KPMG Service Delivery and Organization Review Final Report

Published January 1, 2000

Word Count 29061 words

Reading Time 137 min read

Body: Council Type: Document Meeting: Regular Date: Date unknown Collection: Documents Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Council Reference Manual/KPMG Service Delivery and Organization Review Final Report.pdf)

Document Text

Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services & Organization Final Report December 18, 2013

Table of Contents The contacts at KPMG

Page

in connection with this report are:

Disclaimer

Michelle Podhy

Executive Summary

Current State Assessment

Partner

Service Profiles

Tel:

Workflow Analysis

Comparisons & Opportunities

g g Partner Managing Kingston

613- 541-7348

mpodhy@kpmg.ca

B Bruce P Peever Management Consulting

Corporate Services Comparative Analysis

EMS Comparative Analysis

Long Term Care Comparative Analysis

Senior Manager Tel:

905-523-2224

bpeever@kpmg.ca

Vickie Leakey Audit

Opportunities for Improved Operational Efficiencies and Effectiveness

Appendix A – Council and Staff Surveys

106

Appendix B - Salary Comparisons

122

Senior Manager Tel:

613-541-7349

vleakey@kpmg.ca

Brian Bourns Management Consulting Senior Manager Tel:

613-212-2228

bbourns@kpmg ca bbourns@kpmg.ca

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

Disclaimer

This report is based on information and documentation that was made available to KPMG at the date of this report. KPMG has not audited nor otherwise attempted to independently verify the information provided unless otherwise indicated. Should additional information be provided to KPMG after the issuance of this report, KPMG reserves the right (but will be under no obligation) to review this information and adjust its comments accordingly. Pursuant to the terms of our engagement, it is understood and agreed that all decisions in connection with the implementation of advice and recommendations as provided by KPMG during the course of this engagement shall be the responsibility of, and made by, the County of Frontenac . KPMG has not and will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the County of Frontenac. The determination of the high level organizational structure and the detail design of the organization is the responsibility of the County of Frontenac management. This report includes or makes reference to future oriented financial information. Readers are cautioned that since these financial projections are based on assumptions regarding future events, actual results will vary from the information presented even if the hypotheses occur, occur and the variations may be material material. Comments in this report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to be legal advice or opinion. KPMG has no present or contemplated interest in the County of Frontenac nor are we an insider or associate of the County of Frontenac or its management team. Our fees for this engagement are not contingent upon our findings or any other event. Accordingly, we believe we are independent of the County of Frontenac and are acting objectively.

Executive Summary Introduction

All organizations need to

Introduction

know that virtually no

Over the past decade, the County of Frontenac (the County) has evolved from a management board established under a Ministerial restructuring order to a County responsible for the delivery of planning, ferry, land ambulance and long term care services with support from a corporate services department. The growth in service scope has led to a corresponding increase in the County’s annual operating budget from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.4 million in 2012. The County is fortunate that the City of Kingston and the Province of Ontario provide substantial funding for the County’s operations (75% in 2012). Nonetheless, County Council has expressed concern about the upward pressure on the operating budget. Through this term of office, Council has focused on controlling costs and limiting increases to the municipal levy.

program or activity will perform effectively for a long time without modification and redesign. Eventually every activity becomes obsolete. Among organizations that ignore thi fact, this f t the th worstt offender ff d is government. Peter Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity

In order to assist the County with the identification of potential opportunities for improved efficiencies, KPMG was retained to undertake a comprehensive review of services and organization. This review involved an evaluation of the County’s operations, personnel and financial performance with the view of identifying options for maintaining adequate service levels while allowing for long-term sustainable budgets budgets. Overall, the land ambulance, nursing home and ferry services were found to be well run and committed to excellence in service delivery. Nonetheless, the project identified 27 opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the County’s operations. While some of this opportunities are capable of immediate implementation, others have a longer term focus. The immediate term opportunities focus on the internal business processes and structure of the organization. The longer term opportunities involve the participation of municipal partners and extensive negotiation. The key finding from the project is the need for the county’s county s member municipalities to work together under shared services agreements so that the collectively the county can achieve the necessary economies of scale for low cost service delivery for the benefit of the Frontenac property taxpayer – the concept of One Frontenac. The long term sustainability of Frontenac county depends on the endorsement of One Frontenac by its member municipalities. Early indications are that, under the leadership of Frontenac Islands with its shared services agreement for financial services, this is an achievable goal. We recognize that the ultimate decision as to method and level of services provided by the County rests with Council and we trust that our report assists with the decision-making process.

Executive Summary Scope, Deliverables and Timing

It is common for both

Project Objectives

internal and external

KPMG was engaged by the Frontenac County to undertake a comprehensive review of services and organization with the following primary objectives:

stakeholders to confuse an organizational review with a service delivery review

1 1.

Identify opportunities to achieve greater economies, economies efficiencies and effectiveness in the delivering of County services. services

Identify leading practices from other government organizations and the private sector that can be applied to the County of Frontenac operations

Ensure that taxpayers are getting value for their money Project Drivers (why are we doing this, what problem do we want to solve)

given the widespread media attention of the Toronto Service Delivery Review. A service delivery review is all about identifying municipal services that can be delivered in a new manner or at a different

To uncover opportunities that could lead to a more efficient and responsive organization in the context of limited growth, increasing service level demands, new legislative requirements and leading practices in local government.

service level. An organizational review instead is about the alignment of the organization’s resources to most effectively and

P j t Principles Project Pi i l 

The recommendations of KPMG will be highly implementable and reflect the independent professional opinion of the consulting team



The outcomes will be innovative and reflect leading practices from both the public and private sector



The ability to measure and/or use benchmarks where possible is highly desirable

efficiently deliver those services.

Executive Summary Scope, Deliverables and Timing

Project Scope (Summarized) 

Gain an understanding of, and comment on, all aspects of the operations of the County



Review the municipal services and service levels for all activities under Corporate, Fairmount Home and Emergency and Transportation Services. All members of Council and County senior staff are to be interviewed.



Document three work and work flow routines to assess optimal human resource allocation across the departments



Benchmark and measure the County’s services in context of other municipal and private sector organizations



Identify potential opportunities for cost savings balanced against the broader community benefit



Provide service delivery options, organizational options and recommendations including revised job descriptions and organizational chart



Salary schedules for non-union administrative positions and confidential assessment of unionized staff compensation

Project Timing 

The project commenced July 23, 2013, and will be completed when the final report is submitted to the County of Frontenac on or before January 15, 2014.

Executive Summary Project Phases

September

July

November December

October

Project Initiation

Current State Analysis

1 M 1. Meett with ith Project Manager, CAO and Project Team to clarify expectations, refine lines of inquiry, and develop a subsequent work program for the engagement

C 2 Collect ll t relevant l t information on current methods of service delivery and conduct workflow analysis

Comparisons & Opportunities

Organization Options

3 Survey 3. S 6 comparator municipalities and bench mark County services to identify f opportunities for cost savings and improved efficiencies

D 4 Develop l organization structure options and new salary schedule based upon comparator analysis

Final Report 5. Develop 5 D l and d present a final report with an executive summary

Executive Summary

Current State Assessment

As part of the County of Frontenac comprehensive review of services and

Strategy

• There is no agreed upon strategy for the County and as a result, there is no common direction or criteria for decision making; people are pulled in different directions.

Structure

• The lack of consensus on strategic direction has meant the organization has not structured itself to deliver on an agreed mandate particularly in Corporate Services. Accordingly, the CAO’s span of control is far too large resulting in operational inefficiency.

Processes

• The governance instability of Council and the CAO’s wide span of control have led to a certain amount of grid lock at the leadership level of the organization. Nevertheless, County staff have continued to deliver a high level of service to their clients.

People Practices

• It is apparent that the County is an employer that values its employees even though there may be profound disagreement s with its labour representatives. County staff continue to be noted for the quality of their serivce delivery and committment to their clients.

Culture

• While Council’s political behaviour has affected the corporate culture of the County County, the organization does not exhibit overly high levels of bureaucratic churn and disengagement.

organization, Warden and Council, CAO, Senior Management Team and staff were interviewed. Five focus groups were facilitated with management and d llabour b representatives. t ti In addition, both Council and Staff were surveyed. Five Councillors and 115 staff completed the surveys.

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Municipal Comparators

Community

Households1

Service Area Population1

26,375

18,801

151,020 216,316

84,373

161 900 161,900

74 069 74,069

153,327

77,180

88,355

49,234

41,824

18,295

59,721

47,996

74,074

30,743

113,788

54,556

Frontenac

Guelph

121,688

52,179

Greater Sudbury

161,900

74,069

39,888

23,547

60,400

33,732

41,824

18,295

59 721 59,721

47 996 47,996

37,571

13,883

73,987

37,556

Population1

Service Area Households2

71,593

5 6

Hastings

Leeds & Grenville

Lennox & Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Comparative Average

Municipal Financial Information Return Schedule 02 & 90, 2012.

Executive Summary

Benchmarking Summary Historical Operating Results Before Transfers 45.0

Revenue

40.0

Surplus (Deficit)

Expenditures

This chart shows the operating results for the County before any transfers from reserve or debenture.

35.0

It’s an important depiction of the County’s financial health because it indicates the long term financial sustainability of the County.

30.0 25.0

In this case, the County has a positive outlook because it has not incurred an operating deficit over the past six years.

20.0

The continued drawing down of reserves to fund operating deficits is a financial practice that is financially unsustainable and will ultimately lead to some type of intervention.

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Average/Typical Taxation – Single Family Home Lennox & Addington (CVA - $197,500) Muskoka

An analysis of assessment and taxation data from the Ministry of Finance’s Online Property Taxation Analysis shows that Frontenac County has the lowest average taxation among the comparator group group.

(CVA - $217,000)

Leeds & Grenville (CVA - $192,000) Perth

(CVA - $209,500)

Hastings

(CVA - $145,250)

Frontenac

(CVA - $203,000)

2013 2012

Frontenac County is the only municipality of the comparator group that showed a decline in taxation. The average current value assessment for Frontenac County is $203,000; second highest of the comparator group.

2011 $-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

Executive Summary

Benchmarking Summary Cost per EMS Call

$1,400

A comparison of the Frontenac Paramedic Service’s operations

1166

$1,200 $1,000 $800

697

816

726

684

650 507

$600

indicates that it’s cost per call ($697/call) is below the average cost p per call of its comparators p (($ 712/call). ) Nonetheless, it’s operating cost per unit hour ($181) is higher than its comparators

435

($154) and should be addressed moving forward.

$400 $200 $0

The cost per day for Fairmount Home ($218) is above the Long Term Care Expense per Day

comparator average ($199) and d the h second d hi highest h among the h comparator group. Interestingly, the private home’s cost per day

$300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50

($206) is the third highest of the comparators. Fairmount Home

255 218 187

170

182

199

176

194

206 171

receives substantially less provincial funding ($109 ) when compared to the comparator average ($129) a result of its CMI. It does,, however,, receive more resident revenue per p dayy ($59) ($ ) than the comparator average ($58).

Executive Summary Recommended Opportunities (

Review fleet requirements for corporate vehicles and implement a requirement for a business case prior to the purchase of any new vehicle. All vehicles at the end of their life cycle are to be declared surplus and sold.

Implement a corporate wide absenteeism program administered as a wellness program in partnership with the unions.

Leave the reception desk vacant for breaks and lunch with a sign indicating where a visitor can go for assistance.

Implement a formal cross training program to increase the capacity of the organization.

Distribute past, current and future gas tax revenue to the member municipalities to assist in the funding of their road networks, keeping a small balance for appropriate corporate spending.

See Chart on Page 12)

Determine three processes that would benefit from a lean 6 sigma investment and implement one blitz Kaizen per year.
Continue to monitor the cost per call and operating cost per unit hour for EMS; develop a plan to reduce the operating cost per unit hour to the average of the Hastings Hastings, Guelph Guelph, and Sudbury land ambulance services. services
Prepare a strategic plan that lays out an agreed future role for the County in the delivery of municipal services.
Complete an asset management plan and develop a life cycle funding model to fund the infrastructure gap.

Standardize the work week in Corporate Services to 35 hours per week.

Create operating stabilization reserves for Fairmount Home and Frontenac Paramedic Services with a targeted reserve balance of 10% of annual operating expenditures for the department.

Re-implement a Christmas party for staff as a way of reminding Council and staff that they are part of a common endeavour. Alcohol is to be self financed by staff.

Work with the Townships to develop a plan to increase the level of shared services in the County, remembering good paper ensures good business.

Push administrative tasks, such as mail delivery, to the appropriate level in the organization.

Share the vacated tax room from the uploading of social services to the Province of Ontario with the lower tier municipalities.

9 9.

Council regularly consider one new policy prepared by staff at each Committee of the Whole meeting. Additionally, all personnel policies should be compiled and approved by Council.

24 Annually pass a Budget schedule in September ensuring the passage of the operating 24. and capital budgets by December 31st of each year

Implement the proposed changes to the Corporate Services department to improve both accountabilities and the decision making processes within Corporate Services.
Implement the proposed Council agenda preparation process to remove the organization wide angst of Council reports.
Partner with an outside service provider for GIS services should the demand from member municipalities increase.
Contract with external information technology firms to implement large IT projects.
Investigate the feasibility of a municipal dispatch centre for EMS and fire services.
Actively support AMO’s position on eliminating the legislative requirement of nursing home ownership detailed in its 2009 White Paper to provide future opportunity for change in service delivery.
Continue to evaluate the value of in house communications advice to determine whether the position should be contracted or remain in house.
Cross train and pool administrative resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization’s administrative backbone.
Reduce the number of staff meetings required of Corporate Services staff to one 45 minute staff meeting per month. Reduce the number of senior management team meetings to one meeting per week of 1 hour duration.
Review the minute taking requirements for staff meetings
Reduce the number of staff in attendance at Council meetings thereby lowering the cost of Council meetings and ensuring that staff are focused on work that is of highest and best use to the County.
Report quarterly to Council’s Committee of the Whole on the financial performance of the Frontenac Paramedic Service and Fairmount Home.
Develop a policy of gradual adjustments to the tax levy to avoid unforeseen spikes or drops.

Implementation

Prioritization of Opportunities High

Impact on C County of Frontena ac

Low

1 2 9

17 21

2 10

4 29 6

3 4 22

Difficulty to implement

High

Sample rating of each of the potential opportunities for improvement against two criteria: ■

Difficulty to implement g indicates the degree g to which the p potential opportunity pp y for improvement p would be difficult ((higher) g ) or simple p ((low)) to implement p This rating A difficult implementation would come at a higher cost to the County and / or may take longer to implement, while a simple implementation would come at a minimal cost and / or may be implemented within a short time frame

■

Impact on County of Frontenac This rating indicates the degree to which the potential opportunity for improvement would produce large (high) or minimal (low) benefits for the County A large benefit would reduce the deficit by more than more than a small benefit

The order that opportunities should be implemented would be: (1) top left quadrant (low difficulty, high benefit), (2) bottom left (low difficulty, low benefit) and (3) top right (high difficulty, high benefit). Those in the bottom right quadrant would be considered to be optional as a result of the potential effort required versus the potential benefit derived. © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

Current State Assessment

Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services and Organization Interim Report

Interviews

The Engagement Process

Perspectives on the organization’s strategy,



As part of the County of Frontenac comprehensive review of services and organization, Warden and Council, CAO, Senior Management Team and staff were interviewed. Five focus groups were facilitated with management and labour representatives. In addition, both Council and Staff were surveyed. Five Councillors and 115 staff completed the surveys.

structure, processes, people practices and culture were gained through 25

Interviews

Focus Groups

Warden Gutowski
Deputy Warden Clayton
Councillor Inglis
Councillor Doyle 5 Councillor

Co ncillor Purdon P rdon 6. Councillor McDougall 7. Councillor Davison 8. Councillor Jones 9. Walter Knott, Committee Chair 10. Elizabeth Savill, CAO 11. Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer 12 Paul Charboneau, 12. Charboneau Chief of Paramedic Services 13. Julie Shillington, Administrator Fairmount Home 14. Susan Brant, Deputy Treasurer 15. Jannette Amini, Deputy Clerk 16. Anne Marie Young, Manager Economic Sustainability 17. Joe Gallivan, Manager Sustainability Planning 18 Colleen Hickey, 18. Hickey HR Specialist 19. Kristin Mullin, Communications 20. Alison Vandervelde, Communications 21. David Millard, Manager of Information Systems 22. Dave Gemmill, Deputy Chief of Operations 23. Chris McBain, Operations Supervisor 24. Campbell Daily, Marine Supervisor 25. Tom Mercer, Manager of Environmental Services 26. Mary Lake, Director of Care

Paramedics

Corporate Services Administrative Assistants

3 3.

Corporate Ser Services ices Technical Staff

Fairmount Administrative Staff

Fairmount Environmental & Recreation Staff

Fairmount Nursing Staff

interviews and 6 focus groups involving over a hundred different stakeholders. Specific responses have been aggregated in this summary document and presented in the form of general themes and messages. The findings of the consultation presented in this summary document was used to inform the development of organizational solutions

Organiza ational Pro oblems

Identifying the Source of the Problem: Unaligned Organization Performance

Processes and Lateral Capability

People Practices

Culture

If the structure isn’t aligned to the strategy

If the development of coordinating mechanisms is left to chance

If people aren’t enabled and empowered

If behaviours don’t reflect the organization’s values

Confusion

Friction

Gridlock

Low Performance

Distrust

• No common direction; people pulling in different directions • No criteria for decision making

• Inability to mobilize resources • Ineffective execution; lost opportunity for competitive advantage

• Lack of collaboration across boundaries • Long decision and innovation cycle times • Difficult Diffi lt to t share h information and leverage best practices

• Effort without results • Low employee satisfaction

• No employee engagement • Bureaucratic churn

Strategy

Structure

If strategy is missing, unclear, or not agreed upon

Source : Modified from Galbraith’s Organizational Review Metrics

Framework for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Organization Design

Organizational Factor

Description

Strategy

Understanding of strategy and mission Alignment to vision Agreement g on p priorities Clarity of performance measures

Structure

Clarity of roles and accountabilities Reporting Relationships & Span of Control Delegation of authority Work Alignment Capacity

Processes & Systems

Decision-making Meeting effectiveness Communication Enabling Technology Standardized operational processes & practices

People Practices

Leadership Staff Engagement Organizational competency Performance management HR Practices and Policies

Culture

Values & Beliefs Behaviours

Strategy

Many people assume that a

•

The County Council has attempted to agree upon a strategic plan twice during this current term. In both cases, there was a lack of agreement on Council on the direction and role of the County in the delivery of services within the broader community of Kingston and Frontenac County.

•

It is apparent that the key question that remains unresolved is the role of county government in delivering municipal services. There is a belief among some members of Council that the County should remain a management board delivering a minimal level of service through contracted services with the private sector. In this model, the member Townships are assigned primary responsibility for municipal service delivery without any central or common guidance from county government. In contrast, there is an opposing position that believes county government should be at the forefront of providing shared municipal service delivery, coordinating and guiding the Townships in how they deliver their services. This view of county government is much more activist and involves direct service delivery with a larger organization.

•

As a result, there is no consensus on the vision and mission of the County. This has real impact on the organization because there is no agreement on the strategic priorities of the County County. The two opposing views of the County conflict with one another making any kind of agreement on strategic priorities almost impossible to reach. This is illustrated by the County’s attempt to develop a new Official Plan as required by Provincial Regulation O. Reg 101/13. Staff prepared a first draft employing the standard consultation and planning principles of the profession. Council, however, is undecided on the draft Official Plan to the point where meetings with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to discuss the draft have themselves become points of contention and disagreement.

•

The lack of consensus surrounding the strategic direction or role of the County has frustrated Staff who have worked hard to bridge the two conflicting positions. Inevitably it appears that the County’s senior leadership team has been drawn into the debate as they have tried to fill the void in strategic direction with new initiatives such as the Integrated Sustainability Plan or Community Paramedicine. On their own these initiatives are valid and often required, but independent of any strategic direction or priority they allow staff to be criticized for creating busy work or work of low tangible value.

•

Council has recently released an RFP for a facilitator to assist in the development of a new strategic plan. Even though Council is in the final year of its term, we encourage Council to consider the County’s future role in the delivery of municipal services. Without a resolution to this fundamental question, the establishment of any type of strategic direction is difficult.

strategy is a big-picture overall direction, divorced from any specific action. But defining strategy as broad concepts, thereby leaving out action, creates a wide chasm between strategy and i l implementation. t ti If you accept this chasm, most strategy work becomes wheel spinning. -Richard P. Rumelt, Good Strategy Bad Strategy

Summary of Analysis There is no agreed upon strategy for the County and as a result, there is no common direction or criteria for decision g p people p are p pulled in different directions. making;

Structure

Ambiguity is great for

•

The clarity of roles and accountabilities varies across the organization. For the most part, we found Emergency Management and Transportation services to have a high degree of clarity around the different roles in the department. This is expected given the semi-martial nature of the paramedic service. Although, there was some confusion amongst paramedic staff surrounding the role of Council and the Chief of Paramedics in the setting of service level standards and allocation of resources.

•

The inclusion of the ferry service within the responsibilities of the Chief of Paramedics suggests the department is misaligned. Nevertheless, it is a self contained business unit that has minimal interaction with other County departments. Accordingly, the ferry service’s inclusion within Emergency Services is understandable given the size of the County organization.

•

We found Fairmount Home to have a good understanding of roles and accountabilities within the department. The only exception was the finance and administration functions within the Home where the relationship to the County’s Corporate Services department was unclear.

•

Within Corporate Services it appears roles and accountabilities sometimes blur as staff are assigned to special projects, such as sustainability projects. This stretches the capacity of existing resources and causes confusion around accountabilities. Additionally, the CAO has 12 direct reports including several administrative and technical staff. As a result, day to day administrative responsibilities sometimes gets muddled , such as, the booking of meeting rooms.

•

It is a widespread belief throughout the organization that there are too many positions reporting directly to the CAO limiting her ability to provide strategic leadership. It appears the span of control for the CAO is too large given the independent, nonstandardized nature of the work and the range in employee experience. This contributes to a widely reported bottle neck in decision making at the senior leadership level level. The combination of CAO and Clerk positions is not a viable practice for a municipality larger than a small Township of 5,000 people.

•

There was no suggestion throughout the consultation that organizational silos were a significant structural problem for the organization. It appears from the work plans and other similar documentation that there is significant effort to build interdepartmental coordination or horizontal integration.

certain kids of creative activities but it is the mortal enemy of systems design.

Stephen Haeckel, Adaptive Enterprise

The war is not won with bayonets but with effective organization.

Anomynous

Summary of Analysis The lack of consensus on strategic direction has meant the organization has not structured itself to deliver on an agreed mandate particularly in Corporate Services. Accordingly, the CAO’s span of control is far too large resulting in operational inefficiency.

Process •

At the last election, the composition of County Council changed from a four member Council of Township Mayors to an eight member Council composed of the Mayor and a Councillor from each Township. Because of this change, there were several Councillors elected to County Council who were unfamiliar governance processes and decision making practices of upper tier level municipal government. Additionally, the internal governance practices for the County were not sufficiently ready for the change in Council structure. Combined with Council’s disagreement on the future role of county government in Frontenac County, this has resulted in acrimonious and unstable governance for this term of office. The clearest example is the disagreement on the term of office for Warden that has resulted in law suits between Councillors and negative media attention for the County.

•

Decision Making within the organization is based upon approved policy to the extent that there is a policy on how to develop policy. The adoption of policy within the organization requires an escalating series of consultations and approvals until it reaches the office of the CAO. Unfortunately because of the CAO’s wide span of control there is limited capacity for review and approval of draft policy. We heard numerous complaints of decision making bottlenecks at the CAO level. Inevitably, the organization develops work arounds defeating the original intent of policy based decision making.

•

The organization places a significant importance on communication and interdepartmental coordination. The primary tool used to transfer knowledge is staff meetings. There are numerous staff meetings at the beginning of the week that involve the senior management team, corporate management team, front line staff both at a corporate level and a departmental level. We understand through the consultation process that these meetings often exceed their budgeted time and duplicate both the attendees and the agenda items so that the same people are hearing the same information at multiple meetings.

•

The County has begun to provide services to the member Townships in areas such as finance, planning, human resources, communications and GIS. It is our belief that “good paper makes good business.” The development of service agreements between the County and Township detailing, for example, the expected service levels, compensation, and length of agreement confirms and formalize service standards and reduce complaints between parties. At this point in time, the County and member Townships do not have formal service agreements for all services provided by the County to the member Townships.

•

The most fundamental process for Council is the approval of the budget. It is our understanding that the budget can sometimes not be approved until May of each year after a series of arduous and protracted budget meetings. Municipalities are increasingly approving their annual capital and operating budgets by December 31st of each year so that the organization can immediately focus on service delivery in the new year confident in Council’s priorities. Smaller municipalities, such as the County, have limited capacity in their finance departments. Separating the completion of year end and the development of the annual budget significantly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the finance department. An emerging leading practice, adopted by several Ontario municipalities, is to adopt a three year operating and capital budget

“here is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so

Hamlet (Act II, Scene II)

Most of what we call managementt consists i t off making it difficult for people to get their work done. – Peter Drucker

Summary of Analysis The governance instability of Council and the CAO’s wide span of control have led to a certain amount of grid lock at the leadership level of the organization. Nevertheless, County staff have continued to deliver a high level of service to their clients. © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

People Practices

If the rate of change on the

•

The administrative leadership of the County is highly competent and committed to excellence in service delivery. It is evident that there is high quality staff through out the organization who are focused on improving the lives of their clients.

•

The organization has been required to reduce its staff complement within the paramedic service and Fairmount Home in the past year because of budgetary pressures. These decisions are traumatic for an organization but it appears that the layoffs were well handled and professional.

•

The reduction of one land ambulance and associated lay offs has upset the paramedic union and has caused some labour unrest. Year to date there has been 29 grievances an increase of 61% from the previous year.

•

EMS has experienced a 33% increase in sick leave since 2010. This increase in sick leave for EMS is an area of concern for Council and its management team. In contrast, Fairmount has reduced its sick leave by 28% in the same period, a truly positive statement about the people practices at the Home.

•

The County has a comprehensive work place safety program and has had a successful Road to Zero review by the WSIB WSIB. In addition, the organization employs an occupational health nurse to provide advice in support of injury prevention, disability management, return to work, health and safety policy and program development and legislative compliance.

•

The physical work environment for the staff assigned to the Old House is not a professional office environment. Work stations are scattered throughout the various rooms of a residential house which results in a noisy and inefficient work environment. Should the County continue on its current path of becoming a larger regional presence in the delivery of municipal services, then the requirement for a modern office environment located in a central part of the County will become more apparent.

outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near.

Jack Welch

You absolutely must have p not to hire the discipline until you find the right people.

Jim Collins

Summary of Analysis It is apparent that the County is an employer that values its employees even though there may be profound disagreement s with its labour representatives. County staff continue to be noted for the quality of their serivce delivery and committment to their clients.

Culture

The simple act of paying

•

The County does not have values specific to the organization to guide organizational behaviour, however, some of the departments of value statements specific to their area.

•

Council’s discord has affected the culture of the organization. Municipal organizations pay close attention to the behaviour and style of their elected representatives and expect Council to lead by example. The Senior Management Team has worked hard to buffer Council’s political behaviours in the Council Chambers from the organization. Nonetheless it has had an impact on staff.

•

In many government organization when the behaviour of the elected representatives is misaligned with the organization’s values then the level of distrust and suspicion increases among staff. What this produces is bureaucratic churn where staff disengage from the organization’s mission and instead focus on self preservation and issue avoidance perpetuating the governance discord at Council. This is a potential issue of which the County will have to closely monitor moving forward.

•

The public entrance for the County building is continuously locked requiring the receptionist to manually unlock the door for each visitor. This practice was implemented several years ago as a result of a work place violence threat. It is our understanding that this threat has been removed. The locking of a public entrance into a government building during work hours presents an image to the public that is contrary to the idea of open government. It is also an inefficient practice that diverts the attention of the receptionist from more value added work.

positive attention to people has a great deal to do with productivity.

Tom Peters

Y Your b d iis your culture. brand lt

Tony Hsieh

Summary of Analysis While Council’s political behaviour has affected the corporate culture of the County, the organization does not exhibit overly high levels of bureaucratic churn and disengagement.

S Service i Profiles P fil

Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services and Organization

Service Level Baselines

How to Read the Analysis

The service level baselines are intended to provide a comparison of service levels, delivery methods, staffing levels and overall operating costs for the County against the comparator municipalities (Hastings County, Lennox-Addington County, Leeds Grenville County, Muskoka District, Perth County and the City of Greater Sudbury) and other service level benchmarks that may be relevant. For the purposes of our report, the service level baselines are presented on a departmental basis (consistent with the County’s budget structure), with additional detail provided at the sub-departmental level where considered appropriate. For each service level baseline, the following information is presented:

Services Provided A high-level high level listing of the types of services provided provided.

Delivery Model The method of delivery used by the County in the provision of the service, which may include own resources, external service providers (both private sector and public sector), shared service arrangements with other organizations or volunteers.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

Information concerning minimum service levels and/or service levels provided by the comparator municipalities as well as an indication as to whether the County’s current service levels are consistent with, exceed or fall below the minimum/comparable service levels. Please note that for certain services services, service level standards are not available.

A comparison of key financial and staffing indicators for the County against the comparative municipalities. Where the County’s indicators are higher than the comparator municipalities, they could be indicative of (i) a higher level of service or (ii) the potential for efficiencies and other cost reductions reductions. Except where noted, the indicators have been developed based on 2011 Municipal Financial Information Returns as this represents the last year for which Financial Information Returns are available for the County.

Service Level Baselines Fairmount Home

Overall Potential for

Services Provided

Delivery Model

The provision of long term care services to 128 residents. One wing (32 beds) provides secure care for residents with more advanced d dd dementia ti or behavioural b h i l concerns.

• There are three departments that report to the Home Administrator • The Resident Care Department includes the Registered Nurses (RNs) that are available 24/7 in the home to provide nursing care, and the Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) and Personal Support Workers (PSWs) that provide care to the residents . This department also includes two Recreationists, the Volunteer Coordinator , an Occupational Therapist and a Rehabilitation Assistant that provide supplementary recreational and rehabilitative services. • The Dietary Department provides meals and snacks to residents. • The Environmental Services Department is responsible p for building g maintenance, housekeeping and laundry services for residents • In addition there is a Medical Director who provides, directly and through a nurse practitioner medical diagnosis, prescription and care of residents • All services are provided by staff except the Medical Director and her staff (who are paid by OHIP for services provided), and the Manager of Environment Services and Dietary Services who is contracted from SEDEXO, and the Dietician and Coordinator of Religious and Spiritual Care who are on contract. • There are approximately 120 volunteers involved in the home, providing additional support to residents. • Frontenac Country staff provide Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology services on a shared service basis. • The Ministry fully funds the physiotherapist, physiotherapy aides and the exercise programs.

Improved Effectiveness and Efficiency

Moderate - There is potential opportunity to examine the feasibility of changing operating context Fairmount Home to a nonprofit entity. This would allow the Fairmount to develop polices and practices specific to a longterm care home, and would allow labour management relations to occur using other non-profit homes as the benchmarks rather than municipal homes.

Services include: A. Nursing Care • To meet medical and personal support needs of residents, in accordance with legislative requirements and policy • One RN per floor for day and evening shifts, one total overnight • One RPN per 32 bed wing days and evenings • 3 PSWs per wing day and evenings (4 on days in the secure wing), 1 PWS float on days and 6 total overnight B Meals B. • 3 meals, 2 snacks per day and a morning hydration pass C. Accommodation • Single or shared rooms with washrooms D. Recreation • Variety of programs and activities provided in wings or in shared spaces such as the Auditorium E. Medical Care • On site visits for non-emergency care • Full time Nurse Practitioner on site • Full time Occupational Therapist and Rehabilitation Assistant • Contract Physiotherapy y py services F. Spiritual Care

Service Level Baselines Fairmount Home

Service Level Standard Overall Potential for Improved Effectiveness

•

and Efficiency • Moderate - There is potential opportunity to examine the feasibility of changing operating context

•

Fairmount Home to a nonprofit entity. This would allow the Fairmount to develop polices and practices specific to a longterm care home, and would

• •

allow labour management relations to occur using other non-profit homes as

•

the benchmarks rather than municipal homes homes. •

•

Long Term Care facilities in Ontario are all regulated by the Long Term Care Act of Ontario and O. Reg 79/10. Admission to homes is through the CCAC CCAC, with all residents having equal access to all homes, whether municipally operated (Fairmount), operated by a nonprofit (Providence Manor Home), or operated by a private company (Extendicare). Accordingly, Fairmount cannot give priority access to Frontenac County residents. Fairmount employs the Gentlecare TM approach that is well understood and appreciated throughout the home home. It involves focusing activities around the residents and their needs and desires, providing flexibility in the approach to care and involving residents in decisions about their care. There is currently a major upgrade / expansion of the Home’s Auditorium underway. Staffing was reduced by 4 FTEs in 2011 2011. This has reduced the amount of time staff can spend with each resident, impacting the ability to socialize and converse with residents. The provision of the full time Nurse Practitioner position has improved resident access to timely care. The position received some provincial support, but replaces services se ces p provided o ded by the t e Medical ed ca Director ecto at no o cost to the County Therapeutic services provided in the home (OT, rehab, physiotherapy) reflect the direction care is evolving in long term care homes, but is at a higher service level than the standard. Fairmount Home is accredited with Accreditation Canada.

Indicators • The annual gross operating expense for Fairmount Home is $10.7 million. • The Th County C t receives i $5 5.9 9 million illi ffrom th the P Province, i $2 $2.4 4 million from the City of Kingston for the operation of Fairmount Home and $2.9 million from residents. • The annual net operating expense supported by the County’s levy is $0.08 million. • Provincial funding is determined by the Case Mix Index (CMI). It has been declining relative to other homes, reducing Ministry funding • Case mix index is a relative value assigned to a diagnosisrelated group of patients in a medical care environment. The CMI value is used in determining the allocation of resources to care for and/or treat the patients in the group • Fairmount has essentially the same level of funding from the province as other municipal and non-profit homes. 1 • Operating revenue is slightly higher than the provincial average ($47/resident day vs $42 average). 1 • Operating costs were $235 per day compared to the provincial average of $217 per day. The biggest difference was the facility cost (interest and depreciation).1 • Most wage levels were lower than the averages provided, but casual rates were higher than average. 1 1

Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services Benchmarking Report on Municipal Homes 2011

Service Level Baselines Emergency Medical Services

Services Provided

Delivery Model

Overall Potential for Improved Effectiveness

and Efficiency

The provision of emergency and non-emergency prehospital medical care and transportation to individuals experiencing i i iinjury j or ill illness. A.Primary Care Paramedics (PCP) • Patient assessment • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) • Patient immobilization • Basic trauma life support • Oxygen therapy via various methods • Blood glucose testing • Trauma care, including basic wound care

Moderate - There is potential opportunity to examine the feasibility of changing the operating context of the paramedic service through the

B.Advanced Care Paramedics (ACP) • Advanced airway management equipment • Orotracheal and nasotracheal intubation equipment • ETCO2 monitoring • Laryngoscopy and removal of foreign body obstruction using Magill forceps • Intravenous therapy • 12-Lead ECG interpretation • Needle thoracostomy • Intraosseous , external jugular IV starts and central venous access device • Manual defibrillation, synchronized cardioversion and external transcutaneous cardiac pacing

outsourcing of the staffing functions of the business.

Community Paramedicine – non-emergency, community based service with a focus on health promotion and injury prevention.

• The County relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for EMS services. • The County delivers land ambulance services to the City of Kingston and County residents; total population served is 151,020 1 • The FPS operates the following fleet: a. 15 ambulances b. 1 paramedic response unit c. 6 supervisor and command vehicles d. 1 logistics vehicle e. 1 Emergency Support Unit for large scale emergencies and multi casualty incidents. f. 1 Simulation Mobile Lab • There are urban stations: • Station 00 (Headquarters) – Glenburnie • Station 01 – Palace Road • Station 02 – Justus Dr. • Station 03 – Hwy 15 • There are four rural stations: • Station 04 – Parham • Station 05 – Ompah • Station 06 – Wolfe Island • Station 07 - Sydenham • There is one logistics station in Kingston for medical and equipment supplies. • Dispatch services are provided by the Ministry off Health through Hotel Dieu Hospital. 1

2012 Financial Information Return

Service Level Baselines Emergency Medical Services

Service Level Standard

Indicators

Overall Potential for Improved Effectiveness and Efficiency

Moderate - There is potential opportunity to examine the feasibility of changing the operating context of the paramedic service through the

• The provision of ambulance service across Ontario is a joint responsibility of approximately 50 Upper Tier Municipalities (Regions (Regions, Counties Counties, selected cities cities, and designated Service Delivery Boards in Northern Ontario) and the Ministry of Health. • The Ministry continues to set standards, fully funds air ambulance, dispatch and base hospital programs, and through an approved funding template, provides a maximum of 50% of required land ambulance service funding. • Applicable legislation includes Ambulance Act RSO 1990, Ontario Regulation 129, Ontario Regulation 257/00

outsourcing of the staffing functions of the business.

• A level of paramedic is specified in Ontario Regulation257/00 made under the Ambulance Act Act, RSO 1990, c A‐19. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to this regulation specify the mandatory controlled acts for each level of paramedic. • A paramedic must be authorized by a medical director of a Regional Base Hospital (RBH) to perform controlled medical ed ca acts. acts Frontenac o te ac Cou County ty EMS S pa paramedics a ed cs a are e certified under the Eastern Ontario Regional Paramedic Program by Dr. Justin Maloney.

• The annual gross operating expense for EMS services is $14.5 million. • The County receives $ 7.4 million from the Province, $6.2 million from the City of Kingston for the provision of land ambulance services. • The annual net operating expense supported by the County’s levy is $0.9 million. • On a per household basis, the County’s EMS costs ($203/HH) is lower than the average of its comparators ($217/HH).1 • There were 21,375 responses in 2012 and 65,700 hours of service. 2 • The total responses per 1000 population (142 calls) is less than the average of 167 calls. 3 • The total service hours per 1000 population (435 Hrs) is less than the average of 684 Hrs. 3

1 2 3

2012 Financial Information Return Information provided by the Frontenac Paramedic Service KPMG survey of comparator land ambulance services

Service Level Baselines

Ferry Services Delivery Model

Services Provided • 24/7 ferry service between Howe Island and the mainland.

• The 15 car cable ferry is owned by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation – Frontenac Howe Islander. • The County relies primarily on its own resources (mix off full-time f ll i and d part-time i personnel) l) for f ferry f services, i except for major maintenance. • Maintenance is delivered by the Ministry of Transportation.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• The ferry service operates under the authority of p Canada and the Canada Shipping pp g Act 2001. Transport

• Annual ridership has increased from 204,010 vehicles in 2010 to 207,276 vehicles in 2012. • Heavy truck passages (over 3,000 kg) have declined from 6,352 in 2010 to 5,358 in 2012. • Unscheduled out of service time has decreased from 1402 minutes in 2011 to 35 minutes in 2012. • Scheduled maintenance time, the actual time that the Ministry of Transportation took to perform scheduled maintenance during the year, increased from 1748 minutes i iin 2010 to 6 6552 2 minutes i iin 2012 2012. 1.

2012 Ferry Operations Annual Report

Overall Potential for Improved Efficiency and Effectiveness Low – There is a potential opportunity to assume the operations of the ferries currently operated by Frontenac Islands Township and deliver ferry services to Howe and Simcoe Island under one operator operator.

Service Level Baselines

Corporate Services Delivery Model

Services Provided • Chief Administrative Officer • Legal • Executive Assistant/Receptionist(Administrative support) • Communications Officer • Information Technology • County Clerk & Council support • AODA Support

• The County relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for administrative services, with the following exceptions: • Legal Services • Insurance I Services S i • The County provides AODA, IT and communication services to the lower tier municipalities.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Service levels for specific administrative functions are established either by legislation (e.g. Municipal Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, AODA) or County bylaws. • Major aspects of the County’s administrative functions (e.g. Information Technology), however, do not appear to have formally defined service level standards. • There are no service agreements detailing service level standards between the County and the member Townships on the provision of AODA, IT or communications services.

• General government net costs per household at $106 are significantly lower than the comparator average of $232. 1 • General government costs as a percentage of total municipal operating costs is lower (6%) than the average of the comparator municipalities (8%).1 • General government salary and benefit costs as a percentage of operating costs is significantly lower than the comparative average (40% vs. 56%). 1.

2012 Financial Information Return Schedule 40

Overall Potential for Improved Efficiency and Effectiveness High– There is a potential opportunity to share the cost of back office corporate support services among the member municipalities and neighbours of Frontenac County. County Specific services that offer the greatest opportunity for cost savings include information technology, human resource services, purchasing, and health and safety.

Service Level Baselines

Planning and Development Delivery Model

Services Provided • Planning (Subdivisions, County Official Plan, Sustainability Plan, Special Studies) • GIS • Economic Development

• The County relies primarily on its own resources for planning services. • Planning services are provided to the lower tier municipalities with the exception of North & South Frontenac Townships. • Economic development support is provided to the Townships on a project specific basis.

Service Level Standard • Planning services are provided pursuant to the Planning Act. • O. Reg 101/13 requires all upper-tier municipalities to adopt an official plan. It requires upper-tier municipalities to adopt an official plan no later than March 31, 2015. • Presently, Frontenac County has not adopted an official plan.

Indicators • The County’s salaries and benefits for planning services as a percentage of the department’s operating costs is significantly lower than the comparator average (28% vs. 60%). • The net cost per household for planning services ($33) is significantly g y lower than the comparator p average g of $67.

• The provision of planning services to the Townships will ensure all lower tier municipalities meet the provincial requirements for land use planning matters. • There are service agreements detailing service level standards between the County and the member Townships on the provision of planning services. Overall Potential for Improved Efficiency and Effectiveness High – There is a potential opportunity to share the cost of land use planning between the Townships and County through the delivery of planning services by the County of Frontenac.

Service Level Baselines

Financial Services Delivery Model

Services Provided • Budget development and reporting • Financial year end and other periodic financial reporting • Purchasing/procurement/accounts payable • Revenue/receivables/cash receipts • Financial services support to Emergency & Transportation Services and the Fairmount Home • Management of tangible capital assets • Payroll Services • Review and oversight of third party agreements with the City of Kingston and the Province.

• The County relies primarily on its own resources for financial services. • Financial services are provided to Frontenac Islands (projected to end in 2013) 2013). • Internal audit services are contracted to an independent audit firm when required.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Financial services are delivered in accordance with the Municipal Act , Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook and the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB). (PSAB)

• The County’s debt per household is significantly lower than the comparator average ($606 vs. $898). • The County’s County s reserves per household ($768) is lower than the comparator average of $998.

• Financial statements are subject to an annual independent audit; there is no internal audit function.

Overall Potential for Efficiency and Effectiveness High – There is a potential opportunity to share the cost of financial services among the member municipalities of Frontenac County specifically in the areas of property tax administration or other Treasury funcitions where required.

Service Level Baselines

Human Resource Services Services Provided

Delivery Model

•Collective bargaining for 3 unionized groups - CUPE 109, OPSEU 462 and CUPE 2290 •Grievances and dispute resolution management •Compensation administration for union and non-union employees •Recruitment for all County positions, •Corporate training •Employee record maintenance • Performance management and appraisal process •Occupational Health and Safety

• The County relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for human resource services. • Employee p y Benefits, Short and Long g Term Insurance Benefits are delivered through a county consortium. • Legal advice for labour negotiations and grievances is provided through an external solicitor. • The County provides human resource services to the member municipalities on an as-needed basis.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Service levels for specific human resource functions are established either by legislation (e.g. Municipal Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, WSIB, AODA) or County bylaws bylaws.

• Delivery of HR services to ~362 employees - 228 fulltime and 134 part-time.

• There are no service agreements detailing service level standards between the County and lower tier Townships on the provision of human resource services or work place safety.

• Year to date there has been 29 grievances an increase of 61% from the previous year. • The County has received a favourable review in a recent Road To Zero report by the WSIB.

Overall Potential for Improved Efficiency and Effectiveness Moderate – There is a potential opportunity to share the cost of human resource support services among the member municipalities of Frontenac County particularly in the areas of health and safety and corporate training.

W kfl Workflow Analysis A l i

Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services and Organization

If we think about our daily work at the office . . .

INFORMATION WASTE

PROCESS WASTE

Converting formats Data dead ends Data discrepancies Lack of usefulness Manually checking electronic data Metrics/measures Missing data Re-entering data Redundant data inputs p Unavailable data Unclear or incorrect data Unknown data Unnecessary data

Approvals Bottlenecks C Communication i ti b barriers i Competition (within the organization) Defects Extra Features Handoffs Incompatible work Inspections Multitasking Reviews Rigid hierarchy Shadow systems Searching Signatures Task switching Unnecessary complexity ‘Useless information Variable flow in process Waiting/delays Workarounds

PEOPLE WASTE

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WASTE Interruptions Moving/transporting Unsafe conditions © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

Ineffective meetings Lack of project management Lack of training Lack of useful feedback Mishandled conflict Relearning Turnover Unclear roles Unclear sponsorship norms & boundaries Underutilized talent Emotional waste: unnecessary frustration, stress

If you focus on improving value added work, with a new computer system or more people, then you don’t get much improvement overall. 50 % improvement in value-added work (VA)… Non-Value Added work Value-Added work Improvement Focus

Non-Value Added work

…doesn’t yield much in the way of overall improvement.

V l Add d work Value-Added k Improved Work

But when you focus on eradicating waste, big things happen.

50% improvement in non-value-added work (NVA)… Non-Value Added work Value-Added work Improvement Focus

Non-Value Added work

…yields a much bigger impact on capacity, speed, lead times, quality, and customer and employee satisfaction.

Value-Added Value Added work Improved Work

Workflow Analysis

Budget Process – Staff Preparation Phase Possible Process Waste: 1.

Waiting/Delays in Work Plan approvals

Redundant review by CAO prior to upload into Great Plains

Waiting/delays in budget review/approval because

Early January

Early November

October

September

June

May

April

March

of competing operational d demands d Information Waste 4.

Data discrepancies

Converting formats

Unclear or incorrect data

People Waste 7.

Lack of project

management 8.

Ineffective budget meetings

Unclear sponsorship, norms & schedule

10 Emotional waste, 10. waste unnecessary frustration, stress © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

Workflow Analysis

Budget Process – Council Approval Phase Process Waste: 1.

Waiting/Delays in budget review by Council

2 2.

Unnecessary complexity in budget review by Council

May 2nd

Late January

Mid January

Early January

Redundant review by Finance Committee

People Waste 4.

Lack of project management

Ineffective budget

4 7

meetings ti 6.

Unclear sponsorship, norms & schedule

Emotional waste: unnecessaryy frustration, stress

Lack of training

Mishandled conflict

Workflow Analysis

Revised Budget Approval Process Key Changes 1.

Budget begins May 1 with

Staff Preparation Phase

work plans due at month’s end 2.

No CAO review prior to

Nov 1

Oct

Oct 1

Sept p 30

Sept p

July – Aug

Julyy 1

June

June 1

Mayy

Mayy 1

upload into finance software 3.

SMT review of draft budget

in September & approved

Oct 1 for Council 4.

Budget presentation prepared in October

Council Approves Budget Meeting Schedule

Budget delivered to Council

Council Approval Phase

COW not Finance Committee 7.

Council education session

December Week 1

with financial overview of

Nov Week 4

Nov Week 3

Nov Week 2

Nov Week 1

Nov 1

Sept

organization 8.

Two Meetings to deliberate and review draft budget

Public meeting to inform citizens

Budget approved first week of December

Workflow Analysis

Council Agenda Process Possible Process Waste: 1.

Waiting/Delays in Council Report approvals

Redundant review of formatting & grammar

Redundant review of minutes

October 11th

October 10th

October 4th

October 2nd

Information Waste 4 4.

Converting formats

Unclear or incorrect data

People Waste 6.

Underutilized talent

Ineffective management meetings

Unclear sponsorship,

norms & schedule 9 9.

Emotional waste, waste unnecessary frustration, stress

Workflow Analysis

Revised Council Agenda Process Key Changes 1.

Clerk solely responsible for preparation of agenda p package g

SMT meeting to review agenda and approve

October 15th

October 10th

October 8th

October 4th

October 1st

agenda is removed from the process 3 3.

Mi t removed Minutes d from f CAO review

CAO review period reduced to 2 working

days 5.

Agenda completed & distributed on the Thursday - one day

earlier 6.

SMT meeting day before Council meeting to prepare and confirm

report recommendations

Workflow Analysis

Human Resource Process Improvements

1 1.

Employee data entry into the HRMS System

2 2.

Employee benefit query responsibilities

3 3.

Development and approval of organization wide training work plan

Comparisons C i & Opportunities

Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services and Organization

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Comparative Analysis – Why Compare to Other Communities

For the purposes of the project, seven comparator communities were selected as municipal comparators based on population size, services and geography: 1. 2. 3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Guelph Greater Sudbury Hastings County United Counties of Leeds & Grenville Lennox & Addington County Muskoka District Perth County

The primary purpose of the comparative analysis is to understand the performance of comparator municipalities and to identify opportunities to change how the County’s organization is aligned to deliver municipal services. 

Communities with similar financial benchmarks/service levels – insight into operating efficiencies



Communities with different financial benchmarks/service levels – opportunities to change existing organizational structure/processes to reflect common service levels

Comparing financial performance and taxation levels has both benefits and risks 

Provides insight into affordability issues; what a peer municipality can achieve with the same resources



Assumes that all variables are the same (assessment base, non-taxation revenues)



Assumes that taxation levels in other communities are ‘right’

For the purposes of comparing the operations of the Homes for the Aged and Emergency Medical Services, all seven municipal comparators were included where appropriate. The population and household numbers are for the service area. The comparative financial analysis excludes the Cities of Greater Sudbury and Guelph given their significant differences from the Counties. The population and household numbers solely represent the specific County and not the service area. 1 2

Statistics Canada census profiles (2011) Municipal Financial Information Return Schedule 02 (2011)

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Municipal Comparators

Community

Households2

Service Area Population1

26,375

18,801

151,020 216,316

84,373

161 900 161,900

74 069 74,069

153,327

77,180

88,355

49,234

41,824

18,295

59,721

47,996

74,074

30,743

113,788

54,556

Frontenac

Guelph

121,688

52,179

Greater Sudbury

161,900

74,069

39,888

23,547

60,400

33,732

41,824

18,295

59 721 59,721

47 996 47,996

13,883

73,987

37,556

Population1

Service Area Households2

71,593

5 6

Hastings

Leeds & Grenville

Lennox & Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Comparative Average

1 2

Statistics Canada census profile, 2011 census data. Municipal Financial Information Return Schedule 02 & 90, 2012.

Comparative C ti A Analysis l i – Corporate Services

Financial Perspectives on the County of Frontenac

Historical Operating Costs1 $40.0 Since 2002, the County’s operating costs have increased from $16.9 million to $34.5

$34.6

$35.0

$32.3

million recognizing the increase

$32.1

$ $30.3

to operating i costs off $5.8 $ 8 million illi in 2004 with the Provincial

$34.5

$30.0

$27.4 $27.6

download of Emergency/Land Ambulance Services.

$25.3 $25.0

$22 0 $22.0 $18.8

$20.0

$16.9 $15 0 $15.0

$10.0

$5.0

$0.0 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

1 KPMG analysis of the County’s FIR, prepared in connection with the Review. Considers operating costs only (i.e. excludes capital or reserve transactions), with amounts adjusted to reflect pre-TCA accounting standards (i.e. excludes amortization of TCA).

Financial Perspectives on the County of Frontenac

Changes in Historical Operating Costs The primary contributor to

2002

2004

2012

Avg Annual Increase 02-04

Avg Annual Increase 04-12

Salaries and benefits

$4.33 $

$11.87 $

$22.71 $

65%

Other Expenses

$12.64

$10.21

$11.74

-10%

Total

$16.97

$22.08

$34.45

15%

Salaries and benefits by function1

2002

2004

2012

Avg Annual Increase 02 04 02-04

Avg Annual Increase 04 12 04-12

Transportation (Ferry Service)

$505,895

$593,657

$841,567

8.3%

4.4%

Planning and Development

$51,659

$69,205

$266,419

15.7%

18.3%

$5,839,185

Social and Family Services

$3,603,151

$5,035,024

$8,487,287

18.2%

6.7%

General Government

$177,073

$339,643

$855,261

38.4%

12.2%

Total

$ 4.34m

$11.87m

$22.71m

65.3%

8.4%

Operating expenditures by type1

past increases in operating costs has been higher

(in millions)

salary and benefit costs, which have increased an average of 8% per year since 2004. There has been only a 2% average annual increase since 2004 in non salary/benefit expenses. The role and reach of the County has increased significantly since the 2002.

(in thousands)

Accordingly there has been Accordingly, large increases in the salaries/benefits for the Emergency Services, Planning and General Government areas, (10%, 18% and 12% respectfully).

Emergency Services

$12,259,774

9.7%

1 KPMG analysis of internal financial statements and annual financial information returns. © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

Environmental Scan

Overview of the County’s Financial Performance

The County’s 2012 budget reflects a total municipal levy of $ 8.5 million1 which, when combined with $26 million in other revenues, will fund a total of $34.4 million in expenditures. Since 2002, the County’s municipal levy has increased by an average of $185,000 or 2.6% per year. In comparison, the Consumer Price Index increased on average 1.9% annually since 2002. It is important to note note, however however, that the annual increases in the County’s County s municipal levy have fluctuated significantly from year to year, with several large annual increases experienced during 2004 (11%) and a significant decrease in 2011 (-5%). The leading practice for tax policy is levy increases that are steady and predictable over a five to ten year period – a policy that the County has not been able to achieve.

Total municipal levy – 2002 to 2012 (millions of dollars)2

Annual change in municipal levy – 2002 to 20122

$10

14%

$9 $8.0

$8 $7

$6.6

$6.9

$8.3

$8.5 $8.3 $8.5

$8.9

$8.5 $8.5

11%

12% 10%

$7.2 7%

$3 $

-2%

-4%

-6%

3.9%

4% 3%

2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -1% -2%

-5%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 2

For the purposes of our report, municipal levy includes payments-in-lieu and supplementary taxes, write-offs and rebates. Source – Municipal Financial Information Returns (Schedule 10), and internal financial information provided by management.

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Reported Operating Results (In Millions) 45.0 This chart shows the operating results for the County before any transfers

Revenue

Expenditures

Surplus (Deficit)

40.0

from reserve or debenture. It’s an important depiction of

35.0

the County’s financial health because it indicates the

30.0

long term financial sustainability of the County.

25 0 25.0

In this case, the County has a positive outlook because it has not incurred an

20.0

operating deficit over the past six yyears.

15 0 15.0

The continued drawing down of reserves to fund operating deficits is a

10.0

financial practice that is financially a ca y u unsustainable susta ab e

5.0

and will ultimately lead to some type of intervention.

0.0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source – audited financial statements adjusted for pre-TCA accounting basis

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Operating and Capital Expenditures (In Millions)

The capital expenditure history of the County for the

2007

$28.4

Operating

$3.1

past six years is consistent

Capital

with Canadian municipalities. Following the economic

2008

$31.0

$1.6

crisis of 2008/09, municipalities significantly increased their capital

2009

$32.2

$1.6

programs to take advantage of stimulus funding from the Federal government.

2010

$34.6

$4.1

In Frontenac’s case it g to received funding construct a new ambulance station in Sydenham and a

2011

$32.1

$2.4

new library in South Frontenac.

2012

$34.5

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$0 7 $0.7

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

Source – audited financial statements adjusted for pre-TCA accounting basis

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Total Reserves 2012 (1,000s)

If we consider the reserve

$16,000

position of Frontenac County, the County has the highest reserve position

$14,163

$14,000

among the member municipalities.

The reserve position of Frontenac Islands, Islands Central

$12,000

$11,124

$10,000

Frontenac and North Frontenac is concerning

Average $6,732

$8,000

given the road and ferry networks for which they are responsible.

$6,000 $4,000

$3,646 $2,905

The reserves do not include gas tax revenue which is

$1,823

$2,000

considered Obligatory Deferred Revenue under Schedule 60 of the Financial Information Return.

$Frontenac County

Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac South Frontenac

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Total Debt 2012 (1,000s)

If we consider the debt

$12,000

position of Frontenac

$11,163

County, the County has the highest debt position among the member

$10 000 $10,000

municipalities. The debt held by the County is primarily for the expansion/renovation of

$8,000

F i Fairmount t Home H and d iis partially supported by the City of Kingston.

Frontenac Islands and North Frontenac have no

$6,000

$4 000 $4,000

debt and South Frontenac

Average $2,515

only a marginal amount.

$2,000 $1,040

C t lF Central Frontenac t holds h ld

$373

slightly more than $1 million in debt used to finance the medical centre in Sharbot Lake.

$Frontenac County

Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac South Frontenac

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Net Equity (2012) (1,000’s)

Net equity is the reserve

$12,000

position of the municipality $10,751

less any debt obligations.

$10,000 A comparison of net equity positions shows that South Frontenac has the strongest net equity position of $10.8

$8,000

million million.

Encouragingly, all the

$6,000

member municipalities of

Average $4,217

the County are in a positive net equity position which speaks to the long term

$4,000 $3,000

sustainability of the County.

This analysis excludes any

$3,646 $2,905

$2,000 $783

consideration of liabilities arising from the state of the municipality’s infrastructure.

$Frontenac County Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Reserves per Household (2012)

An analysis of the amount

$1,600

of reserves per household shows that Frontenac County is consistent with

$1,367

$1,400

the average of the comparator group. It does, however, hold the second

$1,200

highest reserve position per household among the

$1,000

comparators. t

$800

Average $775

$768 $732

This is a positive financial indicator.

The reserves do not include

$631

$612

$600

$533

$400

gas tax revenue which is considered Obligatory Deferred Revenue under

$200

S h d l 60 off th Schedule the Financial Information Return.

$Frontenac

Hastings

Leeds Grenville

Lennox Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Debt per Household (2012)

Frontenac County’s debt

$2,500

per household is favourable when compared against the County comparators.

$2,000

$1,929 $1,768

Frontenac County’s debt per household of $606 is below the comparator average of $960 $960.

$1 500 $1,500

Perth County had $0 debt in 2012.

Average $960

$1,000

$751 $606

$500

$354

$Frontenac

Hastings

Leeds and Grenville

Lennox and Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information 56 returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Net Equity per Household (2012)

$800

position of the municipality

$400

positions shows that

This analysis excludes any

-$218

$$(200)

consideration of liabilities arising from the state of the municipality’s infrastructure.

$162

$(400) $(600)

Muskoka

of $162 per household. household

$200

Hastings

positive net equity position

Frontenac

Frontenac County has a

$258

Lennox an nd Addington

A comparison of net equity

$631

$600

Leeds a and Grenville

less any debt obligations.

Perth

Net equity is the reserve

Average ($185)

-$562

$(800) $(1,000) -$1,036

$(1,200) Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Frontenac County

Comparative Taxation Analysis Average/Typical Taxation – Single Family Home An analysis of assessment and taxation data from the Ministryy of Finance’s Online Property Taxation Analysis shows that Frontenac County has the lowest average taxation among the comparator group. Frontenac County is the only municipality of the comparator group that showed a decline The average current value assessment for Frontenac County is $203 $203,000; 000; second highest of the comparator group.

$997 $962 $945

Lennox & Addington (CVA - $197,500) $749 $744 $722

Muskoka (CVA - $217,000)

$717 $695 $693

Leeds & Grenville (CVA - $192,000)

2013 2012

$577 $571 $542

Perth P th (CVA - $209,500)

2011

$420 $417 $411

Hastings (CVA - $ (C $145,250) 5, 50)

$362 $380 $371

Frontenac (CVA - $203,000) $-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Source – KPMG analysis of OPTA information

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

2012 General Government Costs per Municipal Household (Net of Related Revenues) General government costs

$300

can be considered the $258

overhead cost of supplying

$239

municipal services. Typically these costs include all costs associated with Council and Corporate Services (finance,

$200 Average $185

information technology, Cl k functions, Clerk f ti executive ti

$155

$146

leadership).

$128

Frontenac County has the lowest general government costs per household a

$106

$100

reflection of its limited service area responsibilities that do not include a road network.

$Frontenac

Hastings

Leeds and Grenville

Lennox and Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Staffing Complement – Per 1,000 Municipal Population (2012)

Frontenac County has the

14.0 12.8

second highest staffing complement per 1,000 population.

12.0

This reflects the larger

10.0

comparative service area

8.6

for the County’s two primary services: land ambulance

80 8.0

and homes for the aged.

Average 6.6

6.5

6.0

5.4

The County of Perth for

5.6

example shares a long term care home with the City of

4.0

Stratford and Town of St. 2.7

Mary’s. The employees for the home are not employees of the County.

2.0

0.0 Frontenac

Hastings

Leeds Grenville

Lennox Addington

Muskoka

Perth

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Staffing Levels

250

Over the past six years, staffing levels with the County of

Fulltime

Part-time

200

Frontenac have increased. 20 more fulltime positions existed in 2012 when compared to 2007.

150

Part-time positions have decreased over the same five year period shifting from 150 positions in 2007 to 134 in

100

0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source – KPMG analysis of annual financial information returns

Financial and Staffing Perspectives on the County

Retirement Profile of Current County Employees

Within the next five years, 44 municipal employees will be entitled to retire with unreduced pensions pensions, representing 19% of all fulltime employees. 1 While certain of these positions will

Cumulative number of County employees reaching full pension 2 50 45 40

need to be replaced the upcoming p g attrition p provides the County with the opportunity to realign its organizational structure and

35 30 25

reconsider its method of service delivery.

20 15 10 5 0 2013

1 2

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2012 Financial Information Return Based on personnel information provided by management.

Comparative C ti A Analysis l i Emergency Medical Services

EMS Comparator Profiles EMS

Service Areas

Staffing

Stations

Fleet

Frontenac County

Kingston & Frontenac County

60 FT PCP 28 FT ACP 41 PT PCP 8 PT ACP 13 Volunteer Medical Att d t (8 PCP Attendants PCPs))

9 Stations

15 Ambulances 5 Supervisor & Paramedic ERU 1 Emergency Support Unit 1 Logistics Vehicle

45 FT PCP 29 FT ACP 44 PT PCP 12 PT ACP

9 Stations

15 Ambulances 2 Supervisor ERU

47 FT PCP 9 FT ACP C 49 27 PT PCP 8 PT ACP 6 Temp FT PCP

10 Stations

22 Ambulances 5 Supe Supervisor so Response espo se U Unitt 12 Paramedic Response Unit 1 Emergency Support Unit 1 Emergency Support Trailer 1 Logistics Vehicle & Trailer

Population 151,020

Guelph-Wellington

City of Guelph & Wellington County Population 216,316

Greater Sudbury

Greater Sudbury Population 161,900

Hastings County

Belleville, Quinte West, Prince Edward County, Hastings County Population 153,327

54 FT PCP 30 FT ACP 60 PT PCP 10 PT ACP

7 Stations

17 Ambulances 4 Supervisor ERU 1 Emergency Support Unit 1 Emergency Support Trailer 1 Logistics Vehicle

Leeds & Grenville County

Brockville, Kempville, Prescott, Gananoque

53 FT PCP 42 PT PCP

7 Stations

13 Ambulances 4 Supervisor ERU 1 Paramedic ERU 1 Logistics Vehicle 1 Emergency Support Trailer

Population 88,355 Lennox & Addington County

Napanee, Northbrook, Denbigh Population 41,824

28 FT PCP 37 PT PCP

3 Stations

7 Ambulances 4 Supervisor ERU 1 Emergency Support Unit Trailer

Muskoka District

Muskoka District Population 59,721

46 FT PCP 42 PT PCP

5 Stations

13 Ambulances 2 Supervisor ERU 1 Emergency Support Unit 1 Emergency g y Support pp Trailer

Perth County

Stratford, St. Marys, Perth County Population 75,074

50 FT PCP 40 PT PCP

5 Stations

10 Ambulances 2 Supervisor ERU 1 Emergency Support Trailer

EMS

2012 Revenue Sources ($1,000’s)

• The provision of

Revenue Source1

ambulance service across Ontario is a joint responsibility of approximately 50 Upper Tier Municipalities and the Ministry of Health. • Ministry funding for Land

Province of Ontario $7,439 51%

User Fees $17 0%

Levy $900 6%

Ambulance is based on 50% of the PRIOR YEAR approved budget. Expenditures are therefore not current – so funding lags and is not really 50%. • The City of Kingston (under a cost sharing agreement) funds land

City of Kingston $6,165 43%

ambulance according to the proportionate share of its weighed assessment with the County. In 2012 this was $6.2 million.

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes capital and reserve transactions.

EMS

2012 Expenditures

EMS costs by type 1

The most significant cost driver for land ambulance is salaries, wages, and benefits. In 2012 this represented 84% of total land ambulance costs for the County.

Materials $1,157 8%

Contracted Services $992 7%

Rents & Financial Expenses $112 1%

Salaries, Wages and Employee Benefits $12,260 84% 1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

EMS

Total EMS Responses (2012) 1

This chart illustrates how many calls were responded to by EMS providers. The number of responses for the Frontenac

35,000 29 130 29,130

30,000 26,660

Paramedic Service (21,375) was above the comparative

25,000

average.

21,375

20 000 20,000

21,003 18 377 18,377

Comparator Average = 17,840 Calls 14,822

15,000

10,797

10,000 5,000

4,088

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities

EMS

Total EMS Responses Per 1,000 Population (2012) 1

This chart standardizes how many calls were responded to by EMS providers per

300

thousand people. The number of responses

250

248

238

per thousand people for the Frontenac Paramedic Service (142) is below the

200 Comparator Avg = 167 Calls 165

comparative average of 167 calls.

190

150

144

142

Hastings County with approximately the same service area population as

100

98 85

Frontenac Countyy has 34% more calls.

50 0

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities

EMS

Total Unit Hours (2012) 1

A unit hour is equal to one hour of service by a fully

120,000

equipped and staffed ambulance available for dispatch or assigned to a

97,749

100 000 100,000 85,306

call. FPS had 79,056 unit hours

80,000

84,680

Comparator Avg = 68,468 Unit Hours

79,056

in 2012 above the comparator average of 68,468 unit hours.

61,108

60 000 60,000

64,296

55 480 55,480

Unit hours are important because they illustrate the

40,000

quantum of ambulance service available in a yyear.

30,660

20 000 20,000

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities

EMS

Total Unit Hours Per 1,000 Population (2012) 1

This chart standardizes the

1200

total unit hours per 1,000 people. A unit hour is equal to one

1023

1000

hour of service by a fully equipped and staffed ambulance available for

856

800

dispatch or assigned to a call.

733

Comparator Avg = 684 Unit Hours

600

628

604 552

523

FPS had 523 unit hours per 1,000 people significantly below the comparator

400

394

average of 684 unit hours per 1,000 people.

200 0

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities, based upon service area population.

EMS

Unit Hour Utilization (2012) 1

UHU, or unit hour utilization, is calculated by dividing the

40%

38%

number of responses by the number of “unit hours,” with

34%

35%

one unit hour defined as a fully equipped and staffed

30%

vehicle. The higher the ratio, the more productive the system, in the sense that the service is getting more transports out of fewer ambulances. General scale for evaluating

27%

Comparator Avg = 25% 24%

25% 22%

20% 15%

17% 13%

10%

UHU: 55%- 45% – Optimal

Utilization 45% - 35% – Above

Average Utilization 35% - 25% – Average Utilization 25% - 15% – Below Average Utilization 15% - 10%– 10% Poor P Utilization

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities

EMS

Shift Utilization – 12 Hour Shift (2012) 1

Shift utilization is the number of calls per 12 hour shift.

5.0 4.5

4.5

4.1

Frontenac Paramedic Service (3.2 calls) is above the comparator average of 3.0 calls per 12 hour shift. It is important to note that an urban community with

4.0 3.5

Comparator Avg = 3.0 calls per 12 hour shift 3.3

3.2

2.9

3.0 2.6

25 2.5

short transport distances will have a significantly different UHU (higher) with more calls per shift than rural services ((lower). )

2.0

1.6

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

1 KPMG survey of comparator municipalities

EMS

2012 Gross Operating Cost (1,000’s) 1

Frontenac Paramedic Service has the second

$18,000 $16,282

highest operating cost among the comparator

$16,000 $14,310

group. The 2012 Operating cost for Frontenac Paramedic

$14,000

$14,018 $12,892

$12,000

Comparator Avg = $10,700

Service $14.3 million significantly higher than the

$10,000 ,

comparator average of $10.7 million.

$8,000

However, if considered

$6,000

against it’s nearest comparators ((Guelph,

$9,660 $ $8,733

$8,529

$4,525

$4 000 $4,000

Sudbury, Hastings County) Frontenac Paramedic

$2,000

service gross operating costs are similar.

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

EMS

Operating Cost Per Unit Hour (2012) 1

The operating cost per unit hour is the gross operating cost of the paramedic service divided by the unit hours. This measure indicates the efficiency of the paramedic service in delivering land ambulance services. The operating cost per unit hour for FPS is the highest

$200 $180 $160

$181

Comparator Avg = $154/hr $167

$166

$151

$140

$158

$157 $148

$133

$120 $100 $80

of the comparator group because of the low number of unit hours relative to the other paramedic services.

$60 $40 $20 $-

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

EMS

Total Cost Per Unit Hour (Including Amortization) (2012) 1

The total cost per unit hour is the gross operating cost plus the amortization cost of the paramedic service assets divided by the unit hours. The amortization cost of the assets are included to

$200

Comparator Avg = $162/hr $189 $177

$180 $160

$175 $166

$165 $ $156

$140

$155 $137

$120

represent the replacement expense of ambulances and equipment. Again, the total cost per unit hour for FPS is the highest group of the comparator g because of the low number of unit hours relative to the other paramedic services.

$100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $-

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

EMS

Total Cost Per 12 Hour Shift (Including Amortization) (2012) 1

The total cost per 12 hour shift represents the total

$2,500 $2,262

cost per unit hour applied

$2,127

against a 12 hour shift. Again, the total cost per 12

$2,000

$2,094

Comparator Avg = $1,940/hr $1,991

$1,978 $1,877

$1,866

hour shift for FPS is the $1,645

highest of the comparator group because of the lower

$1,500

number of unit hours relative to the other paramedic services.

$1,000

$500

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

EMS

Total Cost Per Call (2012) 1

The total cost per call is calculated by dividing the

$1,400

total cost per 12 hour shift by the shift utilization.

$1,166

$1,200

For the FPS, the total cost per call ($697) is slightly

$1,000

above the comparator average of $672/hr.

Comparator Avg = $712/hr

$800

$697

$816

$726

$684

$650

$600

$507 $435

$400 $200 $-

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

Benchmarking Methodology 1 1.

TOTAL UNIT HOURS PER WEEK = (A) _____ Manned Ambulance Hours (Number of hours staffed per week)

AVERAGE CALL VOLUME PER WEEK = (B) _____ Calls Per Week (Number of responses divided by 52.1775 weeks in a year)

UNIT HOUR UTILIZATION = (B/A) _____ Calls Per Unit Hour

SHIFT UTILIZATION = (B/A) x 12 hrs. _____ Calls Per Unit Shift

TOTAL EXPENSES PER WEEK = (C) $ _____ Expense Per Week (Total expenses per year divided by 52.1775 weeks)

TOTAL EXPENSES PER DAY = (C)/7 Days $ ________ Expenses Per Day

OPERATING COST PER UNIT HOUR: (Line C divided by Line A) $ ________ Cost Per Unit Hour

AMORTIZATION COST FOR AMBULANCE SERVICE $ _____

Amortization Cost Per Unit Hour = ((Line #8/ ((A)) $ _____

Add Lines #7 and #8A = (E) $ _____ Adjusted Cost Per Unit Hour

COST PER UNIT SHIFT = (E) x 12 hours $ _______ Cost Per Unit Shift (shift length can be adjusted but we have standardized to 8 hrs)

COST PER CALL = (Line 9 divided by Line 4) $ ______Cost Per Call

1 Adapted from Calculating Your EMS Service’s Average Cost of Service and Unity Hour Analysis, J.R. Henry Consulting Inc.

Comparative C ti A Analysis l i Long Term Care Services

Profile of Comparator Nursing Homes

In Ontario, long term care home services are funded and regulated by the provincial government and delivered in municipal homes, charitable homes and nursing homes (not-for profit and for-profit). All long term care homes are regulated under the same

Non Profit Home • 85 Bed Home • Non Profit Home • Southern Ontario

Pioneer Manor • 433 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged • Greater Sudbury Ontario

l i l ti legislation, th the L Long-Term T Care Homes Act (LTCHA).

Hastings Manor

There are currently 628 long

• 253 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged • Hastings County, Belleville Ontario

term care homes that operate 77,605 beds. Of those, municipalities operate 103 homes representing 16,388 beds, non-profits and charities operate 166 homes representing 19,659 beds and for-profits operate 359 homes representing 41,558 beds. 1

Hastings Centennial Manor • 110 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged • Hastings County, Bancroft Ontario

Maple View Lodge • 60 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged • Leeds & Grenville County, Athens Ontario

1 Long Term Care Provincial p OANHSS, August g 2013 Snapshot,

Profile of Comparator Nursing Homes

Quick Facts 1 •LTC Homes in Ontario – 628 •LTC Beds in Ontario – 77,605

John M. Parrott Centre • 154 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged County Napanee Ontario • Lennox & Addington County,

• Percentage of Private Sector Homes – 57% /Beds – 54% •Percentage of Public Sector Homes – 16% /Beds – 21% •Percentage of NFP/Charitable

The Pines • 433 Bed Home • Municipal Home for the Aged • Greater G t Sudbury S db Ontario O t i

Homes – 30% /Beds – 25% • Provincial Budget Allocation for LTC - $3.83B Current Average Provincial •Current Funding Per Diem - $158.85

Spruce Lodge • 253 Bed Home u c pa Home o e for o tthe e Aged ged • Municipal • Hastings County, Belleville Ontario

•Current Basic Co-Payment Fee :

Private Sector Home

Private: $74.14 to $77.64

• 128 Bed Home • Private Sector Home • Southwestern Ontario

Semi: $64.14 to $66.14 Basic: $56.14

1 Long Term Care Provincial

p , OANHSS,, August g 2013 Snapshot,

Long Term Care

Revenue Sources ($1,000’s)

While all long term care homes receive the same operating funding from the province and are required to charge residents the same fees, fees the cost of providing the “same” level of service to residents will vary between municipal homes and other providers due to the additional costs imposed on homes that are outside of their control control. Most municipalities cannot rely solely on provincial funding and are forced to contribute municipal funds over and above what the province provides in order to operate without a deficit. In the case of Fairmount Home, it receives approximately $2.5 million from municipal levy to support its operations.

Revenue Source1 User Fees $2,848 25%

Frontenac County Levy $76 1%

City of Kingston $2,402 22%

Province of Ontario $5,866 52%

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes capital and reserve transactions.

Long Term Care

2012 Expenditures Long term care is a labour

Long Term Care costs by type 1

intensive business and accordingly, salaries, wages and employee benefits are the most significant cost drivers.

Municipal salary and benefit

Materials $1,988 18%

Interest on Debt $716 6%

costs tend to be at the hi h end higher d off the th scale l because of arbitration awards and pay equity requirements. This places municipal homes at a disadvantage when comparing their costs to non profit and private sector homes.

1 KPMG analysis of 2012 FIR; excludes inter-functional transfers

Salaries, Salaries Wages and Employee Benefits $8,487 76% 83

Long Term Care

CMI Comparison

Case Mix Index (CMI) – is a numeric value assigned to a

1.3

long-term care home and is

1.2

used as a measure of the average care requirements of residents in the long-term

11 1.1 1

care home.

0.9

The Case Mix Index is

0.8

multiplied by the Base Level of Care Per Diem for the

0.7

Nursing envelope only, and

0.6

is applied to a home’s Classified Beds.

0.5

g Classified Beds are long-

0.4

stay beds that are licensed

0.3

or approved under the Long-Term Care Homes

0.2

Act, 2007. 1

0.1

1.18

Comparator Avg 1.031 1 0518 1.0518

0.9926 0.9515

0.9759

1.0148

1.0286

1.0201

1 0428 1.0428

1.0125

0 1 Long Term Care Financial Policy, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, April 1, 2011.

Long Term Care

Resident Revenue/Day

Costs to be paid by residents are set by the

$64

province and are subject to change. The province

$62

$61

expects that charges are affordable to any applicant.

$60

The basic fee (2012) paid by residents in homes is $55.04 per day or $1,674.13

$59

$61

Comparator Avg $58 $58

$58

$57

per month th for f standard t d d accommodation (may be

$56

$55

less for residents who are unable to pay).

$54

$55

$53

$52 $50 $48

Long Term Care

Resident Revenue/Bed

bed is above the comparator average of $21,400. Residents may choose to

Hundreds

Fairmount’s revenue per

$230

availability. Homes that

$221

Comparator Avg $ 20,900

$220

$211

$210

$206 $204

have a larger capacity of semi or private rooms therefore show a higher

$222

$214

pay for semi or private rooms dependent upon

$226

$200

$197

resident revenue fee per $191

bed.

$190

$180

$170

Long Term Care

Provincial Assistance/Day

Ontario long term care is funded through the municipal levy, resident co-payments, which may include preferred

$180 $160

$154

Comparator p Avg g $129

accommodation premiums for private and semi-private

$140

$130

rooms, and through provincial funding. All homes receive the same amount of provincial level of care funding on a per diem basis. This funding is

$120

$134

$132 $126

$125

$124 $117

$122

$109

$100 $80

categorized into four separate envelopes: food, programs

$60

and services, and nursing and personal care. On a per resident day basis all long term care homes receive $158. 85 which is adjusted based on a home’s case mix

$40 $20 $ $-

index. 1

1 Long Term Care Provincial

S Snapshot, h t OANHSS OANHSS, A Augustt 2013

Long Term Care

Provincial Assistance/Bed

for the costs of nursing and personal care as well as for activation through a funding formula determined by the

H Hundreds

The Ministry pays directly

$600

$558

Comparator Avg $ 46,900

$500

$469

province. Residents pay for

$452 $428

their room and food. Governing bodies of not-for-

$487

$477 $457

$400

$445

$397

profit homes (including municipalities) i i liti ) augmentt funding to enhance

$300

services. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care also funds

$200

homes based on a number of supplementary funds. These supplementary funds

$100

(or “pots”) vary from home to home and across the types of long term care

$ $-

provider. 1

1 Municipal Delivery of Long Term Care Services: Understanding the Context and the Challenges, OANHSS, 2012.

Long Term Care

Expense/Day

Municipalities tend to experience higher

$300

arbitration settlement $255

decisions due to their perceived ability to pay. To

$250

illustrate, an analysis

$218

among care staff in municipal homes versus

$200

other provider type homes

Comparator Avg $199

$206

$199 $187

$182 $170

$194 $176

$171

shows h th thatt in i 2009 2009, on average, municipal homes

$150

paid between 7.5 and 9% more per hour in salary for registered nurses (RNs),

$100

registered practical nurses (RPNs), and personal support workers (PSWs) 1

1 2009 OANHSS Benchmarking

$50

$ $-

Report – Municipal and Charitable/Not-for-Profit Nursing Homes, 2012.

Long Term Care

Expense/Bed

Affairs and Housing keeps a record of municipalities’ assistance to aged persons as part of the Financial Information Return (FIR) data. In 2000, Ontario’s municipal governments spent $846,388,193 on assistance to the aged. By 2008, this figure had increased to $1,433,109,628. Accounting for inflation, municipal governments spent approximately 40% more for

Hundreds

The Ministry of Municipal

$1,000 $926

$900 $800

$791

Comparator Avg $700 $749

$724

$700

$678

$655 $614

$697 $640

$621

$600 $500 $400 $300 $200

assistance to the aged over eight years. 1

1 Coming of Age: The

$100 $ $-

Municipal Role in Caring for Ontario’s Seniors , An AMO Paper on Long Term Care and Senior Services , June, 2011.

Long Term Care

Salaries & Benefits as a % of Total Expenses

88%

86%

86% 84%

Comparator Avg 83%

85% 84%

84%

83%

83% 82%

82%

82% 81%

80%

79%

78% 76% 74% Fairmount Pioneer Manor

Hastings Hastings Manor Centennial

Maple View Lodge

John M. The Pines Parrott

Spruce Lodge

Non Profit Home

Private Home

In 1990, the provincial government passed the Pay Equity Act. It was intended to eliminate gender discrimination in compensation for employees employed in female job classes in Ontario Ontario. However However, the methods of comparison contained within the Act resulted in an imbalance in the salary levels between job-to-job and proxy employers. Although the Act applies to all long term care providers, its provisions affected homes differently. Nursing homes were generally able to use the proxy method of comparison because they typically had an insufficient number of male comparators in their workplace. The proxy method allowed employers to select another organization of their choosing to compare wages and benefits. Also, under the Act, proxy employers have no enforceable obligation to maintain their pay equity plans, resulting in a smaller, one-time increase in salary and benefit costs for nursing homes. Municipal homes, on the other hand, typically had a sufficient number of male comparators within the municipality to complete the jobto-job method. Invariably, the internal job-to-job method resulted in higher salary levels than those faced by proxy employers. The Act not only resulted in wage or cost difference between long term care homes but the province’s funding provisions affected municipal homes differently as well. Proxy employers received 100% of their proxy obligations up to 1998 and additional funding has been provided in recent years following litigation, whereas job-to-job employers receive funding only for a fraction of their pay equity obligations. The proxy method has tended to result in lower salary costs and offered those operators higher subsidy levels than provided to municipalities. Municipalities pay the difference in pay equity related cost increases. 1 1 Municipal Delivery of Long Term Care Services:

Understanding the Context and the Challenges, OANHSS, 2012.

Long Term Care

Cost Centre Comparison Per Day

Facility Operations & Maintenance includes:

$140 $126

Housekeeping Services Building Building and Property

$119

$120

Dietary Services

$111

Operations and Maintenance

$100

$93

Laundry and Linen Services General and Administration Facility Costs

$80

$76 $67

$65

$66

$61

$60

$40

$20 $8

$11

$10

$Fairmount

Avg of Municipal Homes

Not for Profit Home

Private Sector Home

Avg All Homes

Total Nursing and Personal Care

Total Program and Support Services (PSS)

Total Raw Food

Total Facility Operations & Maintenance

Opportunities O t iti for f Improved Operational Efficiencies and Effectiveness Frontenac County Comprehensive Review of Services and Organization

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities

Ref No. 1

Observation and Implication



The County operates a fleet of four vehicles for the use of staff in the Corporate Services department. 1.

Ford Expedition

Ford Explorer

Toyota Prius (2)

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



Business case is prepared prior to any vehicle purchase that documents mileage in the past year and calculates cost of mileage per diems.



Vehicles are retired from the fleet at the end of life cycle to reduce d maintenance i costs

Work place absenteeism is a growing problem in the public sector, particularly in emergency services and health care. care This is a reflection of a lack of management around the issue and the increasing age of employees. The County has begun to rollout an absenteeism program for the organization in order to manage sick leave. There has been recent success with the management of absenteeism at Fairmount Home.



Corporate wide absenteeism program administered as a wellness program in partnership with the unions.



The tracking and reporting of sick leave trends ensures any issues are dealt with based on evidence and not supposition.

The receptionist desk is separated from the Corporate Services area. Because the position is unionized, it requires a union employee to fill the position when the receptionist is on her break or lunch. This can cause significant disruption in the work of other unionized employees and reduces the efficiency of the overall department.



Leave the reception desk vacant for breaks and lunch with a sign indicating where a visitor can go for assistance.

Because of the County’s geographic size, corporate vehicles are required for transporting staff, however, it is always a question of how much fleet capacity a municipality requires.



Reduced capital costs for fleet



Reduced operational costs for fleet maintenance



Reduced absenteeism reduces the cost of operations particularly in part-time wages that are used to cover sick leave.



Employees are more effective in their work when they are not regularly pulled away to fill tasks unassociated with their work.

Additionally, the Ford Expedition is a surplus vehicle at the end of its life-cycle and is incurring higher maintenance costs. 2



Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No. 4

Observation and Implication



Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices

It is common in organizations to see employees become established in positions that effectively control key processes through administrative gates. Often these gates can be recognized by the continued use of manual processes or by sole approval or knowledge source for administrative processes. As a result, key work flows in the organization are inefficient and undependable thereby frustrating the remainder of the organization. For these reasons, it is essential for the County to have cross trained employees who understand and have authority over more then one business process (within the limits established by internal control) and who are clearly l l accountable t bl ffor cross ffunctional ti l processes.



Private sector organizations have been using cross training as a way to manage increasing client demands and limited resourcing.



However, cross training can cause greater inefficiency and upset p to yyour organization g if not properly thought out and formally structured.

The disbursement of Gas Tax revenue has been a contentious issue for the County and its member municipalities. There is approximately $2.4 million of gas tax revenue held by the County. While the County has two services with significant capital assets (EMS & Fairmount Home), there is not a direct link to the source of gas tax funding. Accordingly, the more appropriate allocation of gas tax revenue would be with Townships who own the road network in the County and typically underfund its maintenance.



Other counties (ex: Hastings) g annually distribute gas tax revenue to the member municipalities to assist in the funding of their road networks, keeping a small balance for appropriate corporate spending.



Cross training is a way of increasing the capacity of the County to deliver services thereby becoming more effective without increasing the organization’s complement l t off staff. t ff



The disbursement of gas tax funding to member municipalities would improve the overall state of infrastructure for the County and improve the level of service to County residents.

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



The work week within the Corporate Services department varies between a 35 ou week ee and a d a 37.5 3 5 hour ou week. ee The e lack ac of o a standard sta da d work o week ee within t hour promotes the sense of unfair privilege within the department and increases the operational cost of Corporate services.



While organizations will modify ttheir e work o week ee to meet eet tthe e operational requirements of a specific business unit or department, it is leading practice to standardize a work week within the unit so that everyone works the same amount of time.



The standardization of tthe e work o week ee to 35 hours will reduce the operational cost of Corporate Services.



The County has not held a Christmas party for its employees for the past two years. In the public sector, these events are often subject to criticism as they are seen as a poor use of tax dollars. Nevertheless, the sponsorship of a dinner for employees (alcohol excluded) is an important way of reminding Council and staff that theyy are part p of a common endeavour.



Most of Canada’s “Top 100 Companies To Work For” survey, carried out by the Globe and Mail invest heavily in staff communication and reward programs of which a holiday party is an important part.



Many private and public sector companies have found that the value in entertaining g staff far outweighs the cost in terms of loyalty, networking, motivation, team spirit and enjoy a halo effect of higher productivity after a Christmas celebration.



The delivery of mail within the organization is overly complicated and delayed. At present all mail within the organization is first delivered to the CAO’s officer where it is sorted and delivered to individual departments. Mail delivery should be the responsibility of the receptionist and completed by day’s end.



Administrative tasks such as mail delivery are pushed to the appropriate level in the organization



The capacity of the CAO’s office can be increased and made more efficient if administrative tasks are assigned to administrative staff.

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No. 9

Observation and Implication



Currently, decision making within the organization is based upon approved policy. This has led to decision making paralysis while policy is developed and approved. Th There is i a need d to t inventory i t currentt policy li and d determine d t i what h t decisions d i i require i a Council approved policy and what decisions are expected as part of the responsibilities of the position.



It is apparent that the greatest need for organizational restructuring within the Corporation is within the areas of Corporate and Administrative Services. This view was validated and confirmed with the project committee at the October 16th project management meeting.



Accordingly, three working sessions were scheduled with a project team Accordingly representing the different areas of the corporation. The goal of these working sessions was to develop structural options for the organization and employ design principles to assist in the evaluation of the options and, ultimately, the selection of the optimal structural model.



The resulting structural model for Corporate Services standardizes the reporting structure across the department with an appropriate span of control and groups workk according di to the h type off functional f i l activity. i i



The preparation of Council reports consumes both the organization’s administrative and leadership capacity. A new method of preparing Council reports needs to be developed with specific decision points and timelines. The majority j y of reports p are not so complex p that they y require q multiple p re-writes.

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



A key role of Council is the setting of policy. A good governance practice ti is i for f Council to regularly consider one new policy at each Committee of the Whole meeting.



Allowing staff to make decisions based on th i kknowledge their l d and d experience will increase the efficiency of the County ex: preauthorized utility payments.



All personnel policies should be compiled and approved by Council.



Standardizing the reporting structure and ensuring appropriate span of control for the type of work is a leading practice for both the p p pubic and private sector.



The proposed changes will improve both accountabilities within Corporate Services and the decision making g processes.



Weekly Senior Management Team meetings should ensure that the team is fully briefed on issues emerging g g on Council’s agenda. Agenda reports should be perfunctory and require minimal supervision.



Removing the biweekly corporate angst over the preparation of Council reports p will improve the capacity of both administrative and leadership staff.

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



GIS is a key tool in the delivery of municipal services. At present, it is a service that is delivered in house through one dedicated full time specialist. This is work th t can b that be d delivered li d as a contracted t t d service i by b an external t l GIS service i provider. id Our understanding, however, is that this is work covered under the County’s collective agreement with CUPE which limits the County’s ability to contract the service. Nevertheless, should the member municipalities of the County contract with the County for GIS there would be an opportunity to fill the increased demand through an external service provider.



GIS is a service that can be effectively provided through Cl d Computing. Cloud C ti S ll Smaller municipalities are using the technology to contract for GIS services thereby reducing their operational cost.



Should the member municipalities demand f GIS services for i increase, contracting the service is an opportunity to control costs.



There are two software systems (Info HR & Document Manager) that took 2 – 3 years to implement. It is our understanding that the slow implementation is a result of approval bottlenecks and capacity issues within the Information Services department. Given the investment the County has made in these software products, the contracting of information technology support to assist in implementation appears sensible. sensible



Overcapacity issues are resolved through the temporary purchase of contracted services to assist in implementation.



Many of the inefficiencies contained within the County’s document management & human resources processes could be resolved through the full implementation of Info HR and Document Manager.



Dispatch for land ambulance service is provided by the Kingston Central Ambulance Communications Centre operated by Hotel Dieu hospital. Concern has been expressed about the ability of CACC to dispatch according to the acuity of the call.



EMS services in Ontario (such as Niagara) are beginning to bring dispatch services within their organization so that there is a quicker and more cohesive response to 911 calls.



Improved service levels through reinvestment in technology and greater integration integration.

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities

Ref No. 15

Observation and Implication



Single g tier and upper pp tier municipalities p are mandated to p provide long g term care services under the authority of ministerial approval, which never expires. In contrast, private long term care providers must obtain a license to operate and maintain a home.



It is our understanding that municipalities cannot sell or transfer a home or its beds, unlike charitable, not-for-profit homes, and for-profit nursing homes which can, but with certain conditions. As such, there is no monetary value associated with a municipal home and/or its beds. beds



Communications staff are becoming an increasingly common member of the municipal organization in order to proactively manage internal and external corporate communications and provide strategic communication advice.

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



Eliminating g the legislated g requirement to operate a home would allow for the greatest flexibility to customize services to better suit the individuality of communities.



This change would allow municipal governments to fund customized services better suited to their communities which vary across the province.



It is a leading practice to employ a communications specialist on staff to advise the management team and Council on difficult and sensitive comm nit issues. community iss es



Active support pp for AMO’s position of eliminating the legislative requirement of home ownership detailed in its 2009 White Paper might provide future opportunity for change.



The communications position is not a statutory position and can be filled through a contract position.



A contracted service will not provide the same level of service as an in-house resource.

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No. 17

Observation and Implication 

Like all municipalities, Frontenac County would benefit from a systematic review of its business processes in order to remove the following waste from its operations:  Transport – Moving people, products & information

Inventory – Storing parts, pieces, documentation ahead of requirements Motion – Bending, turning, reaching, lifting

 Waiting – For parts, information, instructions, equipment

Over production – Making more than is immediately required Over processing – Tighter tolerances or higher grade materials than are necessary Defects – Rework, scrap, incorrect documentation Skills – Under utilizing capabilities, delegating tasks with inadequate training

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices 

Leading practice is to apply lean six sigma using a blitz kaizen approach approach.



A Blitz Kaizen consists of:

 Purchasing processes

 A 3 to 5 day event

 Payables processes

 Identification of the current

 Planning approvals

state and gaps in performance against stated goals

 Identification of improvement

opportunities

 Implementation is

piloted/simulated within 20 days following the Kaizen

 Implementation happens day 3

to 30 (depending (d di on scope off improvements)

 Logistic processes for

EMS

 Hospital intake

processes

 Scheduling of nursing

resources

 Client intake processes  Ferry servicing 

These blitz kaizens can be scheduled one per year.



At this p point,, the opportunity is limited for Frontenac County since it has made a significant investment in staffing and infrastructure and the cost per call is approximately the same.

 Outstanding items are cleared

within 40 days



An alternative method of p providing g land ambulance services is to contract the service to Medavie EMS (a Blue Cross Company). Three Ontario municipalities have contracted with Medavie to provide paramedic staffing and operate the service. The municipalities retain ownership of all physical assets. The County’s experience with contracting land ambulance service has not been positive and resulted in large court order settlement in 2004.

Possible processes to implement lean 6 sigma include:



Contracting g with Medavie is a viable practice for municipalities without the infrastructure and resources in place to develop their own land ambulance service.

100

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



It was apparent during the project that the strategic direction for the County is undetermined. There is a need for Council to agree g on a common future for the County so that it can effectively and efficiently deliver its mandated services.



Municipalities typically adopt some type yp of corporate p or strategic plan that lays out the goals, objective and key initiatives for the Council term. A leading practice is to extend the planning out to a longer time horizon then Council’s initial term of office.



Agreement on a common direction for the County through a strategic plan would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the County’s service delivery.



The amount of reserves and reserve funds held by the County has been questioned by some members of Council. Any discussion around the amount of reserves held by the County can not occur until the County’s asset management plan is completed. Once the amount of unfunded liability is determined then an informed discussion can occur around reserve levels.



Complete an asset management plan and develop a life cycle funding model to fund the infrastructure gap.



Reserves funded according to the asset’s life cycle is a means of ensuring that the municipality’s reserves are correctly funded.

The leading practice is for each municipality to have a comprehensive financial plan for the long term maintenance and replacement of specifically identified tangible capital assets.

Life cycle funding is the most effective way of capital planning. It removes wild fluctuations in the levy caused by large unforeseen capital projects.



Debt financing is considered the last available financing option for approved capital projects.

101

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



The County holds a variety of reserves and reserve funds for capital asset replacement l t , working ki capital it l and d strategic t t i requirements. i t There Th is i a need d for f the th County to adopt a policy framework for its reserve and reserve funds. In particular, stabilization reserves should be established for Fairmount Home and Frontenac Paramedic Service to provide the municipality with the flexibility and protection from unforeseen budget variances. Annually any net operational results would be transferred to/from the operating rate stabilization reserve at the completion of year end.



Targeted operating rate stabilization t bili ti reserve balance b l off 10% of annual operating expenditures for the department.



The use of stabilization reserves supports t the th adoption of the budget by December 31st each year and improves the overall financial operations of the County.



Shared services is the key for the long term sustainability of Frontenac County and its member municipalities. p No longer g can municipalities p at either the upper pp or lower tier operate in isolation of one another. Municipal service delivery is becoming more complex with the growing regulatory requirements of the province. Municipalities regardless of size are expected to equally conform to any regulatory change. This places an increasing burden on smaller municipalities that do not have the capacity to meet these requirements.



The long term sustainability of small municipalities like the member municipalities of Frontenac County depends on shared service delivery particularly in areas such as back office support.

Shared services among member municipalities p involving procurement, specialty consulting services (engineering), high demand positions (CBO), AODA, information technology, GIS, human resources, financial services, taxation and communications.



Holding to the traditional characterization of upper tiers as out of touch or the lower tiers as not up to the task only guarantees a limited future for the County.



Any shared service arrangements are detailed in an agreement between the involved municipalities.

Thinking of the County as a holistic communityy allows the municipalities to leverage the efficiencies of shared service delivery and reduce costs and ensure the long term financial sustainability of the County.

102

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



The uploading of social services to the Province has created tax room in the County’s municipal levy. For the 2014 budget, the County will have $3.3 $ million in vacated tax room. The Province’s expectation is that upper tier municipalities will recognize that there is only one property taxpayer and reach agreement with the lower tier municipalities on assuming the vacated tax room.



Counties are expected to share the vacated tax room created by the uploading of social service costs to the Province.



If the County is considered as one community, then the uploading of social services is a tremendous opportunity to improve the financial sustainability t i bilit off the th member municipalities.



The establishment of a budget schedule setting out the dates and the timing of Council’s review and approval of the annual budget has not been a standard practice of the County.



Budget schedule approved annually by Council ensuring the passage of the operating and capital budgets by December 31st of each year.



Passage of the County budget by December 31st allows the County to tender large capital purchases at the beginning of the year when pricing is favourable.



Administrative resources in the organization are isolated in the departments they support. As a result, work capacity is uneven across the organization.



Administrative support is becoming an increasingly expensive resource. To fully exploit the value of administrative positions, they should be integrated across the organization.

Organizations are gradually moving administrative staff into new departments to develop new skill sets and improve the cross trained capacity of the organization.



Additionally, administrative resources are trending towards being pooled to ensure that there is equal capacity across the organization.

Pooling administrative resources will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization’s administrative backbone.

103

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities

Ref No. 26

Observation and Implication



There are numerous staff meetings at the beginning of the week that involve the senior management team, corporate management team, and front line staff both at a corporate and a departmental level. We understand through the consultation process that these meetings often exceed their budgeted time and duplicate both the attendees and the agenda items so that the same people are hearing the same information at multiple meetings.

At each of the staff meetings there are minutes taken that require processing and approval. Because of the numerous amount of staff meetings, the number of minutes requiring attention is significant and impacts on the capacity of administrative staff to deliver administrative support for other work.

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



Private sector organizations have similarly struggled with staff meeting protocol.



The common experience in both the private and public sector is that meetings should have a defined start and close time, agenda and involve the right people.



Conference calls/video meetings so individuals can remain in the office are becoming increasingly common place.



It is now commonly expected that organizations will record minutes of their staff meetings.



The County can experience a significant improvement in productivity if the number of staff meetings were reduced to one - 1 hour Senior Management Team meeting per week & one 45 minute Corporate Services meeting per month.



Reductions in staff meetings will in turn reduce the minute requirements for administrative staff and thereby increase their capacity it ffor additional dditi l work.



Change the minutes format to a series of actions and items for follow up.

104

Comparisons & Opportunities

Potential Opportunities Ref No.

Observation and Implication

Opportunity for Improvement

Leading Practices



Like many municipalities, there are a number of staff who attend Council and Committee meetings to either provide support for Council or to ensure that they correctly understand Council Council’s s position on an issue. issue There is a significant cost to the County for the attendance of staff at Council meetings if the hourly rates are compiled in the aggregate. Senior leadership should be able to answer any questions from Council. In the event they are unable to address a technical question, an email memorandum can be issued following the meeting.



Private sector firms are always focused on ensuring that their employees are working on projects that are of highest and best use for the business.



Efforts should be made to control the number of staff in attendance at Council meetings thereby reducing the cost of Council meetings and ensuring that staff are focused on work that is of highest and best use to the County.



It has become apparent that the cost of service delivery is a priority for Council. In order to ensure that Council is adequately informed about the operating costs of the County there should be quarterly reports that reflect the position similar to what were provided in the benchmarking section of this report.



In the words of Peter Drucker, “what gets measured, gets managed.” The private sector and increasingly the public sector t is i ffocusing i on measuring i results so that they understand their operations and can manage its performance.



Quarterly reports to Council’s Committee of the Whole on the financial performance off the th Frontenac F t Paramedic Service and Fairmount Home.



Annual increases in the County’s municipal levy have fluctuated significantly from year to year, with several large annual increases experienced during 2004 (11%) and a significant decrease in 2011 (-5%). This makes it difficult for businesses to predict their property tax obligations and complicates their annual budgeting.



The leading practice for tax policy is levy increases that are steady and predictable over a five to ten year period.



Develop a policy of gradual adjustments to the tax levy to avoid unforeseen spikes or drops.

105

A Appendix di A

Survey Results –Council

Survey Results Survey Results – Council Question 1 – Often times, priorities will conflict. From Council’s perspective, please rank the following tax priorities in order of preference ( 1 – being highest and 4 – being lowest)

Increasing taxes by a reasonable amount to fund operating & capital needs

Options

Increasing taxes for inflation

Maintaining taxes at current levels

Average Ranking

Maintaining taxes at current levels

3.4

Increasing taxes by a reasonable amount to fund operating & capital needs

24 2.4

Increasing taxes for inflation

2.4

Reducing taxes

1.80

Reducing taxes

0% Lowest Ranking

Low Ranking

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% High Ranking

Highest Ranking

107

Survey Results Survey Results – Council Question 2 – Municipal services can typically be grouped into two categories – “must haves” and “nice to haves,” the difference being the legislative requirement to deliver the service in question. From Council’s perspective, please identify your preference of the “nice to haves” based on the following choices (1 – being best and 3 being least)

Enhance service levels

No change to service levels

Option

Average Ranking

No change to service levels

2.60

Reduce service levels

1.80

Enhance service levels

1 60 1.60

Reduce service levels, including the potential for outright service elimination

0% Least

10%

Medium

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Best

108

Survey Results Survey Results – Council Question 3 – Various strategies are available to municipalities in order to reduce operating costs. From Council’s perspective, please identify which strategies are acceptable. Increases in non ta ation non-taxation revenue (user fees) 40%

Contracing out to the private sector 20%

Staff FTE reductions, 40%

Options

Average Ranking

Governance restructuring

Contracting out to another public sector org

Staff FTE reductions

40%

Regional or Shared Delivery Model

Increases in non taxation revenue

40%

Contracting out to the private sector

20%

109

Survey Results Survey Results – Council Question 4 – There are many demands upon elected officials for decisions regarding service levels and how a service is delivered. Do you believe the leadership team for the County provides the necessary information and support for effective decision making?

Option

Percentage Ranking

Strongly Agree

20%

Agree

20%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

40%

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

20%

Stongly g y Disagree g Disagree

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

110

Council Survey Results Implications for the Comprehensive Review of Services & Organization

Taxation policy is clear • Surveyed Councillors appear to support maintaining taxes at the current level. • Ultimate level of taxation will be determined by the choices made as to service levels and other strategies

Limited appetite for outright service level reductions • Opportunities that have the highest potential for implementation will likely involve efficiencies and improved business processes • Efficiencies can also involve shared service arrangements as well as potential staffing reductions • Any service level reductions will be identified as part of the Service Delivery Review process

Council appears to support potential staffing reductions and possible increases to non taxation revenue ( (user ffees)) and d no support ffor a regional i l shared h d service i d delivery li model d l or contracting i to another h public bli sector organization.

Council appears to be undecided about the level of information and support provided by staff to assist Council in its decision making.

111

A Appendix di A

Survey Results – Staff

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 1 – Please Identify Your Department

Fairmount Home Department

Emergency & Transportation Services

Corporate Services

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Response Count

Fairmount Home

Emergency & Transportation Services

Corporate Services

Total Respondents

115

60%

113

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 2 – There are opportunities within my department and/or municipality to improve its operating efficiency and/or effectiveness

Strongly Agree

Agree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

106

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

114

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 3 – The efficiency and/or effectiveness of my department and/or municipality could be increased if its services were delivered as a shared service in partnership with all member municipalities in the County and/or neighbouring municipalities.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

107

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

115

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 4 – The efficiency and/or effectiveness of my department and/or municipality could be increased if its services were contracted out to a private sector operator.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Strongl Disagree

Total Respondents

111

Strongly Disagree 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

116

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 5 – The efficiency and/or effectiveness of my department and/or municipality could be increased if its services were solely delivered by the County of Frontenac.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

103

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

117

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 6 – There are opportunities within my department and/or organization to reduce costs

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

100

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

118

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 7 – There are opportunities within my department and/or organization to increase revenue from non-taxation sources.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

119

Survey Results Survey Results – Staff Question 8 – There are opportunities within my department and/or organization to reduce the service level with minimal impact on the community.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Option

Response Count

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total Respondents

103

Strongly Disagree 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

120

Staff Survey Results Implications for the Comprehensive Review of Services & Organization

Staff strongly believe that there are opportunities to improve the operating efficiencies of the organization and/or department.

Staff do not believe the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the organization or department could be increased if its services were delivered as a shared service in partnership with all member municipalities in the County and/or neighbouring municipalities.

Staff do not believe the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the organization or department could be increased if its services were contracted out to a private sector operator.

4 4.

Staff believe the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the organization or department could be increased if its services were solely delivered by the County of Frontenac.

Staff do not believe there are opportunities within the organization or department to reduce costs.

Staff have no opinion on whether there are opportunities within the organization or department to i increase revenue ffrom non-taxation i sources.

Staff do not believe there are opportunities within the organization or department to reduce service levels with minimal impact on the community.

121

A Appendix di B

Comparative Salary Analysis

Compensation Analysis

Chief Administrative Officer1

Low Frontenac County

High

$116,359

$148,914

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$134,480

$157,284

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$115,096

•

Hastings g County y

$188 386 $188,386

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$218,178

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$162,322

$191,114

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

101%

129%

•

Comparator group maximum

53%

68%

•

Comparator group average

71%

85%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

123

Compensation Analysis

Treasurer1

Low Frontenac County

High

$106,947

$127,015

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$110,146

$128,819

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$104,007

$130,076

•

Hastings g County y

$111 341 $111,341

$130 223 $130,223

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$165,220

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$135,512

$159,549

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

103%

98%

•

Comparator group maximum

65%

77%

•

Comparator group average

85%

89%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

. © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

124

Compensation Analysis

Chief of Paramedic Services1

Low Frontenac County

High

$106,947

$127,015

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$97,115

$113,586

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$94,417

$117,974

•

Hastings g County y

$116 741 $116,741

$136 539 $136,539

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$117,567

$138,413

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$92,801

$109,261

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

115%

116%

•

Comparator group maximum

91%

92%

•

Comparator group average

103%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

125

Compensation Analysis

Administrator of Long Term Care1

Low Frontenac County

High

$106,947

$127,015

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$110,146

$128,820

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$78,214

$97,767

•

Hastings g County y

$111 341 $111,341

$130 223 $130,223

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$109,711

$129,187

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$100,271

$118,056

•

Long Term Care BMI Report2

N/A

Frontenac County as a percentage of: •

Comparator group minimum

137%

130%

•

Comparator group maximum

96%

98%

•

C Comparator t group average

105%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

2 KPMG analysis based on 2011 OANHSS Benchmarking. © 2013 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. KPMG CONFIDENTIAL.

126

Compensation Analysis

Director of Resident Care1

Low Frontenac County

High $83,995

$96,407

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$89,508

$104,686

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$78,214

$97,767

•

Hastings g County y

$88 828 $88,828

$103 891 $103,891

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$99,754

$117,421

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$92,801

$109,261

•

Long Term Care BMI Report2

N/A

Frontenac County as a percentage of: •

Comparator group minimum

107%

99%

•

Comparator group maximum

84%

82%

•

C Comparator t group average

94%

90%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

127

Compensation Analysis

Deputy Chief - Operations1

Low Frontenac County

High $89,595

$102,834

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$82,482

$96,478

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$78,214

$97,767

•

Hastings g County y

$94 750 $94,750

$110 818 $110,818

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$99,754

$117,421

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

115%

107%

•

Comparator group maximum

90%

88%

•

Comparator group average

101%

97%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

128

Compensation Analysis

Deputy Chief – Performance Standards1

Low Frontenac County

High $89,595

$102,834

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

N/A

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

N/A

•

Hastings g County y

$94 750 $94,750

$110 818 $110,818

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

95%

93%

•

Comparator group maximum

95%

93%

•

Comparator group average

95%

93%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

129

Compensation Analysis

Assistant Director of Care1

Low Frontenac County

High $82,504

$90,718

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$82,482

$96,478

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$60,993

$72,611

•

Hastings g County y

$74 765 $74,765

$87 444 $87,444

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$90,710

$106,770

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$79,135

$93,172

•

Long Term Care BMI Report2

N/A

Frontenac County as a percentage of: •

Comparator group minimum

135%

120%

•

Comparator group maximum

91%

85%

•

C Comparator t group average

106%

99%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

130

Compensation Analysis

Manager of Sustainability Planning1

Low Frontenac County

High $74,767

$85,805

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

N/A

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

N/A

•

Hastings g County y

N/A

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$104,145

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$73,171

$86,149

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

102%

100%

•

Comparator group maximum

72%

82%

•

Comparator group average

84%

91%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

131

Compensation Analysis

Manager of Economic Sustainability1

Low Frontenac County

High $74,767

$85,805

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$73,346

$85,776

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$60,993

$72,611

•

Hastings g County y

$64 018 $64,018

$74 875 $74,875

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$115,457

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$160,188

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

123%

118%

•

Comparator group maximum

47%

54%

•

Comparator group average

79%

84%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

132

Compensation Analysis

Operations Supervisor – Paramedic Services1

Low Frontenac County

High $83,738

$96,102

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$73,346

$85,776

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$60,993

$72,611

•

Hastings g County y

$76 822 $76,822

$89 851 $89,851

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

137%

132%

•

Comparator group maximum

109%

107%

•

Comparator group average

117%

116%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

133

Compensation Analysis

Manager of Information Systems1

Low Frontenac County

High $69,575

$79,819

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$111,008

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$78,214

$97,767

•

Hastings g County y

$76 060 $76,060

$88 959 $88,959

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$73,171

$86,149

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

95%

93%

•

Comparator group maximum

63%

72%

•

Comparator group average

820%

83%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

134

Compensation Analysis

Human Resource Specialist1

Low Frontenac County

High $64,937

$74,497

N/A

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$114,922

•

Hastings g County y

$127 477 $127,477

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$107,359

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

60%

69%

•

Comparator group maximum

51%

58%

•

Comparator group average

58%

64%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

135

Compensation Analysis

Deputy Treasurer1

Low Frontenac County

High $64,937

$74,497

N/A

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$78,214

$97,767

•

Hastings g County y

$82 906 $82,906

$96 966 $96,966

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$106,147

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$73,171

$86,149

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

89%

86%

•

Comparator group maximum

61%

70%

•

Comparator group average

76%

77%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

136

Compensation Analysis

Deputy Clerk1

Low Frontenac County

High $58,774

$65,160

$65,192

76,240

N/A

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

•

Hastings g County y

$82 906 $82,906

$96 966 $96,966

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$74,943

$88,226

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$55,033

$64,794

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

107%

101%

•

Comparator group maximum

71%

67%

•

Comparator group average

85%

80%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

137

Compensation Analysis

Systems Technician1

Low Frontenac County

High $55,811

$61,878

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$57,948

$67,776

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$43,570

$57,038

•

Hastings g County y

N/A

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

128%

108%

•

Comparator group maximum

96%

91%

•

Comparator group average

110%

99%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

138

Compensation Analysis

HR Generalist1

Low Frontenac County

High $52,091

$57,753

N/A

$50,068

$65,884

N/A

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

•

Hastings g County y

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$101,900

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

104%

88%

•

Comparator group maximum

51%

57%

•

Comparator group average

69%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

139

Compensation Analysis

Administrative Executive Assistant1

Low Frontenac County

High $49,343

$54,708

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$51,506

$60,242

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$50,068

$65,884

•

Hastings g County y

$58 732 $58,732

$68 693 $68,693

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$66,448

$78,232

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$55,033

$64,794

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

99%

91%

•

Comparator group maximum

74%

70%

•

Comparator group average

88%

81%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

140

Compensation Analysis

Administrative Assistant1

Low Frontenac County

High $36,850

$39,467

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$40,695

$47,593

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$36,582

$46,665

•

Hastings g County y

$60 471 $60,471

$70 726 $70,726

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

N/A

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$48,688

$57,324

Frontenac County y as a p percentage g of: •

Comparator group minimum

101%

85%

•

Comparator group maximum

61%

56%

•

Comparator group average

79%

71%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

141

Compensation Analysis

Primary Care Paramedic1

Low Frontenac County (based on 2184 hours/year)

High $73,339

$77,816

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$50,705

$54,782

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$56,766

$61,698

•

Hastings County

$63,463

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$61,406

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

$61,880

•

Guelph

$65 338 $65,338

Frontenac County as a percentage of: •

Comparator group minimum

144%

142%

•

Comparator Co pa ato g group oup maximum a u

112% %

119% 9%

•

Comparator group average

122%

126%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

142

Compensation Analysis

Advanced Care Paramedic1

Low Frontenac County (based on 2184 hours per year)

High $81,420

$86,377

Comparator Group: •

Lennox & Addington County

$50,705

$54,782

•

United Counties of Leeds and Grenville

$56,766

$61,698

•

Hastings County

$70,106

•

Regional Municipality of Sudbury

$69,778

•

District Municipality of Muskoka

N/A

•

Guelph

$73 164 $73,164

Frontenac County as a percentage of: •

Comparator group minimum

161%

157%

•

Comparator Co pa ato g group oup maximum a u

111% %

118% 8%

•

Comparator group average

127%

131%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

143

Compensation Analysis

Lead Hand1

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate – based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator Registered Nurse1

Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of C Comparator t

Frontenac County(2012 Rate – based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator

$48,185

$52,670

$81,997 $ , 59%

$106,333 $ , 50%

Low

Frontenac County(2012 Rate – based on 1950 hours/year)

Registered Practical Nurse1

High

High $77,454

$83,070

$62,146 125%

$105,144 79%

Low

High $49,589

$54,229

$35,509 140%

$78,975 69%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

144

Compensation Analysis

Health Nurse/Infection Control1

Low

High

Frontenac County (2013 rate for Occupational Health Nurse)

$74,767

$85,805

Comparator LTC BMI Report2

$52,054

$140,731

143%

61%

Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator Nurse Practitioner1

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of C Comparator t Occupational Therapist1 Frontenac County (PT-6 position (1170 hours per year 2012 rates) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator

High $99,801

$99,801

$89,212 112%

$109,473 91%

Low

High $43,863

$47,045

$58,285 75%

$58,285 80%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

145

Compensation Analysis

Rehabilitation Assistant1

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator Volunteer Coordinator1

Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of C Comparator t

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator

$48,185

$52,670

$50,037 $ , 96%

$50,037 $ , 105%

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year)

Rehabilitation and Recreation1

High

High $40,677

$43,855

$41,398 98%

$106,684 41%

Low

High $48,185

$52,670

$39,936 121%

$58,363 90%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

146

Compensation Analysis

Laundry and Housekeeping Aide1

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator Dietary Aide/Food Handler1

Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of C Comparator t

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator

$37,557

$41,243

$31,785 $ , 118%

$53,683 $ , 77%

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year)

Accounts Receivable/Payable/Payroll1

High

High $37,811

$41,983

$32,116 118%

$58,753 71%

Low

High $38,240

$43,193

$40,540 94%

$40,950 105%

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

147

Compensation Analysis Clerical/Secretary Support IT Technician1

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of Comparator Clerical/Secretary Support1

Comparator LTC BMI Report2 Frontenac County as a percentage of C Comparator t

GIS Specialist (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) Communication Officer (2012 Rate based on 1820 hours/year)

$55,458

$59,339

$45,918 $ , 121%

$68,122 $ , 87%

Low

Frontenac County (2012 Rate based on 1950 hours/year) – used Receptionist position rate

Positions where no comparators were identified

High

High $37,557

$41,243

$34,252 109%

$53,508 77%

Low

High $55,458

$59,339

$52,091

$57,753

1 KPMG analysis based on available 2013 pay grids.

148

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.