightning Round: Reactions to advance input & township consultations (See appended documentation.)
9:30am
Developing /Confirming a Vision for the County (see worksheet, pages 4-5)
9:45am
Strategic Choices — Setting Priorities and Direction (see worksheets): • • • • • • • •
What leadership role should the County play? (see pages 6-7) Strategic approaches for working with other municipalities & partners (p8) Pressures for connectivity/responding to broadband/cell service gaps (p9-10) Responding to environmental concerns & applying a climate “lens” (p11-12) Priorities for transportation services (moving people, ferries) (see p13-14) Playing a role in funding roads/bridges, or not? (pages 15-16) Priorities and direction for economic development (page 17) Strategic choices related to planning & development (page 18)
10:30am
Break
10:50am
Strategic Choices (continued): •
Financial, taxation and debt parameters (pages 19-20)
•
Decisions with major capital, risk or budget Implications: ▪ Long Term Care and what to do with Fairmount building (p21-22) ▪ Reviewing County options for Administrative Offices (page 23) ▪ Priorities for Paramedic Services (see 24-25) ▪ Background on Financial Services (page 26)
•
Other strategies to be proposed?
Noon
Mission (page 3)— Review/Confirmation (changes required after discussion?)
12:10pm
Wrap-up, Next Steps and Takeaways
12:25pm
Adjournment
Note: Some participants must leave for other County-related meetings by ~12:15pm.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 2 of 27
Other Important Priorities not included above as requiring strategic decisions: The priorities identified in a strategic plan speak to areas where special attention, resources and effort are needed over the current term of County Council. In addition, several other important issues related to the strategic planning process will be addressed in the annual operational plans for the organization. They include: •
Frontenac Paramedic Services (per its recently approved strategic plan)
•
Fairmount (wait lists, recruitment, staffing levels and other issues)
•
10 Year Housing Plan and Seniors/Retirement Homes
•
Trails and Recreation
•
Asset Management and Financial Services
•
Municipal Information Services or Legislative and HR Services
•
GIS and Continuous Improvement
•
Shared Services
•
Others to be noted?
Summary of Strategy Development Process To Date: •
“Commissioning” Session — consultation Jan. 14 with County Council members
•
Background research, reviewing reports, business plans and related documents
•
Consultation with Senior Staff Feb. 14
•
Consultation meetings with Township Councils: o o o o
Feb. 28 — Central Frontenac Township Mar. 1 — North Frontenac Township Mar. 11 — Frontenac Islands Township Mar. 12 — South Frontenac Township
•
Online Input/Community Survey (203 responses) — March 4-22, 2019.
•
County Council Priority-Setting Workshop — March 27, 2019 Future Milestone Dates:
•
Follow-up work with staff after the County Council workshop — March/April
•
Draft strategic plan to County Council for review / direction — April 17 / May 15
•
Frontenac County Strategy Plan to Council for final approval — May 15 / June 19
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 3 of 27
Mission Review All strategy is framed by your mission: your purpose or reason for being. Most municipal mission statements are quite similar. Frontenac County’s 2014-2018 (current) Mission Statement is: The effective, efficient and sustainable delivery of services to citizens. We’ll come back to this statement at the end of the planning workshop to see whether any tweaks might be needed in light of Council’s vision and strategy development discussion.
Defining Success: Another dimension related to your core purpose or mission involves reflecting on what County Council would define as a “success”. What difference should the County of Frontenac make in the world (i.e. what should be accomplished), for whom, and at what level of effort, cost or investment (e.g. should that be more, less, or about the same as current levels)? Some input from the township consultations also suggested that greater clarity is needed around the County’s “value proposition”.
For reference: The four key modules in the Balanced Scorecard for the County are: • Customer Focus • Financial Performance • Learning and Growth • Process Improvement
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 4 of 27
Vision Review: Frontenac County’s 2014-2018 (current) Vision Statement is: The County of Frontenac is known for its unique natural environment and lifestyle choices and commitment to — and promotion of — strong, resilient, diverse, rural communities. What do we envision for Frontenac County? | Key goals to achieve that vision? For consideration: From the northern most tip to the islands, the County of Frontenac is a vibrant community of diverse friendly people from all walks of life. The beauty of Frontenac is in the landscape but the strength is in its people. The County of Frontenac’s goal is to support the people of Frontenac and be the voice for the rural community. The County of Frontenac facilitates those living, visiting and doing business to experience the diversity of the region and all that it has to offer in areas of tourism, agriculture, forestry, services and government. The County of Frontenac recognizes the unique and distinct characteristics of its four townships and how each contributes to the rich culture of the region. Frontenac is committed to sustaining its pristine natural environment and lifestyle choices, and the promotion of strong, resilient, diverse, rural communities. As a framework for strategic planning, the future vision might incorporate goals related to: •
Working together with muncipalities (the townships, City of Kingston and other counties) to resolve complex issues where solutions require a collaborative vision and effort with partners beyond County borders. This might include addressing broad issues like expanding the network of broadband and cell services, finding new solutions for waste management, seeking additional funding for roads, and finding savings through shared services and facilities.
•
Supporting community vitality through services, infrastructure, and partnerships.
•
Effective management of planning, community and economic development.
•
Completing major capital projects related to Fairmount and administrative offices.
•
A sustainable financial framework that respects the taxpayer and manages risks.
•
Building the County’s capacity in terms of strong leadership, organizational development, partnerships, physical infrastructure, IT, and HR/staffing/succession.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 5 of 27
What We Mean To Others — Brand Positioning. Brand is more than a tagline or slogan. It infuses your product or service with meaning. A clearly articulated brand provides focus and is a foundation for all brand experiences. It should guide decision-making on important choices affecting the development of your organization, from human resources to operating budgets. The County of Frontenac brand expression and identity was launched in 2016. The goal of the campaign was to create a sense of place for Frontenac and to highlight the offerings of the community to support and attract business, tourism and residents. The #infrontenac campaign has shaped the economic development programming and promotion of key sectors including: • • • •
agriculture, food and beverage, manufacturing and technology, and trails and recreation.
Questions for Reflection/ Discussion on the future Vision for Frontenac County: A vision statement is typically a clear and succinct description of goals for what the organization and/or community should look like after we successfully achieve our full potential. It also involves a blend of aspirations that preserve “the core” while stimulating progress. •
A decade from now, what kinds of accomplishments would make us the proudest? What would/could/should be our most significant breakthrough in that time?
•
How might future internal or external engagement / interactions be different?
•
How might the organization and its programs be positioned within the broader network of services? How will we be different, better and special? Who are our key partners for the future? What’s our niche? And what do we NOT do?
•
What does Frontenac County look like as an organization in terms of people, resources, scope of services, geography covered, and leadership approach?
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 6 of 27
Briefing/Worksheets Strategic Choices — Setting Priorities and Direction
- What leadership role should the County play? Strategic Choices: •
Clarify what leadership role, if any, the County should play in coordinating joint action with townships, the City of Kingston and other partners to develop solutions to complex problems otherwise beyond the reach of formal mandates and jurisdictions.
Options/Scenarios: Examples of issues raised during the consultation process include: • • • • • • •
Working with other municipalities to help find long-term solutions to potential waste management issues (this service responsibility rests with the townships); Playing an active, centralized role in seeking grants and funding opportunities for both upper and lower tier municipalities in a shared cost model; Promoting a consistent approach in the region to develop a culture sensitive to climate change and environmental concerns (see #4, page 11); Advocating with partners for a regional approach to transportation (moving people); Coordinating a shared services model/network for the County together with partners; Providing leadership to find economies and efficiencies by sharing assets, such as a joint administrative office or similar facilities; Externally representing the county and its constituent parts (townships/communities) through channels such as the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC), Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN), Eastern Ontario Leadership Council and so on.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
The challenge will be to find the right balance between centralization and local autonomy, seizing collaborative opportunities without disrupting existing jurisdictions and responsibilities, finding payoffs for all the partners involved, and a sustainable model to enable the County to play such a role.
•
Some have pointed out past successes in this approach whether it’s promoting a County identity, sharing back-office functions or advancing the region’s interests through EOWC and EORN.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 7 of 27
An example: Collaboration to Address Waste Management Issues Waste management is part of Environmental Services and focuses on solid waste collection, disposal and waste diversion (recycling/reuse). A 2014 Environmental Services White Paper prepared by the EOWC found that: • Eastern Ontario municipalities were spending $80 million a year for solid waste and waste diversion (2012) •
Solid waste management liabilities (closure and post-closure costs when landfills are filled) totalled $95 million for rural municipalities (ten times that of the City of Ottawa) (2012). Municipalities typically hold environmental reserves to cover such costs, but they would not cover both closure and creation of any new capacity.
•
In 2014, there were 426 municipally-owned/operated landfills in Rural Eastern Ontario, 181 of which were still open (the rest are closed with municipalities bearing the monitoring costs). There was an estimated 37% of total capacity still available.
•
If rural townships are required (by the Province) to receive ICI waste from major centres, landfills in municipalities like the townships of Frontenac County may fill up much faster than expected.
•
It may become imperative for rural townships to consider more intensive diversion strategies than have been considered in past — for solid waste from other jurisdictions as well as internally generated.
•
Options for waste diversion include: ▪ Multi-municipality collaborations and material recovery facilities (MRFs). ▪ Participation in studies or trade associations that seek to grow the market for recovered materials. ▪ Advocacy concerning strategies to reduce the total amount of waste in Ontario. ▪ Diversion of some kinds of solid waste to fire energy-from-waste incinerators. Waste diversion (one way to extend the life of landfills) may have plateaued at roughly 29% of total solid waste generated, with higher cost per tonne in rural areas as compared to urban (average $361 to $452/tonne for rural areas; $155 to $211/tonne for urban areas; higher costs due in part to higher transportation costs)
•
•
Some municipalities are expressing interest in a multi-municipality Energy-FromWaste facility (incinerator) but appreciate that this strategy might only be financially sustainable if a significant number of adjacent municipalities develop the facility together. There may also be significant regulatory hurdles to overcome.
•
It has been suggested that the County might provide some leadership on building critical mass and helping the townships overcome regulatory hurdles.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 8 of 27
- Approaches for working with other municipalities and partners Strategic Choices: •
Whether or not (or to what extent) the County should explore alternative political and/or operational structures and agreements with townships, the City of Kingston and other partners as a strategy to optimize efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Some feedback in the consultation process suggested it would be worthwhile to consider “what works” and “who could best deliver” various services provided by the County, townships and the City. The idea pointed towards a network/consortial model rather than a traditional, hierarchical approach, with a focus on leaner administration.
•
It was noted that some past projects have involved townships working together; in other cases, the County has worked in coordination with individual townships. (Shared services for back-office functions like IT, HR, and finance and/or planning are examples.)
•
One proposal was that the County, in conjunction with the member municipalities, conduct a comprehensive review across all five organizations.
•
It’s not clear at this point what kind of timeline would be realistic for such a project.
•
Such an approach would also require a review of how joint, shared or coordinated resources might be funded over the long term. (An example might be a grant application writer hired at the County, funded in part by townships that save time/money or otherwise benefit from sharing the expertise and resources.)
•
It was also noted that a shared-services system can provide “bench-strength” to cover vacations, sick leaves or interim periods of service between hires.
•
No specific new opportunities for savings were identified in the township consultations — current arrangements seem to be working well, however, in those areas where they have already been implemented.
•
A question was raised about whether a revised structure might help the municipalities cope with expected retirements in senior leadership positions.
•
Some input indicated that the value proposition for the County (i.e. what value is offered/delivered to taxpayers) may not be apparent to the public. Clarifying the role of the County vis- à-vis the townships may be helpful both in showing the value of services delivered and also in clarifying some degree of confusion about it among members of the public.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 9 of 27
- Pressures for connectivity: Responding to broadband/cell service gaps Strategic Choices: •
Deciding whether to ‘stay the course’ with a long-term regional approach (with support from the County) or pursuing a solution distinctly ‘made-in-Frontenac-County”.
Options/Scenarios: •
Continue with the regional (EORN) approach, with EORN as the lead.
•
Actively support EORN through continued provincial and federal advocacy (via EOWC and/or independently).
•
Select and design ‘band-aid’ solutions for one or more ‘local’ areas where regional approaches are challenged to address either fixed or mobile broadband/cell service.
•
Focus on developing applications/laying the groundwork for eventual use of upgraded/gap-filling service (e.g. first responders/public safety, fleet connectivity, roads maintenance and winter control, installation of sensors for environmental monitoring/water quality, autonomous vehicles).
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Digital connectivity crosses municipal boundaries and links to other types of infrastructure (e.g. transportation infrastructure and services); it usually involves working with local stakeholders in the private and public sectors.
•
Designing and costing connectivity/broadband projects is time-consuming, taking years of work to prepare for and implement connectivity projects that ‘move the needle’. It also requires negotiating muscle with ‘big players’ and funders in both public and private sectors,
•
Both the EOWC and the EOLC (which includes representation from EOMC and the economic development community) have made digital connectivity their top priority, considering it as ‘foundational’ infrastructure without which the success of any economic development initiative will likely be weakened.
•
The CRTC has established a new standard for ‘high speed internet’ (50 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up); EORN is studying the cost to reach this target across the region.
•
There are new technologies entering the digital infrastructure arena (such as Low Earth Orbiting satellites) that may help to address connectivity gaps in both urban and rural areas.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 10 of 27
•
A pan-provincial municipal coalition referred to as MACAVO has identified Highway 7 (MTO and federal government controlled) as part of a preferred test corridor (stretching from Windsor to Ottawa) for autonomous vehicles. Other municipalities are beginning to identify other sections of road that might ultimately connect to the corridor to provide a path for these technologies to be deployed within municipalities; autonomous vehicles require very high quality, continuous connectivity and (possibly) embedding sensors in roads.
•
VIA Rail is optimistic about being able to implement its proposed plan for highfrequency ‘northern route’ passenger service (with wifi on board), which will run through Central Frontenac; if there is a stop in Frontenac County, there is an opportunity to think about a north-south digital corridor.
•
The 2019-2020 proposed federal budget presented March 20, 2019 identified digital infrastructure and services as a priority but the process for funding success is not clear.
•
The federal budget has announced one-time gas tax funding for municipalities to deploy on infrastructure; it is believed that both roads and bridges and connectivity infrastructure are eligible expenditures.
•
The provincial government has made two recent announcements: one is an eightweek opportunity to ‘nominate’ roads and bridges projects for federal-provincial infrastructure funding; the other is a one-time funding province-only allocation to invest in measures that improve service delivery or make municipal operations more efficient and effective.
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
Connectivity/broadband topped the list of issues identified both in township consultations and online survey respondents. Respondents linked it to goals for economic development, emergency and other services, and community vitality.
•
Township feedback also indicated the critical role that broadband and cell service play in attracting people to live in their communities.
•
“Broadband is similar to electricity… it is essential in the current world … communications is essentially development.”
•
“We need 21st century internet urgently.”
•
“The cell service in our area is absolutely ridiculous and needs to be attended to immediately! We can’t do business here properly, so nobody’s going to bring business.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 11 of 27
- Responding to environmental concerns & applying a climate “lens” Strategic Choices: •
Whether or not to adopt the use of a “climate lens” to ensure that the County assesses (and presumably mitigates) the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts of its decisions and operations on the local community and more distant jurisdictions. (By definition, climate lens means assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change resilience assessment; it is not a broad environmental assessment tool).
•
Whether or not to adopt a broader “environmental lens” including but not limited to climate change impacts (e.g. might also include impacts on water quality, resource and waste management, biodiversity, habitat preservation, human health impacts from use of certain materials/ chemicals etc.)
Options/Scenarios: •
Develop/adopt and apply a “climate lens” across all County operations, projects and initiatives; encourage townships to do the same; require that external proponents and internally-generated proposals include reporting on climate change impacts and any mitigation measures/opportunities.
•
Build on the Infrastructure Canada “Climate Lens” — this option would incorporate other environmental considerations that do not have a direct/obvious link to GHG reduction or climate change resilience.
•
Build on other climate lens methodologies and environmental assessments to use a comprehensive approach (e.g. a lens that considers impacts of both infrastructure projects and regular operations).
•
Use a case-by-case approach to considering climate impacts (e.g. County Council requires consideration in development of plans or waives it to ensure regulatory compliance or if the project is routine with predictable and manageable environmental impact.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Infrastructure Canada’s “Climate lens”, announced in June 2018, is applied to specific infrastructure funding programs to ensure that climate impacts from funded projects are considered costs for project-by-project assessments (projects eligible for inclusion in infrastructure applications).
•
While GHG assessment of impacts of proposed infrastructure projects are one part of a “climate lens”, assessment of opportunities to mitigate impacts are also included and may be just as important for municipalities as ‘new projects’. Examples might be:
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 12 of 27
ways to mitigate impacts of extreme weather (service outages, flooding) and ‘build in’ resilience (emergency response, modifications to roadworks or maintenance). •
Beyond infrastructure projects, operational measures that reduce GHGs might include energy efficient buildings or equipment, bylaws related to idling, hazardous waste disposal policies and services, fuels used in fleets, or ‘group’ transportation services that reduce single-person vehicular trips. In Frontenac County, at least some of these services fall under the responsibility of the townships rather than the County.
•
Ontario’s approach to climate policy and managing environmental assessment processes are changing, including: withdrawal from the federal carbon tax approach and transferring the work of the Environmental Commissioner Office to the Auditor General effective May 1, and a new process for submitting streamlined environmental assessment notices and updates. It applies to public roads and highways, transit projects, waste management projects, water and wastewater works, resource management, and flood protection projects; consultation is mandatory.
•
The County ‘brand’ clearly links life and work in the Frontenacs to the environment generally; economic development activity (whether trails, tourism, or small-scale artisan operations) are based on a healthy natural environment.
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
Introduction of a “climate lens” was raised by some townships during consultations.
•
Although climate change was not a specific answer option in the online survey, Environmental Services was in the top three issues of concern to respondents, following broadband/internet service and roads and bridges.
•
“We need to remember that the richest and most inviting aspects of our region are the lakes and the land. Although this could be captured under environment, it should also be front and centre for all other issues you have noted in your list… it is the geography that draws people here, be it residents or tourists or cottage owners, which in turn drive the economy, the tax base and so on. It is the single biggest asset.”
•
“Good planning is needed to ensure that environmental issues, especially planning for the impacts of climate change, are addressed”.
•
“Climate change is already affecting the lakes so we need to be more proactive on environmental issues that protect the water quality of our lakes and our wells. We need to be more careful with proper land development so that it does not destroy or interfere with wildlife habitat or water quality.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 13 of 27
- Priorities for transportation and ferry services (moving people) Strategic Choices: •
Focus on maintaining good roads (for residents’ vehicular use) or strive to develop/improve transportation services that use fixed infrastructure (whether roads or ferries or public transit).
•
Decide if the County has a role in supporting transportation services as part of an economic and social development strategy (other elements being connectivity/ broadband, ease of mobility within and beyond the County, environmental protection and so on).
Note that physical infrastructure (roads/bridges) are covered in a separate briefing note. Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
In rural and near-urban municipalities, the physical infrastructure associated with transportation (roads and bridges) is viewed as being the foundation of economic development (e.g. “our roads are our public transit system”). This is because there is rarely a business case for private operators to fill the “transit” gap; in addition, provincial gas tax revenues tend to go to municipalities that operate a conventional/ public transit system within their own boundaries.
•
The availability/quality of transportation services increasingly are seen as a key amenity that rural municipalities can use to attract new residents, especially young families drawn to a lower-cost lifestyle while still working in an urban centre (or from home). These new residents — along with long-time residents — see both the physical infrastructure and transportation services as being vital to executing daily activities (getting to the local rink or ballfield or picking up groceries or getting out to community events).
•
Simultaneously, the costs of maintaining roads and bridges in municipalities with geographically-dispersed populations mean there is often no available budget ‘room’ at the Township level for transportation services that use road infrastructure.
•
Arising from the 1998 municipal amalgamation, the City of Kingston has provided support for some roads that County residents use to get back and forth to work and/or other appointments. It is not clear whether the City is willing to continue to contribute to these roads or if the townships will have to absorb more of these maintenance costs in their public works budgets.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 14 of 27
•
Recently, Frontenac County Council has funded some transportation services but it is not clear whether there is a preferred approach for provision of ongoing support for transportation services in the years ahead.
•
The Province of Ontario is providing some funding to municipalities for transportation/ mobility services through MTO’s Community Transportation Grant Program (supports initiatives supporting local transit or inter-community bus service in areas that are unserved or under-serviced by public transit. Lennox and Addington, Addington Highlands and Deseronto have all received multi-year funding for their initiatives. Ultimately, these services must become self-sustaining. Maximum funding is $500,000 for projects in individual communities; $1.5 million for inter-community initiatives. None of the applications for the preceding three funding awards received the maximum amount.
•
The Province of Ontario is currently building a new ferry to service Wolfe Island. At this time, there is no reason to think that there will be any change in how revenues for the ferry’s operation are generated (provincially-funded).
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
This topic came up in several township consultations, but was typically not selected as a ‘top priority’ except for ferry/public bus services on Frontenac Islands; some references were made specifically to commuting and ability to get to/from medical appointments.
•
Ferry service, particularly to Howe Island, was raised (standards/frequency of service, seen as limiting economic development, population growth and assessment growth).
•
Respondents to the online survey ranked transportation services well down the priority list (third from last).
•
“In attracting young families that are commuting, our roads and winter plowing need to be a priority.”
•
“Health, transportation, communication.”
•
“Since we don’t have public transit, we need to keep our roads in good shape and could also benefit from keeping connected to community partners to assist us in serving our community.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 15 of 27
- Playing a role in funding roads/bridges, or not? Strategic Choices: •
Determine whether there is a collaborative/upper-tier role, or not, for the County to play in the funding and maintenance of the roads and bridges in the Frontenacs.
•
Confirm whether or not the County should provide leadership, in tandem with the townships, to seek long-term regional transportation solutions.
Options/Scenarios: •
The infrastructure support options open to the townships and the County include: a) maximizing grant revenue; b) increasing procurement collaboration to achieve better pricing from suppliers; c) developing more shared service agreements with neighbouring municipalities, especially for winter control, if that would be more cost-effective; d) providing some services such as engineering ‘centrally’ if that would be more cost-effective; and e) looking for ways to increase the lifespan of infrastructure investments so that annual maintenance costs would be reduced.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
In Frontenac County, responsibility for roads and bridges lies with the townships. These services were devolved in 1998 with the County’s restructuring agreement.
•
There has been some collaborative work among the townships’ public works departments to undertake joint procurement for major roadworks. There has also been discussion about the possibility of Frontenac County providing some support to the townships in the form of assisting with grant applications to maximize the share of upper government funding that goes to municipalities.
•
Residents — whether year-round or seasonal — as well as tourists and other visitors have expectations for safe, comfortable high-quality infrastructure, especially for roads they use frequently.
•
Because municipal roads and bridges are maintained (repaired, rebuilt) and kept clear of snow/ice in winter, largely from the municipal tax base (which is largely residential), local governments in rural areas face significant financial challenges in keeping their infrastructure up to standard (these standards are set by the province).
•
The number of households is relatively low in comparison to the numbers of bridges and lane-kilometres of roads. This means a very large proportion of township
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 16 of 27
budgets must go to roads and bridges, potentially ‘crowding out’ other worthwhile expenditures. •
Bridges represent a major maintenance challenge. Like most other communities, the bridges in Frontenac County tend to be older and are increasingly expensive to repair or replace. In areas with many lakes, rivers and wetlands, there are more bridges than might be found in a similar-sized area of flat terrain. The topography also makes reconstruction of roads more expensive. Maintenance is exacerbated by repeated freeze-thaw cycles, as experienced this past winter.
•
With few exceptions, provincial and federal infrastructure funding envelopes are competitive processes; no municipality knows whether its application(s) will be approved until decisions are made by other bodies. This hamstrings municipalities’ ability to implement infrastructure projects in the most cost-effective ways, counterbalanced to some extent by the availability of (as much as two-thirds) funding from upper levels of government. Federal gas tax revenues can be used for some aspects of ‘green’ infrastructure.
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
This topic came up often, sometimes with intensity, in township consultations, and was a top priority often because of the budgetary considerations associated with this responsibility. The County’s potential role in grant maximization was the strategy most discussed.
•
In the online survey, the importance of roads and bridges was ranked second only to broadband/internet, and many comments linked physical infrastructure to economic development and the ability to attract new residents. Some also referred to safety and vehicular maintenance costs.
•
“The roads are a priority for the following reasons: they are dangerous, especially in the spring due to drainage issues that cause the roads to, in places, fill with runoff. Potholes that are receiving temporary fixes and just get worse. My mechanic is the only happy one these days.”
•
“Improved roads should positively impact some of the other items on your list, such as: Transportation, Paramedic, Economic Development, Residential development etc.”
•
“Quick responses to emergencies can save lives. Roads and bridges need serious attention, winter thaw is destroying our roads.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 17 of 27
- Priorities and direction for economic development Strategic Choices: •
To affirm the current economic development strategies and priorities, or confirm modified directions for the current term of County Council.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Current objectives relate to business expansion, investment attraction, supporting assessment growth, promoting the regional brand (#inFrontenac) and advancing community improvement plans.
•
In tourism, the focus is on promoting the Frontenac region as a destination to local, national and international markets.
•
Plans are to continue implementation of the Economic Development Charter.
•
Current plans have a continued focus on the Ambassador Program (currently it has ~145 ambassadors) to engage and support the business community.
•
Additional efforts are being made in Tourism through training and partnership development.
•
Development and implementation of the Trail Asset Management Plan continues (with K&P Trail development to Sharbot Lake 95% complete).
•
Recent pilot projects such as the Open Farms local food awareness event have been successful and establish a model for further economic development initiatives.
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
In general, consultations showed satisfaction and support for recent work done in the economic development portfolio.
•
Some feedback during the strategic planning consultations suggested it was equally or more important to focus tourism promotion and product development on nearby markets that could be attracted for day-trips (e.g. from Kingston, Smiths Falls, Gananoque, Napanee and so on).
•
Respondents to the online survey ranked economic development at 6th out of 14 options on the potential priority list. Other factors, though, like broadband and cell service, environmental issues, emergency services and transportation (which were higher on the list) all affect economic development, as the comments often indicated.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 18 of 27
- Strategic choices related to planning & development Strategic Choices: •
To affirm the current approach to planning strategies, priorities and service delivery or confirm a modified direction for the current term of County Council..
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Current objectives relate to integrating land use planning, implementing a strategic regional planning policy, working collaboratively with Townships to enhance service levels and providing sound planning opinions to County and Township councils.
•
Key factors for this file include population growth, increases in the number of applications (up 30% over 3 years), more complex applications/constrained properties, the need for more policy in Official Plans to justify local decisions (LPAT) and impacts of provincial mandate on policies, from canabis to secondary units and tree preservation.
•
There are significant workload demands on County capacity in areas where there is growth in demand for new housing. Retention of building and planning staff is also a priority, which follows on recent increases in capacity.
•
The need for a resilient departmental approach for planning services across the County has been identified. There is significant involvement with some townships.
•
A communal services study is in the final stages of completion.
•
Major policy reviews (private roads, official plan updates, community improvement plans, secondary and servicing plans and population projections) run some risk of being continually delayed — delays that make application review more difficult due to legislated changes that must be considered at other levels. Some highlights from the consultations/online input:
•
This topic came up in several township consultations, but issues were varied — from satisfaction with shared planning services provided to participating townships, to a desire expressed by South Frontenac to devolve planning responsibilities to the Township (a process that would likely extend beyond this term of Council).
•
Respondents to the online survey ranked planning services well down the priority list.
•
Online comments included several planning concerns related to the desire to see local concerns and priorities incorporated into planning approaches. (This seemed to be particularly of concern in the north.)
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 19 of 27
- Financial, Taxation and Debt Parameters Strategic Choices: •
Finding the right balance for future budgets — between demands for new services and covering non-discretionary cost increases vs. the desire to keep tax increases to the level of inflation or less.
Options/Scenarios: • • • • • • •
Look at options to cut or trim services once all efficiencies have been pursued. Place a moratorium on new projects. Look at tax increases above target levels on a case-by-case basis. Explore opportunities for regional grant applications and other sources of funding. Explore use of reserves and debt management. Implement mechanisms like development charges where applicable. Look at options to defray rising costs through increases in assessment/tax base.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Pressures for budget increases are being driven by increasing demand for services, inflationary and other increasing mandated costs, additional demands place on the County by new policies and government regulations, and commitments locked into employee contracts in a business where much of the budget is devoted to staffing.
•
Provincial funding is likely to decline or stay flat, and some services may be downloaded (increasing costs).
•
The County’s contingency reserve is below the amount recommended, leaving the County somewhat vulnerable to funding reductions.
•
A 2019 initiative involves a review of the classification of properties with MPAC.
•
Another initiative involves a review of the County’s current energy management processes within each department and tools to improve energy management.
•
Potential financial risks in the future include increases in benefit and retirement rates, depletion of reserves for land acquistion and development, and other reserves (e.g. gas tax, strategic projects) being fully committed.
•
With debentures retiring in 2022, tax room for capital projects could be increased.
•
Being at the half-way mark of the plan, it may be time to review the .65% increment for capital assets to assess its validity and capacity to fund future capital projects
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 20 of 27
[Financial, Taxation and Debt Parameters…/continued]
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
The most typical comments on tax levels that came up in consultations with townships was a desire to “respect the taxpayer” (which was a priority in the last strategic plan) and to keep increases in line with inflation. There was an expressed desire to avoid large, sudden one-time increases in any given year.
•
Some typical comments from the online input on growing the tax base: “Commercial development is required so that the entire tax burden is not borne by residential taxpayers if newer, better and more services are to be affordable.”
•
“Maintain/grow the tax base within the parameters of protecting the environment.”
•
“Development growth — attracting the right types of small business to support residents while improving long-term tax revenue for the county.”
•
Some typical comments from the online input on growing the tax base: “Minimize property tax increases, look for out-of-the-box solutions that are inclusive, environmentally sound and benefit the majority.”
•
“Keeping tax increases to zero should be a priority. Cottagers carry the big burden.”
•
“Maintain tax increases below the annual rate of inflation while maintaining existing infrastructure.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 21 of 27
- Long Term Care: What to do with the Fairmount Home building? Strategic Choices: •
Deciding when, where and what type of facility/facilities will best meet future requirements for long-term care, at the current Fairmount Home or elsewhere. This might take the form of choosing a framework or shortlist of options to be explored.
Options/Scenarios: •
Commit to the same site with same number of beds (which would involving planning for major rehabilitation of the existing facility, or tear down/reconstruction.
•
Commit to a facility on the same site, but with construction of additional beds.
•
Look to a build new home in the County (and decommission existing).
•
Look to build a new home/facility in the County (and keep the existing home).
•
Invest in a campus-of-care model.
•
Simply maintain the current home as long as possible and at increasing cost.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
The Fairmount building is aging and will require significant renovation in the 2025 timeframe. Maintenance costs are increasing, the septic system is aging, the water system falls under a strict regulatory regine, infrastructure such as electrical, plumbing and HVAC require significant repairs, and changes will be required for rooms, washrooms and gathering spaces to adapt to changing care demands, including bariatric residents.
•
How might the decision on a joint administrative facility in the County (e.g. if it were no longer located at current Glenburnie site) affect the options? If a new facility were to be built in the County, the City might no longer feel obligated to pay twothirds of the costs.
•
Can/should a distributed model of facilities be pursued rather than a single location? In some consultations, there was interest in more flexible infrastructure and developing a network of services/facilities rather than just one large edifice, with Fairmount as the “anchor” of a larger network.
•
Provincial policy and funding may increasingly focus on supporting facilities of larger size (e.g. more beds may be required in the home to meet minimum requirements of, say, 160 beds). Aside from Ministry requirements, plans may also be constrained by the need for scale — as one said, “at least 100 beds to be economical”.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 22 of 27
•
People want to stay in retirement homes/LTC facilities close to their families. But just because the home is local doesn’t mean people won’t be assigned to other facilities elsewhere in the South East region. While City residents fill most of the beds, the City also pays for a significant majority of the costs.
•
Fairmount Home is a home of choice with 200+ waiting residents on their wait list — a ratio of 2.8 candidates waiting for each bed.
•
The debenture is coming up for renewal: Could the County take advantage of renewing at a higher debt ceiling or should it hold the line?
•
How does this LTC option fit with other needs for senior/retirement housing?
•
How might this decision be influenced by considerations related to scarce talent pool, recruitment challenges and/or lack of public transportation for workers?
•
The timeline from decision to operation might be as much as 8 years or more to complete design requirements, secure approvals and funding, construction and so on.
Some highlights from the consultations/online input: •
A concern expressed: “Building new dedicated facilities with a 50-75 year lifespan when what we are experiencing is a 20-25 year ‘bubble’ due to baby-boomers aging.”
•
This topic was raised in several township consultations, but typically it elicited little comment, despite it being a major potential capital item.
•
Respondents to the online survey ranked long-term care and Fairmount home well down the priority list of 14 County issues of interest or concern (third from last).
•
“Rather than prioritizing what might be done with Fairmount Home, the strategic and long-term concern should be what will be required to provide a satisfactory level of services to seniors in the County based on projections of the numbers and requirements of the future population.”
•
“Glenburnie is a long way away” for some County residents more interested in multiple facilities/services distributed throughout the area.
•
“Absenteeism in both Fairmount and the Paramedic Services continues to be a dramatic problem. Council should continue its efforts to manage this…”
•
“We are going to have more seniors in the future needing long-term care. Important to keep funding and expanding Fairmount home.”
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 23 of 27
Reviewing County options for Administrative Offices
Strategic Choices: •
To affirm, or not, the County’s commitment to continue pursuing with partners the options for a joint/shared administrative facility to replace aging buildings currently used for administration; or failing that, to proceed on its own.
Options/Scenarios: •
Commit to a facility on the current site (replacement or rehabilitation).
•
Look to join with one or more partners (discussions are currently in process with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and the Township of South Frontenac) to develop a new joint administration office, with a decision to go to the next stage of development (e.g. exploring governance, site options etc) expected by June 2019.
•
Depending on potential partners, preferred sites might be on the County’s current site at Glenburnie, at a serviced location in the County, or at some other location.
•
Various governance and financing models would be explored once commitments are made, or not, to pursue a joint approach.
Background Factors/Pros & Cons: •
Extensive background is already publicly available through the work of the Committee and past project work.
•
Last year, architectural services were engaged to validate initial assessments of benefits and costs — work intended to enable the potential partners to make a decision on whether or not to pursue the next stage of a shared development project. The scope of the assignment included: o architectural analysis of the needs and validation of space planning assumptions, o preliminary floor plan concepts to help quantify potential cost savings on shared space in a joint facility that meets partner needs, o implications related to parking, building code and so on, o potential options to preserve brand identities on a shared site, and o initial budget-level estimates, cost multipliers for construction and benchmark lifecycle costs, both for a joint project and comparison with stand-alone options.
•
The report projected potential savings of a joint (three-partner) facility over three stand-alone buildings at $2.7M in capital costs and $110,000 annually in operating costs.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 24 of 27
Priorities for Frontenac Paramedic Services
With the approval of the Frontenac Paramedic Services (FPS) strategic plan in 2019, the focus for 2019-2023 will be on implementation. This work goes hand-in-hand with the launch of a new Brand Strategy. The strategic goals in the vision for FPS include excelling in compassionate high-quality patient care as key partners in out-of-hospital health care. It also speaks to actively engaging communities and being leaders in staff growth, recognition and development through progressive programs, training and equipment. This includes promoting staff unity, wellness and opportunity, enhancing community outreach and education, and ensuring effective operations and continued leadership. Strategic Pressures: There is a considerable lack of understanding of the “modern” role of paramedics in the health care system — it is no longer just “grab and go” as an emergency transportation service. Treatment and/or stabilization of the patient on site is the goal. This may require finding ways to improve public relations and community outreach. Call volumes continue to increase, particularly in the City of Kingston, and could potentially jeopardize the ability of FPS to meet legislated Response Time Standards. Demand for 911 paramedic services is increasing as a result of population growth and an aging population — 54% of calls in 2018 were for patients 60 years of age and older. The overall increase was 5.94% in 2017 and 8.42% in 2018. There is a wide variance in call distribution among the 7 paramedic stations, with Wolfe Island and Robertsville being the lowest in volume. Discussions continue with Leeds-Grenville, Lennox & Addington and Lanark Counties regarding changes in land ambulance deployment by these neighbouring municipalities, which may have either positive or negative effects on FPS call volumes, deployment and response times. •
Strategic Direction: A Ten-Year Resources and Facilities Masterplan, to be completed in 2019, will guide the addition of ambulance resources to address increasing call volumes, Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) and declining (slower) response times.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 25 of 27
FPS — Other Background Issues: WSIB Presumptive Legislation for PTSD may result in increased claims for Paramedics, the need for wellness services, and increased costs. (The presumption is that post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed in first responders is work-related, to support faster access to resources and treatment.) There is also a lack of evidencebased practices to improve paramedic mental health. While absenteeism levels are consistent with levels for other paramedic services across the province, costs can be significant and difficult to address. Training requirements for paramedics are increasing, placing stress on the training staff, training facilities (Frontenac Room) and front line paramedics. The future of the current training facility will have to be determined. It is a challenge to develop meaningful patient-related KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) since FPS/the County cannot obtain patient information after transport to hospital.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 26 of 27
Priorities for Financial Services
Financial services are provided within a legislative framework of financial policies and internal controls that supports the strategic direction of Council, protects the County’s financial position and minimizes risk to the ratepayer. In addition to managing the County’s financial resources, risks and procurement process to ensure transparency and best value for the Corporation, the long-term strategic priority in this area involves managing and investing the County’s assets and financial resources to support a financially sustainable municipality. Strategic Pressures: The 2019 final assessment roll provided by MPAC showed a growth increase of 2.1%. As a result of changes in the relative share of assessment between the County and the City of Kingston, the City will assume an increased percentage of the costs of Social Housing, Social Services administration and Land Ambulance. This reverses a 10-year trend of assessment increasing at a higher percentage in the County than in the City. Unanticipated changes in funding are looming in the background of the municipal budget process. Grant flexibility is limited by the provincial/federal government. There’s merit in conducting a review of Federal Gas Tax and OCIF funds for trails projects. Staffing challenges include an aging workforce, recruitment challenges, succession planning, disability management and, at Fairmount, resident behaviours affecting staff. Training requirements for staff are increasing. The cost of providing benefits has risen exponentially in recent years. Collective bargaining in 2019 involves the CUPE Local 2290 agreement for Fairmount Home and unionized County Administration staff, and the OPSEU 462 agreement for Frontenac Paramedics. EORN’s expansion of telecommunications systems may require a municipal contribution. As an opportunity and a challenge, the City of Kingston’s growth is placing pressures on paramedics and long-term care services. For the first time in 10 years, property assessment growth in the City shifts more of the costs of paramedics to the City. The County remains committed to a program and culture of continuous improvement with the intent of making the most efficient use of scarce resources, including a decrease in dependence on the use of consultants.
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
Frontenac County Stratplan
Page 27 of 27
APPENDED FILE Please see a companion document which includes a compilation of external input to inform the strategy development process: •
One-page summaries of input from each Township consultation.
•
Summary themes from all the online input and comparative charts on overall priorities.
•
Verbatim download of all the online commentary (currently at 203 responses).
For the Use of Frontenac County ONLY © 2019, 8020Info Inc. All rights reserved.
