Published March 21, 2012

Word Count 59562 words

Reading Time 280 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: March 21, 2012 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2012/Regular Council - 21 Mar 2012.pdf)

Document Text

County Council Meeting – Regular Session March 21, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, On

AGENDA Page 1.

CALL TO ORDER

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS a) Tommy Leblanc-Beaudoin, Supervisor Performance Standards Re: Paramedic Response Unit Research Project b) Liz Savill, CAO Re: EOWC Report: Facing Our Fiscal Challenges: A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

CLOSED MEETING As Authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider: a) Adoption of Closed Meeting Minutes

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

4-17 18-24

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

COMMUNICATIONS FOR INFORMATION

25-28

a) Communications Report

COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTION

REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

10.1. Administrative Services 10.1.1.Administration

Page 1 of 210

Page 10.1.2.Sustainability 29-34 35-39 40-42

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium c) Natural Heritage Study Update

10.1.3.Human Resources 10.2. Financial Services a)

2012 Preliminary Budget

43-44

North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract

45-48

2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

49-145

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

10.3. Emergency and Transportation Services 146-150 151-153

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario

10.4. Fairmount Home 154-155 156-170

2011 Fairmount Home Year in Review

2012 Accreditation Results

ACCOUNTS

171-179

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN

GIVING NOTICE OF MOTION

OTHER BUSINESS

14.1. External Boards and Committees a)

Kingston Frontenac Library Update - Councillor Purdon

KFL&A Public Health Board Update - Councillor Clayton

RULAC, LSR and Other Updates– Susan Beckel

Algonquin Land Claim Update - Councillor Inglis

Frontenac County Youth Justice Advisory Committee Update - Councillor Davison

Affordable Housing Development Committee Update - Councillor McDougall

Rideau Corridor Landscape Steering Committee Update - Councillor Jones

Page 2 of 210

Page 14.2. Advisory Committees of County Council 180-185 186-191 192-198 199-205

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Green Energy Task Force

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Trails Advisory Committee

Accessibility Advisory Committee

14.3. Other Updates 15.

PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD

BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW

206-208 209-210

a) By-Law No. 2012-0009 - To Adopt 2012 Budget b) By-Law No. 2012-0010 - Confirmation of Proceedings

ADJOURNMENT Confirmation of time, date and location for upcoming County Council Meetings:

Page 3 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

MINUTES M O THE REG OF GULAR MEE ETING OF COUNCIL C Febru uary 15, 201 12

A regularr meeting off the Councill of the Coun nty of Fronte enac was he eld in the Fro ontenac Roo om of the Coun nty Administtrative Office e, 2069 Batttersea Road d, Glenburnie on Wedn nesday, February 15, 2012 at 9:00 a.m m. PRESEN NT:

Warden n Gary Davison, Deputty Warden Janet J Gutow wski, Counc cillors David Jones, J Denis s Doyle, John Purdon, John McDoug gall, Bud Cla ayton and Joh hn Inglis

ALSO PR RESENT:

County y: Liz Savill, CAO/Clerk; Marian Van nBruinessen, Treasurer; Paul Charbonneau, Dire ector of Eme ergency & Transportatio on Services; Julie Shillington, Adminiistrator of Fairmount F H Home; Anne Marie Yo oung, Manage er of Econ nomic Susttainability; Joe J Galliva an, Manage er of Sustain nability Plann ning; Casey y Buchanan, Executive Assistant; A S Susan Beckel, Deputy Cle erk Media: Jeff Green and a Craig Backay

C CALL TO OR RDER

Warden Gutowski G ca alled the mee eting to orde er at 9:07 a.m m. 2.

A ADOPTION OF O THE AGENDA

Motion #25-12

Moved By y: Seconded d By:

ouncillor Clay yton Co Co ouncillor McD Dougall

RESOLV VED THAT the agenda for f the February 15, 2012 meeting of the Coun ncil of the Co ounty of Fronte enac, be ado opted as ame ended: To Add: Under Re eports from the CAO: Financial F Serrvices - 2012 2 OMPF Soc cial Services s Upload Notice CARR RIED 3.

D DISCLOSUR RES OF PEC CUNIARY IN NTEREST AN ND GENERA AL NATURE E THEREOF F

The Warrden reques sted the Cle erk to record d that, in ac ccordance with w the Mun nicipal Confllict of Interest Act, A Councillor Inglis declared a con nflict of intere est regarding the 2012 budget b alloc cation Regular Me eeting of Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 1 of 14

Page 4 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

to the Frontenac Transportation Service. 4.

DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS a) Presentation to the Township of Frontenac Islands Re: County of Frontenac Maintain Not Gain Challenge 2011 - 1st Prize

Bonnie Carter, Occupational Health Nurse, advised that over the last three years the County and Townships have unofficially participated in the KFL&A Public Health program, “Maintain Not Gain” challenge. The goal of this program is to maintain not gain weight over the holiday season. Ms. Carter advised that the 2011 challenge was won by the team from the Township of Frontenac Islands and presented the 1st prize plaque to Deputy Warden Denis Doyle, Mayor of the Township. Motion #26-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the presentation to the Township of Frontenac Islands for the 2011 Maintain Not Gain Challenge, 1st prize be received. CARRIED b) Mr. John Matheson Re: History of the Canadian Flag and His Role in its Development and Singing of “O Canada” As February 15th is Flag Day in Canada, Mr. John Matheson, a resident at Fairmount Home, was in attendance to provide Council with some history of the Canadian Flag, including his key advisory role in its development. Mr. Matheson advised that he had been studying flags all of his life and was one of the strongest supporters of a new flag when Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson committed to bringing in a flag for Canada after he was elected in 1963. Mr. Matheson was an MP and worked on the committee that developed the flag design. The flag design was a combination of the best ideas from the Royal Military College flag, which has three vertical bars of red, white and red, a design by George M. Bist, that used a stylized maple leaf on a white background; and a pre-1921 design by Sir Eugene Fiset having one red leaf on a white background. Mr. Matheson refined the flag design, taking out a bend in the leaf’s stem and insisting on the whitest white and the purest red before it was presented to the Prime Minister and parliament. On December 15, 1964, the flag was accepted by parliament and subsequently proclaimed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to take effect on February 15, 1965. Mr. Matheson posed for a picture with County Council. “O Canada” was sung by all present. Motion #27-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Mr. John Matheson regarding the history of the Canadian Flag and his role in its development be received for information. CARRIED

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 14

Page 5 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

c) Alex Palilionis, CRCA, Source Water Protection Committee and Christine Woods, Source Protection Planner Re: Source Water Protection Update Mr. Alex Palilionis introduced Ms. Christine Woods who presented the Source Water Protection Update on behalf of the Cataraqui, Mississippi-Rideau and Quinte source protection areas. Ms. Woods provided the following information in her presentation: Definition of source water and the reasons to protect it Overview of the source protection program initiated by the Province Review of Frontenac County’s watershed regions: Cataraqui in the south; Quinte to the west; and Mississippi-Rideau to the north Presentation of maps showing the intake protection zones; the only municipal drinking water intakes that affect the County are the intake in Sydenham and the two intakes for the City of Kingston Examples of draft policies that will result from the source protection plan Anticipated time line for the source protection plan: o The draft source protection plan will be posted for at least 35 days for public comment in February/March 2012 o Revisions will be made based on comments and the proposed plan will then be posted for 30 days o Source protection authority receives plan and comments and submission to the Minister of the Environment for approval in August 2012 Motion #28-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Alex Palilionis, CRCA, Source Water Protection Committee and Christine Woods, Source Water Planner regarding a Source Water Protection Update be received for information. CARRIED 5.

CLOSED MEETING As Authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider: a) Adoption of Closed meeting minutes dated January 27, 2012; and b) OPSEU and CUPE Contract Updates

Motion #29-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac enter into a closed meeting as authorized under Section 239 of The Municipal Act, to consider: a) Adoption of Closed Meeting Minutes dated January 27, 2012; and b) OPSEU and CUPE contract updates. Motion #30-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

CARRIED

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

Page 3 of 14

Page 6 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac rise from the closed meeting with no report. CARRIED Warden Gutowski called a recess of the meeting at 10:07 a.m. Warden Gutowski reconvened the meeting at 10:17 a.m. 6.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes dated January 27, 2012

Motion #31-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of County Council held January 27, 2012 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 7.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

COMMUNICATIONS FOR INFORMATION a) Communications of Interest to Council

Motion #32-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the items listed in the Communications of Interest to County Council dated February 15, 2012 be received and filed for information purposes, including EOWC meeting minutes dated October 21, 2011 and Kingston, Frontenac Public Library Board meeting minutes dated December 14, 2011. CARRIED 9.

COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTION a) Ontario 9-1-1 Advisory Board - Request for Financial Assistance

Motion #33-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the correspondence from the Ontario 9-1-1 Advisory Board requesting financial assistance be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize financial assistance of $100. CARRIED b) Girl Guides - Scout Week February 19 to February 26, 2012 Motion #34-12

Moved By:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Councillor Clayton Page 4 of 14

Page 7 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Seconded By:

Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the correspondence from the Girl Guides of Canada requesting that February 19 to February 26, 2012 be declared Guide-Scout Week; AND WHEREAS the Mission of Girl Guides of Canada is to enable girls to be confident, resourceful and courageous, and to make a difference in the world; AND WHEREAS for 100 years, Girl Guides of Canada has been a trailblazing organization advocating for girls and women, offering them opportunities to learn valuable leadership skills and meet the challenges that they face in their lives head on; BE IT RESOLVED THEREFORE that the County of Frontenac gratefully recognizes Girl Guides of Canada’s valuable contribution to the well-being of our community by proclaiming the week of February 19 to 26, 2012, to be Guide-Scout Week. CARRIED 10.

REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 10.1 Administrative Services 10.1.1 Administration 10.1.2 Sustainability 10.1.3 Human Resources a) Ratification of Collective Agreement with OPSEU Local 462 Representing the Frontenac Paramedic Services Paramedics

Motion #35-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Human Resources – Ratification of the Collective Agreement with OPSEU Local 462 representing the Frontenac Paramedic Services Paramedics report; AND FURTHER Council authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute the Collective Agreement effective from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013. CARRIED b) Ratification of Collective Agreement with CUPE Local 109 Representing the Frontenac-Howe Islander Ferry Workers Motion #36-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

Page 5 of 14

Page 8 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Human Resources – Ratification of Collective Agreement with CUPE Local 109 representing the Frontenac-Howe Islander Ferry Workers report; AND FURTHER Council authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute the Collective Agreement effective from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014. CARRIED c) Community Planner Position Colleen Hickey spoke to the Community Planner position advising that the current contract expires at the end of this month. Motion #37-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Human Resources – Community Planner Position report dated February 15, 2012; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize the creation of a permanent Community Planner position. DEFERRED d) Communications Specialist Position Motion #38-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Human Resources – Communications Specialist Position report; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize the creation of a permanent Communications Specialist position. DEFERRED 10.2 Financial Services a) 2011 Frontenac-Howe Islander Ferry Petition for Subsidy Motion #39-12

Moved By: Councillor Clayton Seconded By: Councillor Davison RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Financial Services – 2011 Frontenac-Howe Islander Ferry Petition for Subsidy report; AND FURTHER Council authorize the Clerk to petition the Ministry of Transportation for $676,279.74 CARRIED b) 2012 Case Mix Index (CMI) for Fairmount Home Motion #40-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison Page 6 of 14

Page 9 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – 2012 Case Mix Index (CMI) report for information only. CARRIED c) 2012 OMPF Social Services Upload Notice Marian VanBruinessen reviewed the report in detail advising that the notice which the Townships receive regarding the impact of the provincial social services upload is based on calculations done by the Ministry of Finance, which differ from the County’s actual costs as calculated by the City of Kingston. Ms. VanBruinessen will provide further clarification to Council as it is available. In past years, the realized savings have been provided back to the Townships through budget transfers. Motion #41-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Financial Services – 2012 OMPF Social Services Upload Notice Subsidy report for information only. CARRIED d) 2012 Preliminary Budget Motion #42-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT County Council accept the Financial Services – 2012 Preliminary Budget report dated February 15, 2012 for consideration and discussion. CARRIED Marian VanBruinessen provided the following information to Council:

As currently drafted, the 2012 preliminary budget would result in an increased requisition to the Townships of $65,941 or a 0.79% overall increase from 2011.

The projected surplus of $500,000 is comprised of approximately $300,000 in projects ongoing but not completed in 2011 and therefore are being brought forward to 2012.

In response to questions as to whether the current levels of reserves held by the County and are too high, Ms. VanBruinessen committed to providing an overview of reserves and reserve funds by department in preparation for next year’s budget.

General Government

The Special Projects budget line is for a Municipal Intern position.

In response to questions regarding the 2011 actual expenditures for Ontarians with Disabilities being significantly under budget and whether the 2012 budget figure of $7,000 should be reduced, Susan Beckel explained that: (1) the Accessibility Advisory Committee is currently short two members; the committee held two of the four meetings anticipated in 2011; and training costs were lower than anticipated. Council will consider

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 7 of 14

Page 10 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

taking the $6,000 unused 2011 budget amount from the Working Funds Reserve for the 2012 budget. Motion #43-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT the 2012 preliminary budget be amended to remove the 2.9% increase to Council remuneration. CARRIED Motion #44-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Doyle Councillor Inglis

RESOLVED THAT the 2012 preliminary budget be amended to reduce Council Committees from $60,000 to $45,000. CARRIED

Colleen Hickey spoke to the full time Communications Specialist position included in the budget advising that it aligns with Council’s strategic priority of improved communications and that doing this work in house rather than by a consultant would realize cost savings. Some projects which this position would assist with would include: media releases, surveys, community improvement plans, County official plan; Fairmount Home communications plan for accreditation; social media and web site updates, as well as assisting the Townships with their communications needs.

Motion #45-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Human Resources Communications Specialist Position report; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize the creation of a permanent Communications Specialist position. CARRIED With the above-noted amendments, the General Government portion of the budget was considered final. Warden Gutowski called a recess at 11:56 a.m. Warden Gutowski reconvened the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Emergency Management

Paul Charbonneau reviewed the allocation for the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) projects. The 2011 project to purchase and install a radio system in the County Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) project was not completed until early 2012. A 2012 application has been made for additional audio visual equipment in the EOC. This project will only proceed if JEPP funding is approved.

After review, the Emergency Management portion of the budget was considered final. Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 8 of 14

Page 11 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Transportation Services

Upon review, the Transportation Services portion of the budget was considered final.

Land Ambulance

Paul Charbonneau provided the following information regarding the land ambulance budget:

He does not recommend extending the life of the ambulance vehicles past our current policy of a six year rotation; other services have a five year rotation. Mr. Charbonneau will be monitoring the new technology on the ambulance vehicles for efficiencies. Re-decaling of the existing ambulances is a health and safety issue ensuring the vehicles are more visible during the day and night. The net cost is $7,000. The next vehicle replacements are scheduled for 2015. The proposed logistics clerk position would: replace the need to hire contractors to do building maintenance; eliminate the use of paramedics to inspect stretchers and oxygen equipment; and, cover vacation time of the current Logistics Clerk.

Motion #46-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the 2012 preliminary budget be amended to remove the additional Logistics Clerk position from land ambulance service delivery and reallocate the budget amount to contracted services. CARRIED With the above-noted amendment, the Land Ambulance portion of the budget was considered final; however in the future, Council would like to have a more detailed breakdown of the Land Ambulance service delivery budget. Sustainability

Joe Gallivan spoke to the full time Community Planner position included in the budget, noting that the work has changed since this contract position was created 18 months ago. The work has become more varied, for example the County is now providing planning services for the Township of Frontenac Islands. Subdivision applications have increased and are complex. This position has been the lead on the Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) and will allow the CIPs to continue to be done in house, saving $60,000 in consulting fees. Over the next 3 years, this position will assist with the Official Plan project and moving forward with the approval of Township official plan amendments. Cost savings will also be realized for development in processing development applications.

Deputy Warden Doyle noted that the full time position is needed to assist with the development of the County official plan and to continue with the provision of planning services for the Township of Frontenac Islands. Warden Gutowski requested that Deputy Warden Doyle take the chair at 12:33 p.m. Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 9 of 14

Page 12 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Warden Gutowski noted that good planning is important. This position is assisting the Townships and provides a cost-effective service to residents. Warden Gutowski took the Chair at 12:35 p.m. Councillor Clayton noted that the Townships have need for the County federal gas tax funds to offset infrastructure costs rather than spending it on future planning for sustainability. Councillor Inglis requested copies of a current County organizational chart as well as previous organizational charts from the last ten years. Councillor McDougall requested that more detail for the ICSP projects in the Sustainability operations budget line. Motion #47-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT the contract for the Community Planner position be extended for a further 18 months in order to address current projects; AND FURTHER THAT an assessment be completed at the end of that term to determine if the position is needed on a full time basis. LOST Motion #48-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Human Resources Community Planner Position report dated February 15, 2012; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize the creation of a permanent Community Planner position. CARRIED e) Motion #49-12

2012 Vendor of Record Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Financial Services – 2012 Vendor of Record Listing report; AND FURTHER Council accept the 2012 Vendor of Record List as presented.

CARRIED

10.3 Emergency and Transportation Services – No reports 10.4 Fairmount Home a) 2011 Review of Volunteer Services at Fairmount Home Motion #50-12

Moved By:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Councillor Clayton Page 10 of 14

Page 13 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Seconded By:

Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the 2011 Review of Volunteer Services at Fairmount Home report for information. CARRIED b) Volunteer Newsletter - January 2012 Motion #51-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount January 2012 Volunteer Newsletter for information. CARRIED c) Property Easement Motion #52-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Property Easement report; AND FURTHER THAT Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute the Property Easement agreement with the Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation. CARRIED d) Fairmount Grapevine Gazette - February 2012 Edition Motion #53-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the February 2012 edition of the Fairmount Grapevine Gazette for information. CARRIED 11.

ACCOUNTS •

Accounts for the Period of: January 10, 2012 - February 8, 2012

Marian VanBruinessen advised that staff will work on revising this report to relate the accounts to departmental budgets and bring the new format forward for Council’s review in May or June. Motion #54-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive for information the following accounts for the period of January 10 to February 8, 2012:

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 11 of 14

Page 14 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

• Payroll dated between December 26, 2011 and January 29, 2012 in the amount of $823,495.94; and, • Cheque listing in the amount of $1,651,032.51.

CARRIED

MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN

GIVING NOTICE OF MOTION

OTHER BUSINESS 14.1 External Boards and Committees a) Kingston Frontenac Library Update - Councillor Purdon - no report b) KFL&A Public Health Update - Councillor Clayton

Councillor Clayton attended the ALPHA (Association of Local Public Health Agencies) winter symposium in Toronto. He advised that KFL&A Public Health has initiated a “Make Death Wait” branding campaign and that each public health unit is now required to execute a letter of accountability with the Province. c) RULAC, LSR and Other Updates - Susan Beckel Susan Beckel advised that RULAC met on February 13, 2012. Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner of Community Services – City of Kingston, has offered to present an update to County Council on housing and community and family services programs, which are administered by the City on behalf of the County. Ms. Hurdle will be scheduled as a delegation for the April and May County Council meetings. d) Algonquin Land Claim Update - Councillor Inglis Councillor Inglis advised that no meetings have been held, however spring meetings are being scheduled. A new provincial negotiator is being hired. e) Frontenac County Youth Justice Advisory Committee Update - Councillor Davison Councillor Davison advised that the next meeting will be held in April. f) Affordable Housing Development McDougall - no report

Committee

Update

Councillor

g) Rideau Corridor Landscape Steering Committee Update - Councillor Jones

no report 14.2 Advisory Committees of County Council Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 12 of 14

Page 15 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

a) Sustainability Advisory Committee Liz Savill advised that the committee meets next on March 1, 2012. b) Green Energy Task Force Liz Savill advised that the task force meets next on March 7, 2012. c) 150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee Liz Savill advised that the committee meets next on March 1, 2012. d) Trails Advisory Committee Anne Marie Young advised that the committee meets next on April 5, 2012. 14.3 Other Updates Warden Gutowski advised that a letter has been received from the Ministry of Transportation, advising that they will be addressing three main operational needs of the Frontenac HoweIslander Ferry in 2012: (i) the dry docking of the ferry; (ii) the replacement of the existing winch with the new double bull wheel; and (iii) the rehabilitation of the transfer bridges. The replacement of the existing diesel engine with high efficiency battery power will be deferred. Liz Savill advised that the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus will be meeting with the Honourable Brad Duguid, Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, regarding the Eastern Ontario Development Fund (EODF) and economic development in Eastern Ontario. Councillor Davison advised that the Township of South Frontenac has a meeting scheduled at the OGRA/ROMA conference with the Minister of Transportation regarding funding for the rural roads system. Warden Gutowski advised that The Monieson Centre at Queen’s University School of Business is currently conducting a study on rural transportation using the Prince Edward County model and there will be research coming out of the study at that may be beneficial to Frontenac. 15.

PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD

BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW

Motion #55-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT leave be given the mover to introduce the following by-laws that have been circulated to all members of County Council and that these by-laws be read a first and second time: Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 13 of 14

Page 16 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

• • • •

By-Law No. 2012-0004 -To Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute Agreement with OPSEU Local 462 By-Law No. 2012-0005 - To Authorize the Warden and Clerk to Execute Agreement with CUPE Local 109 By-Law No. 2012-0006 - To Enter into an Easement Agreement with Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation By-Law No. 2012-0007 - Confirmation of Proceedings CARRIED

Motion #56-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the following by-laws be read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed: • • • •

ADJOURNMENT •

Confirmation of time, date and location for upcoming County Council Meetings: • Regular meeting of Council March 21, 2012

Council scheduled a special County Council meeting to address the 2012 budget on March 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Motion #57-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the meeting hereby adjourn at 1:05 p.m.

CARRIED

Janet Gutowski, Warden

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

Regular Meeting of County Council Minutes February 15, 2012

a) Adoption of Regular Meeting Minutes

Page 14 of 14

Page 17 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL March 13, 2012

A special meeting of the Council of the County of Frontenac was held in the Frontenac Room of the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. PRESENT:

Warden Janet Gutowski, Deputy Warden Denis Doyle, Councillors David Jones, John Purdon, John McDougall and Bud Clayton

REGRETS:

Councillor John Inglis

ALSO PRESENT:

County: Liz Savill, CAO/Clerk; Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer; Paul Charbonneau, Director of Emergency & Transportation Services; Julie Shillington, Administrator of Fairmount, Anne Marie Young, Manager of Economic Sustainability; Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning; David Millard, Manager of Information Systems; Casey Buchanan, Executive Assistant; Susan Beckel, Deputy Clerk Media: Julie Druker and Craig Backay

CALL TO ORDER

The Warden called the special meeting of Council to order at 9:08 a.m. for the purposes of the 2012 budget deliberations. 2.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA •

Adoption of the Agenda

Motion #58-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Jones Deputy Warden Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the March 13, 2012 special meeting of the Council of the County of Frontenac be adopted as amended to add a reference to the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) report, Facing our Fiscal Challenges: A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario. CARRIED Warden Gutowski spoke to the recently released EOWC report, Facing our Fiscal Challenges: A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario which she Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 1 of 7

Page 18 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

noted is relevant to the County’s budget deliberations. The report outlines the following challenges: (i) limited tax base to pay for services and maintain existing infrastructure; (ii) rising debt levels; and (iii) growing and critical need to maintain existing infrastructure and meet future needs. Warden Gutowski noted that in order to address these challenges, increased collaboration and cooperation across municipal boundaries is needed; the status quo is not sustainable. 3.

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

The Warden requested the Clerk to record that, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, no Member of Council declared a conflict of interest for any items on the agenda. 4.

DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS a) Geoff Sandiford, Chair, Sustainability Advisory Committee Re: 2012 Sustainability Projects

Mr. Sandiford distributed a document listing the proposed sustainability projects classified as multi-year projects or 2012 projects and priority ranked by the Sustainability Advisory Committee for Council’s consideration. Motion #59-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Jones Deputy Warden Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive for information the presentation by Geoff Sandiford, Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee regarding 2012 Projects. CARRIED b) Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer Re: Reserve and Reserve Funds Additional Discussion Ms. VanBruinessen provided an overview of reserve and reserve funds advising that there is not Council policy dealing with general reserves. Motion #60-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor Jones

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the presentation by Marian VanBruinessen regarding Reserve and Reserve Funds Additional Discussion. CARRIED Motion #61-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT given the complications and time spent on budget deliberations each year it is recommended that the Council of the County of Frontenac establish a Finance Committee to improve the process; AND FURTHER THAT in order to determine the scope and guidelines for this committee, and to recommend how many and who the members should be, it is further recommended that Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 7

Page 19 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Councillors Bud Clayton and David Jones be appointed to draft such guidelines, working with staff and others as necessary; AND FURTHER THAT their report is to be presented at the regular County Council meeting in May for County Council review and decision. CARRIED 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

CLOSED MEETING ADOPTION OF MINUTES BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES COMMUNICATIONS FOR INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTION REPORTS FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

Administrative Services



Financial Services 

2012 Preliminary Budget

Marian VanBruinessen circulated a response to a question regarding the Working Fund Reserve. She emphasized that staff must have direction from Council before transferring to or from this reserve. Ms. VanBruinessen further noted that based on the questions received from County Council this year, the presentation of the budget will be reviewed in order to make the document more transparent for Council. A revised template will be brought forward for the 2013 budget. Ms. VanBruinessen circulated revised pages of the budget and reviewed the changes as follows:  Page 2 – Requisition to Municipalities changed to $8,481,074  Page 10 – County Council: Remuneration and Benefits reduced from $99,951 to $96,837; Council Committees reduced from $60,000 to $45,000  Page 18 – Land Ambulance: City of Kingston share reduced from $6,132,186 to $6,096,212; County share increased from $1,489,413 to $1,525,387 due to an increase in the County’s weighted assessment  Page 20 – Fairmount Home: provincial funding increased due to the home’s Case Mix Index (CMI) from $5,151,975 to $5,155,407  Page 24 – Sustainability: Reserve Transfer-Federal Gas Tax Fund reduced from $679,000 to $668,171 due to $10,829 of expenses incurred for the Seniors Housing project in 2011; Expense-Projects reduced from $979,000 to $968,171 Fairmount Home Budget Julie Shillington presented the 2012 Fairmount Home draft budget highlighting the following points:  Staff do a line by line review of the budget  Additional provincial funding of over $200,000; lower than budgeted expenses in the areas of health and benefits, legal and maintenance costs, resulted in an increased surplus;  No increase to the 2012 budget  2012 revenue reflects the increase in provincial funding due to the increased CMI Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 3 of 7

Page 20 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

  

Cost increases include: OMERS rate; social work contract; nursing agency for RPNs and contract management Dietary work flow review is included in the budget Reserve allocation of $39,000 was detailed: $30,000 for severance reserve; $9,000 set aside for project expenses incurred every 4 years including duct work cleaning and well inspections

Ms. VanBruinessen advised that the estimated year end 2011 figures presented in the budget continue to be estimates as final 2011 invoices are still being processed. Warden Gutowski called a recess of the meeting at 10:27 a.m. Warden Gutowski reconvened the meeting at 10:41 a.m. Ms. VanBruinessen continued with the review:  Page 22 - Social Services: County’s weighted assessment has increased; budget numbers provided by City of Kingston are based on previous weighted assessment; there is a reduction in Ontario Works and a small reduction in Child Care  Page 24 – Sustainability: Anne Marie Young and Joe Gallivan reviewed the multi-year sustainability projects and the projects/activities scheduled for 2012 The following projects were recommended to remain in the 2012 budget:  Small Events $2,000  Trade Show and Youth Day $3,000  New Energy Project $25,000 (no funds will be advanced until an update on the project is provided to Council)  Support for Smaller Scale Community Sustainability Initiatives $50,000 (reduced from $75,000)  Business Retention & Expansion (BR&E) Program $40,000 (subject to securing OMAFRA funding of $20,000)  Signage Strategy $10,000 (staff was instructed to reenact the work that was commenced in 2007)  Signage Implementation (replacement of perimeter signs) $25,000 (reduced from $50,000) and staff was directed to ensure that the signage strategy is adopted by Council before any sign replacement work begins  Marketing/Public Relations $10,000  K&P Trail $260,000 (brushing, surfacing, bridge, remainder of signage and to open from Orser Road to Harrowsmith; Trans Canada Trails will fund up to one-half of the cost of the bridge if application approved)  Transportation Study $10,000 (reduced from $75,000)  Natural Heritage Study $60,000  Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project $40,000  Community Improvement Plans $224,000  Official Plan Review $30,000 (cost for two years to complete project)  Joint Waste Management Review $5,000 The following reserve transfers were recommended to remain in the 2012 budget:  EORN Project Allocation $328,140 (project is ahead of schedule and under budget)  Land Acquisition Reserve Transfer $20,000  Land Use Planning Reserve $50,000 (for potential OMB appeals) Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 4 of 7

Page 21 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•



GIS Projects Reserve $11,000 (aerial imagery project)

The following projects and reserve transfer were recommended to be removed from the 2012 budget:  Available Land & Buildings Inventory and Business Needs Assessment $30,000  Green Business Park $10,000  Business Case for Milk Processing Plant $15,000  Sustainable Tourism Strategy $30,000  Strategic Projects Reserve Transfer $50,000 Warden Gutowski called a recess of the meeting at 12:13 p.m. for lunch Warden Gutowski reconvened the meeting at 12:50 p.m. Marian VanBruinessen reviewed the following pages of the budget document:  Page 6 – Public Health allocation  Page 8 – Library budget includes $31,000 to reserve for capital costs; library will be going through pay equity process that was not accounted for in the budget estimate provided so may require future consideration  Page 8 – Grant to Service Providers: in response to a question from Councillor Clayton it was noted that there is no donation included in the budget for Pine Meadow Nursing Home. Council recommended that staff speak with representatives from the Frontenac Transportation Service to determine if there is a possibility of expansion of the service to include the western part of the Township of North Frontenac and the Township of Frontenac Islands; or to share their expertise with others who may be able to provide the service in areas currently not serviced Warden Gutowski advised that all areas of the budget had now been reviewed. The capital budget and the reserve and reserve fund levels will come forward to the March 21, 2012. Motion #62-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor McDougall Councillor Davison

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the 2012 preliminary budget for further consideration and discussion. CARRIED Motion #63-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Deputy Warden Doyle

WHEREAS the Townships of North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands do not receive a direct benefit from the K&P Trail; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby authorizes the following: (i)

That an additional $0.26 for every $1 budgeted for investment in the Frontenac K&P Trail in 2012 shall be allocated to the Townships of North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands, $0.16 and $0.10 respectively, for eco-tourism projects.

(ii)

That the allocation shall be funded through the County Federal Gas Tax funds and the projects shall meet the Federal Gas Tax criteria.

Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 5 of 7

Page 22 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

(iii)

That the transfer of these funds will be made based on paid invoices submitted by the Townships representing investments in eco-tourism projects that meet the Federal Gas Tax criteria.

(iv)

That for 2012, the amount to be budgeted for this allocation shall be $67,600 to provided as a reimbursement of costs incurred by the Townships. CARRIED

Motion #64-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Clayton Deputy Warden Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac increase the Infrastructure Allocation in the 2012 budget, which represents the transfer of County Federal Gas Tax funds to the Townships, from $510,000 to $625,000. CARRIED 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

ACCOUNTS MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN GIVING NOTICE OF MOTION OTHER BUSINESS PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD

BY-LAWS – GENERAL BY-LAWS AND CONFIRMATORY BY-LAW a) By-Law No. 2012-0008 – To Confirm Proceedings

Motion #65-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT leave be given the mover to introduce the following by-law that has been circulated to all members of County Council and that this by-law be read a first and second time: 

By-Law No. 2012-0008 – To Confirm Proceedings of the special meeting of Council held on March 13, 2012. CARRIED

Motion #66-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Purdon Deputy Warden Doyle

RESOLVED THAT the following by-law be read a third time, signed, sealed and finally passed: •

By-Law No. 2012-0008 – To Confirm Proceedings of the special meeting of Council held on March 13, 2012. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT

•

Confirmation of time, date and location for upcoming County Council Meetings:  Regular Meeting of County Council on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 6 of 7

Page 23 of 210

Agenda Item # 6•

Motion #67-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor Purdon

RESOLVED THAT the meeting hereby adjourn at 2:30 p.m.

CARRIED

Janet Gutowski, Warden

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

Special Meeting of Council Minutes March 13, 2012

b) Adoption of Special Meeting Minutes

Page 7 of 7

Page 24 of 210

Agenda Item # 8•

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Casey Buchanan Executive Assistant

Date Prepared:

March 12, 2012

Date of Meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Communications of Interest to County Council

It is recommended that the following communications of interest to the County listed under the headings A, B, and C be received and filed (copies are available upon request). A

Ministries, Other Municipalities, etc:

The City of Kingston Community & Family Services, January, 2012 – Newsletter highlights fee subsidy update noting the fee subsidy expenditures totalled 100% of the total fee subsidy allocation for 2011. Based on current funding patterns and waiting list data: No surplus fee subsidy funding is available for 2011 one-time health and safety requests or reallocation to wage subsidy; it is anticipated that the wait list will continue to grow and may reach its peak in August, before the implementation of 9 new FDK sites in September of 2012; based on this projection, parents wanting to access fee subsidies for future care needs should be encouraged to place their name on the wait list for fee subsidy as well as the Centre’s wait list for space and the next date anticipated for approval of new fee subsidies to wait list families is the end of February 2012.
Ministry of Transportation, February 15, 2012 – Correspondence in response to the County’s resolution passed on December 20, 2011 to the Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Transportation. The letter, signed by the Regional Director, notes the Ministry will be focusing its resources on maintaining existing infrastructure. This means it will be addressing three main operational needs of the Frontenac-Howe Islander ferry over the next year: its dry docking in 2012; the replacement of the existing winch; and, the rehabilitation of its transfer bridges. The replacement of the existing diesel engine with a high efficiency battery has been deferred.
Parks Canada, February 16, 2012 – Information bulletin regarding the Rideau Corridor Landscape Character Assessment to identify key features and values of the Corridor in order to support more effective planning and management of its

Administrative Report Communications of Interest to County Council March 21, 2012

a) Communications Report

Page 1 of 4

Page 25 of 210

Agenda Item # 8•

landscape into the future. Workshops will be held on March 6, 7 and 8, 2012. For further information is available at www.rcls-sacr.ca. 4. Ontario Human Rights Commission, February 21, 2012 – Circulation of the new Ontario Human Rights Commission guide In the Zone, human rights and municipal planning. The guide offers information about legal obligations, and about the tools and best practices one can apply to connect human rights and housing when making zoning and planning decisions. Copies of the guide are available through the Deputy Clerk. The new guide, along with many other relevant publications is also available at www.ohrc.on.ca. 5. Ministry of Natural Resources, February 27, 2012 – Electronic correspondence regarding the proposed habitat regulation for pale-bellied frost lichen. According to information and research gathered, this particular endangered species is found within the County of Frontenac. The letter is primarily to inform Council that MNR has proposed a habitat regulation for Pale-bellied Frost Lichen and is contacting specific landowners and land managers within the County who may have habitat for Pale-bellied Frost Lichen on or in the vicinity of their properties. In addition, MNR will be placing notices regarding this regulation proposal in major Ontario newspapers. Finally, the Ministry is requesting Council’s comments and suggestions regarding the proposed regulation. The proposed habitat regulation under the ESA for Pale-bellied Frost Lichen is currently available on the Environmental Registry for public comment at www.ebr.gov.on.ca 6. Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, February 29, 2012 – Letter of thanks for correspondence received from County Council on January 31, 2012 regarding Canada’s negotiations with the European Union (EU) toward a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The letter gives detailed information on the status and scope of the negotiations noting that updates can be found on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website at www.international.gc.ca. 7. Minister Responsible for Seniors, March 1, 2012 – Correspondence inviting Council to participate in the 2012 Senior of the Year Award to honour one outstanding local senior. Recipients are individuals who after age 65 have enriched the social, cultural or civic life of the community without thought of personal or financial gain. The Ontario Senior of the Year Award nomination forms are available on the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s website at www.ontario.ca/honoursandawards. Other Correspondence:

Ontario Onsite Wastewater Association , February 10, 2012 – Invitation to attend Ontario Onsite Wastewater Conference & Exhibition on April 15 to 17, 2012 in Cobourg. The conference will provide insight on how innovations in today’s onsite wastewater industry provide sustainable solutions to growth, economic development and environmental protection. For further information or to register, visit www.oowa.org.
New Leaf Link, February 13, 2012 – Correspondence directed to the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee regarding special adults and sustainability in Frontenac County. The letter presents questions, issues and recommendations concerning adults with developmental disabilities who reside in the Frontenac’s and suggests that the County should partner with New Leaf Link for various workshops and functions that focus on sustainability. Additionally the letter requests that the Administrative Report Communications of Interest to County Council March 21, 2012

a) Communications Report

Page 2 of 4

Page 26 of 210

Agenda Item # 8•

County endorse New Leaf Link’s sustainability efforts by recognizing the various ways the need to support adults with developmental disabilities and NeLL’s ongoing efforts to address this need. 3. SunEdison, March 6, 2012 – Notice of public meeting for SunE Westbrook Solar Farm Project located on Part of Lots 4 and 5 Concession 5, Western Division of the City of Kingston (Westbrook), Ontario on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 5:30pm to 8:00pm. The format of the meeting will be a drop-in centre/open house at the INVISTA Centre (Meeting Rooms A&B), 1350 Gardiners Road, Kingston. 4. KFL&A Healthy Eating Working Group, March 6, 2012 – invitation to Food Charter for Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington event held on Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The event will provide an opportunity for decision makers and leaders in various organizations to share their input on the Food Charter. 5. Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, March 12, 2012 – Letter of congratulations to the County on being selected as a host municipality for the AMCTO Municipal Internship Program for 2012-2013. AMO Member Communications:

News Releases • AMO Welcomes ‘Producer Responsibility’ Focus of Ontario’s Latest Waste Management Initiatives (February 9, 2012) • Drummond Commission Offers Opportunities To Solve Shared Fiscal Challenges (February 15, 2012)
AMO Breaking News • MOE’s Direction to Waste Diversion Ontario (February 9, 2012) • Drummond Recommendations (February 15, 2012) • Drummond Recommendations that may have a municipal impact or interest: An Inventory (February 16, 2012) • AMO Economic Development Task Force Update (February 21, 2012) • Bills Introduced Since (February 21, 2012) • Bills Introduced Since (February 23, 2012) • Premier Re-Commits to Honour Upload Agreement (February 27, 2012) • A Few Early Signals Related To Provincial Budget 2012-2013 (March 14, 2012)
Watch Files • February 9, 16, 23, 29 and March 8, 2012 FCM Communications:
News Releases • Ministerial correspondence - Government of Canada Responds to concerns over the potential impact of CETA on municipalities (February 15, 2012) • FCM to deliver municipal campaign training workshop for women, March 2 and 3 in Fredericton, NB (February 21, 2012) • FCM awarded funding for national mentorship program targeting young women interested in municipal politics (February 23, 2012) • FCM celebrates international women’s day and recent successes in closing gender gap in municipal politics (March 8, 2012) Administrative Report Communications of Interest to County Council March 21, 2012

a) Communications Report

Page 3 of 4

Page 27 of 210

Agenda Item # 8•

Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) Meeting Minutes/News Releases: • • •

Facing our Fiscal Challenges Report (March 5, 2012) Facing our Fiscal Challenges PowerPoint Presentation (March 5, 2012) Media Release - Landmark Analysis Reveals Rocky Road Ahead for Local Governments in Eastern Ontario

Agency/Board Minutes:

Kingston Frontenac Public Library Board – January 25, 2012

The following items of correspondence require action:

United Way Success By 6, February 13, 2012 – Correspondence thanking the County of Frontenac for its ongoing partnership with the annual Success By 6 Week which is held in May. The organization is requesting that County Council proclaim the week of May 7, 2012 as United Way Success By 6 Week to raise awareness about the importance of early childhood development and care.
United Way, February 13, 2012 – Letter requesting County Council proclaim April 1521 as National Volunteer Week to recognize and appreciate our hard-working volunteers within the community and encourage individuals and families to commit to future volunteers service opportunities.

Administrative Report Communications of Interest to County Council March 21, 2012

a) Communications Report

Page 4 of 4

Page 28 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan Manager of Sustainability Planning

Date prepared:

February 29, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Sustainability – County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Background At the County Council meeting held on December 14, 2011 the following resolution was passed: Motion #344-11

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor McDougall Councillor Clayton

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Sustainability – County Official Plan report; AND FURTHER that Council endorse the initiation of the development of a County Official Plan with the goal to having a draft plan to be considered by Council for adoption within its current term; AND FURTHER that Council direct staff to prepare a detailed work plan and consultation program to be presented to Council in early 2012; AND FURTHER that a County Official Plan be prepared under the following parameters: (1) That the Official Plan be prepared as a ‘high level’ planning document using a regional planning perspective, recognizing that detailed planning policies are now in place for the four Townships’ Official Plans; (2) That the Official Plan use a systems-based approach and act as a guide for dealing with cross-boundary and cross-jurisdictional planning issues; (3) Ensure that the Official Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement while offering a solutions-oriented planning approach to deal with land use planning issues that are common to the Frontenacs; and (4) That community consultation regarding the vision and content of the Official Plan be extensive. CARRIED Administrative Report Sustainability – County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan March 21, 2012

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 1 of 4

Page 29 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an outline of the proposed work plan and consultation program.

Comment Work Plan and Consultation Plan Council has endorsed the beginning of work on the first Official Plan for Frontenac County. Staff has put together a proposed work plan and consultation plan with the goal of having a draft Official Plan document that can be considered by Council for adoption within the next two years. A chart of the proposed work plan and consultation plan are outlined in Appendix A of this report. For this year, work is proposed as follows: • Initial Phase (January to April, 2012) – The primary goal for 2012 is to complete necessary background work and an extensive public consultation. It is proposed that the first quarter of this year involve research and analysis. Initial meetings have now been held with staff of all four Townships as well as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide them with the background and direction of the proposed Official Plan based on the direction of County Council. A ‘basis’ document will be prepared and released to the public to provide a better understanding of why the plan is being done and to outline some of the regional planning issues that may be included in the Plan. • Consultation Phase (April, 2012 and ongoing) – The County is committed to public involvement at the same high level as was done for Directions for Our Future in 2008 and 2009. Widespread discussions will begin once the ‘basis’ document is released and the public has had an opportunity to think about what issues should be part of the County Official Plan. Direct consultation will take place with all four Township Councils, stakeholder groups such as the Frontenac Stewardship Council, CFDC, conservation authorities, cottage associations, lake associations and the First Nations. A number of open houses are also proposed to be held throughout the County this year, and information will be available at the County information booths that will be at events throughout the year. It is hoped that the consultations will help to develop a ‘homegrown’ regional strategy that is shaped by the citizens who have a vested interest in the future of the Frontenacs. Whether formal or informal, the goal is to allow for public sessions that will help work out common problems. ‘Watershed Approach’ to the County Plan Council has directed that the County Official Plan take a ‘high level’ approach recognizing that all of the Township Official Plans have detailed policies. Frontenac County is very fortunate to have a vast number of lakes, rivers, and streams which, with other resources, facilities, and services support both the natural environment and our hamlets and villages. Traditionally, the management of our water bodies has not been done on a watershed basis. Many of the practices associated with their management have been issuedriven with responsibility divided between different jurisdictions and agencies, some of which are concerned with only one resource. Integrating land use and watershed planning at the regional level can allow for the opportunity to effectively interconnect the relationship between the development of land and the protection of our water resources in a proactive and cooperative manner. Watershed planning and land use planning consider the same environmental issues but from different perspectives and levels of Administrative Report Sustainability – County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan March 21, 2012

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 2 of 4

Page 30 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

detail. The integration of watershed and land use planning together can be achieved through a watershed management plan. A map of the Frontenacs illustrating the watershed approach is attached. There are six distinct areas (north to south), the majority of which are areas managed by Conservation Authorities: • • • • • •

Madawaska Mississippi Quinte Rideau Cataraqui St. Lawrence

This watershed approach is based on the direction of Council to create a ‘high-level’ regional plan. It is also consistent with the intent of Directions for our Future to integrate land use planning with cross-boundary planning issues. Council Direction/Endorsement At the end of the first phase of public consultation (expected to be the end of this year), it is hoped that a list of key regional planning issues will have been developed that should form the basis of the group of planning policies that will form the County Official Plan. Issues that staff has highlighted to date that fit into the watershed/cross-boundary approach include: • • • • • • • •

Natural Environment Economic Sustainability Growth, Settlement, and Housing Community Services Tourism Green Energy Transportation Sustainable Agriculture

Council will consider these issues and then direct staff to prepare a set of draft policies. Once that step in completed, a first draft will be presented and reviewed by Council before beginning public consultation on a draft Official Plan. Council Official Plan Working Sessions The development of the first Official Plan for Frontenac County will be a milestone for Council as it will be dealing with one of Council’s top priorities for its term. It is very important that Council is informed and makes decisions at key steps in this process. To ensure that Council members are well-versed, staff will be providing updates to Council through a series of information reports and presentations. More than that, staff is recommending that Council agree to hold periodic working sessions to review the plan in detail at key decision-making stages. The ‘ownership’ of the County Official Plan belongs to both Council and its citizens and it is essential that Council members are supportive of the final document.

Administrative Report Sustainability – County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan March 21, 2012

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 3 of 4

Page 31 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

Sustainability Implications The County Official Plan is specifically highlighted in the County’s Sustainability Plan. It touches on all four pillars of the plan: social, cultural, economic, and environmental.

Financial Implications Council has approved $30,000 as a budget envelope for the preparation of the Official Plan. This budget has been developed to cover meeting costs and the possible need for help in the extensive public consultation program.

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Sustainability – County Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan report; AND FURTHER that Council endorse the work plan and consultation plan outlined in the report for the preparation of the County Official Plan, with the continuing goal of having a draft plan to be considered by Council for adoption within its current term.

Administrative Report Sustainability – County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan March 21, 2012

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 4 of 4

Page 32 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

PHASE 1

January to April 2012 Conduct Research and Analysis to prepare Basis Document

Consultation: Meet with • Staff in each Township • City of Kingston • Ministry of Municipal Affairs • CFDC

PHASE 2

April to December 2012 ‘Basis Document’ Published Public Consultation – Open Houses and Sustainability Outreach Issues Report to Council – Endorse Issues and direction to prepare draft Plan

Consultation: Meet with • Township Councils • Stakeholder groups o Conservation Authorities o Cottage Associations o Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve o LOL Tourism o Stewardship Council Other Consultation • Hold open houses in each Township • Conduct on-line questionnaire • Attend community events (e.g., farmers market)

PHASE 3

January to September 2013 Draft Official Plan

Consultation: • Council Review • Host Open Houses

PHASE 4

Appendix 1 – Frontenac County Official Plan Work Plan

Early 2014 Draft Official Plan Adoption

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 33 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

a) County of Frontenac Official Plan: Work Plan and Consultation Plan

Page 34 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan, MCIP, RPP Manager of Sustainability Planning Peter Young Community Planner

Date prepared:

March 9, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Sustainability – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums

Background The County of Frontenac is responsible for granting subdivision and condominium approvals. This report will provide Council with a summary of the current planning application activity in process.

Comment The County requires mandatory pre-consultation prior to applications being submitted. The preconsultation process follows two steps: (i) Pre-consultation meeting with the proponent, the Township and County to review the proposal, the County application process and the requirements for a complete application. (ii) On-site pre-consultation meeting between the County’s hydrogeologist/engineer and the proponent’s hydrogeologist/engineer to review the requirements of the hydrogeological study. Once a formal application is made and the application is deemed “complete” (i.e. all of the studies identified in pre-consultation have been submitted), it is circulated to the Township, Conservation Authority, and other agencies such as Bell Canada and Hydro One for comment. These agencies give advice to the County on technical issues and provide conditions of draft approval should the development be approved by County Council. Administrative Report Sustainability – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums March 21, 2012

b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

Page 1 of 4

Page 35 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

A public meeting is held in front of Township Council where the applicant and interested members of the public have an opportunity to present their comments. A member of the public may also make a written submission at any time prior to the decision by County Council. Throughout the process an applicant will typically revise their plans and supporting studies in response to agency and public comments. Planning staff at the County prepare a report to County Council recommending approval or refusal of the draft plan of subdivision or condominium. The decision on whether to approve or refuse a proposed development is made by County Council, and this decision is appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. A recommendation for draft approval includes a list of conditions provided by the County, Township, and other agencies that the applicant must fulfill in order to receive final approval. Once the applicant fulfills the conditions and the development receives Final Approval from County Council, the lots may be registered and sold. The following chart lists plans of subdivision and plans of condominium that are currently part of the County’s approvals process. A location map of the applications is attached in Appendix A. County of Frontenac Plan of Subdivision/Condominium Applications

APPLICATION

NUMBER OF UNITS/LOTS

DEVELOPMENT STATUS

Township of South Frontenac Cranberry Cove Condominium

13 units

Pre-consultation October 2011; application deemed incomplete March 2012; expected to move forward later in 2012

Collins Lake Subdivision

10 lots

Draft approved May 2011

Wilfield Estates Subdivision

24 lots

Pre-consultation November 2011

Inverary Business Park Subdivision

6 blocks for Business Draft approved May 2010 Park

Valleyview Subdivision

20 lots and 1 block for seniors’ housing

Draft approved November 2012

Sands Road Subdivision

16 lots

Pre-consultation meeting held in December 2009; application submitted November 2011; follow-up meeting March 2012, plans to be revised

Zanet Subdivision

11 lots

Pre-consultation meeting held in December 2009

Sunbury Subdivision

24 lots and 1 block

Pre-consultation meeting held in January 2011

Administrative Report Sustainability – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums March 21, 2012

b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

Page 2 of 4

Page 36 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

Township of Central Frontenac 14 lots and 1 block; Bridgen’s Island 10 lots developed; 4 Subdivision lots vacant for more than 10 years

Kennebec Lake Subdivision

24 lots and 5 blocks

Application under review; on hold due to OMB appeal of Official Plan Amendment Pre-consultation meeting held in December 2010; complete application March 2011; public meeting June 2011; subsequent consultation meeting December 2011; revised plan submitted and second public meeting expected Spring 2012

Township of North Frontenac Ardoch Lake Condominium

45 lots and 6 blocks

Pre-consultation meeting held in September 2010; application submitted December 2011; deemed complete January 2012; public meeting expected Spring 2012

Financial Implications The County’s Fees for Services By-law No. 2010-0019 includes the following fees for subdivision and condominium applications in its Schedule B: Tariff of Fees for Land Use Planning Subdivisions/Condominiums Initial Application Fee: For any proposed plan of subdivision submitted to the County of Frontenac for approval: Up to 20 developable lots/blocks/units ……………………………………. $2,600 21 to 50 developable lots/blocks/units ……………………………………. $4,000 More than 50 developable lots/blocks/units ……………………………… $6,000 Refund: Sixty per cent (60%) of the Initial Application Fee shall be returned if an application is rejected by the County of Frontenac as being deemed incomplete or is withdrawn prior to circulation. Major Plan Revision (re-circulation) …………………………………………… $1,000 Minor Revision or Emergency Extension ……………………………………… $ 400 For minor revisions to the draft plan and/or draft conditions, which do not require major re-circulation and for each three (3) month emergency extension to draft approval. Draft Approval Extension For each one (1) year extension of draft approval beyond the usual three (3) years draft approval ………………………….………………………$ 600 Final Plans for Registration ……………………………………………………… $ 600 Administrative Report Sustainability – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums March 21, 2012

b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

Page 3 of 4

Page 37 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

Condominiums Exemption Application Fee …………………………………………………….………………$1,000 For any plan of condominium submitted to the County of Frontenac for exemption under The Condominium Act. Part Lot Control Final Approval ……………………………………………………………………. $ 300 Payable prior to the by-law being given final approval by the Council of the County of Frontenac. Other Charges The applicant shall provide the County of Frontenac, upon request, a deposit against which the County may, from time to time, charge any professional fees and expenses incurred related to peer review. If such fees and expenses exceed the deposit, the Applicant shall pay the difference upon being billed by the County with interest at a rate of 1.25% per month on accounts overdue more than thirty (30) days.

Sustainability Implications The existing subdivision application process in place at the County is efficient and promotes timely and thorough review of development applications. As a result, it is expected that many applications dealt with by County Council – once determined to be ‘good planning’ – can be approved promptly and new construction can take place. The application process promotes both good land use planning and the economic development pillar of Directions for Our Future.

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Land Use Planning – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Deputy Clerk Townships of Frontenac

Administrative Report Sustainability – Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivisions and Condominiums March 21, 2012

b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

Page 4 of 4

Page 38 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012• APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS MARCH 2012

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF G GR RE EA ATT E ER R M MA AD DA AW WA AS SK KA A

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF LL A AN NA AR RK K H I G H L A N D H I G H L A N DS S TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF N NO OR R TT H H FF R RO ON N TT E EN NA AC C

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF A AD DD D II N NG G TT O ON N H H II G GH H LL A AN ND DS S

Ardoch Lake Condominium

H !

TTA AY Y V VA A LL LL E EY Y TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P

Kennebec Lake Subdivision

H !

Bridgen’s Island Subdivision

H !

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF C CE EN N TT R RA A LL FF R RO ON N TT E EN NA AC C

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF R R II D DE EA AU U LL A AK KE ES S

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF S SO OU U TT H H FF R RO ON N TT E EN NA AC C TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF LL E EE ED DS S A AN ND D TT H HE E TT H HO OU US SA AN ND D II S S LL A AN ND DS S S S TT O ON NE E M M II LL LL S S TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P

WilfieldEstates Subdivision

H !

Zanet H! ! H Subdivision

Valleyview Subdivision

H H ! ! H !

Inverary Business Park Subdivision

H !

Under review

LL O OY YA A LL II S S TT TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P

Pre-application 5

! ! !

H !

Draft Approved

SunburySubdivision

Collins Lake Subdivision

TT O OW WN NS SH H II P P O O FF FF R RO ON N TT E EN NA AC C II S S LL A AN ND DS S !

H !

G GR RE EA ATT E ER R N NA AP PA AN NE EE E

H !

Status

CranberryCove Condominium

SandsRoad Subdivision

U US SA A (( N N ee w w Y Yoo rr kk S S tt aa tt ee ))

Kilometres Data Source: OGDE, MPAC & The County of Frontenac. Created: March 8th, 2012 Reference: Produced by the County of Frontenac with data supplied under license by members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange. The County of Frontenac disclaims all responsibility for errors, omissions or inaccuracies in this publication.

b) Summary of Applications for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

Page 39 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Joe Gallivan Manager of Sustainability Planning Peter Young Community Planner

Date prepared:

March 9, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Sustainability – Natural Heritage Study Update

Background The Natural Heritage Study will include a comprehensive evaluation of natural heritage features such as wetlands, forest cover, and wildlife habitat and the mapping of a connected system of these features. The mapping will be accompanied with policy used by planners to protect significant natural features from development. A County-wide Natural Heritage Study will go beyond the individual Township boundaries and create cross-boundary linkages and corridors. This comprehensive regional review of natural heritage mapping and policies will be a foundation piece of the County Official Plan. The Natural Heritage Study was approved as part of the 2011 budget. An RFP was developed with input from a consultant, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Frontenac Stewardship Council, and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Dillon Consulting was retained for the project in December 2011 after a competitive process with many excellent submissions.

Comment The project is currently in the initial stages. A project start-up meeting took place in February with Township, Provincial, and Conservation Authority staff. Dillon outlined their work plan and schedule for the project and received valuable local input from those around the table. County staff has also meet with Township and Conservation Authority staff that were unable to attend the start-up meeting. The work plan for the Natural Heritage Study is attached as Appendix A. Dillon is currently in the process of gathering data that will feed into the mapping of the regional natural heritage features as well as doing a review of existing Township Official Plan policy. A series of public meetings has been planned for the Spring and Summer to outline the study and its importance for guiding future development in the Frontenacs, review preliminary mapping, Administrative Report Sustainability – Natural Heritage Study Update March 21, 2012

c) Natural Heritage Study Update

Page 1 of 2

Page 40 of 210

Agenda Item # 101011012•

and give residents an opportunity for input. Local knowledge will be a key part of informing Dillon’s work in providing the mapping and developing policy that protects significant natural features and identifies new opportunities for stewardship, while continuing to support sustainable economic development and opportunities for recreation. The tentative public meeting dates are as follows: • Phase 1 South – Wednesday, April 25 • Phase 1 North – Thursday, April 26 • Phase 2 South – Wednesday, July 25 • Phase 2 North – Thursday, July 26 More details on the exact times, dates, and facilities will be announced closer to the events.

Sustainability Implications The Natural Heritage Study was recognized in Sustainable Actions 2010 as a priority project for 2011. The project will help to support the cultural, economic, and environmental pillars of Directions for our Future as well as the Protection of Natural Areas focus area.

Financial Implications County Council allocated $60,000 in the 2011 budget for the Natural Heritage Study.

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT County Council receive the Sustainability – Natural Heritage Study Update report for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Natural Resources Frontenac Stewardship Council Local Conservation Authorities Townships of Frontenac

Administrative Report Sustainability – Natural Heritage Study Update March 21, 2012

c) Natural Heritage Study Update

Page 2 of 2

Page 41 of 210

c) Natural Heritage Study Update

Appendix A County of Frontenac Natural Heritage Study

Schedule Year Month Day

2012 January 23 30

March 5 12

April 2 9

May 7 14

June 4 11

July 2 9

August 6 13

S P R/C

S/C

R/C S P R/C

Legend

Steering Committee Meeting

Public Consultation

Reporting

County Council liaison by Staff (RFP Section 4.1.11)

Agenda Item # 101011012•

Page 42 of 210

Tasks Project Start-Up and Meeting Contract, documents, and data Project initiation meeting with Steering Committee Phase 1 - Background Review and Scoping Collection of background information and consultation with agencies Natural heritage system mapping Local studies and key reference material defining significance Policy review Outline methodology for the natural heritage study Steering Committee meeting Public consultation session (x2) to review methodology Background Information Summary Report Phase 2 - Natural Heritage Review Assessment Natural heritage system mapping Natural heritage system analysis and evaluation Quantity and quality analysis Aerial photo imagery interpretation Gap analysis Compatibility mapping Applying significance criteria Field work to confirm natural heritage feature mapping Recommendations for improving conservation measures Steering Committee meeting Phase 3 - Policy Development Define regional NH planning issues Develop strategy, tools, and policy directions Draft report Steering Committee meeting Public consultation session (x2) Final report

February 7 13 20

Agenda Item # 10102b)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer Paul Charbonneau Director of Emergency and Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedics

Date prepared:

March 14, 2011

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2011

Re:

Financial Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract

Background At its meeting of January 27, 2012 County Council received the Emergency and Transportation Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Update report and passed the following resolution:

Motion #16 - 12

Moved by: Councillor Clayton Seconded by: Councillor Purdon

That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Update report for information; AND FURTHER, that Council authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute the agreement between the County of Frontenac and the Township of North Frontenac; AND FURTHER, that Council authorize the release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Project Management, awarding of the RFP and authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute the agreement between the County of Frontenac and the successful proponent; AND FINALLY, that Council authorize the release of the Request for Proposal of a Design Build Project, awarding of the RFP and authorize the Administrative Report Financial Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 2

North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract

Page 43 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102b)

Warden and Clerk to execute the agreement between the County of Frontenac and the successful proponent. Comment The Request for Proposals (RFP), prepared by the County and reviewed by Township staff, was released on February 6th. Two proposals were received for the Project Manager contract for the project. Company Name TCMS GD Jewell

Contract Price $56.972 + HST $63,055 + HST

Interviews were held on February 17th, with S. Riddell and G. Gorrie representing the Township and P. Charbonneau and M. VanBruinessen representing the County making up the interview panel. After an assessment of the proposals and the interview, TCMS was deemed to be the successful proponent.

Financial Implications The low bid is reasonable for the project

Recommendation THAT County Council receive this Financial Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Cheryl Robson, CAO, Township of North Frontenac Steve Riddell, Chief of Fire Services, Township of North Frontenac George Gorrie, Chief Building Officer, Township of North Frontenac

Administrative Report Financial Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2

North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Project Manager Award of Contract

Page 44 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102c)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer

Date prepared:

March 5, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

Background Section 284 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, states:

The treasurer of a municipality shall in each year on or before March 31 provide to the Council of the municipality an itemized statement on remuneration and expenses paid in the previous year to, (a) each member of Council in respect of his or her services as a member of the Council or any other body, including a local board, to which the member has been appointed by Council or on which the member holds office by virtue of being a member of Council; (b) each member of Council in respect of his or her services as an officer or employee of the municipality or other body described in clause (a); and (c) each person, other than a member of Council, appointed by the municipality to serve as a member of any body, including a local board, in respect of his or her services as a member of the body. 2001, c. 25, s. 284 (1). On April 20, 2011 County Council adopted By-law No 2011-0017 being a by-law to adopt the estimates for the sums required during the year 2011 for the purposes of the County of

Administrative Report Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 4

2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

Page 45 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102c)

Frontenac and to establish rates to be levied for same against the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac.

Comment By-law No. 2010-0010 outlined the remuneration to be paid to Councillors and Non-Council Appointees of the County. The following tables summarize the amounts disbursed in 2011:

Council Member Janet Gutowski Gary Davison Denis Doyle David Jones John McDougall Bud Clayton John Inglis John Purdon

Compensation as Council Expenses Member or $ Appointee $ 5,094.25 2,509.08 10,805.85 8,143.08 4,806.97 3342.60 4,806.97 2,667.60 4,806.97 3,092.60 4,806.97 2,499.10 4,806.97 2,367.60 4,806.97 2,367.60

Mileage Net of GST $ 96.00 1,240.80 329.76 544.88 540.48 1,726.12 1,278.24 524.64

Library Board Appointees Paige Cousineau Wilma Kenny John Purdon

Per Mileage Diem Net of GST $ $ 1,800.00 727.56 1,800.00 412.81 825.00 831.84

Ontarians with Disabilities Appointees Gary Davison* John McDougall Francine Arsenault Danka Brewer Neil Allen

Per Diem $ 75.00 150.00 75.00 150.00

Mileage Net of GST $ 25.92 25.66 33.86 8.55

Administrative Report Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 4

2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

Page 46 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102c)

Green Energy Task Force Appointees Maris Krumins David Hahn John Kittle Brad Leonard Janet Gutowski* Denis Doyle* John Inglis

Sustainability Advisory Committee Appointees Geoff Sandiford Ron Hipner John McDougall* Don Ross John Kittle John Inglis Denis Doyle Gary Davison

Trails Advisory Committee Appointees Denis Doyle* John Inglis* Allan McPhail Dieter Eberhardt Derrick Spafford Joan Hollywood Marc Moyes Janet Gutowski* 150th Anniversary Committee Appointees Marcel Giroux Janet Gutowski* Gary Davison* Stan Johnston Phil Leonard Jim Vanden Hoek 

Mileage Net of GST $ 129.66 84.29

227.52 Mileage Net of GST $ 159.94 90.24

113.76 86.40 21.60 Mileage Net of GST $

171.17

Mileage Net of GST $

Mileage amounts for Council members are not always delineated by committee, but are included in the Council mileage reimbursement

Administrative Report Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 4

2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

Page 47 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102c)

Financial Implications Amounts paid to County Council and other Board and Committee members were within budget. Sustainability Implications Governance – appropriate stewardship of County resources. Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees report for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Susan Beckel, Deputy Clerk

Administrative Report Financial Services – 2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees March 21, 2012 Page 4 of 4

2011 Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses to Council Members and Non-Council Appointees

Page 48 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer

Date prepared:

March 5, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Background Since 2004 the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus (EOWC) has contracted annual studies of the economic health of the region and produced “Future Directions” reports. The information in these reports was useful in demonstrating the unique circumstances in Eastern Ontario and gained the EOWC a reputation for providing credible and well researched information. Politicians at both the Provincial and Federal levels recognize the EOWC as a valid representative of Eastern Ontario. With major changes in local economies, policy and program environments and financial circumstances over the past five years, the EOWC recognized the need to assess the implications of these changes. A Steering Committee comprised of the CAOs and Treasurers from the Counties of Lanark, Frontenac, and Lennox and Addington was struck and Natural Capital Resources was contracted to undertake the study. The report entitled Facing our Fiscal Challenges A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario was released in March. The project purposes, as outlined in the attached Executive Summary, were as follows:   

Study the factors contributing to the overall financial sustainability of the region’s municipalities Support the EOWC in forging post-election relationships with federal and provincial governments Provide data and analytical support for the EOWC’s dialogue with other stakeholders – including other levels of government – about policies, program design and/or service delivery models.

Administrative Report Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 4

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 49 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

The 114 urban and rural municipalities in the Eastern Ontario area were analyzed using data from 2000 – 2010. The research also looked at the EOWC in the broader political context to determine how best to present the EOWC’s message and investigate the various funding programs available to Eastern Ontario municipalities. Comment The four key insights that were derived from the research were that Eastern Ontario has: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A limited base from which to pay for local services Limited flexibility to respond to more challenging times Limited growth potential if the status quo persists. Limited resources with which to address major infrastructure challenges.

These insights were derived from an assessment of twenty-three key financial sustainability indicators which fell into the categories of fiscal health, ability to pay and infrastructure. The financial indicators utilized by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing were also considered. The indicators for all municipalities were summarized at the County and City levels, but data is available for detailed review down to the Township level. Township treasurers will be invited to review and assess their specific Township information. The key insights identified for the Eastern Ontario region as a whole apply equally to the County of Frontenac. Limited base from which to pay for local services: A number of factors were used to assess ability to pay including population growth, age, and median income. The County is growing at a slower rate than that of the Province and the most recent Census suggests that the County’s population is in fact shrinking as well as aging. The population over the age of 65 in Frontenac was 15% in the 2006 Census, compared to the Province at 13%. The County’s income from earnings (2005) was 71.4% which is slightly higher than the Rural Eastern Ontario average of 70.4%, but substantially below the Provincial average of 77.4%. Median income in Frontenac in 2005 was slightly higher than the Ontario average, which differs from the rural Eastern Ontario experience which was lower than the Provincial average. Limited financial flexibility to respond to more challenging times Frontenac’s percentage of residential assessment is one of the highest at 96.3%, compared to all of Eastern Ontario at 83.10% suggesting that any future capital costs will be borne by the residential home owner. The debt burden of the Townships over the period of 2000 – 2010 has increased 170% although using the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicator of Debt/Total Operating Revenue, the Townships and County are all in the low risk category.

Administrative Report Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 4

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 50 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Unlike the trend in Eastern Ontario, Frontenac has seen an increase in working capital, those relatively “liquid” resources that can be used in year. Net financial assets are the difference between total assets and total liabilities. Similar to the rest of Eastern Ontario, Frontenac has experienced a decline in its net financial position of $5.6 million. Reserves per household are higher than the average in Eastern Ontario. Generally the information would suggest that Frontenac is in a marginally better position in terms of flexibility than its counterparts in Eastern Ontario. Past County Councils can take credit for this fact. Limited growth potential Low growth, or declining population, in Frontenac similarly translates into low growth projections for residential assessment. Payments in lieu in the County have increased, with the Townships of Central and North Frontenac experiencing the greatest benefit while the PILs in South Frontenac and Frontenac Islands have gone down. PILS have generally stabilized over the last few years. Limited resources with which to address major infrastructure challenges In Frontenac, between 2000 and 2010, own purpose revenues (taxation and user fees) have increased by an average of 117.47% while total operating expenditures have increased by an average of 49.36%, which suggests that Frontenac municipalities are increasingly reliant on own purpose revenues to cover operating costs. This is more pronounced than the Eastern Ontario experience where operating expenditures increased 65% between 2000 and 2010 while own purpose revenue increased 83%. This indicates that Frontenac is even more reliant on taxation and user fees for operating expenses, leaving little available for infrastructure costs. County Council is well aware of its infrastructure deficit having contracted a roads needs study in 2011. The current EOWC study reviewed the FIR to determine the number of roads that were identified as deficient and assumed a range of options, and their related costs, to bring these deficient roads to good/very good condition. If resurfacing techniques were utilized the Frontenac deficit was estimated at $104.5 million, but if total reconstruction was anticipated the deficit was estimated at $575.3 million. As one municipality indicated its roads were in 100% condition on the FIR, it is likely that these numbers are understated based on the study’s assumptions. There are 109 bridges and culverts whose average age is 35.8 years. There are 37 bridges that are deficient (not in good/very good condition) and 13 large culverts that are deficient. Using an average rehabilitation cost for a bridge of $670,500 and average rehabilitation cost for a culvert of $225,000, this would suggest that the Frontenacs’ structures deficit is about $27.75 million ($24.8 million for bridges and for $2.95 million for culverts). Further extrapolating from the data utilized in the report, Frontenac should be spending about $25 million just to maintain assets on an ongoing basis. This allocation would not address the accumulated deficit for roads and bridges.

Administrative Report Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 4

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 51 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Financial Implications Municipalities in the County need to be aware of the financial challenges that lie ahead and should evaluate the related risks of the infrastructure deficit.

Sustainability Implications Facing our Fiscal Challenges A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario acknowledges that the issues identified are mammoth and further recognizes that a collaborative approach is imperative. The EOWC is proposing that the issue needs to be addressed by all levels of government working together toward a common solution.

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario report for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected EOWC Steering Committee for the Financial Sustainability Study K. Wood, Natural Capital Resources

Administrative Report Financial Services – EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 4 of 4

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 52 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 Facing Our Fiscal Challenges

A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario produced by

through the

Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project February 2012

Page 0

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 53 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………….

Project Description……………………………………………………………………………..

Leveraging Strategy…………………………………………………………………………….

Review of Funding Programs………………………………………………………………

The Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario… 5.1 Factors and Indicators Associated with Financial Sustainability……. 5.2 Data Sources………………………………………………………………………………… 5.3 Limited Base from Which to Pay for Local Services…………………….… 5.4 Hitting the Wall on Ability to Pay……………………………………………..…… 5.5 Capital Asset Base is Eroding, Infrastructure Needs Loom Large…..

16 16 23 24 47 68

Report on Operating Situation…………………………………………………………….. 6.1 Total Annual Expenditures…………………………………………………………… 6.2 Total Operating Expenditures………………………………………………………. 6.3 Total Capital Expenditures…………………………………………………………… 6.4 Operating Expenditures By Service Type……………………………………… 6.5 Revenue Fund Expenditures Per Household………………………………… 6.6 Net Working Capital (Funds)………………………………………………………..

77 77 79 80 81 87 88

Costing Methodology for Capital Infrastructure Deficit – Roads and Structures 90 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project was undertaken by the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus in 2011‐2012. The Project was directed by a Steering Committee composed of the Chief Administrative Officers and Treasurers of the counties of Frontenac, Lanark, and Lennox and Addington. The analysis contained in this Report was undertaken by Natural Capital Resources Inc. of Sydenham, Ontario. For further information, please contact: Kathryn Wood info@ncronline.ca 613‐376‐6006

Page 1

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 54 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

List of Tables Indicators of Fiscal Health Households – Percentage Change……………………………………………………………………………….. Population – Percentage Change…………………………………………………………………………….….. Population Aged 65 and Over………………………………………………………………………………….….. Reliance on Residential Assessment……………………………………………………………………………. Total Assessment………………………………………………..…………………………………………………….… Percentage of Assessment – Residential and Non‐Residential…………………………………….. Payments in Lieu of Taxation……………………………………………………………………………………….. Total Debt Burden……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Debt Servicing Cost, As Percentage of Total Operating Revenue………………………………….. Net Working Capital as Percentage of Total Operating Expenditures………………………….. Provincial and Federal Gas Tax Revenues……………………………………………………………………. Operating Expenditures on Transportation Services…………………………………………………… Own Purpose Revenues Compared to Total Operating Expenditures………………………….

26 27 32 44 45 45 50 54 55 89 67 82 61

Indicators of Ability to Pay Median Household Income………………………………………………………………………………………… Net Financial Assets or Net Debt, As Percentage of Own Purpose Revenues……………….. Provincial Operating Grants as Percentage of Total Operating Revenues…………………… Tax Receivables, As Percentage of Total Levy……………………………………………………………… Percentage of Income from Earnings (or From Government Transfers)……………………… Number of Persons in Labour Force……………………………………………………………………………. Unemployment Rates…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Percentage of Labour Force – By Occupational Groups……………………………………………….. Percentage of Labour Force – By Economic Sector………………………………………………………. Educational Attainment……………….……………………………………………………………………………… Percentage of Labour Force Working in Different Municipality……………………………………

29 60 53 53 34 37 37, 41 38 39 36 42

Indicators of Infrastructure Responsibilities and Ability to Maintain Estimated Annual Capital Maintenance Requirements……………………………………………….. Total Lane Kilometres of Roads and Lane‐kilometres of Roads………………………..…………. Total Number of Structures (Bridges and Culverts)…………………………………………………….. Net Book Value of Capital Assets Per Household………………………………………………………… Discretionary Reserve Funds & Reserves, Reserves Per Household.…………………………….. Total Infrastructure Deficit…………………………………………………………………………………………. Total Infrastructure Deficit – Roads and Structures……………………………………………………. Total Reserves Per Household…………………………………………………………………………………….. Net Book Value of Assets as Percentage of Capital Cost…………………………………………….. Capital Expenditures on Transportation Services………………………………………………………….

69 71 75 56 48, 49 73 76 49 56 82

Additional Tables Beyond Selected Indicators: Population Growth Projections……………………………………………………………………………………. Taxes as Share of Own Purpose Revenues…………………………………………………………………… Operating Expenditure – Total, Operating and Capital, by Major Category………………..

28 61 78‐86

Page 2

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 55 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Executive Summary Over the past five years, municipal governments – in and outside Ontario – have been subjected to major changes in their local economies, policy and program environments, and financial circumstances. The implications of these changes for the financial sustainability of local governments over the coming decade have not been assessed. Nor has such an assessment been translated to policy and program decisions which will help municipalities adapt to what appears to be a new and long‐lasting fiscal environment. The Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project paints a sobering picture of the road ahead for local governments in the region and adds a sense of urgency to future budget and policy deliberations at the local level as well as to discussions with provincial and federal levels of government. Project Purposes: Undertaken by the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project was undertaken to fulfill three purposes, which were to: • Study the factors contributing to the overall financial sustainability of the region’s municipalities. • Support the EOWC in forging post‐election relationships with federal and provincial governments • Provide data and analytical support for the EOWC’s dialogue with other stakeholders – including other levels of government ‐ about policies, program design and/or service delivery models.

“Cities, towns and counties of all sizes, in all regions of the country, have encountered a perfect storm. An aging population, declining property values, and an aging infrastructure have combined to shrink tax revenues, create budget shortfalls and bring local governments into one of the most challenging financial eras of our time. While the economic downturn of recent years is certainly affecting revenues, research confirms that the forces acting upon governmental revenues are more deeply rooted and long lasting.” Clifton Gunderson LLP, Certified Public Accountants & Consultants, in Achieving Financial Sustainability in an Uncertain Fiscal Climate, USA March 2011 www.cliftoncpa.com Figure 1 ‐ For the purposes of this project, “Eastern Ontario” was defined as the area bounded by the 13 member governments of the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus, the 90 lower tier municipalities within those boundaries, the 10 Separated Cities (and Towns) within or adjacent to those governments, and the City of Ottawa.

Analysis of 114 Local Governments: This project analyzed the circumstances of all 114 rural and urban local governments in Eastern Ontario. Where data available permitted, the timeframe for trend analysis was 2000‐2010; for single year analysis, 2010 data was used. These local governments are analyzed on a full regional basis as well as in sub‐regions: Rural Eastern Ontario (103 upper, single and lower tier municipalities), Separated Cities (and Towns) (10), and the City of Ottawa. The list of municipalities included in the analysis is included in Appendix A. Page 3

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 56 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Key Insights: Insights from this analysis which are likely to have the greatest impact on the financial sustainability of local governments in Eastern Ontario (and perhaps beyond) over the next decade are:

Limited base from which to pay for local services: The highly dispersed population poses major challenges to local governments’ ability to generate sufficient revenues to sustain services and often to deliver those services in a cost‐ effective manner. Compared to the provincial average, Rural Eastern Ontario has: • Lower median incomes • Higher percentage of population 65 years of age or older • Lower percentage of income from earnings • Persistently higher rates of unemployment. More than half of the working age population of Rural Eastern Ontario leaves their home municipality for employment. In other words, they commute across municipal boundaries to work. This suggests limited local employment opportunities.
Limited financial flexibility to respond to more challenging times: •

Extreme reliance on residential tax assessment (due to limited commercial or industrial assessment), which means that individual households are carrying almost all the load in terms of paying for local services, including those services which are provided to provincial facilities, assets and services.

•

Dramatic increase in local government debt, which leave many municipalities at the point where taking on additional debt would move them into higher risk categories in terms of ability to service this debt. By 2010, debt repayment and servicing were costing municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario $44.9 million a year – funds that must be found from the local tax base.

•

Declining working capital as assessed by net financial assets – those relatively “liquid” resources that can be used to pay bills in‐year or finance infrastructure. In 2004, Rural Eastern Ontario dropped below the “net zero” point, moving from having net positive financial assets to being in a net negative position (net financial liabilities, most of which is debt.)

•

Deteriorating net financial position: Since 2000, the net financial position of local governments in Eastern Ontario has deteriorated by roughly $426 million. Rural Eastern Ontario moved from having net financial assets of $266 million to carrying $159 million in net financial liabilities (2010).

•

Inability to build reserves for either working capital or to fund infrastructure: Reserves per household have been flat over the past decade; total discretionary reserve funds and reserves peaked in 2008. Despite growth in numbers of households, local government has been unable to continue to build capital reserves at a rate which would ensure that the required funds are there to underwrite future costs of infrastructure investment. Given cost increases over the last decade, local governments are actually losing ground.

•

The Province’s commitment to upload social services costs will relieve some pressure: The estimated cumulative benefit to Rural Eastern Ontario in the 2011 to 2018 period, is estimated at about $332 million, roughly 3.7% of the estimated total $8.9 billion property levy over the eight year period. Page 4

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 57 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 3. Limited growth potential if the “status quo” persists: •

Low growth projections for population which translates into low growth projections for residential assessment.

•

Limited growth potential for the property tax base, due to at least 75 per cent of the region’s land mass being unavailable for full‐assessment development. Local governments and their citizens are limited in their options for economic development and assessment growth.

•

Limited growth potential from revenue sources other than the local tax base due to dampened expectations for economic growth across the province as a whole, flat Payments‐ in‐Lieu, the relative absence of services for which user fees or surcharges would be appropriate, persistently higher than average unemployment rates, and lower median incomes. Payments in Lieu, made by provincial and federal governments to recognize local governments’ costs of servicing facilities owned and operated by upper levels of government, have been flat for a decade – not even increasing at the rate of inflation.

•

Policy and program design conditions that limit participation, due to eligibility conditions that are mismatched to the needs of rural Ontario. From parameters associated with the Eastern Ontario Development Fund (EODF) and most infrastructure funding programs, to provincial gas tax revenues allocation formulae, Rural Eastern Ontario cannot access the same sources of financial support as their urban counterparts.

Limited resources with which to address major infrastructure challenges: •

“Own purpose” revenues growing faster than operating expenditures: In the 2000‐2010 period, total operating expenditures in Rural Eastern Ontario have risen by 65 per cent but own purpose revenues ‐‐‐ local property taxes and user charges ‐‐‐ have increased by 83 per cent. In Rural Eastern Ontario, own purpose revenues are increasingly relied upon to cover operating expenses. This means they are unavailable for capital infrastructure investment.

•

Local governments unable to preserve the value of assets: By 2010, municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario were holding assets which were – at the time of purchase – valued at $8.1 billion. After accumulated depreciation, these assets are now estimated to be worth $4.6 billion (book value). Rural Eastern Ontario‘s municipal assets have lost $3.5 billion in value since acquisition, and are now worth 57 per cent of their original cost.

•

Chronic underfunding of maintenance of infrastructure of all types, with municipalities under‐spending in this category by about a third ($200‐300 million a year) so that they can continue to provide the other services mandated to the local level of government. Current infrastructure spending does not address the infrastructure deficit – rebuilding or repairing those assets which have deteriorated over time.

•

Major transportation infrastructure costs fall on rural shoulders: Rural Eastern Ontario is carrying most of the responsibility for the region’s roads and bridges, being responsible for 73 per cent of its roads and 60 per cent of its structures. Included in the total is nearly 4,000 lane‐kilometres of provincial roads (and associated bridges) downloaded to local governments in the late 1990s.

Page 5

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 58 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

•

$3 billion deficit for roads and structures (bridges and culverts) infrastructure, not including any provision for growth of transportation systems throughout the region. Infrastructure is much more expensive to repair or replace now than when it was first built (price increases in some spheres of the economy – including many of the goods and services that municipalities must purchase – have been well above the Consumer Price Index.) Recent infrastructure funding programs from both levels of government have been helpful in addressing a portion of this deficit but multi‐year stable funding will be required as part of a long‐term program to put infrastructure on a sustainable footing.

•

Region is in need of a sustainability strategy: Municipalities have not – either individually or collectively ‐ been able to implement strategies that would address capital infrastructure needs on a sustainable basis. In other words, reserves, debt financing, and the tax levy are insufficient to provide predictable, sizable revenue streams to support the implementation of the most cost‐effective infrastructure strategies.

Together, these data paint a picture of a region which – without a creative response – will have increasing difficulty sustaining local government services in the years ahead. . In virtually all cases, these financial stresses did not develop overnight, nor will they be resolved overnight. However, there is an increasingly urgent need for all levels of government to begin the process of developing policies and financial strategies which recognize the limitations of the assessment base and its ratepayers, enable local governments to better manage costs of service delivery, and create more prosperous local economies. Where to From Here? This analysis of the fiscal circumstances faced by local governments in Eastern Ontario is the most detailed regional analysis of its type conducted for our region (and perhaps for any region in the province.) Nonetheless, it is likely that all questions related to the financial sustainability of local government have been fully addressed; in the coming years, there may be merit in further analyses of issues which simply could not be covered in this Project. The Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project report comes at a time when the EOWC – as is its annual practice – is setting priorities for its work over the coming year. It is anticipated that the EOWC will be initiating a series of discussions at both the federal and provincial levels to find ways to address our region’s particular concerns and issues, while recognizing that all levels of government face major financial challenges.

Page 6

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 59 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Project Description 2.1 Purposes Over the past five years, municipal governments – in and outside Ontario – have been subjected to major changes in their economies, policy and program environments, and financial circumstances. The implications of these changes for the financial sustainability of local governments over the coming decade have not been assessed. Nor has such an assessment been translated to policy and program decisions which will help municipalities adapt to what appears to be a new and long‐lasting fiscal environment. Under the auspices of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project was undertaken to fulfill three purposes, which were to: • Study the factors contributing to the “Cities, towns and counties of all sizes, in all regions of overall financial sustainability of the the country, have encountered a perfect storm. An region’s municipalities. aging population, declining property values, and an • Support the EOWC in forging post‐ aging infrastructure have combined to shrink tax election relationships with federal and revenues, create budget shortfalls and bring local provincial governments governments into one of the most challenging financial eras of our time. • Provide data and analytical support for While the economic downturn of recent years is the EOWC’s dialogue with other certainly affecting revenues, research confirms that stakeholders – including other levels of the forces acting upon governmental revenues are government ‐ about policies, program more deeply rooted and long lasting.” design and/or service delivery models. Clifton Gunderson LLP, Certified Public Accountants & Consultants, in Achieving Financial Sustainability in an 2.2 Deliverables Uncertain Fiscal Climate, USA March 2011 Early in the project, the five key www.cliftoncpa.com outcomes (deliverables) were defined as: • A Leveraging Strategy, which would help the EOWC understand how best to capitalize on its past work and successes in moving the deliverables from this Project forward. • A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Eastern Ontario’s Local Governments • An estimate of the region’s Total Capital Infrastructure Deficit and a Costing Methodology to enable the region’s local governments to more precisely estimate the Deficit for Roads and Structures (Bridges and Culverts), which constitute a major part of local governments’ asset base • A Report on the Operating Situation of local governments – the levels of annual revenues and expenditures, and prospects for affordability of local services • Scenario Testing Tools which would assist the EOWC in developing and assessing the financial implications of policy or program changes which could contribute to improved financial sustainability for local government.

Page 7

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 60 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Leveraging Strategy 3.1 Introduction As the first stage of the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project, roughly a dozen representatives of organizations within the Eastern Ontario region as well as provincial and federal governments were engaged in a series of questions addressing: • Perceptions of the state of financial affairs of local governments in Ontario, particularly in Eastern Ontario • Perceptions of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus and its credibility in undertaking projects focused on improving the region’s financial health • Suggestions for ways that this Project could contribute to provincial and/or federal efforts to improve the region’s financial health (communities, households, individual citizens and their local governments). This section of the Report summarizes the finding of these discussions. Note that a more extensive briefing has been provided to the EOWC in the fall of 2011.

3.2 State of Local Government in Ontario [includes Upper, Lower or Single Tiers] Local Government Finances in Eastern Ontario Seen as “Challenging”: Most interview subjects used words such as “challenging”, “struggling”, or “problematic” to describe the circumstances of local government across Ontario, and especially in Eastern Ontario. The primary reason Eastern Ontario is seen as more challenged than other parts of province due to its economic base (less commercial and industrial assessment); in some cases, low population density or location of some communities off major transportation corridors was also cited. Some respondents noted that Eastern Ontario was “not as well off as the rest of the province to start with” (eg. before restructuring in the late 90s) and that restructuring had “just made the situation worse”. Eastern Ontario is clearly seen as “not as well off” as either the GTA or western Ontario. Several respondents noted that Eastern Ontario doesn’t have specific funding opportunities comparable to Northern Ontario (also perceived to be a disadvantaged region). Local Governments in the Region Seen as “Living Within Their Means”: There is a sense that most local governments manage their resources pretty well. For some interviewees, the definition of a crisis situation would be local government “handing in the keys” which does not appear (at least to those individuals) to be imminent in the Eastern Ontario region. Across the province, “a few municipalities are in dire straits”. Some interview subjects noted that the province can run a deficit but local municipalities cannot. This was seen as having the effect of compelling local governments to “live within their means” which was seen to be a natural inclination in Eastern Ontario anyway. Looking to the future, two themes emerged from the discussion: first, that the financial circumstances of any level of government are unlikely to improve any time soon (more than a few respondents spoke of “years” not months before financial circumstances would change) and second, that maintaining capital infrastructure would be at least as challenging as meeting the operating costs of ongoing programs.

Page 8

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 61 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 Eastern Ontario Situation Seen as Continuation of Historically Difficult Circumstances: Relatively few interview subjects believe that the situation has changed significantly over the past decade (for better or worse) except for roads maintenance (due to download and restructuring, “which was more dramatic in Eastern Ontario than elsewhere”). However, many respondents indicated that it was becoming more and more difficult to balance local government budgets because the strategies which might be regarded as “low hanging fruit” has already been implemented (eg. Internal efficiencies, drawing down reserves for capital projects). While the attitude in Eastern Ontario is to “live within our means”, there is considerable concern in some quarters about “how much can we put on the (local property) tax base?” The most serious concern related to local government finances is the infrastructure deficit (the deferred – yet ongoing need for – investment in physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, waste water treatment). Upper levels of government are not (yet) seen as having made an ongoing commitment to helping to find a sustainable financial solution to this challenge. Changes in the economic and financial circumstances of Eastern Ontario are not seen to have been well‐documented. Secondly, local governments are seen as having few “easy” options left to deal with their infrastructure challenges. State of Economy, Assessment Base and Lower Incomes Seen As Key Constraining Factors: For most respondents, the state of the economy generally (and need for governments to control spending and deal with deficits) was seen as one of the most important factors determining the financial sustainability of local governments. The sense is that all levels of government will be looking to control costs, especially with uncertainty in the global economy. While health and education are expected to remain provincial priorities, the future is “cloudy” for funding for local government. The local assessment base, from which local governments draw property tax revenues, is viewed as an extremely important driver for financial sustainability. Some respondents noted the importance of commercial and industrial assessment as a proportion of the total or in relation to residential assessment but it is not clear that this variable is an established or accepted metric for financial sustainability of local governments. Affordability is a Concern, Limits Are Not Well Understood: While some respondents noted that “there is only one taxpayer” (to pay taxes to all three levels of government), it does not appear that analysis has been done to determine whether there is more “tax room” from which local governments could draw to cover their costs. When considering affordability (ability to pay), many respondents noted income levels as an important indicator (some specifically mentioned average or median household income levels) and a few suggested that property values provided another measure by which to assess ability to pay. There is a sense among many respondents that the province understands that affordability/ability to pay is an issue; some noted that via AMO, Eastern Ontario has had municipal representation at the provincial table on this issue recently. Some respondents suggested that education levels were a major determinant of the financial sustainability of local governments because more education may mean better employment and higher incomes, which in turn could sustain higher property taxes. Several interviewees referred to the EOWC’s Regional Data Set (2007 and 2010 update), which shows that Eastern Ontario is below the provincial average on many economic criteria. Page 9

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 62 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 High Levels of Awareness, Largely Positive Perceptions and Credibility of EOWC: All interview subjects were aware of the EOWC, with descriptions being focused mostly on the EOWC’s advocacy role (“lobbyists”), representation of the county level of government, or in a few cases, rural governments. Several respondents noted that they considered the EOWC to be leaders in the local government sector, especially regarding best practices. Broadband (the Eastern Ontario Regional Network) was mentioned most frequently as a project in which the EOWC has had significant involvement. In some cases, this is the only project or initiative that respondents could name. This was the initiative most often mentioned as one where the EOWC had been most effective. There were several mentions of the work that some members of the EOWC did to provide roads data for the provincial‐AMO Fiscal Capacity and Service Delivery Review process. There was an understanding that the data presented reflected a regional effort and that this type of data was highly valued in the provincial process. There were several mentions of the managed forest and farm tax analysis recently completed, but the release of this information was imminent at the time of the interviews so would have been “top of mind”. There were two mention of the EOWC’s role in connection with the continuation of EODP and several respondents mentioned that they associate the EOWC with both the federal EODP and the provincial EODF. There were no mentions of the EOWC’s work which led to significant reductions on education taxes on commercial and industrial business properties over the 2008‐2014 period. Several interviewees were unable to name specific initiatives with which the EOWC had been involved and referred instead to the organization’s ability to get delegations and ministerial attention at AMO meetings. In this sense, the “project” the EOWC is associated with is that of developing and maintaining relationships with upper levels of government. EOWC is generally regarded as quite effective. The reasons for this assessment are quite varied; in some cases, the EOWC’s effectiveness is derived from the organization’s presence at AMO events and the credibility that officials from upper levels of government convey. In other cases, the assessment is based on the organization’s collegial regional operating style, the EOWC’s ability to undertake data and policy analysis (thus speaking from facts rather than anecdotes), and its ability to focus on a small set of issues (example: annual priority‐setting exercises). The EOWC is seen as most effective when it targets issues of shared concern to all – or almost all – members (rather than issues of concern to just a couple of members). This tends to position the organization as credible in speaking for the region and often for a rural region. Both characteristics are points of differentiation when working with either the provincial or federal government. Virtually all interview subjects suggested that the EOWC’s data analysis had been helpful and continued efforts in this vein would be well‐received. The examples most often cited were the roads data provided to the Fiscal Capacity & Service Delivery Review process (very well‐received) and the Regional Data Set. To be successful with this project (or other regionally‐focused initiatives), the EOWC will need organizational partnerships to go along with the data. Many respondents were pleased to have been consulted and would be interested in remaining engaged with the project. Several suggested engaging other stakeholders as the project unfolds, as a prelude to being able to make effective use of the data and analysis emerging from it. Page 10

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 63 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

The EOWC is generally regarded as having a high level of credibility ‐‐‐ federally and provincially ‐‐‐ although EOWC seems to be better known provincially. Credibility on the federal front largely but not exclusively related to the broadband issue. Many respondents describe the EOWC as “extremely credible”, based on observation of their mode of operation and the quality of work they produce. By those with long‐term exposure to local government, EOWC has gone from being a social group to a working group taking up advocacy responsibilities; they are “not just whining but doing something, putting their money where mouth is”. The organization is viewed as also having some “smart people” involved, particularly in the development of EOWC policy positions and interactions with upper levels of government. For some respondents, the EOWC’s positive reputation is inferred from recent comments by the Premier (McGuinty), by opportunities to participate in budget lock‐ups and pre‐budget consultations, as well as by the number and frequency of meetings with Ministers at AMO events. Some describe the EOWC’s credibility this way: “respect is in the air” at AMO. Remaining apolitical (in the partisan sense) is viewed as a wise strategy. It allows the EOWC to work with all stripes; meet with all parties regardless of which is in office at any point in time. EOWC’s Credibility Based on Four Characteristics The basis for the EOWC’s credibility is four‐fold: • Doing Your Homework: Many interviewees noted that EOWC does its homework – “researches positions well”. As one respondent noted, “the EOWC understands the value of research”. • Effective Working Relationships: Working relationships with the EOWC maintained even if member organizations don’t always agree. In addition, the CAOs are perceived to work together well. Broadband is seen as an example of the product of this approach – “a big coup”; “all the stars aligned”, “EOWC has been an effective partner”. • Ability to Focus/Set Priorities: The EOWC is regarded as being able to “pick its issues” well, focusing on issues that affect all or most of its members. • Thinking Regionally: EOWC’s ability to represent a region makes it easier for upper levels of government to address municipal issues on a collective basis. Individual municipalities can and will continue to make their case and governments must respond to these appeals. Taking a regional approach allows other levels of government to have policy‐oriented discussions with an organization representing different types of local governments. Infrastructure, Economic Development and Ability to Pay Seen as Future Directions for EOWC: Future roles for the EOWC are seen as helping to address the most important financial sustainability challenges before the provincial government: • Infrastructure funding. • Stimulating economic development that will lead to growth of the local tax base, an example of which is rebuilding the province’s manufacturing base. • Employment (jobs), including retraining for the existing workforce. • Addressing the “ability to pay” issue for services delivered through local government; especially services for which (labour) costs are set by the province or by arbitration (eg. policing) but local governments pay for the services. • Addressing perceived inequities as a result of OMPF funding (not all local governments in the region receive this funding). Provincial funding calculations are considered to be extremely complex, resulting in a perceived lack of transparency and accountability. • Encouraging the Province to go beyond its historical emphasis on policy development to focus on policy implementation and the impact on local government. Page 11

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 64 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 Although the federal government is viewed as having less direct responsibility for the financial sustainability of local governments, the most important challenges on the federal front are: • Infrastructure funding, particularly investments that will lead to greater productivity and innovation. • Stimulating economic development that will lead to growth of the local tax base, an example of which is rebuilding the province’s manufacturing base. Assessment Base, Ability to Pay and Financial Health Indicators Seen as Key Metrics: It was not clear from the interviews which variables would be of most interest to provincial decision‐makers but three themes emerged from the discussions as being important: • The size and structure of the local assessment base, which determines the local government’s ability to generate local property tax revenue. • Local taxpayers’ ability to pay, which is based primarily on income derived from employment. • Local government metrics such as borrowing behaviour, debt levels and tax arrears are viewed as important indicators of the financial health of individual local governments. It is not clear to many interviewees that local governments have good data on the actual quality of their roads. As a result, the dollar value of the infrastructure deficit for these assets is not known with much accuracy. Better estimates may be available on a community‐by‐community basis where there is a recent 10 year capital plan. There is interest beyond the EOWC in the methodology which will be used to estimate current costs for maintaining infrastructure. Regulatory requirements for bridges mean that the state of bridges in the region is likely better understood; however, it is not clear if the dollar value of the infrastructure deficit for bridges is known with precision. These requirements are likely to remain a focal point for safety and liability reasons; insurance companies look to adherence to provincial minimum maintenance standards as a due diligence test1. The EOWC was reminded that it is always a good idea to be looking for innovative solutions on service delivery front (ways to deliver service on a more streamlined basis). This may mean a completely new business or service delivery model. Encouragement was also given to the EOWC to continue to look for ways to collaborate across municipalities. Sustainability Project a Good Idea but Patience is Advisable to Generate Results: Generally, the interview subjects believe that this Project can help to meet the financial sustainability challenges of local government in Eastern Ontario but that the EOWC “need to be patient with the story”. Don’t expect success overnight. Both levels of government are interested in ideas, facts and figures that contribute to strong arguments for support; the EOWC is encouraged to share the results of this project with both upper levels of government since they could provide context for upcoming policy reviews and program development and/or redesign. Some interview subjects noted that “data is important… EOWC members need to be ready if there is another round of stimulus funding; projects most likely to be funded are those which are well‐supported with hard evidence”. Information on science‐based best practices for the infrastructure sector would be well‐received.

There is a lawsuit now in progress where these standards play a central role: (http://www.yorkregion.com/news/local/article/871328‐‐york‐fights‐road‐safety‐lawsuit)

Page 12

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 65 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Review of Funding Programs 4.1 Eastern Ontario Development Fund (Provincial) Introduced in 2008, the $80 million/four‐year EODF has an economic development mandate, focused on creating and retaining jobs as well as increasing capital investment in Eastern Ontario (defined as the entire urban and rural region except the urban areas of the City of Ottawa). EODF has two streams of potential (grant) funding – one for private sector firms and another for regional organizations including not‐for‐profits and sector‐based associations. The EODF has several eligibility conditions which have limited the number of organizations which could potentially access this source of funding. The program’s eligibility restriction to private firms with at least 10 employees is viewed as having excluded a substantial number of small enterprises that might otherwise have applied. Similarly, the program requirement to create at least 10 jobs is also seen as having excluded smaller enterprises which might have made investments and created a smaller number of jobs in communities where any job creation would have been welcomed. The Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation considers the EODF to have been a very successful program, with the assessment based on two metrics2: the private funds leveraged by an EODF investment (estimated by the Province to be 8:1), and the total number of jobs created or retained (estimated by the Province to be 11,700). As a strong advocate for the creation of EODF, the EOWC is offering recommendations for improvements to the program to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation. In late 2011, legislation (Bill 11 – The Attracting Investment and Creating Jobs Act – 2011) was introduced into the Ontario legislature to make the EODF permanent and to create a comparable version of the program for Western Ontario.

4.2 Eastern Ontario Development Program (Federal) Created by the Government of Canada in 2004, the federal Eastern Ontario Development Program is a $10 million per year allocation for socio‐economic development in Eastern Ontario leading to a competitive and diversified regional economy, contributing to the development of business and sustainable, self‐reliant communities. Now managed by FedDev (the federal development agency for Southern Ontario), the EODF has multiple funding streams open to both private sector organizations and not‐for‐profits (under different conditions). FedDev will consider projects in several priority areas: business development (leading to new or expanded businesses (supports skills development, youth attraction, innovation and information communication technology adoption), community innovation (community‐led economic development), and collaborative projects, involving and benefitting multiple communities). This funding is focused on rural Eastern Ontario and is available through competitive processes operated by the region’s 15 regional Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs). In the fall of 2011, the Government of Canada announced a further three years of funding for EODP, established at $10 million a year (consistent with funding levels in preceding years).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario‐universities‐hospitals‐in‐shock‐after‐66‐million‐funding‐ cut/article2296894/

Page 13

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 66 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

4.3 Municipal Funding Programs Federal Gas Tax is seen as the most stable and certainly the most significant source of funding for local infrastructure. Local governments in Eastern Ontario now receive $117 million a year, based on a known non‐competitive formula. As a result, local governments can develop multi‐ year infrastructure plans, with a strong probability that they will be able to implement those plans in a timely and cost‐effective manner. ‘ Provincial Gas Tax is a funding mechanism offered to municipalities by the Province of Ontario to support municipal public transit. Created in 2004, the funding is a two cent per litre allocation from provincial gas tax revenues, allocated among 89 transit systems based on a formula of 70 per cent ridership and 30 per cent population. Local governments in Eastern Ontario now receive $11 million a year ($3 million a year for rural municipalities). Almost all of these municipalities are urban in nature; few rural municipalities have public transit. Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund is the most recent effort by the Province of Ontario (replacing the provincial Community Reinvestment Fund established in 1995) to address the challenges of delivering local government services in certain parts of Ontario. Established in 2005, the OMPF is intended to “assist municipalities with social program costs, support areas with limited property assessment, address challenges faced by northern and rural communities, and respond to policing costs in rural communities.”3 Through this program, $380 million has flowed to Rural Eastern Ontario over the past three years. A significant proportion of OMPF funding is now effectively being phased out as part of the Province’s much‐appreciated decision to upload social services costs (funding them from provincial revenues rather than the local property tax base). Because OMPF funding was directed to the most financially challenged municipalities, this “netting out” has the effect of reducing the benefit of the provincial decision for those municipalities which are struggling the most (see section 5.4.12). Building Canada Fund is a federal‐provincial infrastructure program (created in 2007) by Infrastructure Canada. The program had two components: the Major Infrastructure Component for larger‐scale infrastructure projects and the Communities Component, dedicated to smaller‐ scale infrastructure projects for communities with less than 100,000 residents. The addition of an Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in 2009 was designed to accelerate new infrastructure through a two year period concluding by March 31, 2011. In all cases, the funding is a one‐third, one‐third, one‐third match (federal‐provincial‐municipal). Many municipalities in Eastern Ontario were successful in obtaining some funding for priority infrastructure projects in their communities. Although the infrastructure funding need is great, this support has been helpful in addressing a portion of local governments’ transportation infrastructure deficit. However, the intermittent nature of the funding, competitive processes, short timeframes for making applications and then for completing projects was particularly challenging for smaller municipalities without the in‐house staff to undertake preliminary design, engineering and costing work required to present their proposals.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ompf/2012/

Page 14

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 67 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

The Investing in Ontario Act, enacted in 2008, directed a portion of provincial surpluses to municipalities for infrastructure needs (roads and bridges, transit system expansions, social housing upgrades). The total amount of capital grants – including funds as a result of the Investing in Ontario Act – expected to be channeled to municipalities was in 2007‐2008 was $1.1 billion (roughly 11 per cent of the province’s total investment in infrastructure)4. The Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority (established in 2004, later integrated into Infrastructure Ontario) has provided an option a pool of investment capital available to municipalities at competitive market rates; OSIFA also has no legal or brokerage fees typically associated with the private marketplace. or lower cost financing of infrastructure for some municipalities.

Source: http://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2008/08/creating‐jobs‐building‐ontario.html

Page 15

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 68 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

The Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario 5.1 Factors and Indicators Associated with Financial Sustainability The first step in understanding the financial sustainability of municipalities in Eastern Ontario is identifying the indicators by which financial sustainability can best be assessed. Prior to selecting indicators for the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update project, the consultants undertook a modest literature review, including consideration of other reports focused on or including information about financial sustainability: • The Financial Information Return used by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (see Attachment A) • A study of the financial sustainability of 700 local governments in Australia executed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2006), (see Attachment “The usefulness of indicators is not in B) the numbers themselves but the • Sustainability Self‐Assessment Tool, Province of analysis of what is driving the Saskatchewan, Ministry of Municipal Affairs indicator. It may therefore be more • Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative useful to consider the combined results (OMBI), see Attachment C). of several broad indicators in assessing • Government Finance Officers Association, performance rather than any one Committee on Canadian Issues Best Practices and indicator on its own.” Advisories5 Local Government Financial Sustainability, • Supporting Sustainable Rural Communities, a Nationally Consistent Frameworks, report on the subject by four U.S. departments published by Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council (Australia), (2011)6 May 2007 • Overview article on “Achieving Financial Sustainability in an Uncertain Fiscal Climate” by Clifton Gunderson LLP, Certified Public Accountants & Consultants. Through a process of analyzing common themes and indicators in these reports, a set of key indicators were identified for use in the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update project. While these indicators draw upon the set used by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Project has gone beyond this list to explore and identify indicators that would help the region’s municipalities understand the factors which drive financial sustainability. While it is useful to understand the degree of financial sustainability of these municipalities, it is just as important and perhaps ultimately more useful to understand the factors which determine the financial sustainability of the communities they serve. The analysis of the financial sustainability of Eastern Ontario municipalities – and the communities in which they operate ‐ covered 40 indicators, 23 of which are considered the key indicators. As shown in the chart on the following page, these indicators are grouped into three categories (fiscal health, ability to pay, and infrastructure) based on four determining factors/drivers (population and households, economic base, operations, and management).

5 6

For more information: http://gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=65 For more information: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/2011_11_supporting‐sustainable‐rural‐communities.pdf

Page 16

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 69 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 Twenty‐Three Key Financial Sustainability Indicators Chosen For Financial Sustainability Analysis: (Indicators shown in blue font are also indicators used by Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs)

Driver Population and Households

Economic Base

Fiscal Health % change in population % change in households % of population age 65 and over Total assessment, Total assessment per household % of assessment that is non‐residential (commercial and industrial)

Ability to Pay Percentage of total assessment from residential base Median household income Municipal tax rates by category

Operations

Debt servicing cost as % of total operating revenue Estimated annual capital maintenance requirements

Net financial assets or net debt as % of own purpose revenues

Management

Net working capital as % of total operating expenditures

Grants as % of total revenue Tax receivables as % of total levy

Additional Indicators Federal and provincial gas tax revenues Revenue fund expenditures per household Provincial and federal grants per household Operating expenditures on transportation services Net book value of capital assets per household

Number of persons in labour force Unemployment rates

Infrastructure Lane kilometres of roads per household Net book value of capital assets per household Total lane kilometres of roads Total number of bridges and culverts (structures) % of roads in good/very good condition Total reserves and discretionary reserves as % of total operating revenue Total infrastructure deficit Total reserves, Total reserves per household Net book value of assets as % of capital cost (ratio of capital expenditures to depreciation) % of structures (bridges and culverts in good/very good condition) Capital expenditures on transportation services

Levels of education Percentage of income from earnings

Page 17

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 70 of 210

February 1, 2012

Attachment A: Financial Indicators associated with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Financial Indicator Review (Financial Information Template) Indicator

Threshold Moderate

Low

Debt Servicing Cost as Percentage of Total Operating Revenue*, i Total Reserves plus Discretionary Reserve Funds as Percentage of Operating Expenditures or Expenses Net Financial Assets or Net Debti as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenue Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as a Percentage of Own Purpose Taxation Plus User Fees Total Taxes Receivable less Allowance for Uncollectables as a Percentage of Total Taxes Levied* Total Cash and Temporary Investments as a Percentage of Operating Expenditures or Expenses Net Working Capitali as a Percentage of Total Municipal Operating Expenditures or Expensesi Net Book Value of Capital Assets as a Percentage of Cost of Capital Assetsi

Less than 5 per cent Greater than 20 per cent Greater than ‐20 per cent Greater than ‐50 per cent Less than 10 per cent Greater than 10 per cent

5 to 10 per cent 10 to 20 per cent

20 to ‐40 per cent ‐50 to ‐100 per cent 10 to 15 per cent

5 to 10 per cent

High

Greater than 10 per cent Less than 10 per cent Less than ‐40 per cent Less than ‐100 per cent Greater than 15 per cent Less than 5 per cent

Greater than 10 +10 to ‐10 per cent Below ‐10 per cent per cent Negative Trends to be analyzed; no risk level assigned

Used in Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project Yes Yes

Yes No Yes

Yes Yes

Page 71 of 210

*indicates an indicator identified in the 2006 PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ review of financial sustainability studies on local government in Australia (see Appendix B). This review also identified dependency on grants or the ability of councils to raise a larger proportion of their revenues from rates, and a general increase in the number of employees per 1000 population (employment rate). Dependency on grants is also identified as part of the Finance and Financial Management module of the Municipal Government Sustainability Self‐Assessment Tool produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan. In this case, the assessment categories are “more than 50 per cent” (of operational expenditures), “between 25 and 50%, “between 10 and 24%” and “less than 10%”. In this case, reduced reliance on grants is considered a sign of greater financial sustainability. I indicates an indicator or an aspect of an indicator identified by the Australian Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council, in Framework 1 (Criteria for Assessing Financial Sustainability), May 2007

Page 18

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Attachment B: Financial Indicators Identified by National Financial Sustainability Study of Local Government (Commissioned by the Australian Local Government Commission, November 2006, PriceWaterhouseCoopers) •

•

Page 72 of 210

The assignment given to PriceWaterhouseCoopers was to identify the key financial issues affecting the financial sustainability of local governments in Australia and to investigate the merit of reforming intergovernmental funding to develop a new model which would improve sustainability. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers study used two different approaches to assess “Where councils report operating deficits or, more financial sustainability. One was a financial ratio analysis based on a survey of 100 specifically, operating cash flow deficits, there is a councils, then stratifying the councils to get whole population estimates. The strong tendency to defer or scale back renewals second was to extrapolate from state‐based sustainability results (other studies) expenditure to upgrade existing infrastructure. This to estimate the national sustainability gap and infrastructure backlog. This work deferral of renewals, particularly in community included forward‐looking renewals and own‐source revenue capacity. The infrastructure (eg. community centres, swimming breakdown of capital expenditures was obtained directly from councils to use as pools, libraries) has been a key factor in creating a the basis for estimating the infrastructure backlog. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers backlog of renewals work.” study used a seven year time frame for analysis (1997‐98 to 2004‐2005). (page 6) Key Financial Performance Indicators (from ratio analysis approach) were: • Interest coverage (EBIT/borrowing costs); three (3) was the threshold of sustainability (not sustainable if less than three) “… the councils with stronger financial positions • Median operating surplus as a percentage of total revenue are generally those with reasonable scales in • Deficit greater than 10 per cent of total revenue operations and population (more often, larger • Median sustainability ratio: capital expenditures/depreciation; indicator was urban or regional councils). Such councils typically less than 1 (not sustainable) have stronger rates income and economic bases, • Current ratio (current assets/current liabilities); indicator was less than 1 (not with more sophisticated asset management and sustainable) financial governance systems.” • Median rates coverage (%); rates as percentage of total expenses [“rates” (page 10) refers to property tax levies] • Rates coverage; indicator was less than 0.4 (not sustainable)

Page 19

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 •

•

Key Financial Performance Indicators (from extrapolation of state‐based sustainability reports) were: • Backlog in infrastructure renewals7 “The majority of larger metropolitan councils are • Under‐spending on existing infrastructure renewals per annum generally viable or have the ability to self‐effect an (not spending enough to maintain infrastructure) improvement in financial sustainability…. Urban fringe • Estimated funding gap per annum to rectify the under‐spend and councils are mixed as some have larger viability issues clear the backlog with some scope for internal improvements… Rural • Percentage of councils assessed as unsustainable. remote and rural agricultural councils generally have The PwC estimate that approximately 10 to 30 per cent of Australia’s more pronounced viability problems. These councils councils have sustainability issues broadly reflects the results of state‐ typically have relatively large scope for internal reforms, based reports that between 25 and 40 per cent of councils, in the states however, they often battle against lack of scale, and analyzed, could be unsustainable. extra funding for renewal of existing community Signs of Trouble: Common findings across these studies are that councils infrastructure is required for most.” with sustainability issues are likely to be developing:

(page 12) Infrastructure backlogs due to service expansions Moderate operating cost growth “Internal reforms alone will not resolve sustainability *Minimal revenue growth giving rise to persistent underlying issues for a large part of the local government sector. operating deficits, and Hence such councils may need to either reduce existing • Constraints on renewal expenditures. services or assets, or to seek additional revenue. As Common characteristics of councils facing financial sustainability council‐own revenue options are limited, this lends constraints often include: significant merit to consider reforms to intergovern‐ 8 • Minimal (or negative) revenue growth mental transfers” • Cost growth which has typically exceeded revenue growth (page 118) • Increasing involvement in non‐core service provision • A tendency by some councils to run operating deficits, creating a need to defer or under‐spend on renewal of infrastructure • Limited access for some councils to strong financial and asset management skills9, and

• • •

•

Page 73 of 210

Inability of a local government to “meet current maintenance requirements on existing infrastructure” is cited as one pole of the Infrastructure Scenarios module of the Province of Saskatchewan’s self‐assessment tool for local government (produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing). 8 This indicator is also referenced in the Demographics and Economic Trends module of the Municipal Government Sustainability Self‐Assessment Tool produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan. The reference is to the “overall percentage change in tax revenue over the past decade”. The same module identifies percentage change in population over the past decade as another quantitative measure. For both indicators, categories are: “decline of more than 20%”, “decline between 0 and 20%”, “growth between 0 and 20%” and “growth of more than 20%”.

Page 20

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 •

•

A small proportion of councils also have limited access to rate revenue (due to relatively small annual rate increases and a low initial rating base.) Recognizing the diversity in Australia’s local governments, PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ categorized these governments as one of: • Urban capital city “… greater local choice, not more central control, is • Urban regional needed to enable local government to manage • Urban fringe increasing pressure on public expenditure, increase • Rural remote satisfaction and build more prosperous • Rural agricultural communities.” • Rural significant growth. (Page 34) The four major strategies identified by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for enhancing financial sustainability were: • Improving efficiency, effectiveness and scale10 • Expanding own‐source revenue (primarily by economic development) • Set clear and appropriate priorities • Deepening asset management and financial capability11. PriceWaterhouseCoopers also recommended reforms to inter‐government transfers including a) establishment of a Local Community Infrastructure Renewals Fund, b) revision of the formula determining funds paid to local governments to one based on a combination of a wage cost index and construction cost index coupled with population growth, c) a permanent Roads to Recovery program, and d) funding support from state governments to encourage local council efficiency and asset management reform.

Page 74 of 210

The need for these skills has also been identified as part of the Finance and Financial Management module of the Municipal Government Sustainability Self‐Assessment Tool produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Saskatchewan.

10 In the Partnership Scenarios module of Saskatchewan’s Self‐Assessment Tool, partnerships can be seen as one strategy for improving efficiency, effectiveness and addressing issues of scale. The sole quantitative measure is the number of joint council and/or council committee meetings held with another municipal council over the past three years. Categories are “0”, “between 1 and 3”, “between 4 and 6” and “more than 6”. 11 These capabilities are also identified in the Infrastructure Scenario module of the Province of Saskatchewan’s Self‐Assessment Tool for Local Governments, produced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Page 21

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Attachment C: Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) The Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) collects data for more than 850 measures across thirty‐seven (37) municipal service areas. The purpose of OMBI is to foster and support a culture of service excellence in municipal government by creating new ways to measure, share and compare performance data and operational practices. OMBI strives to serve as a source of credible information to assist Council, Senior Management, Staff and Citizens to understand how their municipality is performing over time and in relation to others. (www.ombi.ca) . Of the 13 Board members, six are from upper tier municipalities (District of Muskoka, Region of Durham, Halton Region, Niagara Region, Region of Waterloo, and York Region. Seven single tier municipalities complete the Board (City of Greater Sudbury, City of Hamilton, City of London, City of Thunder Bay, City of Toronto, and City of Windsor). The cities of Barrie, Calgary and Winnipeg are associate members. OMBI covers 37 service areas, providing an opportunity for members to network learn and share knowledge, including determination of better and/or best practices. The OMBI benchmarking framework has four quadrants: community impact measures, service level measures, efficiency measures and customer satisfaction measures. OMBI considers the most recent three years of data, where possible. An exception is financial measures affected by the introduction of Tangible Capital Accounting; in these cases, only two years of data are included. Some of the performance measures in the annual OMBI reports align with financial sustainability analyses: • What percent of billings are outstanding over 90 days? • What percent of current year’s tax dollars is outstanding? (aligns with taxes receivable as a percentage of total levy; current year’s tax arrears as a percent of current year levy) [see p. 93] • What is the overall pavement condition of roads? (percent of paved lane kms where the condition is rated as good to very good) [see p.78] • What is the overall condition of bridges and culverts? (percent of bridges and culverts where the condition is rated as good to very good) [see p. 79] • How much does it cost to maintain our roads? (roads operating costs (all functions) per lane km [see p. 79] • How much does it cost to maintain one km of paved road? (operating cost for paved (hard top) roads per lane km) [see p. 80] • What percent of your property tax bill goes to the municipality? (municipal taxes as a percent of the total levy – all classes) [see p. 93]

Page 75 of 210 Page 22

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.2 Data Sources The data presented in this Report has been drawn from two principal sources: • Financial Information Returns (FIRs) prepared by individual municipalities and provided to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The FIR is a standard document, with multiple Schedules, which is updated each year to ensure compliance with current legislation and reporting requirements. The Ministry posts these FIRs on a public website: http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/Welcome.htm. In this Report, data from the 2000‐2010 period has often been used to provide a retrospective look at the financial circumstances of the region’s local governments over a full decade. This provides a picture of how – if at all – local government circumstances have changed through relatively prosperous times as well as through more challenging periods such as the most recent recession. Because the Project strives to provide the most current understanding possible of municipalities’ financial sustainability, the 2010 FIRs have been included in the analysis despite there being eight of the 114 municipalities who had not submitted 2010 FIRs. In these cases, the decision was made to carry forward the corresponding values (assume no change) rather than leave a cell blank or make an change‐based assumption. • Canadian Census (2006) for data which is not available through the FIR. Examples are data on the income levels, educational attainment, size and deployment of labour forces, sources of income and other similar individual or household scale information. Note that this Project was executed before the start of releasing of the 2011 census so this more recent data could not be included. The data from the 2011 census is expected to be released over the next several years so it will be some time before the Financial Sustainability Update project data can be updated from this source. The Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project has also benefitted from receipt of summary information from Municipal DataWorks (MDW), a web‐based asset management system managed by the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) and designed to assist municipalities with their responsibilities to maintain and manage their tangible capital assets. In addition, the Project has benefitted from interviews with key staff from a cross‐section of local governments specifically focused on infrastructure (challenges, current costs, drivers for costs, nature and extent of responsibilities for maintenance etc.). Often these discussions were supplemented by reviews of long‐term capital needs studies. The insights from these discussions have been reflected in the development of the methodology used to estimate the transportation infrastructure deficit (roads and structures) in Rural Eastern Ontario. Finally, the Project has also benefitted from review of much of the consolidated data by the Treasurers of EOWC member governments. The consultants and the Project Steering Committee express our heartfelt thanks to everyone who provided data, suggested additional sources, or participated in discussions about appropriate presentations of various data sets.

Page 23

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 76 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.3 Limited L Base e from Whicch to Pay forr Local Servicces Rural Eastern Ontaario has multiiple characterristics which limit l the econ nomic base avvailable for th he suppo ort of local go overnment se ervices. In parrticular, the highly disperse ed population n poses major challe enges to local governmentts’ ability to generate sufficient revenue es to sustain services s and often to delliver those se ervices in a co ost‐effective manner. m pared to the provincial p ave erage, rural Eaastern Ontario: Comp • Is projected p to have h lower po opulation growth than the e province as a whole • Hass median inco omes five (5) to ten (10) pe ercent lower than the provvincial averagge • Hass a higher perrcentage of population 65 years of age or older than n the Ontario average • Hass a lower perccentage of income from eaarnings than across the prrovince as a whole w • Is highly h reliant on residentiaal assessmentt for municipaal tax revenue es (due to a lo ower percenttage of commercial c and a industrial assessment) • Exp periences high her rates of unemploymen u nt than manyy urban areas and the provvince as a who ole. t working age a populatio on of Rural Eaastern Ontario o leaves theirr home More than half of the municcipality for em mployment. In n other words, they comm mute across municipal m boundaries to wo ork. This suggests limited local employment oppo ortunities.

5.3.1 Highly Disp persed Popu ulation • Rurral Eastern On ntario has rou ughly 700,000 0 people in 36 60,000 house eholds, distrib buted over 46 6,500 squ uare kilometres. This workks out to 15 pe ersons/squarre km (averagge) for the reggion as a who ole. How wever, acrosss rural areas, Rural Easte ern Ontario has h 40 Percen nt of the Regio on’s pop pulation denssity ranges fro om 4 h households ‐‐ ‐‐ double the number in Se eparated Citie es and to 42 4 persons/sq quare km. By a almost as ma any as in the City of Ottaw wa…. but disp persed com mparison, the e population over a mu uch larger are ea. den nsity of the Ciity of Ottawa is 295 5. This populaation density translates to 7.7 75 41 40 hou useholds/square kilometre e. hen the popullation – or the • Wh num mber of housseholds – in a reggion is distribu uted over a laarge are ea, the per‐ho ousehold costss for Rural Eastern Ontario geo ographically‐b based services can be significantly higher h than in n more dense ely populated d areas.

S Separated Citiies

City of Ottawa O

ple: because Rural Eastern n Ontario hass a large sharre of the regio on’s roads (de etails in sectiion An Examp 5.5.4 of th his report), th he costs to maintain m each kilometre off road are efffectively born ne by a smalle er number of o householdss. On average e, there are only o five (5) households h pe er lane‐kilom metre of roads in Rural Easttern Ontario.. With costs to t rebuild a la ane‐kilometrre of paved ro oad averagingg close to $500,000,, this means that t each of the t five housseholds mustt carry about $100,000 in costs c for road d reconstru uction. By com mparison, the e greater pop pulation denssity of the Sep parated Citie es in Eastern Ontario means m there are a 25 households to supp port the cost of rebuildingg one lane‐km m in Separate ed Cities. Thiis works out to about $20 0,000 per hou usehold.

Page 24

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 77 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 Households: The number of households in Rural Eastern Ontario has increased by just under nine (9) per cent over the past decade. This is roughly two‐thirds of the growth rate for the province as a whole but slightly higher than the growth rate for the region’s Separated Cities. There is significant variation in the growth rates by upper tier government – ranging from 2.6 to 20.3 per cent – but all are positive.

Figure 2 ‐ Number of Households in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region

Population: Total population across Rural Eastern Ontario has grown by just under 11 per cent over the past decade, roughly two‐thirds of the provincial average, but roughly double that of Separated Cities.

Figure 3 ‐ Population in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region

Page 25

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 78 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 4 ‐ Households in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region (2000‐2010) Source: FIRs SLC 02 0040 01

Page 79 of 210

Figure 5 ‐ Households in Eastern Ontario – By Upper or Single Tier Government (2000‐2010). Source: SLC 02 0040 01. Note that county‐level data includes all lower tier municipalities within the county system.

Page 26

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 6 ‐ Population in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region (2000‐2010). Source: FIRs SLC 02 0041 01

Page 80 of 210

Figure 7 ‐ Population in Eastern Ontario – By Upper or Single Tier Government (2000‐2010). Source: SLC 02 0041 01. Note that county‐level data includes all lower tier municipalities within the county system.

Page 27

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.3.2 Region’s R Pop pulation Growth Expecte ed to Be Below Provinciial Average in Next Deca ade Based on the reference r pro ojection of population grow wth across On ntario, made by the Ontarrio M Ministry of Fin nance (2011), the populatio on growth accross Eastern Ontario is expected to be be elow the provvincial averagge for both th he near‐term (2010 to 2016) and the medium term (2010 ( to o 2021). While the provvincial populaation is expeccted to grow by W b 7.5 per cen nt by 2016 an nd 14.0 per ce ent byy 2021, the projected population growtth for Rural Eastern E Ontarrio and the Se eparated Citie es is 3.0 per cent byy 2016 and 5..7 per cent re espectively byy 2021. This iss less than half of the nticipated pro ovince‐wide growth g rate. Note that in the t county‐byy‐county projjections in the e an ch hart below, not one of the e areas is expe ected to matcch or exceed the provinciaal average in po opulation gro owth.

Figure 8 – Popula ation Projection ns for Eastern On ntario ‐ Source: Based on Table 6 ‐ Ontario Pop pulation Projections Ministry of Finan M nce; projections based on 2006 census. Note th hat upper or singgle tier municipalities include any a se eparated cities or o towns within or adjacent to those t boundarie es.

Page 28

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 81 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.3.3 Three Quarte ers of Easterrn Ontario Municipalitie M es Have Med dian Househ hold Income es B Below the Prrovincial Ave erage On average, median O m person nal income in Rural Eastern n Ontario is 5 per cent lesss than the province as a whole. w The median m househ hold income is 12 per centt less than the e province as a w whole. This me eans that on both a person nal and house ehold basis, ratepayers r in Rural Eastern n O Ontario have fewer f financiaal resources from f which to o pay their livving expensess, including th heir taaxes. This is a significant co oncern for loccal governme ents looking fo or ways to meet the stead dily in ncreasing costts of providin ng local servicces: local taxp payers are con nstrained in their ability to o pay evver higher pro operty taxes.

Thrree Quarte ers of Easte ern Ontariio Municip palities Havve Mediian Household Incom mes Below w the Proviincial Averrage Of the 87 municipaliities in this catego ory, 12 are rurral upper/singgle tier municipalities, 10 separrated cities and 65 lower tier t municipalities.

23% 77% %

Above th he Provincial Average ($60 0,455)

One county c and 24 lower l tier mun nicipalities arre in this caategory.

Below the Provincial Average e ($60,455)

FFigure 9 ‐ Media an Incomes in Ea astern Ontario (2005) Source: Sttatistics Canada a – 2006. Note th hat median H Household incom me data for Fron ntenac, Hastings, Lanark, Leedss and Grenville, Peterborough, Renfrew, R and S Stormont, Dund das and Glengarrry include the Se eparated Cities within the same e census area.

Page 29

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 82 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 In the 2000‐2005 period, the median household income has risen by just over 17 per cent compared to 12.7 per cent for the province as a whole. This increase is similar to that of the Separated Cites (17.3 per cent)

Figure 10 ‐ Median Household Income in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region (2000, 2005 and percentage change from 2000 to 2005) Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Figure 11 ‐ Median Household Incomes Across Eastern Ontario – 2000,2005 and Percentage Change from 2000 to 2005; Source: 2006 Census. Note that median household income data for Frontenac, Hastings, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Peterborough, Renfrew, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry include the Separated Cities within the same census area.

Page 30

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 83 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.3.4 Three Quarte ers of Easterrn Ontario Municipalitie M es Have A Sh hare of Their Population n A 65 or Old Age der That Is Higher H than the t Provinciial Average Roughly three‐‐quarters of Eastern E Ontarrio municipalities have an older population than Onttario ass a whole. This means thesse municipalities have a laarger share off the populatiion in older age grroups than th he provincial average; a for this t Report, the proportion n of the popu ulation age 65 5 or older has been n used. For On ntario as a wh hole, 14 per cent c of the po opulation is 65 6 or older. Accross o their population Eaastern Ontariio, three quarrters of municcipalities have more than 14 per cent of in n the age 65 and a over grou up. The percentages for Ru ural Eastern Ontario O and th he Separated Cities are not markedly m diffferent (17 and d 18 per cent respectively)). In short, thiis means Easttern O Ontario has a larger l share of o its population that woulld be conside ered senior cittizens than th he province as a whole. w There e may be thre ee implication ns to a populaation that skews older than n nities: otther commun • A higher proportion of the populatio on on fixed in ncomes s (exam mples might be b EMS or lon ng term care) • A higher demand for att least some services • A smaller proportion p off the populatiion in the labour force. Th hese characte eristics can afffect both the e costs of deliivering service and the pottential revenu ues (ttaxes, user charges and fee es) from whicch to cover th hose costs.

Three Quarters Q o Eastern Ontario of o Municip palities have h Sharre of Pop pulation Age 65 or o Older, Above A Prrovincial Average A (14% ‐ 200 06) 12 of 13 cou unties are in this category. Be ear in mind that th he counties are e an “average” of o the lower tier municipalitiies within that same boundary.

7% % or Less

0.9 20.4 78.8

Betw ween 7 and d 14%

This category is composed entirelyy of low wer tier municcipalities and one upper tier municcipality in Rurral Easterrn Ontario.

More tha an 14%

In 2006, 79 9 per cent of municipaliities in Easte ern Ontario had higher than provinciall average rep presentation n of personss 65 years off age or oldeer. Note: the e percentag ge of the Onttario popula ation aged 65 6 or older iss 14% (Sourcce: Statisticss Canada).

Page 31

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 84 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Figure 12 ‐ Representation of Aged Persons in the Population of Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ 2006

Figure 13 – Representation of Aged Persons in Populations Across Eastern Ontario – By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] or Single Tier Municipality Source: Census 2006.

Page 32

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 85 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.5 Lower Percentage of Income from Earnings (Than Provincial Average) Indicates Employment Availability Challenge One characteristic of a healthy economy is a labour force with a high percentage of local income coming from earnings as opposed to savings, pensions, investments or other government transfers (EI, social assistance). Residents of Rural Eastern Ontario get a smaller share of income from earnings than the province as a whole (70.4% compared to 77.4%) and a larger share of income from government transfers than the province as a whole (13.3% to 9.8%). In other words, employment income appears to be harder to come by in Rural Eastern Ontario than in the province as a whole (or in the City of Ottawa). This suggests that the region is challenged to offer employment opportunities to its residents and perhaps has a “good jobs” challenge as well (good paying jobs). The exceptions in Eastern Ontario appear to be the City of Ottawa and the adjacent counties of Prescott and Russell, which rival the provincial average in percentage of income from earnings. Jurisdiction Source: 2006 Census Rural Eastern Ontario Range within Rural Region City of Ottawa ONTARIO

Percentage of Income from Earnings (2005) 70.4 58.3 up to 77.8 77.7 77.4

Percentage of Income from Government Transfers (2005) 13.3 19.7 down to 10.7 7.3 9.8

Figure 14 ‐ Summary of Source of Income Across Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: Statistics Canada – Census 2006

Page 33

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 86 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Figure 15 ‐ Percentage of Income from Earnings and Government Transfers ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] or Single Tier Municipality. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 34

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 87 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.6 Eastern Ontario’s Labour Force is a Million Strong, with a Third in Rural Areas The total labour force in Eastern Ontario (population age 15 years or older in the labour force) is just over one million people – roughly 35 per cent of which is in Rural Eastern Ontario. The size of this labour force is 20 per cent smaller than that of the City of Ottawa but roughly 40 per cent larger than in the Separated Cities.

Figure 16 ‐ Labour Force in Eastern Ontario – By Sub‐Region (Total Working Age Population, Size of the Labour Force, Size of the Employed Labour Force, and Total Number of Persons Aged 15 or Older with Income

At the time of the 2006 census, the participation rate of the workforce‐aged population was lower in Rural Eastern Ontario than for the province as a whole (59.9 per cent compared to 67.1 per cent). Similarly, the employment rate was also lower than the provincial average (56.4 per cent compared to 62.8 per cent). Of the potential labour force (those that were actively seeking employment), the unemployment rate in Rural Eastern Ontario was just 5.5 per cent, well under the provincial rate of 6.4 per cent. According to data presented in section 5.3.8, Rural Eastern Ontario’s advantageous position dissipated by 2011 with unemployment rates drifting higher than both the provincial average and the rates prevailing in the region’s urban areas.

Figure 17‐ Participation, Employment and Unemployment Rates in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 35

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 88 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.7 Workforce in Eastern Ontario More Likely to Have Trades or College Education Rural Eastern Ontario has a lower percentage of the 25‐64 year old age group with college or university education (38.3 per cent) than the province as a whole (52.7 per cent) or the Separated Cities (41.6 per cent). However, the region’s workforce is more likely to have a trades certificate or diploma or a college certificate or diploma than would be found in the province as a whole. Nearly half the region’s workforce (48.9 per cent) has some form of post‐high school education. However this is significantly less than the provincial labour force (61.4 per cent). It is likely that there is a correlation between educational attainment, employment and possibly median income.

Figure 18 ‐ Highest Level of Educational Attainment in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Figure 19 ‐ Highest Level of Educational Attainment in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Upper and Lower tier [Combined} and Single Tier Municipality. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 36

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 89 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 20 ‐ Labour Force Characteristics Across Eastern Ontario ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] and Single Tier Municipalities. Source ‐ Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 90 of 210 Page 37

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 21 ‐ Percentage of Labour Force in Each Occupational Category ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2005

Page 91 of 210 Page 38

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 22 ‐ Percentage of Labour Force in Each Sector of the Economy ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality. Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2005

Page 92 of 210 Page 39

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.8 Post‐Recession Unemployment Rate in Rural Eastern Ontario Typically Two Percent Above Urban Centres Based on Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) definitions of regional economies in Ontario, the region considered by this Report as “Eastern Ontario” is found in four different HRSDC regions. As shown in the chart below, one identified as “Eastern Ontario” (including Renfrew, Lanark, Leeds Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and parts of Prescott‐Russell and Frontenac Counties), and another as “Central Ontario” (which takes in Kawartha Lakes, Haliburton, Peterborough, Hastings, and Prince Edward counties, most of Lennox Addington as well as four counties not considered in this analysis (Bruce, Grey, Simcoe and Muskoka District). A third is named “Kingston” (which includes part of Lennox and Addington and Frontenac counties), and the fourth is “Ottawa” (which includes part of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell). The map below shows the difference in unemployment rates between the two more rural regions (Eastern and Central), and the more urban ones (Kingston and Ottawa). The more rural regions have unemployment rates of more than 8.5 per cent while urban areas are at six (6) per cent (January 2012).

Page 40

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 93 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 The chart below shows that the unemployment rates for urban and rural areas over the past year (January 2011 to January 2012). This presentation shows that the higher unemployment rates in rural areas (green and purple line) have been in evidence for at least the past year and remain about two (2) per cent higher than urban areas (Ottawa and the region HRSDC sometimes refers to as Kingston‐Pembroke) – shown in blue and red. In the more rural regions (where Rural Eastern Ontario would be most strongly represented), unemployment has fluctuated between roughly 7.5 and 10 per cent in the January 2011 to January 2012 period. The unemployment rate in both of the rural regions settled in at about 8.5 per cent in the fall of 2011 and has not changed significantly since. At the same time, the more urban regions have fluctuated between 5 and 7 per cent for the past year, converging on 6 per cent at the beginning of 2012. This urban‐rural comparison suggests that there is a persistent gap of about two per cent between urban and rural areas, with rural areas struggling to bring their rates down. Note also that rural unemployment seems to run about a percentage point higher than the provincial average as well (7.5 per cent). Compared to the 2005 Census‐based unemployment rates (see page 32), it appears that unemployment has jumped much more sharply in rural areas than in urban areas through the most recent recession. While regional unemployment seems to have climbed by roughly 3.5 per cent in rural areas, the two major urban areas in Eastern Ontario appear to have either weathered the recession storm especially well or have bounced back from the effects they have experienced. It can be said that rural Eastern Ontario does not appear to have “bounced back” from recession. In fact, recent rural Eastern Ontario’s rate of unemployment is very close to U.S. national unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent, which is considered to be a rate indicative of ongoing recession.

Page 41

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 94 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

5.3.9 Half of Rural Eastern Ontario’s Labour Force is Commuting to Work in a Different Municipality Given the unemployment challenges of Rural Eastern Ontario, it is not surprising that a large share of the rural labour force (52 per cent) travels to work in a different municipality or census division. This is three times higher than the percentage leaving the Separated Cities to work in other communities (16.8 per cent), suggesting that Rural Eastern Ontario is challenged to provide employment for residents in their own communities. The phenomenon also underscores the importance of roads systems in rural areas as the means for commuting to work.

Figure 23 ‐ Percentage of Employed Labour Force Working in a Different Municipality or Census Division ‐ By Sub‐Region Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 95 of 210

Figure 24 ‐ Percentage of Employed Labour Force Working in a Different Municipality or Census Division ‐ By Upper and Lower [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality Source: Statistics Canada ‐ Census 2006

Page 42

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Half of Rural Eastern Ontario’s Labour Force is Commuting to Work in Another Municipality

Page 96 of 210

In Rural Eastern Ontario, 52% of the labour force works in a different municipality or census division. This is much higher than the provincial average (32.6%). Any municipality shaded rust or purple has a higher proportion of its labour force working outside the municipality than the province as a whole. Source: Statistics Canada – Census 2006 Prepared by Natural Capital Resources Inc.

Page 43

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.10 Rural Eastern Ontario is Heavily Reliant on Residential Assessment One characteristic of a healthy economy is its degree of diversification in its tax base – the strength and mix of its residential, commercial and industrial tax base. A diversified economy tends to be seen as a more resilient economy: if municipal revenues are dependent on just one type of assessment or one large ratepayer (eg. a large business/industry), the local government will have a more difficult time managing in tough economic times. Rural Eastern Ontario does not have a diversified assessment base; it is heavily reliant on the residential tax base and the degree of reliance has gone up steadily over the past decade. Total taxable assessment reached $73.2 billion in 2010, up 83 per cent from a decade earlier. This is roughly a third (30 per cent) of the regional total ($240.5 billion). However, the proportion of the rural assessment base that is residential is $65.3 billion – 89 per cent of the total assessment base. Rural Eastern Ontario’s reliance on the residential tax base has increased over the last decade, rising from 85.8 to 89.2 per cent. The same phenomenon is true of the Separated Cities and Towns too (an increase in reliance from 78.4 to 81.0 per cent) but the degree of reliance is generally lower in the Separated Cities (since those communities tend to have more commercial and industrial assessment). Overall, there is a reliance gap of about 7 to 8 per cent between urban and rural areas; rural areas are 7 to 8 per cent more reliant on their residential tax base. In other words, Rural Eastern Ontario has a significant void in non‐residential assessment – and therefore a significant amount of non‐residential tax revenue – because of the limited commercial and industrial activity in these areas.

Rural Eastern Ontario Heavily Reliant on Residential Assessment (as Percentage of Total Assessment) ‐ By Sub‐Region (2002‐2010)

% 92 90

Rural Eastern Ontario: Reliance on residential assessment has grown from 86 to 89% over the 2002‐2010 period. There does not appear to have been a post‐recession bounce‐back in the non‐residential share of the tax base.

88 86

Reliance gap: 7‐8%

84 82 80 78

Separated Cities: Reliance on residential assessment has grown from 78 to 81% over the 2002‐2009 period, with a very small downturn in reliance in the past two years.

76 74 72 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Rural Eastern Ontario

2008

2009

2010

Separated Cities

Sources: FIR (SLC 26 0010 16+ SLC 26 0050 16)/SLC 26 9199 16 Prepared by Natural Capital Resources Inc.

Page 44

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 97 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 25 ‐ Total Assessment (Unweighted) in Eastern Ontario ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIR SLC 02 0040 1

Figure 26 ‐ Percentage of Total Taxable Assessment that is Residential ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 26 0010 16, SLC 260050 16, SLC 26 9199 16

Page 98 of 210

Figure 27 ‐ Percentage of Total Taxable Assessment that is Residential ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality

Page 45

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.3.11 Most Businesses in Eastern Ontario Are Small There is relatively little data12 on the number, size and level of business activity in Rural Eastern Ontario. Large private firms and institutions are relatively easy to identify on a community by community basis; small and medium sizes businesses (SMEs) are not. However, from national analyses of Canada’s small business community13, it is clear that rural‐based SMEs are: •

28 per cent of all SMEs in Canada. Note that 21 per cent of all SMEs are in Ontario.

•

Have different obstacles to business growth than larger firms (eg. insurance rates, low profitability, qualified labour, government regulations, levels of taxation)

•

More established than urban counterparts (77 percent of rural SMEs were in business before 1999; by comparison, 67 per cent of urban SMEs have been in business that long)

•

In long‐term relationships with financial institutions but have fewer options (43 per cent have been with the same financial institution for more than 10 years; for urban SMEs: 33 per cent)

•

More likely to request formal sources of financing (eg. commercial credit, leasing, government funding)

•

More likely to be micro‐businesses (86 per cent of rural businesses have fewer than 5 employees; 83 per cent of urban SMEs are micro‐businesses)

In July 2008, Statistics Canada reported14 that there were roughly 68 businesses per 1,000 population in Ontario. Applying this rule of thumb with the total population of Eastern Ontario, calculating the percentage of business establishments that would be SMEs, and the proportion of those SMEs that would be in rural areas, the Project estimates that: • • • •

There are roughly 4,800 SMEs in the rural areas of the Eastern Ontario region Roughly 1,000 of these are likely to be in the 5‐9 employee category Roughly 2,900 more in the 1‐4 employee category, and The balance of SMEs has between 10 and 100 employees.

Although the precise number of employees is unknown, these estimates also suggest that SMEs in rural Eastern Ontario employ well over 30,000 workers, most likely people from their home community or other nearby rural areas. SMEs are as a key source of local business activity, a source of employment for local residents, and a source of commercial and industrial tax assessment.

A set of 2005 profiles prepared by the federal government for the CFDCs of Eastern Ontario indicated that there may be as many as 60,000 “establishments” (potential places of employment) in the region. Excluding the indeterminate group (no payroll) would leave roughly 26,750 establishments – which could include not‐for‐profit organizations, institutions and other public facilities as well as private firms. If Eastern Ontario follows the provincial pattern, most (roughly 20,000) would have fewer than 10 employees. 13 Sources: Small Business Quarterly: SME Perspective: Canadian Rural‐Based Entrepreneurs, Industry Canada, Nov. 2007 (based on data from 2004); Small Business Quarterly, May 2008, Industry Canada 14 Key Small Business Statistics – July 2008, Statistics Canada

Page 46

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 99 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4 Hitting the Wall on Ability to Pay There are numerous indicators which suggest that Eastern Ontario – particularly Rural Eastern Ontario – either has or is close to exhausting its capacity to meet increasing costs of service delivery and maintaining infrastructure: •

Discretionary reserve funds & reserves peaked in 2008: local government has been unable to continue to build capital reserves at a rate which would ensure that these municipalities will have the necessary funds to underwrite the costs of infrastructure investment in the years ahead.

•

Reserves per household have been flat over the past decade: despite the growth in households over the past decade, reserves per household are at the same level they were 10 years ago. Given cost increases over that period, local governments are actually losing ground.

•

Payments in Lieu have been flat over the past decade: these payments from provincial and federal governments are intended to recognize local governments’ costs of servicing facilities owned and operated by upper levels of government. These are not subject to normal assessment‐based taxation. These payments have remained essentially unchanged, not even increasing at the rate of inflation. As a result, local governments (and local ratepayers) are shouldering a larger share of the costs for servicing these facilities.

•

Debt levels have increased by 300% over the past decade: Like any other form of debt, municipal debt must be repaid and the costs of servicing the debt (interest payments) must be paid. By 2010, debt repayment and servicing were costing municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario $44.9 million a year – funds that must be found from the local tax base.

•

Local governments are unable to preserve the value of assets: By 2010, municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario were holding assets which were, at the time of purchase, valued at $8.1 billion (value at cost). After accumulated depreciation, these assets are now estimated to be worth $4.6 billion (book value). This means that Rural Eastern Ontario‘s municipal assets have lost $3.5 billion in value since their acquisition. For rural municipalities as a group, capital assets are worth 57 per cent of their original cost.

•

Municipal net financial assets are declining, now moving into net liabilities territory: Since 2000, the net financial position of local governments in Eastern Ontario has deteriorated significantly. Overall, Rural Eastern Ontario has moved from having net financial assets of $266 million to carrying $159 million in net financial liabilities (2010). This is a deterioration of roughly $426 million.

•

“Own purpose revenues” are growing faster than operating expenditures: In the 2000‐2010 period, total operating expenditures in Rural Eastern Ontario have risen by 65 per cent but own purpose revenues ‐‐‐ local property taxes and user charges ‐‐‐ have increased by 83 per cent. In Rural Eastern Ontario, own purpose revenues are increasingly relied upon to cover operating expenses.

•

The Province’s commitment to upload social services costs will relieve some pressure: The estimated cumulative benefit to Rural Eastern Ontario in the 2011 to 2018 period, is estimated at about $332 million, roughly 3.7% of the estimated $8.9 billion total property tax levy over the eight year period.

•

Provincial policy and program design limits the region’s options for improving sustainability: From eligibility conditions for the Eastern Ontario Development Fund (EODF) to the three‐quarters (or more) of the region’s land mass available for full assessment, local governments and their citizens are limited in their options for economic development and assessment growth.

Page 47

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 100 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.4.1 Discretionary D y Reserve Fu unds & Rese erves Peaked d in 2008 r fundss and reserves are the type es of reservess local govern nments typicaally Discretionary reserve ow purposes and to cover some types of o expenditurres or investm ments. Some are a usse for cash flo eaarmarked forr projects whiich are consid dered local prriorities. n Rural Easterrn Ontario, th hese reserve funds f increased by 68 per cent over the e past decade e In (m much less thaan the comparable funds fo or Separated Cities which increased by 97 per cent). The to otal amount of o money in these reservess peaked at 2008 2 and decllined thereaftter. It is likelyy that th he drop‐off was w the result of municipalities using some of these reserve r fundss for their one e th hird contributtion to projeccts under rece ent stimulus funding f progrrams.

Figure 28 ‐ Total T Discretion nary and Reserve e Funds ‐ By Sub b‐Region. Source e: FIRs SLC 60 20 099 02 and 03

Page 48

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 101 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.2 Reserves Per Household Have Been Flat over Past Decade One way to assess the adequacy of municipal reserves is on a per‐household basis. Over time (as cash flow requirements and per‐unit service costs increase), per‐household reserves should increase as well. The graph shows that total reserves per household have been flat since 2000. In other words, while reserves may have increased in absolute dollars (see section 5.4.1), local governments have not been able to set aside sufficient reserves to increase reserves‐per‐ household. This means that municipalities are not as prepared as they should wish to be for financing larger operating budgets or for much more expensive projects or investments to fuel growth in their communities. Total reserves now stand at about $900 per household for municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario – a level that is almost identical to reserves per household a decade ago. Reserves per household are about 50 per cent higher in urban local governments than in rural areas. This gap, which is about $450 per household, has not changed much at all over the past decade. It appears that in both rural and urban governments in the region, reserves per household have started to decline, beginning in 2007.

Reserves Per Household Flat Over Past Decade (Total Reserves ‐‐‐ Obligatory, Discretionary and Reserves) Sources: FIR SLC 60 2099 01, 02, and 03, divided by SLC 02 0040 01 or 02

$1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $‐ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rural Eastern Ontario

Separated Cities

Figure 29 ‐ Reserves Per Household (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 60 2099 01 / SLC 02 0040 01 Note: Obligatory Reserve Funds include monies received under the Development Charges Act, Subdivider contributions, and recreational land (under the Planning Act) along with Investment Income, Provincial and Federal Gasoline Tax, Canada Transit Funding and monies received under the Building Code Act.

Page 49

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 102 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.3 Payments in Lieu Flat Over Past Decade Payments In Lieu (PIL) are transfers from provincial and federal governments which are intended to recognize costs incurred by local governments for providing services to facilities owned and operated by upper levels of government. These are not subject to normal assessment‐based taxation. These payments have remained essentially unchanged over the past decade, not even increasing at the rate of inflation. As a result, local governments (and local ratepayers) are shouldering a larger share of the costs for servicing these facilities. Although there are a few exceptions, PIL has not been an alternative source of revenue from which local governments in Eastern Ontario could cover increasing service costs at the local level.

Payments in Lieu of Taxation Show Slight Decline in Rural Eastern Ontario in Past Ten Years (2000‐2010) Source: FIR SLC 10 0499 01 $35,000,000

Total Payments in Lieu (provincial and federal) for Eastern Ontario 2010 – ~$221.8 million

$30,000,000 $25,000,000

PIL increased by 108% in Ottawa in the 2000‐2010 period, a large share of which was in 2001.

$20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000

PIL increased by 6% in Separated Cities in the 2000‐2010 period., almost all of which inSeparated 2010. PIL increased by was 6% in Cities in the 2000‐2010 period., almost all of which was in 2010.

$0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Rural Eastern Ontario

2007

2008

2009

2010

Separated Cities

In Rural Eastern Ontario, total Payments‐In‐Lieu have decreased from $23.9 million in 2000 to $23.0 million in 2010. The cumulative (rural) total over the 10 year period is $275 million. For Separated Cities, the total is $318 million. Prepared by Natural Capital Resources Inc.

Figure 30 ‐ Payments in Lieu of Taxation ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 10 0499 01

Page 50

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 103 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.4 Provincial Operating Grants Declining as Percentage of Total Operating Revenues The chart below compares provincial operating grants (all types) as a percentage of total operating revenues, for the years 2000 and 2010. The proportion of municipalities in each category (grants as percentage of revenues) is compared across the decade. In the year 2000, nearly half (49.2 per cent) of municipalities in Eastern Ontario were in receipt of provincial operating grants that constituted less than 20 per cent of their operating revenues. By 2010, two‐thirds (69.5 per cent) of municipalities were in this category. Another 41.2 per cent of municipalities received grants constituting between 20 and 40 per cent of revenues in 2000. By 2010, only 28.1 per cent of municipalities were in this category. In the year 2000, just under ten (9.7) per cent of municipalities received grants which accounted 40 per cent or more of their revenues. By 2010, just 4.3 per cent of municipalities were in this category. Taken together, these data indicate that for most municipalities, grants account for a much smaller proportion of operating revenues today than a decade ago.

Page 51

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 104 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.5 Taxes Receivable One measure of the degree to which local ratepayers may be experiencing financial stress is the trend in tax receivables, both as an absolute number but more importantly as a percentage of the total levy. Across Eastern Ontario as a whole, tax receivables have increased by about 18 per cent over the past decade (from $170 million to $201 million). This is a much lower rate of increase than for the tax levy as a whole. The rate of increase in Rural Eastern Ontario has been somewhat higher ($84 million to $107 million; 28 per cent) but still lower than the increase in the levy.

Total taxes receivable in Rural Eastern Ontario have increased from $84 million to $107 million over the past decade.

Total taxes receivable in the Separated Cities have declined from $36 million to $35 million over the past decade.

Taxes Receivable as Percentage of Total Levy – By Sub‐Region (Weighted Average Percentage for Municipalities in Each Region)

Taxes Receivable in Rural Eastern Ontario have declined from 13 to 11 per cent over the past decade.

Taxes Receivable in Separated Cities have declined 8 to 5 per cent over the past decade.

Page 52

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 105 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 31 ‐ Taxes Receivable (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region Source: SLC 70 0699 01

Figure 32 ‐ Taxes Receivable (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (combined) or Single Tier Municipality. Source: SLC 70 0699 01. Note that in two‐tier local governments, property taxes are collected by the lower tier. Most tax receivables for two‐tier local governments would be found in Figure 31 (Rural Eastern Ontario)

As a percentage of the total levy, tax receivables have declined for both Rural Eastern Ontario and the Separated Cities over the past decade. However, taxes receivable appear to be moving higher again (starting in about 2007). This may suggest that the recession has created additional financial strain for householders, which is beginning to show up as difficulty in paying property taxes.

Page 106 of 210 Page 53

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our O Fiscal Challlenges – A Rep port on the Fin nancial Sustain nability of Loca al Government in Eastern On ntario

Febrruary 1, 2012 2

5.4.6 Total Municip pal Debt Burden Climbss Dramaticallly in Rural Eastern E Onta ario over the P Decade Past Debt is one of several finan ncing tools avaailable to locaal governmen nt. Before con nsidering the role th hat debt shou uld play in anyy financial susstainability sttrategy for municipalities in Eastern On ntario, it is important to know the municipalitie es’ current de ebt levels and the extent to o which those e m municipalities e costs of anyy additional de ebt. can carry the n Ontario, the e total debt burden has gro own from $66 68 million to $2.1 billion over Across Eastern th he last decade e (216 per cent increase). For Rural Easstern Ontario, the total debt burden has in ncreased by ro oughly 300 pe er cent since 2000, rising from f $125 miillion to $499 million. This m means total municipal debtt in the region n’s rural areas is four times as high now w as it was in 2000. or Rural Easte ern Ontario, municipal m deb bt stands at roughly $1,400 per househ hold and abou ut Fo $4 4.8 million pe er municipalitty. By comparrison, reserve es are only ab bout $900 perr household (ssection 5.4.2).

Figure 33 ‐ Debt D Burden ‐ by b Sub‐Region (2 2000‐2010). Source: FIRs SLC 74 4 9910 01

Page 54

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 107 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

5.4.7 Debt Servicing Costs In fiscal 2010, total debt servicing costs for all municipalities in Eastern Ontario was roughly $240 million, roughly 45 per cent of which was interest payments (and the balance was principal repayment). This represents a roughly ten (10) per cent increase in these costs over 2009 levels For Rural Eastern Ontario, which is carrying about 22 per cent of these costs, the 2010 debt servicing requirement represented an increase of 13 per cent. If the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing rating system for the ratio of debt servicing costs to total operating revenues were applied regionally, both Rural Eastern Ontario and the region as a whole would currently be considered at low risk.

Page 108 of 210

Figure 34 ‐ Debt Servicing Costs and Ratio of Costs to Total Operating Revenue (2009, 2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region and by Upper and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRS SLC 74C 3099 01, SLC 74C 3099 02. Note that for this indicator, lower tier municipalities are not included in upper tier calculations for this indicator. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing thresholds for risk to fiscal health are Low: <5%, Moderate: 5 to 10%; High: >10%.

Page 55

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.8 Region’s Local Governments Unable to Preserve Value of Capital Assets By comparing the “book” value (current value after depreciation) of assets to the original cost, municipalities can see if they have been investing sufficiently in capital assets. This is known as calculating net book value of capital assets as percentage of capital costs. To preserve the value of capital assets, municipalities would have to invest at least the same amount of money as is represented by the annual depreciation. This would result in a 1:1 ratio of book value to capital cost. A ratio of less than one means that investment has not kept up with depreciation, and the assets lose value year after year. By 2010, municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario were holding assets which were, at the time of purchase, valued at $8.1 billion (value at cost). After accumulated depreciation, these assets are now estimated to be worth $4.6 billion (book value). This means that Rural Eastern Ontario‘s municipal assets have lost $3.5 billion in value since acquisition. Across Eastern Ontario, the Net Book Value to Capital Cost ratio is .57. This means that for rural areas as a group, municipal capital assets are worth 57 per cent of their original cost. (Separated cities have preserved 58% of the value of their assets.) This indicator clearly shows that the region’s local governments have not been able preserve the value of their capital assets. In fact, those assets are worth about half of their original cost (half of their value has been lost). In an ideal world, municipalities should be making annual capital investments sufficient to at least maintain the value of their assets OR setting aside money to replace those assets when their useful life is over. Municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario have not had the resources to do either.

Figure 35 ‐ Net Book Value of Capital Assets as a Percentage of Cost ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 51A 9910 06, SLC 51A 9910 11

There is significant variability within the region on ability to maintain capital assets. Ninety‐five (95) per cent of municipalities in Eastern Ontario have not invested sufficiently in their infrastructure to maintain its value at cost, let alone replacement value. The $3.5 billion in lost value can be considered the absolute minimum level of capital infrastructure deficit for all types of municipal infrastructure. This is because the cost to replace these assets (replacement value) would be much, much higher than the original cost. Higher replacement values are due to price increases for the same asset over the past decade. Inflationary increases for municipal goods and services have been considerably higher than CPI over this period.

Even in a period when there was likely to be significant stimulus funding, municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario continued to see deterioration in their ability to invest sufficiently in capital assets. Capital investment in 2010 was roughly $180 million less than depreciation in 2010. In other words, the capital infrastructure deficit increased from $3.3 to $3.5 billion in 2010. Page 56

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 109 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 As shown in the pie chart below, nearly three‐quarters (72%) of municipalities in Eastern Ontario have lost between 25 and 50 per cent of the value of their assets. Nearly a quarter of municipalities (23%) have lost more than half of the value of their assets. Only 5 per cent of municipalities have been able to preserve at least three quarters of the value of their assets.

Region’s Local Governments Unable to Preserve Value of Capital Assets Net Book Value as Percentage of Capital Costs (% of Municipalities in Each Category 2010) Source: FIR PM 91 9914 16

Municipalities in this category have experienced at least 25% asset value loss (based on cost).

5% 23%

Municipalities in this category have the most seriously depreciated assets (at least 50% of asset value, at cost).

72%

Municipalities 50% Or Less NBV/CCA Municipalities Between 75 and 100% NBV/CCA

Municipalities Between 50 and 75% NBV/CCA

Note: 42 per cent of municipalities in Eastern Ontario saw their Net Book Value of Assets as a Percentage of Cost of Capital Assets decline from 2009 to 2010, even though there were significant cost‐shared infrastructure investments. More than half of the region’s counties (7) are in this position..Four others saw no change and two saw improvement. Prepared by Natural Capital Resources Inc.

Figure 36 ‐ Net Book Value of Capital Assets ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality. Source FIRs SLC 51A 9910 06, SLC 51A 9910 11

Page 57

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 110 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.9 Net Financial Assets Declining, Now Net Liabilities One measure of the financial health of local governments is the net financial position – the degree to which cash or near‐cash financial resources exceed financial liabilities (including but not limited to debt.15 Municipalities with a positive net financial position are better able to cash flow in‐year expenses and make capital investments. Since 2000, the net financial position of local governments in Eastern Ontario has deteriorated significantly. Overall, Rural Eastern Ontario has moved from having net financial assets of $266 million to carrying $159 million in net financial liabilities (2010). This is a deterioration of roughly $426 million. In the same period, the Separated Cities have seen their net financial position deteriorate by $120 million but as a group are still in a net positive position ($30 million).

Note that 72 of 114 (63 per cent) of municipalities saw absolute deterioration of their financial positions over the past decade, while 42 of 114 (37 per cent) of municipalities saw absolute improvement. Eight of the 13 EOWC members improved their financial position in 2008 then saw it deteriorate in 2009 and 2010; one reason could be in the influx of stimulus funding that was then expended over the next several years. In the chart on the following page, upper and lower tier financial positions have been consolidated where appropriate (eg. where there is a two‐tier county government). 15

Net financial assets includes cash, accounts receivable, taxes receivable, investments, debt recoverable from others, and other financial assets. Net financial liabilities include temporary loans, accounts payable, deferred revenue, long term liabilities (debt) and other liabilities.

Page 58

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 111 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 37 ‐ Net Financial Assets Over the 2000‐2010 Period ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 70 9930 01, 70 9940 01, 9945 01

Figure 38 ‐ Net Financial Assets Over the 2000‐2010 Period ‐ By Upper, Lower and Single Tier Municipality (Upper and Lower are combined where appropriate). Source: FIRs SLC 70 9930 01, 70 9940 01, 9945 01

Page 112 of 210 Page 59

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

5.4.10 Net Financial Assets as a Percentage of Own Purpose Revenue The ratio of Net Financial Assets (or liabilities) to Own Purpose Revenues (property taxes plus user charges and fees) is considered a measure of financial health, particularly the municipality’s liquidity (ability to finance operating expenditures and capital projects). As set out in the chart below, the NFA‐OPR ratio for Rural Eastern Ontario has deteriorated significantly in the 2000‐2010 period, moving from a net positive ratio (.49) to a negative one (‐0.16). The Separated Cities have seen a similar trend but the deterioration has not been as severe. Along with the absolute change in net financial assets (or liabilities), this ratio suggests that municipalities in the region are experiencing a greater degree of difficulty in securing the cash resources to operate local government services.

The following chart shows the Net Financial Position of Upper and Single Tier Municipalities as a percentage of Own Purpose Revenues. For this calculation, lower tier municipalities have not been included with upper tiers.

Page 113 of 210

Financial assets include cash, accounts receivable, taxes receivable, investments, debt recoverable from others, and other financial assets. Financial liabilities include temporary loans, accounts payable, deferred revenue, long term liabilities (debt) and other liabilities. Own purpose revenues are local property taxes plus user charges and fees.

Page 60

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.11 Local Property Taxes and User Charges (Own Purpose Revenues) Increased Faster than Total Operating Expenditures over the Past Decade In the 2000‐2010 period, total operating expenditures in Rural Eastern Ontario have risen by 65 per cent but own purpose revenues ‐‐‐ local property taxes and user charges ‐‐‐ have increased by 83 per cent. In Rural Eastern Ontario, these revenues are drawn largely from the residential tax property tax levy This tells us that own purpose revenues – as opposed to grants or other payments from other levels of government – are increasingly relied upon to cover operating expenses. Growth in other sources of revenue is clearly not keeping pace.

Total Operating Expenditures have increased by 65% over the past decade to $1.79 billion.

Own Purpose Revenues have increased by 83% over the past decade, from $408 million to $750 million.

In Rural Eastern Ontario, property tax revenues account for roughly three quarters of total own purpose revenues. Over the past decade, the percentage has declined: 75.8 per cent in 2000; 74.3 per cent in 2010. In the Separated Cities, property taxes make up a smaller proportion of own purpose revenues but have risen over the past 10 years: from 60.5 per cent to 64.0 per cent. These patterns are likely due to the service profile of rural municipalities; typically they do not offer the services (eg. water and sewer) from which they could recover expenditures through associated user fees.

Page 61

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 114 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.12 Social Services Upload Will Relieve Some Pressure The decision by the Province of Ontario to upload social services costs is a bright spot in the financial circumstances of local governments in Eastern Ontario. Local governments appreciate the Province’s recognition of the inappropriateness of funding these expenditures from the local tax base and the decision to offload these costs progressively through to 2018. The estimated cumulative benefit to Rural Eastern Ontario in the 2011 to 2018 period, is estimated at about $332 million. This assumes a two (2) per cent annual increase in social services expenditures over the 2011 actual. Note that OMPF funding (designated by the Province as related to the upload) has been deducted from this figure, meaning that $332 million is the net benefit (roughly $41 million a year). If OMPF funding were not deducted, the benefit to rural municipalities would be larger.

Social Services Upload Will Relieve Some Pressure • Total 2011‐2018 Municipal Share of Social Services Upload: Rural Eastern Ontario Thank‐ You! Estimated Cumulative Municipal Share of Social Services Upload (2011‐2018)

$ 332 million (2% increase over 2011 budget)

Estimated Cumulative Total Levy (2011‐2018) $8.877 billion (2% increase over 2011 actual)

Upload Benefit as Percentage of Levy

3.7%

• Total 2011 OMPF Funding (provincial estimates) – one year only: Rural Eastern Ontario: $94.5 million* $12 million – Upper/Single Tiers $82 million – Lower Tier Municipalities *FIRs indicate $138.3M for 2008, $132.0M for 2008 and $110.2M for 2010 ‐‐‐ reflects progressive netting out of OMPF against Social Services upload. Sources: 2011‐2018 municipal share ‐ EOWC calculation; FIRs for levy data (2010); 2011 OMPF Funding ‐ Ontario Ministry of Finance notifications Prepared by Natural Capital Resources Inc.

By comparison, the total levy in Rural Eastern Ontario in the 2011‐2018 period is expected to be $8.9 billion. This assumes a two (2) per cent annual increase in expenditures over the 2011 actual. It can be said that the net benefit of the social services upload is expected to be 3.7% of the estimated $8.9 billion total property tax levy over the eight year period.

Page 62

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 115 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.13 Policy and Program Design Limits Options for Rural Eastern Ontario Municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario are also hitting the wall in terms of ability to pay the costs of delivering services due to policy and program designs that limit their options for participating. For example: • Crown lands, the managed farm tax program and the managed forests limit potential assessment growth • Unpredictable, competitive processes for infrastructure programs stall planning and increase costs • Provincial gas tax rebates focus on supporting transit systems rather than local government’s broader transportation infrastructure needs • Eligibility rules limit participation in programs such as the Eastern Ontario Development Fund (EODF) Potential Assessment Growth is Limited by Lands Unavailable for Full Assessment Development: Out of the roughly 45,000 square kilometres of land mass in Rural Eastern Ontario, we estimate that no more than 25 per cent is available for development purposes at full assessment. The map on the following page (courtesy of the GIS group in Renfrew County, with support from their colleagues in other county governments) identifies the extent of Crown land (light green) for which the local assessment opportunity is 0 per cent, the red lands which are part of the farm land tax program (25 per cent assessment) and the purple areas are managed forest tax program lands (25 per cent assessment). The only areas where local governments can expect to levy taxes at 100 per cent assessment are the white areas on the map. And even those are not all available ‐‐‐ there are waterways and provincially significant wetlands, areas designated for species at risk, quarries and other areas that are “off‐limits” for development and assessment growth. A rough order of magnitude estimate (based on a residential assessment rate) suggests that Crown lands alone represent foregone income of $145 million in local property tax income from another 85,000 households. The EOWC is not advocating the development of all of the region’s Crown lands; rather this illustration simply demonstrates the limitations on rural municipalities’ ability to extract more revenue from the regional property tax base. If a revenue‐sharing agreement could be reached on monies accruing to the Province from Crown lands, some of the most financially‐challenged municipalities would benefit directly and substantially.

Page 63

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 116 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Of the 45,000 square kilometres in Rural Eastern Ontario, less than 25% is available for development at full assessment (lands shown in white). These lands are further constrained by factors such as provincially significant wetlands, PPS Aggregates, species at risk habitat etc.

Crown Land (25% of total land area) represents as much as $145 million in foregone residential property taxes each year from an additional 85,250 households.

Page 117 of 210

Light green lands are Crown land (0% assessment), red indicates lands that are part of the farm land tax program (25% assessment) and purple indicates managed forest tax program lands (25% assessment).

The only areas where local governments can expect to levy taxes at 100 per cent assessment are the white areas on this map. And even those are not all available ‐‐‐ there are waterways and provincially significant wetlands, areas designated for species at risk, quarries and other areas that are “off‐limits” for development and assessment growth. Page 64

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.14 Unpredictable, Competitive Processes Stall Planning and Increase Costs When infrastructure funding programs are competitive and often last‐minute (toward the end of the fiscal year), local governments are unable to act on their multi‐year plans for investment in infrastructure. Combined with the other challenges that local governments face in generating sufficient revenues to support infrastructure investments, year‐over‐year investment patterns can become quite volatile (as shown in the 2000‐2010 capital investment graph below). Many local governments do not have the capacity to be able to respond to calls for applications when the turnaround time is short. In addition, if they must wait for the outcome of competitive processes, they must often delay issuance of tenders until they know they are going to have the resources (funding from other levels of government) to complete the project. Last minute tenders can also be more expensive and in some cases, there may be no bidders at all if private firms have already secured contracts for much larger jobs elsewhere. All of these factors mean that smaller local governments, particularly those in rural areas, are not able to manage their capital assets as well as larger municipalities. Often, a smaller municipality will have to pay a higher per‐unit cost to execute their capital investment programs.

Page 65

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 118 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.4.15 Limitations of Provincial Gas Tax Program Reduce Participation by Rural Eastern Ontario The specific design of the provincial gas tax rebate program for municipalities – the restriction on use of these funds for transit purposes – has meant that relatively few local governments in Rural Eastern Ontario have benefitted from this funding. Roughly a quarter of the region’s local governments (32 municipalities) have received funding. In contrast to federal gas tax funding, which is allocated across all local governments – urban and rural – the provincial program has been accessed by 23 rural local governments (less than a quarter of the total number in the region. As a result, provincial gas tax funding for Rural Eastern Ontario has averaged $3.0 million a year over the 2004‐2010 period). By comparison, the federal program provided the region’s rural municipalities with $43.7 million in support in 2010‐2011.

*Based on the FIRs, there are significant year over year fluctuations in the City of Ottawa’s provincial gas tax revenues which may indicate changing allocations over time, as shown on the FIR return.

Page 66

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 119 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Figure 39 ‐ Provincial Gas Tax Funding over the 2004‐2006 Period ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 60 0860 01

Figure 40 ‐ Provincial Gas Tax Funding over the 2004‐2010 Period ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities [Combined] and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 60 0860 01

Page 67

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 120 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5

Capital Asset Base is Eroding, Infrastructure Needs Loom Large

5.5.1 Introduction Section 5.4.8 of this report (addressing the net book value of municipal capital assets) has demonstrated that local governments have been unable to invest as much as is required to maintain capital assets. The analysis in this report suggests that municipalities in Eastern Ontario are investing about two‐thirds of the required amount. In fact, the annual required investment may be higher because: •

Infrastructure is much more expensive to repair or replace now than when it was first built (price increases in some spheres of the economy – including many of the goods and services that municipalities must purchase – have been well above the Consumer Price Index.)

•

Current spending is roughly two‐thirds of what is needed just to maintain assets in their current condition. This spending does not address the infrastructure deficit – rebuilding or repairing those assets which have deteriorated over time.

•

Roads and structures (bridges and culverts) are especially challenging because they are expensive and Rural Eastern Ontario is responsible for 73 per of the region’s roads and 60 per cent of its structures.

•

Downloaded highways and bridges put stress on local systems (Rural Eastern Ontario received roughly 3,986 lane‐kilometres of highways in the provincial downloads of the late 1990s. This amounts to 40 per cent of the total download.)

•

Structures (bridges and culverts) are a particular challenge because each structure is expensive to repair and it is difficult to finance a bridge project in a single year.

•

Municipalities have not – either individually or collectively ‐ been able to implement strategies that would address capital infrastructure needs on a sustainable basis. In other words, reserves, debt financing, and the tax levy are insufficient to provide predictable, sizable revenue streams to support the implementation of the most cost‐effective infrastructure strategies.

Page 68

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 121 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.2 Annual Capital Investment Required to Maintain Infrastructure – All Types In an earlier section of this Report (section 5.4.8), analysis showed that municipalities in Eastern Ontario have been unable to invest in capital infrastructure sufficiently to preserve the value of these assets. The minimum capital infrastructure deficit for all types of infrastructure in Rural Eastern Ontario was estimated to be roughly $3.5 billion, which does not include the annual investment that local governments should make to maintain their entire asset pool. This Project generated an order‐of‐magnitude estimate of the appropriate level of annual capital investment that would be required to maintain existing infrastructure. This analysis was based on value of capital assets at the end of 2010 (at cost) and divided that by the average life of the asset (assumed to be 25 years) to get the capital expenditure ‐‐‐ at cost ‐‐‐ that should be made each year. The 25 year average life of the asset is a reasonable average of a number of asset classes that are typically owned and managed by municipalities (eg. paved roads, components of affordable housing units such as roofs, or heavy equipment). Recognizing that replacement costs would be significantly higher than the prices that were paid for these assets at the time of their acquisition, a replacement value factor (2:1) was applied to properly reflect the real cost of these assets as they are maintained or replaced in the coming year. The 2:1 ratio of replacement cost to capital cost is based on information gathered through the Project concerning the rate at which municipal costs have increased over the past decade, as well as calculations of cost increases based on a range of inflation assumptions over a 10 year period. These calculations generated a minimum annual capital investment for local governments in Rural Eastern Ontario of $665 million. This estimate was compared to current capital investment levels to determine how close municipalities are to investing sufficiently to maintain their assets. Given that rural local governments are currently spending about $440 million (on average over the past four years16), the capital investment shortfall is roughly $230 million a year.

Methodology: Used 2010 FIR Value of Capital Assets at Cost (PM 91 9914 16), calculated annual capital allocation based average useful life assumptions; translated into % of cost “replaced” each year (eg.4%). 16 $440 million is an average of the last four years of capital expenditure, chosen to reflect the fact that more recent years’ investments have been unusually high due to short‐term stimulus funding and many municipalities will be returning to somewhat lower investment levels that prevailed before 2007‐2008. Until 2007, Rural Eastern Ontario was spending $327 million or less on annual capital investment. Spending jumped to $360 million (2007), $430 million (2008), $496 million (2009), and $572 million (2010). Transportation services (roads and bridges) accounts for about 40‐45 per cent of the annual expenditure.

Page 69

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 122 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.3 Municipalities Are Challenged to Finance Infrastructure Identifying the resources necessary to maintain or rebuild infrastructure is a significant ongoing challenge for local governments. There are three options available to municipalities: •

Property taxes: Increasing the amount of money drawn from the local tax levy (which as has been described in sections 5.3.10, 5.4.5, and 5.4.11 of this Report, has become increasingly difficult).

•

Debt financing: Borrowing the money to pay for infrastructure repairs or improvements. In an earlier section of this report, the dramatic increase in the amount of debt already held by local governments has been noted. Further, all debt must be serviced – interest must be paid on the sums borrowed and the principal must be repaid. These payments would have to come from already strained operating budgets, with revenues derived from property taxes.

•

Reserves: These set‐aside resources are insufficient in quantity and are not growing fast enough to address local governments’ infrastructure challenges. As a share of total expenditures, reserves in Rural Eastern Ontario have declined from 24% to 22%; municipalities hold $1 in reserves for every $5 spent in an annual budget. This ratio has deteriorated from $1 for every $4 spent a decade ago.

Provincial and/or federal infrastructure funding, especially over the last several years, has been helpful and has had an impact on local governments’ infrastructure deficit. However, municipalities must still fund a portion – typically a third of project costs – from their own funds. The unavoidable conclusion is that, to finance infrastructure on a sustainable basis, Rural Municipalities will have to find ways to control costs, use available resources as effectively as possible, and increase the tax base (to increase revenues). $ million

$3.0 billion

3500 3000 2500

Total operating expenditures are $1.8 billion/ year. Municipalities are paying $46 million a year in debt servicing costs (principal plus interest) Source: SLC 74C 3099 01 and 74C 3099 02.

2000 1500 1000

$665 million

$633 million

500

$499 million

0 ‐500 ‐1000

Annual Capital Roads and Total Reserves Investment Bridges Deficit Requirements (Roads to 75%)

Total Debt

Figure 41 ‐ Scale of Challenge Faced by Municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario Striving to Finance Infrastructure. Source: FIRs (2010)

Page 70

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 123 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.4 Rural Eastern Ontario Responsible for Majority of Region’s Roads and Bridges Despite the relative small population and low population density in Rural Eastern Ontario, this region is responsible for nearly three quarters of Eastern Ontario’s roads (measured in this analysis in lane‐kilometres), and about 60 per cent of the region’s transportation‐related structures (bridges and large culverts). This major responsibility means that 40 to 45 per cent of annual expenditures by local governments in Rural Eastern Ontario is for transportation infrastructure. In the pie chart below, the blue wedge on the left hand side represents the roughly 69,000 lane kilometres under the management of rural local governments; this includes the roughly 4,000 lane‐kilometres downloaded from the Province in the late 1990s. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation manages about 7,000 lane‐kilometres in the region (mostly 400‐series highways). This is roughly the same number of lane‐kilometres as the Separated Cities (when taken as a group). The City of Ottawa has nearly 12,000 lane‐kilometres of roads. On the right hand side of this slide, the blue wedge represents just over 5,100 structures, double the number for which the separated cities and towns are responsible, and about seven times the number within the City of Ottawa.

Page 71

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 124 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.5 Required Investment to Address Roads Infrastructure Deficit To maintain infrastructure assets in good condition, municipalities must make annual investments in maintenance, repair and – in some circumstances – reconstruction. If insufficient investment is made, the assets deteriorate. For roads and structures (bridges and culverts), the infrastructure deficit represents the amount of money that it would take to bring these assets back to a condition that meets the standards established for the particular asset class. Since the municipalities in Rural Eastern Ontario have been unable to allocate sufficient resources to maintain their infrastructure, it is clear there is a capital infrastructure deficit. What is not clear is how large (or small) that deficit is, particularly for the largest single category of infrastructure assets managed by local governments: transportation infrastructure. In the Project, a basic model was developed to estimate the current infrastructure deficit for both roads and structures. The model for roads was based on three road types – paved, surface‐ treated, and gravel roads. The deficit estimate represents the amount of money that it would take to rehabilitate these roads to “good” or “very good” condition as reflected in performance measures included in a municipality’s FIR. This estimate is separate from and in addition to the annual investment we should be making, on an annual basis, to maintain all our assets. The model is based on: •

The number of lane‐kilometres of deficient roads, calculated based on FIR estimates of “good/very good” condition. For paved roads in Eastern Ontario as a whole (2010), roughly 67 per cent of roads were said to have been in “good/very good” condition. Therefore roughly a third (33 per cent) is deemed to be in deficient condition. This does not necessarily mean the roads are unsafe; rather, they may simply not provide the level of comfort (ride quality) motorists might expect. Note that FIRs also contain the total number of lane‐ kilometres of paved and unpaved roads for which each municipality is responsible.

•

Current cost estimates for the cost to either completely rebuild a lane‐kilometre of deficient road or to use alternative techniques and approaches to improve its condition and extend its useful life. These costs vary significantly across the region (see section 7 on costing methodology). Assumptions for per‐lane costs for rebuild and road life extension are based on data from recent roads studies and consultations with municipal staffs responsible for maintaining these assets. The estimates have also incorporated factors to reflect soft costs (eg. design and project management). For the purposes of this Project, average costs per lane‐kilometre were applied. Note that road life extension techniques, which may only be suitable for some situations, may enable the municipality to maintain a road for a lower cost but the number of years of additional road life will be shorter than if a complete reconstruction were undertaken. See section 5.3.5 for a summary of the cost estimates and other assumptions made in the infrastructure deficit model calculation.

•

Target‐setting for the percentage of lane‐kilometres to be returned to “good/very good” condition, and the combination of approaches (reconstruction or alternative techniques) to be used in reaching the target.

Page 72

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 125 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012 •

The road system profile in each municipality based on “best available information” on the number of lane‐kilometres of roads of each type (paved, surface‐treated, gravel) and the current state of these roads (percentages of each of the paved and unpaved roads in “good/very good” condition).

Based on these assumptions, the Project has generated an estimate of the investment required to achieve the chosen target (percentage of roads in “good or very good” condition). Note that this estimate does not include any system growth or upgrading of existing roads to respond to changing traffic volumes. Further, note that these estimates are based on 2011 costs; depending on the timing of the necessary infrastructure investments, costs could change, which would change the total cost estimate. Finally, the roads investment does not include the costs associated with reconstruction of any structures (bridges or culverts) that are part of these roads systems. The chart below summarizes two possible scenarios to demonstrate the sensitivity of capital infrastructure deficit calculations to the underlying assumptions and targets, and the importance of choosing the right asset management strategy going forward. •

The “worst case” scenario, which would involve taking all deficient roads to 100 per cent good/very good condition, would cost approximately $8.0 billion for Rural Eastern Ontario. In this case, the capital infrastructure deficit for roads would be $8 billion.

•

If the “good/very good” target is set at 75 per cent, and two thirds of the deficient roads were rebuilt and one third addressed with road life extension techniques, the capital infrastructure deficit for roads would be $2.5 billion for Rural Eastern Ontario. (Note that the 25 per cent not addressed with this approach is still safe to drive on, but ride may not be especially comfortable.)

Figure 42 ‐ Required Investment to Address Capital Infrastructure Deficit for Roads; bold font indicates the deficit for Rural Eastern Ontario; Roman font indicates the deficit for the entire Eastern Ontario region. Model developed to estimate the roads deficit is based on Based on Best Available Information from 2006 Study by EOWC members, supplemented by 2009 and 2010 FIR data; PM92 2152 05/06 (percentages of roads and bridges in “good/very” good condition). As much as possible, the data has been reconciled against data provided by OGRA (MDW). Cost data was drawn from capital needs studies and infrastructure plans provided by a cross‐section of municipalities in Eastern Ontario. A range of scenarios were considered based on the target for roads to be brought to “good/very good” condition. This is a ‘global’ estimate only.

If all highways downloaded by the Province of Ontario (roughly 4,000 lane‐kilometres) were full reconstructed, the cost in 2011 dollars would be roughly $1.9 billion. Expenditures of this magnitude are likely to be required over the next several decades, representing about $80 million a year in additional costs to local governments in Rural Eastern Ontario.

Page 73

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 126 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.6 Assumptions Behind Capital Infrastructure Deficit Estimates – Roads and Structures

Page 74

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 127 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.7 Required Investment to Address Structures Infrastructure Deficit By using an approach similar to that developed to estimate the roads infrastructure deficit, the Project has also generated an infrastructure deficit estimate for structures – bridges and culverts. This estimate is separate from and in addition to the annual investment we should be making, on an annual basis, to maintain all our assets. The model for structures is based on: •

Percentage structures in good/very good condition: This Project used average bridge condition data (on a municipality by municipality basis) from Municipal Data Works (MDW) as provided by OGRA. This Project also compared the number of structures as reported by most municipalities in MDW to the same data as reported in FIRs by virtually all municipalities. This provided a strong estimate of the total number of structures across the region.

•

Target setting: In this case, the target assumption (the percentage of bridges and culverts to be brought to “good/very good” condition) was set at 100 per cent. The Project assumed that safety considerations would ultimately require the repair of all currently deficient structure.

•

Current cost estimates: The Project applied average costs to rehabilitate a bridge or a large culvert, based on information contained in recent capital needs studies or provided by municipalities from across the region.

Based on these assumptions, the Project has generated an estimate of the investment required to achieve the chosen target. Note that this estimate does not include any system growth or upgrading structures to respond to changing traffic volumes. Further, note that these estimates are based on 2011 costs; depending on the timing of the necessary infrastructure investments, costs could change, which would change the total cost estimate. The chart below summarizes the number of structures and associated capital infrastructure deficit: $526 million for Rural Eastern Ontario. Adding this number to the roads deficit of about $2.5 billion gives us a total roads and structures deficit of roughly $3 billion.

Figure 43 ‐ Investment Required to Address Structures Deficit ‐ Rural Eastern Ontario (2011)

Page 75

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 128 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

5.5.8 Total Capital Investment Required to Maintain Infrastructure (All Types) and Address Roads and Structures Deficit Taking all the preceding capital infrastructure estimates together, this analysis provides the following conclusions: •

Total annual infrastructure expenditures: Rural Eastern Ontario should be spending $650 to $750 million a year to maintain existing infrastructure of all types. The use of a range provides some margin for further cost increases and for modest system growth.

•

Expenditure shortfall: Rural Eastern Ontario has an annual shortfall of $200 to $300 million. Local governments in the rural region should be spending $200 to $300 million more than is currently expended.

•

Roads and Structures Deficit: If the current capital infrastructure deficit is addressed over a 10 year period, rural municipalities would have to spend another $300 million a year.

In total, Rural Eastern Ontario should be investing roughly a billion a year to address infrastructure issues. This is another $500 to $600 million beyond current expenditures of roughly $450 million a year, it can be said that capital infrastructure investments are about half of the level required to sustain these assets.

Figure 44 ‐ Total Capital Investment Required to Maintain Rural Eastern Ontario’s Infrastructure (All Types) and Address Roads and Structures Deficit

Methodology for calculating annual investment required to maintain infrastructure: used 2010 FIR Value of . Capital Assets at Cost, calculated annual capital allocation based average useful life assumptions; translated into % of cost “replaced” each year (eg.4%) Note that in 2010, Rural Eastern Ontario made $238 million in capital investments in transportation services. This expenditure level is atypical: the average for last five years is $195 million (roughly 45% of total). Note that there is also $600 million in operating expenditures for transportation services each year, some portion of which is used for capital improvements. Annual capital investment in existing infrastructure should be in the $650‐$750 million range to make provision for cost increases in coming years and to provide for modest growth in capital assets to accommodate new service needs at the local level.

Page 76

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 129 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Report on Operating Situation for Eastern Ontario Municipalities 6.1 Total Annual Expenditures by Local Governments across Eastern Ontario Total annual expenditures (both operating and capital expenditures) now total $7.6 billion a year, with just over $2.3 billion being expended in Rural Eastern Ontario and nearly $1.4 billion in the Separated Cities. Roughly $3.9 billion is expended in the City of Ottawa. In Rural Eastern Ontario, total expenditures have increased by 84 per cent over the past decade (roughly 8.4 per cent a year); in the Separated Cities, the increase has been slightly less (78 per cent).

$3.89 billion

$2.37 billion $1.38 billion

Page 77

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 130 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 45 ‐ Total Annual Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region Source: Calculated from FIR data

Figure 46 ‐ Total Annual Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ by Upper and Single Tier Municipalities [Upper and Lower Tiers combined where appropriate] – Source: Calculated from FIR data

Page 131 of 210 Page 78

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

6.2

Total Operating Expenditures Have Increased By About Six Per Cent A Year for the Past Decade

Of the $7.6 billion in annual local government expenditures in Eastern Ontario, roughly $5.6 billion is directed to the annual operating budgets and roughly $2 billion is expended on capital investments. Rural Eastern Ontario’s $1.8 billion in operating expenditures accounts for about 32 per cent of the regional total. The operating expenditures of the Separated Cities are roughly $1.1 billion (about 19 per cent of the regional total). The City of Ottawa accounts for the balance ($2.75 billion and just under half of the regional total). Total operating expenditures in Rural Eastern Ontario have increased by 65 per cent since 2000 –about 6.5 per cent a year. In the Separated Cities (taken as a group), operating expenditures have increased by 61 per cent over the past decade (roughly 6.1 per cent a year). Operating expenditures in the City of Ottawa have increased at about the same rate – 63 per cent (6.3 per cent a year). Caution is encouraged when considering how operating expenditures have changed over time. Accounting methods utilized for Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) purposes changed over the period; as a result, treatment of various types of expenditures may have changed.

Figure 47 ‐ Total Operating Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 40 9910 11

Page 132 of 210

Figure 48 ‐ Total Operating Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipality. Source FIRs SLC 40 9910 11

Page 79

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

6.3

Total Capital Expenditures Have Increased Much Faster than Operating Expenditures (19 Per Cent In Rural Eastern Ontario)

Of the $2 billion in annual local government capital expenditures in Eastern Ontario, Rural Eastern Ontario spends $577 million, accounting for about 28 per cent of the regional total. The annual capital expenditures of the Separated Cities are roughly $293 million (about 15 per cent of the regional total). The City of Ottawa accounts for the balance ($1.1 billion and just over half of the regional total: 57 per cent). Total capital expenditures in Rural Eastern Ontario have increased by nearly 200 per cent since 2000 –about 19 per cent a year. In the Separated Cities (taken as a group), capital expenditures have increased at roughly the same rate (185 per cent) – roughly 18.5 per cent a year). Expenditures in the City of Ottawa have increased at a much faster rate – about 265 per cent over the past decade (26.5 per cent a year).

Figure 49 ‐ Total Capital Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 52 9910 07, SLC 53 1020 01

Page 133 of 210

Figure 50 ‐ Total Capital Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 52 9910 07, SLC 53 1020 01

Page 80

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

6.4

Total Operating Expenditures By Type 6.4.1 Transportation Services Operating Costs Rising by Nine Per Cent A Year Total Operating Expenditures on Transportation Services are roughly $1.8 billion with Rural Eastern Ontario being responsible for $606 million (about a third of the total) in 2010. These expenditures have increased by roughly 90 per cent over the past decade (from $317 million in 2000). For the region as a whole, the rate of increase has been slightly less pronounced (83 per cent) over the same timeframe. Rural municipalities made another $243 million in capital investments in transportation infrastructure in 2010, bringing the annual total (operating and capital) to $849 million. The increase in capital expenditures has averaged about 15.5 per cent a year for the past decade. The pace of annual increases in the rural areas is not quite as high as for the region as a whole, which is averaging 23.6 per cent increases on an annual basis. Most of these increased investments are in the City of Ottawa (average annual increases of 34.2 per cent) rather than the Separated Cities (11.5 per cent).

Transportation Services Costs – Operating Expenditures By Sub‐Region (2000‐2010)

Page 81

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 134 of 210

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Figure 51 ‐ Operating Expenditures on Transportation Services (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region 2000‐2010. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0699 11

Figure 52 ‐ Capital Expenditures on Transportation Services (2000‐2010 ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 52 0699 07

Page 135 of 210

Figure 53 ‐ Operating Expenditures on Transportation Services (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0699 11

Transportation Services expenditures include those associated with roads (paved, unpaved, bridges and culverts), traffic operations and roadside services, winter control, transit (both conventional and for disabled persons or those with special needs), parking, street lighting and air transportation.

Page 82

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

6.4.2 Health Services Operating Expenditures Have Tripled in Rural Eastern Ontario Over Past Decade Across Eastern Ontario as a whole, Health Service expenditures have increased by roughly 209 per cent, rising from $98.6 million to $304.6 million over the past decade. In Rural Eastern Ontario, the rate of increase has been at nearly the same pace: 203 per cent (from $44.6 million to $135.4 million). The rate of increase in the Separated Cities has been significantly higher – rising by 237 per cent over the last ten years.

Figure 54 ‐ Health and Emergency Services Expenditures (2000‐2010)‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 40 1099 11

Page 136 of 210

Figure 55 ‐ Health Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 40 1099 11

Health Service expenditures include public health services, ambulance services as well as dispatch, cemeteries, and hospitals.

Environmental Services Expenditures Have Risen By 85 Per Cent in Rural Eastern Ontario Over Past Ten Years:

Page 83

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Across Eastern Ontario as a whole, Environmental Services expenditures have increased by roughly 45 per cent, rising from $423 million to $614 million over the past decade. In Rural Eastern Ontario, the rate of increase has been much higher: 85 per cent (from $113 million to $209 million). The rate of increase in the Separated Cities has been much lower – rising by 23 per cent over the last ten years.

Figure 56 ‐ Environmental Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0899 07

Figure 57 ‐ Environmental Services Expenditures ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0899 07

Page 137 of 210

The Environmental Services expenditure category includes expenditures for wastewater collection/conveyance, wastewater treatment & disposal, urban and rural storm sewer systems, water treatment, water distribution/transmission, solid waste collection and disposal, and waste diversion.

Page 84

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

6.4.3 Social and Family Services Expenditures Rise by 26 Per Cent in Rural Eastern Ontario Over Past Decade Across Eastern Ontario as a whole, Social and Family Services expenditures have increased by about 6.2 per cent, rising from $963 million to $1.0 billion over the past decade. In Rural Eastern Ontario, the rate of increase has been considerably higher: 26 per cent (from $328 million to $415 million). The rate of increase in the Separated Cities has been quite modest – rising at 3.6 per cent over the last ten years.

Figure 58 ‐ Social and Family Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 40 1299 07

Page 138 of 210

Figure 59 ‐ Social and Family Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Single Tier Municipalities. Source: FIRs SLC 40 1299 07

The Social and Family Services expenditure category includes general assistance, assistance to aged persons, and child care expenditures.

Page 85

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

6.4.4 Protection Services Expenditures Have Climbed by 65 Per Cent in Rural Eastern Ontario Since Year 2000 Across Eastern Ontario as a whole, Protection Services expenditures have increased by about 76 per cent, rising from $126.8 million to $209.5 million over the past decade. In Rural Eastern Ontario, the rate of increase has been slightly less: 65 per cent (from $126.8 million to $209.5 million). The rate of increase in the Separated Cities has been slightly higher than the regional average – rising by 78 per cent over the last ten years ($108 million to $193 million).

Figure 60 ‐ Protection Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) – By Sub‐Region. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0499 07

Page 139 of 210

Figure 61 ‐ Protection Services Expenditures (2000‐2010) ‐ By Upper and Lower Tier Municipality (Combined) and Upper Tier Municipality. Source: FIRs SLC 40 0499 07

The Protection Services expenditure category includes expenditures for fire, police, court security, prisoner transportation, conservation authority, protective inspection and control, emergency measures and Provincial Offences Act (POA).

Page 86

Agenda Item # 10102d)

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

6.5 Revenue Fund Expenditures Per Household The chart below presents the distribution of Eastern Ontario municipalities according to their revenue fund expenditures per household, comparing the distribution over the 2000‐2010 period. The proportions of municipalities whose revenue fund expenditures per household are in the higher dollar value categories increased significantly over the past decade. Whereas in the year 2000, two thirds (68 per cent) of municipalities were expending less than $2,000 per household, only one third (30 per cent) of municipalities were in this expenditure category ten years later. By 2010, 71 per cent of municipalities were in the $2000‐$5000 per household category, up from 35 per cent ten years earlier. And while only two (2) per cent of municipalities were spending $5,000 or more per household in 2000, eight (8) per cent were doing so in 2010. These data indicate that the total amount of revenue flowing through local governments has increased dramatically over the past decade, reflective of the increased service delivery mandate of municipal government through that period as well as the need for greater working capital and financial management capability to manage larger enterprises.

Page 87

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 140 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

6.6 Net Working Capital (Funds) Net working capital (or net working funds) as a percentage of total operating expenditures (net of depreciation expense), which does not require a cash outlay) is considered a good indicator for a municipality’s ability to cash flow expenditures within a fiscal year or to finance significant projects. This measure is used by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as part of its Financial Information Return template to assess the fiscal health of individual municipalities. Applying this measure to municipalities in Eastern Ontario and using 2010 data, 104 of 114 local governments in the region (91 per cent) would be considered low risk (net working capital is 10 per cent of total operating expenses or higher). Ten municipalities would be considered either moderate or high risk. (Moderate is +10 to ‐10 per cent of total operating expenses while High is a ratio below ‐10 per cent). Roughly 30 per cent (35 of 114 municipalities) have seen their net working capital ratio deteriorate over the past decade. The balance has seen improvement, although in some cases the degree of improvement is quite modest. Of the municipalities with deteriorating net working capital, four are upper tier municipalities, two are Separated Cities, one is a rural single tier municipality, and the rest are lower tier municipalities.

Net Working Capital as Percentage of Total Operating Expenditures ‐

By Sub‐Region (2000‐2010)

Source: (SLC 70 299 01 + SLC 70 499 01 + SLC 70 699 01 + SLC 70 830 01 + SLC 70 835 01 + SLC 70 6250 01 + SLC 70 6260 01 ‐ SLC 70 2099 01 ‐ SLC 70 2299 01) / SLC 10 9930 01

Page 88

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 141 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Figure 62 ‐ Net Working Capital as a Percentage of Total Operating Expenses (2000‐2010) ‐ By Sub‐Region and By Upper or Single Tier Municipality (Lower Tier Municipalities are included in the regional average for Rural Eastern Ontario but are not included in the chart depicting individual municipalities). Source: FIRs (SLC 70 299 01 + SLC 70 499 01 + SLC 70 699 01 + SLC 70 830 01 + SLC 70 835 01 + SLC 70 6250 01 + SLC 70 6260 01 ‐ SLC 70 2099 01 ‐ SLC 70 2299 01) / SLC 10 9930 01

Page 89

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 142 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

7.0

Costing Methodology Sub‐Project One sub‐objective of the Eastern Ontario Financial Sustainability Update Project was to develop a much better understanding of ways to estimate the costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure in rural areas. To this end, the Project undertook a series of interviews with a cross‐section of municipalities in the region, to gather information about the extent of their maintenance responsibilities, condition assessment and capital needs planning practices, factors which influence costs, implementation strategies, and use of innovative techniques or approaches. The selected municipalities reflected the geographic diversity of the region, including north‐central‐south and east‐west locations, different sizes of municipalities, and different types (upper tier, lower tier and single tier) as well as both rural and urban areas. The results of this project phase have been used to develop a spreadsheet tool which will allow the EOWC to better project future costs for this important area of service to local residents. While a summary of the information gathered from these interviews has been provided to the EOWC, insights related to the most important factors influencing costs have been summarized below: •

Geology: For municipalities in the Canadian Shield (rather than the limestone plains at the southern end of the region), geology makes initial construction of roads and bridges more costly. The abundance of small lakes and waterways increases the complexity of design, often means more bridges and culverts on a given stretch of road, and increases costs to assure proper drainage. If these issues – particularly drainage – are not addressed at the time of initial construction, subsequent maintenance costs will be higher and cost‐effective opportunities to use alternative road life extension techniques may be constrained.

•

Regulatory Requirements: The many early‐stage requirements for environmental assessments archeological studies, addressing species at risk considerations, as well as new standards for shoulder widths and guiderails add to the cost of constructing or rebuilding roads and to some extent, bridges. Further quarry permits can increase the transportation costs to move aggregate to the intended site of use. Typically, municipalities are addressing new standards (eg. guiderails) as an integral part of their capital construction programs; however, these new requirements are putting significant upward pressure on costs.

•

Downloaded Highways: The presence of highways downloaded from the Province in the late 1990s is a significant cost factor for recipient municipalities. The wider shoulder widths and higher traffic volumes mean more expensive materials (pavement mixes); these roads (and associated bridges) are typically the most expensive parts of a municipality’s transportation system to maintain – especially if these roadways run through settled like towns and hamlets. In addition, downloaded highways typically run through multiple municipalities, which means that achieving economies of scale (by reconstructing long stretches of roads in a single project) is a more challenging project management and financing assignment.

Page 90

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 143 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

•

Materials Costs: The per‐unit cost of materials – particularly asphalt – has increased by roughly 7‐8 per cent a year over the last decade. In part, this is the result of energy cost increases (energy is required to produce and move the asphalt to the job site) as well as transportation costs for equipment. However, alternative markets have now emerged for certain materials which were previously available for road works at relatively low cost; today, municipalities must pay more overall per tonne for asphalt than a decade ago. In estimating the capital infrastructure deficit for roads and bridges, a year over year cost escalation factor of five (5) per cent for materials costs has been recommended (see page 71).

•

Proximity to Urban Areas: Those roads which either connect a rural municipality to an adjacent urban environment directly, or to connecting links serving urban areas tend to experience higher traffic volumes and are more expensive to maintain. Many rural municipalities are now experiencing greater demand for higher volume roads even if the municipality itself is quite rural in nature. In addition, roads within municipalities that run through towns and hamlets are more costly to maintain because of factors similar to those which influence truly urban road systems. For instance, towns may now have underground services (water and sewer services, and other utilities) that must be accommodate when reconstructing road service or the supporting platforms. Features of more urban environments, such as sidewalks, streetlights, and wider shoulders to accommodate active living (walking, cycling) are increasingly expected in more rural areas as well. All of these features increase the costs of maintaining roads and structures in rural areas.

•

Size of Project: Economies of scale in reconstruction and maintenance work are considerably more expensive for small projects (for example, a road project of less than five kilometres in length.) Construction companies are more likely to compete for larger projects and may need to charge a higher per‐unit price to work on smaller assignments. For instance, use of a portable asphalt plant may only be cost‐effective if the road works requirement is at least 15‐20 kilometres in length. Many smaller municipalities simply cannot afford to undertake projects of this size in a single year; as a result, they cannot achieve economies of scale in their capital infrastructure programs. A related issue is the degree to which a competitive market for road work (multiple local companies close at hand) exists in a particular municipality. Companies located in a more distant community will be more likely to be on a local project if it is a larger job. Otherwise, travel and transportation costs would make their bids non‐competitive. Bridge reconstruction poses a similar challenge. The size of a single reconstruction project is often quite large, which increases the level of interest from construction firms, but also increases the municipality’s difficulty in financing the project, especially in a single year.

Page 91

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 144 of 210

Agenda Item # 10102d)

Facing Our Fiscal Challenges – A Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

February 1, 2012

Appendix A: 114 Municipalities in Eastern Ontario “Rural Eastern Ontario” • 11 counties (Frontenac, Haliburton, Hastings, Lanark, Leeds‐Grenville, Lennox & Addington, Northumberland, Peterborough, Prescott‐Russell, Renfrew, Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry) • 2 single tier governments (Kawartha Lakes, Prince Edward) • 90 lower tier municipalities (townships, towns) within county boundaries • In Frontenac County: Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, North Frontenac, and South Frontenac • In Haliburton County: Dysart et Al, Minden Hills, Highlands East, and Algonquin Highlands • In Hastings County: Deseronto, Bancroft, Faraday, Limerick, Madoc, Tudor and Cashel, Tyendinaga, Wollaston, Centre Hastings, Stirling‐Rawdon, Tweed, Hastings Highlands, Carlow‐Mayo, and Marmora and Lake • In Lanark County: Carleton Place, Perth, Beckwith, Montague, Lanark Highlands, Drummond‐ North Elmsley, and Tay Valley • In United Counties of Leeds and Grenville: Westport, Merrickville‐Wolford, Augusta, Front of Yonge, North Grenville, Rideau Lakes, Athens, Edwardsburgh‐Cardinal, Leeds and the Thousand Islands, and Elizabethtown‐Kitley • In Lennox and Addington County: Greater Napanee, Addington Highlands, Loyalist, and Stone Mills • In Northumberland County: Cobourg, Brighton, Trent Hills, Port Hope, Hamilton, Alnwick‐ Haldimand, and Cramahe • In Peterborough County: Asphodel‐Norwood, North Kawartha, Cavan‐Millbrook‐North Monaghan, Douro‐Dummer, Galway‐Cavendish and Harvey, Havelock‐Belmont‐Methuen, Otonabee‐South Monaghan, and Smith‐Ennismore‐Lakefield • In the United Counties of Prescott and Russell: Clarence‐Rockland, Hawkesbury, Casselman, East Hawkesbury, Russell, Alfred and Plantagenet, Champlain and The Nation • In Renfrew County: Arnprior, Deep River, Renfrew, Petawawa, Laurentian Hills, Head Clara and Maria, Horton, McNab‐Braeside, Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan, North Algona‐ Wilberforce, Admaston‐Bromley, Laurentian Valley, Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, Madawaska Valley, Bonnechere Valley, Whitewater Region, and Greater Madawaska • United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry: North Dundas, South Dundas, North Glengarry, South Glengarry, North Stormont, and South Stormont. •

•

“Separated Cities” (and Towns) • Kingston • Belleville • Quinte West • Brockville • Gananoque

• • • • •

Prescott Smiths Falls Peterborough (city) Pembroke Cornwall

City of Ottawa analyzed separately.

Page 92

EOWC Report on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Eastern Ontario

Page 145 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103a)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services

Date prepared:

February 23, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans

Background In 2006, in conjunction with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the provincial government established a Land Ambulance Committee (LAC) to review ambulance response time standards. On July 31, 2008 changes were made to the Ambulance Act, Ontario Regulation 267/08, amending O. Reg. 257/00 with the heading Section 22: Part VIII, Response Time Performance Plans, Sections 22 and 23. PART VIII – RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE PLANS 23. (1) In this section, “response time” means the time measured from the time a notice is received to the earlier of the following: a) The arrival on-scene of a person equipped to provide any type of defibrillation to sudden cardiac arrest patients. b) The arrival on-scene of the ambulance crew. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2). (2) No later than October 1 in each year after 2011, every upper-tier municipality and every delivery agent responsible under the Act for ensuring the proper provision of land ambulance services shall establish, for land ambulance service operators selected by the upper-tier municipality or delivery agent in accordance with the Act, a performance plan for the next calendar year respecting response times. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2); O. Reg. 368/10, s. 1 (1). (3) An upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall ensure that the plan established under that subsection sets response time targets for responses to notices respecting patients categorized as Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (“CTAS”) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and that such targets are set for each land ambulance service operator

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans March 21, 2012

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

Page 1 of 5

Page 146 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103a)

selected by the upper-tier municipality or delivery agent in accordance with the Act. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2). (4) An upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall ensure that throughout the year the plan established under that subsection is continuously maintained, enforced and evaluated and, where necessary, updated, whether in whole or in part. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2). (5) An upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall provide the Director with a copy of the plan established under that subsection no later than October 31 in each year, and a copy of any plan updated, whether in whole or in part, under subsection (4) no later than one month after the plan has been updated. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2). (6) An upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall report to the Director, as required from time to time by the Director and on forms or in a manner provided or determined by the Director, on any matter relating to, a) the nature and scope of the plan established under that subsection or updated under subsection (4); and b) the establishment, maintenance, enforcement, evaluation and updating of the plan. O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2). (7) Without limiting the generality of subsection (6), no later than March 31 in each year after 2013, an upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall report to the Director on the following matters for the preceding calendar year:

The percentage of times that a person equipped to provide any type of defibrillation has arrived on-scene to provide defibrillation to sudden cardiac arrest patients within six minutes of the time notice is received.
The percentage of times that an ambulance crew has arrived on-scene to provide ambulance services to sudden cardiac arrest patients or other patients categorized as CTAS 1 within eight minutes of the time notice is received respecting such services.
The percentage of times that an ambulance crew has arrived on-scene to provide ambulance services to patients categorized as CTAS 2, 3, 4 and 5 within the response time targets set by the upper-tier municipality or delivery agent under its plan established under subsection (2). O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2); O. Reg. 368/10, s. 1 (2). (8) Without limiting the generality of subsection (6), an upper-tier municipality or delivery agent to which subsection (2) applies shall report to the Director on the performance of each land ambulance service operator selected by the upper-tier municipality or delivery agent in accordance with the Act in respect of the targets set for that operator under subsection (3). O. Reg. 267/08, s. 1 (2).

The municipality is to submit its Response Time Plan to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), Emergency Health Services Branch (EHSB) Director no later than October 31 of each year, after 2011 (Section 23 (5)), which are to include performance targets for sudden cardiac arrest, CTAS 1, CTAS 2, 3, 4 and 5. By March 31 of each year the same table with the actual times achieved in the year previous will be reported to the MOHLTC. Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), is a priority setting scale to describe the severity of a patient’s condition. In this scale, “CTAS 1” is the most serious, and CTAS 5 the least.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans March 21, 2012

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

Page 2 of 5

Page 147 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103a)

Comment The previous emergency response time standard had been based on 1996 performance that differed for each upper tier. Since then, the ambulance system and associated demands have changed. The new regulation provides flexibility for each municipality to establish its own percentages of time that it expects to meet its target times considering local resources. In some categories, municipalities can establish their own targets in both time and percentage. The County of Frontenac’s 90th percentile response time measurement in 1996, 14 minutes 52 seconds, establishes that 90 of 100 calls were responded to in under 14:52. The new reporting process simply restates this performance in relation to a set time, as a percentage of calls. Specifically:

Sudden Cardiac Arrest calls will have a target percentage of the calls having a Defibrillator on scene within 6 minutes;
Sudden Cardiac Arrest and CTAS 1 calls will have a target percentage of the calls where a paramedic resource is on scene within 8 minutes;
CTAS 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have a target percentage of the calls where a paramedic resource is on scene in a determined timeframe. Under both the old and the new process, the times identified to the Province are applicable to the entire service area of the County of Frontenac. There are no provisions in the regulations to provide for variations in population or call volume density. It is important to note that response time performance is increased in densely populated areas. The response time performance reported is an amalgamation of calls throughout the service area, and expectations should be tempered as such. Under this regulation, municipalities will be credited when any defibrillator is used to assist a victim of sudden cardiac arrest including a public access defibrillator or a tiered response agency. In addition, Emergency Response Vehicles with one paramedic will continue to be calculated in the response time calculations. With the new standard, the response time will be measured based on the severity of the call, as found by the paramedic (vs. how it was dispatched), which is in keeping with how medical evaluations are conducted. It is intended to propel the stakeholders to continue to pursue system improvements to more accurately identify patients in the greatest need through the ambulance dispatch call interrogation process. It is suggested that the Response Time Plan reflect current performance elements, so that a year over year benchmarking of response times can be evaluated. Possible options are to ‘under-promise and over-deliver’, or conversely establish targets in excess of the current performance and enhance service to meet those targets. Municipalities under the Eastern Ontario Warden’s Caucus (EWOC) are working together to identify opportunities regarding the new Response Time Performance Plans and further reports will come to County Council over the next several months with the final recommendation for adoption of a Plan coming within the timeframes dictated by the Province.

Sustainability Implications

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans March 21, 2012

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

Page 3 of 5

Page 148 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103a)

Good stewardship of the County’s financial resources and most appropriate care of our residents and visitors when in need of paramedic services.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans March 21, 2012

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

Page 4 of 5

Page 149 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103a)

Financial Implications None at this time.

Recommendation That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans report for information only;

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plans March 21, 2012

Legislated Ambulance Response Time Performance Plans

Page 5 of 5

Page 150 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103b)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services

Date prepared:

March 11, 2012

Date of meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario

Background Birth of Special Olympics in Canada In the early sixties, testing of children with intellectual disabilities revealed that they were only half as physically fit as their non-disabled peers. It was assumed that their low fitness levels were a direct result of their disabilities. A Toronto researcher and professor, Dr. Frank Hayden, questioned this assumption. Working with a control group of children on an intense fitness program, he demonstrated that given the opportunity, intellectually disabled people could become physically fit and acquire the skills necessary to participate in sport. His research proved that low levels of fitness and lack of motor skills development in people with intellectual disabilities were a result of nothing more than a sedentary life style. Mission Statement To provide year-round sports training and athletic competition for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics promotes opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy, and develop skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympic athletes and the community. Over the past 40 years Special Olympics has grown from a modest program serving local athletes to become the world’s largest movement dedicated to promoting respect, acceptance, inclusion, and human dignity for people with intellectual disabilities through sports.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 3

2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario

Page 151 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103b)

Comment The 2012 ONTARIO SPECIAL OLYMPICS PROVINCIAL SPRING GAMES are being hosted by Special Olympics Ontario Region 12 and held in Kingston from May 31-June 3, 2012. The lead agencies for the games are the OPP and Kingston Police Force. The theme this year is “Side by Side”. Dr. Andrew Reed, our associate base hospital medical director from the Regional Paramedic Program of Eastern Ontario (RPPEO) and the OPP Physician, has accepted the position of Medical Lead for the games. In his capacity, as Medical Lead, Dr. Reed as contacted Frontenac Paramedic Services (FPS) regarding paramedic coverage of the games. Dr. Reed states, “I truly believe this is an important public service but also a fantastic opportunity to show how FPS supports the community”. As the Special Olympics rely on sponsorship to hold these games, they are requesting that FPS provide this service for no fee. In exchange, the Spring Games Committee is willing to provide a Bronze Sponsorship Benefits package in exchange for the services provided. This will include: • • • • • • • •

An opportunity to showcase the County’s vehicle(s) at the opening ceremonies An opportunity for a representative of the County’s service to escort one of the regional teams into the opening ceremonies Opportunities for members of Frontenac EMS to present medals to athletes during medal ceremonies The County’s logo on the Games Website A Commemorative 2012 Spring Games Plaque Recognized support of two Adopt an Athlete participants VIP Honoured guest passes to events for Frontenac EMS participants Recognition at the Opening Ceremonies

Dr. Reed has also requested he be allowed to invite the other EMS providers in our region to come to Kingston to provide an EMS unit to the Opening Ceremonies, and one event on Friday and Saturday each. These partner services would be Hastings-Quinte EMS, Lennox & Addington EMS, and Leeds and Grenville EMS. This would facilitate paramedic coverage at all venues and events without placing the financial burden on the County of Frontenac.

Sustainability Implications Good stewardship of the County’s financial resources and most appropriate care of our residents and visitors when in need of paramedic services.

Financial Implications The cost to provide one (1) paramedic unit for the Opening Ceremonies on Thursday, one (1) sporting event venue on Friday, the social event on Friday night, one sporting event venue on Saturday and the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday will be $3,552. These costs can be covered within the current 2012 budget allocation and will require no special funding request to County Council.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3

2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario

Page 152 of 210

Agenda Item # 10103b)

Recommendation That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario report for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Dr. Andrew Reed - OPP Physician Chief Steve Tanner - Kingston Police Force Chief Doug Socha - Hastings-Quinte EMS Chief Mark Schjerning - County of Lennox and Addington EMS Chief Chris Lloyd - United Counties of Leeds and Grenville EMS

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3

2012 Ontario Special Olympics Provincial Spring Games, Kingston Ontario

Page 153 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104a)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared By:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

February 17, 2012

Date of Meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Fairmount Home – 2011 Year in Review

Background In order to preserve the Home’s history, an annual pictorial review of resident, staff and volunteer activities is assembled and shared.

Comment 2011 was another exciting year at Fairmount Home with new opportunities and challenges presenting themselves to staff, volunteers and residents. The Fairmount Home 2011 Year in Review CD is attached.

Sustainability Implications By viewing the Year in Review, one can be assured that Fairmount provides quality care for our residents and offers a valuable social and cultural hub for our community of residents, staff, family members, volunteers and other stakeholders.

Financial Implications None.

Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Fairmount Home – 2011 Year in Review report for information only.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2011 Year in Review March 21, 2012

2011 Fairmount Home Year in Review

Page 1 of 2

Page 154 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104a)

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Residents Staff Volunteers

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2011 Year in Review March 21, 2012

2011 Fairmount Home Year in Review

Page 2 of 2

Page 155 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared By:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

March 2, 2012

Date of Meeting:

March 21, 2012

Re:

Fairmount Home – 2012 Accreditation Results

Background The Accreditation Canada surveyors were on site at Fairmount Home on January 23, 24 and 25, 2012. During that time they spoke to staff, volunteers, residents, family members, community partners and the Warden of Frontenac County.

Comment Fairmount is once again accredited. We met 93% (374 out of 401) of the accreditation standards and fulfilled 90% (28 out of 31) of the Required Organizational Practices. By July 12, 2012 we will have to report to Accreditation Canada on our progress in meeting the three Required Organizational Practices in order to maintain our accreditation. I have listed them below along with some commentary:

The organization has identified and implemented a list of abbreviations, symbols and dose designations that are not to be used in the organization. The Home does have policy on abbreviations, symbols and dose designations which was in the policy manual provided to the surveyors. Unfortunately, the staff interviewed during the survey were not aware of the policy. Our plan is to re-educate and ensure the policy is easily accessible in each dispensary.
The organization’s leaders implement an effective preventative maintenance program for medical devices, medical equipment and medical technology. The Home does have a preventative maintenance program and most of the nursing equipment such as lifts, tubs chairs, commodes, etc. is on the program however some items such as SPOT machines, bladder scanner, etc. have not been included in the program as the preventative maintenance for those items is not conducted by our Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Accreditation Results March 21, 2012

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 1 of 3

Page 156 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

maintenance staff. Moving forward we are identifying all medical equipment and entering it into our program regardless of who maintains it. 3. The organization evaluates its compliance with accepted hand-hygiene practices. Fairmount has participated in the “Just Wash Your Hands” project which requires hand hygiene auditing on a semi-annual basis. In the Fall of 2011 we started to audit hand hygiene more frequently as our hand hygiene compliance needed improvement. The surveyors felt that as long as we continue the more frequent audits we will easily meet this required practice. By January, 2013 we must report on progress on meeting the high priority standards that the surveyors did not feel that we met. I have listed them, with some commentary, as follows:

Customized Effective Organization – Standard 2.4 The organization’s leaders develop and implement an ethics framework. The home has a complete ethics policy and framework and had provided some training to staff on the policy in December, 2011 however the surveyors noted that most staff they spoke to were not familiar with identifying what constitutes an “ethical issue”. Further training will be provided to enhance the awareness of staff.
Patient Safety – Standard 16.6 The team identifies reports, records and monitors, in a timely way, sentinel events, near misses and adverse events. The home has a comprehensive policy on the identification and reporting of these events however the surveyors noted that the staff they spoke to were not able to readily identify or define a sentinel event. Further training will be provided to enhance the awareness of staff.
Customized Effective Organization – 9.3 The organization stores client records safety and securely. The resident records are stored in cupboards at the care stations. The surveyors would like to see the cupboards locked. We are currently investigating options. Please note that reporting progress not only includes advising the actions taken but also providing an audit trail which will provide proof to Accreditation Canada that our actions taken have been effective. A copy of the Accreditation Report Executive Summary is attached.

Sustainability Implications Achieving our accreditation confirms for Council, residents, staff, volunteers and our greater community that we provide high quality programs and services for our residents.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Accreditation Results March 21, 2012

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 2 of 3

Page 157 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

Financial Implications With accreditation status we will continue to receive $0.33 per resident per day from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Fairmount Home – 2012 Accreditation Results report for information only.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Accreditation Canada Residents Staff Volunteers

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Accreditation Results March 21, 2012

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 3 of 3

Page 158 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

Executive Summary Fairmount Home for the Aged Glenburnie, ON

On-site survey dates: January 23, 2012 - January 25, 2012 Report issued: February 24, 2012

Accredited by ISQua

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 159 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM About the Accreditation Report Fairmount Home for the Aged (referred to in this report as “the organization”) is participating in Accreditation Canada’s Qmentum accreditation program. As part of this ongoing process of quality improvement, an on-site survey was conducted in January 2012. Information from the on-site survey as well as other data obtained from the organization were used to produce this Accreditation Report. Accreditation results are based on information provided by the organization. Accreditation Canada relies on the accuracy of this information to plan and conduct the on-site survey and produce the Accreditation Report. Any alteration of this Accreditation Report compromises the integrity of the accreditation process and is strictly prohibited.

Confidentiality This report is confidential and is provided by Accreditation Canada to the organization only. Accreditation Canada does not release the report to any other parties. In the interests of transparency and accountability, Accreditation Canada encourages the organization to disseminate its Accreditation Report to staff, board members, clients, the community, and other stakeholders.

Accreditation Canada is a not-for-profit, independent organization that provides health services organizations with a rigorous and comprehensive accreditation process. We foster ongoing quality improvement based on evidence-based standards and external peer review. Accredited by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, Accreditation Canada has helped organizations strive for excellence for more than 50 years. © Accreditation Canada, 2012

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 160 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM A Message from Accreditation Canada’s President and CEO On behalf of Accreditation Canada’s Board and staff, I extend my sincerest congratulations to your board, your leadership team, and everyone at Fairmount Home for the Aged on your participation in the Qmentum accreditation program. Qmentum is designed to integrate with your quality improvement program. By using it to support and enable your quality improvement activities, its full value is realized. This Executive Summary is part of the Accreditation Report, but can also be used as a stand-alone document to inform stakeholders. It shows your accreditation decision and highlights some of your accreditation activities and on-site survey results. Your Accreditation Specialist is available if you have questions or need guidance. Thank you for your leadership and for demonstrating your ongoing commitment to quality by integrating accreditation into your improvement program. We welcome your feedback about how we can continue to strengthen the program to ensure it remains relevant to you and your services.

Wendy Nicklin President and Chief Executive Officer

A Message from Accreditation Canada’s President and CEO

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 161 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Accreditation Decision

1.2 About the On-site Survey

1.3 Overview by Quality Dimensions

1.4 Overview by Standards

1.5 Overview by Required Organizational Practices

1.6 Summary of Surveyor Team Observations

Accreditation Report

Table of Contents

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 162 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM Section 1

Executive Summary

Accreditation Canada is an independent, not-for-profit organization that sets standards for quality and safety in health care and accredits health organizations in Canada and around the world. Organizations that are accredited by Accreditation Canada undergo a rigorous evaluation process. Following a comprehensive self-assessment, trained surveyors from accredited health organizations conduct an on-site survey to evaluate the organization’s performance against Accreditation Canada’s standards of excellence. Fairmount Home for the Aged (referred to in this report as “the organization”) is participating in Accreditation Canada’s Qmentum accreditation program. This Accreditation Report shows the results to date and is provided to guide the organization as it continues to incorporate the principles of accreditation and quality improvement into its programs, policies, and practices. Fairmount Home for the Aged is commended on its commitment to using accreditation to improve the quality and safety of the services it offers to its clients and its community.

1.1 Accreditation Decision Fairmount Home for the Aged has earned the following accreditation decision.

Accredited (Report)

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 163 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

1.2 About the On-site Survey • On-site survey dates: January 23, 2012 to January 25, 2012 • Location The following location was assessed during the on-site survey. 1

Fairmount Home

• Standards The following sets of standards were used to assess the organization’s programs and services during the on-site survey. System-Wide Standards 1

Customized Effective Organization

Sustainable Governance

Service Excellence Standards 3

Infection Prevention and Control

Long Term Care Services

Customized Managing Medications

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 164 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

1.3 Overview by Quality Dimensions Accreditation Canada defines quality in health care using eight dimensions that represent key service elements. Each criterion in the standards is associated with a quality dimension. This table lists the quality dimensions and shows how many of the criteria related to each dimension were rated as met, unmet, or not applicable during the on-site survey.

Quality Dimension

Met

Unmet

N/A

Total

Population Focus (Working with communities to anticipate and meet needs)

Accessibility (Providing timely and equitable services)

104

121

Worklife (Supporting wellness in the work environment)

Client-centred Services (Putting clients and families first)

Continuity of Services (Experiencing coordinated and seamless services)

Effectiveness (Doing the right thing to achieve the best possible results)

141

160

374

418

Safety (Keeping people safe)

Efficiency (Making the best use of resources)

Total

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 165 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

1.4 Overview by Standards The Qmentum standards identify policies and practices that contribute to high quality, safe, and effectively managed care. Each standard has associated criteria that contribute to achieving the standard as a whole. System-wide standards address quality and safety at the organizational level in areas such as governance and leadership, while population-specific and service excellence standards address specific populations, sectors, and services. The sets of standards used to assess an organization’s programs are based on the type of services it provides. This table shows the sets of standards used to evaluate the organization’s programs and services, and the number and percentage of criteria that were rated met, unmet, or not applicable during the on-site survey.

High Priority Criteria

Total Criteria (High Priority + Other)

Other Criteria

Met

Unmet

N/A

Met

Unmet

N/A

Met

Unmet

N/A

(%)

Sustainable Governance

20 (87%)

3 (13%)

61 (91%)

6 (9%)

81 (90%)

9 (10%)

Customized Effective Organization

43 (84%)

8 (16%)

12 (80%)

3 (20%)

55 (83%)

11 (17%)

Standards Set System-Wide Standards

Service Excellence Standards Infection Prevention and Control

38 (95%)

2 (5%)

39 (98%)

1 (3%)

77 (96%)

3 (4%)

Customized Managing Medications

33 (97%)

1 (3%)

13 (100%)

0 (0%)

46 (98%)

1 (2%)

Long Term Care Services

35 (92%)

3 (8%)

80 (100%)

0 (0%)

115 (97%)

3 (3%)

Total

169 (91%)

17 (9%)

205 (95%)

10 (5%)

374 (93%)

27 (7%)

Executive Summary

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Page 166 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

1.5 Overview by Required Organizational Practices In Qmentum, a Required Organizational Practice (ROP) is defined as an essential practice that an organization must have in place to enhance client safety and minimize risk. Each ROP has associated tests for compliance, categorized as major and minor. All tests for compliance must be met for the ROP as a whole to be rated as met. This table shows how the applicable ROPs were rated during the on-site survey.

Required Organizational Practice

Overall rating

Test of Compliance Rating Major Met

Minor Met

Patient Safety Goal Area: Safety Culture Adverse Events Disclosure (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

3 of 3

0 of 0

Adverse Events Reporting (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

Client Safety As A Strategic Priority (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

Client Safety Quarterly Reports (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

2 of 2

Client Safety Related Prospective Analysis (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

Client And Family Role In Safety (Long Term Care Services)

Met

2 of 2

0 of 0

Dangerous Abbreviations (Customized Managing Medications)

Unmet

2 of 4

1 of 3

Information Transfer (Long Term Care Services)

Met

2 of 2

0 of 0

Medication Reconciliation As An Organizational Priority (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

4 of 4

0 of 0

Medication Reconciliation At Admission (Long Term Care Services)

Met

4 of 4

1 of 1

Patient Safety Goal Area: Communication

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 167 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

Required Organizational Practice

Overall rating

Test of Compliance Rating Major Met

Minor Met

Patient Safety Goal Area: Communication Medication Reconciliation at Transfer or Discharge (Long Term Care Services)

Met

4 of 4

1 of 1

Two Client Identifiers (Customized Managing Medications)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Two Client Identifiers (Long Term Care Services)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Verification Processes For High-Risk Activities (Long Term Care Services)

Met

2 of 2

1 of 1

Concentrated Electrolytes (Customized Managing Medications)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Heparin Safety (Customized Managing Medications)

Met

4 of 4

0 of 0

Infusion Pumps Training (Long Term Care Services)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Narcotics Safety (Customized Managing Medications)

Met

3 of 3

0 of 0

Client Safety Plan (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

0 of 0

2 of 2

Client Safety: Education And Training (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Client Safety: Roles And Responsibilities (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

1 of 1

2 of 2

Preventive Maintenance Program (Customized Effective Organization)

Unmet

2 of 3

1 of 1

Workplace Violence Prevention (Customized Effective Organization)

Met

5 of 5

3 of 3

Patient Safety Goal Area: Medication Use

Patient Safety Goal Area: Worklife/Workforce

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 168 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

Required Organizational Practice

Overall rating

Test of Compliance Rating Major Met

Minor Met

Patient Safety Goal Area: Infection Control Hand Hygiene Audit (Infection Prevention and Control)

Unmet

1 of 2

Hand Hygiene Education And Training (Infection Prevention and Control)

Met

2 of 2

0 of 0

Infection Control Guidelines (Infection Prevention and Control)

Met

1 of 1

0 of 0

Infection Rates (Infection Prevention and Control)

Met

1 of 1

3 of 3

Influenza Vaccine (Infection Prevention and Control)

Met

3 of 3

0 of 0

Pneumococcal Vaccine (Long Term Care Services)

Met

2 of 2

0 of 0

Met

3 of 3

2 of 2

Met

3 of 3

2 of 2

Patient Safety Goal Area: Falls Prevention Falls Prevention Strategy (Long Term Care Services) Patient Safety Goal Area: Risk Assessment Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Long Term Care Services)

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 169 of 210

Agenda Item # 10104b)

QMENTUM PROGRAM

1.6 Summary of Surveyor Team Observations During the on-site survey, the surveyor team made the following observations about the organization’s overall strengths, opportunities for improvement, and challenges. Fairmount Home for the Aged is a 128-bed home that is committed to providing quality care and services to those within its community. The home is a presence within the local community and is well respected and supported through its large volunteer base and fundraising efforts. The physical environment is pleasant, odour-free and spacious, situated on a scenic property in a rural setting. Fairmount Home is a department of the County of Frontenac and governed by an elected County Council. Within the last year, the structure of the Council has changed, with an increase in membership and representation. The Administrator reports performance indicators quarterly, with monthly updates. Accreditation Canada’s previous survey with the home was able to verify a strategic plan with a corresponding operating plan in place. Since that point, there has been limited progress in that area. The County Council and home are currently in discussion on a go-forward basis to improve the strategic direction of the home, its long term goals and its operations. Along with the community partners, the County Council reiterates that the home is well respected within the community, with many residents making this home their first choice. Occupancy is not an issue and the home has a long waiting list. The community partners provide favourable comments, acknowledging a person-centred approach to care. Fairmount Home now enjoys the benefits of a stable management team. Both the Administrator and Director of Care are long standing employees of the home. In fact, many of the employees have worked there most of their career. The home experiences little staff turnover. Succession planning is strongly encouraged for key positions within the management team along with results based performance measures and reviews. Recently, the home experienced a reduction in frontline staffing. This occurred after discussion with the County Council in consideration of fiscal responsibility and other factors, for example, a reduction of case mix index, high absenteeism and sick time, and changes in legislative requirements. Layoffs occurred after consideration of the least disruption to the home. The impact on staff morale and communication is noted. It is observed and noted that staff continue to go above and beyond in ensuring quality care and service delivery. RAI-MDS, technology (intranet) and new Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care regulations and Long Term Care Act have had significant impact on the home’s ability to manage change. Only recently has the home been able to position itself and prepare for the required changes. Since July 2011, there is marked evidence that the home has embraced its responsibilities in the areas of patient safety and quality improvement. Fairmount Home implemented the Worklife Pulse Tool in preparation for accreditation. The home is encouraged to actively seek input from all stakeholders to gather data regarding perceptions of satisfaction on a regular basis using a quality framework. An environmental scan should be undertaken based on community needs and pressures within the changing landscape of health care to be responsive to future client needs. This, in addition to an updated strategic plan, will assist the home in maintaining its positive profile and culture of safety and quality care within the long term care sector.

Accreditation Report

2012 Accreditation Results

Executive Summary

Page 170 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 171 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 172 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 173 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 174 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 175 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 176 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 177 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 178 of 210

Agenda Item # 11•

a) Accounts For The Period of: February 9 - March 9, 2012

Page 179 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

Minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting December 7, 2011

A meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) was held in the Frontenac Boardroom of the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 1:30pm

Call to Order Chair Sandiford called the meeting to order at 1:35 pm. Members Present: Chair Geoff Sandiford; Vice Chair Ron Hipfner; Councillor John McDougall; and John Kittle via teleconference Staff: Elizabeth Savill, CAO/Clerk; Anne Marie Young, Economic Development Manage; Alison Vandervelde, Sustainability Assistant; Casey Buchanan, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary)
Adoption of the Agenda Moved by: John McDougal Seconded by: Ron Hipfner RESOLVED THAT the agenda of the December 7, 2011 meeting of the SAC be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof The Chair requested the Clerk to record that, in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, no Member of the SAC declared a conflict of interest for any items on the agenda.
Deputations and/or Presentations: nil
Closed Meeting: nil
Adoption of the Minutes Moved by: John McDougal Seconded by: Ron Hipfner RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the October 25, 2011 meeting of SAC be adopted as amended. CARRIED

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 1 of 5

Page 180 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

Business Arising from the Minutes: 7.1 Discussion John Kittle spoke to the Fed Dev Announcement that the committee was informed about at the previous meeting. John noted that CFDC discussed the funding and the board has now approved and started to process EODP Loans against the multiyear allocation. John informed the committee that the content of the loans have not been signed off for as of yet, however the letters of intent have been signed. John expects the contracts to be approved shortly and an announcement will follow in early January. Anne Marie noted that there have already been a couple rounds of applications and that the next deadline is February 6, 2011. Following a question from the committee regarding the amount Frontenac could expect, John confirmed it would be close to 2 million dollars. John Kittle made reference to the communications plan and noted that Deputy Warden Gutowski and John Jackson had met this week to discuss the plan. Don Ross arrived at 1:45pm. 7.2 Review of Draft Sustainability Actions 2011 The committee reviewed the structure of the document and made note that section four was limited to 2012 items. In response to a question from Councillor John McDougall regarding the proposed audience for the document, Liz confirmed that the purpose of the document is to give a sense of the projects that are on-going and assist stakeholders in the community finding partners and identify projects that the County may have some involvement it. Liz further clarified that the intended audience is very much County Council focused but the document would be of interest to the advisory committees and some community groups as well. Councillor McDougall expressed concerns that if the document is intended for public use, it is too complex and he is concerned that there is not enough energy to struggle through reading it and fully understand the document. The committee agreed that if the document is to be a communication tool with the general public, the executive summary needs to read easier for both the general public and Township Council’s use. Councillor John McDougall suggested simplifying the executive summary might make the difference and may entice people to review the entire document in more detail. In regards to making the document more decipherable for community members, Ron suggested making the document more specific and with fewer words. In response to questions from the committee regarding the goals for the document, John Kittle suggested to the committee that the document is to be used more as a planning tool from the ICSP process. Liz confirmed that it is a static document and the action updates and dialogue will be happening on the website; the intention with the printed document is to have a published piece showing progress. Anne Marie noted that internally the document gives staff marching orders and Alison added that it is used that way outside of the corporation as well to indicate accountability for various projects. Don noted there is an element of follow through and congratulated staff on a clean looking and well read document. Liz noted that staff has struggled with the executive summary and how to format it while attempting to be inclusive of all projects. Ron confirmed he would be happy to sit with Alison and work through a revised executive summary. Liz noted that the report will be going to County Council on Wednesday and therefore timing is of consideration and may have to be accepted as is and the suggestions can be considered for next year’s document.

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 2 of 5

Page 181 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

The committee questioned if the document would be going through much editing after being presented at County Council. Liz noted typically it goes through without any edits because it is a document that came through the community consultation and it is of value to County Council members who support the process. Geoff challenged the committee to make any suggestions for changes within the next 24 hours to Liz given the time constraints to take the document to Council. The committee agreed to submit suggestions for staff to consider. The committee discussed the dollar values that had been removed from the document and Lis noted that the priority projects for sustainability will be considered for funding in the budget by County Council. Don asked about the report regarding the green house gas. Anne Marie noted that Peter Young will be providing a report and noted there is an opportunity to partner there. Liz requested that Don provide staff with additional information so we do not lose track of the opportunity. Liz informed the committee with the Ambulance base going forward in North Frontenac, the County has committed to solar panels. Staff is now getting reports for the Sydenham base and it is quite astounded that we are exceeding the 10 kilowatts. 7.3 2012 Work Plan 7.3.1 Activities Liz circulated the draft work plan. John Kittle noted that Limestone District School Board has just started a sustainability committee and we will need to include partnerships and working with them within the work plan as well. Don suggested there is a piece missing that would help connect the dots for some of the things that have potential as economic generators whereas others are simply investments in the community and that we should consider separating the investments vs. the revenue generating projects; Councillor John McDougall added that for the purposes of strategic planning, it would be interesting to look at the bridges. Geoff suggested that as people are developing their strategic plans, they should use the sustainable actions document to consider priorities of the community. John noted when considering the projects, we need to consider the townships and their link, as in those with Frontenac Islands and North Frontenac. The Committee agreed that every attempt needs to be made to be politically careful with our priorities in terms of spreading out the work evenly across the County. The committee agreed that the first step in this piece would be to have Chair Geoff Sandiford meet with Mayor Denis Doyle of the Islands to discuss projects in more detail. 7.3.2 Indicator Review The committee discussed the indicators and noted that it is important to consider how we are making an impact and that the challenge put forth for this particular committee is to ensure progress is being made. Ron suggested a small working group needs to be established to go through each pillar and break down the indicators to the next level to ensure that work is being done. The committee agreed and plans to borrow ideas from such sources as the Whistler Model to move forward. Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 3 of 5

Page 182 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

Don suggested if there were particular research needs that could be done by the Queen’s University class that he is working with, it would be a useful task for them. The committee requested that Don provide further information in regards to projects the Queen’s students would be able to assist on. Councillor John McDougall referred to HUME Planning scheme that is bench mark program specific to the environment. Councillor John McDougall committed to finding more information on that particular program. The committee discussed the requirements for developing an ICSP document. Ron asked staff if there was a list available of all the websites of Municipalities who have ICSP documents. Don confirmed that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has a link to each sustainability planning document. Ron noted that by April 4, 2012 he can commit to providing additional research on other ICSP Indicators. 7.3.3 Other Opportunities Liz suggested the committee consider the 2012 budget. The committee, as previously agreed to, discussed sending two committee members to the FCM Conference in February and that each committee member would be attending one conference per year. Additionally, the committee considered a consultation piece with the indicators. Liz confirmed that the ball park figure is for the committee is $20,000 to cover all costs. The committee confirmed that they were accepting of that amount. 7.4 Draft Communications Plan Progress Report The committee discussed the communication plan and Liz noted the plan itself is not progressing however staff have been brainstorming how to meet the requests from the advisory committees to explore opportunities for more dialogue. Alison has explored opportunities and we will be moving forward with a new tool that will allow all the committees to communicate and overlap as there are a number of conversations that could occur under a password protected site. Liz confirmed it would be operational at the first of the 2012 year. Staff has been discussing facebook and twitter, and are prepared to use twitter, however facebook is not on the table as of yet. Ron suggested a way to get the ball rolling to get schools involved. Liz suggested we take it slowly, share between committees prior to launching a public facing site. 8. Communications: nil 9. Reports/Topics for Discussion 9.1 Putting Community Back into the ICSP- Ron Ron circulated document and the committee reviewed and agreed that small steps were necessary. The committee is satisfied that things are moving forward. 10. Other Business 10.1 Minutes of Other Advisory Committees: nil 10.2 County Council Updates: nil Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 4 of 5

Page 183 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

10.3 County Staff Updates: nil 10.3.1 Update of Meeting with City Sustainability Staff 10.4 Upcoming Calendar of Opportunities Geoff plans to attend the ICSP Conference on January 28th, 2012. Staff to send further information on the event to all committee members. 11. Next meeting Wednesday, February 1, 2012, 1:30 PM County of Frontenac Administration Building 12. Adjournment Moved By Ron Hipfner Seconded By John McDougall The meeting was adjourned at 3:31 PM

Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011

Sustainability Advisory Committee

Page 5 of 5

Page 184 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142a)

Sustainability Advisory Committee of the County of Frontenac Work Plan for 2012 (i) Goal/Vision The vision of the County of Frontenac stated in Directions for Our Future is Fresh with Opportunity Growing Vibrant, Innovative, Natural, Sustainable Places . Within the context of the Values and Principles detailed, SAC will endeavour to assist the Frontenacs reach sustainability overall and ensure strong community engagement. (ii) Mandate To provide input and suggestions regarding the implementation of Directions for Our Future , in particular to help meet the “Commitment Towards a Sustainable Future” and the “Community Input” elements. To report periodically to County Council and to produce an annual work plan for adoption by Council. The key activities will be: 1 Provide input into the community engagement plan including: partnership opportunities; recruitment of volunteers; communications plan, etc. 2 Assist in the development of the 2012 Sustainability Workshop agenda. 3 Recommend to County Council by December 2012 a revised Sustainable Actions 2012 and review with Council the prioritiy and budget impact of key elements of the plan

Proposed Activities for 2012 1 Contribute to the development of a communications plan for the SAC including the strengthening of communications with all stakeholders 2 Consider opportunities to further engage communities including: Community Sessions Annual Breakfast Community Events Awards Event 3 Contribute to the web site evolution 4 Seek opportunities to engage and liaise with other extermal groups 5 Offer input into the development of a budget allocation considering all activities and educational opportunities 6 Assist with the preparations for the Annual Workshop 7 Review and assess the contributions made by the current indicators and consider additional/replacement indicators 8 Contribute to the development and presentation of the annual report to Council ‐ Sustainable Actions 2012 9 Seek opportunities to meet with Councils and community groups 10 Seek opportunties to gain insights into Sustainability 11 Review the Townships’ Strategic Plans to stimulate relationships and synergies 12 Review the list of projects to identify collaborative opportunities

Sustainability Advisory Committee

1st Q

2nd Q

3rd Q

4th Q

9 9 9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

9 9

Page 185 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Minutes of the Green Energy Task Force Meeting January 11, 2012

A meeting of the Green Energy Task Force was held in the Frontenac Administrative Boardroom, at the County of Frontenac, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, at 10:00 am.

Call to Order David Hahn called the meeting to order at 10:09am. Present: David Hahn, Chair; John Kittle, Vice Chair; Maris Krumins, Community member; Brad Leonard, Community Member, Janet Gutowski, Warden; Denis Doyle, Deputy Warden; John Inglis, County Councillor; Liz Savill, CAO-Clerk; Casey Buchanan, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary).
Adoption of the Agenda Moved by:

Denis Doyle

Seconded by: John Kittle RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the January 11, 2012 meeting of the Green Energy Task Force be adopted as amended. CARRIED 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof: Nil 4. Deputations and/or Presentations: •

Rob Miller, SunEdison Maris introduced Rob as the director of development at SunEdision, where he previously worked for Actual Power and with the Canadian Power Developers. Rob spoke to the committee about a number of projects SunEdision is developing including 6 projects locally in Prince Edward County, Loyalist, Odessa, Kingston and Frontenac County. In discussing the specifics of each project, Rob highlighted the features of products SunEdision uses such as a made in Ontario mandate.

Green Energy Task Force Meeting Minutes January 11, 2012 10:00 AM

Green Energy Task Force

Page 1 of 5

Page 186 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Rob spoke to the Unity Road project, noting it is North West and kitty corner to the quarry. Rob discussed with the committee that there is tension in the industry right now related to money being spent on nuclear energy repairs by government, rather than renewable energy repairs to things like transformer upgrades. In response to a question from Councillor John Inglis about the future of the MicroFit System Rob confirmed that with the fit program review coming, the overall price will be lower but will still provide a fair and reasonable return for people who want to do solar at 10-11% projection rate. Rob discussed with the committee the challenges SunEdision faces when moving into a new community with a project noting that property owners are concerned about property value, noise, visual effects and privacy. Rob circulated project list with links to each project that is currently underway. He noted that 25-30% will be locally sourced labor, equipment and materials. Rob completed his presentation at 11:11AM. 5. Closed meeting: Nil 6. Adoption of the Minutes: Moved by:

Janet Gutowski

Seconded by:

Maris Krumis

RESOLVED THAT the minutes for the November 29, 2011 meeting of the Green Energy Task Force be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 7. Business Arising from the Minutes: •

Microfit Media Release Elizabeth spoke to a draft and noted that staff wanted to ensure the document is complete and therefore will defer presentation of the document until the next meeting.

•

Work Plan Discussion (Energy Audit, Energy Plan, Workshops) David noted it may be appropriate to re-circulate the previous draft work plan for committee members to review prior to the next meeting.

•

Letter to the Minister Re: Solar Panel Placement Elizabeth confirmed that a letter had already been sent and indicated that staff will circulate the letter that had been sent in 2011 from County Council.

•

FIT Program Submission Elizabeth confirmed the submission was sent on December 14, 2011.

Green Energy Task Force Meeting Minutes January 11, 2012 10:00 AM

Green Energy Task Force

Page 2 of 5

Page 187 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Communications: •

Save the Date and Help Save the Planet With WWF-Canada Janet spoke to events and activities previously hosted by the County for Earth day and noted that there is value in making a bigger deal out of our involvement in saving the environment. Janet noted that the sweater day is not necessarily suited for the area, but the earth hour is along the lines of something that could easily be organized. The committee agreed that a small event would be a good idea, and the committee would be interested in launching a communication campaign for Earth Hour.

Reports/Topics for Discussion and Other Business •

Solar Array Site Energy Production Report Document circulated in agenda package for Sydenham Ambulance Base. Brad noted that it was a good November. Elizabeth confirmed that once staff start receiving reports on the other bases, they will also be circulated.

•

Meeting with John Gerretsen Deputy Warden Denis Doyle spoke to a meeting on December 3, 2011 with John Gerretsen. Denis noted that the meeting was a worthwhile and supportive meeting addressing the Fit Program. Denis noted if there were other issues that the committee would like addressed, the committee should get back in front to advance the MicroFit and fit programs.

•

Wintergreen Initiative David noted the Wintergreen selected a steering committee and the committee has held a meeting recently on December 19 where a report was given on the Community Power Conference. David added the focus was on the approach and level of involvement the group would like to take on for community based projects and there was strong support for community based energy co-operative. David noted that they discussed particular projects located in Wolfe Island, partnership with the Limestone School Board and the Sharbot Lake area. The group discussed the advantage of a co-op project noting that the advantage would be to provide people and the community an opportunity to invest in green energy. The committee discussed the new working group out of the Wintergreen imitative and presented some concerns about various working groups losing steam and focus. The committee agreed that it would be valuable to have each working group report back on progress.

•

Auditor General of Ontario Report on Renewable Energy David spoke to the report and noted both the criticisms and responses are available in the report. Priorities outlined in the report were to reduce green house gas submission and reduce health harming emissions, create green energy jobs.

Green Energy Task Force Meeting Minutes January 11, 2012 10:00 AM

Green Energy Task Force

Page 3 of 5

Page 188 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Janet commented on the report and noted that the committee should not issue any statements, rather note in the minutes we have reviewed the report and support the decisions that were made and continue in the direction to support green energy initiative and sustainability within the County of Frontenac. •

Communications Newsletter Elizabeth confirmed that all committee members received the first set of the communications newsletter. Janet added that the new piece presents an excellent opportunity for the GETF to be represented and ensure people know that the committee is working towards a goal.

•

Sustainable Actions 2012 Elizabeth circulated a hard copy of the document to each committee member and noted it is available on the website as well. David left the meeting at 11:50AM.

•

Green Profit Conference Elizabeth spoke to the conference noting that sponsorship is $1000 for a table and two admission passes. The committee discussed the possibility for a display noting that it would have an Economic Development focus, while highlighting green energy as well. The committee requested that staff prepare a marketing piece such as a pamphlet for the Green Energy Task Force to be circulated at the conference.

Moved by:

Denis Doyle

Seconded by:

Brad Leonard

RESOLVED THAT the Green Energy Task Force Committee request financial support from the Council of the County of Frontenac in support of sponsoring the Green Profit Conference in the amount of $1000. CARRIED Both Denis and John Kittle volunteered to attend the conference on behalf of the committee. Elizabeth requested that the committee members brainstorm together via email to decide what would be included in the display at the conference and bring forward to the next meeting 10. Next Meeting Date •

Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 10:00 AM County of Frontenac Administrative Building

•

OPA Review to be included on the next agenda as discussion item. Brad discussed the review with the committee and its expected release.

Green Energy Task Force Meeting Minutes January 11, 2012 10:00 AM

Green Energy Task Force

Page 4 of 5

Page 189 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Adjournment Moved by:

Denis Doyle

Seconded by:

Brad Leonard

RESOLVED THAT the Green Energy Task Force Committee meeting be adjourned at 12:06 PM. CARRIED

David Hahn, Chair

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

Green Energy Task Force Meeting Minutes January 11, 2012 10:00 AM

Green Energy Task Force

Page 5 of 5

Page 190 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142b)

Green Energy Task Force ‐ An Advisory Committee of the County of Frontenac Work Plan for 2012 (i) Goal/Vision The vision of the County of Frontenac stated in Directions for Our Future is Fresh with Opportunity Growing Vibrant, Innovative, Natural, Sustainable Places . Within the context of the Values and Principles, the GETF will be guided by the Energy Vision Statement: The County of Frontenac is a leader among rural communities in the development, conservation, generation and efficient use of clean, renewable energy that fulfils the community’s energy needs. The County of Frontenac’s diverse energy systems reduce emissions and externalities on air, water, and the climate. (ii) Mandate To further the community’s vision of the Energy Focus Area of Directions for Our Future. To report periodically to County Council and to produce an annual work plan for adoption by Council. Proposed Activities for 2012

1st Q

2nd Q

3rd Q

4th Q

1 Contribute to the development of a communications plan for the GETF including the strengthening of communications with all stakeholders, including County and Township Councils and community groups 2 Continue working with County and Townships on Municipal Solar Installation Projects 3 Continue work towards Economic Development of the Energy Sector in the Frontenacs 4 Continue to liaise with key groups ‐ County’s SAC, New Energy Project, SWITCH, EcoPerth, TREK, 401 Energy, Wintergreen, LDSB/ESAC, etc 5 Seek opportunities to gain insights into Green Energy through webinars, conferences, workshops, etc 6 Energy Efficiencies ‐ Research and advise County‐level response to Green Energy Act Regulation 397/11; explore possible coordination between Townships and County, continue public promotion of energy conservation 7 Explore possibilities surrounding a Community Energy Plan and ways to approach initial phases 8 Continue to lobby Hydro One on behalf of the Frontenac Region in regards to grid capacity and connection issues Major 2012 Calendar Events: SWITCH conference* Wintergreen Renewable Energy Workshop OSEA Community Power Conference* (* County funding requested)

Green Energy Task Force

9 9 9

Page 191 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

Minutes of the 150th Anniversary Planning Advisory Committee Meeting December 5, 2011 A meeting of the 150th Anniversary Planning Advisory Committee was held at The Sharbot Lake Country Inn, Highway 38, Sharbot Lake on Tuesday, December 5, 2011 at 12:00pm. 1.

Call to Order

Chair Marcel Giroux called the meeting to order at 12:21pm Present: Warden Gary Davison, Deputy Warden Janet Gutowski, Community Members Marcel Giroux and Stan Johnston, Liz Savill, CAO-Clerk; Anne Marie Young, Manager of Economic Development; Casey Buchanan, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary). 2.

Adoption of the Agenda

Moved by: Gary Davison Seconded by: Stan Johnston RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the December 5, 2011 meeting of the 150th Anniversary PAC be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 3.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof: Nil

Closed meeting: Nil

Adoption of the Minutes: Nil

Moved by: Janet Gutowski Seconded by: Gary Davison RESOLVE THAT the minutes for the September 19, 2011 meeting of the 150th Anniversary PAC be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 6.

Deputations and/or Presentations: •

Warden Bob Sweet: Renfrew County’s 150th Anniversary Celebration i. Chair Marcel Geroux welcomed Warden Bob Sweet from the County of Renfrew. Warden Sweet circulated a package to each committee member which contained the program, site review matrix, organization chart, site map, exhibitors package, terms of reference, sponsorship package and schedule of events for the County of Renfrew Expo 150. Additionally,

150 Anniversary PAC Meeting Minutes December 5, 2011

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 1 of 5

Page 192 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

each committee member was given a bag which contained an Expo 150 souvenir, cd, news flyer and wrap up report. Warden Sweet discussed Expo 150 and highlighted key events such as involvement with representatives from Scotland, letters for the queen, ceremonial presentations, special performances and attendance of cabinet ministers. ii.

Theme Warden Sweet explained to the committee that the vision for the Expo was to cover the past, the present and the future of Renfrew County and ensure that all areas of interested within the county were covered such as agriculture, forestry, transportation, events and also target all age groups. He noted that it is key to determine what the committee would like the festival to be in terms of our target audience and intentions behind the event.

iii.

Site Location Warden Sweet noted it is very important for the committee to establish a location early on. In Renfrew’s case, the location was chosen by a group of independent community members with no political overturn. What resulted was a choice of location that was easily defendable, with over 26 acres available for exhibits and special events. The County hosted a ‘white- board’ session where ideas regarding site location were discussed as well as theme, time and special events. The group consisted of about 10-12 individuals who eventually decided responsibility and roles for each committee member and set up working groups to handle each focus. When considering the site, Warden Sweet recommended the committee consider parking requirements for the expected number of attendees, as well as the number of entrances and exists to ensure traffic flows accordingly.

iv.

Timing For Renfrew’s Expo 150, the key timing consideration was attracting school age youth. The event was scheduled for mid June, which meant elementary and high school age children were able to attend on behalf of the schools and families were still in the area vs. on summer vacation outside of the County. The festival itself was four days in length, which was beneficial given the central location needing to service all 19 lower tier municipalities of the County.

Funding and Finances Warden Sweet stressed that it is important to consider the budget of the event right away, as this will determine the overall size of the event. The County of Renfrew put $200,000 in the budget for their event with a promise from the Federal Government to match the dollars. Unfortunately, the funding dollars were not matched by the government as the festival was a onetime event. Luckily, Warden Sweet informed the

150 Anniversary PAC Meeting Minutes December 5, 2011

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 2 of 5

Page 193 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

committee that CFDC came through with funding and matched the dollars. Warden Sweet noted that sponsorships and donations were key to the event. Specifically, Renfrew had the site donated at no charge, three entertainment stages donated, sponsorships in the amount of $252,000 and in kind donations worth $150,000. The whole cost of the event was roughly $600,000 to $700,000, yet it only cost the County $200,000. In the end, there was a surplus of approximately $61,000, which the committee will be using to plant a legacy forest with 150 trees. vi.

Working Groups and Sub Committees Once working groups with specific focuses were established, both the committee and the groups met monthly. Warden Sweet noted that there was tremendous buy in from the community and there was active participation from community members within the working groups.

vii.

Attendance Over 450,000 people attended the Expo over 4 days despite the committee only anticipating 20,000 attendees. Warden Sweet attributed the high attendance to no entry fee, affordable vendors and concession stands, opportunity for families to picnic on the ground rather than buy lunch and prohibiting raffles, draws or guessing games which required a financial contribution.

viii.

Exhibits and Attractions Warden Sweet spoke to the committee about the various presentations, events and attractions that were at the festival which included things such as: military displays, classic cars, Guinness book of world record’s presentation, extension of the Freedom of the County to the Military and the Cadets, Renfrew County Idol, musical talent, hospitality tent and more.

ix.

Recommendations Warden Sweet made the following recommendations to the committee in planning their 150th event. Do not spend time on things that are unattainable or those of which distract your time too much; Keep a countdown and strict timeline; Don’t get discourage by the amount of work that is required; Consider an event that is central rather that hosting in the different lower tiers as it will not attract the same numbers; Consider various permits that are required such as electrical authority permits, tent permits from the building department, liquor licenses, special event permits etc.; and Get funding through CFDC and hire one staff member that only focuses on the 150th event.

Chair Marcel Geroux called a recess of the meeting at 1:40 p.m. Chair Marcel Geroux reconvened the meeting at 1:50 p.m. th

150 Anniversary PAC Meeting Minutes December 5, 2011

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 3 of 5

Page 194 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

Business Arising from the Minutes: •

Review of Work Plan Development Items i. Deferred

•

Selection of a Vice Chair i. Deferred until the next meeting when all members are present.

•

Meeting with Brian Osborne i. Marcel to meet with Brian Osborne this week to discuss opportunities to work together for events leading up to the 150th.

•

Involvement of LOLTA i. The committee discussed involving the Land O’Lakes Tourism Association and felt that there were a number of groups that need to be considered and contacted as partners and stakeholders and that there was not an immediate need to contact LOLTA immediately.

Communications: Nil

Other Business

•

List of Assignments i. Chair Marcel Geroux circulated a list of assignments and the committee discussed the following items as priorities that the committee will need to consider: • Existing Events to partner with to increase excitement and awareness of the event; • Creating sub committees to discuss site, theme and date; • Level of involvement from the City of Kingston; • Central location vs. traveling celebration across the townships; • Modeling the 150th event to something similar to the Plowing Match; • County budget decision’s and how they will impact the event; • Creating a history of the county book special for the event; • Applying for various grants such as the funding available through Queen’s Jubilee; • Setting up a scholarship fund in honor of the 150th; and • The school schedule for 2015 (Gary to follow up with Limestone).

•

Winter Weather i. In regards to traveling in winter weather conditions, Chair Marcel Geroux noted that committee members should consider joining the meeting by teleconference or skype when unable to drive, rather than cancel or miss the meeting.

Next Meeting Date

The next meeting will be held during the last week of January 2012. th

150 Anniversary PAC Meeting Minutes December 5, 2011

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 4 of 5

Page 195 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 2:23pm

Marcel Giroux, Chair

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

150 Anniversary PAC Meeting Minutes December 5, 2011

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 5 of 5

Page 196 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

150th Anniversay Planning Advisory Committee of the County of Frontenac Work Plan for 2012 (i) Goal/Vision The vision of the County of Frontenac stated in Directions for Our Future is Fresh with Opportunity Growing Vibrant, Innovative, Natural, Sustainable Places . Within the context of the Values and Principles detailed, the 150th APAC will be guided by the Culture and heritage Vision Statement: The County of Frontenac celebrates the arts and local history, and demonstrates the value it places on its artifacts and built heritage. Residents are part of a vibrant community that enjoys a wide range of formal and informal festivals and programs. (ii) Mandate To provide input and suggestions regarding the planning for the Sesquicentennial celebration of the County of Frontenac that will commence January 1, 2015 To report periodically to County Council and to produce an annual work plan for adoption by Council. The key activities will be: 1 Plan the celebration to include community engagement; partnership opportunities; recruitment of volunteers; communications plan, etc. 2 Assist in the development of a major event and/or several smaller events 3 Recommend to County Council, by October 2012, the plan for the celebration Proposed Planning Activities for 2012

1st Q

2nd Q

3rd Q

4th Q

1 Determine the logistics of the event ‐ consider community engagement (survey for preference) ‐ decide a main event and/ or several smaller events ‐ investigate location(s) ‐ establish date(s) (Enlist working groups for following activities) 2 Event coordinating: ‐ develop a draft schedule of events ‐ consider speakers, invitees, entertainment 3 Research: ‐ scutinize books/articles; origins of the County; maps, etc ‐ list and enlist historians ‐ ask community for stories and items ‐ examine contributions in education, arts and music 4 Marketing and Promotion: ‐ create a draft communications lan ‐ assist in creating branding (logo) packages ‐suggest merchandising materials/souvenirs 5 Finance: ‐ explore sponsorship prospects

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 197 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142c)

‐ investigate grant opportunities

150th Anniversary of County Advisory Committee

Page 198 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142e)

JOINT ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES December 9, 2011 A meeting of the Frontenac Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee (FAAC) was held at the Township of South Frontenac’s Council Chambers, 4432 George Street, Sydenham on Friday, December 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Neil Allen, Township of South Frontenac Representative – Chair Francine Arsenault, Community at Large Representative – Vice-Chair Danka Brewer, Township of Central Frontenac Representative John McDougall, County Council Representative Gary Davison, County Council Representative Susan Beckel, County of Frontenac

Present:

Also in Attendance: Edward Kellar, Independent Living Centre Evan Sepa, IT Technician/GIS Coordinator - Township of North Frontenac Charlene Godfrey, IT/911 Coordinator/GIS Technician - Township of Central Frontenac Angela Maddocks, Confidential Secretary - Township of South Frontenac David Millard, IT Supervisor - County of Frontenac Alison Vandervelde, Sustainability Assistant - County of Frontenac

CALL TO ORDER 

Selection of Chair and Vice Chair:

The election of Chair and Deputy Chair commenced. Susan Beckel called upon members interested in holding the position of Chair to identify themselves. Neil Allen did so. The same request was made for the position of Vice Chair. Francine Arsenault identified an interest. Both Neil Allen and Francine Arsenault accepted the positions of Chair and Vice Chair respectively. Committee Recommendation That Neil Allen be appointed Chair of the Frontenac Accessibility Advisory Committee and that Francine Arsenault be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Frontenac Accessibility Advisory Committee for the year 2012. CARRIED Neil Allen assumed the Chair.

County of Frontenac Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee December 9, 2011 Meeting Page 1 of 3

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Page 199 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142e)

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Committee Recommendation

THAT the Agenda for the December 9, 2011 meeting be hereby adopted as presented. CARRIED 3.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – nil

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES - nil

CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS (i)

Edward Kellar, Independent Living Centre Re: Accessible Web site Design

Mr. Allen introduced Mr. Edward Kellar. Mr. Kellar was in attendance to provide a presentation on Accessible Web site Design. Mr. Kellar presented information regarding:

essential components of web accessibility
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
AODA standards
Assistive technology
Evaluation tools
Links to resources Mr. Kellar answered questions and provided a CD containing additional resource material which will be circulated to all four townships. Committee Recommendation THAT the presentation by Mr. Edward Kellar regarding Accessible Web site Design be received for information. CARRIED

ACCESSIBILITY PLAN FOR 2012 Accessibility Advisory Committee Work Plan for 2012 – deferred to next meeting

OTHER BUSINESS (i)

Next meeting date

The next meeting will be held on January 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. at the Township of South Frontenac Municipal Office.

County of Frontenac Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee December 9, 2011 Meeting Page 2 of 3

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Page 200 of 210

Agenda Item # 14142e)

ADJOURNMENT Committee Recommendation

THAT the meeting adjourn at 12:00 p.m. CARRIED

Neil Allen, Chair

Susan Beckel, Deputy Clerk

County of Frontenac Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee December 9, 2011 Meeting Page 3 of 3

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Page 201 of 210

Accessibility Advisory Committee

FRONTENAC JOINT ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2012 DRAFT WORK PLAN Mandate of the Committee (By-law No. 2011-0022) To assist the County and Township Councils in the County of Frontenac in enabling persons with disabilities to have equal access to all opportunities within the County. Proposed Activities for 2012

Committee awareness amongst the Townships
Accessible picnic table project

Details of the Activity

1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter

4th Quarter

letter to Township Councils outlining committee’s mandate, membership, etc.
request to be delegation at each Council meeting
project was not completed in 2011, carried over to provide one accessible picnic table for each Township (subject to grant funding)
assists with Activity No. 1
County of Frontenac Front Entrance renovations (subject to 2012 budget approval)
Township of South Frontenac municipal office renovations

Page 202 of 210

Make recommendations to Councils regarding compliance with AODA, specifically the requirements to meet the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation and ongoing compliance with AODA Customer Service Standard.

multi-year accessibility plan
required policies and procedures

Recruitment of Members

Members required for Frontenac Islands and North Frontenac

Agenda Item # 14142e)

Comment on any Township or County building projects or site plans regarding accessibility.

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Agenda Item # 14142e)

Page 203 of 210

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Agenda Item # 14142e)

Page 204 of 210

Accessibility Advisory Committee

Agenda Item # 14142e)

Page 205 of 210

Agenda Item # 16•

BY-LAW NO. 2012-0009 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC being a by-law to adopt the estimates for the sums required during the year 2012 for the purposes of the County of Frontenac and to establish rates to be levied for same against the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac WHEREAS pursuant to Section 289 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, and amendments thereto (‘the Municipal Act’), the County of Frontenac shall in each year prepare and adopt a budget including estimates of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the County of Frontenac; AND WHEREAS it is necessary for the County of Frontenac to raise for the year 2012 certain sums; AND WHEREAS all property assessment rolls on which the 2012 taxes are to be levied have been returned and revised pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter A.31 and amendments thereto, subject to appeals at present before the Assessment Review Board, the Ontario Municipal Board and the District Court; AND WHEREAS the “Residential/Farm Assessment”, “Multi-Residential Assessment”, “Commercial Assessment”, “Industrial Assessment”, “Pipe Line Assessment”, “Farmlands Assessment” and “Managed Forests Assessment” and the applicable subclasses pursuant to Section 7 of the Assessment Act have been determined on the basis of the aforementioned property assessment rolls; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 311(2) of the Municipal Act, for purposes of raising the general upper-tier levy, the sums required by taxation in the year 2012 are to be levied by separate rates by the Townships for the estimated current annual expenditures for County of Frontenac purposes after deduction of other revenue as directed by County of Frontenac bylaw; AND WHEREAS the tax ratios and tax rate reductions for prescribed property subclasses on the aforementioned property for the 2012 taxation year have been set out in County of Frontenac By-law Number 2011-0036 passed by Council on the 16th day of November, 2011; AND WHEREAS the tax rates on the aforementioned “Residential/Farm Assessment”, “MultiResidential Assessment”, “Commercial Assessment”, “Industrial Assessment”, “Pipe Line Assessment” (where applicable), “Farmlands Assessment” and “Managed Forests Assessment” and the applicable subclasses have been calculated pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, in the manner set out herein;

By-law No. 2012-0009 – To Adopt the 2012 Budget March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 3

a) By-Law No. 2012-0009 - To Adopt 2012 Budget

Page 206 of 210

Agenda Item # 16•

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac enacts as follows: 1.

THAT the 2012 budget of the County of Frontenac, which is set out as Schedule A attached hereto and forming part of this by-law and which incorporates estimates for revenue and reserve transfers in the amount of $ and estimates for expenditures in the amount of $ be approved and adopted by the Council of the County of Frontenac.

THAT having duly adopted the gross estimates set out in Schedule A to this by-law and having deducted there from the estimated revenue from sources other than property taxes for the year 2012, the County of Frontenac hereby adopts the sum of $ as per the line titled “From Taxation” on Page 4 of Schedule A to this by-law as its estimate of the Property Tax Levy required during the year 2012 for the purposes of the County of Frontenac.

THAT for the year 2012 in the area coming under the jurisdiction of the County of Frontenac, the Townships of Frontenac Islands, South Frontenac, Central Frontenac and North Frontenac shall levy upon the Residential/Farm Assessment, Multi-Residential Assessment, Commercial Assessment, Industrial Assessment, Pipe Line Assessment (if applicable), Farmlands Assessment and Managed Forests Assessment and applicable subclasses, the tax rates for County of Frontenac purposes as determined in accordance with the calculations as detailed on Page 36 of Schedule A to this by-law.

THAT the County of Frontenac hereby directs that the Council of each Township levy the general rates as specified herein and more particularly detailed on Page 36 of Schedule A to this by-law.

THAT the County of Frontenac hereby directs that the property tax levy for general purposes as levied against each Township be paid to the Treasurer of the County of Frontenac in the installments set out in the agreement dated the 22nd day of April, 1998 attached hereto as Schedule B and forming part of this by-law.

THAT the County of Frontenac hereby directs that the County’s portion of Right-of-Way Acreage payments and the County’s portion of Payments in Lieu of Taxation be paid to the Treasurer of the County of Frontenac in the installments set out in the agreement dated the 22nd day of April, 1998 attached hereto as Schedule B to this by-law.

THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the date of final passing. Read a First and Second Time this 21st day of March, 2012. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 21st day of March, 2012.

By-law No. 2012-0009 – To Adopt the 2012 Budget March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3

a) By-Law No. 2012-0009 - To Adopt 2012 Budget

Page 207 of 210

Agenda Item # 16•

THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

Janet Gutowski, Warden

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

By-law No. 2012-0009 – To Adopt the 2012 Budget March 21, 2012 Page 3 of 3

a) By-Law No. 2012-0009 - To Adopt 2012 Budget

Page 208 of 210

Agenda Item # 16•

BY-LAW NO. 2012-0010 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on March 21, 2012 WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; and; WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2 subject to certain provisions, and; WHEREAS Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and; WHEREAS the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC hereby enacts as follows:

THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on March 21, 2012 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.
THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on March 21, 2012 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.
THAT all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac taken at its regular meeting held on March 21, 2012 except those taken by by-law and those required by by-law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law.
THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the final passing thereof. Read a First and Second Time this 21st day of March, 2012. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 21st day of March, 2012.

By-law No. 2012-0010 – To confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on March 21, 2012 Page 1 of 2

b) By-Law No. 2012-0010 - Confirmation of Proceedings

Page 209 of 210

Agenda Item # 16•

The Corporation of the County of Frontenac

Janet Gutowski, Warden

K. Elizabeth Savill, Clerk

By-law No. 2012-0010 – To confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on March 21, 2012 Page 2 of 2

b) By-Law No. 2012-0010 - Confirmation of Proceedings

Page 210 of 210

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.